Sitting of 3 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIZE DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
Account ordered—
"of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st March, 1946, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Piped Water Supplies
    Sir William Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which communities in Scotland with a population of over 500 have no piped supply of water for domestic purposes.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I have been able to identify 19 such communities. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister take immediate steps to get into touch with the local authorities which have the responsibility of supplying water and drainage to these villages, and see that everything possible is done to get them brought up to modern standards?
    Mr. Westwood: That is exactly what I have been doing now for the last three or four months with a view to solving this particular problem.
    Following is the list:

    Back—Lewis.

    Barvas—Lewis.

    Bayble—Lewis.

    178

    Bragor—Lewis.

    Carloway—Lewis.

    Coll—Lewis.

    Crossbost and Raernish—Lewis.

    Knock—Lewis.

    Leurbost—Lewis.

    Ness—-Lewis.

    Sandwick—Lewis.

    Shawbost—Lewis.

    Tolsta—Lewis.

    Balintore, Shandwick and Hilton of Cadboll —Easter Ross.

    Portmahomock—Easter Ross.

    St. Margaret's Hope—Orkney.

    Ceres—Fife.

    Springfield—Fife.

    Kirkcowan—Wigtownshire.

    Agricultural Development (Engineering Shops)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider, in connection with agricultural development, the building of suitable agricultural engineering shops in agricultural centres where they do not exist and leasing such premises to those qualified and willing to give agricultural and engineering services to communities which are at present denied them.
    Mr. Westwood: I am always willing to consider proposals for the development of agricultural services, including proposals for the development of agricultural engineering in suitable areas, and if the hon. Member has any specific centres in mind I will be prepared to have them examined, always keeping in mind under present conditions of shortage of building and other materials the priority needs of housing and other services.
    Mr. Snadden: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that the great difficulty is to get permits in these agricultural areas where it is wished to set up agricultural engineering shops? The persons responsible cannot get the necessary permits to get the material with which to build them. It is a very present difficulty, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it into account.
    Mr. Westwood: I am aware of some of the difficulties facing the agricultural community at the present time. I am doing everything possible in the existing difficult circumstances to assist them to meet and to overcome these problems.
    Mr. Spence: Would the Minister agree that the first need in this country is to get houses for the people to live in?
    Mr. Westwood: That is exactly what I have said in reply to the Question.

    Register of Sasines (Deeds)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the delays in recording of deeds in the Register of Sasines; that formerly such deeds were obtainable in about five weeks, but the practice now is approximately four months; and what steps he proposes to take to facilitate the transaction of business.
    Mr. Westwood: In 1938 the average period for the registration of writs in the Register of Sasines was 51 days, and it is now 108 days. The delay is due to the serious depletion of the Register House staff during the war, and to the fact that in the current year the number of writs recorded will considerably exceed the prewar annual average. Additional staff have been authorised, and the delay will be reduced as the new staff gain experience.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it will be before we can get back to something like prewar conditions, because this really hampers people very much?
    Mr. Westwood: I agree it hampers, but I cannot answer how long it will be until we get back to prewar conditions.

    Water and Drainage Schemes (Grants)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to announce the allocation to local authorities of the £6,375,000 grant made under the Rural Water Supplies Sewerage Act, 1944, towards the cost of water supplies and drainage schemes in Scotland.
    Mr. Westwood: I am making a provisional selection, from the local authorities' phased programmes, of the works which are to rank for grant, and I hope this month to ask the particular authorities concerned for the rating and other information necessary to enable firm offers of grant to be made.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does that mean that only those selections will qualify for the grant, and that the lower priorities of works will not qualify at all?
    Mr. Westwood: It does not necessarily follow they will not qualify at all, but there are such things as priorities and I have discussed this fully with the local authorities. I have £6¼ million to distribute, and I have to see that that cake is shared fairly amongst the respective authorities.
    Mr. Snadden: Is it not obvious that the amount allowed is completely inadequate for the job in hand?
    Mr. Westwood: I think it is true that the £6¼ million will not enable me to solve that problem so far as Scotland is concerned.

    Closeburn Camp (Polish Agricultural Workers)
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason the huts at Closeburn prisoner-of-war camp, which are urgently required for educational purposes, have been reserved for Polish agricultural workers; and during which months in the year these workers are to occupy the huts.
    Mr. Westwood: The huts in question, which until recently housed prisoners of war engaged in agriculture, have been reserved by the Ministry of Works at the request of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, for the accommodation of members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who, according to present plans, will be required for and employed in agriculture throughout the year.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year the agriculture labour came, not from these huts, but from a camp fairly close, within about 10 miles? Could he arrange that, as there is a demand for these huts for educational purposes, agricultural labour should again be provided from Carron Bridge?
    Mr. Westwood: I will certainly look into the point raised by the hon. Member.

    Requisitioned Land, Islay
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the decision, announced in the House early this year, to acquire that part of Ballinaby Farm, Island of Islay, requisitioned by the Department of Agriculture in 1943, will now be reconsidered, in view of the uneconomic manner in which' this farm has

    181
    been worked under requisition, and the unsatisfactory results achieved from the taxpayers' point of view.
    Mr. Westwood: It was decided to acquire part of Ballinaby Farm, Islay, for the purpose of preserving for the Crown the benefit of the increase in the value of the land due to improvements, mainly of a capital nature, carried out since the land was requisitioned in 1943. The decision was taken after full consideration of the circumstances, and I do not propose to reconsider the matter. In view of the condition of the subjects at the date of requisitioning, it was not to be expected that the farming operations would be economic during reconditioning. In all the circumstances I cannot agree that the results are unsatisfactory.
    Major McCallum: Is the Minister aware that the methods of his Department in cultivating this farm are notorious? Would he not again investigate the question of allowing it to be rejoined to the estate to which it belongs, in order that it may be farmed in a proper manner?
    Mr. Westwood: That is an entirely new point, and I will certainly look into it to see what the position it.
    Commander Galbraith: Can the Minister state what the loss was during the past year?
    Mr. Westwood: Not without notice. But I can say definitely that the whole of the lands, hereditaments and buildings were in a very bad state when taken over.
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances the holding of Mrs. Flora Shaw, Gartachrossan, Bridgend, Isle of Islay, was taken over for cultivation by the local A.E.C. on behalf of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland; what has been the result of such cultivation; and how it comes about that Mrs. Shaw is now being asked to meet the financial losses incurred by the Department of Agriculture as a result of their fanning operations on her holding.
    Mr. Westwood: The holding of Gartachrossan, Islay, was not taken over by the agricultural executive committee. In 1943, the holding was without crop or implements and was semi-derelict. The tenant was unable to comply with the cultivation directions issued by the com-
    182
    mittee for 1944 and voluntarily entered into a formal agreement with them, under which they undertook to carry out, on her behalf, the required cropping. On the same understanding, the committee carried out cropping in 1945. The holding was in grass in 1946. The results of the committee's operations under the agreement have been the production of crops yielding a return of £533 6s. IId., the improvement of grazing and the restoration of the land to a reasonable state of cleanliness and fertility. There has been a gross profit of £90 18s. 6d. which, after deduction of a small management charge, still to be agreed with the tenant, and of interest charges, will be paid to the tenant in terms of the agreement. I regret that an earlier, but incomplete, statement sent by the committee to the tenant showed a deficit of £2 19s. An amended statement has now been issued to her.
    Major McCallum: Is the Minister aware that it was not until my Question was put down that the amending statement was issued, showing a profit instead of a loss? Does not he agree that it would be fairer to the small landowners if they were allowed some form of appeal against this system of directions by the committee on behalf of the Department?
    Mr. Westwood:An entirely different question is contained in the last part of the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question.
    Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly what he means by "a gross profit"?
    Mr. Westwood: I mean exactly what English conveys to anyone who understands it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking about this gross inefficiency on the part of his Department?
    Mr. Stokes: What does the hon. and gallant Member mean by "gross inefficiency"?
    Mr. Westwood: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no inefficiency, and I will not bring in the word "gross "as far as my Department is concerned.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Was not the difference between £8 and £90 discovered almost overnight?
    Commander Galbraith: In view of the fact that the gross profit was £49, can the Minister tell us what was the net profit?
    Mr. Westwood: Not without notice. I did not give the figure of £49 but the figure of £90 18s. 6d., so that there is evidence that inaccuracies can arise in this House, as well as in the operations of my Department.

    Fishing Boat Harbour, Carradale
    Major McCallumasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received a report from the members of the Development Commission who visited the village of Carradale to inquire into the possibilities of establishing a fishing boat harbour there.
    Mr. Westwood: No, Sir. I understand that the report by the Development Commission, which will be made to the Treasury, has not yet been received, but that the site was inspected by the Chairman and Secretary of the Commission on 27th November.
    Major McCallum: Will the Minister say whether the decision of the Commission is likely to be long delayed?
    Mr. Westwood: I sincerely hope not. I am anxious that we should be able to come to a decision as speedily as possible.

    Polish Soldiers, Irvine (Incidents)
    Mr. John McKayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will call for reports from the police authorities regarding the incidents on the 13th/14th September at Irvine, when a number of Polish soldiers were attacked, and at least one was injured; and whether he will make a statement to the House.
    Mr. Westwood: Full reports, furnished to me at the time by the police, showed that a number of Poles were attending a dance when four or five British soldiers arrived and intimated that they had come to rid the place of Poles. Refused admission to the hall, these men remained about the door and were joined by civilians. They had in their possession the top parts of broken beer bottles. They challenged any Polish soldier entering or leaving the hall to fight. After this provocation had gone on for some time, most of the Polish soldiers in the hall came out and a fight developed at the
    184
    entrance to the hall, and in the streets, which lasted until the arrival of the police. It is not known which side struck the first blow. The weapons used included pieces of gates and railings, broken bottles, sticks and knives. By midnight the streets were quiet. Three British soldiers, two Polish soldiers, and one civilian are known to have received injuries.
    Mr. McKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the incident began by one of the Poles at the door being stabbed, and that that began the whole thing?
    Mr. Westwood: I am not aware of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if conditions in Walsall are so completely satisfactory that the hon. Member has surplus time to devote to other hon. Members' constituencies?
    Mr. Westwood: I have sufficient problems to deal with in Scotland, without looking so far afield as Warsaw.
    Sir T. Moore: No, Walsall.
    Mr. Westwood: My apologies. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to be referring to Warsaw.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Secretary of State take steps publicly to dissociate himself and his party from the outrageous accusation in connection with this incident made by a delegate to the recent T.U.C. Conference?
    Mr. Westwood: I certainly dissociate myself from one particular statement, which was made by Mr. McKerrow, of the Transport and General Workers' Union, in which he definitely said that bayonets and swords had been used. According to the information I have, no such thing occurred.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that during the war 30,000 women left Scotland for war work in England, of whom it is estimated that 15,006 have settled in England; that there are now 20,000 women unemployed in Scotland; and what steps he is taking, as a matter of urgency, to prevent the Lowlands of Scotland being depopulated in the same way as the Highlands have already been.
    Mr. Westwood: I am (informed that during the war approximately 16,000 women went from Scotland to undertake war work elsewhere. No estimate is available of the number of these who may have settled in England. Some 20,000 women —more than half of whom are married— were registered as unemployed in Scotland in October. With regard to the last part of the Question, the population of Scotland is estimated to have increased by 6 per cent, during the last 15 years, and there are more persons in employment in Scotland now than in pre-war years. The Government's plans for ensuring the provision of additional opportunities for work in Scotland have been announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reason I put this Question down was because of the reply I received from the Minister of Labour last week, when I drew his attention to the state of unemployment in Scotland? He said:
    "The point is that there is a shortage of labour in London and there is a surplus of labour in Scotland. There is, of course, a well known way of filling these London vacancies but there is some hesitation in introducing compulsory transfer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1390.]
    Is the Secretary of State for Scotland watching what is going on in the Cabinet to see that no such idea is perpetrated on Scotland as transferring the unemployed men now in the way the women were transferred during the war?
    Mr. Westwood: I can assure my hon Friend that I very carefully watch an') fight for the interests of Scotland inside the Cabinet.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the anxiety so rightly shown by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is also shared throughout the whole of Scotland, especially among the women, at the raw deal they are getting from the present Government?
    Mr. Westwood: I deny that they are getting a raw deal from this Government They are getting a far better deal from it than' they ever got from previous Governments.

    Gordon Castle, Fochabers
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what use he proposes to make of Gordon Castle, Fochabers.
    Mr. Westwood: Gordon Castle is part of the Gordon Estate which is administered by the Commissioners of Crown Lands and has been occupied by the War Department during the war, but has now become surplus to their requirements. Its future use is being investigated by the Commissioners and my Departments and I will advise the hon. Member of the outcome as soon as possible.
    Mr. Spence: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the possibility of setting up a school of forestry at Gordon Castle, in view of the need for foresters, and in view of the suitable position in which Gordon Castle is placed in Scotland?
    Mr. Westwood: That is an idea to which I will give serious and immediate attention.

    Advisory Council on Education (Reconstitution)
    Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconstitute the Advisory Council on Education at an early date so that it may consider the proposed remit on library provision prior to the introduction of the proposed Measure for the consolidation of the local government law of Scotland.
    Mr. Westwood: I am at present selecting the members of the reconstituted Council to take office on 1st January, 1947. I propose at once to give them a remit on library provision, but the re-introduction of the Local Government Consolidation Bill cannot await their report.

    Public Assistance Institutions (Daily Visits)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in arranging for daily visiting in public assistance institutions.
    Mr. Westwood: As the hon. Member is aware from the letter I sent him on 18th March, 1946, a number of public assistance institutions already allow daily visits as a matter of course and all others allow daily visits in special circumstances in addition to the normal arrangement for

    187
    specified visiting days. I have no statutory power to enforce any arrangement in public assistance institutions but I am urging upon all public assistance authorities the desirability of allowing daily visits as the ordinary rule unless there is any practical reason which prevents this being done.

    Staple Industries (Output)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total annual value of Scottish agricultural and fishing output; the total annual value of coal, iron and steel output; and the relationship of each, proportionately, to that of England.
    Mr. Westwood: In 1944–45 the total value of Scottish agricultural output was £73,000,000, or 15.6 per cent, of the output of England and Wales. In 1945 the value as landed of all fish landed by British fishing vessels in Scotland was £7,676,173 or 44 per cent, of that landed in England. Questions regarding the total value of coal and iron and steel output are matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Fuel and Power, and the Minister of Supply.
    Mrs. Mann: Could my right hon. Friend say if that is the reason why the Government are so "sweirt" to give Scotland Home Rule?

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

    Swedish Houses, Edinburgh
    Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the continued delays in the completion of the Swedish timber houses in Edinburgh, and the steps that have been taken to overcome them.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): The delay has been due to the lack of certain materials and components. I personally visited these houses in August last, and took steps to expedite deliveries of outstanding requirements, some of which, I subsequently discovered, had not then been ordered. Contrary to recent Press statements, as a result of the steps which I took, substantial deliveries have been made, and I am assured that the only items now required to enable the houses to be occupied are taps and cast iron
    188
    goods. I am taking every step possible to hasten the delivery of these outstanding items.
    Mr. Willis: Do we understand from that reply that the report which appeared in the Press, that there were two months' delay on the part of the Housing Department of Edinburgh in giving details of the work required, was inaccurate?
    Mr. Buchanan: When we made inquiries, it was obvious that certain items had never been ordered by the town council. The steps I took were effective in having the goods delivered.
    Mr. Willis: Did the corporation take advantage of what was done by the Department?
    Mr. Buchanan: As I say in my answer, some of the items had not been ordered, and there was a delay in the ordering of the material required.
    Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Member say how long these houses have been in course of erection?
    Mr. Buchanan: I could not say exactly, but round about 12 months, I should think. But whether it is long or short, it does not excuse people from not ordering the required goods.
    Sir W. Darling: Can the hon. Member assure the House that until he visited this important housing site certain items which were essential had not been discovered until he found them?
    Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member must not understand that I go looking for things, not even for him. I went there and had a conversation with a very intelligent clerk of works, and he gave me information.
    Mr. Willis: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Plasterers (Edinburgh)
    Mr. Gilzeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that of 360 plasterers employed in Edinburgh only 30 are employed on houses to rent; and what steps he proposes taking to meet this situation.
    Mr. Buchanan: I am informed that there is no shortage of plasterers on the Corporation's housing schemes, on which

    189
    38 plasterers, three plasterers' apprentices and 28 plasterers' labourers are at present employed. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular difficulty he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Gilzean: Will my hon. Friend indicate what steps he can take to increase the number of plasterers on Corporation jobs, particularly those for homeless people?
    Mr. Buchanan: I have made inquiries of the Corporation to see if they, were short of plasterers' labourers. I am informed that the Corporation are employing the full number they require at the present time. If any shortage develops it will certainly take the necessary steps to have them supplied.
    Mr. Gilzean: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is just the point of the Corporation not requiring plasterers that requires looking into?
    Mr. Buchanan: I have made inquiries from every source I can. There is no sense in supplying plasterers if there is no work for them. However, if my hon. Friend has any kind of information on this matter, and will let me have it, I will sec what I can do.

    Small Houses (Selling Prices)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the increasing practice of the sale of small one and two apartment houses, hitherto rented; and what steps he is taking with regard to the extortionate prices demanded for all houses for sale with vacant possession.
    Mr. Buchanan: Yes, Sir. I trust that the publicity given to this matter will serve to warn would-be purchasers of modest means who may not fully realise the liabilities attached to the ownership of tenement property. Besides liability for owners rates, these include responsibility for the maintenance of the structure such as repairs to the roof, the common stair and courtyards. If hon. Members will let me have any details in their possession showing the extent of the problem my right hon. Friend will consider what action can usefully be taken. Apart from this I hope that having regard to the clamant need for housing accommodation at the present time prompt steps
    190
    will be taken by the citizens to draw the attention of the local authority to any houses being deliberately kept vacant for possible sale so that their suitability for requisitioning can be considered.
    Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. May I ask, respectfully, what that answer has to do with Question No. 17?
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 17 was not asked. The Question asked was No. 18.
    Mrs. Mann: Since Scotland was so successful in introducing the Rent Tribunals Act. may I ask whether Scotland cannot now lead the way with an Act to control the selling price of all these houses with vacant possession, or to suggest that the local authority might acquire compulsorily all such houses, and either let or resell them on a needs basis?
    Mr. Buchanan: This problem is in some respects so urgent that to wait for legislation would be wrong. The fact is that no house should remain vacant at all, and requisitioning is the first effective remedy to deal with the problem. As to my hon. Friend's question whether legislation can be introduced, either for Scotland or for England, that is another issue. If she has any evidence, my right hon. Friend will gladly consider it, but meantime the effective thing is to step in at once by considering immediate requisitioning.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can my hon. Friend take immediate steps to control the extortionate prices being demanded for these houses with vacant possession? Does he realise that this practice is causing a great deal of hardship in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchanan: As I have replied already, that would need legislation. The first effective beginning is to stop a single house remaining vacant. The immediate power available is to effect requisitioning to see that the houses are used for families in dire need.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Surgical Boots
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he is taking to expedite the delivery of surgical footwear to war-disabled men.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I hope the position will soon show improvement, as my Department's principal contractors removed to a modern and larger factory a few days ago.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that a large number of these men are almost barefooted and unable to follow their employment, being subject to great physical discomfort? They are waiting for long periods for new surgical footwear, and will he do something exceptional to expedite delivery?
    Mr. Paling: I am aware there have been serious delays in some of these cases. My answer indicates that we have done something about it, and I hope that the position will improve.

    Pensions and Allowances (Concessions)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now considered the representations made to him on various matters, including the abolition of the 10-year limit for family allowances; and what action he proposes to take.
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions (1) if he will now state whether it is his intention to remove the ban which prevents the wife's allowance being paid when she has married 10 years after her husband's disability;
    (2) if he will make a statement about widows' and orphans' allowances.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to make the following changes with effect from 1st January, 1947:
    Allowances for Wives and Children
    The requirement that marriage must take place within ten years of discharge will be abolished. This means that a disablement pensioner of either World War in receipt of pension at the standard rates will be eligible for allowances for his wife and children of his marriage irrespective of the date of his marriage.
    South African War Disability Pensioners
    Allowances will be payable for the wives and children of officers and men suffering from disablement due to service in wars before 1914 if they are in receipt of pension at the standard rates applicable to World War cases.
    Pre-South African War Widows
    There are a few widows of campaigns before 1899 in receipt of modified pensions from the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. Grants will be made to the Corporation to enable them to raise those pensions to World War rates.
    Orphans' Pensions
    The pension of the infirm total orphan will be increased to 26s. a week at the age of 18.
    Attendance Allowance
    The minimum attendance allowance payable to a 100 per cent, disablement pensioner whose condition necessitates some regular attendance will be 10s. a week, and adjustments will be made in the rate of allowance payable in certain other cases. Applications will not be necessary but the task of identifying and dealing with the many thousands of cases affected, particularly those where wife's and children's allowances are involved, will take some time.
    Mr. Parkin: Is the Minister aware that this clean-up of long outstanding anomalies and injustices will give great satisfaction; and could he indicate to the House approximately how many people are involved? Also, could he take an opportunity, either now or at an early date, to make a statement on another long outstanding problem, the question of the seven-year limit of entitlement for benefit?
    Mr. Paling: The number of people affected will be about 50,000 to 55,000. The seven-year limit is a matter already under consideration.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the Minister make it clear—it does not seem clear from his statement—whether every child born of these marriages is subject to an allowance?
    Mr. Paling: Yes.

    Disability Pensions (Appeals)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Service applicants for disability pensions whose appeals against original negative decisions by his Department are allowed by the appeals tribunal are, under Article 65 of the Royal Warrant, only awarded disability pension or retired pay from the date of the appeal instead of from

    193
    the date on which they ceased to draw Service pay; why such applicants should be penalised for what has been held by the appeal tribunal to be an erroneous decision by his Department; and whether he will take the necessary steps to remedy this injustice.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The position is not as suggested by the hon. Member. Normally in the circumstances indicated pension would be awarded as from the date of cessation of Service pay. Where, however, representations against the Ministry decision were not made until after six months from that date, any award would usually take effect as from the date of those representations.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Tours of Duty (Leave)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War how many days leave a Regular soldier stationed in C.M.F. can expect during his tour abroad of three years and three months and how many days leave a Regular soldier stationed in M.E.L.F. can expect during a similar period of foreign service; if he is aware that the latter person forfeits his leave if it is not taken between the 12th and 20th months of his tour; and why those in M.E.L.F. are not treated on an equality with those in C.M.F.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): A Regular soldier in C.M.F., where the overseas tour is at present three years nine months, is eligible for 38 days' privilege leave a year in the United Kingdom. A soldier in M.E.L.F. can get one period of 30 days' L.I.A.P. during his overseas tour of three years three months. He becomes eligible for this after 12 months' overseas service provided he will have at least four months useful service to do on return before becoming due for Python or release. Thus he can take his leave between the 12th month and approximately the 35th month. I agree that leave conditions in C.M.F. are more favourable than in M.E.L.F., but owing to the distances involved it would be quite impracticable, from the shipping and manpower aspects, to equate the leave granted from these two theatres. Some compensation is, however, made to those in M.E.L.F. in the shape of a higher scale of embarkation and disembarkation leave
    194
    in this country, as well as in the shorter qualifying period for repatriation under the Python Scheme.
    Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when transport facilities will be adequate to provide leave for these men in M.E.L.F. in line with those in C.M.F.?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think we can improve the leave facilities at the present moment. Of course, I am constantly bearing this in mind to see whether I can make any improvement.

    Entertainments
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gilford Foxasked the Secretary of State for War why the Treasury grant that used to be given to E.N.S.A. has not been continued to the Army K.S. authorities to help subsidise entertainment, with the result that now other ranks have to pay 40 per cent, more for cinema shows, etc.
    Mr. Bellenger: With the end of war conditions, the continuance of expense to the taxpayer in the provision of film entertainment to the troops was not considered to be justified, and it was decided that in peacetime the troops should pay for their own film entertainment without subsidy from public funds, except in special circumstances as, for instance, in hospital.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is it the policy of the War Office that there should be a lower standard of welfare for troops than that which existed under the last Government?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I would not have put it in that way.
    Mr. Walkden: Is not it almost a fallacy to say that the Treasury ever paid anything over the last three years? Is not it true that this came out of the profits on tobacco and beer which the troops themselves bought from N.A.A.F.I. and that N.A.A.F.I footed the bill, and not the Treasury, at least in the main?
    Mr. Bellenger: Not entirely. The Treasury did pay a subsidy to E.N.S.A.
    Mr. Walkden: How much?
    Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister say that he is entirely satisfied with the present form of entertainment which is being given in Germany?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know about Germany, Sir. There are theatres in

    195
    overseas commands where I am not entirely satisfied that the right kind of entertainment is being provided but I am doing my best, with the aid of good artists, to provide it.
    Mr. Bossom: How about Germany?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is not too bad.

    Service Clubs, Germany (Bread)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War whether the regulations regarding bread which apply to the United Kingdom are also applicable to officers' and other clubs in the British zone of Germany.
    Mr. Bellenger: The Ministry of Food regulations apply to the United Kingdom only, but the amount of flour and bread made available to clubs in B.A.O.R. is on a scale which is comparable with that agreed by the Ministry of Food for canteens in this country.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the Minister think, in view of the situation that prevails here and in Germany, that a regulation similar to that which obtains here should be enforced in British clubs in Germany?
    Mr. Bellenger: I thought I had already said that regulations which apply here also apply, in a comparable manner, to Germany.

    Pamphlet "Control of the Press" (Circulation)
    Colonel Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War why the Bureau of Current Affairs pamphlet, entitled "Control of the Press," was withheld from circulation to Army units.
    Mr. Bellenger: This pamphlet was withheld from circulation to Army units because at the time it was ready for publication, the question of whether a Government inquiry into the Press of this country should be held was being actively discussed, though no decision had then been taken.
    Colonel Wigg: Is the Minister aware that the pamphlet concerned was first published on 21st September and that a statement on the question of a Debate in this House was not made until 24th October; in other words, that five weeks elapsed between the publication of the pamphlet and the announcement?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Now that this matter has been decided in the House, could my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to reintroduce this pamphlet?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am afraid that, as a result of the Debate in this House, it is somewhat stale.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that such pamphlets will not contain excerpts from the Press quoting songs making detrimental personal references to his Majesty's Ministers?
    Colonel Wigg: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that only non-controversial matters must be circulated for discussion in the Forces?
    Mr. Bellenger: I think that the question of the B.C.A. pamphlet, which is published by a private body, wants looking into. I do not see why I should distribute every pamphlet supplied by that organisation.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Secretary of State say whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that information concerning matters which are being freely discussed in the Press should not be given to the Forces except through the Press?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely misrepresents the position. We want the Army to be as well informed as possible, but that will not always be achieved by distributing one limited pamphlet only.
    Colonel Wigg: On a point of Order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Re-enlistment
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to re-enlist men who after nearly completing 21 years' service were released to civilian occupations and are now anxious to respond to the call for volunteers; and whether such men are liable to be rejected for reasons other than medical grounds
    Mr. Bellenger: Under certain conditions, such men may re-enlist. As the details of these conditions are long, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the details:
    A non-Regular soldier or a Regular who has no Section B Reserve liability and who was released before the announcement of the short service engagement scheme, 26th April, 1946, may re-enlist on a short service engagement, subject to certain age limits, medical fitness, character and the existence of vacancies, provided that he has had at least two years' service with the Colours since 3rd September, 1939. The age limits are, up to 40 for a three or four years' normal short service engagement, up to 50 for a three year short service engagement for extra regimental employment (open to staff sergeants, sergeants and corporals only), and from 50 to 57 for a three year short service engagement with the Polish Resettlement Corps (open to staff sergeants, sergeants and corporals only). A non-Regular soldier or a Regular soldier who has no Section B Reserve liability, and has been released at any time, may re-enlist on a normal Regular Army engagement of five years with the Colours and seven years with the Reserve subject to age, medical fitness, vacancy and character. The upper age limit is 30 years.

    Ashdown Forest (Release)
    Mr. Follickasked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to release Ashdown Forest.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the retention of Ashdown Forest is depriving many cyclists, including the members of the National Cycling Club, Leicester, of necessary amenities which they had enjoyed for a considerable time; and whether he will now release the same to the Ashdown Forest Conservators.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that there is anxiety for the release of this area, but I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 6th November. The position is still as then stated.
    Mr. Follick: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great uneasiness in the country about the way these pleasure spots are being taken away, and will he try to reverse his policy of taking them over?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that there is anxiety-some of it justifiable and some exaggerated. When the complete picture is given, I think that a lot of this dissatisfaction or anxiety will disappear.
    Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether or not an undertaking was given at the time this forest was taken over that it would be released on the termination of hostilities, and will he say something in order to satisfy those people who relied upon that undertaking?
    Mr. Bellenger: This is the first I have heard of it. I should be very surprised if an undertaking had been given, but that is not the main point.

    Church Parade, Abbassia
    Colonel Wiggasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a compulsory church parade was held at Abbassia on Armistice Day; that during the service the padre welcomed compulsory church parades as essential to the maintenance of discipline; and whether he proposes to take disciplinary action against those responsible for this breach of regulations.
    Mr. Bellenger: With regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave last week to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), of which I am sending him a copy. I have called for a report on the second part of the Question, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Colonel Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure, on receipt of this report, that orders issued by the War Office are carried out by everybody in the Middle East, irrespective of rank? This is particularly necessary in view of the slowing down in the release from the Forces
    Mr. Bellenger: If I hear of any case where orders of the War Office are not being carried out by subordinate officers, the people concerned will hear further from me. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Are hon. Members above the gangway in Order in howling, Mr. Speaker?

    Deferment Leave
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will arrange for increased leave to be granted to men whose discharge will be delayed by the slowing down of the rate of demobilisation.
    Mr. Bellenger: Men whose discharge is delayed continue to be granted leave in their turn, under the arrangements in force in the Command in which they are serving. I could not agree to increase their leave during service, since it is already being granted on the maximum scale possible, nor could I consider increasing the amount of release leave for particular classes of men.
    Mr. Lipson: Can no concession of any kind be made to men who have served for very long periods, and whose release is being delayed for reasons beyond their control?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper, which was whether increased leave could be granted.

    Demobilisation Delays, Middle East
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the recent protests against demobilisation delays by N.C.O.s and other soldiers serving in the Tel el Kebir garrison and elsewhere in the Middle East; whether disturbances occurred; and what action has Sheen taken.
    Mr. Bellenger: Protests took place at four stations in Middle East Command. They took the form of men absenting themselves from duty in order to attend meetings. There were no disturbances. Certain arrests were made. I am not in a position to give further information, but am awaiting a final report from Headquarters, M.E.L.F.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the protests had anything to do with the extraordinary mistake in General Dempsey's recent order, in which it was stated that everybody who had served for more than three years would be out by the end of next year?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I am inclined to think the men protested at the slowing down of the rate of demobilisation.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister anything to say in regard to the matter men-
    200
    tioned in Question No. 99 on the Order Paper about infantry with Bren-gun carriers and armoured cars being used?

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Protected Personnel
    Mr. W. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for War how many protected personnel, under Article 9 of the Geneva Convention, are being retained in this country on work other than the care of their sick and wounded, contrary to the Convention.
    Mr. Bellenger: I apologise for the length of the answer. I explained to the hon. Member in a reply on 22nd October, the basis of the retention of protected personnel required to look after prisoners of war still in this country. There are now about 1,300 medical orderlies who are surplus to our present requirements, many of whom were captured in the later stages of the war. It was not until the autumn of this year that the number of prisoner-of-war camps in this country was stabilised, and it was not, therefore, possible to estimate earlier what the surplus would be. In order to give the fairest possible treatment to these men, I am now withdrawing from medical duties those captured earlier, and replacing them from the surplus. By this means I hope to repatriate by the end of February all medical orderlies who were captured before July, 1944. When this exchange has been completed there will be no medical personnel surplus to our requirements. While awaiting this reorganisation, some of the surplus orderlies have volunteered for work on a day to day basis, but none have been compulsorily employed on other than medical duties. Owing to the intermittent character of this work, records are not available of the exact number employed on any one day, but I can assure the hon. Member that none has been compulsorily retained for such work. As repatriation reduces the total number of prisoners of war held in this country a corresponding reduction will be made in the number of protected personnel employed on medical duties. I should, perhaps add that, owing to the limited numbers available, the repatriation of medical officers and chaplains must, at present, be restricted to those who are unfit for work.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will not the Minister agree that the employment of these men, on duties contrary to the Convention which we have signed, is very bad for our prestige, and will he see that this never happens again?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that, while we are waiting to repatriate these protected personnel, there is anything wrong in letting them volunteer to do a little bit of work.

    Germans (Toy Making)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that German prisoners of war were refused permission to subscribe to the collection in aid of orphan children of Europe at a recent service specially arranged in Durham Cathedral, and have since been refused permission to make toys to be added to the Christmas tree and decorations in Durham Cathedral which would later be distributed to children in local hospitals; and whether he will immediately cancel all such unchristian regulations.
    Mr. Bellenger: Prisoners of war are not allowed to subscribe to funds of this sort because, by increasing their expenditure in this country and thus reducing their credit balances which are payable in marks on repatriation, the cost of the subscriptions would fall on the British taxpayer instead of being charged against German economy I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the free distribution on a large scale of toys made by German prisoners is open to considerable objection while the output of the British toy industry is restricted. After consultation with him, however, I am issuing instructions that special cases, such as this, should, in future, be brought to my notice for exemption from the general rule.
    Mr. Vane: Is not the Minister aware that the answer is most disappointing and gives the impression that his Department is going out of its way to stifle some of the small amount of charity which still exists in this world, and docs he mean that the manufacture of a few toys in a camp workshop cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, affect the toy industry?
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in fact, this is not merely a book entry? Surely, it ought to be
    202
    possible for prisoners of war to transfer their camp money, as, otherwise, it merely means that the Chancellor is making more money out of prisoners of war than I thought he was.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is not entirely a book entry; we try to encourage prisoners of war to remit money abroad.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: With regard to the first part of my right hon. Friend's reply, is he aware that the overriding consideration should be that it is wrong to thwart the generous impulses and emotions of any body of people anxious to promote human welfare?

    Repatriation
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds it is proposed to maintain the detention of prisoners of war in the Middle East; and why steps cannot now be taken to repatriate them at least at the rate of 5,000 a month, which is proportionate to the rate of repatriation from this country.
    Mr. Bellenger: A total of 8,300 Austrian and German prisoners of war are being repatriated from the Middle East in November and December. Between 2,000 and 2,500 Germans will be repatriated each month from January to June next year, but facilities are not available for the movement of more than this number The situation thereafter should improve, and I expect that at least 5,000 a month will then be repatriated
    Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the only reason for not repatriating them at the same rate as the repatriation of those from this country will be the absence of transport facilities, and not because they are required for slave labour in the Middle East?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know what my hon Friend's interpretation of "slave labour" is
    Mr. Stokes: What we are doing here.
    Mr. Bellenger: I must say that German prisoners of war held in British hands are not subjected to forced labour, as many were under the German régime
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of improving the conditions of these prisoners

    203
    in the Middle East, which are nothing like as good as those obtaining in this country for their compatriots?
    Mr. Bellenger: I will do what I can.
    Mr. Eden: At the same time as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about that, I know he will also bear in mind the position of our own people out there.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many prisoners of war were repatriated to Germany during the month of November; and when he expects to speed the rate of repatriation up to 30,000 a month.
    Mr. Bellenger: 15,429 German prisoners of war were repatriated during November I am unable to say when the rate of repatriation will be increased materially beyond the target of 15,000 a month.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will not be left alone until he can say?

    Aircraft Accident (Rescue Work)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to Ulrich Wolfs, Fritz Oeder and Joseph Schoensteiner, German prisoners at 106 Prisoner-of-War Camp, Stamford, Lincolnshire, who, on 19th September, 1946, attempted to rescue Flight.-Lieutenant Page and Flying-Officer Ashworth from a blazing Mosquito aircraft after it had crashed near Wittering, and whose gallant conduct was commended by the coroner; and whether he Is able to arrange early repatriation for these men.
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. The conduct of these three prisoners of war has resulted in arrangements being made for their repatriation on 21st December.

    Camps, U.K. (Condition)
    Mr. Yatesasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the statement made at a court martial held at 151 German Prisoners-of-War Working Camp at Coven, on Friday, 18th October, to the effect that a British detective struck Erwin Maiwald, a German prisoner of war, several times and that the prisoner collapsed; if he is aware that the charge brought against the prisoner
    204
    was dismissed; and, in view of the death by hanging of Walter Shatka, German prisoner of war, in the Drakelow camp, near Kidderminster, if he will inquire into and report upon the general conduct of German prisoner-of-war camps in this country.
    Mr. Bellenger: The prisoner of war to whom the Question refers was tried by a military court on two charges. To one charge he pleaded guilty and on the second he was acquitted. The detective referred to in the statement made at the trial is a member of a civil police force, and the allegation has been reported to the competent civil authority. An inquest on prisoner-of-war Walter Schatka was held on 22nd October, and the verdict of the coroner was that he committed suicide while the balance of his mind was disturbed. I understand that he had recently had bad news about his family. I am satisfied that the general conduct of camps in this country is of a high standard, as will I am sure be agreed by hon. Members who have visited them
    Mr. Yates: In view of the fact that at the trial of Maiwald five men gave evidence, but an English lance-corporal as well as the Germans emphasised the fact that Maiwald had been struck down, and struck in the stomach, and that these incidents are the cause of very grave concern to both Germans and Englishmen, does not my right hon. Friend think there ought to be some inquiry into this kind of thing?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know what evidence my hon. Friend has. I only know that my information is that the prisoner in question was charged with assaulting a police officer, found guilty and sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
    Mr. Tiffany: Are the conditions in these camps the cause of the instruction which has been given recently, that no Member of Parliament shall visit these camps without previous permission from the War Office?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, not at all. I have done everything possible to ensure that any hon. Member of this House who wants to visit prisoner-of-war camps shall do so, but at least I expect him to tell me when he is going.

  ARMED FORCES (DESERTERS)
  Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider offering an amnesty to all men absent without leave who surrender to their units before a certain date.
  Mr. Bellenger: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 28th November, of which I am sending her a copy.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (INCORPORATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not assent to the incorporation in the Union of South Africa of Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in reply to my hon. Friend on 24th January, the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is governed by pledges which are set out in the Parliamentary Paper Cmd. 4948. These are to the effect that, if any proposal for the transfer to the Union of the government of these territories, in terms of the South Africa Act, 1909, is put forward, the United Kingdom Government would not make any decision until the inhabitants of the territories, native and European, had been consulted, and until Parliament had been given an opportunity of expressing its views.
  Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a South African Government spokesman in London recently stated that this issue would be raised as soon as the other South-West Africa issue had been disposed of; and would he, therefore, make that pledge about consulting the population of these territories a little more definite, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the recent plebiscite?
  Mr. Morrison: The South African Government, like any other Government, British or foreign, may I add, have a right to raise anything they want; that is their responsibility. But the pledges that were given by my right hon. Friend, and
  206
  which I have repeated, are, I think, completely specific, and really ought to satisfy my hon. Friend.

