Lords Sitting of 20 November 1958

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

COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate, with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, certain enactments relating to county courts, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

WAGES COUNCILS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provisions as to abolition, and variation of field of operation, of wages councils]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): Your Lordships will forgive me for saying a word in explanation of a purely drafting point. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked me on Second Reading why we were repealing part of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1945 Act. I replied that the substance of the words proposed to be repealed were re-enacted in this clause of the Bill, Clause 3. I suggested that the noble Viscount might like me to confirm that
726
on the Committee stage, which I am very glad to do. This clause provides power for the Minister either to abolish a wages council or to vary the field of operation of a wages council on the advice of the Commission, and the procedure is exactly the same in either case. Therefore, the words proposed to be repealed in subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1945 Act become unnecessary and they are accordingly repealed in the Third Schedule of this Bill. It is a purely drafting point.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation which he has given, which is helpful, although I am not wholly satisfied. Perhaps I have not followed his words closely enough. Section 3 of the Wages Councils Act makes reference to commissions of inquiry without application for a wages council order. I am anxious to make sure that there is going to be something really effective in place of the work that was formerly done under the statutory order which the Government is now repealing. I am not thinking merely of the repeal of Section 6, subsection (2), although that is quite apposite to what I had to say on Second Reading. I might have put down a formal Amendment to omit the references in the Bill and so have avoided putting myself into some confusion with those who have been negotiating on behalf of the trade unions. I am most anxious to establish that the machinery which will exist for bringing into review the industries which are really unorganised by trade unions will be effectively dealt with, not merely by a wages council but by efficient inspection. The noble Earl will have gathered from the debate on this matter, in another place, from which I must not quote in detail, that there is grave anxiety about the position, and if he could assure me that there will be adequate machinery for protecting to the last degree the unorganised workers in these industries I should be much more happy.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I cannot, of course, anticipate what the Minister may do or what he may be advised to do under this Bill, but I can assure the noble Viscount that his powers under this clause will be fully as effective as those provided by the words in subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1945 Act which are being repealed by the Third Schedule to this Bill.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am much obliged. I must accept that in relation to this Bill, but the noble Earl will understand my increased anxiety, because we have an understanding in the House (which was very closely followed, I am bound to say, by the Conservative Opposition from 1945 to 1951) that we do not, as a rule, in this House move any Prayers on a statutory order; and we do not propose to depart from that practice. But somehow or other, I feel uneasy and that we are not fully safeguarded. No doubt the noble Earl will be kind enough to bring that anxiety on my part to the notice of the Minister.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

R.34 MEMORIAL
3.13 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange for the model (recently on exhibition in London) of the design submitted for a memorial to the crossing of the Atlantic and back by the R.34 airship in July, 1919, to be placed in the Library of this House; whether the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has sanctioned the erection of this memorial at the London Airport; whether Her Majesty's Government consider that a bronze memorial from this design, 14 feet high, would be a suitable object for exhibition at the principal gateway of Great Britain as an example, for arrivals from the Commonwealth and foreign countries, of British culture; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I confess that the Motion upon the Order Paper in my name is somewhat cryptic and difficult to understand, but I hope that it will be clearer to your Lordships as I unfold the tale of what has happened.
It was thirty-nine years ago, on July 2, 1919, that an early British airship, R.34 left Scotland and sailed to America, with thirty-two people aboard—at least that was the number known: curiously enough, there was a stowaway, so the airship
728
arrived with thirty-three—and four days later returned to this country safe and sound. In those days that was a remarkable pioneering feat. They were the first men of the old world to arrive in the new by air, and I think that that piece of aeronautical pioneering, odd as it may seem to us now, with aeroplanes instead of airships, should never be forgotten. The great Air League took the same view, that it should be commemorated, and they also thought that the commemoration should take the form of something to be put in the Airport of London. With that view I agree.
Then, my Lords, things started to go wrong. On the Council of the Air League was an art dealer, and you can well see that when you talk about art you hand the thing over to the expert. The expert asked a very modern sculptor to try his hand at producing a model, and he produced something which is now a matter of acute controversy. In order to be entirely fair, I tried to get the model of this object put into the Library of the House, and I got the consent of the Chairman of the Air League for this to be done. That was to have happened, so that all your Lordships could have had a look at the model to see what you thought of it. However, I have this letter from Sir George Pirie in which he writes to me:
"I am sorry to have to report to you that … the sculptor of the R.34 Commemoration project, is disinclined to allow the maquette of his design to be exhibited in the House of Lords. He feels that the maquette gives an entirely wrong impression of the real design and that, until one has seen the full size piece of sculpture in a proper setting and properly lighted, one cannot really appreciate it. As he is the de jure owner of the maquette, we have no option but to observe his wishes in this connection."
I am sorry about that decision, because I should have liked your Lordships to see the model and to adjudicate upon it. But I felt that if we were going to discuss this matter it would be wise to let your Lordships know what we were talking about, and accordingly I have placed outside the Chamber some photographs of the model which will give you some impression of what it is all about. You may think that it is an ugly photograph. I did not take it, however. It was issued by the Air League, so I cannot be blamed if it does not appeal to your Lordships' æsthetic senses.
My approach to the question of whether this memorial is objectionable or not does not depend on whether or not it is a work of art; it is based entirely on whether or not it is a suitable memorial. If we start arguing about art we always get bogged down in a mass of complications. Art is a funny thing, my Lords. As your Lordships know, there are many people who like statues of women with a porthole in their stomach and no face. The other day I saw a picture of some most disagreeable apples sold for thousands of pounds because it was said that they had a spiritual appeal. The other day there was a report of a gorilla which painted. He sold paintings very successfully—until it was discovered that it was a gorilla that was painting them! I am reminded of two people looking at the two yachts which were about to compete in the America's Cup—the "Sceptre" and the "Columbia". As they looked at them, somebody said, "One of them must be right; they cannot both be right." In this respect, if you put a Rembrandt against a Picasso you would be entitled to say the same thing—one of them must be right. It is not for me, of course, to say which is right—that is a matter for the expert artist. All I can say about art is that it is all good clean fun, with the art dealer and the art critic in the wings laughing up their sleeves. There, I think we will leave it.
But I want to impress upon your Lordships that people feel strongly about the suitability of this object. You must remember that this feat was achieved by an airship—something that we shall probably never see again. Does the picture convey to your Lordships any message at all about an airship, or does it convey to you the fact that it crossed the Atlantic? I must tell your Lordships that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who is ill, asks me to express his regret that he is not here. He had prepared a full speech on the subject, which he regards as most important.
Except for the Air League, who have got themselves manœuvred into this position, the whole aeronautical world is against the idea of putting into London Airport a full-sized object such as we are talking about, and it is on that particular point that I want to say some words later. I would ask your Lordships
730
to remember that I am not arguing whether or not this is a work of art. If it is a work of art then treasure it, do what you like with it: put it in the Tate Gallery, among the other objects there, if you want to treasure it. All I say is: do not put it at London Airport. I say with confidence that if we put it at London Airport not one person in 100 million, as they see this thing for the first time, will have the smallest idea of what it is about.
If it is a memorial to the crossing of the Atlantic by an airship should it not be at least something which reminds people of the brave facts of the past? I venture to question the propriety of the action of the Air League, who derive funds from the public, in getting us into this controversial field of modern art, trying to foist upon us an object which is disliked and found unsuitable by all aeronautical bodies—and even by those who subscribed the money to have a memorial made. Their reaction is, of course, their own affair, but it will be the cause of great loss of confidence, subscriptions and support, and I find that thought very deplorable.
All I am here to do is to ask Her Majesty's Government to think again about having this object put in London Airport. I should like to read your Lordships a letter from the head of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, so that your Lordships may know what the ordinary airman thinks about this. He writes:
"On behalf of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, I have been asked to express the feeling of airmen on the memorial to the Atlantic flight of the airship R.34, which it is proposed to erect at London Airport.
"Freeman of the Guild constitute a large body of the airmen of this country, engaged in flying British aircraft to and from all corners of the world—transport pilots, test pilots, aerial work pilots, pilot instructors, air navigators and even ex-airship pilots. We are not concerned with modern or any other art theories, though most of us would express our opinion of what is now offered to us as art in emphatic terms of disapprobation. We ask—what has modern art to do with us? Is this memorial to commemorate a passing phase in art and to advertise the artist, or is it to commemorate the feat of British airmen and the men who built the ship which carried them twice across the Atlantic? We knew these men. They were of us. We feel that we have not only a right but a duty to speak for them, and we feel intensely that this monstrous proposal is an outrage to their memories.

