Lords Sitting of 29 October 1957

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

Prayers
The Earl of Feversham—Took the Oath
The Lord Kinross—Took the Oath.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE EARL JOWITT
2.35 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARI, OF HOME): My Lords, your Lordships will have been shocked and distressed to learn of the death of Lord Jowitt. I think that the House would feel it appropriate that upon this occasion my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack should pay the principal tribute to him from the Government side. Lord Jowitt had a most distinguished career in the law, and for seven years was Lord Chancellor, and my noble friend can therefore do justice to his life and to his achievements. But perhaps the House would allow me two personal recollections. I did not, until later years. see very much of him as a politician, or, indeed, very much of him when he was occupying the Woolsack; but whenever I did see him in that position I understood how intellectually he held his own among the past and present masters of his profession. Many more like me must have seen that magnificent presence, heard that musical voice, with its fine range and clarity, and felt, like me, that when he filled that high office he personified the dignity, the authority and the tradition of England.
My other recollection is quite different—a recollection of Lord Jowitt and sport. I think he seldom missed any of the great festivals of sport, and to be his neighbour on such an occasion, at Lords, at Wimbledon or at Twickenham, was a delightful experience, because he understood games as a games player and sportsman, and he looked on them with the eye of the connoisseur—as, indeed, he did many other
524
sides of life, particularly modern art, in which he was an expert. So, my Lords, I felt—and many must have felt with me—that here was the complete man; or, to use a description which he himself reserved for the select few, the complete all-rounder. And the complete all-rounder is very dear to the affections of the British people. Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.
My Lords, before I give way to my noble friend, perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of this side of the House, to offer to noble Lords opposite our sympathy in the loss of a great colleague, and to Lady Jowitt our sympathy and deep affection.
2.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is indeed a grievous loss that this House has suffered in the death of the noble and learned Earl. To have been Lord Chancellor for some seven years, the longest period of tenure for nearly half a century, and to have followed that by five years as leader of the Opposition is a proud record of service to this House. To have filled these positions with high distinction, dignity and kindliness to all, is to have placed each one of your Lordships personally in his debt.
Notwithstanding the political differences between us my own real and deeply valued friendship with Lord Jowitt was of long standing. He was my leader when I was a junior, and later we crossed forensic swords at the Bar. I succeeded him as Solicitor-General. As a colleague in Mr. Churchill's war-time Government, I remember well his work in post-war reconstruction, as Paymaster General and Minister without Portfolio, and then his task as the first Minister of National Insurance, when he was good enough to ask me to help him in presenting the Children's Allowances Bill to the House of Commons. Moreover, if I may intrude a personal note, we shared the honour of being Freemen of the Ancient Royal Borough of Dornoch, which was my mother's birthplace.
To all these varied capacities Lord Jowitt brought the great qualities which your Lordships know so well. That fine dignity and presence made their powerful addition to his arguments at the Bar, as they enhanced the proceedings of this House. His penetrating mind and the

525
unequalled clarity of his exposition made him not only a formidable opponent in controversy but a help to all who wanted to understand the essential points of any subject. His warm humanity and real liking and friendship for those who came his way reflected an understanding of human problems and a very real sympathy with human suffering and human needs.
My Lords, it is fitting that I should, in the main, speak of Lord Jowitt's long tenure of the office of Lord Chancellor. I venture to think that when one day the account is reckoned he will take a high place among the illustrious holders of an office which stretches over so many hundreds of years. Coming to the Woolsack as he did with the advent of the Labour Party to power in 1945, Lord Jowitt found himself greatly preoccupied in this House with the legislative projects of the Government of which he was a member. These—in the main the nationalisation measures—were projects which occupied a very large amount of his time and which involved him with as heavy a burden as I dare say any Lord Chancellor has had to face in living memory. These Bills, which it fell to him to advocate, were founded on policies uncongenial to many Members of your Lordships' House; yet he was praised on all sides for his skill in presentation and his reasonableness in debate.
Yet in all the hurly-burly of political conflict Lord Jowitt never forgot that he was Lord Chancellor: that is to say, that he was that one of the Sovereign's Ministers who is primarily responsible for the administration of justice. I have already, at another time, tried to pay tribute to his judicial qualities and achievements in that field. His own wide experience in the courts had impressed on his mind that the law and its administration must serve the current needs of the nation. Thus it was that he was proud and, in my submission, most justly proud, of the contribution which he made in the field of law reform. Of the many projects which he sponsored we may recall his constant striving to improve the state of the Statute Book, by both consolidation and pruning, by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, and the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949. Few would deny that these far-reaching measures of reform owed much to the inspiration and labours of Lord Jowitt. They put pith into that essential of the
526
rule of law that the poorest citizen should get justice against the most powerful Minister or official.
Nor was that all; for it fell to Lord Jowitt to play a major part in the expansion of our judicial strength in the years after the war. Of his exercise of judicial patronage I need say no more than that when he retired from the Woolsack, Lord Jowitt had recommended the appointments of, or had himself appointed, nearly half of the then existing occupants of the Bench, and that of these appointments not one single one could be criticised as being other than the best attempt possible to get the best man.
My Lords, there will be many in this House who, like myself, mourn the loss of one whose counsel and friendship were ever at our disposal. I have most in mind his kindness to me personally when I became Lord Chancellor. We shall miss him, as will others outside this Chamber; and our heartfelt sympathy goes to Lady Jowitt and his family, whose sorrow we share.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the manner in which he opened the tributes to our late colleague, Lord Jowitt. Certainly the passing of my noble friend came as a great shock to all of us, and yet, as I looked hack, I was unhappily reminded of our debate on the United Nations in which, at my request, he undertook to take part, with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, just a few days before the end of the Session. During the course of his speech there was a quite normal interruption during which he sat down beside me and said, "I doubt whether I can go on. I must find my tablets." Then I realised that he was suffering from heart trouble, and I said to him, "Don't go on; we will arrange it." Lord Jowitt said, "I must go on." And he got up, finished his speech and left as soon as possible. That was typical of his sense of duty to the House especially and to what he had set himself to do.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has paid to our late colleague here one of the most comprehensive and touching tributes from that side of the House that I can remember, and one for which we on this side are very grateful.

527
Looking back to my early days of Labour controversy forty or fifty years ago, I feel that I could hardly have expected to hear a tribute to the occupation by a member of a Labour organisation of the highest legal position in the land, if not in the world, in such unlimited and generous terms as have come to-day from the Lord Chancellor of this country. I am very grateful indeed for that tribute. In the light of the Lord Chancellor's speech, I need not now say some of the things I had intended to say about the eminence of Lord Jowitt as a lawyer, as an advocate and as an administrator of justice. The Lord Chancellor has put on record for us what is absolutely established.
But I must refer, if I may, to the very, great experience of Lord Jowitt as a Parliamentarian. I entered the House in 1922, and my colleague and Leader in the other place, now Lord Attlee, entered Parliament the same day as the late Lord Jowitt. I remember my first impression, on looking at the Liberal Benches of those days, of Lord Jowitt's personality. He looked, from his figure and his dress, much more Edwardian than we did upon the Labour Benches. From the moment of his entry into Parliament he became an impressive figure, and it was with considerable exhilaration that we welcomed him into the ranks of our Party at a later date.
His Parliamentary experience occasioned great difficulties for him, some of which have been referred to by the Lord Chancellor. It was by no means an easy task in the Parliament of 1929 to 1931 to be Attorney-General in a minority Government during such a controversial period, but he carried through his duties in a most exemplary and efficient manner. Reference has been made already to what Lord Jowitt did during the war. The Lord Chancellor has spoken of his services both as Paymaster General and as Minister without Portfolio. I should like to say that those of us who knew him intimately knew that his period of service as first Minister of National Insurance was a period upon which he afterwards looked back with particular joy in his heart, because he knew that he had had something to do with the building of the foundations of a Department of such magnitude and one which had such
528
great effect upon the life of the common people of this country.
May I next say a word or two about Lord Jowitt's service in this House? The period from 1945 to 1951 has been referred to by the Lord Chancellor, but I am quite certain that my colleague Lord Attlee would say that perhaps we were most indebted in that period to two persons for being able, from a minority position in this Chamber, to put through such controversial measures as those which were dealt with by the late Lord Addison and the noble and learned Earl whose loss we mourn so much to-day. They worked together and with their colleagues as a team, and we were never once disappointed in them. Lord Jowitt's speeches in this House were a lesson even to older and experienced Parliamentarians like myself. He, of course, had all the advantage of a training at the Bar and a thorough grounding in the methods of presenting a case. But he had something more which appealed to me very much. having regard to the difficulties which I have myself experienced. I feel certain that he had made himself a master of Bacon's short Essay upon Discourse. In that essay, as your Lordships will remember, Bacon said:
"Discretion of speech is more than eloquence and to speak agreeably to him with whom we deal is more than to speak in good words or in good order."
Sometimes, when I am carried away by emotion. I wish that I could present a case as Lord Jowitt could. I revere his memory and I recall his lessons. Yet, after all, I suppose that perhaps his outstanding characteristic, in the eyes of those of us who knew him best, was his continued interest in the humanities—in literature, for example. He often talked to me about literature, and he himself, of course, was an author of no mean repute. His interest in art was evidenced by his work for both the National and the Tate Galleries. In tending the sick, too, his devotion was unceasing. We know of his interest at the Ministry of National Insurance and also of his long connection with Queen Charlotte's Hospital. Whenever one spoke to him about difficult periods through which people were going, or of outstanding cases of suffering, one was soon made to realise the depth of feeling in his heart upon such matters. We have lost one who was a tower of strength to us upon our Benches here. We do not