  HOUSING (RURAL AREAS)
  Mr. David Ecclesasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Minister of Health has recently made drastic cuts in the housing programmes in rural areas, and that a contract has been let by the Secretary of State for Air to a London firm of builders, without local labour, to build 50 houses in connection with Lyneham, Wiltshire, aerodrome, at a cost of £1,500 each, he will take further steps to coordinate the Government's housing programme, particularly in rural areas.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. It is not the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has recently made drastic cuts in the housing programmes in rural areas. The contract mentioned was let by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, after consultation between the two Departments, in accordance with the usual practice. All practicable steps are being and will be taken to coordinate the Government's housing programme.
  Mr. Eccles: Would the Lord President of the Council say whether the housing authorities in the districts have any notice of this project, which will certainly prejudice their own housing schemes, which have already been reduced?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not see why this should prejudice their own housing schemes. It was a necessary operation on behalf of one of the Defence Departments, which had to proceed. The housing operations of the local authorities are not prejudiced.
  Mr. Eccles: They are.

  OFFICIAL WAR HISTORY, 1914–18 (REMAINING VOLUMES)
  Sir Ronald Rossasked the Prime Minister how soon will the remaining volumes of the History of the War of 1914–18 be published.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. The remaining five volumes are

  207
  either with the printer or ready for printing. The dates of publication will depend on the time taken to see them successively through the press. The first should be published in January.

  BUILDING OPERATIVES (QUESTIONING)
  Major Lloydasked the Lord President of the Council how many women are being employed by his Department in putting questions to building operatives; if he will give a list of these questions and state their purpose and the annual cost of this procedure.
  Mr. H. Morrison: Two women psychologists are being employed by the Medical research Council, for the purpose referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, at a total approximate cost of £1,000 per annum, as part of an investigation undertaken at the request of the Ministry of Works. The purpose is to ascertain facts likely to be helpful in promoting the well-being and efficiency of workers in the building industry. The questions may be in any form considered suitable for eliciting the required information about work and working conditions and the effect of these on the men. The inquiries are made only after full consultation and with the approval of representatives of the industry, including both management and workers and have been very well received.
  Major Lloyd: Is the House to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the human efficiency panel of the Ministry of Works consists only of two women? If so, would the right hon. Gentleman say what are the qualifications of those women for those highly competitive posts?
  Mr. Morrison: These ladies do not constitute the human efficiency panel. The methods used by the investigators are approved by the human efficiency panel. I am informed that the ladies concerned are competent for this work.
  Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is really necessary to have a human efficiency panel at all?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The more I look at hon. Gentlemen opposite the more I think so
  Mr. Churchill: That is worthy of the right hon. Gentleman at his best.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman also glance to his right, and inform the House whether the psychological processes will be applied to the Minister of Health?
  Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these processes will be applied to everybody.

GERMANY (BRITISH AND AMERICAN ZONES, FUSION)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg leave to make a statement on the Anglo-American Agreement regarding the zones of occupation in Germany. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State, have signed an agreement, which will be available, as a White Paper, in the Vote Office this afternoon. This agreement provides for the economic fusion of the British and American zones, as from 1st January, 1947, with the aim of making the combined area self-supporting by the end of 1949. There will be a joint Anglo-American Agency, which will deal with the imports and exports of the combined area, in which shall be established a common standard of living, including food rations. The imports will include necessary raw materials to enable the area to recover and to produce an export income. Insofar as exports from the combined area fall short of imports, the deficit will be met, subject to some minor adjustments relating to past transactions, by His Majesty's Government and the United States Government in equal shares. The costs incurred by the two Governments for their separate zones up to the 1st January, 1947, and for the combined zone thereafter, shall be recovered from future German exports in the shortest practicable time consistent with the rebuilding of the Germany economy on healthy, but non-aggressive, lines. Barriers in the way of German export trade will be removed as rapidly as world conditions permit.
The joint Anglo-American Agency will be responsible for determining German import requirements. They will be procured from the most economical sources of supply, subject to so selecting these

209
sources as to economise the dollar cost to the United Kingdom. The food ration of 1,550 calories for the normal German consumer must be accepted for the present, but will be raised to 1,800 calories as soon as conditions of world supply permit.
The two Governments intend that this arrangement shall operate, pending an agreement, for the treatment of Germany as an economic unit, or until amended by mutual agreement, but it shall be subject to review at yearly intervals.
Mr. Eden: While welcoming the fact of this economic agreement for the fusion of the American and British zones, we should like, as the right hon. Gentleman will realise, to see the White Paper before expressing any detailed opinions; and it may be that we should like a Debate on the subject, though that will be a question for the Leader of the House. There is one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman now, which, I have no doubt, is very much in the mind of the Government, and that is in respect of our dollar resources In connection with this scheme, have the Government taken any precautions, and, if so, what precautions, for our own safeguard and protection should our dollar resources run low before the zone becomes self supporting, as it is hoped it may do?
Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. As to the Debate, that is a question which, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman said, should be addressed to the Leader of the House. I would say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, I hope, will be back again in a few days, would, no doubt, welcome an opportunity for this matter to be discussed at an appropriate time. On the matter of dollar costs, the agreement provides for the amendment of the agreement itself by mutual consent. It also provides for annual revision. If our dollar resources should so decline as to make it impossible for us to find the dollars required under the agreement, we should need that to be taken into account when reviewing the matter, so that steps could then be taken to meet the resulting situation. The United States Government have been so informed.
Mr. Gordon-Walker: Could the right hon Gentleman say whether this decision affects the socialisation of the Ruhr industries?
Mr. Dalton: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated the policy of His Majesty's Government on this subject on 22nd October in this House. This is what he said:
"As an interim measure, we have taken over the possession and the control of the coal and steel industries, and have vested them in the Commander-in-Chief. We shall shortly take similar action in the case of the heavy chemical industry and the mechanical engineering industry. Our intention is that those industries should be owned and controlled in future by the public The exact form of this public ownership and control is now being worked out. They should be owned and worked by the German people, but subject to such international control that they cannot again be a threat to their neighbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October. 1946; Vol. 427, c. 1521 and 1522]
That is what my right hon. Friend said. That policy still stands. It is not in any way prejudiced by the agreement. The United States Government have been so informed.
Mr. Eden: May I ask another question on the statement? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Joint Anglo-American Agency will be responsible for determining German import requirements. To whom will that Agency be responsible? Will it be responsible to the two Commanders-in-Chief, or to some Minister here or in America, or to the two Governments, or to whom?
Mr. Dalton: That goes a little wide. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would read the White Paper in which these matters are set out, I hope, with clarity, and at greater length than that at which I have explained them this afternoon. In the last resort, responsibility must be that of Ministers, British and American Ministers acting in collaboration. Perhaps we can consider the detailed application of that principle if a Debate takes place.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what is the estimated cost of our half share? What are the joint expenses estimated to be?
Mr. Dalton: No estimate is included in the White Paper, but the basis of discussion has been that we might hope that the total expenditure, Anglo-American expenditure, equivalent to £250,000,000 over three years, would put the combined area on a self-sufficient basis. That covers the whole thing—£250,000,000

211
shared between us over a period of three years. That is the estimate. Of course, I emphasise that it is an estimate. We must see how we can go.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to intervene now, but we have had an hour of a great many supplementary questions of extraordinary length. Now that we have a White Paper before us on this matter, is it not, therefore, really better, on the whole, that we should read the White Paper, before asking many questions about it?
Mr. Kirkwood: Going back to the right hon. Gentleman's reply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, if I heard him aright, that in the Ruhr the Germans, who lost the war, are to have their steelworks nationalised. We, who won the war, have not done so.
Mr. Boothby: There is only one point I should like to put, and that is, whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether anything in this agreement prejudices our plans for the reorganisation of the zone, such as, for instance, the appointment of a resident Minister? Is there anything in the agreement that prejudices our plans in that direction?
Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. They are not prejudiced at all.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Dame Priscilla Jean Fortescue Grant, for the Burgh of Aberdeen (South Division).
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.41 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This is a very short and simple Measure, and I will in due course give an exact account of its provisions. But I do not feel that I should pass direct to the provisions of the Bill without saying something of the historical and emotional background of this subject, a subject which is indeed, surrounded by much poignant British history. It has been said by a great historian that with the flowering of Nelson's genius, came the heroic age of British naval warfare, and the firm establishment of British sea power. The courage of this great sailor, who faced great risks with open eyes on many occasions is legendary. His three greatest victories, the Nile, Copenhagen and Trafalgar, following the long vigil outside Toulon waiting for the enemy to come out and fight, established the tradition of British naval invincibility which carried us right through the 19th century and beyond, and through two wars against the Germans. Nelson foiled Napoleon's plans for the invasion of this island of ours just as his naval successors, cooperating with the Air Force and the Army in the last war, foiled Hitler's plan aimed at the same objective. Looking back upon history, I think we can say that Nelson's victories were more enduring in their consequences than Napoleon's.
  On 21st October, 1805—the anniversary is only just past—he died in the moment of victory in the cockpit of the "Victory"; his sailors brought him home, and he lay in state in the Painted Hall at Greenwich on his way to his last resting place in St. Paul's, where they sang:
  "Let his body be buried in peace, but his name liveth for evermore."
  Nothing that is past, nothing that is to come, can ever dim his story or quench his immortality.
  The discussion this afternoon relates to the Act of 1806. What would the great sailor have thought of that Act, which

  213
  was passed after his death, and is referred to in the Amendment, which has been placed upon the Order Paper by certain hon. Members? The Act of 1806 cannot be said to have carried out the wish of the great sailor. His wish was different. In his last words, in the last hours he spent in mortal pain, he was thinking, not of his elder brother—who was endowed under this Act—but of the woman he loved and of the daughter she had borne. At 11 o'clock in the morning on the memorable day of Trafalgar, it is recorded that Nelson went down to his cabin which had then been stripped for action. The picture of Lady Hamilton had been taken down by one of the crew and put aside, and Nelson is reported to have said, "Take care of my guardian angel." He went down to his cabin, and wrote the last codicil to his will, and it read as follows:
  "October 21st, 1805, then in sight of the combined fleets of France and Spain, distant about 10 miles."
  I leave out a few sentences. He continues:
  "I leave Emma, Lady Hamilton, a legacy to my King and country, trusting that they will give her an ample provision to maintain her rank in life. I also leave to the beneficence of my country my adopted daughter Horatia Nelson Thompson. These are the only favours I ask of my King and country, at this moment, when I am going to fight their battle."
  He also left on his writing table, as will be recalled, two other letters, one to Emma, Lady Hamilton, and one to his daughter Horatia. And he wrote also the famous prayer for victory, which we all know. Those were his last writings, and we also know that, as he lay dying in great pain, he repeated again that he left Lady Hamilton and Horatia to his country.
  I quote another famous seaman to complete this incident, the great Lord Fisher of Kilverstone, as he afterwards became, who in 1905 when he was Admiral Sir John Fisher, First Sea Lord, wrote:
  "Nelson died a comparative pauper, because he sought always fighting and not prize money. He was seeking the enemy's battleships while others were seeking fat merchant vessels…. He had to ask his country with his dying breath—the only thing he asked— to care for his friend, as he had no money to give her. She was allowed by a grateful country to starve and found a pauper's grave in a foreign land A passing Englishman paid for her funeral."
  These are the words of the great Lord Fisher. Emma, Lady Hamilton, died friendless in a garret in Calais She was
  214
  buried in a squalid graveyard which afterwards was used as a dump for timber. Of Horatia we know that she was married later to the Reverend Philip Ward, of Tenterden, Kent, and died in 1881, and there is no record that she left issue.
  I pass from those for whom Nelson cared so much, to a rather shadowy and secondary figure endowed by the Act of 1806, the Venerable William Nelson, Doctor of Divinity. He had a short and not very glorious association with the Navy. It is recorded that for two years he was a naval chaplain attached to His Majesty's ship "Boreas," which was then captained by his illustrious younger brother. He does not seem to have taken his duties very seriously, nor to have cared much for the climate of the West Indies, where his ship was stationed. He was absent from his ship for the greater part of those two years, and secured his discharge in October, 1786—not so heroic a figure as was his younger brother. It was he who was primarily endowed by the Act of 1806, which I am asking the House to amend.
  In 1806, Debates took place in Parliament; I have read them, as I think any hon. Member would read them, with great interest Parliament was not unanimously in favour of this Act of 1806; doubts were expressed at that time, first as to the desirability of paying a pension not to direct descendants, but to collateral ones, and in the second place it was felt that some provision should have been made for Lady Hamilton, and Nelson's daughter. I will not quote at length from these Debates, but it may be of interest if I recall that on 14th May, 1806, Mr. Francis said:
  "If, happily for his country, the noble Admiral had lived to enjoy these proofs of its gratitude, or, if he had left children to represent his person, and to transmit his memory, with all its honours, to an illustrious lineage directly descended from him, I should never have thought of saying one word, but in support of this question All my doubt is whether any claim on the nation stands-exactly on the same tooting in the person of a collateral relation, as it would have done, if it had been possible to preserve the reward of his services, united with his name."
  Referring to Lady Hamilton, Mr. Fuller said, on 19th May, 1806:
  "He trusted, therefore that neither the magnanimity of that illustrious man, nor the generosity of the Empire, would be forgotten by those who were to receive profits and

  215
  honours on account of the service which the immortal Nelson had performed. He would not then particularise anything"—
  These were Victorian days.
  Hon. Members: Georgian.
  Mr. Dalton: But the Victorian spirit was already stretching backwards. I repeat there was a certain reticence on the subject; but let Mr. Fuller speak for himself:
  "He would not then particularise anything, though his object must occur to many Members in the House: he hoped the representative of that family would also show some degree of generosity, and comply with the wish of the illustrious founder of the family in his last moments."
  They did not do so. Finally, Mr. Francis said:
  "Lord Nelson's collateral relations, personally, are unknown to the public, and can have no claim but what they derive from the accidental honour of bearing his name, and from services in which they had no share The gratitude due to his memory would, in my opinion, be better expressed with less profusion."
  Since that time there have been Debates from time to time upon these perpetual pensions of which this is the last outstanding case. They have, for long, been thought to be objectionable in principle. So long ago as 1887, Bradlaugh, an active reformer, succeeded in getting appointed a Select Committee of this House to consider perpetual pensions, and the Committee—and this is of great interest— recommended that no such pensions should continue beyond the life of its present owner. Their recommendation was not accepted, and, as I shall indicate, I am not proposing anything quite so drastic today. That was the recommendation of the Select Committee of this House nearly 60 years ago. With regard to this particular case, there was an offer made in 1889 for commutation at 27 years purchase, which would have involved the payment of £135,000. This offer was-made to Earl Nelson of that time, but it was refused. Since that time, the family has drawn some £285,000 gross under the head of the perpetual pension—some twice the commutation lump sum. The question of commutation was reopened in 1904 by Lord Nelson, but neither he nor the Treasury made any definite proposals. The only firm proposal was that of 1889. What is proposed is not, as the Select Committee in 1887 recommended, that the
  216
  pension should be terminated at the death of the present holder, nor that it should now be commuted, since that opportunity went by in 1889. What is proposed is that it should be terminated at the conclusion of two lives—that is the lives of the present Earl, and his heir, who is his brother.
  The provisions in the Bill are, I hope, simple, clear and intelligent. It is now more than 140 years since Nelson died, and since this pension was first granted to his venerable elder brother, the unsuccessful naval chaplain. A sum of £700,000 have now been paid not to the great Lord Nelson's direct descendants, but to the descendants of his collateral relatives through successive generations. The link with the great sailor has now become so distant and so tenuous, that there is no longer any justification for continuing what modern opinion must regard as a strange anomaly from other days. I would add that the British taxpayer is carrying on his back today a vast debt incurred in a series of wars subsequent to Nelson's day, including the two last and greatest of all world wars.
  Clause 1 proposes that the pension should be terminated when the present Earl and his immediate heir have both passed away—it is assured for the present Earl and his immediate heir, his brother. Clause 2 relaxes the conditions of the trust which now governs the Trafalgar Estates. Perhaps I may seek to put the legal position clearly and succinctly, so that the House may appreciate the change which is proposed. At present, the position is that the present tenant in tail, Earl Nelson, has not the powers of a tenant for life under the Settled Land Act That Act provided that such a tenant could himself sell, or exchange, the property, though the proceeds of such transactions must, of course, be reinvested, subject to the trust deeds. In this case Lord Nelson cannot do any of these things. He cannot sell or exchange the property, and even the trustees cannot sell or dispose of the mansion house and its park. Clause 2 (1) will enable Lord Nelson to appoint new trustees in the place of the official trustees. Clause 2 (2) gives Lord Nelson the powers of tenant for life which I have just described. Clause 2 (3) removes the special restrictions on the alienation of the mansion house and the legal obligations imposed by the original Trafalgar Estates Act to re-invest in land the proceeds of

  217
  sale of any land forming part of the estate. It may be re-invested in securities if desired, other than land. This is a relaxation which, we believe, will be for the benefit of the present Earl, and we hope for the reasons which I will give, it may also be for the benefit of the nation. It is a relaxation which, I think, will be welcomed by the present family.
  Thought has been given to views which have been expressed from time to time, as to the possible future of Trafalgar House and the surrounding grounds. I myself, and I speak now for my colleagues in the Government, should think it most suitable if Trafalgar House and the grounds attached, passed into the hands of the Admiralty, and were used for some naval purpose, which the Admiralty might think fitting. I have expressed this opinion to my noble Friend, and he is sympathetically considering this possibility. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty in the last few days following the discussions which I have carried on with my noble Friend, has visited Trafalgar House, and he has been considering, in consultation with the other Members of the Board of Admiralty, whether something of this kind might not be arranged. For this to happen, it is necessary that agreement should be reached on what would be a fair price for the house and grounds, as well as on their future use. I should be exceedingly pleased if agreement on these points could be reached, and so far as I am concerned, I shall endeavour to cooperate in securing such agreement.
  I believe that if this House, named after the great Battle of Trafalgar, and the grounds surrounding it, could be transferred permanently to the keeping of the Admiralty, it would be a far better memorial to the great Admiral, and the imperishable tradition which he created, than the present arrangement which, to a considerable degree, is characterised by a measure of dilapidation, decrepitude, and general decay in the house and its surroundings. I have had a report on its present condition. Such an arrangement, as I have suggested, would bring up, once more, to a high standard, the aesthetic and other values of the house for it is a beautiful house, built at the time when British architecture was achieving great triumphs. If this Bill is partly instrumental in bringing about
  218
  such a transfer, at a reasonable and fair price, it would be, I suggest, as Nelson himself would wish it That is the final sentiment I offer to the House, and I hope it will be clothed in practical achievement. Having explained the simple provisions of this Bill, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: In order that the House may appreciate, approximately, the liability, would it be indelicate to ask my right hon Friend to inform us of the age of the present Earl Nelson and his brother?
  Mr. Dalton: It can be found in Who's Who." They are between 80 and 90.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the extent of the Trafalgar Estate?
  Mr. Dalton: I speak subject to correction, as I have not the details on my notes, but there are some hundreds of acres surrounding the house
  4.3 p.m.
  Commander Maitland: I think the whole House has appreciated the way in which the Chancellor has moved the Second Reading of this Bill I was particularly gratified by his closing sentences for I think it would be a very great thing indeed, if we could, by a better interpretation of the will of Lord Nelson, provide something which, in the end, will justify the great expense which has been incurred. By doing that, the Chancellor has, to some extent, spiked my guns, but I must warn him that I am a specialist gunnery officer and that I am very good at getting spikes out of guns and I think I shall be able to find some ammunition to fire at him. First, why has this Bill been brought in at this time? Only a fortnight ago, we had one of our annual interesting Debates here as to what we would do with Parliamentary time this Session It was a most impassioned Debate, in which Members in ail parts, of the House took part, and spoke most sincerely in defence of their rights In that Debate, the Lord President of the Council said:
  "As it is I can assure the House that the legislative programme is the result of very drastic pruning It has been a tight squeeze and the Government are satisfied that it could not be reduced in any way without serious prejudice to the national interests "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November 1946; Vol 430, c 97.]

  219
  What national interests are urgently involved in this Bill?
  Mr. Scollan: It is 100 years too late.
  Commander Maitland: When the Chancellor is faced with a serious financial situation, when he is fighting the battle of the dollar all over the world, I cannot understand how he can spare his own time, and that of his officers, to come to the House and force a Bill through all its stages at this time. I think there must be many more important things than that for him to do.
  Mr. Gallacher: "Every mickle maks a muckle."
  Commander Maitland: Yes, it must be a matter of finance, and I would like to look into that question for a moment. In 1806, the pension of £5,000 per annum, out of a total income of £40 million, was quixotically generous—
  Mr. Scollan: Especially for doing nothing.
  Commander Maitland: Now, the sum has been reduced to £2,000 per annum after tax has been paid, or, 1/250th of what Parliament voted in 1806. If it is not a matter of finance—perhaps it is, but I should not have thought that it was so vitally important—is it, then, a matter of principle? If so, what is the exact principle that we are trying to clear up? The 1806 Act was a peculiar Act. The Chancellor has read the Debates of the past, and must have been impressed by the fact that Parliament tried hard to weld that Act into our permanent structure of legislation which, for want of a better name, we call our Constitution. It was a tremendous effort. For example, there is the question of the appointment of the trustees. The right hon. Gentleman may say that the trustees have nothing to do with the pension, but in this Bill we are considering the whole picture. The Parliament of that time appointed your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Prime Minister to be trustees for that Act. Not content with that, they put into the Act certain directions, from which I quote as follows:
  "And it is hereby further enacted; that after signing of such Warrant the same shall be good, valid, and effectual in law, accord-
  220
  ing to the purport and true meaning thereof and of this Act, and shall not be determined or revokable by or upon the demise of His Majesty (whom God long preserve), or any of his heirs or successors, or by, or upon the death or removal of any of the said Commissioners of the Treasury or the Lord High Treasurer, or by or upon the determination of the power, office or offices of them, or any of them."
  Nothing could have been made more clear by the Parliament of that day. I am not entering into the question of whether they were doing right or wrong, but they were doing it with all their might and main. The principle we are attacking is concerned not with any question of whether this permanent pension should come to an end, but with the question whether we should keep faith with the past. There are many other things of this kind in the past. Are they all to be torn up in this way? While I am on the question of principle, I would like to say that I am not at all sure that this Bill is in accordance with Socialist principles. I have looked up various Questions which were asked under previous Labour Administrations about this matter, and I see that in 1924 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "There are only three such pensions, one of which will probably be commuted very shortly. Provided that terms satisfactory to the taxpayer can be arranged, the Treasury are always ready to commute these pensions." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; Vol. 169, c. 1039.]
  In 1929 he was asked a question, in particular, about the Nelson pension, and, in reply, he said:
  "It is open to the recipient of a pension to mane application for commutation. I am sure it will be favourably received."
  There was a supplementary question:
  "Apart from the recipient making application, are the Government prepared to take the initiative in the matter?"
  He replied:
  "I do not think the Government could compel commutation apart from legislation." —[OFFCIAL REPORT. 16th July, 1929; Vol. 230, c 213.]
  We have the legislation now, but it was clear that the Chancellor of that day did not think this was a good subject for legislation.
  Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander

  221
  Maitland) is willing to give way, I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot intervene.
  Commander Maitland: I was in the middle of an argument with which I wish to proceed. I should like to be told whether the Nelson family were approached, before this Bill was introduced, with a view to commutation. Were they taken, so far as possible, into the confidence of the Treasury, or was Clause 1 of the Bill given them as a fait accompli, and were they only allowed to discuss Clause 2?
  Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us if he is talking for or against the Bill?
  Commander Maitland: I am speaking, in the best way I know, as a sailor. The design of this Bill has two effects. It has the effect of extinguishing the pension, which the Chancellor has explained to the House, and it has also the effect, as he has also explained, that the tenant for life becomes able to appoint new trustees and to dispose in any way he likes, of Trafalgar House and the estates. I think that the House will forgive me if I speak as a sailor, because anything which has to do with Nelson, curiously enough, does affect sailors. I was very glad to hear that we have a better end to this story namely that Trafalgar House will be saved than the rather sordid one that this Bill provides. At the very best, it is a rather mean and rather sordid end to the story for I must remind the House that these two old gentlemen are aged 89 and 86 and therefore the limitation of two lives cannot be regarded as very generous. I should like to remind the House too, how this story, whose end we are discussing today, began. I would like to have my turn at history, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a history lesson at the beginning.
  In November, 1805, we in this country were going through as bad a time, I suppose, as we have ever gone through—and in this generation we have known what bad times are. What happened was that the Allies, after a brief resurgence of spirit, had been completely defeated by Napoleon at the Battle of Ulm, and, on 5th November, London went to bed in a mood as near as to despair as Londoners ever get. It was in fact the lowest ebb in the Napoleonic wars—the Dunkirk time, if you like. And just as at Dunkirk
  222
  something astonishing happened. At two o'clock in the morning, the news came through of Trafalgar. It was an amazing moment for the people, who had almost forgotten that there was a chance. It meant security, and the rebirth of hope, with the knowledge of victory in the end. Therefore, can we blame the people—and they were the people, make no mistake about it—who were behind Parliament in this matter? Can we blame them if they took special pains to express their gratitude and affection? I think that we should be most careful before we set aside their expressed will in this matter.
  I conclude by saying again that I think that this idea which the Chancellor has given to the House is a good one. I hope that he will be able to include it in the Bill, because it seems to me that it will require legislation, and I should like to see the story which started in 1805 rounded off by legislation in this Bill. It is in the confident hope that we may be able to amend this Bill in its later stages, that I leave this matter, trusting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us what we need.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Braddock: After listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), I think that it must be obvious to this House, and the country, why no previous Government took the step which this Government have had the courage to take. It is obvious that previous Governments did not want to do it. I suggest that this action of the Government will be welcomed by everybody. It is a thing that should have been done many years ago. The memory of Nelson does not depend upon a pension or upon the preserving of Trafalgar House or any estate. Nelson is one of those men who was so great, that he does not need a statue, a picture, or a memorial. Therefore, we can cut out from the consideration of a memorial, all consideration of this estate. I ask myself: Is it the best use that we can make of national money to buy this particular estate for this particular purpose? It is not necessary that this should be done in order that this country will remember Nelson. I also ask myself: Is this another way of paying over a very large sum of money to the two brothers, or the heirs of the estate? It seems to me that this is a very clever way of commuting the pension.

  223
  This is an extremely important event in our history, and I wonder what will follow from it. This is not the only estate of a similar character in this country. Lady Hamilton did not come out of this affair very well; but certain other ladies, in the history of this country, came out of this sort of thing exceedingly well. There are many great families, and many so-called great people in this country who are benefiting from this sort of thing. I hope that the Government, when they have the time, will look into some other estates and treat them in the same way. If they do, it will be to the benefit of many millions of citizens who are paying rates to maintain the estates of people who have no connection with great men such as Nelson, but who obtained their estates by unworthy and despicable means.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: It does not appear to me to be very necessary to deal with the observations of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), because they were really of a general character, but I think one must agree with his opening remark that the memory of Nelson requires no monument. On that we shall all agree. I do not, however, agree with the Bill which is now before us for Second Reading. I say that because, during the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), hon. Members opposite appeared to be in some doubt whether he was speaking for or against the Bill. Therefore, at this stage, I wish to make it plain that I am speaking against the Bill.
  I have not had the advantage, which the Chancellor has enjoyed, of reading the Debates on the original Bill, although I have read the King's Speech and the Act. I would like to remind the House of the circumstances in which that Measure was introduced. I would not compete as a student of history with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle, but I am bound to point out that when Ministers addressed the House in January, 1806, it was the darkest hour of the Napoleonic wars. The Continent was in the grip of Napoleon. Prussia had collapsed, and the King's Speech could only, by way of consolation, point out that the Emperor of Russia was loyal and express
  224
  the hope that we might be able to maintain the struggle and obtain in due course an honourable peace. We know better. We know that the decisive battle of the Napoleonic wars had been fought. We know that the long series of decisive naval battles—Salamis, Actium, Lepanto—had received another crowning victory, and that, although at that time no one knew it, the Napoleonic Empire was already doomed. On the imperfect knowledge which our forefathers then had, they passed the Act. I am not concerned to deal with the shabby treatment of Horatia or Lady Hamilton. I am not concerned to vindicate the warlike prowess of the Reverend Dr. Nelson, although I am bound to say that it appears to me somewhat belittling to speak lightly of the lack of martial ability of a cleric, whose part it is not to be a sailor or a combatant. Those facts and those limitations were quite as well known to the people of that time as they are to us. With their eves open, Ministers came to the House, and the King's Speech read as follows:
  "You will, therefore, cheerfully concur in enabling His Majesty to annex to the honours which he has conferred on the family of the late Lord Nelson such a mark of national munificence as may preserve to the latest posterity the memory of his name and services and the benefit of his great example."
  The wording of the Statute was very similar:
  "Being desirous to bestow on the family of Lord Nelson such considerable and lasting mark of your royal favour …"
  The pension or annuity was settled, and Trafalgar House was built. I think there is one thing on which we shall agree. It is that few objects in life are so pitiable as a poor and impecunious nobleman. Therefore, it was the object of the people of that time not merely to ennoble the family of Nelson, but to see that that family should be kept up in a proper state. A decline in the value of money and high taxation have no doubt tended to abridge the liberality of our ancestors. That no one could help When we look back, however, as we do. with fuller knowledge at what evoked our great grandfathers' generosity, when we realise that Lord Nelson fought and won one of the decisive battles of the world, which saved this country and Europe, I am not disposed to abridge the provisions which they made They do not depend upon the individual merits of the recipient from time to time.

  225
  The proposal of this Bill reminds one of the rather niggling belitting proposals of the Victorian age, at the time when large audiences really enjoyed hearing Sir Charles Dilke give lectures on the cost of the Crown, and when Mr. Bradlaugh was worrying himself about perpetual pensions, and actually lecturing up and down the country about them. Because the Government revere the memory of Mr. Bradlaugh and his colleagues, we are asked, in times such as these, to spend an afternoon in discussing whether we should get rid of a pension of £5,000 a year—paper pounds, less tax. I am not impressed by the suggestion that this proposal is more generous than the proposal of the Select Committee, which was to end the pension at the end of a then existing middle-aged life. Here it is proposed to terminate it at the end of two lives aged 89 and 85. If a paltry thing is going to be done, it is not made any better by glossing it over as an act of generosity. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that we should leave the very important matters which confront this country to spend an afternoon on what I consider to be a piece of paltry meanness.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I speak as a strong supporter of this Bill, and like the Chancellor, I wish to begin my remarks by saying that, of course, those who support the Bill and those who wish to vote for it are not in any way seeking to detract from the immortal glory and fame of Lord Nelson. There is no danger that that fame will ever be forgotten. Many hon. Members, when they come to their work in the morning, pass through Trafalgar Square. I think we all feel a little safer when we see that splendid monument, and when we see the eye of Lord Nelson firmly and vigilantly fixed on the Admiralty, where, as he often suggested, the most sinister enemies of British naval greatness often presided. I speak in support of the Second Reading of this Bill also for a personal reason. The matter of perpetual pensions was raised in the House in many Questions in the years of 1923 and 1924. It was raised by a former Member for Bodmin, whom I think I may claim as a most eminent past Member of the House. Much information about this matter was elicited by the Member for Bodmin at that time, and he succeeded
  226
  largely in stopping two other perpetual pensions, the pension for Lord Rodney and the Schomberg pension.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: When the hon. Member says that the former Member for Bodmin stopped those pensions, does he mean without compensation, or were the pensions commuted, instead of an annual sum being paid?
  Mr. Foot: They were commuted on principles which were agreed between the Chancellor and the recipients of the pensions at that time, and the same kind of offer was made to Lord Nelson, as has been said by the Chancellor on two or three occasions, but unhappily the suggestion was rejected. The hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. Harold Roberts) says that this is a belittling Measure and proceeded to pour scorn on the efforts of Mr. Bradlaugh. While I have very great respect for Lord Nelson, I have also very great respect for Mr. Bradlaugh and for the many famous fights which he fought in this House of Commons. It was not merely Mr. Bradlaugh, however, who reported on that Committee, but many members of the then Liberal Party and Conservative Party, and they produced a unanimous report on the subject which was, unhappily, not carried into effect. Not merely did that Committee at that time say that all perpetual pensions should be determined and abolished; they also said that the purchase price of 27 years, which had been the practice when such pensions were commuted on previous occasions, was too high, and they hinted that a much lower price should be granted in the future. Much money would have been saved to the State if Lord Nelson had been prepared to accept that generous settlement in 1889.
  We are told by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) that by passing this Measure today, we shall fail to keep faith with the past. I believe that by passing this Measure we shall, in fact, much better keep faith with the past, because I do not see how anyone, after the facts given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can argue that the Act of 1806 carried out the wishes of the man whom this House was seeking to honour. Much evidence can be produced to support that view. The hon. Member for Handsworth suggested that the House of Commons at that time was

  227
  in full possession of the facts and understood all points of view and that, therefore, we should not go back on that decision. But it is doubtful whether all the facts were known at that time. For instance, here is the report published on the death of Lord Nelson in the "Annual Register" and these words represent the views held then by a large number of people in this country:
  "Few men nave by their death, occasioned a more general impression of regret and sorrow; and as he was universally esteemed so is he universally lamented; it may be said that he has left the world without an enemy. To his country and to his friends his loss is great indeed; but, alas, how much greater to his poor afflicted widow whose only consolation will be the remembrance of his virtues?"
  That certainly is a masterly under-statement of the facts, but it does not alter the fact that the House of Commons or many Members of the House of Commons were deceived by such evidence as that, and that brings me to the question of Lady Hamilton. It has been alleged by some historians, and wrongly alleged, that the first Lord Nelson who received the pension suppressed the evidence of the last testament of the hero of Trafalgar in order that this Measure should be passed through the House of Commons and that he should get this pension. I have already said that he is wrongfully accused of this, but there was suppression carried out by Lord Grenville, who was, in effect, the Prime Minister at the time, partly on the basis of evidence supplied by the Admiralty. The evidence that came from the Admiralty stated that Lady Hamilton had not done the signal service to the British nation which Lord Nelson claimed in his last testament. Whose opinion of Lady Hamilton are we to accept? Are we to accept Lord Nelson's evidence or that of the Admiralty? Personally, on the achievements and character of Lady Hamilton, I would accept the opinion of Lord Nelson against all the dusty insinuations which can be ransacked from the archives of the Admiralty.
  It has been stated by other historians that nothing shameful was done to Lady Hamilton. It is said that she had plenty of money left her, including £2,000 a year by Lord Nelson. She has been accused of being a spendthrift who wasted his money on riotous living, and that, therefore, no blame attaches to Parliament for not carrying out the last testimony of the
  228
  great sailor. I think Lady Hamilton had the right to spend her money how she wished. It does not alter the fact that Lady Hamilton did die in penury, and, as the Chancellor has already said, she was buried in a grave which for a time was lost. Only a wooden tombstone stood there and on it were the words: "Emma Hamilton, friend of England." I would as soon like to see these words wiped out of the history books of this country, as I would like to lose the motto which the great Lord Nelson gave to the British people on the morning of Trafalgar. Therefore, I claim that so far from doing any belittling act, this House is doing the right thing in wiping out an act of hypocrisy, for, either through ignorance or hypocrisy, Parliament in 1806 put through an Act which did not carry out the desires and wishes of Lord Nelson's will.
  There is a further reason why I support this Measure. I have the honour to represent the most important section of the most important naval city in the world From that city of Plymouth and from the counties of Devon and the neighbouring counties of Somerset and Cornwall have come many of the great naval captains who have adorned British history. If it had not been for these people coming from Devon and Cornwall, we might never have heard of Lady Hamilton, Lord Nelson and other famous people. I would ask this question—what happened to the heirs of the great men of the West Country when they died? How did England and this Parliament treat them? No pension was paid to Sir Richard Grenville from Cornwall, and no annuity was given to the heirs of Sir Francis Drake. No financial award went to Sir John Hawkins from Plymouth. [An HON MEMBER: "Nor to Monty."] And I think rightly so, but I will deal with that point in a minute or two. What happened to the others? What happened to Robert Blake, whose name is second only to Nelson's in British naval history? His bones were taken out from Westminster Abbey, and thrown into a common pit by the orders of one Stuart king, while Raleigh was sent to the scaffold by another. This is how this Parliament treated the heroes of the West Country; yet their fame has not diminished, and every school child knows that but for them England would have remained an insignificant little island in the North Sea.

  229
  I would point out to the Chancellor not only in his capacity as trustee but also as Chancellor of the Exchequer that he made what I thought was a very slighting reference to prize money. Some of his predecessors were very glad of that prize money Indeed, the difference between the admirals who came from Devon, and the Admirals who came from other parts of the country, was this; that whereas those other Admirals cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer a great deal of money, the Admirals from Devon not only demanded nothing from him at their death, but in their lifetime they filled the national coffers. How much better would the prospects of this country be and how little would we need the American Loan if we had today a few Drakes and a few Hawkins prowling the Seven Seas.
  Not merely did they dispose of these enormous sums of money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but during their lifetime, as in the case of John Hawkins— whose last act when dying was to send his last £2,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Queen of England —they donated moneys to the Crown. I want to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what happened to the £2,000 given by Sir John Hawkins, and I want to know what is being done for the heirs and descendants of Drake, of Raleigh, of the Grenvilles and all those other famous men from Devon, Cornwall, and Somerset. I know all about it because I receive letters from them every day—from the Drakes, the Hawkins, the Grenvilles and the others. And what do they say? They want their post-war credits; they want their war damage payments; they want better treatment for the long service naval pensioners—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether it is in Order to discuss the payment of postwar credits to the hon. Member's constituents in connection with the Measure now before the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Actually it is not in Order, but I was waiting to see how far the hon. Member intended to use it as an illustration.
  Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little longer, I would have tried to prove exactly how relevant this point
  230
  is. The descendants of these great men, who live in a section of Devon called Devonport, have many requests which they want to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, requests which I shall bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention at a more suitable time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly well aware that the sons of these famous seamen in Devon do not ask for special favours. They would abhor any proposal that special favours should be granted to one section. Coming from a naval city, I am convinced that the Chancellor can rest assured that there is strong support for wiping out this pension, which should never have been granted.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) I wish to pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the spirit in which he has introduced this Bill, and I should like equally to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman himself, who I am sorry is not in the House at the moment, for the sincerity and conviction with which he voiced views which happen not to accord with my own.
  Before I discuss one or two features of the Bill itself, I venture to join issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one or two points of history. He is, of course, a man of romantic nature and in certain respects his enthusiasm, I think, has a little run away with him. Everybody who knows anything of the story, must realise that Lady Hamilton has been the subject of an idealisation which the facts of history hardly warrant. The Chancellor quoted Lord Fisher of Kilverstone as having said that Lord Nelson died in comparative poverty. It is characteristic of that great seaman of our own day that when he was discussing affairs of the sea he always had his feet firmly planted on the ground, but when discussing affairs of the land, he was all at sea. In fact, in suggesting that Lord Nelson died a pauper, he was using language which was at variance with the facts, and it would be an unfortunate thing if the impression gained ground, fostered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that this country was lacking in recognition to Lord Nelson, even in material matters, during his lifetime. There is not a shred of foundation for that suggestion.