731
" The matter is made far worse by the proposed location of this ' work of art' at London Airport, where the flight of Alcock and Whitton Brown is already worthily commemorated. London Airport means something of peculiar import to the airman which no one else can share. To the passenger it is merely a station; to the architect and the engineer who built it, it is an achievement in functional construction; to many a place of business; but to the airman it is the harbour from which he sets forth and the haven to which he returns—mayhap after a stormy flight across the Atlantic such as this useless and unbeautiful thing is designed to commemorate.
"The argument we have seen, that art should be left to artists, who alone can evaluate it, is quite beside the point in the context of this proposal. We in the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators know the spirit of the men whose memory is to be commemorated, and we believe that we have an equal appreciation, with others, of the significance of the event; and we hope that public opinion will stop the perpetration of this outrage."
My Lords, I do not think the case could have been put better than in that letter, and it comes from the organisation which represents the active airmen of to-day. There is little more that I can say. I believe that the Minister is in a difficult position, but I should like him to tell us later in the debate, if he can, whether, even if he is powerless to stop this proposed action, he will at least make it clear to the Air League that they are doing something against the wishes not only of this House but of all aeronautical bodies in this country. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend who, as Secretary of State for Air soon after the First World War, had a great deal to do with the world of airships. Looking back, I can say that, of all the romantic phases with which I had to do, the development of airships, even though eventually it may have seemed to fail, was the most romantic. I well remember some of the men who flew in the R.34, and still more the men who flew in subsequent airships. They were a devoted and imaginative company who believed they were carrying out a great mission that was to transform the history of the world. I make that comment because it seems to me to show how entirely out of sympathy with that kind of spirit is the object that my noble friend has just been describing. I can well understand that the sculptor did not want it displayed in either House.
732
I do not want to go into the question of whether modern art is better or worse than more conventional art. All I wish to emphasise, and emphasise strongly, is that, as the noble Lord has said, this design is entirely out of keeping with the occasion it is desired to commemorate. I hope, therefore, that the House will not be deflected by any such answer as that this matter has gone too far and that Her Majesty's Government cannot now do anything about it. Moreover, I should have thought that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is in the nature of being the landlord of London Airport and that even at the last minute he can say: "No, we will not have this thing." I therefore hope that the result of the debate this afternoon will be that it will be said that we do not want this object at London Airport, and that, whatever the position which may have been reached, we wish not only that the question should be reconsidered but that any decision which has been taken in favour of it should now be changed. I need not say anything more, because each noble Lord, on looking at this photograph, can say for himself whether or not he thinks it is a suitable monument to a body of very romantic and gallant young men who thirty-nine years ago achieved very great success, who by all means deserve a monument in London, if necessary at London Airport, but who do not deserve to have their memory perpetuated by this ugly object.
3.30 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to say a few words against this Motion. May I say at the outset how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has put it down on the Order Paper, as I think it has given the House a chance to ventilate this matter. I do not know what your Lordships will feel about the Motion, but in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I felt, if I may say so with respect, that he was utterly wrong. Indeed, so far as the opinion outside this House is concerned he has a very authoritative body of people of informed opinion against him. For example, there is the Council of the Air League who commissioned this work—and a very imaginative commission I think it was. There is the Royal Fine Art Commission, appointed for this kind of purpose, and on which sit a very distinguished body of people.

733
Thirdly, there is the architect of London Airport who, I believe, has given his approval to the sculpture.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that the sculptor, Lynn Chadwick, was recommended by an art dealer. If I may say so with respect, I do not think that that information is quite correct. The sculptor was recommended by a senior official of the Victoria and Albert Museum. There is, of course, nothing surprising in this. Over a fairly long period of interest in the arts I have found that it is those people who have the fullest and widest acquaintance with art of many different periods who are most able to appreciate much of the art that is produced to-day. It is the man who has looked longest and closest and with the deepest appreciation at Romanesque sculpture who is able to see the greatness in the sculpture of Henry Moore. Some of the best lectures I ever heard in my life on Picasso, an artist who was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, were by our leading authority on Poussin.
The flavour of this Motion is, I think, slightly old-fashioned, because I thought that these attacks on so-called modern art were over and done with. I was taught many years ago that there is no such thing as modern art; there is only art, good art or bad art. Most great art is original. A good deal of it has produced attacks when it was first shown. There is nothing new in this; it has been going on for a great many years, at any rate since the Italian Renaissance. Even Michelangelo's David was stoned when it was first erected. Then one remembers those late 19th century French painters whose work fetches such large sums at auction sales to-day. Many of those provoked the strongest attacks and people used to feel most passionately that they were being insulted, personally insulted, when they were first shown. When Van Gogh was first shown at the beginning of this century people used to go and laugh at his work. Now, fifty years later, there were so many people trying to get into the wonderful Van Gogh exhibition at the Tate Gallery that there were queues all down the Embankment. Here is an artist who, I suppose, has probably given more pleasure to more people than almost any other artist who has ever lived.
734
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that the art dealers (I am trying to recall his words correctly) and the art critics were constantly laughing up their sleeves. My Lords, I do not think that that is fair, if I may say so. I have known a great many artists, art critics and art dealers in my life and I believe that they are sincere people with a great love and a profound knowledge of their subject, and I do not think it is fair to accuse them in this House of being charlatans. It is thus obvious, I think, that after a period of say, thirty to fifty years, art which is often attacked when first produced then becomes deeply appreciated. There were those French impressionists who were attacked more than fifty years ago; now the only attacks are on successive Governments for not having had the foresight and the generosity to purchase their works for public collections when they were still obtainable at reasonable prices.
With regard to the sculptor of this particular memorial, Lynn Chadwick, I notice that the Motion asks the Government whether they consider that it is
"… a suitable object for exhibition … as an example … of British culture".
My Lords, I think the mover of this Motion is really rather behind the times, because this particular sculptor is recognised in many foreign countries as one of our leading sculptors. In fact, I think we can be proud of his work as an example of British culture. At the Biennale Exhibition, the international exhibition in Venice, two years ago, he won an international award in competition against all the other competitors, sculptors from every country in the world. The judges were not just a few eccentric people, but curators and ministers, people with official positions from various countries. They included, amongst others, the Director of the Art Institute of Chicago, the Chief Inspector of Fine Arts in France, and also the Belgian Minister of Culture. All these gentlemen, sitting on this jury, considered that this particular sculptor was the one, out of all those working throughout the world to-day, who was the most qualified to receive an international award.
With regard to this particular commission, I feel that he is well qualified to carry it out. He was, I understand, a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm during the