529
know how he can possibly be replaced. We are very grateful for all that he has done for us, for our cause and for the people whom we represent.
I should like to say how full of loving sympathy we are with Lady Jowitt, and her daughter and family, because we know from our long friendship with Lady Jowitt what it must mean to her, after forty-four years, to lose the devoted companionship of such a man. It was a devotion which operated on both sides of the partnership. We know what such a great loss must mean to her, and in the light of it we offer to her, if I may be allowed to adopt the words of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, our loving sympathy.
2.57 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches we join, in sincerity and sorrow, the tributes being paid to the noble Earl, the late Lord Jowitt. There can be, I think, no active Member of your Lordships' House who will not miss with real regret the ability, wisdom and fairness of Lord Jowitt in debate; his lucid exposition and clarification of matters which were sometimes difficult to understand; his searching and trenchant questions; and, of course, not least, his companionship and conversation outside the four walls of this Chamber.
But this is only a small and inadequate picture: there is another side. As an integral part of the British Parliament—of the Mother of Parliaments—your Lordships' House is constantly under interested scrutiny, not only by the British public but also by our brothers and sisters of the Commonwealth and by foreign nationals of every country and from every Continent in the Globe. We do not forget, and we shall not forget, that, irrespective of political Parties or political opinion, Lord Jowitt, by his noble presence, his fine declamation, his graciousness and dignity, whether on the Woolsack or at the Despatch Box, upheld in their view, as indeed he did in ours, the finest standards of the long tradition of your Lordships' House. To Lady Jowitt who, to all of us, is so closely and, if I may say so, so happily associated with his life here, and to his family, we offer our deep and sincere sympathy.
3.0 p.m.
LORD COHEN: My Lords, I had the privilege of Lord Jowitt's friendship for longer, I think, than any of my colleagues among the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and I hope that it will not be considered out of place if I add my tribute of respect and affection to those to which your Lordships have already listened. I first met Lord Jowitt over fifty years ago, when he had just completed his successful career at New College and I was an undergraduate in my first year. That was not on a legal occasion, but at a festive board.
In after years, like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, had the privilege of being led by him from time to time and I had ample reason to admire his sound judgment and wide knowledge of the law. I sat with him on the last occasion on which he took his seat in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He did not write the Judgment, but he it was who found the solution of one particularly difficult point with which we had to deal. He was my neighbour in Kent for many years, and. like others of your Lordships, I shall never forget the happy hours I passed in his and Lady Jowitt's company, not only there bat in London and elsewhere.
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, referred to the time when Lord Jowitt was Attorney-General, from 1929 to 1931. I have a particular recollection, which I think I share with my noble and learned friend Lord Evershed, of one duty he performed on that occasion. When the legal professions of England, Scotland, France and Ireland first crossed the Atlantic at the invitation of the Canadian and American Bars, it fell to Lord Jowitit, as the leader of the Bar in England, to make many of the leading speeches on our behalf, and he always found the right word to say and the right voice to say it in. I would add that he won the respect and affection of many of our hosts—indeed, of all our hosts—in both Canada and America; and as that was the first time, at any rate under a Labour Government, that the legal profession had been brought in touch with that of the United States, he did a great deal to show that from the point of view of friendship it did not

531
matter which Party was in charge in this country.
His was a kindly nature. He always saw the best in everyone, whether he was political friend or political foe, and, seeing the best in them, he always brought the best out of them. All our sympathy goes to Lady Jowitt, and I can assure her that throughout the profession, as amongst all his friends, he will be much missed.
3.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I crossed swords in debate so often with the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, that I should like to add my tribute to an old foe and friend. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, have paid tribute to his great legal attainments. He was as great a debater as he was a lawyer or an advocate. He was a great debater in the best sense. He could expose a case concisely, attractively, and clearly, as we should expect. but I think that he was happiest in the cut and thrust of the debate which followed. He was a brilliant debater. He never missed a good point and seldom took a bad one. He could hit hard—very hard—but always without rancour.
In this House the leaders of the Parties have close contact in the working of the House and its Business, which certainly would be unusual, and I daresay impossible, in another place. With Lord Jowitt, as with his predecessor, Lord Addison, those contacts were always frank and agreeable, and I am sure that they greatly facilitated debate and the course of business in your Lordships' House, without ever cramping our style or handicapping the fighting qualities of either side. But there are other occasions where matters of great importance come up in which no Party question or Party controversy is involved, and that kind of contact in such instances enables the House and the varied experience of your Lordships to be used to the highest advantage. Not only was Lord Jowitt always courteous but he gave the greatest service on those occasions.
For instance, I recall one occasion when the Companies Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. There was no political controversy, but some of my friends and I thought it an extremely ill-constructed
532
measure. Lord Jowitt—I betray no secret—fully shared that view. Throughout the whole of the stages of that Bill, though he was leading the Government and I was leading the Opposition, we worked together as a team, and I think the result was that there came out a very much better Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament. We shall indeed miss a great man who came to love this place, who sustained and enhanced its highest traditions and who became a friend of all of us.
3.8 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said so eloquently of my old friend and comrade. My memories of him go back a long time. I knew both Lord and Lady Jowitt as children. I recall very well, in 1894, a bright little boy who was brought to our preparatory school and put in my charge to be shown round. That is a long time ago. We resumed our friendship in another place and I was his colleague in three Governments. In the last, when I was Prime Minister, I had him as Lord Chancellor. I think that relations between a Prime Minister and a Lord Chancellor are necessarily very close. There are a large number of matters upon which a Prime Minister requires the advice of a Lord Chancellor, and unfailingly I got it from Lord Jowitt, not only on immediate matters—appointments of one kind or another—but also on general policy.
Lord Jowitt's range of interests was very wide. His interest in art has already been mentioned, but he was also a distinguished amateur painter and did much service for our galleries. He was greatly interested in promoting friendship with other countries and did much work for the travel organisations. He himself travelled widely and was an admirable ambassador of the British people. But, of course, I think chiefly of the service which he did during those six years of the Labour Government, when he had a very heavy task in this House. The task of a Lord Chancellor is always heavy, particularly when the weight of political work falls on the shoulders of one or two, and Lord Jowitt, shouldered that task with great zeal.
Besides that, his range of interests was very wide. When I think of him. I always

533
think of him, first of all, as I said, as a small boy; then I think of him sitting at Wimbledon watching tennis; in the Law Courts, in the art galleries and in the country—a man of wide experience, wide gifts and wide sympathies. Finally, one thinks of him as a noble presence, a stately presence, with a beautiful voice. I am sure the hearts of all of us will go out to Lady Jowitt, to his daughter and his sisters in their very great loss. I am grateful for the sympathy extended to this Party in the loss of a great representative.
3.13 p.m.
LORD FREYBERG: My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity of joining with other Members of your Lordships' House to add a few words of personal tribute to what has already been said by those who worked with Lord Jowitt at the Bar and in politics. I cannot claim to have known Lord Jowitt as long as Lord Cohen or Lord Attlee, but my friendship with him and his family goes back for thirty years. As has already been said, and I repeat, Lord Jowitt was a man of rare qualities of mind, of fine presence and a memorable voice. He visited us during our time in New Zealand, when his appearance at official functions in the Robes of Lord Chancellor of England made a great impression. He will be remembered in many walks of life, but nowhere more than in your Lordships' House. I like to remember him as the charming host of Budd's Farm in the late 'twenties or the early 'thirties, when he had added to his many interests an enthusiasm and love for gardening. Lord Jowitt was a good friend who will be greatly missed, and especially so by a close circle of friends of long standing.
3.14 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My, Lords, there is one aspect of the work of Lord Jowitt about which possibly I am better qualified to speak than any other Member of your Lordships' House; and perhaps you will bear with me for a minute or two while I say something about it. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has referred to the superb work which Lord Jowitt did in connection with piloting the great legislative programme of the Labour Government, from 1945 to 1951, through your Lordships' House. I think I know better than most what went on behind the scenes, and it is on that
534
topic that I should like to say a word or two.
This programme was largely of a legal character, so that the burden of it fell peculiarly upon Lord Jowitt. All the nationalisation Bills contained great chunks of material which was pure law; and in addition there were a number of Bills of outstanding legal importance, such as the Criminal Justice Bill, the Magistrates' Courts Bill and the Companies Bill, to which reference has already been made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. Lord Jowitt bore almost completely by himself the burden of the legal side of those Bills. I was able to give him some little assistance, but as one whose work has been primarily that of an academic lawyer, without much experience of practical affairs and politics, I was not able to give him that help which I should have liked to do. But I saw the astonishing and superb way in which Lord Jowitt tackled this job. It was not only in your Lordships' House where the strain was so great, especially for a Leader of a small Party against an able Opposition, for behind the scenes the amount of work that had to be done was terrific. The strain of it obviously told upon Lord Jowitt, and I should say that nobody ever more patently killed himself in the service of his country and in the work of this House.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, referred to the Companies Bill. That was a Bill in which no fewer than 410 Amendments were moved in the Committee stage, during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Your Lordships can imagine what that meant in the amount of work done behind the scenes, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said. The most important part of the Bill was that relating to the tightening up of the provision for accounts, which was regarded as all wrong when it first appeared and had to be hammered out while the Bill was actually on its way through the House. This meant sitting up all night conducting discussions with the representatives of the Opposition Parties. The strain of that sort of thing going on day after day, week after week, and year after year was tremendous. I doubt whether any Lord Chancellor has had anything like such a great job to do, and I am certain that no one has discharged it with the same

535
superb efficiency, patience and devotion that Lord Jowitt brought to his work.
3.17 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I be allowed to draw attention to one aspect of the public life of the late Lord Jowitt which I do not think has been mentioned to-day—namely, his Presidency of the British Travel and Holidays Association, which involved Lord and Lady Jowitt in many vists to different parts of the world. As your Lordships know, the job of the British Travel and Holidays Association is to "sell" Britain as a tourist centre, and we believe we had two of the finest sellers we ever had in the late Lord Jowitt and in Lady Jowitt. Lord Jowitt also from time to time had to entertain travel agents and travel people who came to this country, and particularly that rather tough race, the American travel agents. His speeches on those occasions were always gems, whether he was "pulling their legs" about their racy ties or in other ways. I have been to many American towns where I have met travel agents who have recalled their visits to Britain, and particularly they have remembered the speeches of Lord Jowitt on those occasions. I believe that he really loved his work and enjoyed his position in the travel world; in fact, he told me so on many occasions. We in the travel world will greatly miss our President.
3.19 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not regard me as presumptuous in addressing you on this occasion, but there is one angle of the late Lord Jowitt's character to which I should like to pay tribute. It is not so many years that I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, and I well remember when I first joined the immense kindness and help in every way that my wife and I received from Lord and Lady Jowitt. I particularly welcome this opportunity of saying this, because we have always been very conscious of what we owed to Lord Jowitt in that respect. We came here entirely unversed in the ways of your Lordships' House, and the kindness he and Lady Jowitt showed to us could not have been exceeded. To the end of our days we shall remain most grateful. The House has lost a great gentleman and a great friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I should first like to inform your Lordships that my noble Leader will be making a statement at half-past three to-day, or soon after, with regard to the Prime Minister's visit to America. I should also like to refer to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and the business for to-morrow and the day after. There are a great number of speakers—twenty-five at least—and so it has been arranged through the usual channels that we shall sit late tomorrow. We shall adjourn for dinner from 7.15 until 8.30, and we shall continue the debate again at half-past two, instead of at three o'clock, the next day. That has been arranged through the usual channels and will, I am sure, satisfy everybody.