  231
  What, in fact, did Lord Nelson draw from a grateful country? After the engagement of Santa Cruz in 1797 he was granted a pension of £1,000 a year for his own life. After the Battle of the Nile in 1798 he was granted a pension of £2,000 a year for three lives, in addition to which he was given £10,000 by the East India Company and gifts of great value by the Tsar of Russia and the Sultan of Turkey, with an additional £1,000 a year from the Irish Parliament. That, together with the dukedom of Bronte, which brought him in approximately £3,000 a year, produces, at any rate, a competence for a quiet family man, and there is no suggestion that so long as Lord Nelson remained a quiet family man, he made any complaint about his material means. With regard to Lady Hamilton, here again idealisation has taken wing. Let me first talk about her material state. It is said that she died as a pauper in Calais. That is undoubtedly true, and it was no one's fault at all but her own. Lord Nelson made what would have been ample and abundant provision for any lady of less expansive tastes. She received, under his will, £2,000 in cash, an annuity of £500 charged on the revenues of Bronté, and the house and grounds of Merton valued at from £12,000 to £14,000 a year. Further, interest on £4,000 settled on Horatia was to be paid to her until the child reached the age of 18, which meant for 14 years or so. In addition to that it was mentioned that she was allowed £500 by another gentleman with whom she lived "on terms of friendly intimacy." and that was probably not the only donation she received from similar sources.
  Let us be under no illusions. Lady Hamilton has been long dead, and it is possible to go back to the hard facts of history without making any apology about it. That she lived a godly, righteous and sober life it would be idle to pretend She did not With collaboration—readily available and in considerable volume—she did a good deal to avert a decline of the birth rate and that, perhaps, may be accounted to her for righteousness. Strange to say, moreover, she was on terms of cordiality with the Rev. William Nelson, Doctor of Divinity, though not conspicuously addicted to divinity herself. Yet perhaps not so strange. The conversion of Magdalenes is an attractive, if
  232
  slightly insidious, pursuit, and it evidently appealed to the reverend gentleman. The facts are, therefore, that during his lifetime Lord Nelson was rightly honoured and adequately endowed by his country, and that Lady Hamilton at all times, during her association with him and after his death, was equally abundantly and adequately endowed. There is no apology for posterity to make on either of those two counts.
  What are, in fact, the principles involved in this Debate on this Bill? The first question that arises is obviously whether money grants are a proper reward for such great services as those rendered by Lord Nelson, and whether they should be reserved only for great soldiers, great sailors and, in our time, great airmen. If anyone attempts to measure against one another the contributions to victory made by Lord Nelson and Mr. Pitt, it will be as hard to arrive at a just decision, as to compare the contribution made in the recent war by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and any soldier, sailor, or airman. Yet Mr. Pitt left nothing but debts behind him, while Lord Nelson, as I have said, lived in comparative affluence and left Lady Hamilton in comparative affluence after him.
  If we were to consider this matter again in this House, I think we should reach the conclusion that material rewards are not the proper rewards for soldiers and sailors in war. But if we are to have such grants should they be posthumous? There is obviously something to be said for giving a great soldier, when he has finished his battles, a sufficiency for him to live in comfort for the rest of his days or even as in the case of Nelson and Wellington, keep his children and his grandchildren in comfort also. But to give it to his brother, an obscure parson in an eastern county, and to allow it to descend irregularly from uncle to nephew, from father to son, and then to a brother again, in perpetuity, is surely in accordance neither with reason nor commonsense. Even supposing that the awards are to be posthumous, are they to go on through all eternity, being paid out of the taxpayers' money to people who have neither toiled nor spun for what they receive, but simply draw it because they happen to have been born in a certain line of succession?

  233
  Finally, in the case of Lord Nelson, to whom should any posthumous pension have been paid? In spite of the opinion that must be held of Lady Hamilton in the light of history, there is no question about the opinion in which Lord Nelson held her. He is said to have turned a blind eye on a signal at the Battle of Copenhagen; he clearly turned both blind eyes on Lady Hamilton's shortcomings, which were neither few nor inconsiderable. But he was deeply in love with her and would have made any sacrifice for her, and his dying wish was that she, and she alone, should be cared for by a country desiring to show its recognition of his great services. Manifestly, in spite of any moralistic prejudice which the unmarried Mr. Pitt may have entertained, it is clear that Lady Hamilton, and not the Rev. William Nelson, Doctor of Divinity —in spite of the fact that he was a member of my own university—should have been the beneficiary after Lord Nelson's death.
  There is, however, something far more fundamental about this Bill than anything which I have touched on yet. It is embodied in this question: How can the continuance, or discontinuance of this pension have the smallest bearing upon the fame of Lord Nelson's services to this country? He stands today aloft upon his column, which is the most famous monument in our country. The square in which the monument stands is, by reason of its name, among the most famous squares in the world. I put is to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that they might take note of an opinion which, as coming from one of their former leaders, will perhaps carry weight with them. When the barony was awarded to Lord Nelson after the Battle of the Nile, objection was expressed on the ground that it ought to have been either a viscounty or an earldom. Mr. Pitt said then:
  "It is unnecessary to enter into that question. Admiral Nelson's fame will be coeval with the British name. It will be remembered that be has obtained the greatest naval victory on record "—
  it was the Nile, not Trafalgar, because the Nile was then the greatest victory on record—
  "when no man will think of asking whether he had been created a Baron, a Viscount or an Earl."
  Will anyone, in considering such services as were rendered by Lord Nelson, think they have the smallest relation to two old
  234
  gentlemen in Wiltshire, who will, in any case, enjoy the pension for the rest of their lives, after which it will finally cease? Such considerations cannot weigh in the balance by so much as the dust on the eyebrow of a fly.
  4.53 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am sure the House has heard with the greatest pleasure the eulogy which the Chancellor has given of the great services rendered by Lord Nelson to his country. I must say that I did not agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the remainder of his speech about the successors to the title. In my opinion it had little or nothing to do with the Act in which the memory of Nelson's great services was commemorated. I very much regret that this is treated as a party matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] I think it is being treated very much a party matter. Are the Whips going to be put on tonight?
  Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member appears to be asking me. He must put his question to the Government.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: This is a matter not only for Parliament. It is one in which the whole country, nay, the whole Empire, takes a very great interest. In the mind of the people of this country and of the people of the British Empire, Lord Nelson stands as the greatest naval hero, and as the greatest naval commander this country has ever had. The great and signal services which he rendered to this country throughout his career, culminating in the glorious and decisive victory over the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar when he annihilated the sea power of France, made certain the ultimate defeat of Napoleon. That victory led to the certain downfall of Napoleon and his armies. Nelson is the symbol of our sea power, by which we have become the great nation that we are. The British Empire, of which we are so proud and which is such a great asset for the peace and security of the world, was brought into being and maintained by our sea power.
  Parliament and the people of his time recognised Lord Nelson's signal services, and the Act of 1806 was in consequence passed. This was done in order that Lord

  235
  Nelson should have a house, a title and a perpetual pension and so that his successors should be in a position to keep up, in comfort and dignity, the title which the country so rightly conferred upon him. Particular pains were taken in the Act, and in a later Act in 1813, to make sure that the estate should be a perpetual one. House, land, annuity were all bound up together in a perpetual trust in which, as everybody knows, you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, I think the Treasurer of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister are all trustees. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Lord Chancellor."] Yes, the Lord Chancellor as well. There was some significance in making Mr. Speaker one of the trustees. There roust have been significance in it. It is without dispute that the annuity of £5,000 per annum was to be a perpetual one. If the Bill passes, it will do away with that annuity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very rightly said that it will continue to be paid to the present holder of the title and to his brother, but the next heir will not get the £5,000. There will then be nothing left of the perpetual pension granted by the Act of 1806.
  The Bill embodies the principle which was acted upon, by the Socialist Government after the recent war, when the great leaders of our three Services, Navy, Army and Air Force, were awarded titles—which they richly deserved. But their names, I regret to say, were not mentioned in this House and thus placed on perpetual record in HANSARD for all time as having received the gratitude of Parliament and the country for the services which they have rendered. Be that as it may, the Socialist Government were opposed to a money grant being attached to the title. They were opposed therefore to the heirs and descendants of those who served the country so conspicuously in the recent war being assured of money to enable them to uphold the dignity of the title. Hon. Members do not agree with the dignity of a title. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Tommy Atkins?"] Hon. Members of the Socialist Party do not uphold the traditions of the past, they desire to destroy the ancient monuments and memorials of our great commanders in the Navy and Army They want to destroy a link with the past. The mentality of the Socialist Party is
  236
  this—that the workmen who laid the stones and built St. Paul's Cathedral have just as much right to be remembered and held in great honour by the country as Sir Christopher Wren who designed it. They are unable to appreciate outstanding ability on the part of anyone in this country or to recognise the point of having a standing memorial to a great man.
  I now wish to deal with the question of the perpetual pension. In 1924 and 1929, Mr. Isaac Foot, a Member of Parliament at that time, put several Questions to Mr. Snowden, the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Foot first asked the Chancellor:
  "whether he proposes to take steps to terminate the perpetual pensions now being paid in respect of services rendered to the State more than a century ago."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
  "There are only three such pensions, one of which will probably be commuted very shortly. Provided that terms satisfactory to the taxpayer can be arranged, the Treasury are always ready to commute these pensions." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; Vol. 169, c. 1039.]
  The second Question was whether the Chancellor
  "will inform the House as to the date when Lord Nelson was last invited to state the terms on which he was willing to commute the pension which has been paid since the year 1805."
  The reply was:
  "Certain communications passed in 1904"—
  to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his speech today—
  "but they never advanced beyond preliminary inquiries."
  I am a little surprised that the Chancellor at that time did not state what the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated today, that in 1889 a definite offer was made. The third question was:
  "Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to accord with the previous policy, made many years ago, that these pensions should be commuted and on terms representing a substantial saving to the Treasury."
  The reply of Mr. Snowden was:
  "That precisely represents the attitude of the present Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1924; Vol 171, c. 1966.)
  I apologise to the House for reading all these questions but they are very important. In 1929, Mr. Foot asked:
  "What perpetual pensions are now being paid in respect of services rendered to the nation more than a century ago?"

  237
  The answer was:
  "The only perpetual pension remaining is that of £5,000 per annum granted by Parliament in 1806 to Earl Nelson."
  Mr. Foot then asked:
  "Do the Government desire the commutation of this pension, as others have been commuted recently?"
  The reply was:
  "It is open to the recipient of the pen-son to make application for commutation. I am sure it will be favourably received."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1929; Vol. 230, C. 213.]
  I have read these Questions and answers for two reasons, first, because the use of the term "perpetual pension" in all those Questions was never objected to by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden; and, second, because Mr. Snowden was not only willing but anxious as late as 1929, to commute this pension which the Socialist Government propose to terminate by the Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bringing in today—
  Mr. Kirkwood: We are more intelligent now.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Therefore in 1924 and 1929 we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who as a trustee of the provisions of the Act of 1806, was willing and anxious to fulfil his responsibilities and his obligations as a trustee. Today we have another Socialist Chancellor—[An HON. MEMBER: "A better one."]—with, I say this without offence, a different mentality—
  Mr. Kirkwood: A Socialist mentality.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: He is also a trustee and has the same responsibilities or obligations as a trustee.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I put the hon. and gallant Gentleman right? At no time have the trustees who have been appointed had anything to do with the pension. The trustees deal with the estate, and not with the pension.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the pension is nothing whatever to do with the trustees?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall Mr. Glenvil Hall indicated assent.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Then who is responsible for seeing that this pension is paid?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is paid from the Consolidated Fund every three months. When this Bill is passed, it will continue to be paid until the death of the present heirs.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Why is it paid— [Laughter.] Very well. That is a mere quibble, but I do not know that hon. Members have anything to laugh about. If I had the power, and stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer's £5,060 a year, I do not think hon. Members would laugh—
  Mr. Kirkwood: We would see to that.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am not a lawyer, and I do not know, but I wonder since when has it been right and lawful for trustees themselves to initiate such action as will materially alter the trust for which they are responsible—
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is a brainy one.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: In all seriousness I ask the Government, by what moral standards they now break the conditions of the Act of 1806 for which they are trustees. Do they consider that the great services rendered by Lord Nelson were less worthy of fair compensation and fair treatment than the services rendered by the Duke of Marlborough or Lord Rodney because in their cases and all other cases, these perpetual pensions have been commuted? Why this discrimination against the greatest sailor this country ever had? It is no argument whatever for hon. Members opposite to say that there is not a direct heir, that they do not like the last successor to the title, or that perhaps the next successor will not be a very bright fellow and will be no good to the country. We cannot argue like that. There would be no security for anything or anybody under that argument. I object very strongly, on principle, to the Government breaking this trust without compensation —the only case of any of the great soldiers or sailors of the past not having had their pensions commuted. The Chancellor has not put forward any argument which would justify that being done.
  I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about Trafalgar House and park. It is a splendid idea for it will be a lasting memorial, so far as the Navy is concerned, of their greatest hero, the man who is the symbol of our sea power. I am entirely in agreement

  239
  with that, but not if there is no fair compensation for the £5,000 a year annuity. If that £5,000 is taken away, it will be impossible to the heirs to the title to keep up Trafalgar House and the surrounding park. It would have to be sold and then disappear altogether, and that would be a very grievous loss and a great mistake, in my opinion. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider this matter in order that this annuity may be compensated for, on a fair basis as have all the others, and that there will be no discrimination against this case. I hope the Bill will be altered so that there will be an assurance that Trafalgar House and its surrounding park shall, for all time, remain as a memorial to that great sailor whose dying words were: "Thank God I have done my duty."
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Gallacher: I am very pleased the Chancellor has brought in this Bill, though I consider it very belated. It is a pity he was not Chancellor a generation or even a century ago. There has been no justification of any kind for perpetual pensions. They are a form of privilege which could never be justified. Nelson lives in the history, not only of this country, but of the world. Nothing that anybody can say or do, can ever dim the lustre of Nelson's fame. But let us remember always, when we talk about Nelson, that he had the assistance of a few sailors. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said that we on this side believed that the men who laid the stones and built the superstructure of St. Paul's were as important as Wren. Of course they are. What use would Wren have been without his workmen? Similarly, Nelson needed these sailors who accepted his commands and carried out his orders in such an heroic manner.
  When I hear all this talk of Lady Hamilton, I am not inclined to get emotional about it. They can tell us where Lady Hamilton is buried and what sort of tombstone is on her grave. What about the wives and mothers of the seamen who fought at Trafalgar? Can anyone tell us where they were buried, or what sort of tombstones they had? No, I do not worry too much about Lady Hamilton. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Parliament passed this pension,
  240
  that it represented the desire of the people of this country, and that we should not interfere with the expressed wishes of the people. Never was there such nonsense. The people of that time did not have a vote; they had no say of any kind. Parliament consisted of a few picked landowners, representing and controlling rotten boroughs, people who believed in, and lived on, privilege. There was always a certain amount of sanctimonious hypocrisy about them, as there is at the present time They were not prepared to consider Nelson's wishes and desires, because Lady Hamilton was not as respectable as she might have been, and it was much better to take the representative of one of the celestial transport companies.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: All this mention of Lady Hamilton may be very amusing, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to let her rest in peace?
  Mr. Gallacher: I thought she ought to have been allowed to rest in peace.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Withdraw.
  Mr. Gallacher: Withdraw what?
  Mr. Baxter: Withdraw the whole thing.
  Mr. Gallacher: I said, the people who were in control were not prepared to carry out the wishes of Nelson, because they considered that Lady Hamilton was not sufficiently respectable, and that is why they chose to give the pension in another direction. But there was no justification for its descending from family to family. There was some reference in the Debate to the Rodney pension being commuted. Of course it was commuted. When this matter was raised some time ago and the Chancellor was asked about the Nelson pension, I asked a supplementary question. I asked if he would see to it that, when this pension was ended, it was not done in the same way as the Lord Rodney pension, because in that case the recipient was left in the same position as he was in before, a large sum of money being given which was invested, so that the recipient went on drawing the pension in the form of interest. The Rodney family, since the pension was stopped, are drawing as much every year as they were drawing before. I want a complete break. That is what the Chancellor has done in this case, and that is the value of this Bill.

  241
  With regard to the estate, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) asked the Chancellor how many acres there were, and the reply was that there was some hundreds of acres. Then I asked who gave them these, and the Chancellor said it was the Government. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away," and I object very much to the Government paying compensation for taking back an estate which is theirs. Not a penny should be paid. We want, to be finished with this business. We have instituted a lot of perpetual pensioners by the compensation we have given to the coalowners. We want to finish with this sort of thing, so I say to the Chancellor, Good luck to this Bill so far as the first Clause is concerned.
  We hope that in discussing the second part, the right hon. Gentleman will make a decision on the lines which have been suggested. It is a good idea to take over the estate and the house for the Admiralty, who could make good use of it in one way or another. It may be that they could make a pleasant home for disabled seamen or seamen's dependants. After that, we should finish entirely with all this privilege that is so much a part of the politics of hon. Members on the other side of the House They are not concerned about the memory of Nelson— not a bit. They think that here is a privilege which is being taken away, and if this is taken away, others might also be taken away, until all is taken away. I ask the Chancellor to finish entirely with privilege, and bring Clause 2 into line with Clause 1. Let him take over the estate without compensation, and he will then be doing a good job in which the people of this country will give him full support.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I was glad to see that during the speech to which the House has just listened there was a very natural and proper appearance of embarrassment on the faces of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am perfectly certain that few hon Members of this House regard a speech of that tone as propel in the discussion of the matter, which is before the House. Hon. Members opposite, and on this side, may differ as to the proper manner in which the memory of one of the greatest Englishmen shall be commemorated
  242
  That is a matter of legitimate controversy, but I am perfectly certain that no one who values the spirit and reputation of the House of Commons and this country would welcome discussion of this matter in the tone of the speech to which the House has just had the misfortune to listen.
  The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), unlike other hon. Members opposite, made a contribution to the Debate which is entitled to, and deserves, an answer. He pointed out to the House with perfect truth and perfect propriety, that there has been a failure on the part of many Governments in English history to give adequate reward to those who have been great captains, by sea or land The hon. Member was entitled to make that point, and it is true I would only say to him that the fact that there has been grave neglect on many occasions and on occasions not too distant—to make proper recognition to great national leaders, is no particular reason for supporting a Bill designed to wipe out one of the few instances in which a proper memorial has been made.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member has missed the point. What I was saying was that the fact that no annuities have been paid in the cases of those great seamen was proof that their fame would remain undiminished, whether pensions were did or not. That is an argument to which he is not addressing himself.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon Member has failed to appreciate the persuasive power of his own eloquence. It was manifest that the hon. Member's speech, whether designed or not, amounted to an expression of grievance that adequate expression has not been made and a point of Order was raised about bringing in the question of the failure of Governments in this respect. I do not withdraw a word The hon Member must recollect that the whole tone of his speech was a very proper expression of grievance in the sense I have suggested.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member was so concerned with his own point of Order that he could not have listened to the argument at all.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I always pay the hon. Member the compliment of listening to his speeches, because they are worth listening to As other hon. Members also

  243
  listened, I am prepared to leave the matter to the judgment of the House.
  The point of the Bill is not-whether, as the Chancellor so often suggested, the first Lord Nelson would or would not have wished it. That is, surely, immaterial. If it were material, I would share the right hon. Gentleman's view that Lord Nelsons brother would not be the first object on whom he would have desired national recognition to be lavished. The point is that the House of Commons in 1806—the right hon. Gentleman told us that he studied the Debates of that period and so have I—intended that this recognition should be permanent. It is immaterial that in 1946, any of us think that similar recognition would be inappropriate. That is a tenable view, but the House must appreciate that the particular form by which one generation puts forward recognition of a great contemporary, is largely a matter of the taste of that generation. One only has to look at some of the statues in London to have a too vivid illustration of that fact. Whether we today like it or not, the House of Commons of 1806 thought it a proper memorial to provide that Lord Nelson's heirs should live with fitting dignity in a house bearing the name of the victory. There can be no dispute that that was the attitude of that Parliament. Whether it is right for this House at this date to alter it, is the point we have to consider. There is no question that, legally, the House can do it, just as, legally, it would be open for the next House of Commons to order that Grosvenor Square should cease to be a memorial to the late President Roosevelt and should be turned into a car park. It would be equally objectionable for a subsequent House of Commons to do that.
  Why has it been thought necessary to indulge, at this point, in a complete repudiation of the manifestly clear intentions of our predecessors. I am not saying that in a case of grave national necessity it would not be right to disregard the intentions of our predecessors, but can it be argued that this is the case when this pension is, as a combined result of taxation and rising prices, a lesser burden on the Exchequer than it has ever been? Can it be argued that there is national necessity for doing this, or that our finances are in such a state that a sum of £2,000 a year—which is all it amounts to nett—is so insupportable a burden that we have to repudiate the intentions of the House of Commons of
  244
  1806? Can the Financial Secretary not appreciate the point that if we, today, say that we do not agree with the manner in which Lord Nelson was commemorated in 1806, and we think it a wrong method, and propose to repudiate it, our successors 100 years hence may find themselves equally free, to repudiate the memorials we have set up to men of this generation whom we think worthy of commemoration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear.] I notice that a certain number, a small number of hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear." I do not believe that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, several of whom I know have a very proper feeling for the continuity of English life and history, would say "Hear, hear" to that. I think there are very few in this House, if they give themselves a chance to pause and reflect, who would regard it as creditable that one generation should see fit to repudiate the obligations taken by another generation.
  Before it is possible for this House to appreciate what it is being asked to do by this Bill, it is necessary for us to cast our minds back to the state of mind of our predecessors when they erected this memorial. If any generation should have reason to appreciate the state of anxiety through which our ancestors went in the year 1805, it is this generation. Throughout that summer of 1805, on the cliffs above Boulogne, there was mustered an incomparable army, under the direct command of the greatest military genius of all time, only requiring, as he himself said, dominion of the Channel for an afternoon, to overrun this country. All through that summer that menace hung over this country, and that menace was finally destroyed on 21st October when, with 27 ships of the line against 33, Nelson came through to victory at the cost of his life. It was against the background of that tremendous, and as it seemed to them, providential delivery, that the decision of our ancestors was made. I hold in my hand a copy of "The Times" of 7th November, 1805, which prints the despatches sent from H.M.S. "Euryaylus" off Cadiz by Admiral Collingwood, reporting this matter. It is perhaps material to invite the attention of the House to the fact that the tone of the paper at that time was not one of jubilation; it was one of deep sorrow that victory had been bought at the cost of the life of the commander.

  245
  Once again, may I repeat that that generation thought they had put up a permanent memorial to Lord Nelson? They did their best, by the choke of trustees, by enshrining it in an Act of Parliament, to make that memorial perpetual. I repeat the question with which I began, and which I hope the Financial Secretary will answer: Why is it necessary, in December, 1946, to tear down that memorial? What overwhelming and compelling necessity is there to cause such an extraordinary, such a tradition-less, such an ignorant step to be taken? I would say to the Financial Secretary that I am sure he, at any rate, will appreciate that if this House is incapable of respecting the work of its predecessors, it cannot expect its own successors to pay its work any more respect.
  5.33 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House having regard to the clear intention of Parliament and the Nation (as expressed in the Act of 1806 for settling and securing a certain annuity on the Earl Nelson and the heirs of his body and such other persons to whom the title of Earl Nelson may descend) to make a binding and irrevocable settlement on the Nelson family, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to provide as in similar cases for proper compensation to be agreed or made subject to arbitration and involves a breach of an historic trust."
  If my comments appear to be rather pedestrian, after some of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon, it will mean, I hope, that they are in some respects more relevant to the Measure which is before the House, because this Bill is nothing but a small and very pedestrian Measure in itself. The junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. W. Harris) made a speech which, if I may say so, with great respect, impressed the House more than any other speech in favour of this Bill. I think that his arguments would be valid if we were now in the year 1806. His speech simply amounted to this: If we were considering what form of memorial we would set up we should not choose the memorial which was chosen by that Parliament. The only conclusion from his speech, and from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be here and now to do what the Communist Party suggested, that is, abolish both the annuity and the
  246
  estate itself. That is the conclusion, and the only conclusion, to which one can come, if one holds those views.
  I intend, if I may, to limit my remarks as far as possible to the Amendment, but perhaps I may be permitted to make a personal remark at the beginning. I happen to live within a mile or two of the Trafalgar Estates, and I would not like it to be thought that I had any personal connection in this respect. I have never been inside the house—I have seen it very often from the outside—I have never, to my knowledge, met any of the individuals directly concerned in this Measure. My reasons for opposing this Measure are based entirely on general considerations. The case for the Bill, apart from arguments of mere prejudice, may be put on either of two grounds. It can be stated that the trusts constituted by these Acts are so anomalous that they offend altogether against modern ideas of what is proper; or it can be said that there is a practical need to amend the trusts in order to meet present day needs. I am not quite clear, from the Government's case as argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to which ground he takes up. It may be possible to take up both.
  As regards the question of anomaly, is the anomaly contained in the Trafalgar Estates Acts so great as to justify the Government taking, up a whole afternoon, and perhaps more, of Parliamentary time, in order to get this Measure passed at the present day? The Acts affect 1,500 acres or so in England There are tens of thousands of acres of land which are now the subject of the greatest controversy and discussion in connection with military training areas. If we are concerned about seeing to the proper administration of the land of this country, surely the training areas question should take priority over this Bill. The only other matter over which the Trafalgar Estates Acts can take effect is the spending of £5,000 a year of public revenue. Is it suggested that this Bill is necessary in order to stop a waste of public money? Is that really the argument put forward by the Government as to why they are now bringing forward this Measure and taking up so much Parliamentary time? If they really feel it is a waste of money to spend £5,000 on what was decided previously by this House as a suitable memorial for our greatest sailor, I can tell them how they can raise that

  247
  much money and more. They need only let the base of the Nelson Column and they will get their £5,000 at once. Obviously it is not the financial consideration. The amount is far too small. Why should we have this Measure before us at the present time if its introduction is not dictated by prejudice?
  It is important to inquire what was the original intention of Parliament in passing these Acts. I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that the intention of Parliament, and indeed, of the nation, was to constitute a memorial to its hero. I think I am right in saying that the idea of a memorial, as such, is not repugnant to anyone in any part of the House. The memorial decided upon was, of course, a very special one. It took the form of providing a house and an assured income for Lord Nelson's family, the nearest members of his family who were alive at the time of his death, and to provide this in perpetuity. The creation of a perpetual Trust, whether right or wrong, was certainly done quite deliberately. There is no question whatever that at the date upon which this original legislation was passed, perpetuity was regarded as being quite as objectionable as it is at present. I think I am right in saying that the legal rule against perpetuity today existed in exactly the same form in 1806. Parliament realised perfectly well that there were objections to perpetuities; nevertheless, in this case they deliberately created a perpetuity.
  That being so, we ought not to revoke the decision of a previous Parliament without, at any rate, considering the position extremely carefully. I think hon. Members opposite are inclined to object to any idea of making provision for the dependants of any public servant. That was put in rather a narrower way by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his argument he indicated that had the present Lord Nelson been a direct descendant, he would not have raised the same objection that he does now because he is merely a collateral descendant. I was rather astonished to hear that argument which means, by implication, that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of making provision for direct descendants. I am not quite certain on which leg he is really standing. However, the Parliament of the day chose this particular
  248
  family as the nearest family to Nelson which they could find and decided they would make the settlement upon that family as the nearest descendants available for their purpose. All of us in this House are after all, descendants of Nelson's contemporaries.
  Mr. Scollan: Descendants of Adam.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Socialist history!
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As descendants of Nelson's contemporaries we enjoy the freedom which all Englishmen enjoy. I will go further and say that we enjoy all the privileges which all Englishmen enjoy. I think it will be recognised generally in this House, even at present, that all these privileges were in fact secured by the great victory of Trafalgar. Can we claim the blessings of our inheritance of Englishmen if we are to deny our indebtedness to those who inherited, as near as may be, Nelson's blood?
  Mr. John Paton: When the hon. Gentleman says that we deny our indebtedness, does he mean to ignore the fact that this country has already paid over £700,000 to these descendants?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I will deal with that point later. At present we are indebted by Act of Parliament to the tune of £5,000 a year. That is the position. It is not a question of opinion, it is a matter of fact. All of us in this House are also the inheritors of the great freedom which has come to us as a result of the battle which took place and which led immediately to the passing of these Acts. If we accept the blessings, we must also recognise that obligation we have undertaken to the descendants of those who obtained these blessings.
  I sincerely hope that we shall approach this question without any motives of meanness, spite or jealousy. I think there is a genuine and honest question raised by this Bill which must be solved. It arises on the second ground I have mentioned for putting forward this Bill, namely, that there may now be a practical need to amend the Acts in order to bring them into line with modern practical considerations. For my own part, were it practicable I would like to see the Nelson family continue to live at Trafalgar House indefinitely. I believe that that state of affairs constitutes a real memorial in the

  249
  minds of the people, but I am willing to acknowledge that it is most unlikely that it can continue for very much longer. It is obvious to anyone who is aware of modern conditions, that that house cannot remain for much longer as a private residence for any person. If the family find it necessary to leave the house, then I am willing to admit that there is a case for amending the Acts. Personally, I have not yet heard from any source, and certainly not from the Government Front Bench, that the family have decided that they wish to leave the house or to sell it. If they do not wish to sell it and it is the intention of the family to continue to reside there, then I confess that I can see no reason for all this bother.
  Let us assume that the house must be sold at a fairly early date. It is for that the Amendment makes no reference to Clause 2 of the Bill. We do not take any exception to that part of the Bill which will enable the tenant for life to sell the house. In this connection, I wish to ask some questions of the Financial Secretary, who I understand is to reply. I would like to know whether Clause 2 will leave intact the beneficial trusts as constituted in the original Acts. I think that is its effect, but I would like an assurance on that point. Secondly, I would like to know whether Clause 2 of the Bill is intended to affect the Estate Duty position. I believe that the Bill does not affect that position at all, but I wish to have a definite assurance from the Government.
  Our objection is entirely limited to the treatment of the annuity under Clause 1 of the Bill. I think it is correct to say that this question was first mooted in this Parliament by a Question to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an answer which I can only describe as a schoolboy calculation. Obviously, if £5,000 a year has been paid for 140 years, the answer is that a total sum of £700,000 has been paid since the beginning of the annuity. Obviously, expressed in that form, such an answer is bound to be highly prejudicial, in certain quarters, to the interests of the family who have in fact received so large a sum of money I would point out that this bargain, which the right hon. Gentleman suggested was such a bad one for the public today, is one into which he is entering with private members of the public every day of the
  250
  week. Every time enough Government stock is taken up to provide £5,000 a year, the Chancellor is committing himself and his successors to provide £5,000 a year in perpetuity, in the case of undated stock.
  During the course of this year, the Chancellor has probably authorised a payment to a large number of citizens in this country which will commit his successor in 140 years' time to go on paying £5,000 a year. That transaction has been acclaimed on every side and, indeed, the Chancellor is most anxious that as many people as possible should enter into it. If I can obtain enough money today to invest in stock of that kind—no matter how it is come by—indeed, if I can raise the money by black market transactions and escape the vigilance of the officials, I shall be acclaimed, at any rate, as something of an advantage to the public if only I put it into 2½ per cent. Government stock.
  Mr. Paton: That is schoolboyish, all right.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is schoolboyish, and it is precisely that calculation—
  Mr. Medland: He had the money, had he not?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. Member suggesting that what a Government did in 1806 to commit a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1946 is worse, for any reason whatever, than what a Government in 1946 does to commit a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the year 2,086? The two things are absolutely on all fours.
  Mr. Scollan: One is direct robbery and the other is indirect robbery.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am very sorry to hear that. In other words, the hon. Member is taking the view that, as soon as any Government can do so, they should repudiate Government loans. That is the only logical argument, because this Measure has that tendency.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Surely, one is a bilateral transaction, in which money is paid out for value received, and the other is a unilateral transaction, a settlement of intention by one Parliament which any future Parliament is free to revoke as, indeed, I hope that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are going to alter or revoke some of the legislation passed by this Government.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is always open to any Parliament to revoke what their predecessors have done or, indeed, to revoke what they themselves have done. But revocation of a solemnly made pledge, whether it is a pledge given for financial value or for such value as services rendered by Lord Nelson to the nation, seems, in my submission, to amount to a serious breach of public faith. Of course, it may be objected that, if I were to become entitled by purchase to an annuity of £5,000 a year for all time, I should be subjected to the normal law of the land and should have to pay Income Tax and Estate Duty. I am quite ready to concede that there are good grounds for saying that this annuity should be a matter for fair consideration as between the parties concerned. It may well be that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward proposals for commuting this annuity into a lump sum payment or for bringing it more into accordance with present day ideas, there would be no opposition from this side of the House. But what he has proposed to do is something entirely different. The proposal is to let the annuity run for two lives and, after that, simply to confiscate it.
  I am not quite certain whether I am doing the Chancellor justice in this respect, but rather I gathered from his speech that he suggested that the original purpose for which the annuity was given was to enable the family of Nelson to reside in the house. As we have now to admit that it might become necessary to sell the house that, of course, was some argument for terminating the annuity. I am not quite certain whether that was the suggestion put forward in his argument, but if it was I hope that it will be possible to amend the Bill so as to provide, at any rate, that if the next heir, after the two gentlemen named in Clause 1 of the Bill are dead, continues to reside at Trafalgar House, he should be entitled to receive the benefit of the annuity which was given to the family for that express purpose.
  In this connection, I think it is necessary to look at the Acts. The principal Act of 1806 contains an extremely significant Section. Section 16 provides:
  "that the same or any Part thereof shall not at any time or Times hereafter be aliened, conveyed, disposed, charged or in-cumbered by the said Earl, or by any of the Heirs Male of the Body of the said Earl, or by any other Person so aliening…."
  252
  In other words, the Act forbade the family to sell the annuity as a whole, but expressly gave permission to any individual member of the family to sell his particular interest in the annuity. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he happens to know if the individual who will succeed the two named gentleman has, in fact, either sold or charged his life interest? As I understand the matter, these two gentlemen are both over 80 years of age and, obviously, a reversion on two lives greater than 80 years would have been a very valuable commodity and would have been willingly bought by any reversionary interest society. If, indeed, he did not sell his interest, as he could have done a year ago, it seems clear to me that the only effect of this Measure would be to deprive some third party of his normal legal entitlement.
  We are coming back to the matter which has been referred to on the back benches opposite. I submit that it is the duty of this House to see that interests of this kind are not arbitrarily stopped for any reason whatever. There would obviously be no difficulty about rearranging this annuity in some way which would be suitable for all the interests affected. But merely to give the annuity in full to two generations, and then to stop it dead as against a third generation, is wholly inequitable, and wholly contravenes the spirit of the law of this country. I do not want to labour this point, but I do submit that what is proposed in this Bill is entirely contrary to the whole current of the law of the country
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: I beg to second the Amendment.
  In listening to the Debate this afternoon it appears to me that a great number of the speeches which have been made have dealt primary with what hon. Members would have done had they been living in 1806. I do not feel that that is, in fact, the question which lies in front of us today. This streamlined Bill— and it certainly is streamlined—has been introduced by the Chancellor. Now that, in itself, appears to me to be rather an odd affair. Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, acting as one of the trustees of the estate, introducing on the Floor of the House this particular Bill, which takes away the pension to provide

  253
  the descendants of Lord Nelson to live in that state of dignity which the Estate requires. I see no reason at all why hon. Members opposite should wish to change the wish of our forefathers in this respect. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Nelson?"] An hon. Member opposite asks "What about Nelson?" It is about Lord Nelson that I am speaking today. I feel quite certain that hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side of the House, would be the first to say that the word "Nelson" is enshrined in the heart of every man and every woman living in the United Kingdom. It is because of that that it appears to me so natural that in these unromantic Socialist days this Bill should be introduced on the Floor of the House.
  There always will be a great divergence of opinion between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and hon. Members on this side of the House on these types of matters. It must be remembered that this Government did not choose to have any form of honour by way of monetary reward or by mention in this House given to our military commanders in this war. This is the first opportunity that I have had in the House of saying how much I regretted that.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The merits of that action clearly do not arise under this Bill.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If I may say so, with great respect, the point has been made and argued over and over again in this Debate. May I respectfully suggest to you that the hon. Member is entitled to refer to it?
  Mr. Pickthorn: It has been, referred to over and over again by almost every speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but at the moment I am in the Chair, and in my view that question does not arise under this Bill.
  Mr. Marshall: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have made the reference I wanted to make on that point. Another quarrel I have with this Bill is in regard to why it has been introduced in this Session at this moment. We are told by Members of His Majesty's Government, again and again, that they have no time
  254
  to spare because of legislation which they have to put before the House. We have had arguments from all sides of the House with regard to Private Members' time. We have had strong arguments—and I do wish just to refer to this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—from all sides of the House to deal with child welfare. The Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal have come down to the House to say that there is no time. Yet there is time for this little Bill to be produced at that Box, in order to take away the desire which the Houses of Parliament 140 years ago wished to perpetuate in an Act of Parliament. One thing I would have liked to see—and somehow I do not believe any hon. Member would disagree with this—is the great story of Nelson brought to a fitting conclusion without a controversial Debate. I feel it would have been much better that way.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at that Box this afternoon, mentioned what should be done with the Trafalgar Estates. There is a point I would like to make in that connection. Lord Nelson felt as deeply for the Merchant Navy as he did for the Royal Navy, and I trust that if the Admiralty do, at some future date, come to an agreement whereby they purchase these estates, they will try to embody them for the use of not only the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Naval Reserve but also, in some way, for the heirs of those men who have died on active service in the Merchant Navy. In conclusion, I wish to say this. It appears to me that during the last Session and the beginning of this, this Government is a Government of broken pledges. It seems to me incredible that, having broken what they have done already, they now have to go back into past history in order to break the pledge of the Government in 1806. It is for that reason that I second this Amendment, and if a Division is called will vote for it.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I have listened to the whole of this Debate. It has been an interesting one, although not many arguments, I think, on either side have been adduced. There are certain ones that can be cleared straight away. When I came into the House I had not made up my mind one way or the other; I had no strong feelings about the