735
war, and for my part I consider, from what one can tell from the model, that it well exemplifies the spirit of the memorial. The model itself is, I think, impressive; but one has to remember that it must be considered only as a model and viewed against a suitable background. The sculptor is probably right in refusing to allow it to be exhibited in your Lordships' House, because I think it would really be better to accept his offer to show the completed work at the Tate Gallery early next year when, I understand, it will be finished. Unless one is trained to look at these things, I think it is very difficult to imagine what the finished work would be like from this small-scale model. I suppose that the noble Lord who moved this Motion can tell what a jet airliner will look like from a blueprint, but for my part I should not have the remotest idea. I think, further, that this photograph does not give a good idea. Photographs very rarely give good ideas of works of art. They distort the scale and they distort the lighting, as this one has done. For instance, it gives the impression that there is a hole right through it, when this is not the case at all.
But, my Lords, better than this I think would be to let well alone. We are told that to-day the private patron has virtually disappeared—I do not think this is entirely true, but it is almost true—and that his place must be taken by the public body. Here is a public body which has shown, I think, remarkable enterprise in commissioning this particular work, and it is deserving of all support, because I feel that in the future this work will come to be accepted, just as so many works of art in the past which were attacked have been accepted, and that future generations will indeed be grateful.
LORD AMWELL: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am interested in his analogies. Could he tell the House whether Michelangelo's David has a horse's head growing on its neck? And if it has not, why not?
LORD STRABOLGI: I think, my Lords, it would be a little difficult for me to answer for Michelangelo. The point I was trying to make—and with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat it—was that works of art which are accepted to-day were often not
736
accepted when they were first shown to the public. That has nothing whatever to do with the style in which they were painted or sculpted.
3.42 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I rise, only for a moment or two, because I happen to be President of an Association which endeavours to look after the interests of airline officers, and I feel that perhaps it is my duty to represent to your Lordships the extreme indignation which many of the members of that Association feel over the matter which we are discussing to-day. They are men who are proud, as they have a right to be, of their profession; they are proud of the pioneering side of it, and they do feel the indignation of which my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has spoken in regard to what I can only call this monstrosity which is going to be used to commemorate one of the greatest feats in aviation. I also take particular pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in this matter, remembering, as I do, and have good reason to do, the immense services which he has rendered to civil aviation. Perhaps the noble Lord will not be surprised that his bringing forward this Motion has called to my mind an old colleague of ours in another place, Admiral Murray Sueter, who had such a great deal to do with the pioneering work on airships and who, I am bound to say, I felt met with a very inadequate reward for his services in that field.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, with his usual adroitness and in his most delightful manner, said that he was not going to enter upon the question of art and, having said that, then proceeded to give us what I can only call his extremely blistering views on what is termed "modern art". I could not possibly disagree more than I do with what he said in that respect, but I entirely agree with him about the utter unsuitability of the memorial which is proposed. It would be difficult to imagine anything more completely unsuitable than this proposed memorial, and I hope that those who guide the fortunes of the Air League, where they do a very fine job indeed, will realise that resentment is felt against one of the greatest feats of aviation being commemorated in such an unworthy and unsuitable manner. I further hope that Her Majesty's

737
Government may feel able to pay some attention to the request of the noble Lord that even at this hour the matter may be reconsidered.
May I, in conclusion, say one personal word? I feel that I have a personal interest in this matter because, although it was a very long time ago, it fell to my lot to have the privilege of opening London Airport, and I have watched since with admiration the development of that Airport and of the very fine and suitable architecture which has sprung up there. On that account I feel my own personal share of indignation that it should be contemplated that such a monstrosity should be put up in that magnificent airport, which is increasingly now the gateway through which the people of the world come to this country. I most strongly and warmly support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara.
3.47 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, the reason I am taking part in this debate is that I happen to be a friend of a very distinguished man who took part in the building of this airship. Not only did he do that, but he went in it to the other side of the Atlantic and came back in it. I must endorse most strongly every word that has been said against using this particular model (shall I call it) of—I leave it to the House to determine what to call it. It has already been called pretty severe names, and quite properly so: but to give it a name which would be understood by the ordinary man and woman in the street seems to me impossible.
R.34's Atlantic crossing was an achievement which warrants the most splendid memorial—one as to which there is no mistake about its identity; one that will be put in a place where it can be seen quite easily by a great many people, and one which will recall to their minds the great achievement of that year. This model—but one cannot call it a model. I was surprised at Lord Strabolgi. I tried to get into his mind to see what he meant, but I am bound to say that I could not do it. I feel that the House should indicate most strongly that we do not approve of this memorial to one of the greatest achievements of all time by our airmen. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will go to a Division if his Motion is refused, but I
738
should willingly go into the Lobby in favour of chucking this thing out, neck and crop.
3.50 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have one purpose, and one purpose only, in making a short contribution to this debate, which touches so closely my own profession of the practice of the art of architecture. We architects owe a deep debt of gratitude to sculptors for their mastery of form and texture, which have added gifts of incalculable worth to the adornment of the buildings which we design and their fittings.
It is a coincidence for me, if I may mention my personal affairs in your Lordships' House, that this debate should occur to-day, because this morning I have been at a building committee concerning a college at Oxford which I am building, and a model, a maquette, of a piece of monumental sculpture for that college was approved. In fact, the maquette is at the moment in my car outside your Lordships' House. Perhaps your Lordships would further forgive me if I recall, in passing, that I have myself produced some remarkably immature pieces of sculpture. I have worked in clay from the living model. So I have gained at least some insight into the host of difficulties that beset sculptors, and I can sympathise with the desire of some of them to break away from the bonds of truth and exactitude. If this has led to as strenuous a controversy as I think there is in art as a whole, it is a healthy sign. Art would be in poor shape indeed if it did not rouse these lively feelings on each side, though, in passing, I must regret that the conventional opinions of tradition are not better ranged against the publicity-guided missiles of mere sensationalism.
But it is not on the question of the wide divergence of opinion between conventional and experimental that I wish to speak. I rise, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has done this afternoon, to stress the importance of the proper relation between any artifact and its location and purpose. What is the reason for this memorial at London Airport? It is to record in lasting fashion a moment in aerial progress which was achieved by no archaic means nor by any of current contrivance. It has already a certain period interest about it, and it

739
is unlikely, I believe, to be further developed. But an airship, as such, is not particularly sensational or alarming in appearance. It accommodates itself to the element in which it floats, instead of riding jet-shod as the modern variant does.
I cannot be persuaded that this piece of sculpture can ever establish this stage of aviation or bring out the success of this particular project. It was most certainly a successful venture, not a disaster. Therefore, I feel that the sculpture should be, in appearance, an easily understood reassurance to the multitudes of not particularly perceptive travellers who come into London Airport. If, at the same time, it should add something of beauty to please and make happy those multitudes who will continue to arrive in increasing number, then all to the good. Perhaps a touch of gaiety would not be amiss for those of us who have sought it in the unlovely pilgrimage along the Great West Road. I see nothing here for tears. There is no hint of the ominous which this model seems to bring out. The model, somehow, is sinister and depressing. I came away with a feeling of depression after I had spent a long time yesterday looking at the maquette, which I was pleased to be allowed to see. Somehow it does not uplift as I feel most strongly it should do.
I also feel that it is too obscure and altogether inappropriate for a public sculpture. I am told that there is to be a plaque underneath describing the exploit and explaining perhaps what the piece of sculpture above means. I feel that the purpose of sculpture should be sufficiently apparent to a normal person, so that a long description of it should not be necessary. I was reminded of a verse by Benjamin Warfield, which perhaps I may quote:
"There is a place for everything
In earth or sky or sea,
Where it may find its proper use
And of advantage be."
I do not feel that this piece of sculpture could be of advantage at Heath Row.
3.58 p.m.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I rise for a few minutes to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I believe that in all that has been said during this debate the most telling
740
thing was the letter from the Master of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, a body of professional people whose lives are dedicated to the furtherance of the craft of airmanship and of the work of those who build the aircraft. It would surely be unwise not to consider seriously what they say in relation to the suitability or unsuitability of what my noble friend Lord Teviot could not give a name to and left to your Lordships to describe.
In looking at the photograph, I find it extremely difficult to know whether it is animal, vegetable or mineral, or male, female or neuter. I think one might say that its affinity to the men who did the job in this airship and flew it, to the people who designed and constructed it, as well as to the people who are flying and constructing our aircraft today, and those who are carried by them, plays a great part in deciding the suitability of the memorial that should go at London Airport. I certainly should not like—and I am sure your Lordships feel the same—to be carried in a thing like this. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said that the senior official of the Victoria and Albert Museum recommended a sculptor, and he may be able to find a place for it in the museum.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but they have already some of his work there.
LORD WALERAN: No doubt they will be very pleased to have another example.
I was gratified to hear my noble friend Lord Mottistone with all his professional experience, speak as he did. He clearly put the relationship of what should be to do with the air in relation to what the public expect to see—not something that is quite frightening and horrible. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will find some method of preventing this thing going to London Airport. After all, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation can say what shall or shall not go on to the tarmac at London Airport, and therefore I should have thought that there would be no difficulty about his saying, "I am afraid we cannot have this". If I get the feeling of the House correctly, from what I have heard to-day and from the approval I have heard of certain things said in the speeches, I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara,

