Sitting of 24 October 1946

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]
Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Ex-Service Doctors (Employment)
    I. Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Health how many ex-Service doctors are registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I regret that I am unable to furnish the information asked for. Ex-Service doctors seeking medical appointments do not register with the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour, and I know of no other source from which the figures could be obtained.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that a great many ex-Service doctors are unemployed; and will he go into this matter and consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to getting a special grant to enable these men to undertake some work; and will he give the matter full consideration?
    Mr. Bevan: Special arrangements have been made already by me for appointments to hospitals, and special training facilities and grants are made. Where the reference is to general practitioners, I have not the figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for.

    Health Service (Doctors' Right to Sue)
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Health if he will give an assurance that he will take no action to deprive medical officers who have been employed under the new public health scheme whose names have been subsequently removed from the lists of those eligible for employment under the scheme of their right to sue for damages in a civil court.
    Mr. Bevan: I shall certainly take no action—nor should I have any power to take any action—to deprive any medical practitioner of any of his ordinary rights to sue in a civil court.
    Mr. Reid: Is it not a fact that the legislation passed in no way takes away the ordinary civil law right of the medical practitioner to go to court?
    Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is quite correct. It was explained in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the Common Law rights of the general practitioner are in no way affected by the legislation.

    Tuberculosis (B.C.G. Vaccine)
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Health to what extent supplies of B.C.G. vaccine for tuberculosis are now available in this country; and how they may be obtained.
    Mr. Bevan: B.C.G., which is used in various countries for the prevention, not the treatment, of tuberculosis, is not at present available here. Steps are being taken, however, with a view to securing its manufacture in this country.
    Dr. Segal: Is it not time the Minister appointed a commission of inquiry into the relative merits of this and other vaccines for the prevention of tuberculosis among contacts?
    Mr. Bevan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation in this field fortunately changes almost from week to week, and it is indeed doubtful whether a commission of inquiry would be in a sufficiently static position to make its recommendations of any value.

    Infantile Mortality
    I8. Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Health what were the infantile mortality rates for legitimate and illegitimate births, respectively, in England and Wales for the year 1939; and what were the corresponding figures for the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Bevan: The infant mortality rates, per 1,000 related live births for the year 1939, were 49 for legitimate and 90 for illegitimate births. The corresponding rates for the year 1945 were 44 and 65 respectively.
    Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that all local authorities are taking full advantage of the powers conferred upon them by Ministry of Health circular 2866?
    Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me at the moment, but I should hate to think that local authorities make uniform use of instructions sent to them. They probably vary in their use of them.

    Market Harborough Hospital
    Mr. Attewellasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Market Harborough and District Hospital and Nursing Association is faced with closing
    4
    the maternity unit owing to lack of trained midwives; that the maternity unit is the only source of such service in a wide area, with a department of 15 beds, with only a sister-midwife on the permanent staff, one midwife from a bureau and matron; and what steps he proposes to take to enable this service to continue.
    Mr. Bevan: My attention had not previously been drawn to this hospital's difficulties, of which my hon. Friend has been good enough to send me particulars. I am doing everything I can to help, but there is at present a serious shortage of midwives throughout the country.

  HOUSING

    Ex-Service Persons
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Health to what extent it is his policy to encourage local authorities to give special consideration to the claims of men and women who have been on war service and who are unable to obtain a separate home of their own and, in particular, to the claims of those who have been disabled.
    Mr. Bevan: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of Circulars 109/45 and 176/45 issued to local authorities regarding the management of their housing estates.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does the Minister subscribe to the preference which was given to the ex-Service category by the Coalition Government?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not subscribe to the point of view that an ex-Serviceman must be given complete priority because he is an ex-Serviceman; but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the circulars, he will find that local authorities are recommended and advised to regard the category of "ex-Service" as one entitling special consideration.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister consider suggesting to local authorities that they should give priority to ex-Servicemen who have tried all other avenues to obtain accommodation, and are left with only the possibility of going into a camp which the right hon. Gentleman has decided to hand over to the local authorities?
    Mr. Bevan: I cannot subscribe to the point of view that an ex-Serviceman's need for housing is greater than the need of other applicants for housing, merely because of the fact that he is an ex-Serviceman. The criterion must be the overriding need of the applicant, and not the category to which he belongs.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities have adopted a points scheme, under which they have provided extra points for ex-Servicemen and for disabled men; and is he aware that many of these schemes in neighbouring local authorities vary very considerably, thus resulting in a sense of injustice; and would he review the schemes of local authorities with a view, if possible, to securing some uniformity?
    Mr. Bevan: I must point out that local authorities are their own agents in this matter. It would be really intolerable if the central Government interfered.

    Repairs (Release of Materials)
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Minister of Health if he will make provision for stocks of building materials held by local authorities to be utilised not only for property owned by the municipality, but also for repairs to all dwellings where the health committee concerned is of the opinion that it is essential that repairs be carried out, and issue licences according.
    Mr. Bevan: Arrangements are already in force to facilitate the release of materials for repairs which are either required by statutory notices or are certified by the local authority as being eligible for priority. These facilities apply equally to privately-owned houses and to those owned by local authorities.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, in the event of a private house not occupied by the corporation being in an insanitary condition, the local authority will allow its own materials to be used by private builders for the repairs?
    Mr. Bevan: I am saying that if the local authority has issued a certificate for work to be done on a private house on the ground that the work is needed, it will, at the same time, give the same priority to that work as to its own schemes.

    Rent Control (Protection of Tenants)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the number of cases submitted by lessees to each Furnished Houses Rent Control Tribunal; the number of cases where notice to quit has subsequently been served upon the lessees; and the number of cases where lessees have been evicted in disregard of the three months security provision.
    Mr. Bevan: As the reply to the-first part of the Question contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the remaining parts of the Question, I have no detailed information but I have recently delegated to clerks of local authorities powers of requisitioning to prevent such evictions in future. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular I have issued on the subject.
    Mr. Sparks: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, in regard to powers of requisitioning, that such powers will be confined to the actual tenancy involved, and not the requisitioning of the whole of the house in which the tenancy is?
    Mr. Bevan: The purpose of the requisitioning is to protect the tenant who has appealed to the tribunal because of his fear of being evicted. That is the limited purpose of the requisitioning in this case, and it has no reference to general requisitioning powers.
    Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend direct or suggest to the tribunals that, at the time when they hear these applications, they should inquire whether notice to quit has been given and advise the landlords and the tenants of their rights under the Act, particularly in view of the cases in which tenants are being evicted although there is no right vested in the landlord for that purpose?
    Mr. Bevan: As hon. Members will recall, when the legislation was before the House I took the view that it was undesirable to put powers in the Bill to protect the tenant from eviction, because it might have the effect of reducing the amount of accommodation offered. The position now is that very general publicity has been given to the fact that requisitioning powers are available, and tenants are being progressively protected, but I am

    7
    quite certain that this Question and answer will give further publicity. The hon. Member must not ask me to direct the chairmen of tribunals in these matters.
    Following are the figures:

    THE NUMBER OF CASES SUBMITTED TO TRIBUNALS BY LESSEES UP TO 3OTH SEPTEMBER IS TABULATED BELOW.

    Tribunal for

    No. of Cases.

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Fulham; Hammersmith and Kensington

    174

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Clelsea; Holborn; and Westminster

    125

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Paddington and St. Marylebone

    310

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Hampstead and St. Pancras

    103

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Stoke Newington

    69

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Battersea and Wandsworth.

    27

    Boroughs of Mitcham and Wimbledon Metropolitan Boroughs of Bermondsey, Camberwell, Lambeth and Southwark

    38

    Metropolitan Boroughs of Deptford, Greenwich, Lewisham and Woolwich

    27

    County Borough of Croydon

    21

    Boroughs of Beckenham; Beddington and Wallington; and Bromley Urban Districts of Banstead, Carshalton, Coulsdon and Purley, Orpington and Penge.

    21

    Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.

    38

    Boroughs of Barnes; Epsom and Ewell; Malden and Coombe; Richmond; Surbiton, and Sutton and Cheam.

    38

    Urban Districts of Merton and Morden and Esher.

    38

    Boroughs of Brentford and Chiswick; Heston and Isleworth; and Twickenham.

    33

    Urban Districts of Feltham, Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames.

    33

    Boroughs of Acton; Ealing; and Southall.

    51

    Urban Districts of Hayes and Harlington; Ruislip - Northwood; Uxbridge; and Yiewsley and West Drayton.

    51

    Boroughs of Hendon; Wembley; and Willesden.

    17

    Urban District of Harrow.

    17

    Boroughs of Edmonton; Finchley; Hornsey; Southgate; Tottenham; and Wood Green

    16

    County Borough of Manchester Boroughs of Altrincham; and Sale Urban Districts of Bowdon; and Hale County Borough of Sheffield

    7

    Borough of Chesterfield

    7

    Urban District of Bolsover; Dronfield; and Staveley.

    7

    Rural Districts of Rotherham; and Wortley.

    7

    Tribunal for

    No. of Cases.

    County Borough of Leicester

    3

    Borough of Loughborough

    3

    Urban Districts of Hinckley, Melton Mowbray; and Oadby.

    3

    Rural Districts of Ashby-de-la-Zouch; Barrow-upon-Soar; Market Bosworth; and Melton and Belvoir.

    3

    City of Bristol

    24

    Urban Districts of Clevedon; Keynsham; Portishead; and Kingswood

    24

    Rural Districts of Long Ashton; Sodbury; and Warmley.

    24

    County Borough of Oxford

    1

    Boroughs of Abingdon, Brackley; and Woodstock.

    1

    Urban District of Bicester

    1

    Rural Districts of Abingdon; Banbury; Brackley; Witney; and Chipping Norton.

    1

    Boroughs of Aldershot; and Basingstoke.

    4

    Urban Districts of Alton; Farnborough; Farnham; Fleet; and Frimley and Camberley.

    4

    Rural Districts of Basingstoke; Kingsclere and Whitchurch; Alton; and Hartley Wintney.

    4

    Total

    1,149

    Monthly Return (Publication Date)
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health whether any earlier publication of the Monthly Housing Return can be expected.
    Mr. Bevan: Every effort is made to prepare and publish the Monthly Housing Return are quickly as possible, and in view of the work involved I doubt whether earlier publication is possible.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that, in the Debate on Scottish housing on 10th October, the Secretary of State for Scotland was able to use the figures up to 2nd October, whereas in the the Debate on English housing on 21st October, the House had to content itself with figures only up to 31st August?
    Mr. Bevan: It is possible for the Scottish Office, and indeed for the Ministry of Health, to give some of the figures earlier, but obviously it would be intolerable if we anticipated the returns before they were fully published. It really would be nonsense to publish them at all if the figures were anticipated. Every return would be an anti-climax if the figures were published before the returns were actually produced. What hon.

    9
    Members are asking for is that by Question and answer in the House we should issue the Monthly Return.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would it not have been as well if the right hon. Gentleman, or somebody else for the Government, had warned the House to discount the partial figures of the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Bevan: The figures, I understand, were not partial. They were accurate in respect of the actual categories to which they referred, but they were not complete. Hon. Members are continually asking me to put additional figures in the returns, and that must mean delay. I am hoping in a very short time to include in the Monthly Return all figures for the production of building materials. Obviously, it would be impossible to anticipate these every time in order to try to satisfy the yearning and malicious curiosity of hon. Members.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is it not a fact that the Opposition have continually asked for houses and not figures? They are getting the houses, so never mind the figures.
    Sir William Darling: Is it not the case that the figures for Scotland are more easy to accumulate because the number of houses built in Scotland is even fewer than the number in England?

    Displaced Shopkeepers
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, whereas under Part III of the Housing Act, 1936, local authorities have powers conferred upon them by Section 44 to make reasonable allowances to displaced shopkeepers, many local authorities are now developing housing schemes under Part V of the Housing Act, 1936, to which Section 44 does not apply; and, in view of the hardship created for the shopkeepers in these circumstances, if he will sanction reasonable payments in cases of this kind, subject to the submission of the facts in each case.
    Mr. Bevan: The powers conferred by Section 44 of the Housing Act, 1936, to which the hon. Member refers, were designed to meet cases of special hardship which might arise in clearance areas. Where, however, land, including the buildings on it, is purchased under Part V of that Act, compensation is payable to any person having an interest in it on the normal basis.
    Mr. Piratin: Is it not a fact that as a result of the housing schemes now going forward, shopkeepers and similar trades-people who might have benefited under Part III of the 1936 Act do not now benefit, and as most schemes which local authorities now put up are under Part V and not Part III, many of these people are suffering hardship? Will not the Minister reconsider his attitude?
    Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member is a little confused about the matter. If he will have a talk with me afterwards, I will see if we cannot arrive at mutual clarity.

    Service Camp Huts
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether he will make arrangements to give details of the housing accommodation position in camps in his monthly report.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) on 17th October, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Freeman: Will the Minister analyse those details in Appendix B, and show in which areas the available camps are situated?
    Mr. Bevan: If I extended Appendix B much further, not only would it be out of date, but it might never be published.
    Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister consider giving these figures in a separate document, because we shall certainly need to know them sooner or later?
    Mr. Bevan: There is no desire on my part to hide the figures, but I think hon. Members must have regard to the fact that at no time in the history of this country have more detailed figures about housing been given than at the present time, and we are really imposing a great burden upon those who have to collect these statistics all the while.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Health whether he will send to the hon. Member for Stafford a copy of the letter which notified his Department's offer of specific huts on Hixon airfield for emergency housing and requested the Council's decision.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir.

    Council Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have increased the rents of their municipal houses on account of the increased cost of repairs and maintenance; and the sums between which the increases range.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information asked for is not available.
    Mr. Gammans: Why does not the Minister seek an amendment to the law which will give the same protection to tenants of council houses against increases in rent as is given to other tenants?
    Mr. Bevan: The fact is that the rents of houses are fixed by local authorities with reference to the circumstances in their own areas, and there is this difference between the tenants of local authorities and the tenants of private owners, that the tenants of local authorities are also citizens and have control over the policy of local authorities.

    Fountain Court, Westminster
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health if he will publish the full correspondence between himself, the Westminster City Council and the War Office, concerning the derequisitioning of Fountain Court.
    Mr. Bevan: Fountain Court has not been released from requisition. It is held in my behalf by the Westminster City Council and is now in process of conversion into 92 flats. In these circumstances I do not consider it necessary to publish the correspondence.
    Mr. Gammans: Do I understand that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman at the London Trades Council on 19th September, that it was because of his personal intervention that the place was derequisitioned, was so much nonsense?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is, as usual, inaccurate. I made no such statement. What the hon. Member means is the statement I was alleged to have made. Whenever I have made a statement about Fountain Court in public, or to any deputation, I have always made it quite clear that Fountain Court was derequisitioned, or rather was handed over, to the Westminster City Council at the specific request of the chairman and the clerk of the Westminster City Council.
    Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that this statement attributed to the right hon. Gentleman appeared in "The Times," does he not think it would have been a good idea if he had formally denied it?
    Mr. Bevan: I have not a copy of "The Times" before me, but I doubt whether "The Times" did say that I made the statement. What it did say was that I was alleged to have made the statement.
    Mr. Turton: Is it not a fact that the Westminster City Council pressed for the derequisitioning of these premises as long ago as last April, and that nothing was done about it?
    Mr. Bevan: That is not correct, as far as I know. All I know is that within three weeks of being approached by the representative of the City Council, I had got the premises handed over.

    Empty Premises (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Health the number of unoccupied houses and business premises, respectively, on 30th September, 1946, in each of the Parliamentary Divisions of Liverpool; how many of them were damaged during the war years; how many are owned by the Liverpool Corporation; how many are owned by private interests; how many can be restored to their previous use; how many are considered dangerous; and what instructions have been given by him to the Liverpool Corporation to demolish the dangerous buildings.
    Mr. Bevan: The statistics required are not readily available and I cannot at present give the information for each Parliamentary Division separately or for business premises. I can, however, state that there are approximately 1,200 unoccupied houses in the city, the majority being privately owned and uninhabitable by reason of war damage. It is not possible without further inquiry to say how many could be restored to their previous use. None is considered dangerous but I understand that the corporation intend to deal with the problem of potentially dangerous structures in the City as expeditiously as possible under the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1921. I have authorised the corporation to demolish unoccupied houses which are the subject of demolition or clearance orders provided that this does not curtail new building work.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that this is more information than the council were prepared to give to their members in Liverpool, and that the information he has received is quite contrary to the present situation in that city? Will he continue his request to the corporation there to supply him fully with the facts for which I have asked?
    Mr. Bevan: I shall certainly try to obtain exact and up-to-date information on the situation.

    Aluminium Houses (Cost)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Health what is the estimated total cost of the erection of the new aluminium houses, including site and services; at what rent they are to be let; and, on the assumption of a life of 10 years, what will be the average capital loss to the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Bevan: The estimated cost to the Exchequer of providing and erecting the aluminium temporary bungalows is £1,365 per house. This figure covers site preparation—excluding the cost of land, roads and sewers which is met by the local authorities—supply of hulls, erection, and provision of components and fittings. These houses, when erected, are let and managed by the local authorities as if they had been provided under the normal machinery of the Housing Acts. Assuming a life of 10 years, the estimated average net cost to the Exchequer will be £1,160 per house, but from this figure will fall to be deducted any sum realised from the disposal of the structure, fittings and components.
    Mr. Scollan: Do these figures apply to the aluminium houses built in Scotland?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. They apply to all the aluminium houses.

    Fyfield Estates Company
    Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Health what grants were made to the Fyfield Estates Company, Limited, under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926.
    Mr. Bevan: The grants were £100 each in respect of four cottages, one in 1943 and three in 1945.

    Compulsory Purchase Orders
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health the number of applications for
    14
    confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Orders promoted by local authorities for housing purposes which have been rejected on planning grounds since August, 1945, to the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Bevan: The number rejected purely on planning grounds is six.

    Thermal Insulation
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Minister of Health what response he has received from local housing authorities to Circular 170/46 regarding new methods of construction to achieve improved thermal insulation.
    Mr. Bevan: Only 55 local authorities have so far sent in replies to Circular 170/46. It is too early, therefore, to make any general statement.
    Mr. Dumpleton: In view of the importance of the matter, will the Minister undertake every activity possible to impress this on local authorities?
    Mr. Bevan: The application of this system varies with different schemes. Many local authorities are showing an extremely active interest, and we hope that very many more will.

    CHILD CARE (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INSTITUTIONS)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the strictures passed in the Report of the Curtis Committee on the Care of Children on the treatment of children in many public assistance institutions; by what local or central authority these institutions are inspected; whether there has, in fact, been regular inspection; and whether the facts cited were known by his Department.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. These institutions are supervised by county and county borough councils and inspected by my inspectors. During the war the frequency of inspections had to be reduced and many of the defects found could not be easily remedied, but my Department and the authorities did their best under wartime conditions to maintain a proper standard.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels quite as strongly about this as anyone could, but does he

    15
    mean that the revolting conditions disclosed in this report could exist and go on existing without anyone in a position to alter them knowing about them; if so, can he give the House a definite assurance that any steps taken under this report will provide absolute safeguards against any child being subject to these conditions in future?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member and the House generally will probably have an opportunity of considering the whole matter and they will then be able to satisfy themselves whether our proposals are sufficient to prevent a recurrence of these unhappy incidents. But I would like to say that I hope hon. Members will not convey the impression, either by what they say or by what they publish, that this state of affairs is universal, otherwise we should lose very many of the devoted workers who are at the moment feeling that they have been tainted by the general atmosphere.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the last remark of the right hon. Gentleman, would it not be a good thing if he published the names of those institutions against which the worst of these strictures have been made and which have given rise to the greatest public indignation?
    Mr. Bevan: I would like notice of that question, but I must point out that there are some difficulties connected with it. If evidence given to a Crown inquiry is to be published in this way it might stop such evidence ever being collected in future.
    Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Is anything being done to put a stop to bad conditions, where it has been proved that they exist, pending the statement to be made in the House?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly; inspection is now proceeding more vigorously and efficiently than ever before and greater protection is given to these children.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that an hon. Member thinks it proper to mention one or two of the outrages does not imply for a moment—
    Mr. Bevan: I was not attempting in the very slightest to rebuke, but to protect the reputation of those who are devoted workers in this field.

    REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Health if he will consider the out-of-date forms now in use for certificates of birth, marriage and death, with a view to improving them and making them more consonant with the needs of today.
    Mr. Bevan: The existing form of certificate is the only form allowed by the Registration Acts, but if my hon. and learned Friend has any particular improvements to suggest I should be glad to hear from him.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister take steps to see that in future such certificates will not include any reference to the illegitimacy of the person concerned who is in no way to blame for the irregularities of his parents?
    Mr. Bevan: That is another question entirely, but I am having the whole position examined.
    Mr. Janner: Would the Minister also consider the question of issuing certificates without giving the parentage of any individual so that an adopted child shall not for the rest of its life be under the difficulty of having a birth certificate which it cannot produce?
    Mr. Bevan: I will bear the matter in mind, but I cannot be expected to give a spot decision.
    Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister eliminate the reference to the illegitimacy of the child and substitute the fact that the parents were illegitimate?

    DAY NURSERIES
    Mr. Wyattasked the Minister of Health how many children were attending day nurseries controlled by local authorities on 31st March, 1946; and how many of these were, respectively, the children of unmarried or separated mothers and of mothers living with their husbands.
    Mr. Bevan: Average attendances during March, 1946, totalled 44,169. The number of children on the registers on the last day of the month was 53,803. I regret that the information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available.

  EDUCATION

    Boarding Schools (Parents' Choice)
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Minister of Education whether, in relation to the memorandum forwarded to her recently by the hon. Member for Ashford regarding Cranbrook School, she will give the assurance of a definite date as from when she will operate a system providing that freedom to parents to select a school for their children which, as in the case of the school mentioned, is denied to parents in many counties.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): I cannot commit myself to a definite date by which the fullest use will be made by local education authorities generally of existing boarding facilities at Cranbrook or other schools, but when the Committee on Boarding Education is in full operation the present difficulties should be resolved.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Lady aware that her Ministry has laid it down that no non-Kent boy may be admitted to Cranbrook unless the parents can produce a voucher from their own local education authority agreeing to pay Kent the tuition fees charged under Section 106 of the Education Act; and that that spells ruination to what is primarily a boarding school?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am aware of all the difficulties and have referred the whole question to the new committee whose names I propose to announce very shortly.

    Visits to Places of Interest
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Education to what extent school parties are encouraged to visit places of historical and educational interest; and what financial assistance is granted for this purpose to meet travel and other expenses.
    Miss Wilkinson: Recommendations as to the value of such visits are made in the official Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers and the practice of arranging suitable visits is widespread. Reasonable expenditure, including the cost of transport, incurred by local education authorities on approved activities of this kind arranged as part of the ordinary school curriculum is recognised for grant from the Ministry at the standard rate.
    Commander Maitland: Does the right hon. Lady realise that these visits have to be reported to His Majesty's Inspector sometimes in triplicate and sometimes duplicate before the term begins, and that this practice makes it very difficult for head teachers to arrange these visits? Will she look into this question and see whether head teachers cannot have more freedom to run their own schools?
    Miss Wilkinson: I really do not think it is possible to give carte blanche to head teachers to arrange what school visits they like—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] With the very best will in the world, the work of the school has to go on, and on the whole we have not found that this system has worked badly. Of course, forms have to be filled in when grants have to be paid.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: May I plead with the right hon. Lady—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the right hon. Lady to reconsider this answer? I thought it had already been reconsidered. Would she have a second look at it? It is quite impossible to arrange, if the triplicate still obtains, these journeys and visits with the notice that very often has to be given. If a concert is suddenly coming to a place, it cannot be done.
    Miss Wilkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the position. It is possible to give in advance permission for, shall we say, a series of concerts or for certain programmes that may be put forward. I do not see any difficulty in filling in the form in triplicate. After all, there is such a thing as carbon paper.

    School, West Riding (Proposed Closure)
    Mr. Yorkasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire have decided to close Laverton Dallowgill School in spite of the opposition of every resident in this moorland district; whether she is aware of the additional hardships to the children this will cause; and if she will refuse her consent to the proposal.
    Miss Wilkinson: A proposal to close this school has been received from the West Riding Local Education Authority who have given the requisite statutory notice. Before such a closure can become effective

    19
    my approval will be necessary, but no decision can be reached before the period for the publication of the notice expires, on 28th December, 1946. I have received a petition from parents and residents of Dallowgill objecting to the proposed closure, and this will receive my careful consideration before a decision is reached.
    Mr. York: Would the right hon. Lady come and see for herself, before making a decision on this matter, how necessary it is that a school should remain in this moorland area?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am afraid that I really cannot promise to visit every school which it is wished to close.

    Surplus Goods Order, Taunton
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Education if she is aware that an order for surplus Government stores listed by her Department was placed by Taunton School through the local education authority on 14th March, 1946; that nothing more was heard of the matter until 3rd October, when her Department sent a request for further details of the goods ordered; and if she will give an explanation of this delay and an assurance that no further lists of disposal goods will be issued unless the supplies offered are available for early delivery.
    Miss Wilkinson: I regret the delay in this case for which, as my hon. Friend now knows, my Department was not responsible. The information required has been received and the order has been sponsored and passed to the Ministry of Supply. Lists of disposal goods are intended, when issued, to indicate the types of goods which are expected to be available for early delivery
    Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend introduce another improvement in these lists and print the prices and a full description of the articles, which will be a much more satisfactory way for the people who have to order the goods?
    Miss Wilkinson: We have gone into the whole of this question very fully, and the way in which it is done is receiving general approval.

    Bombed School, Liverpool
    Mr. Loganasked the Minister of Education is she is aware that St. Alban's School. Boundary Street, Liverpool, was
    20
    bombed five years ago; that young children are now scattered in various schools; that there is danger to child life in going to these schools; and what arrangement she is prepared to make, seeing that the Liverpool authorities have not erected a temporary structure in this area to supplant the old school.
    Miss Wilkinson: I understand that proposals for the provision of classrooms were submitted to the local education authority by the managers of St. Alban's school only last week.
    Mr. Logan: Am I to understand that the Minister is prepared to give accommodation in that area for the children after waiting six years?
    Miss Wilkinson: Until specific proposals are given to me, I am afraid I cannot commit myself in advance.

    Developments (Priority)
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Minister of Education whether she will state the order of priority in introducing the projected developments envisaged in the Education Act, 1944.
    Miss Wilkinson: So far as developments involve building, the tasks of immediate urgency over the whole field are the provision of accommodation for the raising of the compulsory school age, training for industry, training of teachers, school meals and schools to serve new housing. Outside this emergency programme, the most urgent task in the field of primary and secondary education, apart from the replacement of bomb-damaged or insanitary premises, is to proceed with the reorganisation of secondary schools, and in the field of further education the introduction of county colleges and the development of adult education.
    Commander Maitland: Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance to the House that rural areas will get the same priority and treatment as town areas?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am giving very careful attention to the whole problem of the rural areas, and we are glad to note the way in which the rural education authorities are coming forward in this matter.

    School Buildings (Public Meetings)
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Education what is the general

    21
    policy of her Department regarding the use of schools out of hours by political and other bodies in areas where facilities for meetings and other functions do not exist or are inadequate.
    Miss Wilkinson: My authority is not required for the use of schools for public meetings. Subject to the statutory provisions about the use of school rooms at Parliamentary and local government elections, the letting of schools for political and other meetings is a matter for the local education authorities and school managers or governors.
    Mr. Wallace: Would the right hon. Lady give some attention to this problem because the treatment by some local authorities is very patchy and some are not using their common sense?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am always willing to look into individual cases, but this is the job of the local education authority.

    Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Minister of Education how many schools in Cardiff are equipped with electric lighting; and how many schools are entirely dependent on gas lighting.
    Miss Wilkinson: I understand that in Cardiff all secondary school and 35 primary school buildings have electric lighting: 20 primary school buildings have gas lighting, the majority of these being voluntary schools.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that a considerable proportion of the maintained schools of that authority have this hopelessly antiquated gas lighting, and would she try to persuade the authority to get a better system?
    Miss Wilkinson: It is rather sweeping to say that gas lighting is necessarily antiquated. The regulations do not lay down any particular form of lighting, but only that it should be adequate.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I have taught in these schools under these conditions—
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Too much gas.
    Mr. Thomas: Yes, but gas of the right sort. Is the Minister also aware that children are suffering in those schools from very poor lighting?
    Miss Wilkinson: Yes, but the gas lighting fittings are old-fashioned. We do not prescribe that the lighting should be gas or electricity but that the lighting should be adequate.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Lady give priority to the replacing of the lighting in schools where oil lamps are used?
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education at what date it is proposed to equip the school at Swansea Street, Cardiff, with proper lavatory accommodation.
    Miss Wilkinson: As my hon. Friend was informed on 17th October, the local education authority propose to remedy the defects of the temporary school premises by restoring the damaged portion of the original school buildings in Moorland Road. In the meantime I understand that the children at Swansea Street Hall will continue to use the school lavatory accommodation which is close by.
    Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that these children, who are four years of age, have to be conducted across one of the city's main streets in order to get to the lavatory accommodation? Will she, in view of the danger to these small children, take urgent and immediate action?
    Miss Wilkinson: We have already restricted admission to children up to five years of age, and we have seen that teachers must be in attendance. I entirely agree that it is hopelessly unsatisfactory, and the authority are dealing with the situation, which everyone admits is unsatisfactory.
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Education the total number of schoolchildren in the city of Cardiff; the total number in secondary grammar schools in Cardiff; the total number of children in secondary modern schools in Cardiff; and the total number of children over the age of II years in all age range schools in Cardiff.
    Miss Wilkinson: In January, 1946, there were 31,662 children in grant-aided primary and secondary schools in Cardiff, excluding nursery and special schools. Of these 4,999 were in grammar schools; and 6,161 over the age of II years were in all-age schools. There were no secondary modern schools.

    Birmingham
    Major Cecil Pooleasked the Minister of Education when permission may be expected for the erection of a new junior department at Dorrington Road schools in the city of Birmingham, in view of the fact that until this building is available full-time education cannot be given to many scholars.
    Miss Wilkinson: I am about to invite the authority to publish the requisite statutory notices and to proceed with the preparation of final plans for a new junior department for 480 children at Dorrington Road Council School.

    Free Meals (Income Scales)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Education if she is aware that in some cases parents are not benefiting by 5s. a week per child under the National Insurance Act owing to this sum being taken into consideration when calculating as to whether a child should obtain free meals at school; and if she will reconsider this matter which is causing concern.
    Miss Wilkinson: Under Regulation 10 of the Provision of Milk and Meals Regulations 1945, local education authorities may remit the whole or part of their charge for school meals if they consider that the parent is unable to pay without financial hardship. As the family allowance is an integral part of the parental income authorities cannot disregard it under this Regulation when considering whether there would be such hardship. It is open to authorities to revise their income scales for free meals if they think that they are unsatisfactory and I shall consider any such proposals on their merits.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: When this was introduced, were we not made aware that the five shillings would be in addition to other services in kind?
    Miss Wilkinson: Yes, we are fully aware of that and, as soon as we can get sufficient canteens—which we are extending rapidly every week—to cover a large proportion of the children, then the meals will be made free, but the hon. Gentleman can see the obvious difficulties there would be of freeing them under present conditions.
    Mr. Lipson: Will not the right hon. Lady consider making the meals free now
    24
    for all children who are able to attend school?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry, but the position is not as simple as that. If we did that, those children who did not receive free meals would have to receive a cash payment. (HON. MEMBERS: "No.") I am sorry, but that is the legal position, and it would make for a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. We have gone into this matter with the greatest care, and we think that the best way of dealing with the situation is to increase the provision of canteens as rapidly as possible so as to give the school meals free generally.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Was it not in the nature of an assurance to the House, when the National Insurance Bill was introduced, that the family allowance sum should be five shillings and not eight shillings because the difference would be made up in school meals? Is not this in the nature of a breach of a bargain with the House?
    Miss Wilkinson: Yes, certainly, but that is as and when it is possible—and it is not possible at the present time—to provide sufficient meals to cover the whole of the school population. We are pressing on with the provision of school meals as a first priority, and as soon as we can accommodate a sufficient number of children, the meals will be free.
    Major Bramall: Has the right hon. Lady been advised of the considerable feeling among parents in many parts of the country about this? Also, can she give us any estimate as to when it will be possible to put the scheme fully into operation?
    Miss Wilkinson: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, whatever feeling exists, it is nothing to the feeling which would exist if children in certain schools got their meals free for no other reason than the fact that canteens had been provided, and other children did not get them. That would make a most complicated situation. I can only repeat that, while we see the difficulties, it is a question of getting a sufficient number of canteens for the schools.
    Mr. D. Marshall: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Voluntary Schools
    Mrs. Manningasked the Minister of Education whether she has information showing the progress of negotiations between the managers of voluntary schools and local education authorities under Part II of the Education Act; and whether it is yet known how many voluntary schools will become controlled, aided and special agreement schools, respectively.
    Miss Wilkinson: Consultations are proceeding between the managers of voluntary schools and the local education authorities as part of the preparation of the development plans, but the extent to which proposals affecting voluntary schools represent agreement with the managers will not be known until after the expiry in each case of the period allowed for the submission of objections under Section II of the Education Act, 1944. Under the proviso to Section 15 (2) of the Act the managers of voluntary schools are not called upon to exercise their option as to the future status of the school until after the development plan has been approved by the Minister.
    Mrs. Manning: In view of the fact that education in rural areas is entirely dependent upon the implementation of this most important Section of the Act, is the right hon. Lady taking care, with her advisers in the area, to see that these conferences and negotiations are going on all the time? Or is she just waiting for development plans?
    Miss Wilkinson: That is part of the work of His Majesty's inspectors, and it is going on all the time.

    Emergency Training
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education how many of the 25,000 men and women who have been accepted for Emergency Training Colleges, and for whom places are not at present available, are ex-Service personnel; how many are still in the Services; and how many have found temporary employment with local education authorities as clerks, teachers or youth leaders.
    Miss Wilkinson: Of the accepted candidates who have not yet been offered places in colleges, about 14,000 are ex-Service personnel and about 8,000 are still in the Services. I am unable to give precise information on the last part of the
    26
    Question, but I have asked local education authorities to give me early in November reports showing what they are doing for waiting candidates in their areas.
    Mr. Lindsay: Would the Minister say whether it is true, as reported last Sunday, that candidates are still coming in at the rate of 1,000 a week? Is there to be any termination of this, or can they all be placed?
    Miss Wilkinson: I think it would be true to say that 1,000 a week represents the peak figure; it is not now as many as that, but it is well on in the hundreds.

    Overseas Teaching Service
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education whether it is the intention of her Department to create an overseas teaching service, or comparable organisation, so that all teachers going to recognised institutions overseas can retain their pension rights and status within the profession.
    Miss Wilkinson: I am at present considering the recommendation of the McNair Committee that machinery should be established for the secondment of teachers for service overseas. I hope shortly to be able to make a further statement on this matter.

  POST OFFICE

    Tax Tables (Delivery)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new weekly tax table forms were delivered through the Post Office on behalf of the Treasury; and what was the approximate cost of distribution and delivery.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): I regret that I am unable to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member as postings of weekly tax table forms are not kept separate from other postings by the Inland Revenue Department.
    Sir W. Smithers: Are we to understand that this enormous piece of work was undertaken by the Post Office on behalf of the Treasury? Is there no debit or credit between the two Departments? Is this further evidence of the waste of public money, inevitable under State control, and no account whatever kept?
    Mr. Burke: The hon. Member must not understand anything of the kind. The accounts are paid, but the hon. Member is asking how many of a particular kind of postings and we do not know that, because we cannot separate it from the lot.

    Automatic Branch Exchange
    Mr. Digbyasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what progress has been made with the testing of the new and improved design of automatic branch exchange which his Department intends to provide in the future; and how soon he anticipates that this system will be available to business firms.
    Mr. Burke: The testing of prototypes of the smaller sizes of the new private automatic branch exchange is expected to be completed within a few weeks. If these tests prove satisfactory, arrangements will be made for the manufacture of bulk supplies. The equipment manufacturers, however, are already faced with a very heavy programme of work and it is accordingly impossible at present to say how soon the new system will be available to business firms.
    Mr. Digby: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that those exchanges are very urgently required by the business community, and that all steps should be taken to speed up the matter?
    Mr. Burke: Yes, we were giving consideration to this in 1939, but the war prevented it, unfortunately.

    Orkney and Shetland (Telephones)
    Sir Basil Neven-Spenceasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many townships and hamlets in Orkney and Shetland, respectively, have asked to be provided with telephone facilities, and what steps are being taken to meet their requirements.
    Mr. Burke: Since my answer to the hon. Member's Question on 11th July last, two more applications for public telephone facilities in Orkney have been received, making a total of four. In only one case, however, is the necessary contribution of £4 for five years forthcoming from the local council, and in that case the work is already in hand.
    As regards Shetland, the clerk to Zetland County Council, at the request of
    28
    the telephone manager, recently supplied for long-term planning purposes a list of 88 places where public telephone facilities are required and in respect of which the necessary contribution from the local councils would probably be forthcoming. This list includes 15 of the places mentioned in my previous answer. In all but a few cases the constructional work involved is likely to be substantial and a survey will therefore be carried out as quickly as possible in order that the work, which will take some considerable time to complete, can be properly planned.

    Parcels
    Mr. Spenceasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to expedite the delivery of parcels sent by post.
    Mr. Burke: My noble Friend is taking all possible steps, in co-operation with the railway companies, to restore the parcel post service to its prewar level of operation. Considerable progress has been made recently in accelerating parcel mails, and every effort is being made to overcome the serious difficulties, such as lack of adequate accommodation and handling facilities both in the postal and railway services, that remain as a legacy from the war period. If the hon. Member has in mind any particular instances of delay, I shall be glad to receive details, in order that I may investigate them.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that, on the average, parcels sent by post over the longer distances take from 24 to 48 hours longer than letters over the same route? Is he satisfied with that?
    Mr. Burke: No, I know that over the long distances there is considerable delay, but I would remind the hon. Member that we are working with accommodation that has been very badly damaged during the war. We are working with a staff which is not as experienced as the prewar staff and, whereas prewar from overseas alone we had only 1,750,000 parcels a year, we now deal with 20 millions.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable delay in parcels between London and Aberdeen?
    Mr. Burke: It was about Aberdeen that the hon. Member was asking.