  255
  matter; but from the Debate certain considerations have emerged of which we can rid ourselves straight away. Clearly, it is not a matter of money. No one is going to suggest that the saving of £5,000 a year, when we are spending something in the order of several millions a day, is going to affect the Exchequer one way or the other. I do not suppose anyone would rely upon the argument that the extra £5,000 is necessary in order to balance the Budget. It is so long since we balanced one, anyway, that it does not seem to me to make much difference. Nor am I affected by the argument that the money is being paid to the wrong persons, or to descendants of the wrong persons. It does not seem to me of much moment in 1946 whether Lady Hamilton died penniless, having run through a lot of money when young and gay before old age; or whether, alternatively, Lord Nelson wanted the money to be left in one way, and it was left in another way. Neither of those points seems to me extremely important in this connection.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was the real one. It is not whether the House is entitled to break, or not to break, a pledge. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) about that. This House is entitled to repeal an Act if it wants to. It is legally capable of doing so. The point the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames put was whether we ought, in fact, to do that very act we are entitled to do. That is the question to which we have to address ourselves. I feel, on balance, that there is at this stage a right to take this action. After all, we cannot take the line, as, indeed the hon. Member for Bodmin did, that an Act of Parliament may not be looked at again. It may be. At various times, as we have heard during this Debate, in 1887, and again in the twenties—twice in the twenties—fresh consideration was given to this Act; so that there is nothing particularly new in reviewing the Act, nor in seeing whether we still feel that the circumstances in which it was passed still hold good.
  I would now come to the point that I raised with you, Sir, as a point of Order; because I think it is extremely important in this connection. My case, in going into the Lobby to support this Bill, is that payments of this sort are
  256
  becoming repugnant to ordinary men and women in the country. That, I think, is the whole case; and the case I want to put, Sir, is, that that feeling was expressed as the general view of the public in the decision of the Government not to pay large sums to the leaders of the armed Forces at the conclusion of this war. If that is so—and I suggest that it is a matter of opinion—but if it is so, it seems to me the Government are entitled to rest on public opinion in that respect, in so far as it has been expressed. Clearly, the Government are not going to take a referendum on an issue of this sort; and nobody is going to. But I think they are entitled to interpret the wishes and will of the electorate, as they understand them, in connection with other circumstances which are roughly parallel. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) very properly reminds me, it is their duty to do so.
  I would put another point in this connection At this stage I am not in favour, as a general principle, of large sums of money passing in any circumstances from forebear to descendant. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who gave us many dissertations in the course of the Finance Bill, to which we all listened with interest, told us that the Chancellor's argument was school-boyish. I hope he will not regard it as offensive if I say his argument was infantile.
  Mr. D. Marshall Mr. D. Marshall rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: Let me deal with this point first. At one stage in his argument the hon Gentleman said that the equivalent of £5,000 a year paid by the Government was a sum—he did not mention it—of approximately £200,000 invested in War Loan at 2½ per cent. I do not believe he meant it for a moment. Of course, he does not. He knows the effects of Death Duty on a capital sum of £200,000. He knows that if one of these two lives were to die tomorrow, the £200,000 would be reduced immediately to something in the order of £160,000; and that, if the second life died four or five years afterwards, that £160,000 capital sum would be reduced to £130,000. In those circumstances how can it be contended that a capital sum of £200,000, subject to the vagaries of the Estate Duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the penal

  257
  form in which they are exacted at the moment, is equivalent to £5,000 for a continuous life without regard to Death Duty at all?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I did in the course of my speech indicate that I agreed that the present set-up of this annuity is an anachronism, and that I saw every reason for converting it into something more in accordance with present day ideas, when it might be that Estate Duty would have the effect upon it that the hon. Member says. I am not saying that it is a good effect.
  Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree. It seems to me to be the inherent contradiction of the hon. Member's whole speech. But I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Bodmin.
  Mr. D. Marshall: The hon. Member mentioned large sums, once or twice. I should like to know what kind of an amount he has in mind.
  Mr. Callaghan: I think a large sum is a sum represented by a capital which gives one £5,000 a year. If one were going to make provision for Estate Duty it would be a sum in the order of £250,000, if one were going to preserve an income of £5,000 for one's descendants. I am not in favour of any one in this country being permitted to leave £250,000 to his descendants, and I think that there are many Members on this side of the House who would agree with me. We are not in favour of such legacies, of people being able to leave such sums of money. We had an interesting argument on that subject at two o'clock in the morning when discussing the Finance Bill several months ago, and I should not be in Order if I went over that ground again. What I am saying is, that there is really no moral reason why the House should not, at this stage, review the operations of the Act, and decide to cut them off, in accordance, as I understand them, with the views of most people in this country today. Secondly, I would say that, in any case, the ability to transfer an income which represents a capital sum of £250,000 would be against my moral principles.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. John Morrison: I rise tonight, not as one representing the Navy, but because the holder of the present title
  258
  we are discussing is a constituent of mine, and, also, because his house, Trafalgar House, is in my constituency. I should like to say that I have never had the pleasure of meeting the present holder of the title, nor of speaking to him or to his immediate heir; but, as they are at the age of 89 and 86, I feel it is appropriate that a younger man should say a word or two on this Bill for those constituents he represents. I do deplore the fact that, at a time when Private Members' time is abolished and there are so many other important matters which we should discuss in this House of Commons, we are taking up a whole day of Parliamentary time on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has referred to the question of training areas, a burning question at the present time. In Wiltshire, in this same county of which a large area is in my constituency, there are many problems connected with these training areas which might be considered, just as much as this area of the 1,500 acres of the Trafalgar estates.
  I am sorry the Financial Secretary is not in the House at the moment—I know he has been here all through this Debate— because I am not quite sure, from his intervention, how the Chancellor is affected as regards his trusteeship of the pension and of the estate. I understand that he is not affected with regard to the pension. There must be many in this House who are trustees of various societies, or under deeds of covenant of various sorts, and among them there must be many who, having those laborious duties, would be delighted to get rid of them. I can think of some that I should like to get rid of myself. I must say, however, that I rather deplore the fact that the persons concerned in the Nelson Trust can see their way, in another capacity, to get rid so easily of those responsibilities. I say that with all respect. I know there are other prominent men on the Government Front Bench who are also more than closely connected with this trust.
  What seems to me to be the most important thing is that getting rid of the pension, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this small Bill, will almost inevitably mean that the property will have to be sold. I believe that matter has been referred to by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). It

  259
  would be a great pity if this house, with all its traditions, had to be sold and lose its family connection, with the family name being taken away from the house and its contents. It was built, in the words of the Chancellor, at a time in British architecture which was a very good one indeed, and it would be a major tragedy if that great name in naval history became dissociated from that house and property. I hope and believe —it has already been suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland)—that, if this must be done, some arrangement may be made to ensure that the naval tradition shall continue to be associated with the house and property. It would indeed be very fitting that that tradition should be continued in some form.
  What I feel must be avoided at all costs, and this is a personal opinion, is that in the passing over of the trust from the existing trustees to the Public Trustee, the property should be sold and completely broken away from its traditions. It might even be possible for the house to be sold stone by stone to America. That has been done in prewar years, and in this case it would be a great tragedy. I would remind the House also that there were many thousands, if not millions, of American soldiers stationed in the vicinity of the Trafalgar Estate in the days prior to and during the invasion. We read in the Press at the present time that the Government are anxious to encourage the tourist traffic; it would be a great pity if these relics cannot remain in the house and if some arrangement cannot be made to allow the thousands of British and Americans who have had associations with the area to take an interest in the traditions of England, from which so many of their families originally came.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to raise only a few points, and to make one suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite realise quite how deeply some of us on this side feel about the treatment of this subject by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a trustee, not, as has been pointed out, of the annuity but of the estates, and I feel sure that he will
  260
  agree with me that he and the other official trustees—I except, of course, Mr. Speaker, whose position for obvious reasons differs—the trustees, that is to say, who are in a position to introduce legislation have to some extent a dual duty. The right hon. Gentleman has certain responsibilities as a trustee, and he ought to consider this case under all its aspects. I suggest that there are at least three aspects, and three separate questions, involved. I do not intend to use legal language, but will try to put it quite simply; there are three separate questions which he ought to consider, and some of them have not been dealt with at all in some of the speeches which have been made.
  The first consideration seems to me to be the honour and purpose of the donors, in this case the British nation. The second is the perpetuation of the memorial to Nelson, and the third—and this is almost the only question which has been dealt with—the treatment of the rights of private individuals created by the instrument, in this case an Act of Parliament, which created the trust. Those three questions are all worthy of consideration. On the general argument, I associate myself entirely with the most admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). In one respect, perhaps, I do not go quite as far as he does, and I am a little more in sympathy with the possible view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the treatment of the rights of the private individuals concerned, it may be possible to conceive of cases in which it would be proper to alter present arrangements which, for various reasons, may now be repugnant, or at any rate not such as we should enact today, and which today we might think we could replace by something better. Therefore, provided that the House could be satisfied that legitimate private interests were properly and justly dealt with, it would not shock me if the annuities as such were terminated.
  I cannot see, however, that that gives any ground for taking the other steps which, I think, have, quite unnecessarily, been involved. I am glad that the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) has returned, because I wanted to say a word in answer to something he said, namely, that nothing of this would affect the fame or reputation of

  261
  Nelson. That is profoundly and absolutely true, but it is not in the least true that nothing we do in this matter will affect the reputation of this nation or this House. If it is thought that, in dealing with the considered memorial to so great a man, this House showed meanness or did something unnecessarily cruel to a great body of public opinion, then I believe the reputation of this House and of this country may be quite seriously affected.
  There were two parts of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which I think had the general sympathy of the House: first, when he paid tribute to the great man who was the occasion of the Act, and secondly, when he expressed the hope that the Trafalgar Estates, of which he is a trustee, will be put to a worthy purpose in connection with the Navy. On these two points he had the sympathy of the whole House. The suggestion I want to make is that, if he proceeded in a different way, he could really bring about all the objects I believe he desires without outraging opinion in any quarter. I gather that if the Bill goes through in this form, or something like it, the annuities will be terminated, and that in compensation for their termination the restrictions imposed by the Act on the Trafalgar Estates will come to an end, and that it will then be possible for the Chancellor to buy back the Trafalgar Estates, which the present owner will be enabled by the Bill to get rid of, and devote them to some public purpose in connection with the Navy of which we should all approve. In other words, at some time during the passage of this whole transaction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay out public money.
  My suggestion is this: Why not use whatever is deemed to be the right and just amount of public money to terminate the annuity, and then bring forward legislation to vary the conditions on which the Trafalgar Estates are now held? There will then be no interruption at all in the whole history of the Trafalgar Estates which will be held continuously to commemorate a great event in the Navy, and be of benefit to the Navy and used for a great national purpose. There was no need in order to terminate the annuity, with proper consideration and compensation given to those whose interests were affected, to outrage the careful provision of a grateful Parliament over a century
  262
  ago, when they bought these estates and called them the Trafalgar Estates. I hope that I have made the point clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think it would make any difference to him or to his pocket.
  The Bill in its present form will really injure the reputation both of this House and of the country. To sum up my argument, why should we not give proper compensation for the termination of the annuities, without affecting the memorial to Nelson or the continuous history of these estates? I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this late hour, to consider whether that would not be a better approach to the problem. There are many details with which I do not wish to weary him or the Financial Secretary. I think that the general idea I have put forward deserves consideration. I think that one of the less agreeable features of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when, as a trustee, he abused the instrument of trust on which it was his duty to act. I notice that he is shaking his head, indicating that I have misunderstood him. I am so anxious to have his good will in this matter that I will give him the benefit of the doubt on all doubtful points. Having put my suggestion before him and the House, I will not add anything more.
  6.35 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: Before putting forward the matters which I desire to raise, perhaps I may be allowed to make my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having been here during his speech. I am sure that he will understand that this was due to circumstances entirely beyond my control. I think that every Member of the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. Strauss) for clarifying the issue on which we are all trying to get our minds straight. It is probably convenient: to divide the question into two parts—one dealing with annuities, and the other dealing with the trust affecting the house and the estate. The Financial Secretary did say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a trustee of the annuity, and that is perfectly correct, but he will appreciate, not only from the Preamble

  263
  to the original Act but from all the provisions, that the two things are so bound up that it is very difficult for a trustee for the house and estate, to disembarrass himself of matters which necessarily arise with regard to the annuity. With regard to the house and estate, I am told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Admiralty were favourably disposed to consider buying them at an agreed and reasonable price.
  Mr. Dalton: Since the right hon. and learned Member was not here—I am much obliged for his courtesy in referring to that—may I point out that what I said was that I had drawn the matter to the attention of my noble Friend; that he was interested in and sympathetic towards the possibility, and that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty had, within the last few days, visited the house and had reported to my noble Friend. I said that so far as I was concerned, if a reasonable price could be agreed between the two parties, I would be very happy that that should be the conclusion of this part of the matter.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like to say that a great many Members in all quarters of the House would share the happiness of the right hon. Gentleman if some arrangement of that kind could be arrived at, because although a matter of principle arises, as has been recognised by everyone, one is glad that the existing holder of the title, who was put in the restricted position of tenant in tail under the original settlement, should not only be put in a freer position, but should have some chance of realising some advantage from the house and the estate.
  We now come to the much more difficult question of the annuity. I agree with the hon. Member for South Cardiff that it is not a question of money. That, again, I think, would be a view shared again in all quarters of the House. But, equally, I cannot take the easy way out which was so gallantly walked by the hon. Gentleman the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). His case against the annuity was that Nelson's fame does not need it. That, I think, is quite the most extraordinary and cynical reason for avoiding financial obligations that I have ever heard suggested in this House. If the hon. Gentleman's view is
  264
  that anyone can compound for one's debts by a few words of facile praise, then that is an easier way of escaping them than I have ever heard suggested by any debtor in the courts.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the fame of Nelson can be measured in pounds sterling?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am suggesting, I hope with clarity, that that fact has nothing to do with avoiding the financial obligations which exist today. It is not by a few facile words of praise pumped out at this time that we are going to get rid of obligations which we ought to meet. It comes to the question which has already been posed, whether the action of the Government can be morally justified? The hon. Member for South Cardiff makes the reply, that the continuation of this pension is repugnant to ordinary people. With the greatest respect to him, that simply begs the question, because one has to decide who are the ordinary people, and how they would think.
  I should like to give some considerations from the other point of view. There is no doubt that the Act of 1806 was clearly designed, from its Preamble to its last words, to make it clear and certain to succeeding generations, that this settlement should be irrevocable. I do not want to bore the House by reading the Sections of that Act, but, if anybody is interested, the words of Section 13, in what now seem archaic solemnity, make it clear that at the time when perpetuities were in disfavour, in the view of the law and Parliament this was a deliberate and calculated attempt to achieve an irrevocable perpetuity in the most solemn terms that Parliament could find. If you start from that point of view—and I do not think the Financial Secretary would seriously challenge it, because I am sure he has read the Act—you come to this position: If any ordinary statutory company were to break a contract of this kind everyone in the House, from every political quarter, would be up in arms against such an action, attacking its commercial morality. The junior Burgess for Cambridge University sought to get rid of that position by saying, "This is not a contract; there is no consideration. This is a matter of a settlement or a trust." Really, one gets some surprises in approaching a subject of this kind. As

  265
  I have said, the only difference between an agreement and a trust, or a settlement of this matter, is that the trust is where you do not demand anything for assuming your obligations. When Parliament, through an Act which has a Preamble associating the King and the Commons with the view of Parliament, expressly undertakes an obligation of this kind, does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of this country believe that that is less moral or less binding than a commercial contract into which anyone may enter?
  Mr. Wilson Harris: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I did not mention the word "trust." I suggested that this was not a contract. I have not his legal knowledge, so perhaps he can tell me whether this is a contract or not.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: By his interruption the hon. Gentleman has shown that I am dealing with the point he has in mind. There is no difference, from the point of view of moral obligation, between a contract entered into for a consideration and a solemn trust which anyone, be it an individual, or be it the Government and Parliament of this country, undertakes if the circumstances are thought to justify that taking the obligation at the time. It is the last word to suggest after 140 years, that because the settlement was undertaken without consideration, that is now good ground for repudiation. I am surprised at that argument being advanced.
  The argument has also been advanced —and it comes well from me to chide it, because it is quite the most legalistic argument that could possibly be framed in the circumstances—that what Parliament has done, Parliament can undo; that anyone who gets an obligation undertaken towards him by Parliament must realise that it can be broken tomorrow or the next day, or whenever it suits the people of this country. That will not do. It is, of course, legally possible, but it does not touch the moral question, which has been rightly posed in this matter by the hon. Member for South Cardiff. Surely, if we take the course which has been suggested, that of centralising, and putting more power into the hands of the State, putting more activities under the control of the State, then as we increase the power of the State, the only sheet anchor
  266
  which can help us is that we shall demand from the State a higher standard of morality and practice. If the State goes into commercial practice, or goes into the practice of trustees, we must demand that higher standard. We must demand it, because it is the only thing which can guide us safely round the edge of the totalitarian abyss—
  Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Parliament of 1806 represented the will of the people. What have the people to do with this in view of the fact that 10 years previously Thomas Muir was sent to Botany Bay for 14 years for demanding the right of the people to the franchise? The people had no say whatever.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should be most interested to argue the historical conditions of 1806 with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I would remind him that there was at the time a Coalition Government, with a predominantly Whig interest in charge, and even at that time, if he went to a really good and up-to-date county like Lancashire— if he went to Preston—he would have found that there was practically universal suffrage returning their Member to that House.
  Mr. Callaghan: Many Tories were against this Act.
  Mr. Pritt: I know that Preston is a very good borough, and that it then had a large franchise for those days—it had about 143 electors.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If one includes the "pot walloper" franchise, it had a large franchise. To dispose of the interruption of the hon. and learned Member, I would say that that House, at that time, represented, as far as this action is concerned, more clearly and obviously the will of the people than probably any other Measure of that short-lived Government. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt, let him read any newspaper, any broadsheet that gives an account of the crowds who assembled on every occasion when it was possible for them to pay tribute to Lord Nelson. No newspaper, no writing of that time could suggest to him that there would have been any opposition from the widow of the humblest impressed seaman, who ever left under compulsion to join Nelson's fleet, to this proposal to do honour to his

  267
  name. That is a cold historical fact, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman can upset me on any point of it, I shall be most pleased to have regard to what he says. Fascinating though that interruption was to me, I apologise to the House for being taken off the line of my argument. I hope that the House will bear with me if I return to it to make two or three very short points.
  I was making the point that it is no answer to say that this is under an Act of Parliament which may be repealed. I had already dealt with the point that it was no answer to say that it was a trust assumed by the community; but I ask the right hon. Gentlemen and boa. Gentlemen opposite to consider the wider implications of this matter. Here we are dealing with the last of these pensions, and, therefore, in one aspect, it may seem a small affair, but we are deliberately confiscating, by ending the right of someone to receive a sum of money which had been promised by the Government and Parliament of this country in as solemn a form as that obligation could take. That is not a small matter; that cannot be weighed in terms of £5,000 a year. That is something which those who are looking at British action. British trustworthiness and British credit will weigh with the other things which they take into account. After all, it is not as if we were asking for something which is extraordinary or unforeseen. It is not yet 20 years since Mr. Snowden said that, if an application for commutation were made, he was sure it would be favourably received.
  My hon. Friends who gave me as full an account as they could of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, were unable to give me any reason that the Chancellor had advanced for the view that the time had passed for commutation. It is a point on which we should like the Financial Secretary to give us some further details If commutation was right in respect of the other pensions, and if it was right in 1929 in respect of this pension, why has that changed? That is a matter on which we want information, and we should like the Financial Secretary to give it to us. After all, the pension has not changed in any of its circumstances. As the hon. Member for South Cardiff has said, the money side of it is really a small matter, if one remembers that when this was granted the income
  268
  of the country from taxation was £40 million a year. It is now approximately £4,000 million, and yet this is the time chosen for the action proposed in this Bill.
  I should like to say one word on the point which some of my hon. Friends have already put before the House. We were told that there was a great pressure on the time of this House. When the question of Private Members' time came up, the Lord President said that there would be a serious prejudice to the national interest if the Government's time were impinged on by Private Members business. I think the Government and the Financial Secretary must meet this point. Is the true position as to the Government's programme in the national interest, that this House has to spend the greater part of a day, in getting rid of an obligation of £5,000 a year? It may raise an important matter from the standpoint of those who oppose it but, why should this immensely valuable time of ours be occupied by this measure? I feel that the House has the right to have that explained by the Financial Secretary.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I think the House will agree that we have had a very interesting Debate. Almost without exception, those hon. Members who have been in favour of the Bill have been on this side of the House and perhaps below the Gangway on the other side, and those who have been against the Bill have been Members of the party opposite. In one sense the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a complete answer to all the points that have been raised in the Debate. When hon. Members read the Debate tomorrow, I think they will find that he answered in advance most of the questions that have been put. Nevertheless, I will, to the best of ability, give answers to some of the main questions that were put to me both by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and the hon. Member for South Hendon Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who moved the Amendment.
  It is true—and nothing that my right hon. Friend said denied it—that when the Act was passed by the House 140 years ago, the intention was to perpetuate the name of Nelson and to see that his family had an estate and an income with which

  269
  to keep it up. But that does not mean that, because that was so, a perpetual obligation should be placed upon the people of this country to go on paying a perpetual pension to the descendants of the relatives of the great Nelson. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For reasons to which I will come in a moment or two. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) likened the position at that time to the situation just before Dunkirk. Undoubtedly, there is a fairly close parallel, to which some historical writers have already drawn attention. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle spoke of the immense relief to all sections of the population when they heard that the menace of the invasion had receded because of the victory of Nelson at Trafalgar. All that is true, and is extremely interesting from an historical point of view, but although it may throw light on the actions of the House of Commons at that time, surely it has very little application to what the House of Commons does today. What we are concerned with is not what they thought in 1805 and 1806, but what the people of this country are thinking today. The Government have come to the conclusion, we think rightly, although hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may think wrongly, that the people of this country generally believe that this the last remaining pension of its kind is an anachronism, and should cease.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman putting forward the proposal that we should have no respect whatever for the wishes of our forefathers, who passed the Act?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will not repeat the points that have been made with great force from this side of the House that, although it is true Nelson earned the gratitude of the people of his day, and of the generations following, it was a House of Commons which was not, in the sense that we understand the term, fully representative which passed the Act of 1806.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Have the Government got a mandate from the country to bring in this Bill?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The point I am trying to make is that what happened then is one thing, and the attitude of the people today quite another. What the House of Commons did at that time was to
  270
  follow a method which was not an uncommon one then of showing appreciation to a great naval commander. This generation pays its tribute in a different way. The House has recently passed a Measure which will pay tribute to the great Franklin D. Roosevelt by setting up a monument in Grosvenor Square and using the surplus funds, not to pay a perpetual pension to the Roosevelt family, either collateral or direct, but for the welfare of people who suffer.
  There has been confusion among some hon. Members as to just what the duties of the trustees of the Trafalgar Estates are. They really have nothing whatever to do with the pension of £5,000, which is paid quarterly out of the Consolidated Fund. The duties of the trustees are concerned entirely with the Trafalgar property. Under Clause 2 of the Bill, it is proposed to relieve the property of certain limitations under which it now labours. It has been suggested by certain hon. Members opposite that we should include in the Bill a provision to permit the Admiralty to take over the Trafalgar property in order that it might be used either as a hospital or as a welfare centre, or in some other direction which would assist the men who belong to the Royal Navy, or their dependants. Such a provision is not necessary. If the House agrees to Clause 2 as it stands, no legislation will be required to follow out the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. All that is needed is already being done under Clause 2. The estate will be freed from certain limitations which are now imposed on it, and the rest will follow.
  Sir Ian Fraser: Why is the Chancellor concerning himself with easing the situation of this estate? I welcome it, of course, but why is he so concerning himself? Surely, it is because he feels some obligation as a trustee.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: He is doing it because he has a sense of justice. If, when the pension was given it was given in order partly that the estate, which was bought at about the same time, might be kept up, and if now the pension is to cease at the end of two lives, clearly it is only just and proper that the estate should be freed, as far as it can be freed, from the limitations imposed upon it when the Act was passed and the pension was granted. As a matter of fact, as I under-

  271
  stand it, one of the difficulties which the present owner has is to keep up the property. He finds that the pension as it stands does not enable him to keep the property in the condition in which it should be kept. In these circumstances, what do hon. Members opposite believe should be done? Should the pension be increased? Should it be doubled to enable the Nelson family to keep the property in the state in which it was hoped that it would be kept in perpetuity; or should we do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes and that is, get rid of the pension and free the estate so that the Nelson family will, so far as the remaining limitations allow, be free to sell?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is really a point which transcends our differences in one sense. The Financial Secretary has put two points. The first is that the pension is not sufficient to keep up the estate and, therefore, the family should be given the right to sell. He is I am sure standing by what his right hon. Friend said a short time ago, which was so important and so helpful to us, namely, as far as some attempt to do justice to the family is concerned, they will be prepared to consider a reasonable price for the estate. Secondly, we are told that if it is acquired by the Admiralty, then the estate in itself may well be put to some worthy purpose which will commemorate Nelson. There we have two points, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will emphasise that that is clearly in the mind of the Government.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put the point with the utmost clarity, and it is one that the Government hold in this matter. If it is agreed that the time has undoubtedly come to get rid of this pension altogether, by limiting it to two lives at the most, the question does arise what is to happen to the Trafalgar Estate and, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend and of the Government, it would be grossly unfair to continue the entail in its present form. Therefore, it is proposed to allow the present beneficial owner freedom to deal with the estate and be able to sell it either to the Admiralty, as we hope will be the case if terms agreeable to both can be reached, or to sell it elsewhere. It is my right hon. Friend's hope that a place with such historical associations should, if possible, come into the possession of
  272
  the Admiralty so that it may be used for all time for some beneficent purpose connected with the men of the Royal Navy and be properly kept up at public expense. That can still happen and we sincerely hope that it will. But we must, as I hope the House realises, keep Clause 2 in the Bill and pass it more or less in its present shape.
  The hon. Member for South Hendon, who moved the Amendment, asked me two questions. He asked me—and I have already partially answered this point —what effect Clause 2 would have on the beneficial owner. He also asked what effect Clause 2 would have on the Estate Duty that might be payable. As I have indicated, Clause 2 enables the mansion house to be sold, a thing that cannot be done at the present time. It also removes the restrictions on the investment of capital arising from such a sale, and it also enables the tenant intail to exercise powers of sale which normally only can and are exercised by a tenant for life. I should add that when the estate is sold, certain limitations will still apply. The capital moneys will have to pass into the control of trustees, although they will not be trustees appointed as they are now on behalf of the nation. It will be for the beneficial owner himself to appoint his own trustees. Subject to that, he will be free to deal with the property just as any other similar tenant would be.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I gathered from what the hon. Gentleman said that it is not the intention of the Government to disturb the beneficial trusts as provided in the original Act. I should like an assurance from the Government on that point.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is so. Though any lands which are outside the compass of the original Act can now be dealt with and that right will of course continue.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is one question in regard to sale which I should like to raise. The owner of the estate will have the undoubted right under this Bill to sell the mansion house and estate to the highest bidder. Is it possible that the Government may not be the highest bidder and in that case Trafalgar House and its associations would pass for ever from the nation's possession.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: We cannot control an eventuality of that kind. The decision, naturally, will have to depend on the present Lord Nelson or his successor and what offers are made to them. Perhaps I might add that I understand a great deal of work is needed on the house and perhaps the family have not had funds to keep it up. The place is not, I understand, in first-rate condition and if a commercial price is given I imagine that that fact will have an effect on the price which the Admiralty, for example, might be willing to pay. However, all these things are matters for negotiation. All I need say here, so far as my right hon. Friend and the Government are concerned, is we are only too anxious that this property should pass into national keeping and be used by the State or by the Admiralty for some good purpose.
  The hon. Member for South Hendon also asked what would be the effect of Clause 2 on the Estate Duty payable. As this property has limitations on it which are familiar to us all, it comes under Section 5 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894, and that being so the interest is valued for the purposes of Estate Duty in like manner as for succession Duty. That is to say the value taken for Death Duties is the value of the life interest of the succeeding owner. That will continue although Clause 2 gives to the owner the right to sell.
  I want now to answer one or two points put by the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. He asked, I think very pertinently, why the offer of commutation did not remain open to the present time. I think the short answer, as my right hon. Friend said in the course of his speech, is that an offer was made in 1889, and the then Lord Nelson decided that he would not take advantage of it. The question then arises, how long could the Government keep an offer of that kind open? Has an offer of commutation to be left open for ever, and on the same terms? In 1889 the offer was a 27 years' purchase for £135,000. I would remind the House that since then the family has drawn £285,000 gross. By not accepting the offer made in 1889 they have done therefore extremely well and have received more than twice—
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is the gross amount.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely all these things are gross: my salary is gross and no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman's income is gross. The point which I am making, and which I think is valid, is that we cannot keep offers of this kind open indefinitely. An offer was made in 1889, and refused. Since then, as I have said, the family have received more than double the commutation price which they would have obtained had they accepted that offer.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether an offer has come from the owner of the property?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Lord Nelson reopened the matter in 1904 but, perhaps unfortunately for all concerned, neither he nor the Treasury pursued it at that time and nothing happened. The real reason for this Bill dates back, I think, to 1887. In that year a Select Committee of this House was set up which quite definitely came to the conclusion that pensions of this kind should cease, and that at the most they should not continue beyond the life of a living beneficiary. In the same year, my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was born, and it is a commentary on the slowness with which Parliament occasionally moves that a baby "mewling and puking" in its cradle at the time this Select Committee was meeting and coming to this decision, should now be the hand and brain to put its decision into effect. We are therefore today acting on a decision taken when the House could not have been described as Socialistic in any shape or sense. Their proposal seemed to us a reasonable one. This thing cannot go on for ever. We believe that the time has come to end it, and we propose in the present Bill to do so.
  Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, arising out of the negotiations to which he has referred, there has been any offer to the present family to negotiate a settlement?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Discussions have, of course, taken place on the matter through the solicitors to the Nelson family. The Government have, of course, informed them of the action contemplated and now embodied in this Bill.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Nelson family should be allowed to take what was refused by them in 1889? Has he so little regard for public funds and ordinary justice as to believe that they should be allowed now, at a time chosen by themselves, to come along and take what was offered to their predecessors so many years ago?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if an offer of £135,000 had been accepted in 1889, and handed into the trust, and the income drawn from it, the total of capital and income obtained by the family since 1889, would be more than they have actually received?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the short answer to that is that the family should have accepted the offer at the time. The fact remains that they did not do so, and we believe that in presenting this small
  and—we had hoped—non-controversial Measure to the House we are putting an end, at long last, to what has become an anachronism in our national life. I ask the House to give us the Second Reading.
  Sir John Mellor: May I ask the Financial Secretary why he has made no attempt to answer the point raised several times on this side of the House—why, at a period when the Government claim that Parliamentary time is so scarce and precious, they are taking up that Parliamentary time with the present Measure?
  Mr. Dalton: Because, in the judgment of the Government, this is an important Bill.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes 102.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES

  [7.26 p.m.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Crawley, A.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hall, W. G.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Daggar, G.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Daines, P.

  Harris, H. Wilson

  Austin, H. L.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Harrison, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Ayles, W. H.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Diamond, J.

  Hicks, G.

  Barton, C.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Battley, J. R.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Holman, P.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Donovan, T.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Benson, G.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Berry, H.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  House, G.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Hoy, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Dye, S.

  Hubbard, T.

  Binns, J.

  Edelman, M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Hynd, Rt. Hon J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Ewart, R.

  Irving, W. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Janner, B.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Follick, M.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Buchanan, G.

  Foot, M. M.

  John, W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Callaghan, James

  Gallacher, W.

  Keenan, W.

  Carmichael, James

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Champion, A. J.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Key, C. W.

  Chafer, D.

  Gilzean, A.

  King, E. M.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Kinley, J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Grierson, E.

  Lavers, S.

  Collick, P.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Collins, V. J.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Guy, W. H.

  Lewis. T (Southampton)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Logan, D. G.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Longden, F.

  Pearson, A.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  McAllister, G.

  Perrins, W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  McEntee, V. La. T.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

  Mack, J. D.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Tiffany, S.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Tolley, L.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  McLeavy, F.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Randall, H. E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ranger, J.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Rankin, J.

  Walkden, E.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Walker, G. H.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Richards, R.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Mathers, G.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Medland, H. M.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Royle, C.

  Watson, W. M.

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Scollan, T.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Weitzman, D.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Morley, R.

  Sharp, Granville

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, H.)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Mort, D. L.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Moyle, A.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Murray, J. D.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

  Williamson, T.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Willis, E.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Solley, L. J.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Woods, G. S.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Stamford, W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  Steele, T.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Stephen, C.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Parkin, B. T.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Mr. Collindridge and

  Mr. Coldrick

  NOES

  Aitken, Hon. Max

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Nicholson, G.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Peto, Brig C. H. M.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Boles Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boothby, R.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hurd, A.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Scott, Lord W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Carson, E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Spence, H. R.