741
if he is not satisfied with the reply that he receives, will divide the House on his Motion. I am sure that, if he does so, he will find the majority of your Lordships behind him.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as a former Air Minister, both Service and civil, I should like to reinforce the appeal which has been made by my two old friends Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Templewood. I am not going to express any opinion of my own on what I believe is known as non-representational art. But purely on the artistic side I am quite content to range myself with my noble friend Lord Mottistone, than whom there could not conceivably be in this House, or almost, I think, outside it, a greater authority on what is suitable. He has tremendous achievements to his credit, both ancient and modern, and he can appraise, as perhaps none of us can, certainly from a photograph, how this thing is likely to look when it is put up. I should hesitate for a long time, even if I liked the thing, from going contrary to his judgment.
But I base my appeal to the Minister on quite a different issue. Even if this thing (I beg its pardon: this chosen instrument—that is the Civil Aviation expression) is something of great artistic merit, I do not think a memorial ought to be put up which is disagreeable and distasteful to the majority of people who are most directly concerned. Let me take a simple analogy. Happily, this airship achieved two triumphs, although the successor, unfortunately, came to great disaster. But let me take a simple example. If we are putting up a war memorial in our village, would anybody in his senses dream of putting up a memorial which was distasteful to the relatives of those who had fallen in the war? It seems to me that the matter is as simple as that. Surely, where a memorial is to be put up to celebrate this great triumph of air design and of airmanship, the best people to consult on whether it is suitable are those who were associated with the triumph. Some of them go back a very long way—some of the old pilots, as we have heard, are still there. Surely they are the people who can best say whether they think this is appropriate and suitable as a memorial.
I do not know what is the exact power of the Minister, but, speaking as a former
742
Minister, I should have said that there was no doubt that nobody could put anything up on London Airport without the permission of the Minister. He is responsible for the design and the administration, and I am certain that it would require his assent. But even if that were not so plain, I am equally certain that if the Government, with the sense of this House behind them (and I am sure the feeling in the other place would be the same), said to whoever was proposing to do this that they ought to hold their hand until there had been more consideration, and possibly something like a referendum taken on whether this would be agreeable or not, that would be the right course to adopt. Once it goes up, of course, it will be too late. Therefore, I would beg the noble Earl who is to reply to say to-day, what I am sure he has the power and authority to say, on behalf of the Minister of Civil Aviation, that this scheme will not be proceeded with until a great deal more consideration has been given to it and a consensus of opinion can be assembled upon it.
4.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, your Lordships can have no doubt whatever of the strong feelings which the various speakers have on the subject of the Motion which is before us to-day. However, before I come to what I know your Lordships are waiting for me to say, with your Lordships' permission I should like to go over some of the past history of this memorial, some of which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his opening speech. As your Lordships know, the first crossing of the Atlantic was by Alcock and Brown on June 14, 1919, in a Vickers Vimy bomber. The second crossing of the Atlantic was by this airship, the R.34, in July of the same year, and was followed four days after by a return flight across the Atlantic.
The achievement of Alcock and Brown has already been fittingly commemorated by a memorial at London Airport which no doubt many of your Lordships have seen. The Air League of the British Empire, whose contribution to British aviation is too well known to your Lordships to need special commendation from me, decided a year or so ago that it was high time that the achievements of

743
the R.34 should also be commemorated. As a result, they have already arranged for a commemorative tablet to be placed at East Fortune in Scotland, the airfield from which the R.34 took off on its historic flight. I understand that they have also arranged for a similar plaque to be placed at the former airfield at Mineola, Long Island, where the airship completed the first stage of its voyage. They have felt that there should also be a memorial at the most important airport in the United Kingdom, London Airport.
On learning that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation planned to erect a new terminal building there for long-haul passengers, including many who will be embarking on Transatlantic flights, they considered that this building would be the best site for the display of such a memorial. The Air League, therefore, approached my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who approved this proposal in principle. The Air League then commissioned Mr. Lynn Chadwick to prepare a design, which was in due course submitted to my right honourable friend for his acceptance. Incidentally, the model, if the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will forgive me, or maquette as other noble Lords call it, can be seen at any time at the Savorin Galleries in Cork Street, not far from Bond Street.
In accordance with the practice of Government Departments, and of previous Governments, when there is a question of exhibiting sculpture in public places, my right honourable friend consulted the Royal Fine Art Commission, who are ready to accept the memorial in this form. My right honourable friend thereupon informed the Air League that a place would be found for Mr. Lynn Chadwick's memorial at London Airport, in the event that they decided to go forward with this proposal. My right honourable friend is aware that the present design—which, incidentally, I am informed, in full scale will be only 8 feet, and not 14 feet, high—has been the target of hostile criticism in the Press, though I should like to say here, in all fairness to the sculptor, that the photograph, I consider, does no justice to the maquette itself.
As your Lordships have heard, the criticism is broadly of two kinds: that the sculpture has no intrinsic merit and,
744
I think more important in your Lordships' eyes, that the design is not suitable to commemorate R.34's achievement. I do not propose to enter into discussion of either of these two lines of criticism; I am in no way qualified to do so. I should, however, like to make the position of my right honourable friend perfectly clear. As regards the suitability of the design as a memorial to the R.34, my right honourable friend regards that as a matter within the discretion of the Air League itself, who have commissioned and will be paying for the memorial. Your Lordships should remember that the Air League is a body of great authority in British aviation. I should at this point mention that this particular design was not the original choice of the Air League. An earlier design which the Air League had put forward was considered by the Royal Fine Art Commission, to quote their own words,
"to be quite unworthy for the purpose for which it was designed."
As regards the artistic merits of the design, my right honourable friend feels that, in accordance with normal governmental practice, which I have already mentioned, he must be guided by the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission. My right honourable friend does not see how he can veto the Air League's proposal, in view of their standing in the aeronautical world. Here I must cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, when he said in his speech that the whole of the air world is against it. How can it be, if the Air League itself is for it? Furthermore, it has the weight of the Royal Fine Art Commission behind it. But I understand that the Air League have recently reviewed the position in the light of the views expressed in the Press and elsewhere about the suitability of their design, and no doubt they will take note of the strong views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House today. I will bring your Lordships' views to the attention of my right honourable friend who has undertaken to advise the Air League of those views.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl has made the most amazing speech. He has given me the impression—I do not know whether it is the same impression that he has given to