    Telephone Service
    Mr. Spenceasked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it is quicker to telephone from London to Aberdeen, than to Welwyn.
    Mr. Burke: Under ordinary conditions, there should be little difference between the time taken to telephone from London to an Aberdeen subscriber and to a Welwyn subscriber, as direct connection is available to both places. Variations in the time of connection on individual calls will, however, inevitably occur, particularly in times of pressure.
    Mr. Spence: Is the Minister aware that I am frequently telephoning both to Aberdeen and Welwyn, and that the toll calls always take longer than the trunk calls? Is he satisfied with the toll service?
    Mr. Burke: We have already said that service is not as good as we would like it to be, owing to the lack of trained operators, but there is no technical reason why it should take longer to telephone to Welwyn than to Aberdeen.

    ARMED FORCES (DEMOCRATISATION)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it is not intended to proceed with the introduction of an extension of compulsory service until a comprehensive scheme has been prepared for the democratisation of the Armed Forces.
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. I am fully in sympathy with what I think my hon. Friend means by "democratisation of the Armed Forces." But, I could not be expected to give a specific assurance in respect of such a general phrase, which different people would interpret in different ways.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the men who have served during the recent war are seething with indignation at the conditions they have had to serve under? If they are to be compelled to serve in all parts of the world, will he immediately publicly repudiate the provocative war speech made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) yesterday?
    Mr. Alexander: I do not think the speech of yesterday arises out of this Question. I am sure my hon. Friend will take all necessary opportunities to answer it. I would say regarding the first part of the supplementary—
    Mr. Churchill: What about the Government?
    Mr. Alexander: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that we can give as good as we get.
    Mr. Churchill: The question is whether the Government can give as good as they know.
    Mr. Alexander: I do not think all the statesmanship lies in one party, and with what we know we shall do our best. Might I reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question? I am sure he must be aware that a good many reforms are already going on, and we shall continue to do our best in that direction.
    Mr. Driberg: Arising out of my right hon. Friend's original answer, in order to assist him to particularise his researches into democratisation, may I ask if he will bear in mind that both the Navy and the Army still maintain a colour bar, which is a serious affront to a good many of our fellow citizens? Could I have an answer?
    Mr. Alexander: I have taken a note of what my hon. Friend has said.

    1951 EXHIBITION (LABOUR AND MATERIAL)
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that considerable apprehension is felt that the amount of labour and material required to erect and equip the projected 1951 exhibition will seriously retard essential building and production; and if he will give an undertaking that the House will be given an opportunity to debate the matter before any final decision is made to hold an exhibition in 1951.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am aware of this problem, which is at present being given detailed consideration by the Departments concerned. As regards the second part of the Question, no doubt an opportunity of raising the matter will occur in the normal course of business.
    Mrs. Gould: When will a definite opportunity be given the House to discuss this matter before a final decision is taken?
    Mr. Morrison: I was not saying that the Government would give an opportunity; I was saying that no doubt an opportunity will arise. It is for hon. Members to watch for the opportunity.

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour what representations have been made by the trade unions for a new cost-of-living index calculation; how many wage and salary earners will be affected directly by any change; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Since the end of hostilities I have received such representations from one trade union, two local branches of trade unions and four local trades councils. About 2¾ million wage and salary earners are covered by collective agreements, which provide for the adjustment of wages in correspondence with movements in the present cost-of-living index, but the question whether their wages should be related in future to an index compiled on a revised basis, would be a matter for consideration by the industries concerned. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the fact that the present cost-of-living index is so far out of touch with realities owing to subsidies, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it wise that we should have a proper index?
    Mr. Isaacs: I was just wondering whether the cost-of-living index is as far out of touch with realities as the hon. Gentleman was when he made an attack on me last Monday.
    Mr. Scollan: Would the Minister tell us over what period these representations have been made, and whether he is aware that trade unions have been making representations for the past eight years against the present cost-of-living index?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but these representations have been made in the main to the Trades Union Congress. I was asked what representations had been made
    32
    to me, and that is the answer I have given.
    Mr. Churchill: Are we to have a serious answer to the question about the Government's attitude towards the revision of the data on which the cost-of-living index is based?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question, which I would be willing to answer, if it were put down.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the Minister's supplementary answer, might I ask him this: Was there anything which I said on Monday that was untrue?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes.
    Mr. Osborne rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we are getting a long way from the Question. What the hon. Member said on Monday has really nothing to do with the Question which is now before the House.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    TRADE UNIONS (CLOSED SHOP)
    The following Question stood on the Order Paper:
    50. MR. W. J. BROWN—Mr. Alexander: I do not think the speech of yesterday arises out of this Question. I am sure my hon. Friend will take all necessary opportunities to answer it. I would say regarding the first part of the supplementary—To ask the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement as to the Government's policy in relation to the issue of the closed shop, namely, the system or arrangement under which a workman's employment in a given plant, industry or occupation is made conditional upon his being, and remaining, a member of a trade union, or a particular trade union, or a trade union of a particular type, namely, affiliated to the T.U.C.
    Mr. Brown: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, in view of the fact that I have twice postponed Question 50 in order to get an oral reply, on both occasions it has not been reached—[Interruption.] I am addressing Mr. Speaker. I was asking whether I might have your indulgence, Sir, and the indulgence of the House to receive a reply on what is an important Question?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it is not open to the hon. Member to request that he should receive a reply. It is open to a Minister, if he thinks that a Question is of sufficient importance, to ask leave to answer it, although it has not been reached. The matter is entirely out of my hands.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the hon. Gentleman has already given notice that he wishes to raise this on the Adjournment, that is when I will answer it.
    Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order. Is there any reason, because someone has said that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, why, if the House gives the normal indulgence, this important Question No. 5o, which has been several times asked, should not be answered orally by the Minister, who has the answer in front of him?
    Mr. Brown: May I supplement that by reminding the Minister and the House that when I put the Question earlier I was asked by the Minister to define what I meant by the "closed shop"? I have taken the precaution to do that in the form of the Question today.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Further to the point of Order. Is it not usually the case that when an hon. Member has said he will raise a matter on the Adjournment, that closes the matter until it is so raised? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Quite frankly, this puzzles me at the moment. It has not been said today that the matter was to be raised on the Adjournment. Therefore, it must be a different Question from that on which the hon. Member has given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, but hon. Members cannot get up and demand that a Minister should answer a Question which has not been reached, if the Minister does not choose to answer, and I am not going to say that the Rule should be broken merely because there is a lot of shouting and noise. If the Minister does not choose to answer it is entirely within his own prerogative.
    Mr. Churchill: May I ask what is the special reason of fear which prevents the right hon. Gentleman from reading out the answer which he has?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on to the next business—
    Mr. Churchill: I never saw such an exhibition of cowardice. I would be ashamed to do it.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Mr. Speaker: I was in the process of saying we were getting on somewhat dangerous ground—
    Mr. Churchill: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker:—because what are really imputations and insinuations should not be made in supplementary questions.
    Mr. Brown: I give notice that I will put down this Question again and again and again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: Might I intrude upon these affairs so far as to ask the Leader of the House whether, by chance, he has any statement to make about Business?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 28th October.—Debate on Welsh affairs. In view of the publication of the White Paper and the special circumstances of the Debate on this occasion, the Government have tabled a Motion in general terms in order that the House may have an opportunity of discussing the system of Government in Wales and Mon-mouthshire.
Tuesday, 29th October.—There will be an opportunity for a Debate on the Press, which will conveniently arise on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South West St. Pancras (Mr. H. Davies), and others.
[That, having regard to the increasing public concern at the growth of monopolistic tendencies in the control of the Press and with the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, this House considers that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the finance, control, management and ownership of the Press.]
The Government, believing that this is a matter for the House, have decided to leave the question to a free vote, in the event of a Division being called.
Wednesday and Thursday, 30th and 31st October.—Debate on the central organisation for defence.

35
Friday, 1st November.—Committee and remaining stages of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Circuit Officers) Bill [Lords] and Public Notaries (War Service of Articled Clerks) Bill [Lords]; Consideration of Motions relating to Double Taxation Relief (Canada and Southern Rhodesia) and any other outstanding Business.
We hope that it will be agreeable to the House to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Roosevelt Memorial Bill as first Order on Thursday if, as is expected, the Bill is reported from the Joint Committee tomorrow.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that we propose to take the Motion relating to Parliamentary Elections as the second item of Business tomorrow.
Mr. Churchill: We cordially endorse the hope of the Leader of the House that the Committee and remaining stages of the Roosevelt Memorial Bill will be expeditiously passed. The only question I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman is in respect of the Debate on the central organisation of defence. That will, I presume, take place on a Government Motion, after a Government statement.
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. There is actually a Motion on the Order Paper this morning and it will be moved by the Government.
[That this House approves the proposals in Cmd. 6923 for the Central Organisation for Defence.]
Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a Debate on the Scottish report dealing with the care of homeless children?
Mr. H. Morrison: I should have thought that if and when that subject is debated—and I cannot yet make a promise—it would be better for the Debate to cover not only Scotland but England and Wales as well. I understand the Scottish report is very short.
Mr. Rankin: Will it be taken in conjunction with the Curtis Report?
Mr. H. Morrison: If there is a Debate; but I cannot enter into commitments at the moment.
Mr. Hollis: Will the House get an opportunity to consider the Motion standing in
36
the name of 95 hon. Members in various parts of the House, concerning the acquisition of land by Service Departments, and the possibility of a public inquiry?
[That, while appreciating the need for adequate training areas for the forces, this House, in view of the difficulties put in the way both of agricultural production and of rural rehousing by the acquisition of land by service departments and of the destruction of rural beauty, calls for a public inquiry into the whole policy of service acquisitions and demands that where-ever possible any acquisitions that may be made in the future be under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, which permits of a preliminary public inquiry.]
Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid I see no prospect of being able to give special facilities for that Motion.
Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech yesterday, reaffirmed the position taken by him in his speech at Fulton, U.S.A., will the Leader of the House give time for a discussion on the Motion concerning that speech which still stands on the Order Paper?
[That this House considers that proposals for a military alliance between the British Commonwealth and the U.S.A. for the purpose of combating the spread of Communism, such as were put forward in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, U.S.A., by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, are calculated to do injury to good relations between Great Britain, U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., and are inimical to the cause of world peace; and affirms its view that world peace and security can be maintained, not by sectional alliances, but by progressively strengthening the power and authority of U.N.O. to the point where it becomes capable of exercising, in respect to world law, order and justice, the functions of a world government.]
Mr. Churchill: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, might I ask him whether, if he should give facilities for such a discussion, he will, before it takes place, allow a copy of the speech to be circulated to hon. Members as a White Paper?
Mr. H. Morrison: I think the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton

37
(Mr. Warbey), and the later and consequential proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, are both somewhat novel. I do not know if my hon. Friend wishes to flatter the right hon. Gentleman rather heavily, but I really think it is getting beyond reason when it is suggested that if the right hon. Gentleman makes a speech, wherever he makes it, we are to have a Motion and a special Debate in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman made his speech yesterday, and various people commented upon it. I do not think it is right to suggest that, if any particular Member of the House makes a speech outside the House, we must be driven into a Debate. This is a free country and the right hon. Gentleman can make all the speeches he likes.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the House, say whether he is in a position to indicate the date the Government have in mind for Prorogation?
Mr. Morrison: Not yet. I will make a statement as soon as possible in regard to the likely date of Prorogation which, of course, depends on the progress of Business now outstanding in both Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Warbey: In regard to the point which I raised, I realise the difficulty of my right hon. Friend, and in order to help him, I suggest that the scope of the Debate on the Defence White Paper next week should be such as to include the discussion of the suggestion of a military alliance between this country and the United States?
Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. This White Paper relates to the organisation of defence in the United Kingdom. It has nothing to do with alliances with other countries. That is foreign policy. If that matter was to be raised, I should have thought it could have been raised yesterday or the day previously.
Mr. Warbey: May I suggest—
Mr. Speaker: In order to save time, I can point out to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be bound by the White Paper too, and therefore anything that goes outside the White Paper, as far as I am concerned, will be out of Order and cannot be raised
Mr. Warbey: With due respect, I suggest that it would be in Order to discuss such matters as joint staff consultation and proposals for the coordination of the training and equipment of our forces with those of another country.
Mr. Speaker: If that was in the White Paper, it would be in Order—but if it is not, it will not be in Order.
Mr. Scollan: On the same point may I ask if it will be in Order to deal with the question of the report on the dispersal of atomic bombs in this country?
Mr. Speaker: I must have notice of that question.

BRITISH ARMY (INFANTRY REORGANISATION)
The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement on infantry reorganisation. Owing to the changed commitments of the postwar Army, and in the light of war experience, it has been found necessary to modify the prewar infantry regimental system, commonly known as the Cardwell system, which has been found too rigid for modern conditions. In view of the great traditions and fighting records of the various infantry regiments, however, it has been decided that the regimental system shall remain as a feature of the postwar Army. To achieve greater flexibility in the flow of reinforcements in war and to overcome difficulty of posting in peace, it is proposed to group the regiments into 15 separate groups based on territorial or traditional affinity. For the purpose of enlistment, the group will now become the corps in place of the regiment and the Royal Warrant will be amended accordingly. However, wherever possible, soldiers will be posted to battalions of the regiments of their choice. The modern organisation of the postwar Army, involving the inclusion of armoured and airborne formations, will ultimately result in a reduction of the number of infantry battalions required.
It is not, however, proposed to disband any regular infantry battalions of the line. It is intended to introduce a scheme whereby a certain number of regular battalions will be placed in suspended

39
animation when a reduction becomes necessary. Suspended animation involves the relegation of a battalion to a reserve category, with no officers or men borne on its establishment. It is not proposed that battalions shall stay in suspended animation permanently but that they shall be changed over from time to time, the changes to coincide with reliefs of battalions in overseas stations.
Notwithstanding the introduction of the group system, it is not intended to abolish the old prewar regimental depots. These will be incorporated in primary training centres, which will be formed in the location of prewar infantry regimental depots. Recruits of all arms of the service will receive their first six weeks basic training in these primary training centres. The recruit, other than the regular enlistment, will, at this stage, belong to the General Service Corps, and the training carried out will be common to all arms. During this period the recruit will also pass through personnel selection tests to determine his general intelligence grading and, in the case of non-regular enlistments only, the arm of the service for which he is most suited. On completion of this six weeks primary training the recruit will then go to the corps training centre of the arm of the service for which he has been selected, and will there complete his recruit's training. It will be seen that, as the primary training centre handles all arms, it cannot in itself provide, as in the past, a regimental link with the county. For this reason, it is proposed to retain, at the primary training centre, a small infantry regimental depot.
Mr. Churchill: Are we right in understanding from the statement which the Secretary of State for War has made that, as regards the 15 groups into which enlistment for the infantry is divided, the recruits for any of them will be distributed, without the right to go into any particular regiment in that group?
Mr. Bellenger: In the case of the regular enlistments, they will be given every opportunity to be posted to the regiment of their own choice. In the case of those called up under the National Service Acts, we shall, of course, pay due regard to family traditions, and there are many dating back for many years, particularly amongst other ranks. We shall do what we can to put them in the regiment of
40
their choice. Of course, they will belong to the General Service Corps at first, and will then be distributed according to the requirements of the Army.
Mr. Churchill: A certain priority will be given to volunteers who wish to go to particular regiments? That emphasis will be retained?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Churchill: Even in the groups?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.
Sir Ralph Glyn: Will any difference be made in regard to such units as are not on a territorial basis, such as the Foot Guards and Rifle Regiments? Will their traditions be safeguarded under the scheme?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. Their traditions will be safeguarded. The Guards, perhaps, are in a rather different category, and it has not yet been decided whether certain battalions shall be disbanded altogether. Consultations are proceeding.
Mr. Scollan: Does this statement mean that the present practice of calling up skilled engineers and other skilled tradesmen of various kinds, and sending them to infantry regiments, denying them the right to go to regiments where they are likely to carry out a certain amount of work at their own trades, is to be stopped?
Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. We shall make every use of these men with particular skill by posting them to those corps where they are suitable, but, obviously, we have to fill the ranks of the infantry, and we cannot provide places for all these skilled men as we should have liked to do.
Mr. Churchill: Will these matters be included in the White Paper, and be open for discussion in the Debate next week?
Mr. Bellenger: I think the White Paper has already been published, and I do not think it makes any reference to these matters.
Mr. Churchill: Does it make no reference, for instance, to the cadre system of the Army? Surely, it is not possible to consider the organisation of the Army at home without reference to the abandonment of the cadre system, following the withdrawal of our troops from India?
Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to express any opinion whether that matter would be in Order in the Debate. That is, I should say, a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to give the matter much study, though I have discussed it this morning, but I rather gather that the question of this rearrangement of the Army would be out of Order in the two days' Debate next week That is my impression, and I want to suggest, if I may, that this is an important matter, and, naturally, I should have thought the Government would be giving time, in due course, for it to be discussed.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order. Would it not be for the general convenience of the House, since we are giving two full days' to the question of defence organisation, that the vital question connected with the abandonment of the cadre system, which would be natural on the withdrawal of our garrison from India, and also its effect on the Army system at home, and the period of service here, should be included in the scope of the discussion; and would it not be right for the Government to put down a Motion, which covered both these aspects?
Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to take part in this Debate further, but perhaps, I might suggest that as the Government have given two days to one subject, they might quite easily split it up and give one day to the reorganisation of the Army and the other day to the central organisation of defence.
Mr. Rankin: I would like clarification on one point. Do I understand from the statement that the Secretary of State for War has made, in so far as the allocation of prospective soldiers to various regiments is concerned, that there is to be a difference or discrimination between the voluntary recruit and the conscript?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I think we are bound to pay attention to the personal wishes of the soldier who wishes to volunteer, in so far as we are able to do So.
Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in the new system of grouping, he will give an assurance that all the Welsh regiments will be together in one group?
Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. We are endeavouring to group them on a territorial basis, among other things.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Secretary of State in a position to make some reference to the Territorial Army today? In particular, is it intended to maintain the prewar first line battalions and regiments of the Territorial Army on full establishment?
Mr. Bellenger: I would rather not make a statement today on that particular issue, although I rather think that the point made by the noble Lord has already been taken into account.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: How soon can we expect the details of these 15 groups, and information whether there will be any groups in Scotland, and, if so, how many? Further, may I ask whether, not only in Scotland but elsewhere, there will be such things as light infantry groups and those of a similar kind?
Mr. Churchill: And kilts?
Mr. Bellenger: I will consider the best way of giving publicity to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Mr. David Renton: In view of the reply given to the noble Lord about the Territorial Army, will the Minister give an undertaking that no Territorial unit will meanwhile be disbanded, and that nothing worse than suspended animation will take place?
Mr. Bellenger: The Territorial Army is being reconstituted from 1st January next. I would not like to make any extended statement today, but would prefer to confine my remarks to the Regular Army.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Minister say whether, and, if so, how, the scheme affects the position of officers? Will they be posted to regiments of infantry or to one of these groups?
Mr. Bellenger: The main point that I have endeavoured to bring out in my remarks was that, as far as possible, we shall post men to regiments within the groups, but, of course, circumstances may arise when it would not be possible to reinforce regiments from their own people, and, therefore, they would be