  Challen, C.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd'f'n. S.)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Touche, G. C.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Turton, R. H.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

  Marples, A. E

  Williams Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Maude, J. C.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  York, C.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Gage, C.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Commander Agnew and

  Major Ramsay

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection;
  All Petitions against the Bill presented at any time not later than Five clear days after the making of this Order to be referred to the Committee;
  Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents to be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill;
  Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee;
  Three to be the Quorum;
  Ordered:
  "That Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

  CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES (WIDOWS AND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS)
  7.37 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I beg to move,
  "That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs (Amendment) Regulations, 1946, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented on 21st November, be approved."
  Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. There is a Motion which follows this on the Order Paper:
  "That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1946, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented on 21st November, be approved."
  The two Motions really deal with the one general subject. I suggest that there might be only one discussion upon them, to cover them both, as that would probably save time.
  Mr. Speaker: That was my intention from the start. In fact, the two Orders are complementary, so to speak, and it would be inconvenient to take them separately.
  Mr. Steele: The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend announced from this Box on 19th November, that the Assistance Board had submitted to him two sets of Draft Regulations to provide for certain increases in the scale of allowances for children. The Board's proposals have been accepted by the Government, and accordingly my right hon. Friend submits to Parliament two sets of Draft Regulations in like terms. They are now before the House. As was suggested by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), I propose to deal with them together. The drafts will each require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses before the operative regulations can be made. Two sets of regulations are required, as the Assistance Board administer two schemes of assistance. Under those two schemes, allowances according to need are paid to the following categories of persons. The first scheme relates to unemployment assistance, and covers persons aged 16 or over who are unemployed insured persons, capable of and available for work. The second provides supplementary pensions for old age pensioners, both contributory and non-contributory, and for widow pensioners who are 60 years of age or over or who are receiving allowance? for dependent children.
  The needs of applicants to the Board are of course assessed in accordance with the regulations approved by Parliament, and in assessing the need of an applicant provision must be made for any dependants. The regulations describe rates not only for the applicant and, if he is married, for his wife but any other dependants he may have. The current regulations were approved by Parliament in December, 1943. The two sets of amending regulations, one for unemployment assistance and the other for supplementary pensions, will provide improvements which the Board consider are now required in the rates for dependent children under 16 years of age. In other respects, the existing provisions of the current regulations will continue to operate.
  I would like to give the rate for children under the present regulations. Between 11 and 15 years inclusive the payment is 9s., between eight and 10 years inclusive 7s. 6d., and for children under eight years, 6s. What is proposed under the new rates

  281
  is children between 11 and 15 years inclusive, 10s. 6d.; between five and 10 years, 9s.; and children under five years, 7s. 6d. It will thus be seen that the new regulations propose not only increases in each of the three rates, but also a change in the age grouping which will enable the intermediate rate to be paid at an earlier age. The new age grouping is related broadly to the various stages of the educational system. Five is the compulsory school attendance age and 11 is at present the age of transfer from primary to secondary schools.
  Put shortly, the effect of the new regulations will be to increase the allowances for children in the following manner: Under five, an increase of 1s. 6d. per week; children of five, six and seven will get an increase of 3s. per week; and children from eight to 15 inclusive an increase of 1s. 6d. per week. So far as the numbers affected are concerned, some 15,000 unemployed insured applicants to the Board have about 38,000 dependent children and some 39,000 widows receiving supplementary pensions have about 74,000 dependent children. Thus in all about 54,000 persons with about 112,000 children will benefit. The number of supplementary old age pensioners with dependent children is of course negligible. So far as the cost to the Exchequer is concerned, this will be in the region of £515,000 in a full year.
  I am sure the House would like to have a few examples showing what the new scales of assistance will mean in a few typical cases. Take the case of a widow with two children aged four and 10. Under the present scales the widow gets 20s. for herself, and for her children 6s. and 7s. 6d. respectively, making a total of 33s. 6d. a week, to which is added, within reasonable limits, the amount she pays in rent. If the rent was, for example, 10s., the total would be 43s. 6d. Under the new regulations the scale rates for the children will be 7s. 6d. instead of 6s., and 9s. instead of 7s. 6d., so that the total will be 46s. 6d. a week. This represents the standard to which, in the absence of any special circumstances such as I will mention later, the Assistance Board will make up the income which this widow derives from other sources, such as, for example, her widow's pension and the family allowances. Let us take the case of another widow with a similar rent of 10s., but who has four children aged
  282
  four, six, 10 and 11. At present the scale is 58s. 6d., but under the new regulations it will be 66s., an increase of 7s. 6d.
  Let me now give two examples of unemployed men with families who are drawing unemployment assistance. For convenience I will suppose that their rents are the same as in the two examples I gave about widows, that is, 10s. a week. Let us take the case of an unemployed man with a wife and two children aged four and 10 years. In this case the rate for a man and wife is 31s. and the present scales for the children are 6s. and 7s. 6d. a week, which makes 44s. 6d. a week. Add to this the 10s. for rent, and the total is 54s. 6d. Under the new scales the rates for children will be increased from 6s. to 7s. 6d. and from 7s. 6d. to 9s., making a total of 57s. 6d. a week. This compares with the present unemployment benefit rates for a married couple with two children of 50s. a week. Now let us take the case of another unemployed man, this time with four children aged four, six, 10 and 11, and with a similar rent of 10s. Under the present scale they would receive 69s. 6d. per week. Under the new regulations they will receive 77s. per week. This compares with 60s. which they would receive under the present unemployment scheme.
  Unlike insurance benefits, which provide allowances at fixed rates, the schemes administered by the Assistance Board are essentially schemes of assistance according to individual needs. Needs vary widely and are not always met by allowances at the normal scale rate. The main regulations accordingly confer on the Board a discretionary power to allow more than the scale rate where the circumstances of the case so require. Additions are in fact frequently made to meet special needs such as extra nourishment in the case of sickness, extra expense on account of laundering, and, where the circumstances of the family are exceptionally difficult, on clothing and household equipment. If Parliament approves the regulations they will come into force in the week commencing 16th December. This allows less than a fortnight from now in which to put all the increases into payment. Widow pensioners are paid their supplementary pensions at the Post Office at the same time as their widows' pensions, and within the few days allowed it will be necessary in all these cases to recover the current order books

  283
  and issue new books for the higher amounts The Board have assured my right hon. Friend that their administrative machinery will be able to cope satisfactorily with this additional work in the time available.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Brown: I want to address what few remarks I have to make to the second Motion, and I want to ask, with the greatest respect, one or two questions, of the Minister of National Insurance. I would ask first why the promise made last February that in this Session of Parliament there would be introduced a National Assistance Bill dealing with all the anomalies which have grown up since 1939 has not been kept. Perhaps the Minister will answer that question, because we are very much disturbed that the Bill is not to be brought forward this Session
  The Parliamentary Secretary has made an admirable case for increasing children's allowances both to the unemployed person and also to the old age pensioner who might have dependent children, but he has said very little which indicates that some regard is being paid to the old age pensioners who have to go to the assistance boards to supplement the pension of which they are now in receipt My complaint on the regulation, and in particular the Explanatory Memorandum which has been supplied with the two regulations, concerns paragraph 5 on page 3, which says:
  "The discretionary powers which form an important part of the present Regulations will not be affected by the proposed Regulations and will continue to be exercised as at present whenever the special circumstances of "the case so require."
  It leaves the assistance boards in their administrative capacity in the same position in the future as they have been in the past and are at present. I am not complaining about the discretionary powers being given to the assistance boards, but I am finding from experience that assistance boards vary in their ad ministration of the application of their discretionary powers. I find that in some districts they are more generous than in others. In some districts, particularly where the rent allowance is very high consequent upon the conditions prevailing in that district, their discretionary powers are very parsimoniously applied. It is
  284
  upon that aspect I want to dwell for a moment or two.
  I want to ask the Minister it he could consider putting in the regulations a minimum amount below which the relief can not fall. I find in some cases that the assistance boards are so parsimonious in their approach to the supplementation of the old age pensioners' pension, that they are even conceding 6d. and 1s. That can not be considered to be using discretionary powers as understood in the regulations. Why do I make this suggestion that there should be a minimum below which the scale of relief shall not fall? I make it because there are, in my submission, a large number of border-line cases and the assistance boards are very hesitant because of that fact. Therefore, I think it would be as well for the Minister to take into consideration the fixing of the scale which has to be administered by the assistance boards in various parts of the country at a certain figure. It is done in many other walks of life, so why should it not be fixed for the old age pensioner?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Gentleman is in Order in referring to old age pensioners. As I understand it, this is a question of grants for children
  Mr. Brown: I bow to your Ruling, Mr Deputy-Speaker, but we are dealing with supplementation for the pensioner who cannot make ends meet. It is a determination of needs and means.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but I think I am right in saying—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that this is a question of grants in respect of children —it may be the children of old age pensioners, but it is only in respect of dependent children. I do not think the general question arises.
  Mr. Brown: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned old age pensioners in put ting forward his case. I made a note of it I was aware that I was skating on very thin ice, but, having regard to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, I thought the way was open now for the discussion of the supplementation of pensions paid to old age pensioners who because of their economic circumstances, have to go to the Assistance Board for some relief. Though you rule otherwise. I respectfully submit that I am within the four corners of these regulations.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The matter is a very technical one. Cannot the Minister assist us?
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I am not sure whether I can assist in deciding what actually is in Order or is not in Order on these regulations. What I can say is that the new regulations, which I am submitting to the House for their approval, under both schemes provide for increases in the children's rates. The rates for adults remain the same. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, was bound to refer to the fact that these are scale rates but they do not affect in any way the power which the Board has now to make discretionary payments both to adults and children. As to how wide the Debate is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that is not within my province to decide, but the regulations cover provisions for increases in children's rates only.
  Mr. Brown: Arising out of the advice given by the Minister, the regulations will indirectly affect the old age pensioners, and I would respectfully call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the preamble to this regulation which refers to the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940. I think, with all respect, that I am in Order in raising the matter of supplementary pensions.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the fact that the heading relates to the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940. does not affect the particular matter coming under the regulation which is, I think, limited to the question of grants in respect of dependent children. I am afraid I must ask the hon. Member to keep to that point.
  Mr. Brown: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I want to stress the importance of this because, after all, whether the assistance boards deal with the unemployed person, with widows or with old age pensioners, they are entitled, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, to use discretionary powers. I think I have kept well within the four corners of the regulations by applying my remarks to the discretionary powers conceded to the assistance boards. I made the suggestion a moment or two ago that there ought to be a scale fixed by the Minister himself below which the relief cannot fall because, by doing that, the
  286
  assistance boards would be helped to apply their discretionary powers without fear of the Treasury—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member will forgive me, the question of discretionary powers is not in any way altered by these regulations. That is a matter which has long been decided, and the question does not, therefore, arise under these regulations.
  Mr. Brown: I am well aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I know the Minister, when you called upon him, tried to interpret what is meant by "discretionary powers." In my respectful submission I think I am entitled to put forward a point of view on the interpretation of what is meant by "discretionary powers." If you rule me out of Order, I will resume my seat, but I think I am in Order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Explanatory Memorandum says quite clearly:
  "The discretionary powers which form an important part of the present Regulations will not be affected by the proposed Regulations and will be continued to be exercised as at present whenever the circumstances of the case so require."
  Therefore, the question of discretionary powers does not arise in the matter we are discussing, which is affecting proposed Regulations, not present Regulations.
  Mr. Brown: If the discretionary powers are not being used in the manner in which we think they ought to be used, I think we are entitled to express disapproval of those discretionary powers now exercised by the Assistance Board.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid not on the present occasion, because the question of discretionary powers is not altered and does not in any way come into the proposed Regulations. I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that question.
  Mr. Brown: Very well, I will bow to your Ruling, and perhaps on a subsequent occasion I will have an opportunity of ventilating what I have in my mind against the Assistance Board and the use of their discretionary powers.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I am sorry I cannot begin by congratulating the Minister on the new regulations. The position in regard to these increases has

  287
  arisen out of the working of the family allowances scheme. Since that scheme has been in operation, there has been a great deal of discontent in various parts of the country about the position in which widows with children have been placed, and also in regard to the children of the unemployed. I think the proper line for the Government to have taken until the third Measure, of which the Minister has spoken, was brought forward, was to arrange the regulations so that to the children of the widows and to the children of the unemployed the amount they were losing under the present scheme of family allowances would be made up to them under a new Act of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister would not be out of Order if he gave us some explanation of why this Measure to correct the anomalies is not being brought forward this Session. He will realise that many thousands of people throughout the country are suffering gravely owing to the anomaly. I hope he will be able to say something tonight that will bring a certain amount of comfort to those people.
  The present position is improved somewhat by the regulations. There is to be an increase of 1s. 6d. per child per week in some cases. In the case of children between five and eight years of age there is to be an increase of 3s. a week. But, the only thing that would do justice would be the payment of 5s. a week in each case, so that these children could be put into the same position as all the other children in the country. At present the only children not receiving the benefit of the family allowances scheme are the children whose parents are in the worst position. If a man is working and receiving £1,000 a week and has four children, three of those children receive the 5s. a week. But, if a man is unemployed and has the same number of children, he receives his unemployment benefit and the dependants' allowances under the unemployment insurance scheme, plus assistance from the Assistance Board, but the payment from the family allowances scheme is withheld from him.
  Mr. Steele Mr. Steele indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stephen: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. I think I am right. The children of the unemployed do not get the 5s. a week from the unemployment insurance scheme. The children of
  288
  widows under the ordinary contributory pensions scheme also suffer. That is all wrong. I know it is done on the plea that there should not be duplication of payments, but there is duplication of payments in the case of a man who is in employment getting a decent wage, because the State has laid upon a parent a responsibility in regard to his income to make provision for the maintenance of his children. There is duplication there in the same way. I hope the Minister will reconsider the whole position, and put it to the Assistance Board that the present increase is not sufficient, but that in every one of these cases the increase should be 5s. a week.
  The Parliamentary Secretary gave us certain cases. I would like the Minister to take up one of those cases, say, the one in which there were four children, and tell us what the income is in that case, and also what the income would be in the case of a similar family of a woman with four children who is the widow of a man killed in the war, and who is in receipt of a war pension. In that case it will be found that the children are receiving us. in respect of the pension allowance, plus the 5s—16s. in all. The father of the children whose widow is receiving payment under this scheme may have served four years in the war. He may have come home and died of some disease such as heart disease, but was not able to prove that it resulted from war service. His widow would not get a pension; and she is put into a far worse position than the widow whose husband was killed in the war. I do not think there is any real reason for the discrimination. The need is the same in each case.
  I am surprised that a Labour Minister of National Insurance has not been seized of the need for correcting these anomalies. After all, the cases of the greatest need are those in which the least payments are being made because of the anomalies which have arisen in connection with this scheme, I hope that the Minister will tell us he is going to bring forward a Measure at an early date to correct these anomalies. I would also like him to tell us whether it is not possible for him to have this whole matter reconsidered by the Assistance Board with a view to the full payment of 5s. in respect of each child until the present unsatisfactory statutory position is put right. I appeal to the

  289
  Minister. I know that there is a tremendous discontent throughout the country about this matter. I know that in Bridge-ton the Labour candidate frankly confessed that he regarded the situation as absolutely unsatisfactory, and I know that members of the Labour Party in that division have expressed themselves in the same way. I hope that the Government will see that full justice is done to the children and that the mistake that was made in the last Parliament will be corrected, so that there will be a real family allowances scheme, which will extend to all the children in the community.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Blyton: Like the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), many of us are not happy about the present situation, but what we are faced with tonight is whether we accept these regulations and take what is offered, or turn them down and leave the people who are covered by the regulations in the same position, on 16th December, as they are now. To that extent I welcome these regulations, because they will ease the position of a considerable number of people. There has undoubtedly been in the country deep consternation about the application and the operation of family allowances and the basis of the determination of needs under this particular Act. To that extent these regulations will ease the considerable agitation which has sprung up. They will mean that to a widow with three children, aged 12, six and four years respectively, who before the operation of the Act in August, received 41s., will now receive 47s.; that is, exclusive of rent allowance, that family, under these regulations, will be six shillings a week better off. It is not a large amount, but to a working-class widow with three children it is a Godsend in these days of high prices.
  There is one anomaly I would like to point out to the Minister in relation to these regulations. When we exclude rent from unemployment assistance, we find that a man with a wife and three children aged 12, six and four years respectively, before the operation of the Act, in August last, received 52s. The statutory benefit of a man receiving unemployment benefit was £2 14s. On these figures a man receiving statutory benefit was getting 2s. more per week than an unemployed assist-
  290
  ance case, if rent was excluded from the determination of needs. The position now will be that, including everything a man has got, his income and his U.A.B. payment, he will, under these regulations, received 58s., exclusive of rent. The statutory benefit for the same family is £2 15s., so that a man drawing statutory benefit will be 3s. worse off than a man drawing unemployment assistance. My point is to ask the Minister to equalise these figures, bringing the one up to the other, operating the Section of the new Insurance Act, Section 62, so as to bring these figures into a relationship which will leave a man in the case I have quoted in nearly the same position as he was before the operation of this particular scale, which means the man on statutory benefit will get another 4s. 6d. to equalise the benefits.
  My last point is in relation to the determination of needs under public assistance. I suggest that the people to whom this applies are the most needy of all in this country. A person who is sick or who is non-insurable is having taken into consideration everything that is coming in. He is worse off than the man who comes under the Unemployment Assistance Board. In pointing out this anomaly and asking the Minister to introduce a provision to rectify it, I wish to ask him to impress on the Minister of Health to try to rectify the same position in relation to the public assistance committees throughout the country. Having made that explanation, I shall support these proposals, because they make people better off than they were before.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I agree entirely with everything the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said about the working of family allowances, but I think that we on this side of the House must congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has introduced these two regulations. I feel sure that we should accept them on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread. There are one or two points on this matter which I think need a little clarification. We are told, if I understand aright, that the cost per year of this new increase is something of the order of £515,000. I would like to know if the Minister can tell us what the actual figures would have been each year

  291
  if the principle of non-duplication of benefits had been abolished. Secondly, I think we should know why the date 16th December has been chosen, and whether it would not be possible to back date the operation of these provisions to the time when family allowances came into operation.
  Then again, we all know the great difficulty which has been caused to old age pensioners in respect of their increase by the fact that there has been considerable delay in their getting their new pension books. There is something like a fortnight for these new books to be got out and distributed—about 112,000. I would not like these people to feel that they will not get their books in time. As the Assistance Board officers are heavily overworked in dealing with the old age pension books, could any extra assistance be given to them to get out these new books? The Minister has met, or partially met, two very deserving classes of cases by these extra allowances of unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions. There is still a large class left outside— people drawing compensation.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This question does not arise in the Regulations. This Debate is like the Third Reading of a Bill. The only matters which can be dealt with are the matters set out in the Regulations.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I am sorry. I bow, of course, to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is one special point not covered by these regulations, the case of children at school after the age of 15. What exactly is their position under these regulations? As I read them, their operation finishes when the children reach the age of 15, but there are many who receive education after that age, and I would like to know exactly what their position is.
  8.19 p.m.
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I have been asked a number of questions, and I will do my best to reply to them briefly. May I begin by reiterating what I said when I made the announcement about these regulations in the House some time ago? I said that we were aware then of the difficulties and anomalies. I put it to the House, then as now, that they are due to the fact that we have done something which this House induced us to do—introduced a part only of a great scheme of social insurance in advance of the whole. [HON. MEMBERS:
  292
  "We cannot hear."] I am sorry. I will try to remember the left as well as the right. I said when I made the announcement—
  Mrs. Braddock: No one opposite is listening.
  Mr. Griffiths: This is the first time that I have been told that I cannot be heard in this House. However, I said then, and I now repeat, that these are difficulties which arise from the piecemeal introduction of part of a scheme most of which will be wiped out when the new scheme comes fully into operation. In the meantime, the Assistance Board have looked at the scales for children, and have proposed these new rates. I believe everyone who has spoken has welcomed them as a change and an advance and I am sure that all hon. Members will vote for them this evening.
  I now come to the questions I was asked about the National Assistance Bill. That Bill is in course of preparation. I was asked when it will be introduced. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who asked that question, knows perfectly well that it is not one which should be addressed to me but to someone else. Let me be perfectly clear. There have been one or two suggestions that the proposal for the Bill has been abandoned. It has not been abandoned, it is in preparation, and the question as to when it comes before the House is a matter for the Government as a whole. The hon. Member for Ince raised a number of other points, but apart from that one they were ruled out of Order.
  The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) raised the question of the position of the children of the Servicemen. The position is that when this Act was passed by the old Parliament full duplication was permitted in the case of the Servicemen, and of the Servicemen's widow and children. That is the position. My hon. Friend said that that is unfair, but there it is. The House decided it and nothing but another Act of Parliament can change it.
  Mr. Stephen: I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not want the children of the ex-Serviceman not to get the 5s. I want the whole of the children to get it.
  Mr. Griffiths: There it is. I only wanted to say that it is in the Act. May I correct one wrong impression which

  293
  seems to be widespread and that is that we are taking away the family allowance payments? We are not. The family allowance is paid at the rate of 5s. per week from birth to every child except the first in a family and up to the age of 16 years if the child is at school or apprenticed. What happens is that the family allowance replaced the children's allowances formerly attached to other benefits. The family allowance is not being taken away from anyone. It is the other benefit which is taken away, not the family allowance. I would point out—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. We cannot have a discussion on the question of family allowances. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) sandwiched it in very skilfully and the right hon. Gentleman has had a slight opportunity to reply but I am afraid he cannot take it further.
  Mr. Griffiths: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) raised the question of benefits. He knows that I have announced in this House that in the near future we propose to bring Section 62 of the Act into operation. Those entitled to standard benefits are entitled to those benefits, and these scales cannot apply to them unless they need assistance over and above these benefits. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked what the actual cost would be if there was complete duplication of benefits and family allowances. I am afraid that without notice it is not possible to give an answer to that question, but I promise that I will send the information to him He asked why the operative date was 16th December and why we cannot make the payments retrospective. The reason is that payment of the new scales under regulations cannot be retrospective. We have, therefore, decided to make the payments from the first possible date after the regulations have been approved by the House tonight. That means, of course, that the Assistance Board have to make all the necessary arrangements in order to make these payments available in a very short time after the House votes. I am assured by the Board that it will be possible for them to keep to the timetable and to make payment of the new scales from the week beginning
  294
  16th December. There is one final point. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring asked about public assistance. The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are communicating with the local authorities calling their attention to these new scales and asking them to take them as a guide when fixing their own scales.
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft Unemployment Assistance (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1946, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented on 21st November, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft Supplementary Pensions (Determination of Need and Assessment of Needs) (Amendment) Regulations, 1946, made under Sections 38 and 52 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, as applied by Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, a copy of which Draft Regulations was presented on 21st November be approved."— [Mr. Steele.]

  MILK RATIONING (PRIORITY CERTIFICATES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Collindridge.]
  8.26 p.m.
  Dr. Santo Jeger: The question of food priorities is a very wide one and I want to confine my-self to the special matter of milk only. Before I delve further into the subject, I want to make it quite clear that I have no criticism to make of the Government's policy in this respect, and that I have every admiration for the work of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I think they are doing a very difficult job extremely successfully. As long as we have food scarcity, we must have rationing, and while we have rationing, we must have priority for special needs. The Minister of Food on 29th October last issued a statement to the medical profession, which was published in the medical Press, to the effect that an excessively large amount of milk was being consumed. We were given figures. We were told that during the war period the weekly consumption of milk in this country was 900,000 gallons, whereas now the consumption is 1,300,000 gallons, an increase

  295
  of 44 per cent., or 400,000 gallons, which is not consistent with the statistics of disease.
  The official explanation of this was that the certification of disease by the medical profession had become less strict. But there is another aspect, which is that the general health of the people is below par, that the figures that we are given of deaths, of infectious diseases, and of National Health Insurance disabilities do not represent the whole story, and that we are given no statistics whatever of minor illness. In my view, the increase in minor ailments has a great deal to do with the increase in the consumption of milk. The Minister went on to point out that there were three courses which he could adopt. First, he might cut the amount of milk which is given as a ration and in priority cases; second, he might reduce the number and the scope of the various categories of illness which receive priorities; and, third, he might appeal to the medical profession to adopt a more strict and accurate certification of diseases which require priority milk.
  The profession was informed that he had decided on the third course and had kept courses one and two in reserve. I propose to say something about this matter of certification. Most doctors are exceedingly hard working and conscientious. They take a great deal of trouble in the case of those patients who need extra food priority in milk to provide them with careful consultation, examination and an honest decision. But there are doctors who are not quite so conscientious. I can recall not long ago being present at a conversation between two doctors. One said to the other, "You give me a certificate giving me priority in milk and eggs, and I'll give you one." The exchange was duly carried out. There are many doctors who give certificates ad lib to any patient who asks for one. Of course, a doctor with a wealthy patient has a vested interest in maintaining his contact with that wealthy patient and he does not like to refuse a request for a priority certificate. A refusal produces a disgruntled patient, and a disgruntled patient means no patient at all.
  There was a letter in the "British Medical Journal" two or three weeks ago, from a doctor who said a patient had
  296
  approached him and asked whether she could have a priority certificate for milk. She explained that she was finding difficulty in providing food for her cat. The certificate was refused and the patient then said that she would go to another doctor who was not quite so strict. She went to the other doctor and, later, came back to the first doctor—the one who wrote the letter—and said that she had obtained the certificate and that her cat was now being extremely well fed. When a doctor is faced with the question of providing extra milk for a patient, he has to choose whether he will give a certificate for two pints a day or one pint a day, or whether he will refuse to let the patient have anything more than his normal ration of two pints a week. The various reasons for giving priority certificates are set out in the Schedule.
  I think that the categories in that Schedule are a little too vague. There are some diseases which are completely absent from it—anaemias, varieties of debility and various psychological and nervous troubles which cause loss of weight. In my view, these diseases should be incorporated in the Schedule. Then, again, dyspepsia and colitis are exceedingly vague descriptions, which can mean almost anything. Everybody at some time or other suffers from dyspepsia, and that is a category in which a doctor will put those of his cases where diagnosis is difficult or indefinite. They all come under the category which is designated 2C. I am going to suggest certain new categories and conditions which should be included in the Schedule. First of all, there are the industrial workers who are confined to bed and who ought to get a certain amount of priority milk in the first ten days of their illness. The illness does not usually last longer than ten days, so that a priority certificate would cover the period.
  May I now call attention to the plight of very small families who find it hopeless to try to manage on the present milk ration? Such families ought to have an increased basic allowance because two pints a week for members of very small families is not enough. Larger families, people who eat out and people who live in hotels can manage on their ration. The ration is adequate for such people, but not for the very small family. Nor is it adequate for the very old people who live

  297
  alone and who, in many cases, are invalids. Many such people pass many milkless days. Children get one-third of a pint of milk in school and an additional ration at home; they have two sources of supply. That is a very good policy and no one objects to it, but one cannot help comparing the ration given to children with that given to those at the other end of life who find it very difficult indeed to obtain a suitable diet.
  Provision is made in the Schedule for convalescent children, so that when 'I suggest that a worker who has been incapacitated for some time, who has been receiving a priority ration of seven pints of milk a week, and who will find it very difficult to readjust himself to the normal two pints a week, should have an extra ration during convalescence, it is not something which is outside our experience. The children get it, and there is no reason why the workers should not have it. As I have already pointed out, doctors can give certificates for either 14 or seven pints of milk a week. There is a very big gap between two pints and seven pints, and an even bigger gap between two and 14 pints. If a patient needs a priority certificate, he must either be given one for seven pints a week or none at all.
  Most of the cases that I have been talking about, and which are in the suggested new categories, are already getting extra milk. It is very difficult for a doctor to refuse to give some patients extra milk when they ask for it. I can recall one very deaf man who asked me whether he could have a certificate for extra milk. I shouted my lungs out in an effort to explain to him why he could not have it. He smiled very patiently and repeated his request. I explained again and, finally, in order to save time because there was a crowd of people in my waiting-room and in order to save my voice, I gave him the certificate. There are other patients which every doctor meets in his consulting room at various times who will not take no for an answer and to whom it takes less energy to give a certificate than to refuse it. Many of those people would come into the new categories which I have suggested should be enumerated in the Schedule.
  Instead of a choice between two and seven pints of milk a week, I would suggest that we might have a new category of
  298
  three and a half pints a week. Many of the people whom I have been describing could easily fit into that category. Although that would mean that new people would be coming into the priority classifications, there would be a saving of milk because each of those people would be receiving less milk under the new category than they do at the present moment. Another suggestion I wish to make is that, in certain illnesses, a certificate which lasts for only one month is hardly adequate. A month is too short a period for some of the diseases named in the Schedule, and the continual coming back of the patient every month wastes time and energy and occupies the time of a doctor which could more usefully be employed in other directions.
  There are one or two other suggestions which I would like to make. People suffering from a gastric or duodenal ulcer receive two pints of milk a day; tuberculosis patients and expectant mothers also receive two pints a day. I would suggest that, if gastric ulcer patients receive two pints a day because they are unable to digest other food, they should be called upon to forfeit their meat ration because it only goes to feed other members of the family, who thereby receive an excessive meat ration. I do not suggest that children, tuberculosis patients or expectant mothers should forfeit their meat ration. There are various other cases which could do with less milk than they are getting at the present time. Gastric ulcer patients who are not confined to bed, post-operative and certain ambulatory tuberculous patients, and many other patients could manage on one pint of milk a day. Then there are certain cases of temporary illness which would come into my suggested category of three and a half pints a week.
  To relieve doctors of a great deal of responsibility, and to save them the trouble and time of arguing with patients and thereby acquiring an unjust and undeserved unpopularity, I suggest that they should not be called upon to give patients certificates authorising them to get extra milk, but that they should give statements of illness which could be taken to the food office where the decision would be made instead of in the doctor's consulting room. Many cases are perfectly simple, and it would be an easy matter for the people in the food office to decide whether such cases fitted into

  299
  the suggested categories for priority milk. In border-line cases, a panel of consultant doctors not engaged in general practice and, therefore, not having a vested interest in maintaining patients on an increased amount of milk, could decide whether such cases came within the suggested category. The amount of milk which would be used under this reclassification would increase the total consumption very little, if at all, and there would be a much more adequate distribution of the available milk.
  8.40 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I must thank the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Dr. Jeger) for raising this question, because it does give me the opportunity of explaining to the House the principles which govern the allocation of priority milk. We at the Ministry are fully alive to the fact that the people of this country take a great interest in this matter. Those who believe they should have extra milk on physiological or pathological grounds write letters to us, and sometimes use very strong terms, so that we are kept in touch, I think, with the different trends in the country. First of all, I should like to explain that the decisions which are made on priority applications are not, of course, made in any arbitrary fashion by an official at the Ministry. These decisions are made by our scientific advisers in cooperation with an advisory committee of the Medical Research Council. Also, of course, we take into account publications by people like Professor Cruickshank, the Professor of Physiology at the University of Aberdeen. I am quite sure the hon. Member who raised this question knows of the professor's recent book on food and nutrition.
  So far as our allocations of priority foods are concerned, I think they do approximate to the recommendations of these very distinguished scientists. In the first place these priority categories—if I may say so, these pathological priority categories as distinct from the physiological, the expectant mothers, nursing mothers and so on—have been established on the advice of the special advisory committee of the Medical Research Council, and they take about 6 per cent. of the total consumption of milk in this country. Now, while on medical grounds it is important to provide
  300
  milk for these patients, we realise that there are certain loopholes, for certification. Therefore, we decided recently, be cause we were alarmed at the increase of claims for milk on health grounds, that a letter should be published in the medical-Press, drawing the attention of the doctors to the increase in milk consumption, and asking them to re-certify these patients
  I agree with the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras, that it is very difficult to get the hypochondriac and the neurotic type of person, or the person who thinks he or she ought to have milk because their neighbour is having extra milk, off the seat in the consulting room. The lay public does not understand the difficulties of the general practitioner sitting in his consulting room, with perhaps 10 or 20 patients in the waiting room outside clamouring for attention. He is a very harassed man, who tries to do his best under difficult circumstances; and sometimes he feels, knowing that there is a loophole in the Schedule to which the hon. Member has referred, that he will do as he is requested. Of course, he may be soft-hearted in only one case; but unfortunately there may be general practitioners all over the country doing exactly the same thing, and all these pints add up to a formidable total. That is why we felt we had to tell the medical profession of the difficulties which were facing us, and we have asked for their cooperation.
  I must confess that the experience of the hon. Member, who said he knew of two doctors who decided to swap certificates, was a little unusual. I have not heard of cases like that. However, recently a certificate has come to the Ministry of Food, which was issued by a doctor, and on which he put:
  "Member of the Society of Individualists. I make this valid for 52 weeks. This is an example of democracy at work."
  That is the doctor's protest against the Ministry of Food, which he feels should be included in his certificate. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to that when he asks that perhaps a certificate should be valid for longer than a month. I think perhaps he would not agree with 52 weeks. The doctor to whom I referred feels that patients should not have to go to a doctor monthly, or three monthly, or six monthly, but that yearly would be enough. I think I can tell hon. Members that such a thing would lead to lax certification.

  301
  Let me now deal with some of the points my hon. Friend has raised. I must admit, some of them are very constructive, and I can assure him we shall look at them all. First of all, the question of industrial workers. If my hon. Friend looks at the Schedule he will find that the industrial worker who is convalescent is covered by 2, a. I know the House will understand that it would be unwise to reveal the code number relating to the disease, because this is information which only doctors should have.
  Dr. Jeger: I was careful about that.
  Dr. Summerskill: I observed that. Therefore, the hon. Member will realise why I am not relating the code number to the disease.
  Dr. Jeger: At the same time, might I just refer to the class the hon. Lady has just referred to herself? It does not cover convalescent workers; it covers active workers who are temporarily incapacitated by illness.
  Dr. Summerskill: I thought the hon. Gentleman and I agreed just now that we would not relate the code number to the disease. I just mentioned the code number, and now the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the disease. Yes, I agree with him, but as a doctor surely he will agree that a worker who is convalescent is not working. Therefore, that will cover the worker for his illness and his convalescence, until he goes back to work. I think 2a does cover that point. The hon. Member said that there are no statistics for minor ailments. Well, I agree with him that our records leave a lot to be desired. But I wonder if this has occurred to him. If he again looks at class 2 he will see that as compared with class 1 the diseases in class 2 are minor. For instance, (a) might be minor, (b) might be minor, (c), which he has already quoted, certainly might be minor. The hon. Member would obviously have this information. I have made an inquiry, and have discovered that, so far as minor diseases are concerned, which are included in class 2a—and therefore we have a record of those—there has been no increase in consumption, which rather indicates that the small things, which are not recorded, have not resulted in an increase in consumption.
  The question of records is one which must be examined by the medical pro-
  302
  fession, of course, and by the Government. I think the hon. Member will agree with me that all insured persons who are receiving medical benefit have their complaints recorded, so we have a record there. There is a loophole, of course, because for the first three days of an illness there is no obligation on anybody to record a complaint, because the patient does not qualify for medical benefit.
  Again, there is a huge category which can be seen in this country, of whom we have no record at all: housewives. I dare hardly mention this category here, because the last time I spoke at this Box and mentioned the housewives I created an uproar on the other side of the House, and the din was so great that I could hardly continue my speech. Therefore, I realise that the housewives are not popular with the other side of the House, and if I dare mention what they suffer from I shall be attacked. However, as apparently tonight hon. Members opposite are not interested in priority allocations, perhaps I might mention this very large category of patients, the housewives, who, of course, are not insured, and therefore there is no record so far as medical benefit is concerned, and there is no obligation on the medical practitioners to keep any records. Thus, the hon. Member is right, but again, as a doctor, I should say to him—and I think he will agree with me—that apart from perhaps obstetrical complaints there are no minor illnesses to which the housewife is subject to which no other worker is subject. So, if we have a record of the minor illnesses of other workers, I think that reflects the minor illnesses of the housewives.
  The hon. Member said that the categories are too vague. I agree with him, certainly in part. I always felt, when I was practising, that 2c was very vague; it could cover anything. But we have to give the doctors some latitude. They cannot be tied, of course, to this Schedule. If somebody comes in who is apparently suffering rather severely, and the doctor feels quite satisfied he could come under 2c, I think he should have the power to say so. But when we come to revise this Schedule, as, indeed, we must—and if doctors do not observe this warning in the medical Press, that is our next step —but when we come to revise the Schedule, we shall give special consideration to 2c, I can assure my hon. Friend.

  303
  The hon. Member asked that an increased ration should be given for those who live alone. It would be very difficult to do that administratively. We have a warm corner in our hearts for old people living alone, and the hon. Member will be glad to hear we are going to look at that question. That is not correct. We are going to look at the position of the old people. I do not think one could possibly differentiate between, let us say, a man of 65 who has just got his old age pension and who is living alone, and a spinster of 50 who is living alone. A man of 65 still has his teeth. It is sometimes suggested that once a person gets the old age pension he is no longer fit to eat a good meal. But he likes a good meal, and he very often has a good appetite, and, therefore, we cannot say that of course an old age pensioner, because he is 65, must have priority milk. I would remind my hon. Friend that there are 5,000,000 of these people, and that our pool of milk is limited. But we are going to look at the whole question to see if something can be done for some of them.
  I think that the most important matter the hon. Gentleman has raised is the suggestion of a new category. He is quite right, of course: doctors are entitled to give either two pints a day or one pint a day. He has not mentioned the point, but I would remind the House, of the doctor who finds it difficult to get a patient off the chair in the consulting room; and the only alternative, apart from being very rude, is to give in, and give a certificate for seven pints a week. If we made a new category of three and a half pints a week, so we could remove the patient by giving a certificate for three and a half pints—well, it all sounds a little immoral, but we have to face up to these difficulties, which only doctors understand.
  Now the question of gastric ulcers.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: Hear, hear.
  Dr. Summerskill: I must apologise to the House, for this all becomes a little technical. I see I am surrounded by the profession, so I am a little hesitant to air my own views on this question. The hon. Member who said "Hear, hear," is a surgeon, and, perhaps, does not agree
  304
  with medical treatment of gastric ulcers. But I would say to my hon. Friend that gastric ulcers are difficult to deal with, in so far as a person with a gastric ulcer may look quite healthy and may be able to go to work, so that the neighbour next door may say, "Look at that strong, fat man having his extra milk." But the neighbours do not know that the man has so arranged his life and so planned his diet that, while he has his two pints of milk, he may go on quite well, but that, if his milk were stopped, his condition would deteriorate. On the other hand, he may find things go on pretty well, and he might say to his wife, "I feel like a little mince." That is quite possible. If we did as the hon. Member suggested, and said to this particular category of patients, "If you have milk, we must forbid you meat," it would almost certainly mean that that category would be going backwards and forwards to the food office, saying, "Now I am better I want my meat ration back." Then, of course, when they got worse, they would ask for their milk back. Therefore, the administrative difficulties would be very great. I am glad to see that the hon. Member, whose professional work I so much admire, agrees with me on this matter. But we will certainly look into the three and half pint category.
  Another point is the one about the month's validity. I do not think it is a hardship for patients to get their certificates renewed every month. Of course, there are diseases in respect of which the validity of the certificate is for three months. I think it might lead to lax certification if we made all the certificates valid for three months.
  The final point raised by the hon. Member was whether a committee—I think, a professional committee—of medical men could decide the eligibility of patients for milk. Although on the face of it it does seem an excellent suggestion, it would be very impracticable. This afternoon I opened a Domestic Front Exhibition in a borough of London, and I took the opportunity of discussing the whole question of the administration of the Food Office and allied medical matters with the medical officer of health, and I did raise this question with him. He almost implored me not to give him more work. It is just a question of putting more work on a very heavily overworked

  305
  machine, and I am afraid we shall have to leave the general practitioner to decide.
  I thank the hon. Member for raising these points. They are constructive. He knows the problems. We are going to look at the Schedule again, and I can assure him that every point he has raised will be most carefully examined.
  Mr. Spence: May I ask the hon. Lady to deal with two questions that arise in connection with these priorities due to the shortage of milk? Will she say what is being done to increase the milk supply, and can she give an assurance that no fresh milk is being used to make cheese?
  Dr. Summerskill: The only way to increase milk is to increase the yield of the cow, and the cow is a temperamental creature and refuses to produce milk unless properly fed. We have had so many Debates on feeding stuffs in this House that I think the hon. Member must know that, until we have an increase in feeding stuffs, it will be impossible to get an increase in yield.
  Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Lady answer the question about cheese? Can she give an assurance that fresh milk is not being used to make cheese?
  Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, some milk would be. An hon. Member asked me— or, perhaps, a Question is to be asked me —about what is done with milk. We have sometimes a pool of it which is sur-
  306
  plus to requirements. Some of that is used for cheese; but, on the other hand, we do import a lot of cheese. We have not been able to use the milk as we should have liked to use it for the special cheeses for which we were famous in the old days, because we have to use it for liquid consumption.
  Mr. Spence: But can the hon. Lady give the assurance that the quantity used to-day is not more than that which was used in normal times?
  Dr. Summerskill: I certainly can give that assurance.
  Dr. Morgan: May I ask the hon. Lady to deal with the question of anaemics when revising the Schedule? Will she give special attention to anaemics, and to their classification in the Schedule? We are having a great deal of difficulty now in classifying the various types of anaemics, and people suffering from chronic benzine poisoning, and so on. Sometimes people have progressive anaemia going on. I would ask her to consider revising the Schedule thoroughly so that diseases and disabilities not now included will be included.
  Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member we shall consider very carefully the whole field.
  Adjourned accordingly at One Minute to Nine o'Clock.