745
other noble Lords—that we can do nothing because the Air League have come to a particular decision. Surely the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is responsible to Parliament for an action of this kind, and we cannot accept as a fact that because the Air League like a particular design we and the Minister are bound to accept it. I know a little about the Air League myself. I was its President until a year ago, and I can tell noble Lords that if I had been still President no recommendation of this kind would have come from it. At any rate, I myself am not at all satisfied with the noble Earl's Answer. He said that the Air League will think again, but he has implied that if they come to the decision that they still like this design we shall be bound to accept it. I give him notice that I do not feel that I am bound to accept it at all, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will divide, if he thinks fit to-night, and in any case will hold his hand perfectly free to continue his opposition to this scheme.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount misunderstood what my noble friend said. Many of us have heard of this matter for the first time this afternoon. Certainly this is the first time I have seen a photograph of this object. My noble friend has indicated that my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is not in an easy position here. Here is a private body which has commissioned a work of art; the Royal Fine Art Commission have approved it, and in the normal case my right honourable friend, or any Government Minister placed in that position, would give consent. There is no doubt that your Lordships have expressed an almost unanimous view which should be heard. My noble friend was saying that he would tell his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation of the view of this House, and that the Air League would also take note of it. I will undertake, too, to tell my right honourable friend of this debate, and ask him whether he can consider this matter again in company with the Air League. We have all had this subject brought to our attention at rather short notice, and
746
we should like time to think it over. I would certainly be prepared to do that.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who has intervened with characteristic courtesy and sense of the House. But can we get the matter a little clearer? Obviously, the Minister will consider what has been said to-day. This, if I may say so, is entirely the Minister's responsibility. We have all, as Ministers, got into difficult positions when we have given a decision or permission, and then had to think again. Sometimes we have thought again because we have had second thoughts ourselves, and sometimes we have thought again because another place or this House has given us some good advice. None of us has felt in the least that he could not change his mind. The responsibility is the responsibility of the Minister. I believe the whole House would be satisfied if the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, could say that the Minister will not take a final and definite decision upon this matter until the House has had an opportunity of either approving or disapproving it. I think that would be fairer to the Minister, and I feel sure that the Leader of the House could give that undertaking.
THE EARL OF HOME: I should rather like to clear the position, if I may. I am not absolutely clear, but I think the position is that the Minister has said that this statue may be put up. It might mean a revision of a decision; of that I am not absolutely certain. I cannot stand up here and say that the Minister will be willing to revise that decision; he may have taken it, and he may be unable to revise it. But I will undertake to ask him to have a look at the whole situation again, in the light of this debate. Then perhaps, if the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, cares to put down an Unstarred Question at a later date, after time for consideration, we could have another debate.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I think the noble Earl the Leader of the House is fortunate that I am such a docile man, because there is no doubt that, were I to go to a Division, I should win handsomely. But I appreciate the fact that my Motion is not a very clear-cut one. If I said that the Minister

747
should do this or that, we might divide. With the assurance of the noble Earl the Leader of the House that he will use his forensic power to persuade a rather obstinate Minister to do the right thing, we will leave it; but if he does not do the right thing I reserve my right to bring up this question again, on a definite Motion, and divide upon it. With that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, so long as I am not understood to accept that the noble Lord is docile or that the Minister is obstinate, I will certainly have a talk with my right honourable friend. But I can give no guarantee. If there is no satisfactory outcome for the noble Lord the Parliamentary procedures are open to him.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITAIN'S POPULATION AND RESOURCES
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE rose to draw attention to the Third Report of the Migration Board; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have instituted research to discover how soon this country is likely to reach the optimum population to match resources of water, farm land and housing. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House has had an excursion into the realms of art, and now I fear that it is my duty to bring it down to the level ground, down to earth. My Question has been on and off the Order Paper since mid-July, and it is therefore sad that Lord Pakenham's timely Motion should have so closely preceded this rather similar discussion.
The statistics are surely humdrum, but vital to ourselves and the Commonwealth. I should like to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House, because I understand that it was he who initiated this Oversea Migration Board and kept it in being. In their Third Report the Board claim a result that is only partially successful, owing to the difficulty in reconciling statistics from different countries using diverse bases for information; but we ought certainly to acknowledge gratefully (and I have already done so) the perseverance shown by the noble Earl and by the Board in continuing to
748
gather the figures for this purpose. The fact is that last year's figures were the first set that enables us to gain even a tolerable picture of the position—by which I mean the balance of the "ins" and "outs" on the migration front.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, spoke yesterday about a heavy loss, on balance, through migration out of the country. I think that if he saw the information contained in this Report he would see why I want slightly to correct his statement. Our balance of loss by emigration is infinitesimal compared to the size of the population. The figure of 27,000—which is only a guess, as I shall show—represents only ·01 of 1 per cent. of the population. The figure that matters is the approximate yearly increase by births, which is round about 800,000. The balance of loss to countries other than the Commonwealth runs to about the same total; that is, of the order of 300,000. But these were figures which I culled from the Government Information Centre publication of 1957, relating to the year 1955.
Chapter 1 of the Board's Report contains this unsatisfying sentence at the middle of paragraph 3:
"Our immigration statistics in particular are understated. There is also a heavy flow of labour from the Irish Republic, and there is evidence to suggest that this runs at a rate of about 60,000 per annum. This is a gross figure, and we do not know the extent of the return flow."
The figures presented are only for migrants between ports in this country and the five chief receiving Dominions—passengers by the long sea routes; that is, those longer than within Europe or the Mediterranean. Figures of the migration by short sea routes have not so far been obtained. Moreover, a considerable airlift to Canada has taken place in past years but is not here recorded, so that such statistics are (I quote) "seriously incomplete" and therefore misleading.
In their Report the Board themselves state that figures are by themselves no longer a valid basis for examining trends and formulating migration policy. For adequate statistics there is thus some way to go. Your Lordships will note that the opening sentence of paragraph 2 says:
"… the United Kingdom is almost alone among the major countries of the world in not keeping statistics of migration by air …"

749
I am sure there are enough civil servants, so they cannot have been set the task early enough. If your Lordships turn to the last page of the Report, you will see figures showing the estimated rise in United Kingdom population between 1956 and 1996, a period of forty years. The figures are 51 million at the earlier date and 55 million in 1996. The estimated rises in population are given us by the Government Actuary, in consultation with the Registrars-General. But I am concerned with the burden shouldered by the working population now, and again after eight years' time—I am not so concerned with forty years' time. On that last page the population is analysed by age groups, at five-year intervals. We find that, of our English and Welsh people 37½ million have to support 6½ million of the aged and the juvenile; that is, the able-bodied will be required to carry about one-sixth of their number. The 37½ million include the age group between 15 and 69.
I come to my first request of the Government. I submit that we do not know what the position is—whether our basic and essential resources match the present size of our population, which is increasing by roughly 800,000 a year, or will be likely to match this slowly increasing population in this overcrowded island, with unemployment likely, with the free trade area against us, with deficits in nationalised industries, coming deficits in the Insurance Fund and so on. We know the weight of taxation on our shoulders. With existing or coming commitments, is it likely to be less for our children? The presumed balance in loss of Population is small, but with most of our new entrants their earning power, education or financial standing do not match those of the people we have lost, especially to Canada. In other words, economically it is a disadvantageous exchange.
That really is the point of my reading this Report and the result of my attempts to find out all the relevant facts. That is what I come down to as the fact: that it is not an economic exchange and therefore, one might say, is not good for the country. Moreover, the housing accommodation of our lost emigrants will mostly have been at least of the class of council houses. That is not the case with the incomers, where those are of the general labour class. If the latter
750
have not a certain job to go to here, infallibly, unless they have savings, they will have to receive national assistance and crowd into houses wherever they can.
It might be interesting to see what the Ministry of Pensions supply in the way of figures showing the new entrants to the Insurance Fund in 1956 from overseas. From colonial territories there were 42,745; from the Commonwealth, 28,756; from foreign countries, 46,178 and, as I have said, from the Irish Republic, 60,000. When I originally put down a Motion on the Order Paper I was not going to mention the words "coloured" or "discrimination"; I was merely treating the thing as entry and outgoing. Page 9 of the Report deals with our losses to Canada. In regard to the cross-section of migrants into Canada, we find that Canada emerges as the country with the largest intake (unfortunately, to-day's papers say that unemployment is going to be at a figure of 300,000), but it is also the Dominion taking the largest portion of the younger age groups and the smallest proportion of the older age groups.
The Report further says:
"The broad conclusion which has emerged from our study of the statistics for 1956 is that, with the upward trend of emigration, there has been an increased loss of skilled and professional workers, in terms of absolute numbers."
Then on page 10, paragraph 20 (which deals with emigration in 1957) says:
"The dominating figure of United Kingdom emigration in 1957 has been the exceptionally heavy flow to Canada."
That country has seen a considerbale competition for conveying her migrant traffic. A development was the introduction of a special airlift which took about 18,000 migrants from the United Kingdom in 1956. During the first half of 1957 Canada took 72,000 immigrants. Of these, 60 per cent., or 43,000, are said to have travelled by air; and at a guess, 110,000 might be the total for the whole of 1957 from this country. At the middle of page 16 the Report says that
"there is little doubt that on balance we lost in 1956 more skilled and professional workers than we gained, and that we gained more unskilled workers than we lost."
These unskilled entrants cannot afford to become tenants of our style of council houses. Although various resolutions have been passed in this country that