43
reinforced within the group. Officers would come in on the same basis as other ranks.
Brigadier Low: Will the Minister give the same assurance about the Rifle Brigade and the King's Royal Rifles as he gave about the Foot Guards; and will he bear in mind, when making his final decision about the Territorial Army, that it would be very desirable to group the Territorial Army in the same way as the Regulars?
Mr. Bellenger: I have noted the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Rifle Brigade and the King's Royal Rifle Corps will be grouped together.
Colonel Clarke: Will it be possible, under the new organisation, to retain the old infantry of the line numbers, which are far older than the Territorial designation?
Mr. Bellenger: I should prefer to have notice of that.
Major Bramall: In view of the great interest taken in the details of this matter in all parts of the House, may I take it that the Minister will be publishing a White Paper which will give these details?
Mr. Bellenger: My very full statement will, of course, appear in HANSARD, but if there is any additional information that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would like I will be only too happy to give it. We will publish the groups.
Mr. Walker-Smith: Will the Minister say what effect this scheme will have on the machinery of records offices? Will it be by regiments or by groups? Will he also give an assurance that Territorial regiments will have as much consideration as the territorial battalions of Regular regiments?
Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the last part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the first part, I am not in a position to give an answer today, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down, I will give him an answer later.
Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that, about two years ago, he was pressing the Government for a statement on the future of the Territorial Army?
Mr. Bellenger: That may very well be, but I was often pressing the Government of those days over other things, too.
Major Legge-Bourke: Can the Minister say if the total number of battalions, airborne and infantry, is to be less or more than the total of infantry battalions today; and if there are going to be fewer, will he consider putting into suspended animation, in the Airborne Division, those battalions which may be—[Interruption.]
Mr. Emrys Roberts: While noting that Welsh regiments will be grouped together, will the Minister give an assurance that all persons recruited from Wales will, in fact, be posted to regiments in the Welsh group?
Mr. Bellenger: I have already dealt with that particular aspect in my answer.
Mr. Roberts: Then we can take it that this will be so?
Colonel Ponsonby: As the Territorial Associations all over the country want to know how to make their plans, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate some date on which he will be able to make a definite statement about the Territorial Army?
Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give a date at the moment, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that consultations are now going on with the county associations.
Colonel Wheatley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the officers' and sergeants' messes will be able to store their property during the period of their suspended animation?
Mr. Bellenger: The property of the regiments will, of course, be stored at the depots.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES (IMPORTS)
The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a short statement about imports of fresh fruit and vegetables in 1947. The Ministry of Food will continue to be the sole importer of apples, oranges (other than the small tangerine types), lemons, grapefruit and bananas. As I have already told the House, I am expecting greatly increased quantities of all these commodities though not as many

45
as we should like to have. We shall still be short of prewar quantities, partly because the supplies are not there and partly because the ships are not yet available to bring them. Apart from these major imported fruits we shall be able to take practically all the other fruit which overseas countries can send us at reasonable prices. In agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, therefore, I am asking the Board of Trade to issue an open general licence coming into force on 1st November which will cover almost all fruits except those of which the Ministry will be the sole importer.
As regards vegetables, we intend to do our best to give the consumer a full supply at all times at reasonable prices without glutting the market to the detriment of the home producer. Most vegetables, like most fruits, will now be admitted from all countries under an open general licence, but at certain seasons of the year, in the case of some of them, such as lettuce and tomatoes, the open general licence will cease to operate and, in agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, we shall ask the Board of Trade to issue specific licences for limited quantities to make up what is needed in the markets here. In other words we shall try to anticipate gluts and shortages, where these commodities are concerned. The detailed arrangements which come into force on 1st November, are set out in a paper which will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the statement about classification of controls will be welcomed by market gardeners throughout the country; and can he give an assurance that, in addition to controlling gluts and shortages, he will take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the bottom of the price structure is not affected by those imports?
Mr. Strachey: That is the intention of limiting the open general licence to specific licences in particular cases, so that an undue reduction of price, sudden and temporary, shall not have adverse effects on the home producers, but we have also to think of the consumers.
Mr. James Hudson: In the general lists of fruits mentioned by the Minister, did he include grapes? If not, why not?
Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. Those are the list of fruits other than the big staple fruits, which the Ministry will continue to import. All the other fruits will come under an open general licence, including grapes. Considerable quantities of grapes have been coming in during recent weeks.
Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the open general licence will cover new potatoes next spring, because if so that will be something to which we can look forward?
Mr. Strachey: I should have to have notice of that question.
Captain Chetwynd: In making his distribution of imported fruits, will the Minister try to get higher allocations to those areas which cannot obtain a fair allocation of home-grown fruits?
Mr. Strachey: That is a very important point and one which is under consideration at the moment. I hope to make a statement at an early date.
Lord William Scott: Can the Minister say whether a greater quantity of bananas will be available under this scheme?
Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. We trust that next year we shall be able to get 210,000 tons. In 1945 we imported no bananas, but by the end of 1946 we shall have imported 100,000 tons.
Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to make a supply of bananas available to the "over 18's;" and does he realise the many uses to which this fruit can be put by housewives in making up children's, and even miners', sandwiches of crushed bananas, and so on, and how excellent it would be if we could have a supply of bananas made available to the adult population?
Mr. Strachey: We could, of course, distribute the 210,000 tons of bananas on the adult ration books, as well as on those of the "under 18's." It would mean a much smaller distribution per ration book, but now that we have come up to the figure of 210,000 tons it might be worth considering whether we should do that.
Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps will be taken by the Ministry of Food to see that the more exotic fruits, imported privately, are not sold at exorbitant prices outside the range of the normal household?
Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend's point is a difficult one to meet. In general, we feel that we must do one of two things. In the case of the big staple fruits, such as oranges, apples, bananas, grapefruits and even lemons, we shall continue to import them through the Ministry of Food, who will be responsible for their distribution at a controlled price. In the case of grapes, apricots, peaches and melons, the fruits that have been coming in under open general licence, we can, in some cases, have a measure of price control. On the whole, we think it better to bring in all we can of these fruits and to let a high price attract an increased supply.
Mrs. Castle: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that shipping space which could be used for the controlled price goods, such as bananas and oranges, will not be diverted to the uncontrolled price goods like grapes and peaches?
Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The fruits coming in under open general licence come almost entirely from Europe, and do not compete for refrigerated tonnage with the big staple fruits. But there may be particular cases such as my hon. Friend mentioned, and we are taking very careful steps to see that such fruits do not exclude bananas.
Mr. David Renton: In view of the importance of home producers being able to make their plans well in advance, can the right hon. Gentleman say what period ahead each of the detailed reports that are going to be issued will cover?
Mr. Strachey: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that detailed statements will be issued by the Government from time to time saying exactly for what period and for what commodities there will be a control in regard to imports. He has told the House that detailed statements will be published saying when those controls are to operate. Can he say what period ahead these reports will cover?
Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my statement. What I said was that detailed arrangements which will come into force on 1st November are set out in a Paper which will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is a statement covering the particular decontrol of certain items and the rearrange-
48
ment of control of others. We shall, of course, always announce in advance any further changes in our system of controls, but we have not in mind any periodic statement of that sort. However, I will bear carefully in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, and will give the longest possible notice.
Mr. Collins: How will those fruits which are the direct responsibility of the Ministry be distributed as from the importer to the consumer? Will care be taken to ensure that the fruit passes through the minimum number of hands; and can my right hon. Friend say if those fruits, when they reach the consumer, will be distributed on ration books?
Mr. Strachey: I do not know that I could launch on a comprehensive statement in answer to that important question. I would rather discuss it with the hon. Member, as I have already done. I am well aware of the importance of the consideration that he has in mind.
Mr. Spence: Could I ask the Minister for clarification on one point? Does this announcement mean that those fruits and vegetables which are not supplied through the Ministry, are now free from price control for importers?
Mr. Strachey: In general, yes. There are certain exceptions.
Mr. Murray: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there is enough shipping for the conveyance of fruit that is available at present?
Mr. Strachey: Up to now that has not been the case. Refrigerated tonnage particularly has been a serious limiting factor, but that is fairly rapidly improving, and it is the main fact which enables me to say that we shall be getting next year, for example, over one million tons of fruit altogether, as compared with about 650,000 tons this year, and under 400,000 tons last year. The main factor in that increase is not availability of supply, but availability of shipping.
Mr. Baldwin: Can the Minister say whether plums and damsons come under control, in view of the fact that in certain seasons there is a glut of those fruits?
Mr. Strachey: They will not be bought by the Ministry on the Ministry account.

49
They will be under open licence. I do not exclude the possibility of special licences at special times.
Mr. Rankin: Reverting to the banana position, could the Minister ensure, by certificate or otherwise, that banana spread will contain some trace of banana?
Mr. Strachey: I will look into that.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In the interests of vegetarians particularly, can my right hon. Friend state the position with regard to nuts?
Mr. Strachey: They are coming in under general licence.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the serious effect which this change may have upon home producers, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the new proposals have the full support of the Minister of Agriculture?
Mr. Strachey: Oh, yes. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has been most carefully discussed and agreed upon between our two Ministries.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that we have had nearly two hours of Questions today, and that we have another Debate coming on. I think we ought to get on to the next Business.
Following are the detailed arrangements:
The Ministry of Food announces that in agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries it proposes to ask the Board of Trade to grant an Open General Licence with effect as from 1st November, 1946, for the import of fresh fruit and vegetables (not including quick-frozen, dried, preserved and dehydrated fruit and vegetables, dates, herbs, nuts, seeds, grain and dried pulses). As far as possible the arrangements now to be made will continue during 1947, though traders must realise that some changes may be necessary.
The Open General Licence, which will take the place of the existing open general licence for these goods, will be subject to the following limitations:
(i) The following fruit and vegetables will not be permitted to be imported under the Open General Licence:
Apples, including cider apples.
Bananas.
Grapefruit.
Lemons.
Oranges, sweet (other than mandarins. tangerines and clementines).
Oranges bitter.
Beetroot.
Carrots (other than new carrots with foliage, packed in containers, not being bags or nets).
Onions, green
Parsnips.
Potatoes.
Swedes.
Turnips (other than new early turnips). Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cabbages and cauliflowers.
Leeks.
(ii) The following fruit and vegetables will be permitted to be imported under the Open General Licence only between the inclusive dates shown hereunder:
Beans, green—
1st January to 31st May.
1st November to 31st December.
Carrots (new, with foliage attached. packed in containers other than bags or nets)—
1st January to 30th April
Lettuce, endive, batavia and chicory—1st January to 15th May.
1st November to 31st December.
Onions (dry bulb)—
1st January to 15th August.
15th November to 31st December.
Peas, green—
1st January to 31st May.
1st November to 31st December.
Radishes—
1st January to 15th April.
Rhubarb—
1st January to 28th February.
1st December to 31st December.
Tomatoes—
1st May to 31st July.
Turnips (new early)—
1st January to 30th April.
1st November to 31st December.
(iii) Grapes will be permitted to be imported under the Open General Licence only from the Netherlands, France, French Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Greece and Italy.
In addition to the above the Ministry of Food proposes to arrange with the Board of Trade for licences to be issued to importers to import limited quantities of the following commodities during the periods stated:
Carrots (new, with foliage, packed in containers other than bags or nets)—1st May to 7th June. (Quantities equal to pre-war quantities in this period.)
Grapes (from countries other than those mentioned above)—The whole year.
Potatoes (Early)—rst January to 3oth April, Tomatoes—rst November to 30th April.
Under certain conditions the Ministry of Food in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture will arrange with the Board of Trade to issue licences to importers to import limited quantities of the following commodities:
Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflowers, cabbages, leeks—The whole year.
Lettuce, endive, batavia and chicory—16th May to 31st October.
Tomatoes—rst August to 3rst October

FORESTRY
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move,
That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government for Forestry as announced by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 30th November, 1945."
The House having travelled from the subject of the Army to that of bananas and nuts, it seems to me not out of place that I should now follow with a statement on the question of trees. On 30th November last year, I made a statement in this House on Government forest policy. After careful and detailed study, the Government were impressed with the necessity, as a safety measure, apart from all other considerations, to rebuild our reserves of standing timber as quickly as possible. The Government were also impressed with the possibilities that systematic forestry and afforestation held out for the better utilisation of large areas of poor land, and increased employment in healthy rural surroundings for quite a considerable body of people. We proposed, therefore, at that time to ask the Forestry Commission to prepare for what we regarded as large scale action My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer readily agreed to replenish the Forestry Fund by some £20 million during the five years 1946–50. The first instalment of that figure appears in the Estimates for the current financial year. This sum of –20 million is expected to provide for the afforestation and replanting of something like 365,000 acres by State action and by assistance to owners of private woodlands, for the acquisition of land, for increased facilities for education, training and research into all branches of forestry, for up-to-date houses for forestry workers, and for national forest parks; and in addition, of course, the maintenance and development of the large areas of young plantations already established by the Forestry Commission.
It may be asked why all this is necessary, but I think by this time every hon. Member must be acutely conscious of the difficulty of providing all the timber we require for houses and other reconstruction schemes. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that it took the war of 1914–18 and the more recent war to make us all appreciate the very high place that timber occupies among the raw materials of industry. Throughout our industrial
52
development the nation has consumed more and more timber; for instance, five times as much during the 10 years 1903–12 as during the years 1843–52. So that before the war of 1914–18 our annual import of timber alone was something like 10 million tons to 12 million tons. Those supplies clearly were obtained easily and cheaply from the vast coniferous forests in the Northern Hemisphere, but as a nation, unfortunately, we made little or no provision either to safeguard our needs in emergency or to provide for some proportion of the timber required for industrial development. We left that part of the business entirely to the initiative of private owners. Therefore, when the emergency arose in 1914 and more recently those cheap, easily obtained supplies were very quickly cut off, and during the first world war I think it is not an exaggeration to state that we felled our woodlands to a very serious extent in this country. Luckily the then Government saw the red light, and after the first great war they established a Forestry Commission, for they began to realise at long last the importance of home grown timber. But once again, very quickly they forgot the importance of timber when the financial stress came round about 1921, and so forestry gave way to Geddes, and the same sort of Geddes philosophy obtained in 1931.
I believe it is true to say that throughout the peace the Forestry Commission were never given a real opportunity to establish forests on the right scale in this country. In any case, whatever the various Governments may have done or thought about afforestation in this country, certainly the 20 years between the two wars were totally insufficient to make up for the fellings during the 1914–18 war. Therefore, when fellings commenced again in 1939, not only for mature timber and timber of middle age but for immature timber, which, unfortunately, continues at this moment—and here may I say that practically the whole of the hard woods required for our housing schemes, and 50 per cent. of mining timber, is still being drawn from our very severely denuded forests in this country—it simply meant reducing our homegrown supplies to what I should term a very dangerously low level. We are hopeful, of course, that we are in for a very long era of peace. However, I would like to ask hon. Members to contemplate for

53
a moment any possibility of a further outbreak of hostilities while our timber resources are so low as they are at this moment. I think it is fair to the land owners of 50, 60 and 70 years ago to pay them the compliment that it was due to their initiative and foresight that we have been able to tide over this immediate crisis. Ninety per cent. of the timber now drawn from home-grown sources is being drawn from private woodlands.
Major McCallum: In view of the most important statement the Minister has just made, would he disagree with the statement made by his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the Recess, that it was the fault of private owners that there was not sufficient timber in this country?
Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman would not expect me to follow every statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not having followed those statements, I prefer not to comment upon them. What I do know is, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great forest enthusiast, or he would not have so readily placed at our disposal some £20 million for the next five years. This clear felling which has gone on for over seven years can mean only one thing, namely, that large areas of this country, useful practically only for timber, are in urgent need of regeneration. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) I can only regard this as a very melancholy sort of picture to draw, especially when we remember, first, that timber is likely to remain an essential raw material for industry for a very long time, and secondly, that in those great forests whence we drew most of our soft wood supplies growth is not keeping pace with depletion. These facts seem to me to fully justify speedy and large scale planting operations in this country. Moreover, I think it once more requires full cooperation between the State and private owners in a continuous effort, if we are to restore some element of safety in this country.
We all recognise, of course, the immediate difficulties, but abnormal fellings in this country ought to cease at the earliest possible moment, and clear felled areas should be replanted as quickly as is humanly possible. Here the State must also play its part in extending its own
54
forest area. I think we must do more. From this moment, henceforth at all events we ought to ensure that the best possible use is made of existing plantations, and to see that all timber, drawn either from private or from State forests, is properly utilised. The dedication scheme, to which I shall refer later, was designed to help private owners and to help the State. I hope that scheme will ultimately be a success. Assuming we decide to act wisely, what results may we expect in terms of timber production in this country? Some hon. Members may question the wisdom of a large-scale forest policy. Whether looked at from the point of view of national safety or as an economic proposition, I think the expectations and hopes are very good in Great Britain. With our warm, humid climate the rate of growth, of coniferous timber in particular, is much more rapid than in any country in the northern latitudes whence we drew most of our soft woods. I am informed by the Chairman of the Forest Commission that 50 years' growth of Scots pine in this country produces an average yield per acre of some 2,750 cubic feet as against 1,950 cubic feet in either Prussia or Sweden, or 900 cubic feet in Southern Finland; whereas, Norway spruce produces 5,000 cubic feet per acre as compared with 2,250 in Prussia, or 950 in Finland. Sitka spruce and Douglas fir, which some people like and some do not, but which is rarely used abroad, produces not less than 7,650 and 6,800 cubic feet respectively per annum per acre.
Mr. Vane: Although yields in these islands may be very large, I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the figure. Surely these yields are for 50 years and not for one year.
Mr. Williams: What is the difference in an odd 49 years anyhow? The relative quantities are strictly correct. As a matter of fact, I did say 50 years.
Mr. Vane: The right hon. Gentleman said per acre per annum.
Mr. Williams: I said 50 years' growth per acre. I hope I have made it quite clear. The point is, I do not think we need be in doubt on the point of either quantity or quality when expending money on State afforestation. The Forestry Commission have had a great deal of experience during the past 26 years. They

55
have made many improvements in planting and management, and I am sure that the objective at which we are aiming can be achieved without loss to the State. The Forestry Commission recommended, I think in 1943, that we ought to aim at five million acres of effectively managed forest in 50 years, and an area capable of producing one-third of our current consumption, enabling us at all events to withstand any national emergency. I believe the Forestry Commission were right. Some farmers here and there have expressed apprehension and misgiving that perhaps too much agricultural land may be taken over for afforestation. I can assure them that every area to be purchased for afforestation will be very carefully examined before any final decision is taken. Should there be any disagreement between the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture, or the Forestry Commission in Scotland and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or myself for England and Wales, will take the final decision. I can assure farmers in all parts of the country that careful consideration will be given to each case where land is to be acquired for afforestation. Having said that, I ought also to say this. Apart altogether from potential agricultural land, there are scores of thousands of acres of land in this country simply crying aloud for afforestation at once, where nothing but trees could be produced in those areas.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson), with the former Secretary of State for Scotland, was responsible for the Forestry Act, 1945. Quite naturally the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport will be particularly anxious to know what is happening to his legislative child. Here, I think I ought to say that, while the former Secretary of State for Scotland has apparently departed from the political arena, he has not lost interest in afforestation. He has become a Forestry Commissioner, and he is helping to administer his own Act, which is almost unique. He is helping to administer his own Act as chairman of the Scottish National Committee, which I think is a fine display of the public spirit which has always characterised the former Secretary of State for Scotland. That Act places responsibility for afforestation upon the
56
Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I can say at once that the relationship between the Forestry Commission and the new Minister of Agriculture is extremely friendly, and that in all the various problems which have arisen between afforestation and agriculture so far there has been no serious difficulty; and I do not anticipate any in the future.
The Act also provides for the closest scrutiny by the agricultural departments of land to be acquired, and for the management by them of areas to remain under cultivation, either for the period of time before planting can take place in those areas, or indefinitely for parts of any block purchased for afforestation which will remain for agriculture for all time. Here, again, I can say that the arrangements that have been made between the Forestry Commission and the agricultural departments are running very smoothly indeed, and thousands of acres of agricultural land, hitherto under the control of the Forestry Commission, are being transferred to the agricultural departments. Secondly, I can say that a pilot survey is presently taking place in Wales to indicate which areas of land are more suited to afforestation and which ought to be left for agriculture, and I hope that that pilot survey may be followed in various parts of England and Scotland in the months that lie ahead.
The Commission have appointed national committees for England, Scotland, and Wales—three separate committees, which meet monthly. They have set up regional advisory committees corresponding to the II forestry conservancies, but unfortunately, in common with almost every other Government Department, they are encountering very great difficulty with staffing, both with senior forest officers and with employees in lower categories. The chairman combines the chairmanship with the post of director-general. A deputy director-general has been appointed, as well as directors for each country. But the Commission are greatly impeded in setting up what I can call a complete executive organisation, largely due to the absence of their prewar officers, who are either working for the Timber Supply Control in this country, or have been sent to Germany to try to extract as much timber out of Germany as is possible. It is very useful from the point of view of importing German timber, but it is very em-