SCOTLAND
  Police Appeals
  Police Appeals
  Landlord and Tenant Act
  Landlord and Tenant Act
  Probation Officers (Age Limits)
  Probation Officers (Age Limits)
  Agriculture, Dumfriesshire
  Agriculture, Dumfriesshire
  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
  FLUORINE HAZARD, PORT WILLIAM
  FLUORINE HAZARD, PORT WILLIAM
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  War Damage Act (Court Decision)
  War Damage Act (Court Decision)
  Cupro-nickel Coins
  Cupro-nickel Coins
  Concessionary Coal (Income Tax)
  Concessionary Coal (Income Tax)
  American Loan (Dollar Proceeds)
  American Loan (Dollar Proceeds)
  Price of Gold
  Price of Gold
  Sterling Balances, Sweden
  Sterling Balances, Sweden
  Forward Exchange Cover
  Forward Exchange Cover
  Entertainments Duty (Living Theatre)
  Entertainments Duty (Living Theatre)
  Silver Prices, Bombay
  Silver Prices, Bombay
  Foreign Currency Allowance
  Foreign Currency Allowance
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Social Survey (Expenditure)
  Social Survey (Expenditure)
  War Damage Payments (Elderly People)
  War Damage Payments (Elderly People)
  Prison Officers (Clothing Allowances)
  Prison Officers (Clothing Allowances)
  Gift Parcels (Exchange Control Declaration)
  Gift Parcels (Exchange Control Declaration)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Court Cases
  Court Cases
  Superannuation
  Superannuation
  Recruitment
  Recruitment
  SCOTTISH HOUSING REPORT
  SCOTTISH HOUSING REPORT
  STATIONERY OFFICE (SCOTLAND)
  STATIONERY OFFICE (SCOTLAND)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  French Woollen Piece Goods
  French Woollen Piece Goods
  Foreign Cotton Business
  Foreign Cotton Business
  Cotton Control
  Cotton Control
  Sugar Imports
  Sugar Imports
  Car Tyres
  Car Tyres
  Furniture Rationing
  Furniture Rationing
  Seaboots (Lifeboatmen)
  Seaboots (Lifeboatmen)
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Empire Tobacco
  Empire Tobacco
  South Wales Development Area
  South Wales Development Area
  Canned Fruits
  Canned Fruits
  Pottery Firms, Stoke
  Pottery Firms, Stoke
  North Wales Development
  North Wales Development
BRITISH ARMY
  Soap Powder, Hong Kong
  Soap Powder, Hong Kong
  East Indies (Japanese Troops)
  East Indies (Japanese Troops)
  Dunmow Airfield (Traffic)
  Dunmow Airfield (Traffic)
  Iraq (Parades)
  Iraq (Parades)
  University Courses
  University Courses
  Demobilisation
  Demobilisation
  Re-engagement and Re-enlistment
  Re-engagement and Re-enlistment
  Communication with M.P.s.
  Communication with M.P.s.
  Territorials (Animal Transport)
  Territorials (Animal Transport)
  Leave Camp, Ceylon
  Leave Camp, Ceylon
  Huts. Gunnersbury Park
  Huts. Gunnersbury Park
  Soldiers' Wives (Hospital Treatment)
  Soldiers' Wives (Hospital Treatment)
  Regular Engagements
  Regular Engagements
  N.C.O.s' Arrest, M.E.L.F.
  N.C.O.s' Arrest, M.E.L.F.
  Young Soldiers (Marriage Allowance)
  Young Soldiers (Marriage Allowance)
  Nursing Officers (Lost Kit)
  Nursing Officers (Lost Kit)
  Connaught Hospital
  Connaught Hospital
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Amenities (Overseas Stations)
  Amenities (Overseas Stations)
  Territorial Associations
  Territorial Associations
  Sentenced Prisoners
  Sentenced Prisoners
  German Detonators
  German Detonators
  Ranker Officers
  Ranker Officers
  Requisitioned Hotel, Cramond
  Requisitioned Hotel, Cramond
  POLISH SOLDIERS, IRVINE (INCIDENT)
  POLISH SOLDIERS, IRVINE (INCIDENT)
PRISONERS OF WAR
  Arrests, Witney
  Arrests, Witney
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Stevenage (Inquiry)
  Stevenage (Inquiry)
  Open Spaces, London
  Open Spaces, London
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  Personal Gases
  Personal Gases
  Spinsters (Pensions)
  Spinsters (Pensions)
  Dental Fees Dispute. (Settlement)
  Dental Fees Dispute. (Settlement)
  Mental Deficients
  Mental Deficients
EMPLOYMENT
  Ministry Staff (Trade Union Officials)
  Ministry Staff (Trade Union Officials)
  Electricians, Cardiff
  Electricians, Cardiff
  Building Workers, Liverpool
  Building Workers, Liverpool
  Cardiff
  Cardiff
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Control of Engagement
  Control of Engagement
  South Wales
  South Wales
  Vocational Training, North Staffordshire
  Vocational Training, North Staffordshire
  Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Millom
  Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Millom
  Indian Industrial Trainees (Schemes)
  Indian Industrial Trainees (Schemes)
DEMOBILISATION
  Release Dates
  Release Dates
  University Students
  University Students
NATIONAL SERVICE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Call-Up
  Call-Up
  YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH MINES)
  YUGOSLAVIA (BRITISH MINES)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (SALARIES AND PENSIONS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (SALARIES AND PENSIONS)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Tuberculosis Allowance (Personal Case)
  Tuberculosis Allowance (Personal Case)
  Water Supplies, Horncastle and Spilsby
  Water Supplies, Horncastle and Spilsby
ARMED FORCES
  Service Pensions
  Service Pensions
  Welfare Arrangements, Palestine
  Welfare Arrangements, Palestine
  Strengths (VE-Day)
  Strengths (VE-Day)
  Surplus Weapons and Stores (Disposal)
  Surplus Weapons and Stores (Disposal)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Slate Industry (Working Party Report)
  Slate Industry (Working Party Report)
  Huts (Disposal)
  Huts (Disposal)
  OVERSEAS FOOD GIFTS
  OVERSEAS FOOD GIFTS
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Departmental Staff (Tenancies)
  Departmental Staff (Tenancies)
  Civil Aircraft Production
  Civil Aircraft Production
COAL INDUSTRY
  Equipment (Supplies)
  Equipment (Supplies)
  Boy Mineworkers
  Boy Mineworkers
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  PETROL CONSUMPTION
  PETROL CONSUMPTION
  LEAD MINES, WANLOCKHEAD
  LEAD MINES, WANLOCKHEAD
GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
  Control Commission (Reference Books)
  Control Commission (Reference Books)
  Youth Organisations
  Youth Organisations
  INDIA (COMMUNAL RIOTING, COMPENSATION)
  INDIA (COMMUNAL RIOTING, COMPENSATION)
HONG KONG
  Internees' Cheques
  Internees' Cheques
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
  SEYCHELLES (BICYCLE LICENCES)
  SEYCHELLES (BICYCLE LICENCES)
  MALAYANS, GREAT BRITAIN (PASSAGES)
  MALAYANS, GREAT BRITAIN (PASSAGES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE SERJEANT AT ARMS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I have to inform the House that His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to appoint Air Vice Marshal Sir Paul Maltby to be Serjeant at Arms in your Lordships' House in place of Admiral Sir Herbert Meade-Fetherstonehaugh, who has retired after more than seven years' service.

  SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1946.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the other Motion standing in my name.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord PethickLawrence, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name.
  Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 21st of November last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (SECOND AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1946.
  LORD AMNION: My Lords, I beg to move the other Motion standing in the name of my noble friend.
  Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 21st of November last, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]
  2.38 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, one of the major problems facing the people of this country is the very serious shortage of timber. Not only does the shortage threaten our building programme, but it affects other industries in a hundred different ways. During the last two wars enormous inroads were made into our forests, and this sacrifice of wood has not been made good. Indeed, so far as we can see, it will be many years before we have a chance of curing this shortage.
  520
  The position would become very much more serious if this country were ever threatened with a crisis or war. If our supply from abroad were cut off our position in regard to timber would be truly desperate.
  For these reasons, apart from the programme of reafforestation envisaged by the Forestry Commission, His Majesty's Government have accepted the scheme of dedication which was published in the Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commissioners. In the past private owners of woodlands have contributed an enormous amount of timber for this country's needs, and I should like now to acknowledge the very great debt that we owe to them. Encouraged by this experience we are again hoping that owners of private woodlands will replant their woodlands so that we shall have a reserve of timber in this country. But I do not think that we can expect them to go forward with a programme on this scale without getting some assistance from the State. The scheme of dedication is designed for this special purpose. It is to enable a private owner of woodlands to dedicate his forest for the growing of timber, and in return, to receive from the State assistance both in the form of advice and in grants. This scheme has been set out very fully in the Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commissioners, and I am sure that all the noble Lords who are interested in this subject will be familiar with this Report.
  The Bill before your Lordships for Second Reading is for the purpose of enabling these private owners to enter voluntarily into an agreement with the Forestry Commission so that they can obtain the necessary grants. The owner can choose between two forms of financial assistance. Under Basis I he would receive 25 per cent. of the approved net annual expenditure on the dedicated woodlands. This payment would stop when the woodlands were self-supporting. Under Basis 2 he would receive £10 per acre for every acre planted or replanted, whether with hardwoods or softwoods. This rate of grant for planting would come up for reconsideration in five years' time, according to the conditions then obtaining. In addition, under Basis 2 there would be a maintenance grant for fifteen years for new plantations. This would be at the rate of 3s. 4d. per acre per annum

  521
  for five years from now, and it would be reconsidered in the light of the circumstances then obtaining. Further, a similar maintenance grant will be payable from the date of dedication in respect of all productive woodlands other than new plantations already mentioned. For these schemes, of replanting a plan of operation would be drawn up by the owner and would be approved, if suitable, by the Forestry Commission. These plans would, of course, have to be followed. Loans can be made available on both bases up to an amount to be fixed with reference to individual circumstances. Each loan, with compound interest at 3 per cent. per annum, would be repayable by annual instalments over a fixed period.
  The first thing that this Bill ensures is that once the land has been dedicated it shall remain so whether it changes hands or not. In other words, it provides that the dedication should "run with the land." This is obviously essential as the Government could not contribute sums of money unless they were certain that the object for which the money was given would be achieved. The growing of trees is a long-term business. There is, of course, a precedent for this in both the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, Section 3 (4), and in the more recent Water Act of 1945, Section 15. Secondly, it is proposed in this Bill that certain classes of limited owners—tenants for life and statutory bodies such as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England and Wales, and in Scotland trustees and life-renters and heirs of entail—should be empowered to enter into dedication schemes which would be binding upon their successors.
  Now to come to the Bill itself. Clause 1 defines the nature of the restrictive covenant which owners of land may enter into with the Forestry Commissioners: and subsection (2) of this clause enables the Forestry Commissioners to enforce the covenant not only against the covenantor himself but against all subsequent owners of the same land. Clause 2 allows tenants for life or trustees to enter into dedication covenants, and also universities and colleges. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for precisely the same needs in Scotland, where the difference of the law has necessitated rather different wording and arrangement of the clauses. Clause 5 provides that where the Forestry Commission
  522
  exercise their powers of compulsory purchase under the Forestry Act of 1945 deductions shall be made from any compensation payable equal to the amount of the grants which have been advanced, plus interest at 3 per cent. This also applies where grants have been made within the twelve months before the passing of this Act. Clause 6 authorizes officers of the Forestry Commission to sign documents on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This has been found necessary as an administrative convenience.
  Finally, I should like to emphasize again the importance of the voluntary principle—that is, the voluntary nature of these schemes of dedication, in which the owner is entirely free to enter into an agreement with the Forestry Commissioners, and that once he has entered into this agreement and received grants, he must clearly be bound to carry out his side of the agreement and do his best to see that the woods are properly managed. The final result will be an addition to the woodlands of this country. For the scheme to work, this Bill is necessary. I understand that the interested parties have been consulted and have agreed to the general principle of the scheme; therefore I hope that your Lordships, in considering this Bill, will appreciate the necessity for it, will agree that it is a non-controversial measure, and will give it a speedy Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  2.43 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like, very briefly, to congratulate the noble Earl on the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill and to commend the principle of the Bill to the House. I expect that all of us would wish that we might have a little more legislation from that side of the House commended to us by Ministers as being entirely voluntary. I think that everyone who has studied the question of forestry will agree that this Bill is founded on a sound principle, and any comments that I venture to make I hope the noble Lord will take as being made in an attempt to improve the Bill. There certainly are a few points that I think concern certain noble Lords who sit on this side of the House. I hope that the noble Earl will

  523
  take good note of the views expressed, because, as he is aware, many noble Lords in this House really have studied this subject most deeply, and also because the Bill is founded on the principle of voluntaryism. I am afraid that the use of the dedication principle, which is now being put before us, will be only on a limited basis unless the Bill commands, in its details, the general confidence of those who are being asked to dedicate their woods.
  There are only two main points which I would like to mention, though I believe there are many others that other noble Lords would wish to deal with. First, as far as I can see there is no right of appeal provided for in the Bill. That means that an owner might dedicate his land, and a few years later the Forestry Commission might say that he was not running his woods according to the rules of good husbandry and that, therefore, they were going to take them over. I can see no machinery laid down at all for an appeal to be made in such a case or for arbitration between the parties as to whether, in fact, the woods have been mismanaged. Nor is there any provision for arbitration to interpret the words "breach of the covenant". I should like to ask the noble Earl if he will give his mind to that particular point.
  Then I think that perhaps there is even greater concern about a clause which the noble Lord passed over rather rapidly—Clause 5. As I read Clause 5, referring back, as it does, to the compulsory purchase powers under the Act of 1945, it appears at once that compulsory purchase is not limited to badly-managed woods. It is a quite general power of compulsory purchase. When that power is used, the owner, as the noble Earl has already told us, has not only to repay the grant that fie bas received but he has to do so with interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. As the noble Earl has truly said, forestry is a long-term business, and it may well be that the sum in question will have mounted to almost more than the value of the plantations concerned, particularly if the plantation has not done well, if and when a time of repayment comes.
  As I read it, it is rather worse than that because if the woods are not under Schedule D this grant will have been
  524
  subject to Income Tax or Super Tax. Therefore, assuming that there is a profit on the woods it may well be that an owner having received something like £100 in grants, of which he may have paid £75 in Income Tax or Super Tax, will be called upon later to repay the £100. I admit that that is an extreme case. Perhaps I have exaggerated my figures, but I think it is best to do that in order to make clear the principle which I have in mind. I feel that I must give notice to the noble Earl that not only I but many other noble Lords also will want to deal with that question when the time comes for discussing this Bill in Committee. Those are the only two points which I would venture to raise now. I am quite sure that many other noble Lords in other parts of the House will seek a promise from the noble Earl of full consideration for these and other points which may be raised in the Committee stage, and I venture to commend this Bill as being certainly a Bill the principles of which your Lordships can approve.
  2.48 p.m.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, this is a very short Bill and one which is restricted in its scope; nevertheless, it is one that is necessary if we are to prevent delaying the implementation of the replanting policy of the Forestry Commission. Looking around the countryside, one finds large areas where the trees which once grew were felled as far back as during the period of the First World War, and which have remained unplanted to this day, the reason being—I think it will generally be admitted—that the owners in many cases had not the money to lay out in accordance with what has been rightly termed to-day a long-term policy. Under this policy, it may be necessary to wait for twenty years, forty years or even sixty years for a final crop of timber. Many owners, too, have been unable to replant, in the past, owing to the great cost involved. To-day it is a very different story, for I think that thanks to the policy that has been worked out by the Forestry Commission, finally accepted by the Government, and recommended to both Houses, substantial assistance and encouragement are being offered to landowners of this country to replant suitable timber-growing areas. These areas include thousands, even millions, of acres of waste land that ought to be an asset to the nation instead of being, as

  525
  they are, a standing disgrace in that they are growing nothing and are employing no labour. This little Bill is going to aid the private landowner to replant some of those large areas that would have been planted but for the fact of the exceptionally long periods that he has to wait before he can get a return on his outlay.
  This Bill, I consider, ought to be very warmly welcomed. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships may fear certain of the powers which the Commission are seeking in this Bill, but I do not think there is any great reason for anyone to entertain such fears because I think it is true to say that, although the Forestry Commission have for many years possessed powers of compulsory purchase, they have never yet found it necessary to exercise them for afforestation. There seems to me to have been, on the part not only of the landowners but of the Commission and its servants, great common sense, patience, good will and co-operation. As a consequence, all the land that has been purchased and is now in the possession of the Commission, has been obtained by co-operative discussion and in a voluntary way between the landowner and the Commission. That good will has helped us on, until we are now in possession of something like 1,250,000 acres. I do not think, therefore, that there is any great fear so far as that side of the picture is concerned. Indeed, I think that we have been pretty generous in our planting grants. If—as some may fear—officers may call for a higher standard as a result of the grants, then that will be all to the good. Some of the private forests—not all—can well be improved, if we are not to fail lamentably.
  So far as the grants are concerned, we have supported them on the ground that they make for better husbandry. If the grants which we are proposing to make under this little Bill do not achieve a higher standard, then to that extent we shall have failed. I hope everyone will realize that after two devastating wars, in which woodlands have been devastated to an extent none of us ever dreamt of, we must make a maximum contribution from these areas towards re-afforestation. There are millions of acres of land lying idle, which at present grow nothing but rabbits and rubbish. We want productive labour employed in replanting. It has been said before that we have something
  526
  like 300,000,000 trees to be planted. We have the trees; we have the skill in the directors and officers of the Forestry Commission; we have the land. What we want is the labour, and the passage of this little Bill as quickly as possible through this House, so that the Commission may be able to get on with the job of replanting the Waste lands of this country.
  There is one other point I should like to mention. I am very sorry I am not a lawyer—his is a far more lucrative job than that of a bricklayer. The Minister referred to Clause 1, subsection (2) of the Bill. Being an ordinary bricklayer, I am rather puzzled by the language of this clause. If I wanted someone to read a clause and not to understand it, I think that this is the language I should adopt. We are asking the ordinary man to dedicate his lands; but permit me to say that when one reads this subsection he finds that if confusion were ever confounded it is in the language of this subsection (2). The subsection says:
  "As regards the enforcement of a forestry dedication covenant against persons other than the covenantor the Commissioners shall have the like rights—"
  what they are, I do not know—
  "as if they had at all material times been the absolute owners in possession of ascertained land adjacent to the land in respect of which the covenant is sought to be enforced and capable of being benefited by the covenant, and the covenant had been expressed to be for the benefit of that adjacent land."
  For heaven's sake, will someone get up and explain what that means, for I can make neither my head nor my elbow of it? The more I read it, the more confused I am about it. I would be very delighted if the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would tell us, some time during the debate, what this means, so that I may go to some of those landowners who are asking me what this means. It ought not to be beyond the wit of some of the legal gentlemen of this House to find words that would express the meaning of the subsection in a little more plain and understandable language. I support this measure.
  2.56 p.m.
  LORD COURTHOPE: My Lords, I had not expected to speak in this debate quite so soon, but the noble Lord who should have followed is not in his place, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak

  527
  now. Before saying what I have to say, I must admit to your Lordships that I am one of the Forestry Commissioners and, consequently, am not an impartial person in dealing with this Bill. I may have to share in the duty of administering it when it becomes an Act of Parliament. Having said that, I want to emphasize that I am addressing your Lordships' House today not so much as a Commissioner, but as a woodland owner. For nearly forty years one of my principal interests has been the sylviculture of my own woods, having studied them pretty carefully, though not by any means extravagantly, nor, I think, with anything like the success of some of your Lordships. (I see the noble Duke beside me, whose woods are famous and whose management is famous.) I cannot claim anything like that distinction, but I can assure your Lordships—particularly those who are woodland owners—that there is nothing to be afraid of in this scheme of dedication.
  I would emphasize and support the words of my noble friend who has just spoken, that it is very desirable that anything difficult of interpretation should be cleared up. I think I know what Clause 1 (2) means, but I am not going to try to explain it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will do that before the debate comes to an end, because we do not want anything left in doubt.
  There is one point I want to make at once. This Bill—I think successfully—deals with the permanent dedication, or the power to dedicate permanently, in the case of tenants for life, and other limited owners, in England and Scotland; with one exception. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading specifically mentioned that the Bill covers the Ecclesiastical Commission. I believe that it does, but the Ecclesiastical Commission are satisfied that it does not cover glebe, and that it does not cover ecclesiastical corporations, such as the Deans and Chapters who, in some cases—not many—own woodlands which might be, and I think ought to be, subject to dedication. I mention this, because I was present at a meeting of the Estates Committee of the Ecclesiastical Commission last Thursday, and we were very surprised to find that the clause which had been drawn to deal
  528
  with glebe and ecclesiastical corporations, which I understood had been agreed and submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, had not been printed in the Bill. I am not making a criticism now but I ask the noble Earl if that may be looked into, because if it is an omission which should be looked into I am sure that he would wish to deal with it.
  Having mentioned that one particular point, I should like to touch on one or two others which I think need looking into. There is some doubt as to the operation of Clause 5. The noble Earl who spoke first from these Benches mentioned it. Again I think that I can interpret Clause 5, but some people are in doubt about it. Is the value at which the planted land is to be taken over, in the case of failure of a dedication scheme, to be the 1939 value, or is it to be cost or the current market value? It makes a great deal of difference. If, for instance, it is the full market value of the day, I do not see that there is any particular hardship in the proposal to take into account interest on the advances that were made, but, if it is the 1939 value, or cost, it would be sheer robbery. Those are points which I think want looking into and made quite clear. I hope that I have made my meaning clear to the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I would admit at once—and I think everybody would—that all the appropriate expenditure, whether in the case of a subsidy or grant, or whatever it is, should be taken into account, and I personally should think the Bill would be very much better if the clause were drawn in such a way as to say it should be taken into account, rather than to lay down definitely that a rate of interest had got to be recovered and repaid as far as the dedicating owner is concerned on all the grant and maintenance payments which have been made in the past.
  Another point which I have had brought to my notice is that some people are in doubt as to whether the word "timber," which is used in two clauses, has in this Bill the limited application or definition which used to be common in the old Statute laws, or whether it has the wider and more modern meaning which it holds, I believe, in the other Forestry Bills. I have, myself, little doubt it has the more modern meaning, but that is a doubt that is felt in some Quarters, and it is one

  529
  that ought to be cleared up in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Further, questions have been raised by a number of people which, as a Forestry Commissioner, I have not been able to answer, and which I think I ought to be able to answer. These questions relate to the liability to Income Tax of the planting grants. So far as I can understand the law myself, I think if the woods are assessed under Schedule B, the planting grant will have a capital effect and not in any case be subject to Income Tax; but if the woods are assessed under Schedule D, the amount of the planting grant will come in either for assessment for Income Tax if the total amount, the Schedule D amount, shows a profit, or as a diminution, a claim for rebate, of Income Tax if the Schedule D amount shows a loss. I ask the noble Earl to be so good, in the general interest of his Bill, and of those of us who will have to administer it, to get that point cleared up before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, because there is grave doubt about it.
  May I revert to the point which I mentioned first—namely, my contention that the woodland owner need have no fear of dedication. The Forestry Commission, and, of course, the Ministries behind them, have no desire to do anything but help. The Commissioners will have their hands more than full in dealing with the estate plantings. I would recall to your Lordships' minds the fact that the scheme which has been adopted for postwar planning places an obligation upon the Commissioners to add three million acres of bare land to the forest area in a period of time. That is a very big undertaking indeed, and I think that those of us who have got to struggle with that great problem must, in order to succeed in carrying it out, not be embarrassed by a lot of dedicated land coming into our hands, or of dedication failing. The last thing we want is to have land which has been dedicated, or ought to be dedicated, to be taken over by us to be planted by the effort of the Forestry Commission and their staff. It would be a very serious embarrassment, and I hope that the woodland owners will remember that. What the Forestry Commission want to do is to make it easy for them, the woodland owners, to produce a reasonable crop on their woodland area so as not to
  530
  compel the Commissioners to step in and take the area over themselves.
  There is only one other point which I want to raise. Some people have been frightened by the condition of dedication that the land dedicated must be maintained for the production of timber. That is the main purpose. It is not the least inconsistent with sporting rights or the maintenance of game. Before the war a good deal of importance and a good deal of value were attached to sporting rights, and I can only quote my own experience as a small example. Since I started nearly forty years ago trying to put my woodlands—which were in very bad condition indeed—into a proper sylvicultural condition, I have enormously increased their carrying capacity for pheasants. I do not know whether I can expect His Majesty's Government to attach very great importance to that, but the sporting rights have become a very material point in the value of my property, and that was not diminished but was very greatly augmented by the fact that woods were properly planted out and properly maintained. There is nothing in sound sylviculture which is inconsistent either with sport or with amenity if they are properly handled. I hope that fear will not deter anybody.
  Some people, too, may think they do not know what a working plan is. I wonder how many landowners do know what a working plan is. I did not. Although I did not, as a Forestry Commissioner, almost since the beginning, I have been running my woodlands on what I hoped was a sound principle. All I had to do was this. I wrote down on paper the methods upon which I ran my woodlands and submitted the statement which was accepted without demur. It is a working plan, although I did not know it. I am certain that all of us who are woodland owners are doing our best and have been doing our best to produce timber and to run our woods on sound sylvicultural lines. I believe all they will have to do is to put their plans on paper and submit them. With a little advice and a little friendly amendment I think they will find no particular difficulty in satisfying the Commissioners and their officers on that subject. The same thing applies to the very simple accounts which will be required.
  There is one other point which I ought to have mentioned sooner, but which I

  531
  forgot. I was talking about Clause 5, and the point that slipped my memory was with regard to the possible claim not only for repayment of grants but of interest at 3 per cent. It has been pointed out that there would be a special unfairness in that point, because the owner who is having to pay it would have had no opportunity to bring it into his accounts as a relief from Income Tax in the past. In effect, he would have paid Income Tax already on the amount of money that was claimed from him as the 3 per cent. interest on the grants which he is called upon to repay. I hope I have made that point clear. I do not want your Lordships to think that I have raised all these points contumatiously. They are points about which I have been asked by a great many people who are interested in forestry, and I have mentioned them now in the hope that, so far as they exist, they may be cleared up before the Bill reaches the Statute Book so as to give it the best possible chance of rendering the service which we all hope it will render.
  3.12 p.m.
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, as a considerable woodland owner on the Welsh border I would like to say a word or two on this Bill. One naturally welcomes it as freeing one legally to take advantage or not of the dedication scheme, which is one of the methods whereby the Government seek to reafforest the devastated woodland areas of this country. Undoubtedly the position of tenants for life, various corporations, trustees and the like—in fact our whole system of land law and land legislation of the past is out of date. In so far as the Bill alters that, and enables the tenant for life to enter into long-term commitments, I think it is wholly to be welcomed. But I am faced with the fact that my seat is on property where a great deal of forestry has been carried out, at any rate for the last two years, continuously by successive owners on the same property.
  Whether this Act will succeed in reafforesting areas that have been cut down during this war is not merely a legal arrangement, not merely a permissive thing, but also a very practical problem. I am earnestly in doubt as to whether the dedication scheme will in effect do it, or at any rate do it now, for quite practical
  532
  reasons. A large number of my woodlands were cut down early in the war, having been requisitioned by the Ministry of Supply. During the war there has not been the labour, the young trees or the wire to keep the vermin and the rabbits out or to prevent every kind of weed, bramble and scrub growing up. And the way they were cut down by the Canadians and others left great stumps everywhere.
  I am in doubt as to whether as an economic or as a practical proposition it is possible to go in for the dedication scheme covered by this Bill unless the Government can assure us that we shall be given the same priority as the Forestry Commission will get themselves for the necessary materials. These materials, as I see it, are threefold. The first thing is the fencing, because during the war most of us have abolished gamekeepers; there are no more gamekeepers and there will not be game-rearing again. The farmers in the farm areas have done their best to keep down the rabbits, and organizations have got busy there; but in these derelict woodlands on the hillsides the rabbit menace is worse now than it ever was, and on top of that we have got an increasing number of grey squirrels. If you are going to plant conifers, which I believe is what the Forestry Commission want, then the grey squirrel prefers the young conifers, and the leading shoots of the young conifers, which is the important thing. Who is going to deal with the animal pests? Are we going to get the wire? At present you have to fill up endless forms and permits and invariably other people get the priority. The Government will get the first priority, and the dedicating woodland owner will probably come off second, third, fourth or fifth best.
  Then there are the young trees to be planted. I have been endeavouring to get some young trees. We had a nursery before the war, but that nursery was given up. It was put under potatoes and all the things which the Ministry of Food rightly wanted, and there are no more young trees. Am I to start up a new nursery? Shall I get the stock? The noble Lord who has just spoken runs an admirable organization from which I bought trees in the past. I applied last year for a few thousand larch and other trees, and there was a long queue waiting.

  533
  Much the most serious thing is the labour. Really the bottle-neck with labour for forestry, agriculture and everything else is housing. We shall not get the woods tidied up and replanted, and still less new areas planted, unless we have the labour. My property straddles King Offa's Dyke and lies between 1,400 feet at the top and 300 feet above sea level. It is ideal for growing timber and it has in the past grown magnificent timber. But such cottages as are there are now, because of the war, still occupied by refugees from the bombed cities and by people who work in the towns, and one cannot turn them out. When we come to try to get labour to work in the upland areas where the much needed conifers are wanted, we find there are no houses. What chance have we, if we go in for a dedication scheme, of getting any new foresters' cottages built? We shall have to go to the local authority and we shall have to get a permit from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Works, and the Ministry of Education. And we shall have to apply not to London, where one knows there are human beings, but to the Regional Offices of these people!
  The biggest snag of all in this matter of rural housing is the Ministry of Education. I can only give you my most recent experience. It does not relate to my own building, although I am most anxious to build agricultural labourers' cottages not only to cope with the increase in arable land and the increase in agricultural production (which at present depends entirely for its continuance upon prisoner-of-war labour), but also to help to put my devastated woodland areas in order. What is our recent experience? The local rural district council made an assessment of the area where there was the greatest urgency for new farm labour and they fixed upon a site for a group of cottages which was conveniently situated with regard to the most progressive and developing farms.
  It was an ideal site; it was on a bus route and everything was perfect. The Ministry of Health approved, the Minister of Agriculture approved—in fact nearly everybody approved. But then came down the Ministry of Education, who said, "Oh, this group of cottages"—the only one planned by the rural district council in that part of the area—"is too
  534
  far from the school." The result was that they scrapped it, and now there is no scheme for building rural cottages. What has happened since? There has been a review under the new Education Act, and under that review the county authorities have said, quite rightly, that the school in that particular area cannot be added to. It is in a bad site, it is remote from the bulk of the population, it is an old school built before 1870, and it must be scrapped. They have selected for the new school they are going to put up—the only one they recognize—the site on which the local rural district council wanted to build these cottages! That sort of thing is happening up and down the country. That is only one example of the number of cooks who are endeavouring to cook this rural housing pudding.
  The local representative of the Forestry Commission came to see me quite recently about my woodlands, about an upland area not hitherto planted and which will be under the 999 years' scheme. I said to him: "Your difficulty will be labour and housing," but he replied: "That does not worry us because we have not got to go to the local authority, or to the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education. We, the Forestry Commission, have merely got to tell the Office of Works where we want our cottages and they will put them up for us." That is being done by the State for the State forests but what hope, under the dedication scheme, has the private landlord got of getting new cottages for new forest labour? I can see no hope for him until he has freedom to build, and to build where he likes. By all means let us maintain and improve the standards, but even when you have agreed upon the standards, what are you up against? I have got two cottages which were started under the old Act, and which are completed up to the roof; the roof timbers and all the rest of it are erected. We were told to design them for local slates, because we are in a slate country. The walls were standing, the waterpipes are in and the drains are finished. I am told I must not have slates from North Wales, and that I must apply to South Wales, but they have not got any slates for me. I am told I must apply to Cornwall, but Cornwall has not any slates for me. The last suggestion is that I should apply to Sweden to get the slates to finish these houses which are finished but for the

  535
  slates. And this when we have slate quarries near by! There are endless forms and endless correspondence.
  What hope is there, if we adopt the dedication scheme, of getting our woods cleared, wired and replanted unless we can get the necessary housing in the appropriate areas? It is quite hopeless. I am sure this is not because of ill will on the part of the Government; they do not mean it. They want to see the woodlands cleared, cleaned, and afforested; they want to see the rabbits exterminated—and so do we. But at every turn we are clogged by the control of this and the control of that, and by the vast number of officials of the various Ministries. You get a thing back, you write to Whitehall, you get an acknowledgment from the Private Secretary to a Minister, the matter goes to the Region, and an inspector comes down. We are being clogged; we are prevented from doing anything—and in the meantime the woods get worse, the vermin gets worse and nothing gets planted.
  When we come to dedication and the working out of the policy of this Bill, I hope that the Forestry Commissioners will decentralize from London more effectively than they did before the war. I think that is most important. After all, this is, geologically and climatically, a most varied country. A policy for East Anglia, for the Thetford area, will not apply in Wales. A North Welsh policy may be suitable for the Conway Valley, where the Forestry Commission have done magnificent work, but it will not necessarily apply on the Border or elsewhere. My property is not large, but across it there run from the north-east to the south-west three geological formations, with utterly different soils, utterly different rock formations and utterly different conditions. You can see that in the timber and in the varieties of timber that succeed.
  Along most of the Welsh border the country is, of course, typical oak country. From Hawarden to the Valley of the Wye the finest oaks in Britain, or indeed in Europe, have grown for centuries. The Welsh border country is the ideal country for growing oak. The oak, however, is a slow-growing tree. I believe the great Powis Castle oaks near me are at least a thousand years old, and they are flourishing till this day. They are the finest trees, not merely in
  536
  Britain but in the world. I have, on my own property, oaks, without a dead branch on them, that are certainly five hundred years old. But we want conifers; that is agreed. By experiment we have found out the very limited range of conifers which will succeed, particularly on the old silurian system with high rainfall and heavy clay. Therefore it is absolutely vital that there should be effective co-operation between those of us who have had experience of this matter and the Forestry Commissioners as to what you should, or should not, plant.
  My forebears made experiments with Japanese larch, but we find the old Alpine larch does very much better. We find that the Douglass grows magnificently, but under our particular conditions the number that do not have their heads lopped off in the winter gales is few and far between. The Sitka would seem a more reliable tree as far as our conditions are concerned. All that kind of thing is what we have found by experience. If, under the dedication scheme, all that experience is going to be collected and adapted to the various regions, well and good, but if the whole business is going to be run by saying, "Oh, no, we want x standards of this particular variety of tree or timber," then there will be economic loss and economic failure. The only thing is constant adaptation to circumstances.
  May I put in one more plea as against the short view? I agree we want pit props, and I agree we want soft woods, but do let us, in the interests of our countryside and tradition, have some deciduous timber. Of course it is a much longer range, it is a 200-year rotation as opposed to 80- or 100-year rotation, but it does make the whole difference to the tradition and aspect of our countryside, particularly on the Welsh border with our magnificent deciduous timber. I do not want to see the whole area like one Black Forest. Who knows whether in two hundred years' time oak will not be as much wanted as soft woods? I do appeal to those who are going to carry out this Act under the dedication scheme, with the control that it gives to the State—and nowadays the State inevitably has got to take control to a very large extent; it has got to pay part of the business and therefore it has a right of control—to take the long view. Do let us bear that in mind and take the long view.