FORESTRY, AGRICULTURE AND MARGINAL LAND
3.21 p.m.
LORD WISE LORD WISE rose to draw attention to the Report of the National Resources (Technical) Committee on Forestry, Agriculture and Marginal Land; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be known that for some time before the Recess this Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of the late Earl Jowitt. After his death, it was thought on this side of the House that the Motion should stand and be moved as a tribute to his memory. The original date was fixed for to-morrow, but was altered in order that our discussion should follow the tributes which have just been paid on all sides of the House to a well-loved and very loyal colleague and outstanding Member of the House of Lords. I feel sure that this arrangement is acceptable to noble Lords, and I hope that no inconvenience has been caused to anyone by the alteration of date.
Just prior to the Recess, and possibly on one of the last occasions on which he was present, Lord Jowitt came and sat on this Bench for a short time. We spoke of his Motion and arranged that I should support him and follow as a later speaker on this side. His mantle has thus, in this particular matter only, fallen upon me, and in his memory I will do all I can to deal with the Report. I cannot hope to reach his eloquence,

537
fullness of speech or interpretation of the Report, but I am encouraged by a personal feeling that he is with us in spirit, and a knowledge that our discussion at this time would have met with his approval. His interest and past work in connection with afforestation are well known, and he would undoubtedly have called attention to that side of the Report. I know he was anxious that the programme set by the Forestry Commission should be carried out and, to that end, that its; present momentum should be accelerated, if possible, and the difficulties which beset it overcome. He realised, as we all do, that forestry, with its allied industries, can play an important rôle in the national economy. This rôle, unfortunately, is little spoken of or understood in everyday life.
At this point, I should like to voice a note of thanks to Professor Zuckerman and his able and distinguished colleagues for their interesting and admirable Report. It would appear sometimes that neither Parliament nor the public fully appreciate the time and labour spent by a Committee or Commission upon the preparation and submission of a Report on subjects and matters referred to them. It is easy for Parliament or a Minister to draw up the terms of reference or send out letters of appointment, but quite a different matter for members of such a Committee to spend hours and days in collecting and considering data, examining experts as witnesses, and then tabulating and explaining conclusions at which they have arrived. This shows great public spirit and tenacity of purpose which can be admired.
The Zuckerman Report is excellent in its contents, paragraphing and set-up, and as a review of current policy in the use of land and its future possibilities and capabilities, and we owe the Members of that Committee a debt of gratitude for services rendered to Parliament and to all who are interested in the subject which they so ably cover. I readily acknowledge it. and I am sure we all agree. The Committee were obviously set a very difficult task. 'In effect, so far as I can see, the task was this: to discover what steps, if any, it will be possible to take to increase afforestation in large or small areas, to make even continuing or more productive use of marginal land; and whether the integration of agriculture and forestry can be carried out profitably in
538
the interests of the nation, the landowner, and the land worker.
No Report has ever received universal acceptance and approval, and it may well be that noble Lords can think of omissions or items of disagreement or which need explanation in this one. It is easy to be critical or controversial, but it is not my intention to be either. l feel that the Report on its merits deserves kindly and friendly consideration, especially on this particular day as we draw to the end of this Parliamentary Session. My object is to call attention to some matters referred to in the Report—I cannot cover the whole—and to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government on the possibility of any implementation of the conclusions of the Committee in the immediate future. Our discussion will no doubt be followed by many outside the walls of this House who are interested or whose livelihood depends upon the success of our afforestation projects or determination to make the best, possible use of the marginal areas of Britain which are at present falling short in production but which could probably be made more fertile.
Neither the late Earl nor I have been living in counties which can be considered marginal, but we have this in common: that we were both residing within easy reach of Thetford Chase and the Breckland of Norfolk. He was to the south and I was to the north, and I am sure that both of us would have paid our tribute to the work of the Forestry Commission in that particular area. Speakers with greater knowledge of marginal areas will be following me, and I hope that we shall hear something of great interest to us in regard to these areas.
Recently we have considered two kindred subjects, namely, forestry in Wales, and the Watson Report on the marketing of woodland timber. Although these naturally bear relation to matters which arise in the Zuckerman Report they were fairly fully covered in those discussions, particularly in regard to the Welsh debate. Much similarity occurs between that discussion and the one we are dealing with to-day. It is possible also that another forestry discussion will take place shortly in your Lordships' House, and the impact of the European Free Trade Area conditions upon imports of forestry products may then be

539
considered. In looking up the Hansard reports of the debate in your Lordships' House on the Watson Committee's Report I noticed that doubts were expressed by noble Lords about the benefits which might be lost to forestry by European Free Trade Area conditions. I hope that all the primary products of the land, whether they are agricultural products or timber products, will receive similar treatment.
From the forestry angle the Committee draw attention to the slow development of forestry resources in Great Britain. I think that that is right, and the nation as a whole must accept some responsibility for it. Even in this advancing scientific age, when none can tell what our future requirements may be in any particular product, there is a lack of appreciation of the need for steps to be taken to increase our products of timber. As a nation we are not forestry-minded. Many look upon our woodlands and forests merely as things of beauty in our countryside, as places for rambles and picnics and preserves for shooting parties, and very infrequently as places where one can see stacks of pit-props and poles waiting to be transported and turned into money. Never a moment is spent in considering the labour, time and expense which have been incurred in establishing the plantations, or of woods growing slowly to maturity, unnoticed by the casual or the constant passer-by. To many forestry is an unknown industry. Whatever may be substituted for timber in building or for other constructive purposes in the future, it is clear that timber products and by-products in various forms will be required.
The Committee devote several paragraphs to the problems of the utilisation of thinnings and other timber, not only for mining purposes but for pulping, new types of fibre building boards and other products. Advances have recently been made in providing mills with new plant and methods to supply the growing requirements of industry and thus utilise the output of the plantations of the Forestry Commission. This is helpful and commendable, and the Minister may be able to tell us something of the encouragement which is being and will be given to such projects if required. They are essential as absorbing our home
540
timber output and as a step to the safeguarding of prosperity. There is reference in paragraph 98 of the Report to an investigation to be undertaken by the European Productivity Agency of O.E.E.C. as to the size a mill should be to prove economic. This is mentioned again in paragraph 104, and it is hoped that this survey is going forward. Its findings may determine future programmes of the Forestry Commission and industrial woodland owners.
In 1955 pulp imports cost us over £100 million. Any appreciable saving by home production would be well worth while. Perhaps the Minister also has some information he can give us as regards progress in this particular matter. It is pointed out in no uncertain manner how low our home production of timber falls in comparison with the value of imports. Ten per cent. only of our requirements is home grown. And even if the Forestry Commission's target of 5 million acres of mature and productive forest is achieved in the time allotted during this century, we shall then be producing only one-third of our present requirements. Development in industry may call for more homegrown timber and timber products. Again, our future national economic position may call for greater efforts to counteract possible increasing import commitments and relieve our dollar and other liabilities. Import savings from forestry products can help in this direction.
Timber production is essentially a longterm affair, and to meet the calls of the future planning and planting must take place now. The planting of generations ago came to our aid in two world wars during which our resources were obviously lessened. In a large wood which belongs to me I remember the fine timber trees of fifty years ago and now often come across the aftermath of the considerable fellings of 1914–18. That possibly may not be peculiar to that particular wood but is similar in many other woods all over the country. I hope that such wartime fellings in our woods will not again be required in our lifetime or that of our children's children. But we must not overlook the experience of two world wars. Our future needs—and these must be great—are fully recognised by the Committee; and the difficulties and delays in acquiring suitable land for Forestry Commission purposes, the natural hesitation on the part of private landowners to

541
embark upon uncertain financial operations necessary for large-scale afforestation, reclaiming and replanting scrub, overgrown hazel underwood or felled woodland, and the satisfactory disposal of forest products, are touched upon and considered.
Co-operative afforestation which brings the landowner and the Forestry Commission together receives commendation by the Committee, and in paragraph 136, page 40, the basis of a scheme to bring both parties together is propounded. It seems in effect to be this: an agency scheme whereby the Forestry Commission supervise and carry out the planting and receive the appropriate Government grants or part payment; and eventually, when the sale of the produce comes about, the capital expended, plus interest, would be repaid to the Commission, and the balance, substantial or otherwise, would then be paid to the owner at that time of the plantation. There is in all this, from the owner's point of view, an element of uncertainty in the field of the finance, but it may put into operation successful planting which otherwise would not take place by reason of expenditure to the landowner. I expect that other noble Lords may wish to comment on this particular project.
It is not generally realised that, even now, forestry operations provide steady employment in rural areas. In addition to the many foresters and their assistants employed in private woods and estate yards, the number of men under the control of the Forestry Commission in forests and nurseries is over 13,000. The Financial Statement of the Forestry Commission for 1956 shows an expenditure of nearly £8 million upon forest operations for the year; thus the spending power of the employees in rural areas is significant. This sum does not conclude the tale, as local timber merchants. operating in home-grown timber, have their own gangs of experienced and skilled men earning wages commensurate with the nature of their employment, and the saw mills in country towns find work and wages for craftsmen and others, as also do pulping and other works in districts in which they are to be found.
The wage bill of the industry, therefore, assumes fairly high figures—small, possibly, in comparison with the wage bill of
542
agriculture and other industries, but extremely useful in keeping rural areas going. Nearly 5,000 houses and holdings have been provided by the Forestry Commission for its workers, and in many places community centres have been formed, social life and activities fostered, transport improved by better roads, and in the aggregate of its employment and welfare services lies the strength and importance of the industry. There is great virtue in carrying into operation projects which not only are of national economic value, but bring homes and communal life to those engaged in them.
The land surface of Great Britain extends to 56 million acres. About half of this is cultivated farming land, and of the other half 16 million acres comprise rough grazing and marginal land, and 4 million acres are woodland. This woodland represents only about 7 per cent. of the land area, and is very small in comparison with percentages in other European countries. At page 15 of the Report noble Lords will find a Table, No. 4, showing that, so far as this country is concerned, we are beaten in percentages of woodland area in comparison with our land area, by, I believe, every other country in Europe. It is with the 16 million acres of rough grazing and marginal land that we are mainly concerned to-day. I have already referred to the programme of the Forestry Commission to increase their area to 5 million acres of well-managed productive forest. Their additional area must come from marginal land. Already they are falling behind schedule, and the area acquired annually has fallen short of requirements. Moreover, their planting each year is diminishing. The significance of this will be apparent—it is a drift in the wrong direction. If we are to make a success of national and private afforestation schemes, and are to accelerate our planting and production, we must find a solution to the problem of the shortage of available and suitable land for the purpose. Solutions can generally be found for every problem, and this one cannot be allowed to beat us.
The Zuckerman Committee express fully in their Report their views on how this can be accomplished. It is clear to them that it is possible to integrate forestry and agriculture on marginal land, to the benefit of both these rural