57
barrassing to the Forestry Commission, who have had to loan their officers for such a long period of time.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport will remember it was intended and hoped that education would not be lost sight of. Education schemes for forest officers and foresters, and training schemes for men returning from the Forces, are already in operation, and 810 are at present in training. There is, unfortunately, a considerable waiting list merely for want of accommodation, and we need all the assistance we can obtain from the Ministry of Works and Buildings to enable us to train the right number to carry on this large scale undertaking. With regard to other forms of education we have running two schools of training for foresters, and we expect to open three more shortly. These schools provide a two-year course for 240 persons, with an outflow of something like 120 trained officers each year.
Research has not been forgotten. The Alice Holt Lodge has been set aside exclusively for research. A chief research officer has been appointed, and he will have under him, I hope, a silviculturist, ecologist, an entomologist, a pathologist, a mensuration officer, and a census officer, with the necessary assistants and staff; and that, I hope, will, in course of time, not only help us with forestry operations, but will help us to keep in touch with Empire and world science, so far as forestry is concerned.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I did not quite catch the beginning of that paragraph. Have they set up a forestry research station?
Mr. Williams: I said that Alice Holt Lodge had been set apart as a research station. It is a very suitable building, requiring the absolute minimum of conversion, and is just the most suitable place that could be made available to us; and since the Forestry Commission already own the building everything seems to be convenient for the use of this building.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Would the Minister make it clear whether, in speaking of training and research, he has been dealing with the United Kingdom, or with England and Wales only?
Mr. Williams: With the United Kingdom. But I can assure the hon. Member that whatever we are allowed to do for England and Wales, Scotland will insist on something better, if possible.
The planting programme has been speeded up so far as we can anticipate labour requirements and other problems we have to overcome. The target, therefore, for State planting for the season 1946–7 is something over 30,000 acres, compared with 8,500 acres for 1945–6. To achieve this target, however, we must have a greatly increased labour force. That, in turn, obviously involves a large number of new houses—something approaching 1,200 a year for quite a few years. By arrangement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and Buildings, his Department will undertake on a repayment basis the construction of all the cottages required by the Forestry Commission in England and Wales, while the Scottish Housing Association will perform a like service in Scotland. As with agriculture so with afforestation; no homes, no men; no men, no trees; no trees, no safety for this country. The Government recently approved a scheme for road development in the State forests.
Mr. Alpass: Did the Minister say 1,200 houses a year?
Mr. Williams: Twelve hundred houses a year, I hope, for quite a few years, if we are to carry out this task.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Have any been begun?
Mr. Williams: Oh, yes, a few have been begun. I could not say how many. They are not very large. But all the preliminary work has been undertaken, and it is only because we have found it extremely difficult to get tenders from private builders that we have had to resort to the Ministry of Works and Buildings to do the job for us in the end, and I am hopeful that they will do the job for us in a very effective way.
The Government recently approved a scheme for road development, first to provide work in some cases in development areas for those who are unemployed and for members of the Polish resettlement corps; and, secondly, to facilitate the extraction of thinnings from plantations, thereby providing timber for coal

59
mining in this country. As regards private afforestation, the Government recognise the importance of replanting and developing privately owned woodlands, and for this purpose have accepted the dedication scheme which was proposed by the Forestry Commission back in 1943. The essence of this scheme is to secure continuity of good management, and the owner, for this purpose, will enter into a covenant which will bind not only himself but also his successor. In other words, it is our intention that dedication shall run with the land as distinct from the individual.
Two alternative methods for assisting dedicated woodlands have been provided. In the first, a grant of 25 per cent. for the ascertained net loss until the woods become self supporting will be paid; secondly, grants for the planting and maintenance of productive woodlands were fixed in 1945–46 at £7 los. per acre, plus 2s. 6d. an acre for 15 years for maintenance. In view of the rising costs of wages and so on, the Government have seen fit to recognise that fact, and they, therefore, intend to fix the grants for the 1946–47 planting year and the four succeeding seasons at £10 per acre for planting and 3s. 4d. per acre for maintenance. In the case of woods not suitable for the dedication scheme, those smaller areas, these grants will be the same as for dedication, except that there will be no maintenance grant at all.
The various forestry bodies have accepted these figures, and I do not think there will be any disagreement about them. In view, however, of the delay in getting the dedication scheme well under way, we are considering at the moment a system of advances in anticipation of that scheme. On this point I should also like to announce that loans for forestry purposes will be made available by the Commissioners in proper cases. The loans will be on a long-term basis of up to 50 years, and repayment of capital and interest will be in equal instalments annually, the rate of interest being three per cent.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: What is that in terms of annual payment?
Mr. Williams: I cannot carry it beyond the fact that it will be in equal annual payments over whatever period the loan happens to be for. For instance, a
60
30-year loan would perhaps differ from a 50-year loan in its annual repayments. The only thing is that the instalments must be equal, and the rate of interest remain at three per cent.
Mr. Hudson: That is less favourable than the loans given for agriculture.
Mr. Williams: No, more favourable.
Mr. Hudson: At first sight it sounds less favourable, and I would like to know whether it is more or less.
Mr. Williams: It is not only not less favourable, it is more favourable at the moment. The problem of keeping private woodlands under good management has proved extremely difficult in every country where efforts have been made. I can only trust that this House will feel that this is an honest, generous British attempt, and I hope it will succeed. Pending legislation, the Commissioners are not able to complete the covenants on dedication, but woodland owners have been made fully aware since February of the proposals, and owners of 42I properties involving 244,000 acres have already signified their desire to dedicate. This is merely a beginning, and I hope that the 244,000 acres will prove to be merely a start and will eventually be multiplied many times over.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport when introducing the Act of 1945 said that it was purely a machinery measure. He did, therefore, more or less imply that some other legislation would be necessary to carry through the constructive policy. While the Secretary of State and I, under the Forestry Acts of 1919 to 1945, have apparently ample powers to do almost everything we desire to do, it is clear that for an owner to bind his successors legislation will be necessary. There are also one or two other quite different cases, of, say, tenants for life or trustees who themselves may wish to dedicate. This will involve legislation, but I hope and believe that a very small non-controversial Bill will put that right, and dedication can then start almost immediately.
Mr. Alpass: I would like to get this clear. Would not any covenants that are entered into by a landlord bind his successors, as is ordinarily the case? Is there a special exception with regard to forestry?
Mr. Williams: It is quite clear from the legal advice tendered that, unless legislation is passed, the owner cannot bind his successor, and as landowners have already accepted that interpretation they are quite willing that the Bill should go through as a non-controversial Measure.
I was about to say that I have already indicated that the balance between forestry and agriculture will be held, I believe, quite fairly by the Secretary of State and myself. There is perhaps one other question I ought to refer to before I sit down, namely the question of recreational facilities for the general public. I refer naturally to national forest parks. On this matter we are of course in close contact with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Our object in establishing national forest parks is to attempt to reconcile the proper use of land with recreation, and I believe that a useful start has been made. There are five such parks, in Argyll, Glen Trool, Hardknott, Snowdonia and the Forest of Dean, covering some 200,000 acres, already established. There has been some criticism here and there, perhaps, because of the absence of hard wood. It has also been suggested that these large unending conifer blocks are just one mass of monotony. It has also been suggested that the right kind of rest room is not available here and there, but my information is that, at least in the Forest of Dean, almost every suitable arrangement has been made for the convenience of those who find contentment in that national forest park. In the other four parks, based upon experience already gained, the Forestry Commission are taking all the necessary steps to respond to what appear to be the national wishes. For my part, I should hate to spoil what is, after all, a national playground for the sake of £50 or £60, and I am quite sure that I voice the feelings of the Forestry Commission when I say that they will not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. Where a national forest park is established they will provide such amenities as seem to be necessary for the people.
In this connection it may not be out of place if I mention that the British Commonwealth Conference on Forestry will be held in this country next year, and delegates from all parts of the Dominions and Colonies have already been invited to it. The fact that they will be here
62
indicates at all events that they will want to see what we have to show, and the better display we can give them either in our general forestry campaign or in our national forest parks the better they will be pleased. Clearly it is our duty to see that there is something useful to show them.
I hope at least that I have said enough to convince the House that to practise forestry in this country on a much larger scale than hitherto will be a sound paying proposition in more senses than one. It is first of all essential for national safety, it will provide an increased proportion of this industrial raw material, and we shall be making the best use of poor land in all parts of the country. It must also provide more healthy employment in rural surroundings, and cannot fail to add to the amenities of the countryside. So long as we act vigorously I hope that we shall secure willing agreement in the House that the forestry policy of the present Government is a policy which ought to be pursued, and which we will pursue if we have the confidence of this House.
Colonel Clarke: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about grants. In another place it was stated that they would be retrospective, but not for how long they would be retrospective. Would planting done last season, 1945–46, count for grant?
Mr. Williams: Whatever scheme was entered into in 1945–46 will receive the grant made available for that particular planting year. It has been varied for the year 1946–47.
4.49 P.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: This Motion today provides the opportunity for what I hope will prove to be a long series of Debates in this House on forestry, and will give successive Ministers of Agriculture an opportunity of giving an account of their stewardship. One of the main reasons, perhaps not the main reason, which actuated the late Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, and our colleagues in the Coalition Government, to bring in the Bill, in 1945, was the feeling that under the previous set-up the opportunities afforded for this House to discuss forestry were, having regard to its importance and increasing importance in the future, wholly inadequate. Hon. Members will probably know that the arrangement was that it fell to certain Members

63
of the House—members of the Forestry Commission—on very rare occasions to answer for what the Forestry Commission had done, or even more important, what the Forestry Commission had not done. We felt that this was an unsound state of affairs, and that it was very desirable to inaugurate a system which would allow an individual Minister—in this case the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries for England and Wales, and the Secretary of State for Scotland—to be directly responsible to this House for what was done.
We are grateful, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman for taking this opportunity, in this first Session of Parliament, to have a discussion on this subject. I realise that he did not want to weary the House unduly, but on the other hand, having regard to the importance of the occasion and the vast field to be discussed, I think that we might have had a rather longer speech from him. I hope, as I am sure he and every lover of forestry hopes, that this subject will be one of those on which there is no party conflict. The importance of forestry and timber to the security and future of this country, not only to our security as a nation in times of war, but to our prosperity industrially as a nation in times of peace, transcends all Party considerations. I think that we shall therefore have to request another day at a comparatively early date in the new Session. I should have liked—I do not want to criticise the right hon. Gentleman—a great deal more detailed information about many of the points upon which he has touched. I have no doubt that when the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to reply he will be in a position to give rather more information, and will be able to answer, in particular, the many points raised by Scottish Members.
The whole essence, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember, of our idea was that instead of, as had been the practice up till now, the Forestry Commission coming along and saying, "Here is an estate which we should like to buy," and then proceeding to dump timber there more or less without regard to the agricultural possibilities or the desires of the farmers, any future necessary extensions of forests should be based upon the principle that every piece of land ought to be devoted to the best purposes for which it was adapted. We
64
certainly anticipated that the first step would be the most detailed survey, and I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was merely a pilot survey in a county of Wales which was being made. I should like to know what is happening to that survey, because there is much more than one county concerned. We should like to know what plans the Forestry Commission have in mind for surveying, not merely one county in Wales, but the North of England, Northumberland and Cumberland, parts of the Midlands and other counties where there are undoubtedly great possibilities—East Anglia, for example. I hope we shall have an assurance that until surveys are made, the Forestry Commission will not proceed with the acquisition of land.
The right hon. Gentleman also stated that a certain number of acres had been transferred from the management of the Forestry Commission to the Agricultural Department. We should be very interested to know what is the form of organisation which is being set up in his Department to manage this land, and to carry on the cultivation of land in the ownership of the Forestry Commission which will not be required for planting for another 20 or 40 years. Perhaps he might consider issuing a White Paper on this point. I think that the House is entitled to get detailed information. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of training and education, and rightly said that one of the difficulties in getting to work as quickly as he and all all of us hoped was the question of staff. He said that 840 people were under training, and that every year a certain number of graduates were coming out of the schools. He referred to the further difficulty which had arisen, owing to the fact that many members of the Forestry Commission staff were no longer at the disposal of the Forestry Commission, but were engaged either on the Timber Control or in Germany.
So far as the Timber Control is concerned, it is clear, having regard to the unfortunate necessity that we are continuing to fell on a considerable scale, that responsible members of the Forestry Commission should be giving their technical assistance to the Timber Control to try to reduce the long-term damage which inevitably follows from felling semi-mature timber, or even immature timber. On the question of staff in Germany, I

65
should like the right hon. Gentleman to look personally into this matter. I doubt, from what I and hon. Members on this side hear, whether such a large staff is really essential in Germany today. After all, the Germans are, and have been for generations past, some of the best foresters in the world, and it really is not necessary for large numbers of our technical people to be engaged on supervising German forestry. All we should be required to do is to tell the Germans what we require in the way of timber—so many standards—and tell them that they have to produce it.
Mr. T. Williams: As simple as that?
Mr. Hudson: It ought to be. It ought not to be necessary to have 400 people in the British zone alone. My information from people who come back from the zone is that the staffing is already excessive. It is much more important to get our forestry going and our woods replanted. Do not forget that every year which passes after a wood has been clear-felled makes it more difficult to replant, and certainly more expensive, whether it is private woodland or State woodland. From a national point of view, there is a great advantage in getting felled areas planted as soon as we can.
Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to appreciate that unless we had sent technicians to Germany no start would have been made in extracting timber from German forests. Our technicians were the basis of the activities that were going on, and it is some consolation to me to know that we are getting more and more out of German forests and that we shall, I hope, get less out of British forests because our technicians are in Germany.
Mr. Hudson: I am not saying that in the early months after the defeat of Germany that was not necessary, but I am suggesting that the time has now come to look into this matter. Everybody who has any knowledge of human nature knows very well that if people have a show running abroad, and being built up, they can always provide magnificent statistical reasons to prove that their show is absolutely necessary and that, far from being reduced, ought to be still further increased. It is the job of the Minister, who is responsible to this
66
House for getting forestry in this country going again, to say, "No, you will be allowed x people, and you will have to make arrangements to see that the job is done." The right hon. Gentleman knows that civil servants do what they are told, and that it is merely a question of setting a target. I think it would be well worth while if the right hon. Gentleman went out to Germany himself, and looked into the matter personally.
Mr. Alpass: I thought the Opposition did not want Ministers to go out of the country.
Mr. Hudson: I did not suggest that. The Minister told us about the dedication scheme and I am most grateful to him, as, I am sure, private owners will be, for the information. Whether or not 3s. 4d. is the right figure for maintenance I do not know, as I have not sufficient technical knowledge, but it seems a little on the low side, having regard to the total costs involved. It is about one and a half hour's work for one man on one day in the year, per acre.
Lord William Scott: Three quarters of an hour.
Mr. Hudson: It does not seem that one will get very far when one looks at the matter in that way. I think the Forestry Commission's cost is more than l0s. an acre per annum.
Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman fixed 2s. 6d., and I fixed 3s. 4d.
Mr. Hudson: I do not think that is quite correct. The 2s. 6d. was fixed in 1943, when the Forestry Commission were dependent neither on the Minister nor myself. Anyhow in those days it was always said that if you wanted to sup with the Forestry Commission you had to take a very long spoon. I do not think that private owners necessarily thought in those days that they were getting a very square deal from the Forestry Commission. The right hon. Gentleman must not use that as a precedent.
Mr. Dye: It is an agreed figure.
Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is an agreed figure, but it is not the sort of figure that he and I would like to accept, and I think it will have to be justified.