751
clearance of slum property should be accelerated and modernisation enforced, much still remains to be done. "Prefab" colonies and caravan camps are an expression of the fact that the sort of accommodation which can be afforded is in short supply.
If it will not be denied that the housing needs of our population are not yet fully met, common sense surely says that the numbers of our present population should not be exceeded until housing accommodation is fully available, plus the forward provision of houses for the average yearly increment of house seekers. But if, as we are told, "immigrants without restriction" is the somewhat surprising official view, then certain town-neighbourhoods seem bound to suffer from congestion and discomforts. But if the Government are not yet seized of the importance of ascertaining the answers to my questions, I feel convinced that they must at any rate add to our available resources, which are at present, I suggest, insufficient. I ask for a temporary cessation of immigration, except upon conditions, until unemployment figures lessen, or, shall we say, for eighteen months. I do that because of the burdens being borne by our population and our various welfare funds. I want, therefore, if the Government would agree, to let an examination be started at once of resources, tabulated by immediate research.
My Lords, I am sorry to have been so long over this subject. I have done my best to compress it. I would submit that in a scientific age we must adopt a less happy-go-lucky attitude towards the implications of free entry for all comers. Turning to the phrase:
"Our traditional custom to grant asylum",
I should have thought that the presence here of Poles and Hungarians attests the validity of our boast. But in the early 17th century, when we received Protestants and Huguenots from France owing to King Louis XIV, our land was empty save for 5 million or so, When confronted by Napoleon we were 8 million. In the year of the Great Exhibition we numbered 18 million; and to-day in England and Wales we are 43¾ million. Those numbers have to be catered for and the first need is adequate water. Other things like land, housing and so on, follow.
Eighteen months ago a spokesman of Her Majesty's Government here rather decried an article in The Times by Professor Balchin giving details of the water consumption and needs for a certain list of cities, but in early September of this year the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers contributed a further warning in The Times as to the coming shortage of water. I take it that such professional testimony will not this time fail to evoke a response from Her Majesty's Government. At any rate, the article provides a point of support to one part of the Question on the Paper to-day asking whether Her Majesty's Government have instituted inquiries as to our basic resources.
As I have said, we are without sufficient knowledge as to how many months or years are estimated to lie ahead before demand equates supply. That is why I hope Her Majesty's Government will find out how near that day may be. I have mentioned water and I would now ask your Lordships to consider what is the real nub of the matter. Over the next eight years we shall have one million more mouths to feed and people for whom to find work, and each year 40,000 acres of food-producing "carpet" will be rolled up and replaced by concrete. I have the figures from the little Blue Book on grassland. In the twenty years from 1937 to 1957 there was a loss of 800,000 acres. There were 31,800,000 acres of grass and crops in the earliest year, 1937; and in 1957 there were only 31 million. It is all in print.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but could he give us a rather closer description of the little Blue Book to which he has referred?
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I am quoting from the Report of the Committee on the utilisation of grassland, which was issued last week, concerning the whole matter of grassland; and from that I got what I wanted and what I have always suspected—that we have been losing 40,000 acres a year. There it is, in black and white.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord is giving figures for the past but he has no right to prophesy for the future.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: Oh, no—how right you are! Remembering our experiences of food shortage in two wars and the existence of 500 submarines in envious hands, we shall not wish to do without these 800,000 acres. Nor shall we want to do without the crops that could be obtained if there were enough water for irrigation. The facts of the distribution of water are these: all the country to the south and east of a line taken from the Severn to the Humber is apt to suffer a deficiency in five years out of ten in relation to the amount of water that it should have and could use; and on the coastal lands in the south and east the deficiency applies in nine years out of ten.
That means that we must try to get a redistribution of water so that farmers shall not be denied the water they need to make good our loss of acreage, so that they may prevent their plants from drying out when the drought comes—because that wonderful series of experiments at Rothamsted showed that a plant cannot reach maturity in the same bloom if, at irregular times, it has been denied water. There must be continuous growth. Modern machinery has now been put into the hands of our farmers, and if only we can get a sufficiency and proper distribution of water we can grow vastly heavier crops.
But, despite the object lesson in spectacular land reclamation achieved by our neighbours and still proceeding without respite owing to the steady forward-looking of the Dutch nation, we do nothing in the way of following their example. I heard the other day that fate has ordained that the Dutch population should increase in ten years from 91 million to 12 million people. They are thick on the ground, and I submit that that applies to the Midlands and South of our country. The Dutch are in the process of actually increasing their land surfaces by one-ninth. Last year I visited the third of those huge polders which are now freed of salt water. A few years back I visited the first. The Dutch started this enormous £200 million project immediately after the First World War was over, and completed the draining of the salt water from the Zuyder Zee in 1932. That is pertinent, because we also are overcrowded and we do nothing about it.
In the Land Use Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
754
Food, they have a perfect set of tinted ordnance maps of saltings all round our coasts, and there is hardly an instance of a landowner being able to put up enough money to go in for such a scheme in part-shares with the Government. We are so denuded by taxation that landowners cannot do it. Why cannot a beginning be made by our Government to do what the Dutch have done—making use of these saltings? When those are put behind embankments the Dutch lease the land out for farming to capable tenants at very good rents. We must sometimes do something with the initiative of Government and not leave it all to private enterprise.
LORD SILKIN: Hear hear!
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: That is all I am going to inflict upon your Lordships now. I trust that what I have said is helpful. I am sure that the figures to which I have referred are correct, and I think it is a most interesting Report. Once we get further on the road to obtaining more helpful figures we shall be able to assess more closely where we have got in that problem which I have tried to put before your Lordships.
4.50 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I am sure all your Lordships are, to the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, for having raised this most important subject, which I think we could well have discussed before now. It has some bearing on what we were talking about yesterday, as the noble Earl said. I approach the matter from a slightly different angle. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, is primarily interested in this subject from the point of view of whether our resources in this country are able to support our present population, and that is, of course, a most important aspect of the matter. I approach it rather from the angle of whether we are, in fact, persuading or assisting enough of our own people to emigrate in order to build up a sister Commonwealth. The two matters are, of course, closely interrelated.
I believe that the noble Earl rather deplored the fact that we were replacing skilled labour, as he put it, by not-so-skilled labour coming into this country, thereby reducing our capacity and ability of production, without having the resources to maintain, let alone increase,