543
industries. They advocate a joint effort—an intermixing of the two. Naturally, the Forestry Commission seek large areas for their purpose, and whilst realising that that should be the primary aim, the Committee suggest the bringing into being of shelter belts and smaller plantations, useful at all times as productive measures for homesteads, land conservation, and improvement of stock grazing. The Committee support the view that such planting would increase the stock-carrying capacity of surrounding land and increase food production. Stock, particularly sheep from the hills, are essential for ensuring a regular supply at the proper season for lowland farmers. Examples are given in the Report of successful undertakings. I therefore put the suggestion to landlords of large areas that similar satisfying success might come to them through such co-operation with the Forestry Commission.
We cannot afford to delay our endeavour to improve the productive ability, small though it may be at present, of 30 per cent. of our land area now classified as marginal land, and any decline in this surely means the lowering of the standard of living of those who are dependent upon the results of their labours. It is thought that in some cases afforestation pure and simple would be more profitable than stock grazing. But it would seem to me personally that lands which can adequately serve food production should be so used. With mutual good will there need not be any confliction of interests. We must all be anxious that there should be no lessening of employment, wage earning and social amenities in those areas of Britain which are remote from the towns and cities. The Zuckerman Committee point out that the drift from the land in those parts can be stayed only by the security of a congenial job in forestry or agriculture.
A considerable amount of public money finds its way through various Departments and the Forestry Commission into the areas of marginal lands, as indeed it does also into more fertile districts, and the fullest co-operation be-
544
tween the responsible bodies is advocated. State money thus allocated to the twin industries of the land will not be misused but will safeguard part of our national assets and improve their capital value. The lands of Britain are held in trust for the benefit of the nation, and their improvement is of the greatest possible importance, as also is the welfare of the people living on the land. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that money spent in supporting stock production and afforestation activities on marginal land is, from the national point of view, money well spent.
My Lords, as I feared when I first considered what points in the Report I should touch upon, I have in no way been able to do justice to its comprehensiveness. I am sure that other speakers will fill in my blanks. I may have been guilty of some platitudes but I have, I hope, opened a way for discussion, and all such Reports should receive serious consideration in this House. I have also given the Minister the opportunity—which I believe he will welcome—of stating the reactions of Her Majesty's Government to the suggestions which the Committee have set out and elaborated. There are in this House many noble Lords who have spent their lives among the lands and woods of Britain, and who have a love of country life, with its peaceful and satisfying surroundings, who will read with great interest the Zuckerman Report and the Record of our discussion on it. Many have their roots in the soil and are truly men of the woods and the land—a very happy combination. Their concern, which is also mine, is not only that forestry should make its full contribution to the welfare of the nation but that the marginal lands of Britain should become more fertile and should take a more important place in maintaining agricultural prosperity and ever-increasing food production. If integration as outlined by the Committee will help us. then let us take steps to support such a programme. I beg to move for Papers.

PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO WASHINGTON
3.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will make a statement which has been made by the Prime Minister in another place. I will read it in the Prime Minister's words:
"I will now make a statement about the discussions which I and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary held last week in Washington and in Ottawa. Much has happened since the meetings in Bermuda last March. It seemed to the President and to me that it would he well if we could meet once more in order to review the international scene. Honourable Members will have read in the newspapers the text of the Declaration of Common Purpose which the President and I issued at the end of our talks, but for the convenience of the House I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"The main purpose of the Declaration is to establish the principle of the inter-dependence of the countries of the free world. This principle will guide the policies of the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States. We shall seek to secure the participation of all our Allies, and the support of the other free nations, in a common partnership. Thereby the resources of the free world can most effectively be used in the maintenance of the interests of all.
"Our two countries will pursue this purpose in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, as well as with our other Allies and with the nations of the free world in the most appropriate way. The House will have read in the Declaration that we will urge at N.A.T.O. an increase of scientific research and development in support of greater collective security, and that the President of the United States will request Congress to amend the Atomic Energy Act as may be necessary and desirable. In conformity with the same principles, we have declared that in their possession of nuclear weapons both our Governments regard themselves as trustees for the defence of the free world.
"In Canada the Foreign Secretary and I had an opportunity of reporting
546
on these discussions to the Canadian Government, both in private talks with Mr. Diefenbaker and certain of his colleagues and at a meeting of the Canadian Cabinet which we were privileged to attend. The Canadian Government expressed themselves, for their part, most ready to subscribe to the principle of inter-dependence and to join in the common effort necessary to make it effective."
Following is the text of the Declaration referred to:

DECLARATION OF COMMON PURPOSE
The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. at the end of three days of meetings at which they were assisted by the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary and other advisers, issued the following statement—

I.
We have met together as trusted friends of many years who have come to head the Governments of our respective countries. These two countries have close and historicties, just as each has intimate and unbreakable ties with other free countries.
Recognising that only in the establishment of a just peace can the deepest aspirations of free peoples be realised, the guiding purpose of our deliberations has been the determination of how best to utilise the moral, intellectual and material strength of our two nations in the performance of our full share of those tasks that will more surely and promptly bring about conditions in which peace can prosper. One of these tasks is to provide adequate security for the Free World.
The free nations possess vast assets, both material and moral. These in the aggregate are far greater than those of the Communist World. We do not ignore the fact that the Soviet rulers can achieve formidable material accomplishments by concentrating upon selected developments and scientific applications, and by yoking their people to this effort. Despotisms have often been able to produce spectacular monuments. But the price has been heavy. For all peoples yearn for intellectual and economic freedom, the more so if from their bondage they see others manifest the glory of freedom. Even despots are forced to permit freedom to grow by an evolutionary process, or in time there will be violent revolution. This principle is in-exorable in its operation. Already it has begun to be noticeable even within the Soviet orbit. If the free nations are steadfast and if they utilise their resources in harmonious co-operation, the totalitarian menace that now confronts them will in good time recede.
In order, however, that freedom may be secure and show its good fruits, it is necessary first that the collective military strength of the free nations should be adequate to meet the threat against them. At the same time the aggregate of the Free World's military expenditure must be kept within limits

547
compatible with individual freedom. Otherwise we risk losing the very liberties which we seek to defend.
These ideas have been the central theme of our conversations which in part were participated in by M. Spaak, the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O.
In application of these ideas and as an example which we believe can and should spread among the nations of the Free World, we reached the following understanding—

II.
1.The arrangements which the nations of the Free World have made for collective defence and mutual help are based on the recognition that the concept of national self-sufficiency is now out of date. The countries of the Free World are inter-dependent and only in genuine partnership, by combining their resources and sharing tasks in many fields can progress and safety be found. For our part we have agreed that our two countries will henceforth act in accordance with this principle.
2.Our representatives to the North Atlantic Council will urge an enlarged Atlantic effort in scientific research and development in support of greater collective security and the expansion of current activities of the task force working in this field in accordance with the Council's decision of last December.
3.The President of the United States will request the Congress to amend the Atomic Energy Act as may be necessary and desirable to permit of close and fruitful collaboration of scientists and engineers of Great Britain, the United States and other friendly countries.
4.The Disarmament proposals made by the Western representatives on the Disarmament Sub-Committee in London and approved by all members of N.A.T.O. are a sound and fair basis for an agreement which would reduce the threat of war and the burden of armaments. The indefinite accumulation of nuclear weapons and the indiscriminate spreading of the capacity to produce them should be prevented. Effective and reliable inspection must be an integral part of initial steps in the control and reduction of armaments.
5.In the absence of such disarmament as we are seeking, international security now depends not merely on local defensive shields, but upon reinforcing them with the deterrent and retaliatory power of nuclear weapons. So long as the threat of international Communism persists, the free nations must be prepared to provide for their own security. Because the Free World measures are purely defensive and for security against outside threat, the period for which they must be maintained cannot be foreseen. It is not within the capacity of each nation acting alone to make itself fully secure. Only collective measures will suffice. These should preferably be found by implementing the provisions of the United Nations Charter for forces at the disposal of the Security Council. But if the Soviet Union persists in nullifying these provisions by veto, there must otherwise be developed a greater sense of community security. The framework for this exists in collective defence arrangements now participated in by nearly fifty free nations as
548
authorised by the Charter. All members of this community and other free nations which so desire should possess more knowledge of the total capabilities of security that are in being and in prospect. There should also be provided greater opportunity to assure that this power will in fact be available in case of need for their common security and that it will not be misused by any nation for purposes other than individual and collective self-defence as authorised by the Charter of the United Nations.
For our part we regard our possession of nuclear weapons power as a trust for the defence of the Free World.
6.Our two countries plan to discuss these ideas with all of the security partners. So far as the North Atlantic alliance is concerned the December meeting may perhaps be given a special character in this respect. This has been discussed with the Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., M. Spaak.
7.In addition to the North Atlantic Treaty, the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty, the Bagdad Pact and other security arrangements constitute a strong bulwark against aggression in the various treaty areas. There are also vitally important relationships of a somewhat different character. There is the Commonwealth, and in the Western Hemisphere the organisation of American States. There are indidivual mutual defence agreements and arrangements to which the United States is a party.
8.We recognise that our collective security efforts must be supported and reinforced by co-operative economic action. The present offers a challenging opportunity for improvement of trading conditions and the expansion of trade throughout the Free World. It is encouraging that plans are developing for a European Free Trade Area in association with the European Common Market. We recognise that especially in the less developed countries there should be a steady and significant increase in standards of living and economic development.
9.We took note of specific factors in the ideological struggle in which we are engaged. In particular, we were in full agreement that:—
Soviet threats directed against Turkey give solemn significance to the obligation, under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. to consider an armed attack against any member of the Alliance as an attack against all.
The reunifiction of Germany by free elections is essential. At the Geneva Conference of 1955 Messrs. Khrushchev and Bulganin agreed to this with us and our French allies. Continued repudiation of that agreement and continued suppression of freedom in Eastern Europe undermine international confidence and perpetuate an injustice, a folly and a danger.