  537
  I conclude by saying that the success of this Bill we are dealing with today depends upon administration. Nothing else matters, whatever is in the Act of Parliament. Whether the scheme is operated successfully or not, whether by the Forestry Commission or by woodland owners, depends upon the practical working out of the scheme, the provision of methods of keeping out and destroying vermin, the provision of labour, the education of labour and, above all, the housing of labour in the forest areas. It is quite useless to say that your forester shall live in the town and cycle out or go by a bus to his forest areas—it is quite impossible. He has got to live on the job, watching for protection against fire, keeping down the pests and really getting to know his job on the spot. We in Wales have not lived in towns and in villages but have always lived scattered. If the policy of the Government housing scheme, that they have got to live in satellite towns and not be scattered in the country or else be concentrated in growing villages, is carried out, I am quite sure the only result will be that you will get bad woodlands, derelict woodlands. You will not get the job done as it ought to be done; and the job wants doing very badly.
  3.34 p.m.
  LORD GLENTANAR: My Lords, we have heard most eloquent and interesting speeches from members of your Lordships' House from England and Wales, and I will now try to put some points before your Lordships which are particularly relevant to Scotland. As a member of one of the Regional Advisory Committees appointed by the Forestry Commission, I am constantly being asked questions about the dedication scheme. I am sure we are all very sympathetic with the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill in his endeavour, and in the Government's endeavour, to set going a scheme along the lines proposed in order to get the much-needed afforestation carried out. I believe that it is hoped by the Forestry Commissioners that some forty per cent. of the total area to be re-afforested may be carried out by means of this scheme. I must say that I am a little disappointed by some of the terms of this Bill, because I feel that if this dedication scheme is to be adopted it must be sufficiently attractive and, above all, it must get over the fears which are in the minds of many
  538
  owners as regards the possible repercussions in the future.
  I sometimes feel that the Forestry Commission do not altogether appreciate what effects there may be in such a long-term policy as is envisaged. The noble Earl has made it clear that it is intended, once this scheme is adopted, that there shall be no getting out of it. Now I think many owners and many trustee feel that in a contract of this kind—and this is a contract between the landowner and his successors and the Commissioners, who are the Government representatives, and their successors—which is a contract for perpetuity, there should be a method of contracting out, possibly for both parties. The only method of contracting out which exists, as far as I can see, is by the Minister or Commissioners carrying out a compulsory purchase of the land. I do not know if it would be possible at this stage, but I am quite sure that if the Bill could be adjusted so that either party could, in suitable circumstances, contract out, that would remove a great many fears which now exist. Naturally, it would have to be very carefully controlled. It might be only after a certain period of years, or it might be dependent upon a succession from one owner to another.
  But if such a scheme could be worked out it might be on the basis that an independent assessor would take into consideration what both parties had spent in operating the scheme up to the point at which the contract was ended. He would also take into consideration the value of the woodlands at the time the contract was ended as compared with the time the contract was entered upon. And from that an equitable financial adjustment could be made. Both parties would then be free, and if the Forestry Commissioners or the Minister then wished to acquire the land compulsorily all the adjustments would be made. It occurs to me that it is possible that the Forestry Commissioners would not want always to acquire compulsorily in such circumstances. It is possible that, should there be a break-down in the scheme for one reason or another, they may be confronted with having to buy an enormous amount of property, some of which they might not wish to acquire. I think it would not impair the prospects of the scheme if the scheme could be made in such a way that either party could contract out, providing sufficient safeguards were introduced. At

  539
  the same time great apprehension would be removed.
  I would like to support all that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said about the importance of an independent arbiter. It seems to me quite wrong that in any contract between two parties one of the contracting parties should be the judge as to what is right and what is wrong. It is against the whole principle of contract, and if an independent arbiter were provided I think that would increase the popularity of the scheme. If we follow this point which I am trying to make of the necessity of equality of obligation and of opportunity, we must consider whether, under a likely future or in any circumstances, it is possible for succeeding owners to continue and implement their part of the bargain. Much timber has been felled during the war, and the capital which has been realized by these fellings ought to be used for replanting. I feel sure that the Forestry Commissioners and His Majesty's Government would like to ensure that it is used for the purpose of reafforestation.
  We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who pointed out that for soft woods one must give a period of rotation of eighty to one hundred years, and in cases of hard woods one must give double that time. During that period it is likely there will be two, or possibly more, deaths among the landowners, and that money will be subject to Estate Duty. By the time the third owner comes and tries to do his part of the bargain he will not have my money with which to do it. I would ask my noble friend who is occupied with this Bill if it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to consider the issue of a special series of bonds which would be available to dedicators under this scheme, these bonds to be free of Estate Duty and issued at a very low rate of interest. They would be redeemable in exact proportion to the grants made under the scheme, and they would be limited to the size of the scheme approved by the Forestry Commission. Such provisions would prevent the possibility of these bonds being used in any other way except for the purposes of carrying on this dedication scheme, but the bonds would have the two-fold effect of ensuring, firstly, that the landowner, looking to the future, would know that he had a certain amount of money ready to carry out his part of
  540
  the bargain over a long period, and, conversely, the Government would know that, in respect of that dedication, failure through lack of funds could be ruled out. I would ask my noble friend who is promoting this Bill if he will turn his mind to such a possibility.
  Might I just say a word about Clause 5? Clause 5 as it stands will frighten a great many people because, although one would never imagine that the Forestry Commissioners would wish to put this clause to any nefarious purpose, it could be used for a measure of buccaneering. If compulsory purchase by the Forestry Commission is not limited to cases where the scheme is being badly carried out and where reafforestation is being badly done, it is possible for the Commissioners to take over after sixty years, shall we say, and to get the very nearly matured timber at its full worth and, at the same time, get their part of the contribution back again. This would be unfair.
  I have only one small matter I would like to bring to the notice of my noble friend in connexion with the Scottish Clauses. On first reading Clause 4, subsection (1), a certain amount of apprehension was felt, even by legal authorities, as to the possibility that the word "liferenter" might cover all liferenters. Some of your Lordships will be aware of the fact that in Scotland we have two kinds of liferenters. There is what is known as the proper liferenter, and there is the beneficiary liferenter. The proper liferenter is one who is not under any trust and who is virtually the owner of the land. I believe this clause refers to him, and not to the beneficiary liferenter. I believe that the governing words are the words "in possession of any land." The beneficiary liferenter, being under a trust, is never in possession of any land, but I should be glad if my noble friend could make it quite clear that the words in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) refer to what is known in Scotland as the proper liferenter.
  I am afraid that I have been wearying your Lordships with some rather trying matter, but I would assure you that I, for one, hope to see this scheme properly launched and taken full advantage of. It is purely because of my desire that there may be no apprehensions in the minds of those who are now considering this scheme that I would strongly urge

  541
  that all the points which are being brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government by your Lordships to-day should be very carefully weighed. So far as possible, every step should be taken to remove apprehensions which are very rightly and properly felt by those who have to think not only of their position and interests, but of those who will come after them, and who may not be in such a good position to carry on the scheme as they themselves now are.
  3.52 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, the success of these proposals will depend almost more than anything else upon the spirit in which they are administered. The Minister responsible for forestry and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in another place, made a tremendous appeal for co-operation by the owners of woodlands, and also gave an assurance of generous co-operation on the part of the Government. I feel sure that the noble Lord who represents the Government here, in this matter, will be ready to give a similar assurance. I am sure that it will also be agreed that this subject of forestry should be kept as far as possible out of politics, and I think credit is due to the Government for bringing forward a measure calculated to be as free from controversy as possible.
  I would like to support what my noble friend Lord Courthope said to the effect that owners entering into dedication ought not to be alarmed. But I feel also that it should be clearly understood that a very serious obligation is being placed on any who do dedicate. It does mean that the management of woodlands, from start to finish, must be very efficient and, generally speaking, of a high order. Also it means that very high costs will be involved, to ensure that the standard which will be necessary is reached. It is important that this should be understood on the Governmental and Parliamentary side generally. It is also important to try to express this without, at the same time, alarming growers of timber and giving them the impression that their task is too great. The task before them is not insuperable, but it is a very big one, and in return, and in consideration of what is to be done by them, the reward is not likely to be very great, nor is the assistance which is to be given really very much. On the economic side, it will be a very good bargain for the State, just as it was during the war
  542
  when very large supplies of home-grown timber were made available to the Government at moderate prices, and when, at the same time, they recovered millions of pounds in taxation on timber converted by timber merchants.
  I think it would surprise noble Lords and the members of the Government to know how very small, really, the total cost in grants towards the growing of timber under private enterprise has been in this country during the twenty-six years which have elapsed since the grants first started, and how great, in contrast, has been the amount which the Government have obtained in taxation. These proposals were discussed and agreement was reached in 1943. Since that time, the expenses of afforestation have risen very steeply. But it should be borne in mind that timber prices—maximum controlled prices for standing timber—are still at the 1939 level. The Government are wise to increase the planting grant to £10 per acre and the annual maintenance grant to 3s. 4d. per acre. If they are successful in getting a large acreage of well grown timber at that price, it will be a very good bargain for them.
  There is one point about the grant which I might perhaps mention. I do not intend, by anything I say, not to give full credit for what has been done. I feel it right on behalf of tree-growers to thank the Government and the Commission for the grant of £10 per acre and the 3s. 4d. maintenance grant. But I think all those who are concerned would like to know when the maintenance grant comes into operation. It was discussed in 1943, and I suggest that it should come into operation in 1946, or, at the very latest, in 1947. I hope that information will soon be forthcoming about that. I think it is not unfair to say that while the maintenance grant of 3s. 4d. is welcome, a figure higher than that was advocated by the industry. The present figure is not an agreed figure and I think it must have been by accident that it was stated that it was, in another place.
  The terms of the actual dedication agreement are not yet known. Until they are known it is very difficult to say whether the proposals in the agreement are acceptable. The cause of the delay is unavoidable—I understand that it is due mainly to the Forestry Commission's shortage of staff. That is quite understandable, especially as the Commission have to send

  543
  so many of their best men to Germany. I do feel that a cautionary note should be sounded in regard to the rate of progress that can be anticipated during the first few years. My noble friend Lord Harlech has put before us, very ably, the difficulties relating to labour, plants, and housing. I would like to ask the Minister to express his recognition of the fact that slow progress will be unavoidable on many woodland estates during the first few years. It is absolutely clear that that must be the case. I hope that he will recognize that many woodland owners are not only worried about it, but that, in consequence, they may feel obliged to decline to enter into dedication, simply because at present no ways are visible of implementing it.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, in another place, urged the vital necessity for replanting cleared, felled areas as soon as possible. I think there will be general agreement that this should be done without any delay and before taking fresh areas which may have to be cleared of stock. If this is to be done, the closest possible combination between the Forestry Commission and their officers and the owners of private woodlands will be called for, especially in the case of the smaller woodland owners. It is satisfactory that, in principle, the Forestry Commission do allow the use, when convenient, of their staffs for replanting, and I hope that whenever it is convenient, where there are these small areas urgently needing replanting, they will be as sympathetic as possible.
  Housing has been mentioned, and I would like to ask the Government—and in particular the Minister responsible for forestry and the Secretary of State for Scotland—to use their influence about housing, in order to secure that there is at least equal priority for rural employees, for the rural population, and (in this particular case) for woodmen. Unless that influence is used, the situation for some years must be very serious. It is bad enough for the Forestry Commission, but it is far worse for others. As the noble Earl realizes—and as is well known—the Forestry Commission are at present arranging to build large numbers of tied houses. That is recognized by the Government as being a fact, and it cannot be contradicted. In view of this, I hope
  544
  that the Government will make some concession on principle about tied houses, and will realize that it is necessary for private enterprise—as it is for the Government—to have woodmen in houses on the spot. May I add one further word? I would repeat again, that I am confident that if the good relationship now existing between the Forestry Commission and the private woodland owners is continued—as I am sure it will be—and if the proposals are administered in a practical, sympathetic and proper spirit, we shall be successful as a result of this Bill.
  4.02 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I intend to detain you for only a very few minutes, but being the chairman of a Regional Advisory Committee in Scotland I am naturally brought into contact with a variety of woodland owners, and I hope that you will bear with the few remarks which I wish to make. I have no criticisms of this Bill, which I think is an excellent Bill. It merely provides machinery, I understand, for carrying out the proposals of the previous Foresty Act, and as such it will have, I hope, the full support of your Lordships' House. I wish to remain as relevant as I possibly can to the terms of this Bill, which are concerned purely with the dedication of woodland, but I would like to say that in Scotland—with which I am concerned—I believe that we have always been forestry-minded. I think that we are becoming more forestry-minded every day; we realize the vital importance of conserving and augmenting our timber resources. When you remember that one acre of woodland can produce one hundred tons of timber, then its vital importance to our security, in the unhappy event of another war taking place, is clearly demonstrated.
  Much of the initial apprehension which existed concerning the dedication of the woodlands has, I think, been allayed, and I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, say the same thing. We now understand that provided a woodland owner will carry out the four obligations which are inherent in dedication—to devote his land to the production of timber, to work according to plan, to provide proper supervision for his woodlands, and to maintain adequate accounts—then he will find the minimum of interference from Forestry Commission officials. It is very gratifying to know

  545
  that, and I feel that it will greatly allay any fear which there has been with regard to the dedication scheme. I think the original committees will be able to help more and more in this respect as soon as the actual covenant of dedication becomes known. I would very much press the noble Earl who is to reply to tell us when this covenant—the actual document of dedication—is to be made available. Surely, it is in the interests of both the Forestry Commission, who want to know which woods are to be dedicated and which are not, and of the woodland owners themselves, to have this information as soon as possible. Might I also put one other question to the noble Earl? That is, on the subject of the loans. I am glad that he has announced the percentage of the loans—three per cent., I think he said. Are they to be made available as soon as the land is dedicated, and as soon as the deed of covenant is signed? I should be grateful if in his reply the noble Earl would answer that question.
  As regards dedication, the case of the large woodland owner does not cause me very much concern, because I feel that his case is pretty well cut and dried. When he has studied the matter, he will decide whether he can afford to dedicate or not. If he does not, I presume that his woodlands will be taken over by the State. It is the small woodland owner for whom I am concerned. Many of these woods are not suitable for dedication. They are too small, or they are scattered about the country in little groups, and the Forestry Commission do not want them. The Commission will not be able to acquire small blocks—perhaps twenty acres, or 100 acres, or 200 acres—which are far from their own forests. The Commission would be unable to manage them. What is to happen to these small woodland owners? Let me remind your Lordships of the importance of the small woodlands. Out of 3,000,000 acres of afforested woodlands in this country in 1944, 1,000,000 acres or one-third—consisted of small woodlands. And do not forget that some of the very best timber in the country comes from the small woodlands, because these woods are often planted in good agricultural country. The trees are growing in good soil, and they produced the finest hardwood timber ever felled during the war. They provide shelter for man and beast, and are therefore of infinite value to the farmer.
  546
  Finally, let us not forget the æsthetic contribution which these small woodlands make to the countryside. For that reason I think the small woodlands deserve the maximum of consideration from His Majesty's Government. Remember, too, that these owners are in great difficulties, because in many cases, they are farmers, with little knowledge of woodland practice. It is not their business; their business is farming. They will not know what species to plant. They will not know at what distance apart to plant their trees. They will want advice. That is where I would ask if the Forestry Commissioners can help as much as possible by giving sympathy, advice and assistance. If they can do that, I am sure that it will be very much appreciated.
  4.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said. The small woodland owner is very much given the "go-by." He is in a much more difficult position than the man with, say, ten thousand or twenty thousand acres of forest with which to deal, which is an easy thing for the Government to take over. It is extremely difficult for a man with small areas of, say, twenty, thirty or forty acres to undertake the necessary expense, to acquire the labour or even to employ a proper forester. I hope that the Government will give consideration to what the noble Earl has said.
  4.11 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for very long. The one major point on which I wish to lay a certain amount of stress, and to which emphasis has been given in the speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, is that in this country, particularly in the more thickly populated parts of the country, woodlands are small and scattered. It is essential in the interests of the nation that these small and scattered woodlands, and in fact all woodlands, should be maintained in their full productive use as forest land. To do that, it is absolutely essential to get the good will of the owners of these forest lands. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has already given your Lordships certain figures about these small woodlands. I have no means of checking his figures, but

  547
  undoubtedly the area is very considerable. The whole forestry scheme will fall down, and the nation will suffer very seriously, if these woodlands are not brought into, or maintained in, full production so far as is reasonable and possible. It is quite impossible, as has been said (and I speak as a Forestry Commissioner) for the Forestry Commission to deal with all these small areas. In hardly any case are they suitable for anything in the nature of State afforestation. Not only that, but, speaking as an agriculturist, I say that it would be disastrous from the point of view of the countryside if these small woodlands were divorced from the agriculture alongside them.
  This debate, as sometimes happens in your Lordships' House, has strayed a little wide of the rather narrow terms of the Bill under discussion. The point that I wish to make is that even regarding the terms of the Bill now before the House, certain doubts and possible criticisms have been expressed, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able as far as possible to meet these doubts and these criticisms either by clarifying the Bill or by altering the Bill by agreement at a later stage, in order to assure woodland owners that their interests are being looked after by His Majesty's Government, and that their co-operation is really being sought. It would be worth a great deal to the Government, and to the Forestry Commission, if we carry woodland owners with us all the way. We had their agreement to the principle of dedication. We want now to get their full and hearty agreement with the details, of which this particular Bill is perhaps a small and rather technical instalment.
  There are two other points to which I should like to refer. The first is the question of the right of appeal, which has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord. I think I am right when I say that, so far as the dedication proposals are concerned, there is provision in the 1945 Act for arbitration over the terms and the administration of the dedication, but in any case those provisions will be re-enacted in the dedication deeds so as to make quite certain that there is, and will be, arbitration in cases of doubt or controversy over actions by the present Forestry Commission or the future
  548
  Forestry Commission. Might I say, in passing, that I hope that His Majesty's Government will not fall back on an argument which I have heard used over legislation, that "surely you believe the Ministry is reasonable" or, as in this case, "the Forestry Commission are reasonable." I am prepared to believe that the present Ministry or the present Forestry Commission are reasonable, but I will not accept that all Forestry Commissions or all Ministries are likely to be reasonable until the end of time.
  The only other point I want to mention is a small detail. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, seemed to indicate that in Wales an official of the Forestry Commission had assured him that, so far as the Commission was concerned, it was quite easy for them to get houses built by the local authority and they did not care—
  LORD HARLECH: By the Office of Works, not by the local authority.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: Well, the Office of Works—I am sorry; that the Office of Works could build houses for the Forestry Commission, and the implication was that the Forestry Commission were going to get houses without a great deal of difficulty, and did not much care what happened to the private landowner. May I assure him, first of all, that the Commission do care a great deal about what happens to the private landowner? They appreciate the difficulty that the private landowner has in getting the necessary housing, and they appreciate that houses are the key to increased afforestation. They do have their own very grave difficulties about getting houses for themselves, whether they be tied or otherwise, and to feel that the Forestry Commission are better off than the private landowner is perhaps rather an exaggerated point of view. I have not said all that I might have said, because I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, can reply to the other points. Once more I express the hope that His Majesty's Government will meet all reasonable requests for clarification or simplification of legislation which affects the private landowner, and I hope, too, that every private woodland owner will realize the truth of what my noble friend Lord Courthope has already said, which is that the man who manages his woodlands properly need have nothing to fear from any dedication scheme or anything done by the Forestry Commission.
  4.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for the Forestry Commission, I should like to say I am very glad that this debate has been conducted in such a friendly atmosphere, and that, on the whole, this Bill has been received by your Lordships in the spirit in which it was intended. As it has been pointed out, it is a voluntary measure. It lays emphasis on the voluntary principle, and its whole object is to allow owners to enter into agreements under which they will get compensation from the State. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, the debate has ranged over rather a wide field and covered a great deal of ground which perhaps is not absolutely relevant to the Bill.
  I will try to answer one or two of the questions which noble Lords have raised and to satisfy them as to the intention which lies behind the Bill. In the first place I should like to assure the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, that certainly both the Forestry Commissioners and His Majesty's Government will do all they can to co-operate with the private owner. It is not at all our idea to get him out of the way. We want him to replant and build up his woodlands, and any help and advice we can give will obviously be forthcoming. Several questions were raised by noble Lords on the subject of arbitration or appeal, and I would like to reinforce the noble Earl, Lord Radnor's remarks, that in the actual dedication deed provision is made for arbitration on the question when the Forestry Commission might acquire woodlands compulsorily. I am sorry that these deeds are not yet available, but I do assure the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, that they will shortly be ready; and I hope that they will meet all the different points that have been raised about them.
  The second question which seemed to exercise the minds of many of your Lordships concerned Clause 5, dealing with the compulsory taking over of land. I should like to say very clearly, in case it has been misunderstood, that this compulsory acquisition of land is in no way meant to be a sanction, or a method of trying to force the woodland owner into dedicating his land; in fact, I think the Forestry Commission would be extremely reluctant to take over these small wood-
  550
  lands, since they have more than enough on their hands. In the event of land being taken over which has been dedicated it would only be in cases where the owner had neglected his woodlands to a very considerable extent; and it is considered only fair that in such cases grants should be deducted from the compensation paid for the land, plus, as your Lordships notice, 3 per cent. interest. That has given rise to rather complicated issues regarding Income Tax. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and other noble Lords who raised this point, that this will be seriously considered before the Committee stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord did ask the question, I would say that under Schedule B these grants would not be subject to tax; but under Schedule D they would. On the other hand, of course, under Schedule D the owner would be entitled to charge expenses against Income Tax. But these are difficult points which will need further consideration. The other point the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, raised was that of the Ecclesiastical Corporations. There is a clause under discussion in this respect and it will be inserted in the Bill if agreement is reached and it is satisfactory. With regard to the meaning of "timber," this has the meaning defined in the Act of 1919.
  The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, seemed to find some difficulty in the interpretation of Clause 1, subsection (2), and I think other noble Lords sympathized with him in his difficulty. Not being a learned Lord, I should hesitate to go deeply into it, but as the noble Lord asked me the question, the purpose of the clause is, of course, to give the Commissioners the right to sue against the heir or successor of the covenantor. That is the purpose of this particular subsection, but I do not propose at this stage to explain the legal terminology. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, brought up various subjects, but one point on which I agree with him very much is the importance of planting hardwood and deciduous trees. I think both the Forestry Commission and the Government do now realize the necessity for planting hardwoods as well as conifers, although conifers are in greatest demand and are the most important from the immediate point of view.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentanar, raised some very interesting points. With regard to the question of the bond, he will not

  551
  I think expect me to give him an answer immediately, as it will need a good deal of consideration. I should like to say, however, in regard to his proposal about contracting-out that that would obviously go against the purpose of the Bill. What we are trying to establish are permanent woodlands, and if we allowed people to contract out of their obligation, we might lose a good deal of woodland to our grave disadvantage. Another question asked was when would loans become available. As soon as the dedication covenant was entered into this question could be raised and considered. It would not be a certain amount of so much per acre; the loan would vary according to individual circumstances.
  I should like to say that I was very pleased with the extremely helpful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who explained many things, particularly the position of the small woodland owners. That is a very difficult point. Obviously I would like to be helpful and to give them every consideration, but there are masses of small woodlands which it would be difficult for the Forestry Commission to deal with satisfactorily. I would, however, like to point out that there is available for the small woodland owner, even with woods which are not suitable for dedication, a £10 per acre grant. There is not, however, any grant for maintenance. We have been able to concede that particular point which I hope will be a help to the small woodland owner.
  I think I have dealt with most of the questions, but there is the question relating to the Scottish liferenter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentanar. This is a very technical point, but if the question is whether the term "liferenter" includes a beneficiary who enjoys for the period of his life the occupation of property vested in trustees as well as the person to whom property is conveyed directly without the interposition of a trust for a period of his life, the answer is that it does not. "Liferenter" in its proper and technical sense means only the latter person, that is the one who has a feudal life-rent: he has a title to the property, albeit only for his life-time. In the case of the beneficiary, the title to the property is vested in the trustees and they alone would have the right
  552
  under Clause 4 (2) to enter into a dedication agreement.
  I do not want to keep your Lordships any longer. I do hope, in view of the intention of the Government to be as helpful as they possibly can to the private woodland owner, that your Lordships will recognize that this Bill allows him to obtain grants for that purpose, and you will give it a speedy Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GERMAN ZONES: ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENT.
  4.30 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, perhaps I might intervene for a moment to make a statement to your Lordships. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Byrnes, the American Secretary of State, have signed an Agreement which will be available a, a White Paper in the Printed Paper Office this afternoon. This Agreement provides for the economic fusion of the British and American zones as from January 1, 1947, with the aim of making the combined area self-supporting by the end of 1949. There will be a joint Anglo-American Agency, which will deal with the imports and exports of the combined area, in which shall be established a common standard of living, including food rations. The imports will include necessary raw materials to enable the area to recover and to produce an export income.
  In so far as exports from the combined area fall short of imports, the deficit will be met, subject to some minor adjustments relating to past transactions, by his Majesty's Government and the United States Government in equal shares. The costs incurred by the two Governments for their separate zones up to January 1, 1947, and for the combined zone thereafter, shall be recovered from future German exports in the shortest practicable time consistent with the rebuilding of the

  553
  German economy on healthy, but non-aggressive, lines. Barriers in the way of German export trade will be removed as rapidly as world conditions permit. The joint Anglo-American Agency will be responsible for determining German import requirements. They will be procured from the most economical sources of supply, subject to so selecting these sources as to economize the dollar cost to the United Kingdom. The food ration of 1,550 calories for the normal German consumer must be accepted for the present, but will be raised to 1,800 calories as soon as conditions of world supply permit. The two Governments intend that this arrangement shall operate pending an agreement for the treatment of Germany as an economic unit or until amended by mutual agreement, but it shall be subject to review at yearly intervals.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the very important statement he has made to us today. I think that we must in all parts of the House recognize the very great efforts which the Government have made to find a solution of this extremely thorny question. The statement, as I listened to it, is certainly full of meat and it will require very careful consideration. I am sure that neither the Leader of the House nor other noble Lords will expect me to make any detailed comment on it now. I should, however, like to ask the Leader of the House one question, and it is this. What precautions have His Majesty's Government taken to safeguard our position if our dollar resources run low?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to congratulate the Government on having succeeded in arriving at this agreement with the United States which is obviously the first essential preliminary to the rehabilitation of Germany and, consequent upon that, let us hope, further economies in the interests of the British taxpayer.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for what they have said. Of course, I recognize that time will be required for a careful study of the document. With regard to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, may I say that the agreement provides for its amendment by mutual consent? It also provides for revision
  554
  annually. If our dollar resources made it impossible for us to find the dollars required under the agreement we should need that to be taken into account when reviewing the matter so that steps should be taken to meet the new situation. The United States Government have been informed in this sense.

  ORGANIZATION OF WESTERN EUROPE.
  4.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART moved to resolve, That every encouragement should be given to the development of close political and economic relations between the countries of Western Europe, since the promotion of political and economic relations between the European States must contribute generally to the effective operation of the United Nations. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is perhaps a good omen that I have been prefaced by some discourse on forestry because on the subject of my Motion there may be some who do not see the wood for the trees. If any of your Lordships should remember that I spoke at some length on this subject a year ago, I hope it will also be remembered that obstinacy in a bad cause is perseverance in a good one. Of course I shall not go over all the old ground again, but I must briefly recapitulate. Regional agreements are not only approved by the Charter; they are encouraged and invited. Without them the Charter might not work in cases of emergency. The position briefly is that regional agreements are fully justified if the Charter works and doubly justified if it does not. Without a Western regional agreement we should not be able adequately to fulfil our defence obligations. The alternative is the initial chaos to which we have already twice nearly succumbed.
  It follows, therefore, as a matter of experience and common sense, that the defences of the West should be co-ordinated. If we had done so before we should probably have prevented both these world wars. If we had even co-ordinated our manufacturing resources, that might have deterred the Germans. As it is, of course, we know what has happened. Above all from, the economic point of view, this Western co-ordination is the necessary substitute for the present crazy pavement of

  555
  our map. It is necessary also for the future prosperity—and indeed probably for the very survival—of that part of the earth which has made by far the largest contribution to the cultural heritage of mankind. Of that Western civilization we are all products, and to it we and the world owe an immense debt. Now it asks something of us in return, for failing this co-ordination the West will decline as surely as the sun sets there, and that decline will be in no one's interest. On any long economic view it will be against the interests both of the United States and of Russia. This Western co-ordination is directed against no one, but since it has pleased the Russians to pretend that integration is progressive in the East and reactionary in the West, when I first spoke I quoted a long list of wise men of the West—men of the Left, men of good will and men of peace—who have all blessed this noble and useful ideal.
  In the West we need nothing that threatens; what we do need is the greatest possible degree of free trade in the widest available area, for that is the basis of large-scale production and it is already definitely enjoyed by both the United States and Russia. We need the lowering of tariff barriers, the regulation of exchanges and the avoidance of wasteful competition. For that a series of inter-locking conventions will be necessary. What could be more harmless or more reasonable? I repeat that nothing contemplated in the West even remotely approaches the degree of rigid integration already reached in the East. When I spoke a year ago Eastern Europe was already criss-crossed with military agreements, which have since been extended and intensified; they provide not only similarity but very frequently identity of arms and training, particularly in the matter of officers. Moreover, those regions are bound together by exclusive economic arrangements and by the denial of free intercourse with the rest of the world.
  Nothing of that sort enters into the Western mind. During the past twelve months these Eastern identities have been increased. Look at the Paris Peace Conference and remember the outcry there was against the very idea of such an ancient and accredited simplicity as the free navigation of the Danube. Or look again at the mode of procedure. The Eastern satellites think, vote and speak
  556
  in one piece. I mention that in no controversial spirit but because these are the people who lecture, and sometimes indeed hector, us for desiring some reasonable degree of unity in the West. I can assure them that we contemplate no kind of unity such as theirs. Any Western participant would have the full use of his soul and his tongue. Moreover, there would be no question of the predominence of any one Power. In a word, there is in the East a bloc in every sense of the word. We need nothing of the sort in the West, and the sooner we get rid of that silly word from our vocabulary the better—it is not even English.
  I cannot leave this subject without mentioning that there is at the present moment an apparent attempt to coerce non-Slav Greece into that bloc. I am not going to say more about that to-day because the matter may be brought up before the United Nations. I would only make the obvious comment that nothing in the nature of compulsion enters into our scheme of things. When I spoke a year ago, I mentioned that Field-Marshal Smuts had indicated the necessity of a Western regional organization before the San Francisco Charter was even drafted. Much has happened since then to confirm that point of view. Speaking at The Hague on October the Field-Marshal urged His Majesty's Government to take the lead in forming a United States of Europe, and he urged the small States to press us if we hesitated. To-day I am pressing His Majesty's Government for something much more immediately practical. I feel, moreover, that one ought to say that in the absence of such a lead the position of the smaller States might become precarious and even unendurable. Look again at the Paris Conference. What need have we of any further witness? The small States so far have not had a fair say in the destinies of the world and, therefore, not in their own, and I think they would need ample opportunity in any reforming of Western Europe.
  The Field-Marshal went on to say something even more germane to this Motion. He said that regional organizations are better qualified than a world organization to watch particular situations in their own area. I think that is eminently true. He proceeded to say that if no one will take the lead in pressing for this regional political union, let us at least begin on the economic plane as recommended by a

  557
  Committee of the Social and Economic Commission of the United Nations. He instanced as a beginning the extension of the Customs union between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. He then said something even more cogent, that at present Europe is split up into a large number of small national units which in peace often mutually frustrate each other and in war make their own security more doubtful. That I think is incontestable, but I would not confine that remark to the smaller Powers. Heaven knows that the greater Powers have also in the past made their own security more doubtful. After all, the British Army was nearly cut off in 1914, and the French and British Armies were cut off in 1940. Here, however, there is a large identity of view.
  In only one respect would I venture to differ from what the Field-Marshal said. He affirmed that France had refused the offer to take the lead in what he termed "this most important matter of common European interests." He was referring, of course, to the French reception of Mr. Churchill's speech at Zurich. It is true that the French refused any suggestion for an association or partnership with Germany. At the present juncture who would not? I will deal with that later. But on the general issue France did not refuse. She hesitated, and that also is extremely natural, because at present, to speak plainly, the most numerous Party in France is the Communist Party, and, like Communist Parties elsewhere, most unfortunately and through no fault of ours it is anti-British, for all the honeyed words that M. Thorez has recently sought to insert in the British Press. But that only makes it all the more essential that we should give a strong lead to our sorely tried and, to me, still dear French friends.
  After all, we can hardly expect them to stand up against the daily deluge of Moscow's Anglophobia unless we give them something to hold on to. So far we have given them nothing adequate, despite one tentative overture on their part. That lead should not be hard to give. We have had our difficulties and differences with the French, but on the whole we come very favourably out of any comparison with the Russians. The French and the Russians have had an alliance for two years, and we have not had that with the French. What has been the result? So far, on the major issues,
  558
  where there has been a clash of interests between the French and the Germans, the Russians have given the preference to the Germans, most notably in the Russian policy of pressing for the reconstitution of another centralized and unified Reich which might be presenting the Fourth Republic with a fourth death warrant. In all of this there is nothing to deter the French from closer association with old friends and closer neighbours. Indeed, I think that there are many wise Frenchmen who realize now that France will not easily become a great Power unless she combines with us to make Western Europe a great Power.
  In rebutting the absurd charge that co-ordination means reaction, when I first spoke I confined myself to quoting Left Wing support. It is now time to turn to the Right. Nine days after Field-Marshal Smuts had spoken, Mr. Eden spoke in Brussels. He said that the Western, European family must grow even more closely together. He urged a strong community of thought, of economic interest and political practice. The purpose of this collaboration would be the preventing of a repetition of the events of 1914 and 1940. On the basis of these regional organizations the wider world organization might be buttressed, and a closer understanding in one area might lead to a wider understanding. Those last sentences, to which I draw your Lordships' special attention, are the essence of the matter. Like the fear of God, they are the beginning, but not the end, of wisdom.
  Now I come in rather more detail to Mr. Churchill's speech at Zurich. It would be difficult to expect anyone in Europe at present to envisage any form of association or partnership with Germany. The material and spiritual future of Germany are still wrapped in far too grave an obscurity, and on the moral side the emotions are not favourable. When Herr Schumacher told us four days ago of the regrowth of German nationalism he was telling us nothing that we did not know already and, if I may say so, I hardly think that our prospects for the future are enhanced by a growing tendency in this country to speak as if the Germans were the only suffering people, and as if we alone were responsible for them. Canards of that kind come home to roost before many days, and we might have learnt that from previous experience. After the last war we went to hell by three

  559
  stages. We began by pity for the Germans, which merged very naturally into sympathy with them, and turned equally naturally into Germanophilia. I am as humane a man as any in this House, although I do sometimes think of other people besides the Germans. I have no objection whatever to the first two stages, provided they do not turn into the third before there is any warrant. I think there might not be any such warrant for a generation.
  Nothing in all that, however, has effected the economic and geographical fact that the industries of Western Germany are an integral, although not an exclusive, part of the life of Western Europe, and must have their appropriate place in it. The emphasis must be upon the word "appropriate." The political future of Germany is a very different matter. That must depend upon the political structure of Germany and we do not yet know what that structure is going to be. Only one solution can give us an innocuous Germany, and that is the federal one, but we do not know whether we are going to get it. We do not know, even if we do get it, whether it will be the right kind of federalism. In this case there are two kinds, the good and the worthless. The worthless is the method from on high. You set up your Central Government in Berlin—and what a place to choose after all these warnings!—and Berlin then ordains that certain functions shall appertain to the Provincial Governments. Now that form of federalism is worthless, because what is given from on high can lye revoked from on high. The only form that is any good is that which proceeds from the circumference to the centre. In other words the Provincial Governments, first and firmly established, ordain that certain functions such as Custom and Excise and Communications shall appertain to the Central Government, and then if the Central Government abuses its position, as is so often shown by past history, it is up to the Provincial Governments to revoke their consent.
  I am not going any further into that to-day, beyond making the obvious point that a federalized Germany will obviously fit more easily than a centralized one into any future European Federation. We may not be able to federalize all Germany, but we could at least federalize the south and the west. In that case such
  560
  a reliable element will harmonize more easily within any Western European Federation. But to-day I am not talking about any Western European Federation. That may be the second or the third stage. To-day I am talking about nothing but the rock-bottom common sense of co-ordination. I think it will be apparent from that that no partnership or association is at present possible between Germany or France or, indeed, Germany and anyone. That is just not practical politics now, nor as a matter of fact, is a United States of Europe practical politics now. It is an aspiration and a noble ideal to which we can all pay heartfelt homage; our grandchildren or our children perhaps may see them, if our world meanwhile has not been totally destroyed by some fresh attempt to force upon it another totalitarianism. But how, for the present, could you integrate all Europe when Eastern Europe devotes all the resources of its propaganda to rejecting Western Europe with contumely? Look at the frauds that do duty for elections in that part of the world. How rightly, and how vainly, we have tried to correct them. The Government was condemning them only yesterday.
  I see that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has a Motion down on to-morrow's Paper pressing for the better treatment of minorities. Of course, I do not anticipate him, but I would merely say what, in any circumstances, I would have said to-day—I fear that it may be rather behind the galloping times. Minority treaties were the good intention after the First World War; what we need to-day are not minority treaties but majority treaties—treaties for the better treatment of majorities. All over Eastern Europe tiny and tyrannical minorities are in front and they rule with a rod of iron. How would you integrate that with this vision? If we made an advance they would have none of us.
  If you want to convince yourself how hopeless at the present moment any United States of Europe are, you have only to remember the reception given in Eastern Europe to Mr. Churchill's speech. They condemned as reactionary a policy whose failing is that it is too progressive for our times. They dubbed "incendiary" one of man's most abiding and elusive visions of peace. It may well be

  561
  that the United States of Europe are part of the vision with which Tennyson in his In Memoriam said:
  "…. one far-off divine event
  To which the whole creation moves."
  But note well, he said, "far-off." Even before that, he had written in Locksley Hall" the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world". That was over a hundred years ago. How far have we moved since then? Not very far. And why? Perhaps it was too general, perhaps we were asking too much and too soon, in contrast with our usual habit of too little and too late.
  He was succeeded by more practical visionaries. Take, for example, the opinion of Henry Sedgwick, who died in 1900. After his death was published his book The Development of European Policy in which he most explicitly predicted the integration of the States of Western Europe. And he added: "This new political aggregate will be formed on the basis of federal quality." That was fifty years ago, and how far have we moved since then? Again, not very far. And why? I think for that there is little explanation or excuse. We have tried one very noble experiment, the League of Nations, and perhaps that also was too general. If, to use Mr. Eden's words, it had been buttressed upon a Western Regional Organization its fate would have been very different, and we ourselves would never have undergone that second Pentecost of calamity.
  I mention these cases to show that for a century men have been talking much and achieving little towards the realization of their own ideals. It is not necessary to say that we have done nothing because we would have everything. The French reply that the "better is the enemy of the good"; and so I ask what are we doing and what are we going to do in this sphere where progress is possible? I know that there have been fruitful conversations between British officials and French officials looking towards an increase in the general volume of trade and to a better exchange of books and films and tourism. Excellent but not enough. Where is the Anglo-French Alliance? For two years the French have had their alliance with the Soviet Government. Where is the Anglo-French counterpart? We must realize the responsibility for the time lag here. If it is we who are hanging back, why not press forward?
  562
  If the French still hesitate, why haven't we drawn closer to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, as already suggested? Surely we are false to ourselves if, being unable to have forthwith "the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world," we do nothing to create that which we could have without further delay. Surely it is a dereliction of our duty merely to mark time when one practical step forward—le premier pas qui coute. and to our French friends I would say: qui coute si peu—might carry us foward to the full realization of our highest hopes and firmest forms of security.
  I have not only great respect but, if I may say so, great affection for this House. It has always endured me with courtesy. I believe that it still has a great part to play in the affairs of man by giving a moral lead where one is most required. I submit that the call is on us to-day. If anyone has any qualms on the subject I beg him to travel with me no further than the Albert Memorial—if he can bear it. You all know the ancient Greek legend of how the god Zeus, disguised as a bull, raped Europa. On one corner of the Memorial you will see the unruffled figure of Europa seated, side-saddle and all proper, upon a bull which shows no sign of that Mediterranean temperament. From this you may judge what our Victorian ancestors preferred to think of those foreign goings on, in so far as it was good form to talk about them at all. And then consider the Europe not of myth but of history, the Europe that you and I have known, torn and I tousled and bloody and raped by bull after bull, each one calling himself a god. I beg that to-day, my Lords, you will do what in us lies at least to preserve the virtue of Western Europe, for it is great. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That every encouragement should be given to the development of close political and economic relations between the countries of Western Europe, since the promotion of political and economic relations between the European States must contribute generally to the effective operation of the United Nations.—(Lord Vansittart.)
  5.3 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who has spoken so brilliantly to your Lordships

  563
  this afternoon, devoted some considerable part of his speech to the future position of Germany in relation to Western Europe. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him there. What I rise to do is to give very warm, personal support to the broad case for closer association between the nations of Western Europe which he has urged with such force. I think that the House should certainly be most grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter again, for it is one which to most of us is of the greatest urgency. I do not suppose that there is anyone who can, to-day, look at the Continent of Europe without grave anxiety. Often in past centuries Europe has been rent by great wars. But, I think that until lately the essential unity of the Continent has never been destroyed. During the eighteenth century—at least until the Napoleonic wars—it was never even seriously threatened.
  War, as your Lordships all know, was regarded in those days mainly as an affair of soldiers and sailors. I do not say that the civil population did not suffer. Of course they did in certain cases, but except in the battle areas the ordinary citizens in the countries that were at war—certainly this applies to the people of Britain—were, for the most part, relatively little affected by the conflict. Indeed, as one can read from the memoirs of that time, civilians used to pass to and fro across the borders of the warring States and very often through the zones of the armies themselves without let or hindrance. The fundamental unity of European society was so strong and so stable that it was, as I say, relatively unaffected by temporary conflicts. How great and deplorable a change has come about as the result of the events of the last thirty years. Lord Vansittart, in his speech, said that we had not moved very far in the right direction. I think that that is a classic understatement. We have moved a very long way and in the wrong direction. We, the nations of Europe, are becoming more and more like medieval fortresses with their garrisons looking out upon a hostile world. It is almost impossible, nowadays, for one to pay a visit to a neighbouring country without passports, without permits and licences innumerable, which are themselves the fruit of over developed national suspicions. It is a strange paradox that
  564
  at this time, when the means of transportation are more rapid and more efficient than ever before, human intercourse between the peoples of Europe and the exchange of goods and services are becoming increasingly more difficult.
  What must be the inevitable end of this deplorable tendency? Personally, I feel most profoundly that were this situation allowed to continue to deteriorate, as it has deteriorated in the last thirty years, we should soon be back at something very near the Dark Ages. It seems to me that some means must be found of recreating the unity of Europe, or Europe, and all that is meant by European civilization will perish. As Lord Vansittart has said, that was the theme of the very remarkable and far-sighted speech made not very many weeks ago by Mr. Churchill at Zurich, followed by another equally impressive speech by Field-Marshal Smuts at The Hague. Mr. Churchill, it will be remembered, took as his text the necessity, if European civilization is to survive, of the constitution of a United States of Europe. Who will quarrel with his conception of that as an ultimate objective of European policy? I can think of no one. We have only got to look at the United States of America, happy, united and prosperous, and then turn our eyes to tortured, distracted Europe to draw our own conclusions.
  But it would be idle to imagine—and I do not suppose that either Mr. Churchill or Field-Marshal Smuts would ever suggest it—that the progress of the European Continent towards federation or even confederation will be easy or rapid. The wounds of the past are too deep and too painful. Distrust and suspicion are too deeply rooted to be easily or quickly eliminated. Let us indeed keep the United States of Europe before us as an ultimate aim for ourselves, or our children, or our children's children. But do not let us fall into the error of imagining that it can be approached except by very gradual stages. Indeed Field-Marshal Smuts clearly recognized this both in his speech at The Hague and the subsequent speech which he delivered at Brussels, in which he advocated more restricted groupings, economic, I think, or political, if the greater aim of the United States was not immediately attainable. As I understand it, it is to the purpose of defining that first essential stage on this long journey towards European unity and to urging His

  565
  Majesty's Government to take the first step on that road, that the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, has devoted his remarks to-day. He has pleaded that immediate action should be taken to inaugurate closer association between the countries of Western Europe. Personally—and I have no doubt that I speak for many other noble Lords—I believe that to be an essential preliminary to any further progress towards wider European unity.
  Such a closer connexion would not be directed against any other country. When, not long ago, the United States of America negotiated the terms of the Treaty of Chualtepec that was not regarded—so far as I am aware—as offensive action against anybody else. Nor have we in this country made the slightest complaint against the arrangements which Russia has made with her neighbours in Eastern Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, reminded us this afternoon that the Charter of the United Nations blesses such arrangements—I will quote the words of the Charter—so long as they are consistent with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. All we and our neighbours at the west end of this continent would be doing would be strictly in harmony with the principles of the Charter. We should indeed be actively buttressing and strengthening the United Nations by re-creating that unity of spirit by which alone international co-operation can be given reality.
  We, the nations of Western Europe, are the trustees of a long tradition, of a civilization free and tolerant, of all that we comprehend by the word Christendom. On the firm foundation that we have provided, the greatness of the nations of the new world is based. It would be tragic if Western Europe, which has given so much to the World, were to crumble into disunity and chaos. Yet I believe that is a very real danger to-day. Moreover, as I took the liberty to point out to your Lordships the last time I spoke on this subject—and I hope you will forgive me for reverting to the subject to-day—there are far greater advantages to be gained by such an association than merely European ones. The nations of Western Europe include the great Colonial Powers—France, Holland, Belgium and Portugal. Throughout Africa and the Far East their interests, and the interests of the British Commonwealth, are closely interwoven. In many areas of Western and Central
  566
  Africa—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, knows better than anyone—the territories of those countries and our own form—or should form—closely integrated economic units. On questions of communications, of health, of labour policy and on a hundred other aspects of current policy, close and constant consultation between these countries and ourselves and the other Empire countries, is not only desirable but necessary, if the best results are to be obtained. In this aspect of the policy which I am urging, the interests of ourselves and of our Dominions are identical.
  The European aspect of the Western Pact is not by any means the only one which makes it so desirable. It could equally be recommended for the imperial advantages which it gives to the nations concerned. I personally wish that it could have been brought to fruition earlier in the war, when the French; Belgian and Dutch Governments were still in London, and in daily touch with His Majesty's Government. I believe that a valuable opportunity was missed. But at that time the preoccupations of war held all our main attention, and it was understandably difficult to look far into the future. In any case, it is not too late now. But in my belief there is no time to be lost.
  I understand that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is to reply, and I feel sure that there will be no opposition from the Government to this Motion. The advantages of the policy which it urges must be just as obvious to the Government as they are to us. But there seems to be some reason, which I have never been properly able to understand; why the Government cannot go ahead with practical negotiations. Possibly the explanation is to be found in the natural preoccupations of the Foreign Secretary with his negotiations with the Big Five and the United Nations Organization. He has so herculean a task that it seems unfair that those who have not the same responsibility should press him too hard in this matter. But vital time is passing, and what is practicable now may well not be practicable later on. There is no sphere where it is so true as it is in foreign affairs, that it is essential to strike while the iron is hot. Otherwise new combinations of circumstances arise, and then, too late, it is found that a golden and irrecoverable opportunity has been lost.