755
our present population. I feel that we could in fact allow, or persuade, more of our own nationals to emigrate without having to worry too much about any fall in production in this country, and that is the inference I gain from reading this Report. It is stated in the Conclusions, in paragraph 33 (3):
"… we can find no evidence to suggest that there was anything in the net migration movement in 1956 that need give cause for concern."
That is to say, this Board are not at all worried that we are losing more people than we are gaining. I should like to suggest that we might even increase the gap.
We are, in fact, losing on net migration only ·01 per cent. of the population, which is infinitesimal out of a population of 50 million. I feel, in view of the very real problem we shall have in this country if our population is going to increase by 1½ million over the next eight years, and by 4 million in the next generation (that is what the figures show; it is an intelligent actuarial guess and that is what we are ready to believe), that if that sort of increase is to come about, surely we can well afford to allow many more people—perhaps it is not a question of allowing but of persuading—to emigrate to these parts of the Commonwealth which have such a great need for them.
I decry the criticisms that were made in the last year in certain organs of the Press because there happened to be a rather unusual flow of emigrants to Canada. I believe that this is an admirable thing; and we learn from this Report that Canada cannot get as many people of British stock as she requires. I should rather like the noble Earl who is going to reply to refer to the Conclusions, paragraph 33 (1), where it says that the Commonwealth countries require between 150,000 and 200,000 people each year and that was not met in 1956. It is then suggested that this requirement may be more nearly met in 1957. Perhaps the noble Earl has some figures on the present position. I imagine that the requirements of the Commonwealth countries since 1956 have gone up very considerably, and I should be grateful if he would tell us what are the up-to-date figures.
At the same time it is noticeable that the immigrants are falling in number, or it was suggested that they would fall in
756
number in 1957 over the actual figures given for 1956. If here again the noble Earl could say what figures he has to confirm that suggestion, I should be grateful. Finally, when he replies, could he tell us what is the Government policy, not only in regard to the questions which the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, raised but also in regard to helping and assisting and positively encouraging emigration to our own Commonwealth.
4.55 pm.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, the natural trepidation which one feels in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time is in no way diminished—in fact it is greatly increased—by the quality of the maiden speeches to which your Lordships 'have already listened. Like my noble friends Lord Stonham and Lord Shackleton, I can claim that this is the second time I have risen in this Chamber to make a maiden speech, and for precisely the same reason as theirs—namely, that thirteen years ago your Lordships' House was meeting in Her Majesty's Robing Room, and Members of another place were meeting here.
Your Lordships may, I fear, soon be feeling that you are suffering from a surfeit of maiden speeches. It may be a small consolation to contrast the present influx to your Lordships' House with what was taking place in this Chamber thirteen years ago, when there were no fewer than 344 maiden speeches to be delivered—an awesome experience both at the transmitting and at the receiving ends. One has been warned, too, of the very high quality of speeches which your Lordships expect. It is something, perhaps, between an after-dinner speech at the Athenæum (if they ever have them, and I do not suppose they do) and the B.B.C.'s Reith Lectures. I fear that I shall fall lamentably short on both these examples, save in one respect: that for technical reasons the Reith Lectures each last half an hour, and my speech will be shorter than that.
The matter before your Lordships, which has been so charmingly and courteously presented by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, presents a slight difficulty, because a maiden speech must be non-controversial, and I find myself agreeing heartily with some of his conclusions, though not always with his method of arriving at them. If, therefore, I differ

757
from him at all I hope he will feel that it is a difference of degree rather than of substance.
His proposition (for I believe it is not a Motion) on the subject which he has raised for discussion really involves two separate disciplines for consideration. First, it is an exercise in demography, which is the study of population, and secondly it is an exercise in human ecology, which is the study of the relationship of human beings to their environment. Both these subjects are beginning to be sciences and sufficiently respectable to have Chairs at British universities: for there is a Professor of Demography at the London School of Economics, and a Professor of Human Ecology at Cambridge. So we are beginning to get some scientific facts about these very difficult problems.
First, I would refer to the demographic aspects of the question. In considering population movements we notice the great numbers of immigrants arriving in Britain, particularly those whose skins happen to be darker than ours—your Lordships debated them yesterday. I must say that I think it is a pity that we refer to any people as "coloured", because, after all, we are all coloured; it is a matter of degree. I believe that it would be much better if we could drop that term altogether from our vocabulary and speak only of the country of origin of the people concerned.
Although we notice the African and West Indian corners to our country, the majority of the incoming people are not from the tropics but from Europe, and particularly from the Republic of Eire. We do not see our own folk who are going overseas, so it certainly came to me as a surprise—and I think it comes to most of us as a surprise—to find, on studying this Report of the Oversea Migration Board, that in the years between 1952 and 1956 we have lost by migration substantially more people than we have gained.
The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, said that he had some doubts about the validity of these statistics. The table which impressed me most was where the Migration Board confessed their own difficulties and turned to the Registrar-General to get an overall picture. I have found in my own dealings with the
758
Registrar-General's office that he is usually extremely accurate; and it was his figures, his overall conclusions, which I know always take into account the kind of errors which can so easily arise in population studies, which showed that over five years we have had a net loss of population of 189,000—that is to say, by migration only. During the same period, 1952 to 1956, something far more important has been happening to our population: the total population of England and Wales has increased by 512,000. That means of course, that, after allowing for loss by migration, we have produced an additional 701,000 children over and above what would be needed to make good the loss by migration and the loss by death.
The result (I confess that I do not follow the noble Earl's method of arriving at a situation of population pressure, though I do not question the validity of the statistics), is that, although there has been a loss by migration, the gain from the excess of births over deaths has been so striking and so substantial that there has been this great total growth of population of which I have spoken—512,000 in a period of five years. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, was speaking of future occurrences and estimates. This is something which has already taken place.
Before attempting to relate this population to available resources I would crave your Lordships' indulgence while I approach a point beyond which I must be careful not to venture. I am a member of a new town development corporation, and as soon as I became a Member of your Lordships' House I received from the general manager of the corporation a transcript of the statement made by the noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison, in this House on March 31, 1951, when he was Lord President of the Council. That statement which he made defined the duties and position of Members of your Lordships' House who serve part-time or whole-time on the Boards of nationalised industries or Government corporations.
He laid it down—very rightly and very properly, as one thought—that members of Boards must not give information about the work of their Boards or answer criticisms, since these were clearly the duties of Ministers responsible to Parliament. So, quite rightly, I can never

759
speak to your Lordships about the day-to-day work of the development corporation on which I serve.
Nevertheless, Lord Addison went on to say:
"I should make it clear that what I have said applies only to debates relating to public Boards. Experience acquired as a member of a public Board will often be relevant to general debates in which the same considerations do not arise, and the contributions of Board members who are Peers will be all the more relevant because of that experience."
If I may, my Lords, I should like, in this general debate, to make use of what seems to me this very sensible escape clause.
In the new town to which I have referred a remarkable population phenomenon is taking place—the fact has, of course, been made public in the Registrar-General's published returns. It is that the birth rate in that town is double the national average. Instead of being about 16 births per 1,000 of population it is 32 births per 1,000 of population, and this is the highest birth rate of any district in Britain. Even allowing for the youth of the population in this town, it is substantially above the national average. Of course, this has not been due to any direct action by the new town corporation: it is the voluntary decision of the people of the town themselves. I base this statement on the fact that there is available in this town an excellent family planning clinic to which they can all go if they wish. Yet they prefer to have more children, and to go on having children. I think the answer is this: that, given the right environment, English people prefer to have larger families. I do not regard this as a cause for alarm in terms of natural resources; I think it is rather a cause for rejoicing. One remembers the somewhat gloomy predictions of the Royal Commission on Population. Here we are demonstrating that these predictions are not irrevocable. One hopes that in the future immigrants from this town may go forth to the Commonwealth and elsewhere to contribute something worthwhile to these other communities overseas.
Now, one word about water supplies. Common sense would suggest that the raw material of which we are not short in these islands is rainwater—although, of course, it is not always in the right
760
place: it may be up in the Welsh mountains when we need it in the Eastern Counties. But the Annual Report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for 1957 made a full review of the water situation in the country. It showed that we were wasting from three to ten gallons per head; that the effect of all new housing was to increase water consumption simply because more people had baths available; and that, as industry increased, so indeed did the consumption of water go up. Nevertheless, on balance, the conclusion of the Ministry's expert advisers was, and I think still is, that the overall water situation of the country is capable of meeting national needs for any situation which may arise in the foreseeable future. Of course, that is always provided that the capital expenditure necessary to meet what is required is authorised.
The remaining question which is raised in the noble Earl's proposition is that of farmland and housing. It is very easy, I think, to be over-pessimistic here, particularly when we see new housing eating into a piece of agricultural land which we know well. I have always been greatly impressed with Sir Patrick Abercrombie's little book on town and country planning in the Home University Library, in which he pointed out (and one must make it clear that this is hypothesis, and only for the purposes of illustration) that if the whole of the population of England were housed, at twelve houses to the acre—which, of course, is a far lower density than would be practised nowadays—in a circle around Charing Cross, the total area required would be a circle having a radius of 25 miles, and the whole of the rest of the country would be available for agriculture.
If we see in the future, as I hope we shall, all our people rehoused at reasonable densities, the total decrease in agricultural land will be of the order of 1 to 2 per cent., not making any allowance for domestic food production. So long as we are a tightly packed industrial community we shall have to continue to import up to half our food. This is a strategic disadvantage, but I do not see anything socially, economically or morally wrong with it. It is something which we have to accept and get on with it. My conclusion is that our country is what we make it. Within very wide limits, we