67
The Minister went on to talk about education, but I am sorry to say that he said nothing about the universities. Are they to play any part in education and, if so, could we know which universities they are? I presume that Oxford is one. Could we know which universities are engaged, and the extent to which they are increasing their facilities? We all know the difficulties facing universities, but I think that we ought to be given the figures so that we can form a judgment as to whether the increase in facilities is adequate or not. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to research and said that the research body at Alice Holt Lodge were to have a physicist, a biologist, and a mycologist. I am sorry to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that when we were together at the Ministry one of our main jobs was to try and put agricultural research on a par with the status of research in medicine and industry. There are three great establishments for research—the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for industry, the Medical Research Council for medicine, and the Agricultural Research Council for agriculture. One of the difficulties, in the past, was that the Agricultural Research Council's status was not regarded as being on a par with the other two. They had trouble in attracting the necessary staff, and in persuading men going through the universities that if they went into agricultural research they would have just as good a job as if they went into medical research. One of the things which the right hon. Gentleman and I did was to place those three research bodies on a par.
From the point of view of research it would have been much better—and when I was Minister I hoped that this would be the result—to have got the Agricultural Research Council, with all their status and great command of resources, to have taken forestry research under their wing, as a separate branch if you like It should have been put under one great body. I knew there would be considerable objection on the part of the Forestry Commission, I knew they wanted to continue their own research, but when you have one small body of research, concentrated at Alice Holt Lodge, you cannot possible attract such good men as you would do if you made it part of a great body, such
68
as the Agricultural Research Council. I hope the Minister will be able to overcome the objections on the part of sundry individuals inside the Forestry Commission because I am sure that he will never get research carried on as it ought to be if it is left in these separate compartments.
To turn from the sublime to the ridiculous, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about rabbits—
Mr. T. Williams: I have never heard of them.
Mr. Hudson: The Forestry Commission said that rabbits were the chief enemy of forests, that they prevented the cheap planting and proper growth of forests, and expressed grave apprehension lest there should be a let-up in the campaign against rabbits. We should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do.
Now I come to housing, about which I was interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. He will remember that the Forestry Commission said that there was a shortage of 2,000 cottages, and estimated that large numbers would be required every year. The right hon. Gentleman put the figure at 1,200 and said that that number would be built by the Ministry of Works. When he made his announcement on 30th November last, he seemed to indicate that local authorities might be willing to meet the Forestry Commission's reasonable requirements. He said:
"Failing that, I must make it quite clear that the Forestry Commission cannot carry on its work without houses"—
this is very important—
"in the right spot to enable them to prevent fire and the depredations by jay walkers here and there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th Nov. 1945; Vol. 416, c. 1782.]
We may take it that that still represents the policy of the Government and, the local authorities not having come up to scratch, the right hon. Gentleman will, therefore, have to build the houses himself. I take it that that is true.
We should, therefore, like to know what the cost of the houses will be. We should like to know whether they are to be merely isolated cottages or whether they will be forest holdings. We are entitled to know. Will they be forest holdings like those which were being built and set up by the Forestry Commission before the war? We would also like to

69
know where they are to be. Are they to be, as was advocated by some hon. Members during a Debate the other day, in villages, or are they to be in isolated areas near the isolated forests? If they are to be in villages, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how he reconciles that position with having the houses, as he told us, in "the right spot," to prevent fire in those isolated plantations. I see that the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) is interested.
Mr. Alpass: I am very interested.
Mr. Hudson: Are the houses to be let upon an ordinary tenancy, subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts? If so, what rent will be charged for them? We should like to know. In their Report which was written during the war the Forestry Commission pointed out that the average cost of forest holdings was, I think, £494, and that by the time repairs had been taken into account, the net return to the State or to the Forestry Commission was 0.4 per cent. on the money. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to continue building these cottages, bringing in a return of 0.4 per cent. to the Treasury or to the Forestry Commission, or what rent is he going to charge? Perhaps when the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to reply he might give us an indication of the answer. I am glad to hear that special arrangements will be made for loans by the Forestry Commission to private landowners in connection with the dedication scheme. I do not know exactly about the rate of interest. We shall have to look into that matter, to see whether the rate of interest is a fair one. I am very glad to hear that the principle has been adopted
We should like answers to all those individual questions, and I am sorry that I have delayed the House for so long. Subject to those points, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having made a start, at all events, with this new scheme. I am glad to hear that his relations with the Forestry Commissioners continue to be friendly. I suppose one has to boast nowadays about one's relations with one's own civil servants being friendly. I used to think that civil servants were supposed to carry out the orders of their Ministers.
Mr. T. Williams: The Commissioners are the executive authority. They are not civil servants.
Mr. Hudson: They have to carry out the Minister's directions. That is laid down in the Act. There may be some slight obscurity. I am glad, at any rate, to hear that the right hon. Gentleman's relations with them continue to be friendly. I hope they will always continue to be friendly. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will stir them up to enable him to give us a more comprehensive report next time upon the detailed activities not only of his Department, but of his Executive.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Webb: It is some time since I was able to address this House, and I do so now in rather unusual circumstances. Therefore, I would like to ask hon. Members to accord me the indulgence which this House so often extends. I am very glad to have caught your eye, Sir, in this Debate because, for some time now, I have had an interest in the study of forestry. I regard it rather as a relaxation from the study of politicians and, I am bound to say, a more rewarding study. I am sorry that I cannot follow in the line of argument used by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), for the simple reason that I heard very little of what he said. The whole of his speech seemed to be a personal chat between himself and the Minister. I just do not know what went on, so I must proceed on my own lines.
In this matter of forestry, Britain has a lot of ground to make up. Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and France are well ahead of us in this respect, and particularly in regard to forestry research. Switzerland has a remarkable record in research. Forestry has been systematically carried on in Switzerland for at least 500 years, and actually at this time research is going on there into the third generation of hardwood trees grown from specified and known parentage. It is all observed and recorded in a manner which is far beyond anything which we have reached in this country. But Government policy on the whole now seems capable of carrying us forward and remedying the gross neglect of our woodlands for so many years.
We have a rather patchwork history in this matter. Originally, we were a forest nation. The Romans said that a British town was nothing but a sort of clearing

71
in a forest, fortified with dykes and ramparts. Centuries ago, Royal forests were carefully preserved and did produce really magnificent timber right up to the reign of Henry II, when the country was mantled very completely in forests. It used to be stated that if a squirrel wanted to emulate Dick Turpin and go from London to York—I do not know why it should want to do so—it could go there without ever touching the ground.
After that, deforestation started, and gross neglect began. Nothing was done in this country almost until 1919, when the Forestry Commission was set up. I have studied its work very closely, both in the academic sense and on the spot by inspecting its plantations. Despite many handicaps and difficulties, the Commission has done a really remarkable job. I would pay tribute to the staff of the Commission and I would like that staff to hear it stated in this House that their keen enthusiasm and highly skilled work have been noted and appreciated. I have seen, and have been most struck with, the almost passionate interest that the staff show in many aspects of their work. I should like these devoted public servants, working, as many of them do, in very obscure parts of the country, to know that their work is noted, approved and appreciated by this House. They might have done even better but for the senseless economy drive which took place in 1931. In spite of all, they have done very excellent work.
Nevertheless, Britain has not yet touched more than the fringe of this problem. Not only our definite economic interests, but strategic prudence also, require that we should have a vast extension of systematic, planned tree cultivation, not just cultivation indiscriminately left to Nature or the whim or caprice of any private selfish interest. Will the Government's programme have this result? On the whole, it is a sound programme, and I think it will do it. Some object that we are going to lose far too much agricultural land. We must remember that trees, after all, are just another crop—but an essential crop; a slow growing crop, not so immediately important as the crops which we harvest each year, but, still, a crop, and we must relate that particular necessity to our other necessities, and not stand in the way
72
of the use of any land that may be necessary for this purpose. The real point, as the Minister pointed out, is that there are vast areas in this country, highly suitable for growing trees of all kinds, which are now grossly neglected, and which ought to be developed and used. We hope that the Commission will get to work on that.
I am particularly concerned about research, and I was disappointed about the manner in which the Minister approached it. I think that he used the words, "It has not been forgotten." That is not quite good enough. I think that we ought to have a more positive approach to the question of research. I understand that expenditure on research is said to be unlimited. That is a rather vague position, because "unlimited" in the eyes of the Treasury often means "unspecified." I would rather our expenditure on research for afforestation was specified, so that we knew exactly where we were.
I would like to plead for much more attention to the growth of hard woods in this country. In my discussions with people engaged on this business of forestry, I detected a note of defeatism about hard woods. There is a preoccupation with conifer which rather frightens me. I hope that the Minister will be able to pursuade the Commission to pay more attention to hard woods. There should be more mixed plantations, and we should pay greater regard to the more careful siting of our plantations, and more attention to the amenity side, which is just as important as the economic side of this problem. It is not true that all trees are beautiful in all circumstances, any more than it is true that all women are beautiful in all circumstances. It depends where they are, where they are put, and on the type of woman or tree. In my experience of the part of the country which I know and love very well—the North of England—it seems to me that these counties have lost a great deal of their natural characteristics by indiscriminate, imprudent and improper planting of the wrong type of tree.
There is much more that I should like to say, but I do not wish to exceed the time which I have set myself. I am greatly concerned about the important question of fire prevention in our forests, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will refer to it when he winds up the Debate. My observation of fire

73
preventing measures in plantations is that they are very limited, very inadequate and hardly likely to cope with any serious fire that may break out at some future date. There is a great opportunity, at this moment, when there is a good deal of surplus fire equipment in this country left over from the war. I hope that the Commission will get hold of some of it, and that much more elaborate arrangements will be made for fire prevention. I hope that the Minister will press forward vigorously and boldly with this programme which he has put before the House, and which, I am sure, will add to the amenities and security of these islands.
5.24 p.m.
Major McCallum: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members in the House would like to join with me in expressing our congratulations to and sympathy with the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) on the very interesting and reasoned speech which he has made, as he said, under considerable physical difficulties. But for a sense of embarrassment, I should have asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not have been possible for the hon. Member to be allowed to make his speech seated, but I realised that it would have been perhaps too great a precedent if anything were done about it.
I agree with the hon. Member in a great deal of what he has said about the work of the Forestry Commission. I represent a constituency where, I think, the Forestry Commission began its work—in any case where it has had its largest operations—Argyllshire. I have been one of the Forestry Commission's most outspoken critics in regard to many of the operations which they have carried out. Many hon. Members in the last Parliament will remember that in the Debates on forestry, we raised the question of agricultural land being planted out by the Forestry Commission indiscriminately. I was taken to task on several occasions and told that this was not so, and that I was not quite on the right lines. I was very pleased to learn that our representations—my own and those of other hon. Members—have borne fruit. I was recently at St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, discussing this question of forestry and agricultural land, and I learned then, what the right hon. Gentleman told us today, that a new dispensation had come
74
about in the allocation, or rather the care, of land taken over by the Forestry Commission. I am very glad to know, and most of my constituents if not all, are very glad to know, that in the case of such lands in Scotland as are acquired now or in the future by the Forestry Commission, which contain good arable ground, and which they are not ready to plant out with trees for some years to come, the maintenance, care and farming development of that arable land will be in the hands of the Department of Agriculture and not in the hands of the Forestry Commission. That I think is a very great step forward, and one for which we have been pleading for years passed.
As there are many hon. Members who wish to speak in this Debate I intend to be as brief as possible. There are two points only which I want to raise with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that, on the whole, they appertain to the United Kingdom, but especially to Scotland. The first is: Can he, as the directing head of the Forestry Commission's operations for Scotland, direct them to make arrangements for better cooperation between their own State forests and private woodland owners, because in Scotland, in particular, the majority of the plantations exist on the land of small landowners? In these days of the scarcity of labour, and of the high cost of materials, it is not possible for every small owner of plantations or woodlands to be able to do what he ought to do for their proper maintenance. I refer to such things as the hire of tractors, mechanical transport, the marketing of the thinnings of plantations, and so on. The individual private owners, particularly the small ones, would not find it possible to make such financial outlays, and the woodlands would deteriorate. The woodlands of which I am speaking are, for the most part, of the size which it is proposed should come under the dedication scheme. If the owners do not make use of that scheme, the alternative afforded in the Explanatory Memorandum is for the woodlands to be acquired by the Forestry Commission. I cannot conceive that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, however extravagant he might be, would sanction these small woodlands, which are distributed all over the country, being taken over by the State, and developed and maintained by it. It would be economically impossible to do so.

75
I ask the Secretary of State to bear in mind that a great deal could be done by co-operation with the Forestry Commission. In the Highlands of Scotland, round the various lochs, there are estates which could be grouped together and could be put under the supervision of a forester from the Forestry Commission, who would be available to give forestry advice. I was told that before the war the Forestry Commission were prepared to undertake, on repayment, the maintenance, clearing and/or thinning of privately-owned woodlands. I am told that is not now the case, and that even if it was the case before the war, it would be impossible now, as the Forestry Commission are so short of labour that they can hardly look after their own plantations, and certainly could not provide labour for other estates. However, I hope it will not be long before labour is available, and then I suggest that there might be mobile squads under forestry officers. The private owners do not ask for charity, but in the way I have suggested, on repayment, the private owners could get together and develop the woodlands for the good of the country.
On the question of the shortage of labour, I have recently encountered two very outstanding examples of a lack of understanding in the matter of forestry education. Not long ago two young men returned from the Forces who had been employed in forestry before entering the Forces. One had served six years, and the other seven years, in the Forces, and although they had not got their final university degree, they had already attained certain qualifications. We know the difficulties of the universities today, but I feel that these two men, after their service in forestry before the war, might have been given a chance to continue their forestry studies at a university. One has there an instance of two almost efficient forestry officers who have been thrown out of the industry simply because of the lack of a little bit of understanding. It is essential that the question of the education of the senior staff should be very seriously looked into, since the shortage in the technical ranks is even greater than the shortage of actual labour.
A further point that I want to mention is the present prices for standing timber, particularly woodland thinnings of, as regards the Highlands, mostly coniferous
76
plantations. The controlled prices are very little more, in the case of thinnings, than they were in 1939, and yet we are paying as much as 200 per cent. more for foreign timber imported into this country for pit-wood. It is admitted that we do not want to do any more felling than is absolutely necessary at the present time, but when it comes to thinnings, it is, after all, a question of the maintenance of the plantations. I believe that the vast majority of owners would far rather have guaranteed prices for their timber products than the planting and maintenance grants. If we could have in the forestry industry a similar arrangement for adequate guaranteed prices to that in agriculture. I am certain a great many of the difficulties would be removed. Would it not be possible for the Forestry Commission to organise a marketing scheme for these thinnings? I conclude by emphasising to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the importance of there being cooperation between the Forestry Commission and the private owners, which I believe is a most important thing for the future wellbeing of forestry.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Richards: We have had an opportunity of hearing from the Minister exactly what is involved in the plan which was announced very briefly in November last, and I am sure we are all glad to feel that the Government are at last undertaking the development of forestry on something like an adequate scale. We know the tragic history of forestry in the years before the first world war, when there were numerous reports by successive committees and commissions, all of them advocating the setting up of some forestry authority and the planting of millions of acres with trees. All that was done during those years was that a few thousand pounds were spent each year in dealing with this very formidable problem. We owe the rise of the Forestry Commission to the Report of the Acland Committee, and if I understand the position rightly, the Ministry and the Government are still working on that basis. The Acland Committee recommended that, if we were to be tolerably secure in this country in the matter of the provision of timber, we would have to plant something like 4,750,000 acres with trees. I believe they extended the figure in some of their later researches, and pointed out that the demand for timber was growing at such

77
a rate that we could not be safe with less than 5 million acres. I presume that is the figure up to which the Government intend to work in the next few years.
That is a very formidable programme. As the Minister pointed out, it will involve considerable expenditure on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I notice that in the 20 years between the setting up of the Forestry Commission, in 1919, and 1939, a sum of approximately £12 million was spent. The return from forestry for that period was only a little over £2 million. Of course, we cannot expect ready returns in the case of forestry, but I believe that those are the figures given. It has been pointed out that our dependence upon foreign timber has been very considerable indeed. Before 1914, no less than 96 per cent. of all the timber which was used in this country was imported from abroad, and only 4 per cent. represented native growing. On an average the annual bill was something like £60 million. Merely from the point of view of cost to the Exchequer, it is a very considerable problem with which we are dealing.
Another interesting feature is that the great majority of the timber imported—I believe 94 per cent.—is what we call softwood, and only 6 per cent. consists of hardwood. The question is whether, through the Acland Committee and subsequent reports like that published by the Forestry Commission in 1943, adequate provision can be provided in this country for making it independent as far as the production of timber is concerned. I think that if we manage during the next 50 years to grow 5,000,000 acres with trees we shall have done something, but I wish us not to exaggerate the extent to which, even then, we shall be meeting our requirements. It has been calculated that if the 5,000,000 acres were sown with timber we should still be producing only about a third of our requirements; the other two-thirds would continue to be imported.
I agree with the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) was making for private woodland. A very striking fact is that before 1914 we had about 3,000,000 acres of woodlands in this country, 97 per cent. of them in private ownership, and it was these private woodland schemes—since we had no national scheme of forestry—that carried us through the first war or, at any rate, made a very consider-
78
able contribution in that direction. It was these woodlands, naturally, that we felled, and it is estimated that no less than 450,000 acres were felled in the course of the first war. I presume that the story will be repeated if we make a survey again this time, and that we shall find that probably something like a million acres of woodlands have been destroyed.
A tragic feature of the years between the wars is that those woodlands were replanted only to a very limited extent. Roughly 126,000 acres only out of the 450,000 destroyed were replanted, and the question that we must ask, in view of the experience of the two wars when we relied so extensively on private woodlands, is How is it that the Forestry Commissioners failed to induce these private owners to replant their land? It may be that the rate of grant was inadequate, but I am very glad to see that a suggestion is now made that one of two things will have to be done. Either these woodlands will have to be taken over by the Forestry Commissioners and replanted by them—which I think would probably be in keeping with the views of the present Government—or else, as we have said, they will have to be dedicated to forestry—that is to say, they will have to be replanted, presumably under the direction of the Forestry Commissioners who will see that the work is done properly, and the private owner will be reimbursed to the extent of 25 per cent. of what he spends. We shall have to wait and see, as an eminent politician once said; it is too early yet to decide whether that scheme will work, but on the whole I think it would probably be better for the Forestry Commission to have control of all the forests in this country.
The next question with which I should like to deal is that of securing the 5,000,000 acres which we require. I have said that there were 3,000,000 acres of woodlands in the country before the war of 1914–18, but it is estimated that about 1,000,000 acres have been so completely devastated that it is rather hopeless to think of reafforesting them. We are left, then, with only 2,000,000 acres of the 3,000,000 we had in 1914, and that means that we shall have to find another 3,000,000 acres somewhere else. We naturally turn our attention at once to what is described as rough pasturage or waste land, of which we have, I believe,

79
about 16 million acres in this country, although not all of it is capable of afforestation. Some of it is at too great an altitude and, as we know, there is a good deal of hill land in various parts of this country that is too peaty for trees to grow on. It is rather tragic, if we look at some of the plantations which the Forestry Commissioners, with all their expert knowledge, have tried to plant, to find that there are whole areas in which hardly a tree is growing. As I have said, that is because the land is too peaty or the altitude too great.
Although we speak of 16,000,000 rough acres in this country, only about 4,500,000 or even less are capable of being afforested. That gives us a good margin. Out of the 4,500,000 we could take the 3,000,000 we require in order to make up our complement of 5,000,000, but I should like to make another point in this connection. It is perfectly true that the Forestry Commission has been placed under the authority of the Department of Agriculture and, as my right hon. Friend said, the last word must lie with the Ministry of Agriculture. That is a considerable advance, because I am convinced, after the experience of the recent war in certain parts of the country, that we can really no longer speak of any part of our country of moderate altitude as being waste land. I have seen some admirable work done by the war agricultural committees which have converted what we call waste land into first class agricultural pasture. Since we are only at the beginning of these discoveries it is too early yet to classify this land as waste. I have seen cattle and sheep turned off waste land after recultivating and reseeding which were among the best I had ever seen in my life. If it can be done in certain parts of the country at altitudes of 800 to 1,000 feet, I do not see why it cannot be done pretty well all over the country. So we have to revise our estimates of the area of waste land which we think will only grow trees, and get science going to see if we cannot convert it into sound agricultural land.
Another point to which I should like to refer, covers the case of the small farmer whose land is going to be afforested. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) will be brought up against this difficult question very shortly. He represents a com-
80
munity in one part of a county of small farmers. The estate on which they were settled has recently come into the market and a great deal of it has been bought by the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission say that they want just the central part of th holding, the medium height. They say that they do not want either the higher altitudes or the lowlands. I would point out to the Minister that this will break up the economic unity of the farm, which will be no use at all without this central portion. The Ministry of Agriculture ought to take great care before they oust a whole community of People in order to secure this medium belt, because we cannot grow trees on the very tops, and the lowlands are not much use for that purpose. The livelihood of a whole community is being destroyed by tackling the problem in that way. I am hopeful however, as a result of what the Minister said just now. He said he will not allow any of this kind of land to be taken without the most careful survey on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, and if he adopts a modern scientific method, I think we should maintain many of these small holdings, because they would give a better return to the community than any scheme of afforestation that could be devised.
5.53 P.m.
Mr. Vane: I welcome the chance of speaking in this Debate because I am one of those—few in this country, I think—who have always been interested in forestry. I regret very much that we are few in numbers and that others, such as the National Farmers Union, the teaching profession, local authorities, are on the whole very indifferent to the problems of forestry. I hope that from now onwards we may have a broadening of the interest in, and also of the knowledge and experience of all problems that come with, the growing of trees. I welcome the spirit in which the Minister introduced his policy and the sense of proportion between the interests of private forestry and the Forestry Commission which he underlined. He gave due credit to the fact that before the war practically all the productive woods of this country—woods which had a crop ripe for felling—were in private ownership, and that private owners had done their duty towards providing what was necessary during the war years. He made no attempt, as is sometimes done from the