III.
The President and the Prime Minister believe that the understandings they have reached will be increasingly effective as they become more widespread between the free nations. By coordinating the strength of all free peoples safety can be assured, the danger of Communist despotism will in due course be dissipated and a just and lasting peace will be achieved.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving us the statement made in another place by the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington. I have listened very carefully hut, if I may speak frankly, I can find nothing very new in it, not because I have previously read in the Press any report of the statement made but because it is now quite academic to refer in statements to the inter-dependence of the free nations. That is what we have been pressing for and pursuing in all Parties for some years now. The only benefit that can arise from this particular statement would be the removal, after the efforts of all Governments in the past have failed, of the inhibition, which arose from the McMahon Act, preventing a full pooling of atomic scientific research. It that matures, then certainly something will have been achieved.
On behalf of the Opposition, however. may I say that we welcome the return of Her Majesty's Government to a more normal procedure in their operations in international affairs than we have suspected has been the case in the last twelve months. The statement does not go very far, and perhaps the noble Leader of the House may he able to arrange that we may have a much fuller statement and further discussion when we come to debate the gracious Speech.
LORD REA: My Lords, whilst agreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the statement does not cover very much new ground, there are two points which we are particularly glad to notice. There is first the question of revision of the McMahon Act—a very great step forward which the President of the United States has suggested he might be able to take. It is also noted that the President and the Prime Minister are to urge at N.A.T.O. an increase of scientific research and development in support of common collective security. I hope that that collective security may also include collective prosperity, so that the present over-military aspect of N.A.T.O. may develop on lines more civil, more progressive and more creative than purely military lines.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Leader of the House one question which arises in connection
550
with this statement, although it did not figure in it? I have read in several newspapers that one of the arrangements made in Washington was that the British Government should maintain in Germany larger forces than had previously been agreed or determined. May I, without wishing to cause embarrassment, ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House (for this is the kind of thing which should not be left in the air) whether in fact any such arrangements were made, and if so, at whose expense they will be carried out?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords., I also wish to ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question, and it may be convenient if I do so now. It covers two points. Was the question of the adequacy of security arrangements in this country raised in connection with the revision of the McMahon Act? Secondly, did the President and the Prime Minister discuss the question of the boycott of China?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was wise in suggesting that the great number of questions which may arise out of this statement could probably be more properly dealt with during the debate on the gracious Speech, if that is so desired. In reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Swinton, the size of the forces in Germany was naturally one of the questions discussed, but I think that no pledges were given, and it is a matter which I imagine will be discussed at the next N.A.T.O. meeting. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition says there is nothing very new in this statement. While there is nothing much that has not already been in the papers, the Prime Minister has come back having been able to achieve a complete restoration of harmonious relations with the United States of America, which were interrupted last year, and the determination behind each phrase is for absolute co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States of America over the whole field of international activity; and that is, of course, a great gain. We have, it is true, been pursuing inter-dependence for a long time, and I am not sure that we have always achieved it. I hope that we shall now achieve it in fact.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I asked the noble Earl two questions.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Viscount's two questions just at this moment. If he wishes to raise these questions during the debate on the gracious Speech it may be possible to answer him.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If we bring up these two questions in the debate on the gracious Speech may we look for an assurance, first that a tightening up of our security arrangements was not asked for; and secondly, that the Prime Minister raised the question of the boycott of China? There can be no peace in Asia while China is excluded from the comity of nations.
THE EARL OF HOME: If the noble Viscount asks the questions we shall do our best to answer, but whether we can give the noble Viscount answers which in form will satisfy him I should hesitate to say.

FORESTRY, AGRICULTURE AND MARGINAL LAND
4.1 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to whom we are very much indebted to-day for this Motion, I am very sorry that the late noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is no longer here to speak to us on the subject. I have happy personal recollections of his great interest in forestry and of his enthusiasm for a large extension in it. Both in conversations in this House and on the occasions of visits to my own place in Scotland he was most helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has this afternoon covered the ground very thoroughly. He has dealt adequately with the Report and its objectives and has given us many facts about the situation in forestry. I wish this afternoon only briefly to give my support to the Report and to emphasise the valuable information which it contains. I regard it as a most interesting production and the recommendations which it contains as being very important indeed. As I have said, my object in speaking is to give my support to it and to emphasise its value. I wish also to urge that early steps should be taken to implement it. I think that those with experience of land management and
552
forestry and marginal lands will agree that these are just the sort of Report and just the sort of recommendations that are needed now. That such an able and practical Report should be presented is only natural, seeing that it was compiled by such a distinguished Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Solly Zuckerman, to all of whom I feel we are very much indebted.
Among the principal objects indicated are the fuller use of a vast acreage of hill and marginal lands and also a way to increase the population resident in and employed in the countryside. One finds in the Report the recognition of forestry as a national industry taking its place in the same way as agriculture, and one would like to find this recognised in a much wider sense to-day. It points out to us how very small indeed is the acreage under forestry in Britain compared with that in other countries. It emphasises our natural climatic advantages and puts before us many reasons for an expansion and many benefits that will come from it. But although progress has been faster than ever before, it is still slow when compared with that of other countries.
While the Committee are clearly favourable to a large expansion of forestry, the emphasis is upon the integration with farming and upon the way in which the expansion should be developed. The Report wisely urges the utmost cooperation in the use of land between farming and forestry for the benefit of all. The mutual advantages to farming and to forestry are pointed out. There are very few sentences in the Report with which one might disagree as a landowner, and there is no need to refer to them now because they do not affect the conclusions. I am confident that landowners will welcome the Report and willingly help to carry out its recommendations.
Lord Wise has suggested that others might wish to say a little more about integration. Travelling about marginal lands in different places, among uplands and hill farms, one constantly sees places where well-sited plantations would be most helpful. On larger agricultural estates this integration has been practised for a long time, but perhaps it has not been continued so much during the last fifty or sixty years. There is ample opportunity for an extension again now.

553
There has been a friendly reference to integration of my family's woodlands in Scotland and to the amount of woodlands laid out and integration carried out by an ancestor of mine whose tutor and companion was Adam Smith, the famous economist, under whose influence my ancestor benefited in the management of land as he did similarly in a wider sphere. The Forestry Commission have shown great helpfulness in their endeavours to promote co-operation in the integration of forestry and farming. Although I have no doubt that they would much prefer to concentrate upon the larger areas of woodlands, they are, whenever opportunities occur, very keen to help individual landowners in this integration in smaller acreages.
The Report visualises that the main contribution towards extension of forestry will come from the State, and I suppose it would be correct that most of the available evidence would support this. But I would point out that the increase in private re-afforestation in recent years has been quite considerable and it is steadily increasing. I believe that it can and will be increased much further still, and l maintain that it would be an advantage to the nation's finances and in other ways a saving in national expenditure if private woodlands could make a much bigger contribution than they do now.
There are references to the Forestry Commission's difficulties in the acquisition of land, and I believe now that attention has been drawn to them that these difficulties can be overcome—and they certainly should be overcome. I feel that in both these matters it would be useful and appropriate now for the Government and their representatives to state that the future of forestry is a matter to which they feel that great importance should be attached. It is desirable that the nation should be told that it is the wish of the Government that forestry should be expanded both by the State and by private landowners. I think that if there is an appeal to landowners to do more forestry, and if this is supported by practical assistance, and if, at the same time, there is an appeal to landowners to assist the Forestry Commission wherever they can by making suitable land available, then the Forestry Commission's programme will not be
554
restricted or delayed by insufficiency of land. I am sure that landowners would wish to help the Forestry Commission in these acquisitions and that by cooperation between the two sufficient land would become available for afforestation.
As I said at the beginning, attention has been drawn to the social side of the expansion of forestry. All those who live in country districts and in upland valleys know only too well how the depopulation of the countryside has been going on. We know how easy it is for people to be drawn away to the towns and how difficult it is to get them back. For instance, a few years ago a new industry was set up in a small town in the south of Scotland and appeals were made to the rural population to go and work in the industry. They were offered higher wages and a five-day week, and many people left the countryside to work there. Within the last few weeks that industry has closed but I see little hope of getting back to the land the people who worked there. In another case a small industry has closed, again in the south of Scotland where employment in forestry is available if the people wish it, but I do not see people going back to the land unless they have been on it before.
It is not unnatural that a countryman should view with some apprehension the increasing demands for a five-day, forty-hour week, which would take people away from the land to the towns even more. The only way I can see of bringing the population back to the sparsely populated districts is by an extension of afforestation. The many advantages this would bring are clearly and ably set out in this Report: how it will help local efficiency in many ways and how it will help in the provision of local services which otherwise would not be economic in a small population. I do not feel that the agricultural population need have any worry about that, because if we have more families engaged in forestry and on the land, there will be more people in the next generation to look after the sheep and cattle and farmlands. I have endeavoured to speak briefly on this subject to-day, having had the privilege of speaking on forestry recently. I urge the Government to give sympathetic consideration to this Report and see that everything possible is done to carry it out.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I feel great regret that my noble and learned friend who originally was to have introduced this Motion is not here to-day to do so, but I feel that we are carrying on the sentiments which he felt so strongly. I think that we are all agreed about the necessity of building up our forests. We all know the arguments, and there is no need to recapitulate them. There are the æsthetic, the amenity, the climatic (it is surprising how quickly climate can be changed through loss of trees), and above all, the commercial or economic arguments.
We are all agreed about the need to build up our forests, but what is actually happening? We still import something like 90 per cent. of the timber we need. Two world wars desolated our forests. One dreads to think what would happen if ever this country were engaged in another major war: we should hardly have enough timber left for our own coffins. I was interested, as we have all been, in studying this thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Forestry Commission. I must confess that I found it very disquieting and depressing. I am surprised that the noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Duke who made such an eloquent speech, should not have been more perturbed by the contents of the Report.
The danger to our forests was realised as far back as 1943, when it was seen that our national position was very precarious indeed. At that time a big plan was promulgated, that we should build up our forests to an area of 5 million acres over the next fifty years, of which 3 million acres would be planted by the Forestry Commission on land acquired by them and 2 million acres would be on privately owned woodlands, of which about half at that time were unproductive. That was accepted as a minimum scheme for national safety, and a desirable programme was drawn up of what should be planted in the first ten years in order to get on with the scheme, making all allowances for the difficulties after the war, for the lack of labour and seed, and other problems which had to be faced. The desirable programme was worked out to be the planting of 1,100.000 acres, but this was turned
556
down as being too ambitious, and a programme of something like 900,000 acres was aimed at.
When we look at this Report we see that private woodlands have done very well. There has been a great improvement and a notable increase of planting by private owners. For instance, in the three years 1954, 1955 and 1956 the area planted went up from 19,100 acres to 22,100 acres, and then to 27,100 acres. I think that that is very creditable, and points to the success of the scheme of giving grants and of the provision by the Forestry Commission of useful advice and help. When we come to the other side of the picture, the building up of 3 million acres by the Forestry Commission, we find a very different and, I am afraid, very depressing position. If I have understood the Report aright, in the first decade only 61 per cent. of the target was planted, and only 27 per cent. of the land intended to be acquired was acquired. To give again the equivalent three years, 1954, 1955 and 1956, we find that the area planted went down from 70,400 acres in 1954 to 67,900 acres in 1955, and to 62,400 acres in 1956: in other words, from 1954 to 1955 we had a drop of 2,500 acres, and from 1955 to 1956 a further drop of 5,500 acres.
So far from keeping up to the target aimed at of 65,000 acres a year, in 1956 we are 2,600 acres down. But, unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. If we look at page 43 of the Report, we find that in this year forest fires accounted for 4,078 acres—another big gap in our forests. Noble Lords may say that it was an exceptional year, and we should all admit that it was one of the worst years we have ever had for forest fires. But there will be other bad years, and that is something that we must take into account in our general forestry programme. In spite of the loss due to fire, we still allowed 7,500 acres clear felling. So we are down by some 14,000 acres. What is the reason for this tremendous and steady drop? Instead of going up and up, as the plan envisaged, we are going down and down.
In the Report the Commissioners rightly point out that the whole trouble is that they cannot acquire enough land for planting. Luckily, they had a certain amount of reserve land which