761
can make our own optimum by our own enterprise, resources and wisdom. We have still a long way to go before we begin to touch the natural limits of human achievement.
Two last points. It was indicated in the Report of the Oversea Migration Board—indeed the Report stresses time and again—that these statistics are inadequate. I am well aware of the inadequacy of the statistics I have been using this afternoon. That is a problem of sufficient research. Every year we spend millions of pounds on maintaining an excellent Medical Research Council. I think that the time is not far off when we ought to spend a similar sum on a Social Research Council, not as a co-ordinating body, because in this field there have been a number of unsuccessful attempts at co-ordination, but as a body which could initiate research and long-term social thinking.
On making inquiries I find that your Lordships' House is almost unique among Second Chambers in that Members are here for life, as they axe in no other substantial Second Chamber save the Senate of Canada. The great justification for this almost unique arrangement seems to me to be your Lordships' capacity to take the long view, to think in terms of the welfare of our country not in five-year spans, dominated necessarily by elections, but in generations. In this long-term thinking we are slowly replacing guesswork and speculation by reasonable certainties based on scientific knowledge. Effective legislation and administration depends not only in knowing current views, but also in understanding future probabilities. We can obtain this information only by more research into the facts of human behaviour and our relations to our own natural and man-made environment.
5.13 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, it falls to me to offer my sincere congratulations, and I am sure those on all sides of the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on a maiden speech of outstanding quality. The noble Lord brings to this House a wide range of knowledge and experience in health and medicine and, as we have heard to-day, he is a specialist in knowledge of the problem of our new towns through his connection with Harlow, and with the new sciences of demography and human ecology. I
762
am sure that the contributions of the noble Lord in the debates in your Lordships' House will be of the greatest value, and we hope to hear from him often in the same vein as we heard from him this afternoon.
Turning to the noble Earl's question, I cannot help feeling that the debate has ranged rather widely from the terms of the Question as put down on the Order Paper, and perhaps it would not be improper for me to draw your Lordships' attention to those terms. As I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Albernarle, I felt grateful to him for the deep study he had made of the figures in this Report, but I was somewhat surprised to hear the conclusion at which he arrived. He placed more emphasis on the curtailment of immigration, which he hoped would be temporary—though judging by the arguments he used I should not think so—than on the development of our resources.
When they presented their Third Report to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in December last year, the Oversea Migration Board used the available statistics, but recognised that they left much to be desired. We are giving careful attention to the possibility of other statistics being made available in future. The Report analysed the effects of migration on population, which is the question before us to-day, and came to the conclusion that emigration and immigration roughly balanced each other, the losses by emigration being almost balanced by the increases from immigration. During the two years 1955 and 1956 they found that the net loss in our manpower resources through migration was in the region of 30,000 which is only ·01 per cent. of our population of some 51 million. These figures are set out in paragraph 31 of the Report.
Our resources in water, farmland and housing are of importance for the well-being of our people, and when the Royal Commission on population submitted their Report in 1949, they included availability of land and the supply of houses amongst the many factors which influenced the growth or decline of population: but what our optimum population might be is still a debateable question. Her Majesty's Government have no evidence to suggest that the pressure of the population on the available resources of these Islands has now

763
reached a dangerous degree. The noble Earl made a good deal of the fact that, as he said, we do not know what the position is. I hope that I have answered that by saying that the Government are aware of the shortcomings of the statistics and hope that we may be able to get better ones; but I think it is an exaggeration to use these shortcomings to the extent of saying that we do not know what the position is. We certainly know the broad balance between immigration and emigration.
The noble Earl said that there was a disadvantageous exchange: we lose skilled men and receive unskilled immigrants. I think that that point was cancelled out by my noble friend, Lord Hastings, who thought that we were not losing enough skilled men, his point being that more skilled people should be emigrating to the Commonwealth. The noble Earl wants a temporary cessation of immigration. I am sure that your Lordships do not want to go deeply into that subject to-day, because it was fully debated yesterday. The noble Earl also raised the question of housing and there is no doubt but that the balance between the need for housing families and the number of houses is still not satisfactory. The building of some 3 million houses since the war—2 million houses have been built since 1951—is bringing it much nearer to a satisfactory state of affairs, and I think we are steadily approaching the time when our resources will be adequate. The continued high rate of building under the present Government is helping towards this end.
On the question of water supplies, I can assure the noble Earl that water resources are ample to match the increased development of land and housing. There are no insurmountable engineering difficulties in developing these resources to the necessary extent, so long as the requisite capital expenditure is forthcoming. The basic resources are there. The noble Earl was good enough to give me a page from the Blue Book to which he referred, which I see is the Report recently issued by Sir Sydney Caine's Committee on the utilisation of grassland. I am not sure from the notes on this page which the noble Earl has given me that the arithmetic may not be in some dispute. My advice
764
is that, upon the whole, we may lose some 30,000 acres a year of agricultural land and not the much greater figure mentioned by the noble Earl, which I think arose from some confusion in adding up the difference between crops and fallow and grass on the annual statistics on June 4 returns, which are not, I think, quite apposite to that question.
The noble Earl then spoke of reclamation in the marshes. It is the policy of the Government, and will continue to be, that we concentrate our resources on existing farmland; and we do not believe that there is a call at the present moment for any large scale or dramatic land reclamation from the sea or elsewhere. This kind of reclamation is extremely costly. The noble Earl quoted the Dutch reclamations, which I think cost something of the order of £400 an acre; and some of the reclamation schemes in the Eastern counties can cost as much as £200 an acre. I am sure that we must proceed quietly here and the work must be done when it can be proved to be economic. Land owners in that part of the world have always been active in doing reclamation work where it has been economic and have thereby earned the gratitude of the country. And I think it is worth pointing out that the present Government, with the new farm improvements scheme, are at last, and for the first time, making available a capital grant of one-third of the cost of such schemes in approved cases.
I turn now for a moment to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hastings. He asked me two specific questions, the first of which was about the up-to-date figures and the present trends of emigration to Canada. I am afraid I have not the information as to what the present trends are in so far as they differ from those in the Report under review, but my noble friend will know that the fourth Report (this is the third Report) is likely to be published quite shortly and I have no doubt that he will find the answer in that Report. Then he asked me whether the Government had a policy of emigration to the Commonwealth. By that I think he meant whether we were prepared to assist emigration to the Commonwealth in any particular way. That is a question which I could not answer without notice, and I am sure

765
that my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, would wish to answer such a question. However, I would remind the noble Lord that some of the Dominions actively assist and encourage immigrants into their countries—Canada is a case in point—not necessarily financially, but by advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his interesting remarks on demography, because, if I may say so, we are not discussing the Registrar General's Report to-day, and that point I think would fall to be dealt with more appropriately at such a time. I was most interested to hear the noble Lord's expert knowledge and expert comments on the situation in Harlow with regard to the birth rate, but I may say it is not only at Harlow: I myself have a very large family and I do not live at Harlow.
I should like to follow the noble Lord on what he said about water supplies, because I think he was quite correct. Consumption is going up, but there is no indication that we need be short of supplies. The only limitation is the financial one.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I was contemplating putting a question on that matter. The figures of the rise in the use of water, not only by individuals and houses but by factories, are startling. Can the noble Earl give
766
any figures as to the sort of margin there is—not what it is at the moment but what it is likely to be in the near future?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am afraid that without notice I cannot give figures to cover that point. But the general point, I am advised, is that provided the financial resources can be made available, there is no problem in this country, with a very high rainfall, of providing enough water for all purposes. It is largely a question of finance. If the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, would care to put down a Question, no doubt figures of the best estimates could be given.
I do not think there is anything further I need say in reply to this Question which has been so ably put by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle. We are all grateful to him for having raised it as he has. I would simply sum up by saying that we do not believe that the evidence that this Report produces suggests that the pressure of population on the available resources of these Islands has now reached a dangerous degree.

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past five o'clock.