81
other side of the House, to over-estimate the part the Forestry Commission have played in comparison with that of private owners. He spoke, too, of the partnership there must be between these two interests. The scope of the Forestry Commissioners work is bound to increase as the years go by and at the end of the scheme which we are discussing the Forestry Commission may have 6o per cent. of the nation's forest land while private owners will have 40 per cent. There is every reason why we should try and work together in a cordial partnership and avoid some of the frictions and difficulties which have occurred in the past, resulting from the shortcomings of both sides.
I welcome, too, the dedication scheme, and now declare my interest, that I have made my small contribution towards the 250,000 acres which have been mentioned. I am glad that the Minister did not claim the principle as any new principle. It was born abroad in countries where forestry plays a bigger part than it does here, and was pressed forward in this country by the two voluntary societies, the Royal English Forestry Society and the Royal Scottish Forestry Society, and was more or less set out in the White Paper of the Coalition days. I hope very much that the scheme will have all the success it deserves. I do not see why it should not have the success it deserves if it is approached intelligently and sympathetically from both sides. I regret, however, that we have been given so few details since the warning order was put out by the Minister about a year ago. That delay is one of the factors, possibly, which have caused some owners to hold back from signing even the preliminary piece of paper which they are being asked to sign. It is a little regrettable that the final draft of the deed of covenant which owners are being asked to sign has not yet been published, though we were told a year ago something could be expected. Such worries affect the smaller owners in particular. The larger owners are not worried to the same degree; but in order to keep their enthusiasm warm, we should be told far more about the details and have this particular paper in our hands as soon as possible.
If this scheme is to work well it is necessary we should have the right personnel. It has already been mentioned that the Forestry Commission are short
82
of skilled trained forest officers and it has been said that too large a proportion of their strength is away in Germany. At the same time one cannot help noticing in camps in this country large numbers of highly trained German forest officers doing nothing. It is wrong that they should stay in this country wandering about the moors or behind barbed wire while our Forestry Commission's skilled men are away in Germany doing work that these prisoners should be doing under our orders. I hope we shall be able to improve on that situation at an early date.
At the same time, it is worth noticing that the technical assistance private owners can hope to get in pushing forward the scheme of dedication is very limited. This country is divided into conservancies, each of nine or ten counties, and in each one there is one forestry officer alone charged with the duties of liaison with the private owners and providing help for them. It is obvious that one poor man cannot hope to compete with all the problems in nine or ten counties. He might cover the ground for two counties, but there is no chance of his covering the ground properly if he is given an area beyond human capacity to cope with. That is another reason why we should try to bring the Forestry Commission's trained staff up to strength as soon as possible.
I should like to say a brief word about the N.C.O.s of the profession, that is to say, the training of the foresters which the Minister has mentioned. He said that something like 800 men were now undergoing training, some on private estates and some on Forestry Commission estates. He will agree that the Forestry Commission prefer, if possible, that the men should go to an estate where there is a variety of work, and that, in the majority of cases, means private estates. If he has not had a full response, I hope the Minister will again repeat the request that those properties which are in a position to offer these men training will go out of their way, if need be, to do so, because it is important that we should give them the best opportunity of learning their job as quickly as possible.
I do not know whether he can confirm or deny an unfortunate story I was told yesterday about the training hostel in the Thetford area where something like 50 trainees were collected early this year and where, for various reasons, approxi-

83
mately half of them have thrown in their hands. If it is true, it is very disappointing, because I believe the type of men which came forward to join in this scheme were amongst the very best. I am told these "groused" because they were given too monotonous manual work instead of the variety of jobs which one would think they would be given if the training was really sympathetic. In addition, the grouse was about the conditions there. I hope that that story can be denied, and that we may also be told that nothing similar has happened elsewhere. It would be a serious thing for the industry if a scheme like this broke down in its infancy.
Again, I hope something can be said about the examinations which these men are asked to undertake. A few weeks ago they were collected in various parts of England. Some were given adequate warning of what they were expected to do, some had to take the examination at short notice. I do not know whether it is really necessary for public money to be spent in making men who are working in the Midlands travel, for instance, to Carlisle to take an examination, the purpose of which they were not clear about. However, that did happen and the most astonishing paper was sent to me by the Forestry Commission yesterday. I hold in my hand this examination paper which these men were expected to answer. They were given only two hours, and both sides of this sheet are covered with closely written questions on arithmetic, English, general knowledge and a final intelligence test. It is a curious hotch-potch of general knowledge and forestry questions. For instance, they refer to Florence Nightingale and Rupert Brooke, also to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). The last question is one I think the House really should hear. It is called an intelligence test and starts:
"If you toss up a penny, it is just as likely to fall heads as tails—at least we can only suppose this is the case. Thus, the odds are one in two that the coin will fall heads. Based on that, suppose three pennies are tossed up, what are the odds that the result will be two heads and one tail?"
Then it goes through the same performance with four pennies, and finally five pennies are tossed up, and the question is asked:
"What are the odds that two heads and three tails will result?"
84
I think it would be difficult for the Minister to give us a snap answer to that question but we might ask him with the assistance of the Secretary of State to try to give us the answer at the end of this Debate. Seriously, I consider that an examination of this kind really serves very little useful purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Something a little more practical and sympathetic ought to be designed for these tests.
With regard to the economic aspect of the industry, I welcome the increased grants, but I have always been an opponent of the forestry grants except for meeting a temporary situation. Such a temporary situation is, for instance, where, at the end of the war years, because a man has been compelled to realise a large part of standing timber, his whole forestry plan has been disrupted and he has very little to put on to the market in the near future. In such cases, particularly where the smaller man is the owner, the grants are of great value, but in the case of the larger owners of estates, where there is still timber coming forward on to the market, the grants really do not play a very big part. The whole basis of success for this industry—and without some modest profitability we cannot hope that the work will be done—is that fair prices should be accorded to timber growers. At the present moment there appears to be a rather absurd situation, where the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for the growing of the crops, and the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for fixing the prices. It would be considered foolish, I am sure, if the Minister of Food were to settle all the prices of the crops which farmers grow, but that is parallel to the situation which rules in forestry today. Similarly, whereas we hear from the Minister of Agriculture that the reserve of timber is too low and that we should do all we can to build it up, at the same time, the issuing of felling licences, except in certain cases, is in the hands of the Board of Trade, and since that Department is very largely staffed by men who previously had connections with the timber trade, it is hardly likely that the two will fit very smoothly together. We are really facing a situation where one Government Department is trying to build up something while the Department next door is trying to pull it down. I hope, there-

85
fore, that we shall be able to improve on that organisation.
I think it is worth mentioning that application for review of the 1939 prices, which still run today, was put into the Board of Trade approximately six months ago.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Seven.
Mr. Vane: I am told seven. Whether it is six or seven, I submit that it is a poor reflection on the competence of that Department that they cannot make up their minds one way or the other. I hope that the Minister will do all he can to see that the Board of Trade reaches a fair and a speedy settlement of this issue, because if timber prices are to be treated in this curious way, I do not think he can expect people to come forward and plant with the enthusiasm for which we all hope.
As for this question of grants, I have made a rapid calculation about the value of the increases, and although I do not wish to appear in the least ungrateful, at the same time, this addition is worth something like one-third of a penny per cubic foot of the estimated annual yield from a normal forest. I do not wish to be technical, but that is about its value, so, if spread over the product one would expect from a normal forest, it does not amount to very much. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that because he has made increased grants which are important to certain people, he has provided a fair economic basis for the industry, because we are still very far from that.
One small point on firewood before leaving the economic aspect. Firewood is one of the few products in our woods at the moment which is of interest to almost every family in the land. I remember being told during the last Election campaign by a quarryman that the then ruling prices for firewood put it right out of reach of the working class family. Questions have been asked from this side of the House about what I consider the scandalous ramp in firewood, but the only thing that has happened is that the Ministry of Fuel and Power has controlled the price which the grower may receive. So far, so good, but if control is needed and is justified, surely, we should have it the whole way through? I am sure hon. Members can bear me out that at present firewood is being sold in the towns of this country at £7, £8, £10 and £12 per ton. The margin
86
is all going into some middleman's pocket who is quick to profit from this situation. As often as not, firewood is not even sold by weight, but in a little bag, and I am told that in the towns of Scotland it is being sold by the piece. Here again, I hope the Minister may be able to use his influence to see that this firewood trade does not continue in this fashion.
On the silvicultural side; up to date we have never given national regeneration sufficient weight—that is the regeneration of our felled areas from the seed which falls from the neighbouring trees. If we can do that—and it is the proper way to regenerate our woodlands—we must cope with the rabbit menace. A year ago I asked the Minister whether he would initiate some campaign for the country to try to reduce that pest, and I am sorry that he has not been able to tell us something about it today. It is beyond the powers of the ordinary owner to rid himself of rabbits because, even if he clears his own piece of ground, as likely as not he will be presented with a free breeding stock from his neighbour's land next year.
Lastly, with regard to the question of planting in industrial areas and on waste land. Admittedly it is the first duty of our Forestry Commission to build up our stock of softwood timber, and they have made a very good start there, but a national service, I submit, cannot pick and choose. I think the Forestry Commission must guard against becoming forestry snobs, taking no interest in small areas. There are all over the country in industrial areas and on the edges of some of the most drab villages—for example, South West Durham—areas of waste land which should be planted. Some experiments have been made, and I was very disappointed when I asked a Question not very long ago to learn that the Forestry Commission have washed their hands of this problem. It is quite beyond a local authority to undertake this work and I hope something can be done because, if we could get plantations, even if not first class ones, in these areas it would make a very great difference to the life there.
In conclusion, I would ask the Minister to take every advantage of the enthusiasm for forestry which now exists. I am not sure whether he knows that the Royal English Forestry Society has a record membership, and that its membership is increasing and that a refresher course was

87
held for landowners and agents last spring, and another is to be run next year and is already over-booked. I hope the Minister will do all he can to encourage the interest while it is so strong. If he ever has time, I hope he will think of a previous great servant of the State, John Evelyn, who, among his other duties, found time to write a very good book about forestry. Towards the end of the introduction, written when times were very much like today, when the country was trying to repair its damaged woods, he railed against the what he called "impolite waste." He then urged people to address themselves
"to their better natured countrymen that such woods as do yet remain might be carefully preserved, and such as are destroyed sedulously repaired. It is what all persons who are owners of land may contribute to with infinite delight as well as profit who are touched with the laudable ambition of imitating their illustrious ancestors and of worthily serving this generation."
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Alpass: As a one-time member of the Forestry Commission, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this very important question. I do not think that the work of the Forestry Commission is sufficiently known in the country, and for that reason it is most insufficiently appreciated. When I was a member of the Forestry Commission, we used to undertake periodical visits to various nurseries and plantations in order to watch the progress that was being made, and ourselves gain very valuable information. It was often an inspiring spectacle. I do not think that the importance of the work which was then being carried on, and which has been pursued since, I believe, with some amount of success, can be overestimated from the standpoint of national benefit. The planting of trees in this country, it is now generally recognised, is, from the national standpoint, one of the best investments that could be made. It results in the product of a material which is sorely needed, and adds considerably to our national wealth.
I take the opportunity of joining in the tribute which was paid by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) to the personnel of the Forestry Commission. They are most devoted servants. They are persons who have made a great study of this question, and perform their duties
88
with rare skill. If I may be allowed to single out one individual, I think the Forestry Commission, and this country, are particularly fortunate in their able chairman, a gentleman who is, beyond dispute, one of the greatest experts in forestry, not only in this country, but throughout the world. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), one of the most damaging blows ever struck at this industry was the so called "Economy axe" which was applied to the operations of the Commission in 1931. It resulted in the partial suspension of the activities of the Commission, and in a tremendous loss of very valuable plants—I believe the figure was hundreds of thousands, and I have heard millions mentioned. I sincerely hope that that most erroneous and false idea of economy will never again be applied to this, or any other, operation carried on for the State.
One difficulty which was experienced when I was a member of the Commission and with which, I hope, the Commissioners do not now meet so often, was that of getting landowners to agree to allow land devoted to sport to be used for planting trees. I remember an instance when we were on a visit of inspection, and were taken round by the assistant commissioner. We were shown a very large area of land growing nothing but bracken. He told us that the Forestry Commission was confined to a certain position, and I asked "What about this contiguous land? It is exactly of a similar nature." He said "We should be delighted to acquire it, and plant it, but we find that the owner is obstinate, and to get it we would have to get compulsory powers. That would take time before the acquisition was complete." I hope, now that everyone is enthusiastic about this question, that when they find recalcitrant landowners—and there are some—the Forestry Commission will not hesitate to apply for compulsory powers and use them so that land which is producing nothing at all shall be used for planting timber, and thus add to the country's material wealth.
I would like the Commission to go into another matter a little more deeply. Some of the ugly slag heaps in this country, which are eyesores to everyone, might be planted with timber. I believe that has been done in some places with considerable success. I am not an expert, and

89
do not know how far it might be extended, but I think it is a question which might be considered. If successful, it would add to the beauty of our countryside. Hon. Members opposite will not be surprised to learn that I am not at all enamoured with the part of the Report dealing with the grant to private landowners. I do not see the necessity of giving public money to landowners to carry out what I conceive to be one of the essential duties of ownership of land. We have county agricultural committees which go to the farmer and say "We want you to cultivate your land in the best interests of the nation, and if you fail to do so, we shall deprive you of the occupation of the land." If it is right and fair for the State to say to a farmer that he must cultivate his land properly, and produce as much food as possible, what is wrong with going to the landowners and saying "You hold this land in trust. It is not capable of producing food, but it will grow timber, and we are asking you, in the nation's interests, to put it to that good use"? If they refuse, I think we might apply a part of he Labour Party's election programme, and, if they fail to carry out that duty, take over the land for the State to plant and cultivate timber. I know it may be urged—I think I have heard the Minister say it—that it does not pay private landowners to plant timber.
Mr. Vane: It depends on the price.
Mr. Alpass: I remember discussing the matter as to whether timber growing paid with one of the finest estate agents in the South of England. Some hon. Members will probably agree with his view when I tell them he was born and bred in Scotland. He told me that he planted a certain part of the estate, a boggy and wet part, with timber, and kept a careful account of the financial result. As a result he was able to prove, when the timber was felled, that that development was the best paying part of the whole estate. If it does not pay, owners have the opportunity, under the provisions of this Report, of borrowing the money, and I suggest that the terms which the Minister has announced are exceedingly favourable, so that there can be no excuse for dereliction of duty on the part of landlords. I, like most hon. Members of this House, in going about the country have witnessed rather sad scenes of desolation. I have seen large areas of
90
land denuded of timber, and no sign of any attempt whatever on the part of the landowners to replant. I suggest that that is a condition of things which we cannot, in the interests of the nation, allow to continue.
Naturally, we on this side of the House, and I hope in other places also, are concerned about the treatment of forest workers. We want to see that their conditions are made sufficiently attractive. I do not know what proof there is for the allegations that have been made, but we want to make it impossible for anyone to make any reflections on the conditions of these workers. I remember that when I was a member of the Commission, when the wages of agricultural workers were increased, we found no difficulty in bringing the standard of those workers up to the same level as those of agricultural workers. Not only do we want wages to be equal; we want good conditions. I think everyone will agree that we want to make it possible for the men and their families to enjoy the modern amenities of life.
The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) referred to me in regard to this question of houses. We feel keenly about it. I suggest that we shall not get the men to live in houses which are isolated and far from any social life. The houses should be of a good standard and should be contiguous to other houses and not built in isolated, out of the way places. If we cannot get men to go to agricultural work in isolated spots—and it is becoming increasingly difficult—how are we to get men to undertake this perhaps not so attractive work of forestry under similar conditions? It might be possible to overcome some of the difficulties involved in firewatching and so forth. Someone has spoken about wanting men near the spot in order to guard the forests against fire. Methods of transport and rotas of duty could be arranged by which this duty could be undertaken without necessarily separating the men and their families from the rest of their companions, and depriving them of all social life.
I support the suggestions made about the importance of research, and also schemes of training. I do not think there will be any disagreement with my suggestion that the conditions of service in forestry should be made as attractive as the conditions of service in any other profession in the country. A great deal of study is required

91
in order to make people competent, and they should feel, when they start this career, that when they have passed the necessary examinations, there is open to them an honourable career comparable with that available in any other profession. I am certain that the Minister will not lose sight of the question of research. Research is extremely urgent and necessary. As several other speakers have said, we are now a long way behind some European countries in forestry. If more attention is paid to research we shall, perhaps, begin to make up some leeway. I am pleased to see the great interest which is being taken in this important national question of forestry. Now that the Forestry Commission feel that they have behind them not merely the Government of the day, but a united House of Commons, entrusting them to carry on this great and responsible work, I feel sure that they will do so with an added vigour and enthusiasm, to the benefit of the whole community.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: In the course of his interesting speech, the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) referred to this problem of prices and subsidies. In approaching this question of forestry today, in a welcome and admirable non-party spirit, I wonder whether we cannot agree, on all sides of the House, about some sort of principle in connection with prices and subsidies? I wonder whether the hon. Member would agree with this? I do not think that any landowner or farmer or anyone in the country particularly likes subsidies. I am a small owner-farmer myself, and I am now getting subsidies. I would infinitely prefer not to have the subsidies if I were assured of a fair and reasonable return for the produce I grow. We might all agree upon a statement of principle such as that forestry, like agriculture, must pay its way; that its legitimate costs should be met by adequate prices. Surely that is a fairly clear and simple principle. The State has accepted it in the case of agriculture, and is applying it every day in that industry. I suggest that the State must now, as an essential part of its new forestry policy, apply the same principle to the production of trees. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree with me that that would be a fair way of treating it.
92
The other question is, Are the prices now adequate? The hon. Member gave us a case where good profits were made from trees. I suppose it would be one of some years ago. I could give him a case, even now, where it pays—cricket bat willows offer a good return. But that is not true of all kinds of timber. Does not the hon. Member agree that at the present time the prices which, after all, were fixed in 1938 or 1939, are really not adequate? Does the hon. Member not agree that the price of imported timber is now about 100 per cent. above what it was before the war, whereas the price of home grown timber is only about 25 per cent. above prewar? On all sides I think there would be agreement that there is something wrong about that situation.
It would, I think, be the common view of all parties that the Minister, in his reply, should confirm the principle I have offered to the House, namely, that forestry must pay its way, that legitimate costs should be met by reasonable prices, and that the State should lay that down as a principle which will operate in respect of both State and private ownership of woodlands. It will have to apply to private owners, even if the hon. Member does not like it very much, for this reason: As the right hon. Gentleman told us, 90 per cent. of the wood-supplying forests today are in the hands of private owners. With the best Socialist will in the world, it would be impossible for the State or the Forestry Commission to take over that 90 per cent. within any period that any of us here can imagine. It is physically impossible to socialise the forests of this land, because there is no staff to carry that out. Therefore, whether or not one is a Socialist, the fact remains that the forests cannot be socialised except by a very slow process. Whether we like it or not, we are left with an enormous area which is owned and forested, and will be for many years to come, by private owners. That is an additional reason for treating this matter in a sensible non-party way.
Mr. Alpass: I take it the hon. Member does not suggest that the whole of our forests need treatment and that they are neglected?
Mr. Stewart: Oh, no. I do not say that. I now pass to another matter. I notice that each speaker has been offering