557
allowed quite good figures of planting in the early years, but this has been used up, and since that time they have not been able to get hold of the necessary land for planting. That is a fairly clear statement, and, as we saw before, only 27 per cent. of the land which was desired has actually been acquired. On page 218 they go on to say—and this shows that it is not a question of the land not being there:
"There are undoubtedly areas in private ownership not at present being used to the full for food production which would be admirable subjects for afforestation by the Commissioners but have not been offered for sale voluntarily."
In fact, I think the whole tenor of the Report is that there is a vast quantity of land which is eminently suited for planting trees but which, for one reason or another, the Forestry Commission cannot get hold of. What is to be done about this? Surely we are all agreed that we must have this land and that we must plant these trees in one way or another. One answer would be, I suppose, to give more money. If people are offered enough money for that sort of bare land, surely they will part with it. But what the Treasury would say to that suggestion, at a time when we are all being urged to economise and pull in our belts, and when Lord Hailsham has told us that we are fighting a six months' war against inflation, I do not know. But I think it would be a terrible mistake, however desperate the battle of inflation may be, if we allowed a fifty-years' programme upon which our whole national safety depends to be imperilled. That is one way.
Another small way, I suggest, is in the dedication scheme. I think the dedication scheme, of which all your Lordships are aware, is an excellent one, but I wonder whether one small modification might not help to promote the scheme further. When an owner dedicates his woods, and plants according to the plan, when all the timber has been felled, many years hence, he has pledged himself, and, as I understand it, his heirs and successors, or the heirs and successors in title, never to use that land for anything except forestry. I wonder if that particular restrictive covenant on the land is not one of the psychological barriers stopping people from dedicating their woods. They feel that they are losing the intrinsic value of the land, by having it used only for
558
forestry. That is not a big point, but I know of one or two owners of woodlands who have taken that point of view, and I suggest that it might be looked at by the Forestry Commission and by the Government.
But, of course, the whole answer to the question, if you cannot get this land, if you cannot offer enough money to buy it, is compulsory purchase. This is something which the Forestry Commission have set their faces dead against. To quote the Report again, they say (on page 8) that they believe that the use of compulsory purchase in any but very exceptional circumstances would not in fact achieve the purpose they have before them—that purpose, naturally, being to acquire the land and plant the trees. But they do not say in the Report—at least, I have not been able to find it—why. They go on to refer to all sorts of amenities they are willing to offer land owners, hoping that in time they will be more reasonable, but there is nothing beyond these pious hopes. I would suggest that the principle has been accepted by all of us, that in the event of land not being properly used—whether it be agricultural land, land for production or for forestry—such land can be compulsorily acquired at a fair price. That is something we have all accepted in agriculture, and I do not see why the Forestry Commission should not in certain circumstances use their compulsory powers. Perhaps the Government do not like this idea, but it seems to me to be the only answer. So far from making it more difficult, or, as the Forestry Commission say, so far from it not achieving their purpose, I think that that threat in the air would make owners more willing to sell voluntarily. It might also encourage people to join in the dedication scheme, because one important point of the dedication scheme is that once an owner has dedicated his woods they are free from the danger of any possible compulsory purchase. If it is true that the Government will not accept that idea, we should like to know what other answer they have to remedy this tremendous fall—not a standstill, but a fall—in the necessary planting of our woods.
One other question which I think is interesting and important is that of common land. The Forestry Commission estimate (though they wisely point out that this is only a rough estimate, because no full facts or figures can be given of common

559
land without a proper survey being carried out), that about 800,000 acres of common land in this country is economically plantable for trees; and they suggest that out of that area something like 400,000 acres might be planted. The big difficulty is that of "rights of common," and I should be the last of your Lordships to wish to infringe those rights. I think that in a country like ours, with an enormous population in relation to the land, to take away what rights we have and what few open spaces are available for that population would be devastatingly bad in every way. But there are, I understand, large areas of this common land which not only are not used but are unusable—covered with bracken, brambles and so forth—and which could well be planted and, if properly planted and well planned, could, in course of time, even add to the amenities—provide pleasant woods through which eventually people may wander.
The big difficulty, as I understand it, is always the powers of acquisition. It requires the agreement of all the common owners. which it is usually impossible to obtain. There is always someone who cannot be found, or who turns up later: or one man who sticks out. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government might consider some minor legislation which would alter the necessity for a unanimous decision into one of, say, a two-thirds majority—that is to say, if two-thirds of the common owners agreed that woodland could be planted, it could, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, be taken over and used for forestry. There is one interesting proposal put forward by the Commission on parish forests (which would be equivalent to the communal forests which they have on the Continent) which might interest the local inhabitants in having their own woodlands. Whether it is the parish or the rural district council who would be responsible, they would be helped and advised by the Forestry Commission, but would look after these forests themselves and would eventually reap the profit. That seems to me a possible development and well worth examining. I do not wish to detain your Lordships much longer, but I do want to urge the fact that we are desperately short of land for these forests and that we must get it somehow. If we
560
cannot get it voluntarily, it seems to me that the Government must look at ways and means of getting it compulsorily.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, like everybody else, I deeply regret that this Motion which was put on the Order Paper last July by Lord Jowitt cannot be moved by him. He was a very good friend of forestry and, indeed, to farming, and this Zuckerman Report covers so many subjects on which Lord Jowitt had so often spoken in this House, with so much knowledge and wisdom, that we must particularly feel his absence in debating it. I think that this Report is by far the best document on the subject which has yet been published. The Committee's analysis of the situation is brilliantly lucid. They have evidently taken the greatest pains, not only to ascertain all the relevant facts but to set them down in their right proportion. I hope that the Report will be carefully studied by all the Government Departments concerned. I do not yet know whether my noble friend who is to reply is in a position to tell us what the Government are going to do about it. If he could do so it might make the debate a little more interesting than it is at the moment.
On marginal land, I do not think the Committee have exaggerated when they tell us, on page 14, that if 3¼ million acres of upland grazing were improved to a fairly moderate extent, we should gain between 100,000 and 130,000 tons of carcase beef, which is equivalent to one-third of our total beef imports, and which would have a valuable effect on our foreign currency position. I think the Committee have done right to point out that although the hill farmer is getting a great many kinds of special Government assistance which nobody else gets, the total amount of assistance which he receives in the end is, in fact, much less than the assistance received by the ordinary lowland farmer, because the hill farmer is not usually producing the end product on which Government deficiency payments are made. In my opinion, perhaps the most important kind of assistance to the hill farmer is the subsidy on hill breeding cows. Although a great many farmers are not making as much use of this subsidy as they ought, it is doing an enormous amount of good,

561
and I am sure my noble friend will agree that since it takes a very long time to build up a herd of breeding cows in the Highlands, the continuance of this subsidy ought to be assured for a reasonable period, and it should not be chopped and changed about whenever we find that we want a little more of one product and a little less of another.
As for capital improvements, assistance is now given by the Government, first, under the Hill Farming Act which came first (that applied only to the Highlands) and next by the Marginal Production Act, which brought in the uplands and foothills but also covered the Highlands, so that there is a certain amount of overlapping. It is much quicker and more efficient, as a rule, to get an improvements scheme through under the Marginal Production Act, because you have to deal only with an official of the Department of Agriculture, instead of having a long three-cornered correspondence between the owner, the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural executive committee. Although we are often accustomed to complain about the slowness of the Civil Service, I think the movement of a good civil servant is sometimes almost like that of the Russian earth satellite when compared with the movement of the average agricultural executive committee. If there is any likelihood of having some Consolidation Act co-ordinating all these pieces of legislation, I think it would speed up things very much. It would make matters considerably more efficient if the Hill Farming Act could be merged with the Marginal Production Act.
The Committee also point out—and this is perhaps rather a grave matter in some ways—that a great deal of this money which we are giving in public assistance to hill farming is being wasted, or at least is not being used as effectively as we should like it to be, because a great many of the farming units which are receiving the assistance are uneconomic in size or in shape. I do not think the Zuckerman Committee really expect that the Government are likely to accept their suggestion (I would not describe it as a recommendation, because it seems to be put in language which anticipates that it will not be accepted), that we should imitate the Dutch, who, we are told, are now carrying out a full-scale reorganisation of all their farm boundaries, which will end up
562
by everybody having a piece of land equal in value to the piece of land which he had before, but in a completely different place. I do not know anything at all about Dutch farming, and I think it is probable that when this scheme is carried out it may still leave a great deal to be desired, but I believe that the observations of the Zuckerman Committee on this subject should be prominently borne in mind by the Government if they are contemplating any amendment to our present extremely rigid and sometimes obstructive laws relating to agricultural tenure.
As for forestry, the Committee quote, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, one of the Reports of the Forestry Commission which says that they cannot continue to fulfil their planting programme, and that it is bound to decline in speed. The Forestry Commission describe this as unpalatable and the Zuckerman Committee here describe it as more than unpalatable, for reasons with which I think most of your Lordships are so familiar that it is not necessary to repeat them. The Zuckerman Committee propose that the Forestry Commission should now be instructed to extend its activities by acquiring small areas of land or leasing small areas of land to be planted, not exclusively for silvicultural purposes, but to help agriculture by providing shelter and improving the composition of the soil for the mutual benefit of forestry and agriculture. That, of course, is a thing which many private land owners have been doing for many generations. The only reason why the Forestry Commission has not been able to do much in that way, is that to plant a small area of land costs a great deal more per acre than to plant a large area. The Forestry Commission has in the past been expected to grow the maximum quantity of timber for the country at the lowest possible price, but there is no reason why the Forestry Commission should not do this if it is instructed to do so and provided with the necessary funds.
I am sure that the Zuckerman Committee do not mean to suggest—I certainly do not interpret them as suggesting—that we ought to have some uniform pattern of integration to be applied everywhere. There is no general rule which could be applied. In some places we ought to have 90 per cent. farming and 10 per cent. forestry; in others, 10 per