  567
  I would, therefore, ask the Government to-day to tell us, if they can, where is this hold-up? Is it in our own country? Is it in one of the other countries? We have never been told, and there must be many, like myself, who are beginning to be increasingly bewildered and disturbed at this continued delay. I know how difficult it is to talk very freely, in public, on these questions, especially when some progress is, as I hope, taking place. But I hope it will be possible for the Government spokesman to tell us not only that he sympathizes with the policy that is the subject of the Motion, but that definite steps are being taken—or are about to be taken—to give effect to it. I am sure such an announcement would be warmly welcomed by every thinking man and woman in this country, irrespective of his or her Party. I do beg His Majesty's Government to give us some encouragement on this vital question, for I believe most profoundly, that the achievement of some closer relationship between the nations of Western Europe is of transcendent importance for the future not only of this country and of the British Empire, but also of Western Europe itself and, indeed, of the world.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, in rising to associate my noble friends on this Bench with what has been said and, in particular, with the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, I do not wish to follow either the noble Lord or the noble Viscount who has just sat down into the details of ways and means. Nor will I follow them into discussing the ultimate objective of a United States of Europe, believing, as I do, that that may be premature, and that to hold that out as one's goal is perhaps to commit the error (to which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred) of seeking for the best and neglecting immediate progress. If we look back over the last twelve or eighteen months, how apparent it is that so far from there having been closer co-operation and greater integration in Western Europe, in point of fact the opposite has taken place. In my view a great deal of that is undoubtedly due to what has been done, or not been done, or what is arising out of what has been done in Germany, because I cannot see how there can be integration or co-operation between the western nations in Europe, let alone between
  568
  the nations of Europe as a whole, if Germany is eliminated from that group.
  It is surely impossible for anyone to conceive of the removal of 60,000,000 producers and consumers from a European economy, or even from a world economy, without foreseeing also the shattering consequences which we have witnessed in the last twelve months. Therefore, it is with gratitude and satisfaction that we welcome the announcement made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on the fusion of at least two of the zones in Germany into an economic unit—or into what we hope will become an economic unit—even if that fusion does not apparently cover government and political development there. That that fusion has taken place is, perhaps, due to the results that we have witnessed in the opposite direction over the last twelve months—results for which His Majesty's Government, in this country, as well as other Governments, have their share of responsibility.
  At any rate, one of the points that I must regret, without wishing to criticize what has been done, is that that disintegration, which has now in part been repaired, was ever allowed to happen when the war with Germany ceased. Naturally, it will fall to many of your Lordships to ask if, in this fusion which has taken place by the agreement, which has been announced, the third element in Western Germany—the French zone—is to be brought in. The importance of that zone and the importance of the fusion of the two zones in Germany, if not in the context of this Motion, is clearly a question of the future of Germany itself. It is a fundamental issue in what is to happen to the economy of Western Europe, and it does not require imagination, statistics, or information to see why. Unless the productivity of Western Germany is re-integrated into Europe, no economic regional organization is possible either in France, in Belgium, in Holland or in Luxembourg. We have hoped to see, in what may generally be called the Lowlands some "getting together," some unity of economic and social policy which, if my information is right, is in process of happening to some extent. Public opinion in Holland and Belgium certainly appears to be verging in that direction. I believe myself that there cannot be a fait accompli until a solution has been found for Western Germany and the

  569
  economy of Western Germany, which is so intimately tied up with these Lowland countries.
  Having raised that question, I feel that I must rather unwillingly touch on one other point about Germany as a whole. No doubt we would all wish to see Germany treated as a whole, treated, at any rate, as one single problem, treated as an economic entity. It may be that what has happened over the last twelve months has now made that, if not impossible, at any rate, extremely difficult, and so we are driven inevitably to accept the position as we find it, which is that there is a dividing line between Eastern and Western Germany and Eastern and Western Europe, a point which I beg leave to come back to in a minute. But within what it is in our power to do, I suggest that hitherto we have been remiss in not doing as much as we should have done, not only there, but also in those other countries to which the two noble Lords who have preceded me have referred. I think perhaps I can find an explanation of the delay which was referred to by the noble Lord who has just sat down; for delay there has been.
  Your Lordships will recall that on March 7, my noble friend the Earl of Perth said that we could not allow our foreign policy to suffer because of lack of co-operation on the Russian side. He was speaking in the context of closer foreign relations with France. To that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who spoke for His Majesty's Government, said that His Majesty's Government welcomed M. Gouin's statement of January 29, which tentatively, as your Lordships know, proposed a closer relationship with France. M. Gouin's statement was made on January 29, and the statement of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor was made in your Lordships' House on March 7. Nothing had been done by that time, and, so far as I am aware, nothing has been done since. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack went on to say—and this perhaps was the clue or the explanation—
  "But now we have dealt with the various matters connected with the United Nations Organization, we shall certainly take it up. We desire, as a fundamental matter, to have the closest possible friendship and relations with France."
  Again on July 29, he went further and said:
  570
  "I cannot believe that there could be anyone who could see in an alliance between this country and France any danger to others or threat to the peace of the world."
  That was in July. Since then again nothing has been done. I should like to come back to that in a minute.
  The relations which His Majesty's Government have had with various other countries on economic and social issues—I take the example, if I may, of Scandinavia—have been dealt with in each case as several problems. Our issues with Denmark have been one problem; those with Norway another; those with Sweden another. Again, on economic issues with Belgium, with Holland and with France—they have all been dealt with severally. If there were a desire to integrate Western Europe, to group the nations of Western Europe, at any rate, with economic regions, without necessarily entering into defensive or other commitments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, referred, why are all those relations with these various countries always treated as several problems instead of being taken in groups? Why do we have to deal with the three Scandinavian countries all separately, not consistently very often with what they are trying to do among themselves, and failing in this particular case to take a lead, and a very eminent lead, which was given by Sweden in the contribution which Sweden has made to the reconstruction of Europe, and integrate that with what we are trying to do? So far as I am aware, no sort of attempt has been made in that direction at all.
  So we have drifted on. We have drifted on, in the case of the French, for over twelve months, in spite of the spokesman for His Majesty's Government having agreed that the move was right and ought to have been taken, and indeed could now be taken, as the noble Lord said. Still nothing has been done. That catalogue could be extended possibly to include inconsistencies in expressed views about Austria, Italy and other countries. But I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a catalogue of what might appear to be criticisms. May I here interject that, so far as I personally am concerned—and I am sure I speak for the noble Lords on these Benches—no sort of criticism whatsoever is intended of what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has sought to do and has achieved in the last twelve months. His courage,

  571
  his patience above all things, and his single-mindedness, have earned the praise and support of, I think, everyone in your Lordships' House and, I should say, with a few exceptions perhaps, of the whole of the country. So if what I have said may appear to be critical, it is not intended as such. It is intended to express wonder why this other side has not been taken up. I should like in a minute to suggest my explanation for it, and, if that is right, it is one which can be remedied.
  In view of the disintegration of Europe, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has referred, the matter is clearly urgent, because we are drifting to what may well be the dark ages of modern Europe. I do not know whether the method of historical analogy or history really can teach us anything in these circumstances in which we find ourselves. But there is to me, at least, one extremely striking period in history where some analogy may be found to what we are now faced with. Many of your Lordships will be aware that in 800, 1,100 years ago, Charlemagne was crowned in Rome as the Holy Roman Emperor. Out of that grew the Holy Roman Empire. That was the first attempt in Europe, so far as I know, of closer integration among several and separate nations who, by and large, thought the same, and of probably the greatest of all contributions to modern history until we come down to modern times of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter. It is a very curious and strange fact that that event took place when Charlemagne had found it necessary to establish a line, not a closely fortified line but a line of demarcation, which was first called the Limes Sorabicus and then became known as the Limes Carolingius, which ran, strangely enough, from the neighbourhood of the Gulf of Lubeck, west of Magdeburg, west of Leipzig, cut through Vienna, followed the line of the Julian Alps and ended up at Trieste. What lay west of that became Western Europe and the civilization that we know.
  What made that possible was a community of ideas. It was at that time the Christianity and the Christian ethic against the paganism in the East. It is strange that that ideological boundary between east and west of those days is precisely the ideological boundary to
  572
  which other speakers have alluded in your Lordships' House before now, and which is the one which faces us now. If that boundary cannot be transgressed, through no fault of ours, we can at least do on our western side of that boundary what Charlemagne and his successors did a thousand years ago. It is that which His Majesty's Government have in this and in so many other places been constantly urged to do, and in regard to which three of us, at any rate, this evening have found it in us to regret that further progress has not been made up to date.
  I said earlier on that I would try to find an explanation, and if the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his reply were to record in his mind the possible explanation against future use it might perhaps be a suggestion which would cure the difficulties that we see. When some eighteen months ago your Lordships discussed the then recent birth of the United Nations I had cause to complain of how much emphasis had been put on security and the Security Council and how little reference had been made anywhere, even in your Lordships' House, save for one brief reference by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to the Social and Economic Council. Has what has been happening not been a perhaps undue pursuit of security from fear of war, from fear for our own security, which has blinded, or at any rate dazzled, His Majesty's Government and others into not giving that same weight and attention to the social and economic aspect of the United Nations? Had that been done there could have been no criticism of what may come out of the regional association, because that is specifically provided for and implicit in all economic arrangements envisaged under U.N.O.
  Is this not an example possibly of the result of fear? We have chased after the ideal of security for fear of what the consequences might be and have forgotten too much the every-day things that matter to us to keep alive. And what have been the consequences? The economy of Europe is dying. If there is therefore criticism of the Foreign Minister, and perhaps others, is it not that there has been a chasing after security born out of fear instead of seeking to reconstruct and mend where it is possible? I do not say that the united nations of the world which will produce security is not the right aim of His Majesty's Government

  573
  as for any other Government, but I do say that that aim and that alone should not be the sole guiding spirit of our foreign policy, and that those gaps which I see, and which I believe others of your Lordships will have seen, to which reference has been made to-day, come from the dazzling ideal of world government and from the fear for our own security to the neglect of more ordinary and in some ways, perhaps, simpler things. If I may relapse into a colloquialism: Are His Majesty's Government perhaps not, and have they not been for the last twelve months, seeking to anchor the rainbow, the rainbow which is the symbol of peace; and in the process of doing that have they forgotten to get their umbrella mended, left their goloshes at home and gone out without a mackintosh? If that is the explanation of these gaps that we find in our foreign policy they are remediable, but they must be remedied before we get pneumonia.
  5.39 p.m.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has said what was so much in my mind to say that I hope I may be shorter than I feared I might be. Let me begin by saying that I do not think anybody, if he were regarding this problem as a general problem, could deny its importance. It is quite clear, is it not, that it is worth everything to the world to preserve the individual cultures of the relations of Western Europe and that they must not be absorbed by any one all-embracing State. But is it not equally clear that in this modern world in which we live for certain purposes they are inevitably too small? It is clear that we need economic organizations in Europe which must go beyond the bounds of the small States, and unless we somehow correct that the whole economy of Europe will go to pieces. I do not know how far noble Lords will remember that in the war we had a good deal of evidence that people in Europe felt that, for all Hitler's evil, he promised one good thing—the economic unification of Europe; and to some extent he did it. People felt that if that were turned in the right direction and done by decent statesmen instead of by thieves it would be of great benefit. I think there are signs in Europe of a feeling that the present cutting up of Europe into these small isolated entities is a very heavy price to pay for liberation.
  574
  Part of our difficulty in regarding this question of the association of Western Europe is that it may mean, I think, two different things. Some of the people who press for it are concerned primarily with questions of security and of power. They think, with a good deal of justice, that the smaller States of Western Europe are too small minnows to swim in the same pond as—I do not think they will be offended by this—such lusty trout as Russia and the United States. Trout are beautiful fish, but it is not good to put them, large as they are, with very small fish, and the small fish are sometimes disturbed about it. When you think in those terms you think primarily in terms of common armaments and common power. I think there might come a day when you will have to think about that very hard, and not only to think about it but to act; but surely we can see the dangers which that project is bound to produce at the present time in the atmosphere of distrust which exists in Europe and which is bound to exist for some time.
  I do not think the same thing can possibly hold good when you consider the question of economic reconstruction. But the moment you talk about economic things you come up against the question, which I was going to ask of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, but I think he made it clear in his speech: Where does Western Europe end on the east? Does it end on the Rhine, or on the Elbe or on the Oder? I gather he thought on the Rhine, but I may be doing him an injustice. I agree with him—I do not very often do that—that at the present time it would be foolish to talk of a political association of Western Europe which was to include Germany. As Germany stands at this moment you could not conceivably do it. You would have to know what the future of Germany was going to be and you would have to face, if you did it now, the problem of dividing Germany and of deciding where you were going to divide it. It may be that, patient though we are, we may have reluctantly to give it up as a bad job; we may have to fall back on Lord Rennell's and Charlemagne's line. But we must surely not give up quite so soon the notion of there being a chance—and I put it this way—that Germany could possibly be a bridge in Europe and not a gulf.
  I think that if we say we should associate at once, and as closely as we can, the

  575
  nations of Western Europe, and if we say that the Eastern frontier of Europe is the Rhine and that Germany is excluded, apart from the frightful economic consequences which would ensue we should give up the notion that Germany, or even the Rhineland, could possibly be a bridge. We should create a yawning gulf between the two sides, which would be in that sense empty and invite attack from both sides. The real danger at the moment, as far as I can gather—and I have heard a good deal from people who have been talking to the German young—is that when the Germans get bitter (and there are causes for bitterness) those in the West think they are going to lead a crusade of the West against Russia and that we should be only too pleased to join it. Whether they say the correspondingly opposite thing east of the Elbe I do not know, but I should have thought it was at any rate conceivable. If you leave Germany alone and say you cannot grapple with it, that is going to happen. Therefore it seems to me that it is right to say that we hope there will be political association between the nations of Western Europe, but I think the practical things to do now and at once lie far more in the economic and to some extent in the cultural sphere. It is surely obvious that Europe cannot do without industrial Germany; it cannot do without the Ruhr and it will have to have far more than the Ruhr. Unless therefore we devote ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, to dealing with the question of industrial Germany, the whole situation will get worse and worse.
  I always think, if I may be allowed to say so to him, that the noble Lord who moved this Motion is so terribly concerned about anybody ever thinking too much about the Germans that he will not ever look at his own, perhaps I may be allowed to call it, sentimentalism. Would he mind being a little more realistic about it and asking himself what makes people nationalist and Nazi? It is not just the evil character of the Germans; it is being treated in a wrong way, feeling a certain amount of despair and frustration and thinking that nothing could conceivably be worse than present conditions. I think there is every evidence to show that that kind of thing is breeding in the German youth, and if I were a German young man it would breed in me. That
  576
  is the way people feel. I do not mean to say that as a result of that you should do nothing politically at the moment about Germany, but I do think you must do something economically.
  May I make a further point? I want to know how you are to do it. We have listened this afternoon, I am sure with welcome, to the announcement of the union of these two zones. Yet I saw in the Press a statement by someone who had anticipated this, deploring the thought that the American zone and the British zone were going to be united, on the ground that our views on how to run an industrial community and those of the Americans were very different. I hope that the Americans will teach us, and will themselves adopt, what they learnt in their great experiments like that of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It seems to me that America has seen that a far-reaching and wide economic plan can be separated from politics and developed on its own. This is my further point. Is not the only way to separate it from politics to try somehow or other to get the economic reconstruction of Germany and the integration of German economy in Europe done not by Russia, England, America and France, but by the United Nations or by some Committee of that Organization? That may not be possible, but I think it would be immensely preferable that that responsibility should be laid upon the United Nations and not, as it is now, upon Powers which are partly engaged in this ideological struggle. It may not be possible, but it would be preferable if you could get it done by the United Nations, as was hinted in the last words of the noble Lord's Motion.
  I do not think he meant exactly that but he chose happy words for my purpose even if you had to bring in the whole of Europe. If you had as partners not only France, and the conquering Powers—America, Russia and this country—I should also like to name Sweden. I should like to bring in those Powers which are interested—Belgium and, above all, Holland, who are concerned about the effect of the whole Ruhr and German industry upon the prosperity of Europe. I think you must do that. I think if you stop at a line and say: "Not any further," you are just asking for trouble.
  There is one thing more I want to say, which is a smaller thing and yet, I

  577
  think, important. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, pointed out what a very little way we had gone, not just in political relations but in simpler things which we may roughly call the process of getting together. Would it not be possible to take up very strongly and actively the whole business about the regulations which make travel so difficult, visas and all the rest of it? I should like the British Council or some authority to see that that is done, and I am sure it would pay to finance people to go all over Western Europe. Above all, I would like them to believe in the young. I do not think anything will unite Europe like abundant intercourse between the young. After the last war the most healing influence was work done by young men working for the International Students Service. Whilst the elder statesmen were talking, wondering and saying, "Yes, but at the same time you must remember this, and you must remember that," the young men went and did it. They cannot do it now because they are not allowed to. There are already reports which I have read of an International Students Conference held by the French, with the Germans, Americans and French talking together. That will do more to unify Europe than anything. But I think it must occur freely, easily and on a large scale. It cannot be done now because the difficulties are so great, and therefore I hope that the Government will not forget the cultural side.
  The poverty of books is frightful, not only in Germany but in France, Holland, Belgium, and the Scandinavian countries. It is worth anything that we should produce far more paper and get the books printed and over there, and you could begin to produce again a common culture in Europe. I do not think, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that the Holy Roman Empire was such an achievement as he affirmed. He said it was a beautiful conception but it did not do anything very practical. But what medieval Europe did have was a common culture, and people understood one another. That was the beginning. Now, however, the books are not there, the newspapers do not get about easily and people travel only with difficulty. That sounds a small thing, but I think it is more important than people sometimes realize. I think if we said, "This must be done, and the other things must wait," it would excite no suspicion. It is easily
  578
  done, but do it with energy, enthusiasm and determination, and then the people will find out the right way in which to produce the association of the countries of Western Europe. Because I do not think we know yet what that way ought to be. I think we ought to get together, and I suggest very strongly that the two ways in which we can get together and prepare for the tasks ahead which are quite appreciable—and this should be our final goal—are the economic way and the cultural way.
  5.55 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: My Lords, to say that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, strikes at what is quite obviously the main problem of the day, is a mere banality. I should like to make a slightly less diplomatic approach to it, and suggest that it is quite useless to avoid the main issue. It is a question of the struggle which has broken out on a wide front between the iron curtain and unfettered man. We have this battle in its minor form being fought in Europe itself and in its major form in the world as a whole, represented by the sharply contrasted natures of the Russian and American conceptions of existence. For the prevalence of this problem in its present exacerbated form, we have, it is clear, only the Russians to thank, for without this new kind of war of nerves that she has declared the difficulty of reconciling the two modes of life could, there is no doubt, quite well be solved over a longer or shorter period of years by the evolutionary methods of which we are, I think, the oldest and best exponents.
  At the same time, there are certain new elements in this war or, shall we say, in this calculated antithesis, which have recently appeared on the scene and which ought not to pass unobserved. One is the reaction of the Eastern European countries to the Russian hold on them, and the other, much less easily calculable and visible, is the reaction of the Russians themselves to Europe consequent on their displacement from their own country. I was informed on good authority only the other day in Paris that when it is a question of the inhabitants of certain Balkan countries circulating between their own territory and Western Europe, the authorities not only do what they have been doing for some time—namely, refuse to

  579
  issue exit visas for those who have re-entered the country—but refuse even to issue re-entry visas for those who have left it. If this attitude does not indicate a heightened fear of contamination by Western ideas, then I do not know what it does indicate. Then again, a lecturer at Chatham House informed us not long ago that were it not for the tight hold of the secret police in Poland the whole country would be in a state of chaos, so violent is the renewed prejudice against domination of a foreign element, a prejudice, to use a mild word, which takes us back to the days of the Great Catherine and the Grand Duke Constantine.
  The point I wish to make is that these reactions may end by being strong enough in ten, twenty or thirty years time for the raison d'êre of the noble Lord's Motion to be a great deal less valid than it is to-day. I imagine that there are none of us who do not deplore its necessity, and who do not feel that in an age when Europe's world importance is so much diminished, and when Europe is more than ever a promontory of Asia, a united and if possible federalized Europe has become a plain and unescapable necessity, if its importance is not to disappear altogether. But since this is certainly not likely to take place in the near future, I feel that the noble Lord's Motion remains a timely and a justifiable one, and deserves our support. I suggest that His Majesty's Government owe us, in any case, a good deal more information than we have hitherto received on the progress made towards creating at least an economic unity in the West, if only because the obscurity of Russian designs and occasional spurts of unreasonableness on the part of the United States with regard to any imperialism but their own and to world markets, create a situation in which economic ties between countries like ours and like France, Belgium and Holland, which have behind them still territories containing undeveloped populations and large stocks of raw materials, could be the beginning of an entity powerful for good, since Western ideas on social reform are evolving on parallel lines, and useful as a resistance ground against aggression. This is a point which Lord Cranborne has admirably stressed.
  The political aspect is more obscure; there is the perennial problem of Spain, and—I think here I disagree with
  580
  my noble friend Lord Rennell—at least one Scandinavian country is likely to continue to sit on the fence; there is the frightful problem of Germany, where Potsdam and our own muddles, recently the subject of much trenchant comment and deservedly so, have combined to produce a state of affairs wherein, as pointed out not long ago in a highly significant article in Time and Tide, Germans who have no desire to live under Russian control are drifting, mentally and physically, in that direction through sheer exasperation. But if an approach can be made on the economic plane to something resembling a Western unity, the flag, by a reversal of the usual process, may well follow trade. In this case the flag is an all-important one—namely, that of European civilization, a flag that may, if we let the present opportunity pass, end by being furled altogether. No one but England can take the initiative in these matters, England, from whom so much is still expected in spite of our new weaknesses. As Mr. Stephen Spender, who attended the other day a conference of European writers at Geneva, has recently written, "We have reached a time when, if we cannot save Europe, Europe will sink us."
  6.04 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, by way of commencement on this very important Motion I should like, if you would allow me, to support every word uttered by my noble Leader. But I want to refer to one particular point in which I think His Majesty's Government might give an earnest of good intentions. I am rather like that very much under-rated gentleman, Mr. Squeers; I believe it is a very good thing to find something and do it. I think it would be a help in the present situation. I heard it announced on the wireless the other day that His Majesty's Government had supported a proposal to bring before the United Nations a discussion on how the present Government in Spain could be altered. I am bound to say that I heard that with great regret. For about 300 years Spain has been the cause of numerous wars in Europe, not so much by her own aggression as by reason of the preoccupation of the other European nations as to what was going on on the other side of the Pyrenees. I suggest the time has come when that bad habit should cease. After all, we have been authoritatively informed by the

  581
  United Nations that Spain is not a danger to European peace. That is, I think, as far as we are entitled to go.
  I do not want to go far back in history, but I would remind your Lordships that a year ago most of us who have taken an interest in Spain had very good hopes, and I think they were well founded hopes, that a change of Government and probably a peaceful revolution might take place in Spain. Unfortunately, the other nations of Europe and His Majesty's Government began to say that the internal government of Spain was a matter of concern to them. I drew the attention of your Lordships to that in March last, and to its probable consequences. These consequences have taken place. I saw the other day in an article in The Times that it was estimated that a year ago only 25 per cent. of the people in Spain were supporters of General Franco's Government and that to-day, owing to outside interference, 75 per cent. of the people of Spain were supporters of General Franco's Government. That is only to be expected. At the moment His Majesty's Government of this country is not very popular with a large section of their countrymen, but if any outside person of any kind, private or national, were to attempt to interfere with His Majesty's Government or to dictate to us how we should be governed, we should be the very first to rally round them. They know it, and it is the strength of their position. I do not see why we should think that Spaniards are any less patriotic than we are ourselves.
  If your Lordships will not accept figures from a newspaper article, you have only to consider the tone of what I might call the revolutionary Government outside Spain. You will have noticed how that group of gentlemen have lowered their tone very considerably owing to the increasing support for General Franco in Spain. On the previous occasion I was very glad to get an assurance from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that however earnestly we desired a change of Government in Spain it would not be set up by force of arms by His Majesty's Government. But if this is brought before the United Nations, how is it going to be effected? It seems to me there are only three ways. One is to stir up a civil war in Spain; the second is to exercise a blockade; and the third, which I hardly venture to mention in your Lordships' House, is assassination. I can see
  582
  no other way than these three. Which of these three would it be best for the United Nations to adopt? Spain has had enough and to spare of civil war in the last 150 years, and it would be an unthinkable crime that we, who have just come through a war of the kind that has been fought in Europe without any real personal suffering ourselves, should, from our safety, try to bring these sufferings to any other part of Europe. I think that is unthinkable. With regard to a blockade, on this I would like to quote what was said by the Minister of State on October 14 in another place. He pointed out, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, how a blockade must bring unthinkable suffering on the Spanish people themselves.
  It would certainly remove some obstacles for the integration of Europe if, for a short time, any mention of Spain could be dropped. Interference will only strengthen the present régime. Worse than that, because, after all, what is the United Nations? It is an organization for world peace. The 1914–1918 war was a war to end war. The last war, as far as I can see, was to end civilization. The next war will be a war to end Man, and if we want to avoid a war to end Man we must have an organization whose job is, in the words of St. Paul, "to seek peace and to ensue it," and not to stir up war in places where it does not at present exist. I only put that forward as a good example of what can be done to bring peace back to this distracted Western Europe, and if sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government do think along the lines of the Motion that has been moved to-day.
  6.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, we have had, as we always do have in this House on these subjects, an exceedingly well-informed discussion, and I would like to say at the outset that, so far as the form of the Motion moved by Lord Vansittart is concerned, we have no objection to it; in fact we think it emphasizes a very vital necessity, that it points to some possibility of immediate progress and should therefore be given effect to so far as that is possible. I feel that, before I come to the immediate elements in the noble Lord's Motion, it is right to say something of the background of these matters at the moment, something which is in the minds of all of us. Whilst we recognize fully that greater co-operation

  583
  between adjacent States can but be for the good, not only of themselves, but of their neighbours, and is therefore by all means to be fostered, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, at the present moment in human history, there seems to be a sort of race between the development of international co-operation on the one side and the application of the inventions of science to wholesale destruction on the other. That is in the background of what is happening at the present time.
  History has shown us over and over again how slow nations are to modify their habits, to adjust their practices to new emergencies—and that is precisely one of the great dangers of the present time. It appears that the inventions of science race ahead much more quickly than man moves in his readjustment to new forms of association which would be a safeguard against the dangers with which science is threatening us. It is no use hiding from ourselves the fact that as a result of this, shall I say, race of science towards the development of destructive power, it may be possible to place in the hands of quite a few people agencies for spreading destruction wholesale and for inaugurating a world-wide catastrophe. I feel that, behind all this, the world is looking with strained anxiety to the efforts that are being made to evolve some international organization which will help us to co-operate on a wider scale than we have ever done before, and will provide security for the people. In fact, there is no reason at all why national differences, national characteristics, should not, themselves, be retained and even developed and become valuable elements in a greater unity than has ever been known before.
  The noble Lord's Motion, at all events to my mind, calls up something of our own past history. But the lesson of our own history is not altogether encouraging at this moment. It took us, in this island, hundreds of years to forget our internal feuds and to act in common. But that has not meant diminution of the value of the national differences of the Scot or the Englishman: in the results they have contributed to a greater unity. The British Commonwealth of Nations is another wonderful illustration of individuality developed and flourishing as part of a greater association. The noble Lord's
  584
  Motion points to other associations which should be developed. He mentioned some of them, and they are obvious to us. There are the common interests of the Scandinavian States and the common interests of the States mentioned by my noble friend who sits behind me—Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and others. There is every reason why closer and closer association between neighbouring States should be fostered.
  I am glad that your Lordships gave a welcome to the small advance—and it is only a small advance—that is signified an the statement that I made to-day about the decision to work in common for economic and other purposes the American and British zones in Germany. In answer to the noble Viscount opposite, I will only say at the moment that I hope it is the beginning of a wider association, but he knows, as well as anybody in this House or outside it, how difficult and tedious is the task of bringing about some of these developments. But, at any rate, this is a welcome beginning, and the point I wish to make is that increased consultation between the active community of interests in Western Europe does not mean any hostility whatever to a wider association. We have got to keep that in our minds all the time or we shall be heading for trouble. Elsewhere in the world you see the same disposition. You see a great movement amongst the Arab countries, for example, for increased consultation. Well, increased consultation, either forced or otherwise, in the Slav regions of the world, is going on before our eyes. It has been referred to more than once today. What we have to do is to make sure that, while we do everything we can to foster ever closer international associations between neighbours, we do not do anything that will divide Europe into East and West as opposing entities; otherwise the end, I am quite sure, must inevitably be disaster. At the same time, we cannot, I think, imagine that the world can continue with national ambitions and national aspirations as they have been in the immediate past or as they are now. The noble Lord spoke of the declension that had taken place in Europe in that respect. It is manifest that national aspirations national characteristics and ideals, must be merged in common efforts with other nations.
  My noble friend behind me said that he hoped that the efforts made to foster

  585
  better neighbourly relations and associations, particularly on economic lines, would make progress. Let me say on that, that nobody is keener than my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on getting rid of all the nuisances of visas, and so on, to which the noble Viscount referred. If this were a one-sided affair, I can tell him with complete confidence, half the bother would have been done away with a long time ago. Unfortunately, it is not a one-sided affair. We on our side are most anxious to promote better travel facilities and increased movement of students, university representatives, and others, between ourselves and our neighbours. And vitally important it is.
  We cannot, however, think in terms of the old lines of the maps. Take the case of Germany, which is a problem that the United Nations have not yet begun to consider. Whilst Germany must have, and ought to have, on its Western side, an integration—if you like to use the term without too formal a sense—with Luxembourg, Belgium and France, for economic and a hundred other reasons, you cannot have an Eastern Germany without similar associations and needs for a community with Poland. This sort of association is just as urgent on one side as on the other. In other words, if we are going to ask for a future scheme of peace in the world, we cannot contemplate the hard and fast division of Europe into East and West, do whatever we may to foster associations on either side. Therefore, while His Majesty's Government are sympathetic and active in seeking to bring about those closer neighbourly associations in economic matters, and in other matters which lie within the noble Lord's Motion (with which we are in hearty sympathy), we are at the same time possessed with the necessity of securing that we do not foster developments which will divide the world once more into opposing camps of East and West.
  We are all disappointed with what has been happening in the United Nations Organization during the last twelve months, but still the Organization has made some progress. During the last few weeks, some tantalizing differences have been accommodated, and I would suggest that whilst we do everything we can to foster closer neighbourly relations, and to improve economic co-operation between
  586
  neighbours in the west of Europe—wherever feasible, and particularly where there are kindred civilizations—we must never lose sight of the necessity of doing everything we can to help the United Nations to come together sufficiently to establish a machinery which will enable national differences, openly and fairly, to be discussed in public, and which will gradually help to remove the essential causes of strife. We must not, and we will not, with infinite patience and despite an infinity of setbacks, lose sight of the need to do everything we can to foster the development of a healthy and strong United Nations Organization. I wish to say that very emphatically. We must try to build around this Organization the machinery for dealing with the misery in the world, for fostering development in backward countries, and for a hundred other purposes, and gradually to attach to this agency much that will promote human well-being and happiness.
  Therefore, whilst I agree that increased neighbourliness among neighbours in practical working fashion is to be encouraged everywhere in the world, in our view the only hope for civilization is to, build up a United Nations Organization which will step by step and ultimately become effective, both in securing world peace and in helping to deal with the economic inequalities among nations. Having said that, as I feel it is my duty to say it, lest it should be thought that we are committing ourselves to any narrower projects, I have deep pleasure, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, in accepting the noble Lord's Motion. I think that it embodies practical politics in a very terse way. It is a guide to all of us, and I believe that the result of what he has said, and of the acquiescence of all your Lordships in his Motion, will give great encouragement outside.
  6.28 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, when a Motion and a debate have come to this happy ending, there is little left for the mover to do, especially at this late hour, except to give thanks. I do very sincerely thank all those who have supported this Motion, particularly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Lord, the spokesman of the Liberal Party. In particular, I would endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said about the need for action and speed,

  587
  for a great deal of time has already elapsed, and time is a commodity that does not return. I would thank the noble Viscount, particularly, for imputing to me, in one passage in his speech, not only an under-statement but "a classic under-statement." I may say that that is rather a rare experience in my existence, and it only shows that I must be rather careful in future!
  On the other hand, I rather gathered from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, that he thought I was approximating to my previous reputation for being a little too hard on the Germans. I should like to make it quite clear that my stand over that matter is that I do not want us to repeat the mistakes which we made after the First World War. We should be chary of giving our confidence until we are quite sure it is justified. This is a case where I think we must follow a course of vigilance, and indeed scepticism, until we are sure of something better. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, also asked me for my definition of the term "Western Europe," which is rather a large question. As he did so, however, I should like to say at once that my definition of Western Europe is a good deal wider than any of the countries I happened to mention in my speech. It would certainly include Scandinavia, Switzerland, even Italy. I see that the subject of Spain was introduced. Naturally, geographically the Iberian Peninsula is in Western Europe, but there is nothing more to be said on that subject unless and until Spain adopts a democratic mode of government. I think at that we may leave it.
  I pass then to the remarks of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. He said that we must be careful not to divide Europe into two. I am sure that would be against the wishes of us all, but the fact remains that division has already gone a very long way, through no fault of ours, and I am very deeply convinced that by co-ordinating Western Europe you will tend not to accentuate but to diminish that division. That was why I laid such special stress on these words of Mr. Eden: "From a close understanding in one area a wider understanding may grow." I can assure your Lordships that if you live with a totalitarian country you will find they will respect you the more as they deem you worthy of respect, and although
  588
  a great deal of abuse has been showered from Eastern quarters on the idea of any integration in the West, you will find, when you have integrated that, that abuse will die down 90 per cent.
  For the rest, I should like to thank the Government very sincerely for their welcome and statesmanlike acceptance of this Motion and of this policy. I wish to God that we had had this policy all my life. If we had had it, we would have had a happier and a better world. It is not too late to have that happier and better world even now, if we pursue this policy with resolution. I hope, and many in Europe will be led to believe, that this day's debate marks the beginning of a new phase in British foreign policy. I hope we shall live up to that expectation. It would be fatal for all to agree and then to do nothing, and it will now be for the Foreign Office to push ahead with the necessary negotiations. There is one other thing I should like to say in the few minutes that remain. To-day's proceedings will have given new hope and comfort to all those in Europe who have long looked to us for the lead now given. I therefore hope that this new phase of British foreign policy will be supported with the same virility and unanimity outside the House as inside it.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the Bill have been complied with. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  CARMARTHEN GAS ORDER, 1946.
  Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Carmarthen Gas Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
  Urban District of Malvern;
  Urban District of Wantage;
  Rural District of Windsor:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table

  HOUSE OWNERSHIP.
  HOUSE OWNERSHIP.
  HIGHLAND AGRICULTURAL SHOW.
  HIGHLAND AGRICULTURAL SHOW.
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.
  RURAL WATER SUPPLIES.