563
cent. agriculture and 90 per cent. forestry; in some places, perhaps 100 per cent. of one and nil of the other. Whatever we do, for heaven's sake do not let us stop the Forestry Commission from carrying out the existing programme on which they are already engaged! This proposition that they should now undertake as large as possible a programme of planting smaller areas for integration with agriculture must be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the existing activities of the Forestry Commission.
The Report, my Lords, I think quite fairly and reasonably, explains the reasons why the Committee do not expect that private forestry can make a major contribution to our national forestry programme. They do not add—although I think perhaps it ought to be added—that under the "Desirable Programme" which we are now supposed to be carrying out, and which was laid down by the Government after the war, private planters have fulfilled between 80 and 90 per cent. of their quota whilst the Forestry Commission has been able to fulfil only 61 per cent. of its quota. But, of course, the greatest contribution from private forestry has been from land owners to whom forestry is a major interest, and the kind of land owner with which the Zuckerman Report is principally concerned is the owner to whom agriculture is the major interest and to whom forestry is perhaps only a very incidental sideshow.
There is one definite proposal which the Committee make, on page 40, paragraph 136, which applies only to a limited number of persons; that is to say, to owner-occupiers of marginal hill areas. That may be a class of person who are not very numerous but I think they are very important for the purpose which the Report has in mind, and I think this recommendation deserves our particular attention. May I quote it?
"At the request of the owner, the Forestry Commission would draw up a plan for planting suitable parts of a farm, with an estimate of the costs of planting and maintenance. This scheme would then be submitted as the basis of an application for a Government loan. It the application were agreed, the money ' loaned' would be earmarked to be drawn upon by the Forestry Commission, who would carry out the work of planting and maintenance, either directly or by supervised contract work. Some of the labour might, in fact, be supplied by the farmer himself. … The
564
owner would, for the time being, have surrendered effective control of the planted areas and a low rate of compound interest would be added to the loan."—
That must have been written before the bank rate went up to 7 per cent.; anyhow, a rate of compound interest would be added to the loan to cover the cost of the work.
"The Commission would remain responsible for the supervision of the plantation until the sale of the produce of the plantation had repaid the capital and interest on the loan. The loan would not, however, be foreclosed unless the owner interfered with the management of the plantation by the Forestry Commission. If the plantation proved to be a failure …"—
if it did it would be the fault of the Commission who were managing it—
"the loan would be cancelled. The main advantage of such a scheme, as compared with the lease of the land by the owner to the Commission is that it gives the owner a personal interest in the success of the plantation, and that it is therefore likely to encourage him to learn something of the business of forestry."
My Lords, at first sight, you may think that this proposal is so much to the advantage of the owner and so much to the disadvantage of the Government that the Treasury would not be at all likely to accept it. Like the noble Earl. Lord Huntingdon, I feel a little sensitive about supporting this proposal at this particular moment, because I happened last Saturday to have a conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer (which I hope he will not mind my repeating) in which he said that the House of Lords was infinitely more troublesome than the House of Commons in pressing him to spend far more public money than he can afford.
But what does this proposal really amount to? If it were adopted, the Government would not have to spend more money. In fact, they have to spend less than if this land were leased or bought by the Commission, because some part of the work, fencing and labour, is to be provided by the farmer himself. The whole of the interest and capital of the loan has to be repaid out of the proceeds of the timber, so that the Treasury get all their money back, and it is not until the wood is finally felled that the farmer's grandson, perhaps in fifty or sixty years' time, will get some benefit which would all belong to the Treasury if the wood had belonged to the Forestry Commission. In return for that, what the Zuckerman Committee suggest we shall get is an encouragement to the

565
farmers to learn something about forestry. That, I submit to your Lordships, would be a very valuable gain to the nation, because what we want to do is to create a new breed of farmer who knows something about trees and who can distinguish between a tree and a weed, which a great many cannot do.
In France, for a very long time (I hesitate to mention France, because the present financial condition of France is not an example which anybody would want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow) the small peasant farmers have always been interested in forestry, and they have always, I believe, been assisted by Government loans. In the year when his daughter is born, the French farmer, with the aid of a Government loan, plants his little wood of poplars, which is a very quick-growing tree, and in the year when his daughter marries, the poplars are cut down and used to give her a small dowry. I am afraid that we could not do that in Great Britain unless the farmer's daughter were willing to wait until she was fifty or sixty years old before she married—I know of some who do, but it is an excess of prudence which ought not to be encouraged in the national interest. If it is done for the benefit of the farmer's grandson here, instead of his daughter, it may still give him an interest—and in my view the creation of real interest in forestry among the farming community, or a prominent section of it, would be an enormous gain to the nation.
I want to say only one more thing. I think that the Zuckerman Report has abundantly confirmed what many of us have been saying for a long time, that our Highland rural communities in Scotland can be saved from final extinction only by a greatly enlarged forestry programrne. We are, in all Parties I think, in favour of integrating forestry in the Scottish Highlands with agriculture, and with crofting and with fishing. and with small rural industries and everything else. But the fact remains that the only practical thing which so far has filled the empty schools in the Highlands with children, restored derelict Highland villages and created new social life there, is afforestation alone. While we are all anxious to integrate forestry with every other kind of occupation, do not let us bind ourselves to any academic and universal pattern of integration which
566
would reduce our hopes of regenerating and repopulating the Scottish Highlands.
4.52 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Report. I am sorry if I have to sound a discordant note among this noble hand of forestry enthusiasts, but in particular I must contest the point just made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that the only way to restore the Highlands of Scotland is by the planting of forests or the development of more forests in that country. I do not think that that is the way at all, and it is on that subject that I wish to speak.
Whilst I do not agree with all the conclusions in this Report, I think there is much good sense in it and it well deserves the attention of Her Majesty's Government. I welcome the Report if for no other reason than that it draws attention once more to one of the great unsolved problems of our country, namely, the neglect, the waste and the misuse of land to which a number of speakers have referred to-day, this in face of the fact that we continue to buy from abroad one half of all our food stuffs at a cost of £1,250 million per annum. That we should tolerate this state of affairs when the unbalance of payments creates such a strain on our economy is just incomprehensible.
In expressing my views on this subject I am referring especially to the High-lands of Scotland where the problem is most serious, and particularly to the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland, with much of which I am familiar. As is stated at page 47 of the Report, these four counties cover 8 million acres, representing 14 per cent. of the total land area of the whole United Kingdom. To illustrate the extent of the neglect and waste of land in this huge area, the Report tells us that the total population of these 8 million acres is only 220,000 people—men, women, and children—and that they carry only 1·5 per cent. of our cattle and 8 per cent, of our sheep. Doctor Johnson once said that "the Highlands seem very remote." But with modern transport they are only a night's journey from London, and this matter of the development of the Highlands of Scotland is, I beg your Lordships to believe, a national question.

567
My main criticism of the Report is that I think it places too much emphasis on forestry. As I say, I am sorry to introduce this note, but the Report deals with forestry, agriculture and marginal land, and it goes on in an able fashion to review the current use of land for agriculture and forestry, with particular reference to the marginal areas. Reference has been made in the Report, and it was mentioned by at least one speaker this afternoon, to the strategic value of home-grown timber. It has been suggested that we should develop forests sufficient to maintain our timber supplies in the event of a war of up to three years' duration. Surely, modern methods of warfare now being planned make any such idea unthinkable. I certainly disagree that such a contingency should be accepted as a solution for the marginal lands in the Highlands, or I think for anywhere else.
My own view is that forestry should be developed only where the land is unfit or unsuitable for agricultural purposes, and particularly for the production of food. Away back in the dawn of history in Great Britain the whole country was covered with forests. It was a forestry paradise, and it has needed much sweat and tears in the days since then to clear the land and make parts of Great Britain what they are to-day. When a Scottish settler goes to Canada to clear and improve agricultural land in, say, Ontario or British Columbia, his biggest enemy is the tree which he has to remove, including the enormous stump which grows from Sitka spruce and Douglas fir, the stumps of which can be seen littered over many parts of the Highlands of Scotland to-day. I am afraid that if we were to give some of our forestry enthusiasts their heads our grandchildren might well be confronted with a similar situation in some parts of the country within a hundred years from now.
On the other hand, I agree with the Report that there are areas, particularly on the hillsides and high lands, where forestry could be developed. There should be more amenity planting of trees, to provide shelter belts for animals and to maintain the scenic beauty of the country. On no account should the Government allow any more planting on low ground, particularly in the glens of
568
Scotland, where the land is capable of agricultural use and particularly the carrying of livestock for food.
I personally think that forestry schemes in the Highlands, and probably elsewhere, should be under Government direction and control. Of necessity, many of these schemes must go through the land of a number of different owners. There are considerations other than those of pure timber production economics. There is the question of windbreaks and amenity reasons of one kind and another, which make it desirable that forestry developments should be State-owned, that the land should be purchased by the State and developed by the Forestry Commission. I think that the Committee hinted at this in one or two sections of the Report, but. I must confess, very timorously, no doubt having regard to the politics of the Government which they knew would be reading the Report later on.
But assuming that all this could be done, we are still left with the over-riding problem of how to get the great areas of the so-called marginal lands in the Highlands developed for agricultural purposes, for the production of food, and to attract men on to the land to do it. In my opinion, nothing of any real consequence can be done in this matter so long as so many of the great estates in the Highlands of Scotland are owned and maintained primarily for sporting purposes. There are, of course, notable exceptions—men, including Members of your Lordships' House, who are blazing the trail and showing how the Highlands of Scotland can once more become a great storehouse of food and meat for the rest of the country.
The difficulty of getting access to the land, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland, whether for agriculture or forestry has been referred to by several speakers in this debate. There are ways and means by which this could be done, but this is neither the time at which nor the Motion on which to develop that. I hope, however, that Her Majesty's Government will try to arrange to open up those 3 million acres of deer forest land which we have in the Highlands of Scotland, half of which is quite capable of development for stock and food production, so that men who want to get on the land for farming may be able to do so.

569
I welcome the Report and I trust that it will have the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
5.1 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, first I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Lord Chancellor in relation to our late colleague, Lord Jowitt. Some very warm tributes have been paid to him this afternoon and I feel that no further words are needed from me, but perhaps it is most appropriate that on the day when tributes are paid to him we should be discussing a subject which was very near to his heart. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, took over this Motion which was in the name of Lard Jowitt, and I am sure we are most grateful to him for arranging for this debate on this particular day.
I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing on behalf of the Government our thanks to Professor Solly Zuckerman and the Natural Resources (Technical) Committee for the full and detailed study which they have made of the problems of the hill and upland areas of Great Britain and of the contribution which agriculture and forestry might make towards their solution. The Committee emphasise in the present Report the vital place in our national agricultural economy of the hill and upland areas as a breeding and rearing reservoir for cattle and sheep. They argue that if the general depopulation of the outlying and remote areas continues there is a risk of losing the present production of these areas instead of gaining the additional production of which they are capable. They conclude that the development of agriculture in these areas will not be sufficient by itself to reverse the economic trends which lead to depopulation and they suggest that the solution lies in a policy of integrating forestry and agriculture.
Integration is, in fact, already the established policy of Her Majesty's Government. We accept the view that the closest integration of forestry and agriculture in the hill and upland areas of Great Britain will be of benefit to both and to the marginal hill areas as a whole. We agree that agricultural and forestry interests
570
should be co-ordinated locally as they are on properly managed estates, like those mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, to-day. As the Committee say, the extension of forestry, properly integrated with agriculture in the hill and upland areas, will help to preserve and strengthen the rural community, and, clearly, the development of agriculture and forestry in the hill and upland areas must march hand in hand. The extension of forestry and the measures that the Government are taking under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts are complementary and not in any way conflicting activities.
The Committee suggest in their Report that much land suitable for planting may not be offered to the Commission because the attitude of the agricultural community to afforestation is one of suspicion and even hostility. This may have been sometimes true in the past, but I can assure your Lordships that the Forestry Commission are most anxious to be good neighbours. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, by planning and consultation, to iron out these difficulties, and in recent years we have heard less and less of them.
Her Majesty's Government share the view of the Committee that the Forestry Commission must manifestly be a good neighbour to the agricultural community. The Report quotes various examples of ways in which the Commission might do so. The Commission is already doing a very great deal in this field, in such matters as timing planting operations to meet the convenience of farming as far as possible; by the maintenance after they are required for forestry purposes of planation fences so long as they are needed in the interests of stock grazing on adjoining land; by the burning of heather or rough grazings at the expense of the Commission on farm land immediately next to their plantations; by the loan of Commission staff to do this on repayment for farmers over wider areas; by giving a lead in pest destruction campaigns against rabbits, grey squirrels, foxes and other pests; by siting forestry roads as far as possible to serve agricultural as well as forestry needs; by making available to farmers heavy roadmaking and drainage machinery in areas where contractors' resources are scarce; and by the loan of forestry labour and transport to farmers at harvest-time in periods when forestry

571
work is not at its peak. In all these matters the Commission have done a great deal and are constantly seeking further means of improving these relations.
Perhaps the most important aspect, however, of the policy of integration is the pattern of planting. In the future this will become increasingly one of fairly small blocks on poorer, less accessible, or more exposed land, with farming continuing on the better land where the wintering capacity will be increased by the shelter provided by the trees. I hope that goes some way to meet some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter. This does not mean that the planting of land in large blocks will cease to be done. There may well be occasions when it is the most practicable solution. The Commission have always depended for a large proportion of their land on being able to acquire whole farms or estates and this will continue to be an important source; but the planting of land in large blocks is not necessarily inconsistent with the policy of integration and there is no reason why the Commission should not continue to plant in this way in suitable areas.
We look, however, towards more smaller-scale plantings in future and we hope that private owners will co-operate in making such areas available for afforestation. There is already a scheme by which owners who dedicate their land to forestry can obtain grants, and, if they wish, a loan as well. This does not, of course, meet the case of the owner who, while he wishes to retain control of his woodlands, lacks the men and equipment to carry out, for example, heavy clearance planting programmes—that, I think, was one of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Dundee. To meet this difficulty the Commission have introduced a new scheme which I feel is an extremely helpful one. Up to now, they have "peen prepared to lease land from landowners for planting purposes and the ranges of the leases have been anything from 99 to 999 years' duration. They are now prepared to enter into leases with a break as short as ten-year intervals. So a lessor can, if he wishes, recover the land and buy the plantations if he is able to show that he can manage them properly. I feel that this is extremely important, because it means that an owner can lease his land to the Commission, have the
572
trees planted, and yet not necessarily commit his successors to having the plantations run by the Commission. It would mean that his successors would have the opportunity of buying back that land at any of these regular intervals.
As the Committee point out in their Report, the Forestry Commission are as much concerned to encourage the creation of new forests on private land as with the development of State forests. In fact, I think I should be right in saying that, provided the trees are planted and maintained, the Forestry Commission do not mind at all whether they are planted on their land or on the land of private foresters.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the action which the Commission are taking to encourage private forestry under the dedication scheme, the approved woodlands scheme and the small woods and other grants, while assistance to cooperative forestry societies has always been one of the main features of the Commission's general policy.
In paragraph 126 of their Report the Committee mention the special position of afforestation in the crofting areas where, as announced by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in July, 1955, the Forestry Commission have been specially authorised to undertake plantations
"even if this means in some instances planting on land which will give a smaller return than is normally looked for".
The Committee suggest that this policy should be adopted as a national policy, but the Government do not accept this suggestion. We regard the policy which has been adopted in the crofting areas as an exceptional arrangement to meet the special difficulties of those areas, and we see no case for applying it to the hill areas as a whole. If the national forestry programme is to be soundly based, taking the country as a whole, schemes of afforestation should be capable of justification in their own right.
The broad recommendations of the Committee on the integration of agriculture and forestry are, however, very much in line with the Government's views and, indeed, have become to a very large extent our established policy. It is our policy to acquire land by agreement, to plant only the land that can best be spared from agriculture, and to pursue

573
throughout the objective of integration. I would stress that, in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, feels, we firmly believe that unless this land is acquired by agreement, and not by compulsion, we shall be building up a store of animosity from the agricultural community as a whole, which would be detrimental both to forestry interests and to the national interests.
The other main recommendation of the Committee was that efforts should be made to find new end-uses for forestry products. This is something which the Commission have very much in mind. They have already been successful in encouraging the establishment of new factories, using home-grown forest produce, and the substitution of such produce for other materials formerly used by existing factories. They are watching new development in the use of wood very carefully in case any new processes emerge which are suitable for introduction in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me about the proposal which is mentioned in paragraph 98 of the Report, for an O.E.E.C. productivity inquiry into the economics of small-scale pulping plants. I am glad to say that this investigation has been approved by O.E.E.C. who have appointed an eminent Canadian expert, Mr. P. R. Sandwell, to undertake it. He will be advising on whether small-scale pulping plants would be economic for this country and others and, if so, the minimum capacity which should be considered and the size recommended as most economic.
He is already collecting and studying data, and will be visiting Europe next March to carry out a field study of such things as location, labour, power, water and chemical requirements, capital costs and the quantity of timber needed. He hopes to submit his Report to O.E.E.C. by the end of September next year. If, as we hope, the result of this investigation is encouraging, the Forestry Commission and other Government bodies would certainly do all they could to encourage developments, for, as the Report says, it would help to solve the problem of outlets for thinnings and would provide a great encouragement to the development of forestry.
574
Early in their Report, the Committee discuss the justification for the forestry programme adopted in 1945 which aims, as several noble Lords have said, at a managed forest area of 5 million acres by the end of this century. They reach the conclusion that although strategic considerations have changed there is a greater economic reason now than before for investment in the planting of trees. This point was touched on both by the noble Duke and by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon.
In this connection, I think, your Lordships will be interested to know that the Government have decided to carry out a thorough review of the bases and objectives of forestry policy, taking full account of all the economic, social and defence factors involved. This review is being carried out by the interested Departments, with the concurrence and assistance of the Forestry Commission. The decision reached by the Government as a result of this review will be announced in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me how forestry would be affected by the proposed European Free Trade Area. The position on this is still as I explained in our debate on the Watson Report last April. It would not be possible, I am afraid, for timber products to be excluded from these arrangements in the same way as is proposed for agriculture. The exception for agriculture was not intended to cover raw materials of agricultural origin for industry, such as cotton, wool and timber. If we once started to propose exemptions in the industrial field, whether for materials or products, other countries would do the same, and then all the expanding export opportunities which we hope to secure from the free trade arrangements would disappear. It is not the intention, however, that any changes under the scheme should be sudden, but that the adjustments should be spread over a period of about twelve years, as the noble Lord knows.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, pressed for compulsory purchase, but, as I have said, I do not feel that we can ever see eye to eye on that question. We believe that it is fundamentally an unsuitable approach. The noble Earl also asked various questions about commons. As he knows, a Royal Commission on

575
Commons is sitting at the moment. Though, obviously, I cannot forecast when their Report will be published, like him I hope that it will be with us before long and that we may be able to take action on it.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was anxious to see the scheme under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts amalgamated with the marginal production scheme. The noble Earl will appreciate that that will need legislation, and although we are anxious to simplify these matters as far as we possibly can, it would need very careful thought.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I said, if the Government are going to have a consolidation Bill.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am sorry, I must have missed that qualification, but I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Earl has said. He also raised the question of amalgamation on the lines of the Dutch scheme. I understand that the Dutch scheme is not really applicable to this country because it deals with the fragmentation of holdings to an extent which we, thank Heaven, do not have in this country. They get, for instance, a holding of say twenty acres split in thirty or more separate plots and scattered over a large area and it is for the consolidation of these that the Dutch scheme is designed.
If I may say so, noble Lords have stuck commendably well to the motion on the Order Paper to-day, which relates to the Zuckerman Report, and there has been remarkably little straying from that Report. I feel that there are a number of problems in forestry which your Lordships would like to discuss within the measurable future, and I would welcome a debate on the issues affecting private forestry at any time before Christmas suitable to your Lordships. I think that I have dealt with most of the main issues raised by the Committee's Report and I have tried to deal with as many as I could of your Lordships' questions. The main conclusion of the Report is that agriculture and forestry can flourish side by side to the advantage of both and to the benefit of hill and upland areas generally. That is the foundation for our belief in the policy of integration and the social and economic benefits that can flow from it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, in rising again to speak, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have taken part in our discussion this afternoon. As the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, said, we have, within limits, kept to the Report, and we have had an opportunity, which I think may be unique, of hearing two different opinions from Scotland. At any rate, I think that the discussion has served its purpose very well. The noble Earl has been able to give us much useful information about the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government. He has invited us to discuss private woodlands again in the future, an invitation which I hope some noble Lord will take up. On that occasion, I hope that we shall have as interesting a discussion as we have had to-day. I raised this Motion as a labour of love. I have done what I sought to do and I think that your Lordships will agree that to-day has been an appropriate day for our discussion on forestry. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.