93
his credentials for speaking today. I have no technical credentials. All I have, if I may so describe it, is a long association with my colleagues on the Liberal benches in the support of this great industry. I was fortunate in having been one of Mr. Lloyd George's "young men" after the last war. I grew up to share his enthusiasm for this matter. I was sent by him to Germany to report upon afforestation there in 1924, and I took some part in the preparation of a series of reports on this subject as regards both England and Scotland. I have inherited a warm interest in and enthusiasm for forestry and I am therefore very glad that I have had an opportunity to speak in this Debate. I recall that when we were drafting our Scottish recommendations in 1927, we had to consider the views of the experts. The right hon. Gentleman has told us today that there is to be a Commonwealth Conference—I think he said very soon.
Mr. T. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Stewart: A similar Commonwealth Conference on forestry was held in 1926 and at that Conference the delegates took a very serious view of the prospects of timber supplies throughout the world. At that time Professor Fraser Story, of the Forestry Commission, submitted a paper, in the course of which he made this very upsetting declaration:
"A review of the forestry situation throughout the world"—
this is in 1926—
"leads to the conclusion that available supplies of the principal timber of commerce are rapidly approaching exhaustion. There is every likelihood that in less than 30 years"—
that is 10 years from today—
"a shortage of softwoods will be severely felt."
One could quote a great deal more to the same effect by other experts. I am sorry there is no representative of the Scottish Office here, but I take it, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply.
Mr. T. Williams: He will.
Mr. Stewart: When he replies, would he tell us whether that situation is any easier today? It was a very grave situation then. If I have any knowledge of the subject, I should say that as a result of yet another war the future is even more grave than it appeared 20 years ago. If
94
that be so, then almost no limit should be set to the extent of our new forestry operations. It would appear that, even though we have passed far from the time when the English oak was the basis of the British Navy, in these atomic days, timber is still necessary for national security.
Quite apart from that tremendously important consideration, I am convinced that a development of forestry can bring an enormous benefit to the social life of our people. In Scotland which, of course, I know best, and especially in the Western parts where I have studied the matter, it is an essential part of the economy. Undoubtedly, there is lassitude and neglect up there. I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us what he is doing on the application of this great matter to the social life of the community. Has he a plan in his mind? There is the link between forestry and rural industries, housing, fishing and agriculture. It is all part of the general life of the people in the Western part of Scotland, and also in other parts. It is not a thing in isolation. I assume that the Government must have thought of the general application of the matter. We are entitled to have a clear idea of the plan they have in mind. I see the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) is present and I am sure he will agree with me that something of that kind ought to be declared today.
Linked with that, is the rather difficult matter of the use of land for agriculture or forestry. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) raised the point. I understand that it applies in Wales now. It has always applied in the part of Scotland about which I pretend to know something. There has always been a conflict between the sheep interests and the forestry interests in the Highlands, and there always will be. That is why my friends and I, in 1927, came to the conclusion that the control of the use of land for forestry and farming should pass into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am glad that nearly 20 years afterwards that step has now been taken. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland will have a very difficult time in regard to this matter, and I would like him to declare the principles upon which he intends to

95
work. He will meet conflict after conflict. The quarrel is not yet settled in the North or West. I do not know how it is to be settled, but some clear principle ought to be made public so that we all know the position.
Most hon. Members today have spoken of the necessity for soft woods. The report of the Forestry Commission, and the Minister in his statements of today and of November, stressed this. They speak of vast areas of conifers; soft woods—that is the demand, that is the urgency. There was scarcely a word about the other side of this great problem. The forests of the world are not there merely to serve the material needs of man. They have a biological value which is of even greater importance to mankind. Forests, rain, rivers, the use of the soil—all these things are of lasting importance in the cycle of life. I am satisfied that if we concentrate upon having nothing but softwoods, nothing but great monotonous areas of conifers throughout our countryside, then we are heading for a biological disaster. The greatest experts whom one can consult upon this matter are quite clear that we ought to have mixed forests. I think more notice should be taken of their opinion. I do not want to bore the House with a long quotation but I could quote from a great authority who points to the experience of Germany, France, and other countries where it has been proved by bitter experience that mono-culture is bad for the soil, for forestry, and bad for the nation. Those countries, as a result of that experience, have gone in for a much wider form of mixed culture. In addition, one could mention the grounds of beauty and aesthetic considerations. I beg the Secretary of State for Scotland to make is clear that he does not intend to encourage mono—culture only in the great enterprise to which we have set our hands tonight.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. Again, one sees, running through the reports of the Forestry Commission and the Minister's statements today and earlier, a concentration upon great blocks of forest, and a lack of sufficient appreciation, I venture to think, of the importance of the small areas of forest. In America, they seem to understand this matter much better than we do. They go in there for what is called forest farming; that is to say,
96
for the cultivation of small copses of two, three, four or five acres in size. They regard them as of immense importance. Here, as the Minister said, at the end of two devastating wars, we are in an infinitely worse position than before, and it is a demoralising picture that confronts one in many felled areas. Every five-acre copse throughout the country is vital if we are to recover our proper place from the timber point of view. If not every other farm in the country, many thousands of farms now have their little acres of forest. There ought to be far greater attention paid to this matter and I ask the Secretary of State what is being done about it, because it has not been at all clear so far.
May I mention, in passing, in connection with this, that I am not myself satisfied that the timber trade, as such, is being taken into cooperation as much as it might be? Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that the whole of the timber grown and to be grown, or at any rate the great part of it, will have to be handled by present or future generations of the timber industry. The timber industry does not seem to be adequately represented in the councils of the Forestry Commission. Is there not here a case for reflection?
One last point. I wish the Secretary of State would tell us a good deal more about the staff side of this matter. If this great programme is to be completed, we clearly need more men. There are four universities supplying the skilled personnel, for the needs of the Forestry Commission, private owners, the Colonial Empire and the timber trade. The needs of the Colonial Empire, I gather, before the war, were somewhere between 12 and 19 first-class, trained university men per annum. As there is some leeway to be made up as the result of the war, their demands may be greater. My information is that the universities are simply unable to turn out the number of first-class men required. What is being done about it? Secondly, with regard to what I call the No. 2 men, the Minister has told us of new schools and of the long queue of men waiting to go in and for whom there are no places. Will these new schools be adequate, and when are they going to be provided? If they take as long to build as the houses, it will be a very long time before they begin to operate. This scheme

97
will collapse in the first five years unless we get the right trained staff. The Secretary of State must tell us what provision is being made; otherwise, lack of confidence will spread throughout the whole industry.
6.45 p.m.
Mrs. Leah Manning: I should like to say how much I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) in practically all he has said, but particularly in his view that the exploitation of our great natural resources in forest land has been a real social tragedy. It is not merely a question of the needs of industry and of building and of strategic requirements. There are other sides to this question of forestry, and some have been touched upon by the hon Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart). I want to take up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb). I thought he said that a woman was not necessarily "a thing of beauty and a joy for ever." I am inclined to agree with him. I should not agree however that all trees are not beautiful. I think a tree is, in all circumstances, in all places and at all times of the year a thing of beauty. I do not pursue the utilitarian aspect of the problem, which has been dealt with by every speaker so far today, but to approach it on the amenity side, which I think is of great importance to the future of our country.
There are two points which I would like to make, and I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us some information about them. The hon. Member for Westmorland said that this was a matter which should be of real importance to the teaching profession and local authorities, but he did not pursue that matter. I do not know what was in his mind, but what has been in my own mind for a long time, is that quite young children should be taught to appreciate trees. We find some local authorities interested in this matter, but not nearly enough, or as many as are to be found on the Continent. Some are studying the question of beautifying their main streets, and the approaches to their towns. I think this should be part of the Forestry Comission's work in advising local authorities. Children are often destructive, and one sees trees which were just beginning to become beautiful being stripped simply because children have not been taught
98
the great value of trees. It is a matter of early education, but it is also a matter of getting children to plant trees themselves. I should like to see introduced into this country a very interesting scheme, very common in America, under which children are given opportunities to plant trees for every celebration in connection with their school or their town. This teaches them the value of a tree; it teaches them that a tree takes a long time to grow, and that it is sheer vandalism to spoil a tree once it has begun to grow. This is a question for the teaching profession and the local authorities together, in trying to beautify our towns, and I am in absolute agreement with the hon. Member for Westmorland, if that is the suggestion to which he was referring.
Then, there is the whole question of the national forests which we are trying to develop, I want to stress what other hon. Members have said in another connection, and that is that we should make these forests really big forests and not concentrate on conifers. These are all very well for East Anglia. [Laughter.] What I really mean is that we can plant a completely utilitarian nursery in the soft ground of East Anglia when we want trees to grow up quickly. But, if we are growing national forests as an amenity, I think we must try to do something different from that. All those who have had experience of the dark Wagnerian gloom and melancholy of the forests of Germany, compared with the beauty and light, the play of sunlight and shadow, in our own beautiful forests, like Epping Forest and the New Forest, will admit that, if we are going to create great forests from an amenity point of view, we have to let the trees grow up themselves, so to speak, as they did in the old days. Thus we can create new forests for amenity purposes, in the same way as these great Royal forests which are one of the greatest heritages of our country were created in the past.
Although I know that my time is limited, I should like to raise two other small points. Although I do not wish to disagree too much with my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), I do think that we must have a sense of perspective and balance in this matter. We want to build houses for our forest workers as near to villages as possible but it is necessary that they should be housed fairly

99
close to their work. After all, forests have to be isolated and, if a forester is to prevent fires from breaking out, he cannot live right away from his work in a village, from which he would have to cycle up to the forest if a fire occurred. If that happened, a tremendous amount of damage would be done, before he got there. Therefore, I beg my hon. Friend not to press that point too much.
Mr. Alpass: I am sure my hon. Friend would not suggest that the men must be on the spot day and night to see that fires do not break out.
Mrs. Manning: Fires have a habit of breaking out in most forests.
Mr. Alpass: I suggested that there should be a rota.
Mrs. Manning: As I have said, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the point too much because this is a case in which, if a man desires to be a forester, he must be very interested in forests and trees. A good many of us would like to live in a forest, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to see that, it houses for forest workers are built in forest cuttings, the people concerned will be given every kind of amenity that it is possible to give them. They may be a long way from the village and, at first, it may not be possible to bring electricity to them. But every possible amenity should be made available to them and arrangements should be made for getting the children to school without having to travel over wet, muddy land. The lack of such amenities will keep men away from this kind of work.
In referring to forestry workers, I have used the word "men," and every other hon. Member has used the word in connection with this matter. Are we to have no women for forestry work? During the war they did it, and liked it. They did exceptionally good work. When the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like him to say whether there is any scheme for continuing to employ women workers in forestry, and whether we are going to give them not only secondary education for a secondary type of work, but encourage them to take higher education at the university with regard to forestry. I do not want to see women left out of this work. I think it important that they
100
should be included. I very much hope that our local authorities will be interested in this question. We are building a lot of new towns which will require shelter on some sides, and will need to be beautified by trees, and I hope that the Forestry Commission will work in the closest possible touch with our local authorities on the question of beautifying and refurbishing the old towns, and will keep an eye, not only on the utilitarian side of forestry. but also on its amenity value.
6.54 p.m.
Lord William Scott: As a Scottish Member, I want to address myself to this particular subject from the Scottish point of view, although I am not altogether unfamiliar with the impoverishment of woodlands in England, especially in the Midlands. I think we are agreed that the object of this Debate is to discover whether the policy placed before us in 1943, and again last November, is one which is likely to secure the two main objects we have in view. The first is an efficient reafforestation in Britain and the second the fair treatment of those engaged in forestry, whether they are owners or employed in the forestry service. We can safely claim that Scotland has done very well by the State in the last six years. We know that, at the present moment, nearly every suitable and available wood in Scotland, whether mature or immature, has been cut, and we know that the State has done pretty well out of the bargain made in 1939 with private woodland owners. The price arranged at that period seemed to be a fair one from everybody's point of view, but we must agree that though it was a reasonable price in 1939, it appeared to be less reasonable after the years 1943, 1944 and 1945 when the pound had ceased to possess the value that it possessed in 1938 and 1939.
The owners of these woodlands, both the mature and the immature, parted with their assets at a very much lower price than they would have contemplated doing had it not been a direct order to them and had they not realised, at the same time, that in the period of emergency it was essential that the woods should be felled. They accepted the position and did their felling with good grace. I do not think that it is altogether wrong to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the prices given, even if they were fair in the early days of the war, involved a

101
very much bigger sacrifice on the part of those timber owners who for a considerable number of years had paid attention to their estates and had produced the highest quality timber. During the war the same prices were paid for mediocre timber as were paid for the highest class of timber. Therefore, those owners who, in the years long gone by, really took trouble with their woodlands, had no reward over and above that paid to the owners of relatively neglected estates.
We are here, as regards the private owner, to deal chiefly with the policy known as "dedication." I believe that that policy has received a welcome, not only from all sides of the House, but also from the woodland owners themselves. Once they know a little more about it, I have no doubt that, provided the terms are reasonable and that they can see some hope for the future, they will readily respond and come into the scheme. In Scotland, compared with England, we have a relatively large area of forest managed both by the Forestry Commission and by private ownership. We in Scotland have suffered not only from the difficulties which owners in England have experienced, but, in addition, we have had a number of our own difficulties. In Scotland our main difficulties have been the scarcity and the distance of markets for our timber, and the relatively high costs of transportation because of the greater distances. Those two items have created more difficulties for progressive timber growers in Scotland than anything else, with the exception of taxation. In addition to that, most of the old woodlands which existed in Scotland before the Forestry Commission was established were nearly always planted in areas which were unsuitable for agriculture, because the ground was too steep or too wet or because the woods were located up narrow glens and such like. That has meant that the cost not only of planting, but more particularly of clearing has been more excessive, and with the competition of seaborne foreign imported timber, particularly from the Baltic, large areas of good Scottish timber have, in the past, not been worth the cutting and marketing.
In common with the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and others, I have a deep dislike of these direct State subsidies to private owners for growing timber. If we could devise some policy
102
by which they could get a reasonable return for their endeavours and for the money they have invested, so that we could do without these direct or indirect subsidies, in the shape of planting grants and maintenance grants, I am sure the majority of private woodland owners would much prefer it. For reasons which have already been stated, the majority of private woodland owners cannot expect to do any cutting for the next decade or so, but are landed with huge areas of ground on which the trees have been felled, and they have nothing but expenses and no assets coming in. As we are faced with that situation for many years to come, many of the owners will require fairly immediate assistance in view of the considerable expense of replanting. In an emergency period like the present, we would like the private woodland owners to secure a remunerative price at which they may sell their timber when mature and ready for cutting. There are some who hold the strongest objection to any form of State subsidy being paid from the national Exchequer to private owners. I suggest that there are reasons why a State subsidy is fully justified.
The first reason is that it is most unreasonable to expect any private citizen to undertake work and shoulder expenses which in the long run prove unprofitable not only to himself, but to his successors. If the work is undertaken by private ownership there should be a reasonable reward. In that connection, it is as well to remember that from the State's point of view it is far cheaper if these woodlands in private ownership are managed as they are at present, though possibly more efficiently, and remain in the hands of private owners. I would remind the House of the very great difference that exists between the ordinary woodlands in private ownership and the State forests which are slowly being built up by the Forestry Commission. The big areas which have been planted by the Forestry Commission are far more economical and easily managed than the many small areas of woodlands with which both Scotland and England are covered. Those areas which have been selected by the Forestry Commission are places where planting, growing, management and felling can be carried out in the most economical manner. There is no question that over a period of time, in view of the volume

103
of timber which eventually will be produced, these national forests are far better situated and are a more economical proposition than those of the private owner.
In most cases, the privately owned forests were not originally planted for economic reasons, but because of the unsuitability of the land for agriculture and, in some cases, for the purposes of amenities and shelter. That is one justification for a reasonable subsidy to be paid by the Exchequer, but, over and above that, we must bear in mind the very big fellings that have taken place during the comparatively short period of the last six or seven years. During that period the owners of timber have accepted a price which they consider to be very low and uneconomic, and even so, on what they have received they have had to pay a considerable amount of taxation. I would like to assure the Minister of the undoubted fact that over many years one of the most profitable investments that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had in the country has been that of the woodland areas. For the last 100 years the timber of this country has paid a very much bigger proportion towards the Exchequer than any agricultural land. We can be reasonably sure that any money spent to assist the impoverished landowners once again to get their private woodlands into a decent state will bear very good fruit to the Exchequer at no distant date. There is one last and special reason which I think the Minister must bear in mind, namely, the extra expense being put on to the landowners, due to the fact that they have been quite unable, owing to the scarcity of labour, to do any replanting, or very little, in the last few years. There are large areas, which should have been replanted four or five years ago, now covered with such a mass of vegetation that it will cost very considerable sums before they can be put into a fit state for replanting.
There are one or two smaller items I would like to suggest to the Minister. Whereas I think we can claim that in Scotland we have taken very much greater care of our woodlands during the last 40 or 50 years, the fact remains that in Britain as a whole, and even in Scotland, we have lagged a very long way behind various European countries, such as France and Germany. There is no reason why we should not train a race
104
of forest workers and forest lovers, just as they have done during a very long period of years in both France and Germany. A matter which I regard with a certain amount of anxiety is the difficulty likely to arise in the not distant future because of competition between the Forestry Commission and private owners over the disposal of their thinnings and timber for pit props. At the present moment there is a very great demand, which cannot be met; but I do not think it will be many years before the supply may be greater than the demand. When that time comes the State-controlled mining industry may naturally turn to the State-controlled forestry for their pit props, and the private owners will find they have the greatest difficulty in getting any price for their thinnings, which would go quite a long way towards their cost of maintenance.
Mention has been made this evening by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmorland of the question of rabbits and natural regeneration. I had wished to tell the Minister that if he cares to visit an area in Northamptonshire, in the Midlands of England, he will find an area under hard woods where the rabbit, once very plentiful, has now been completely exterminated, and where no planting is now necessary because all the new growth comes from natural regeneration. That has been brought about entirely by the extermination of the rabbit. The rabbit can be exterminated. It is just as well we should remember that this vast population of rabbits, which is the curse of the forest world of Britain at the present time, is of very recent growth. It is only in the last 100 years or so that it has assumed anything like the proportion as we know it today.
The last point I would like to add is a request, with many other hon. Members, that all that can be done shall be done to promote the growth of hard woods. We know, however, that as long as it is much easier to grow conifers, the Forestry Commission are far more likely to concentrate on conifers. Nobody gets any thanks for growing hard woods, except from the amenity point of view. Naturally, forests are not grown for amenity. A private owner has to be a very great optimist before he will be willing to plant oaks, which take a very long time to mature, under present political conditions.
7.16 p.m.
Mr. Parker: I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister on the statement he has made, and particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for finding the money to carry out the programme. I wish to ask one or two questions about the financing of the scheme. As I understand it, the Chancellor is putting up £20 million over five years, which will go into the Forestry Fund. In 1943, when the Forestry Commissioners presented their report, they estimated that their scheme over the first 10 years would cost over £41 million. I assume about half of that will be spent in the first five years. Prices will have risen quite a bit since 1943, and I wondered whether sufficient would also be coming into the Forestry Fund from ordinary sales of timber left after this war period to find enough to enable the full programme of the Commission to be carried out in the first five years. Secondly, I would like to ask for a decision to be given by the Government as early as possible about the second five years. We have been told they have accepted the Commission's programme for the first five years. However, in the second part of the 10 years a great deal more is to be planted by the Commission in an expanding programme than in the first five years. If this second five years' programme is to be successfully carried through it is necessary that a very early decision should be given, otherwise we shall not be able to get the nurseries planted, the trees or the staff provided, or to buy the necessary land. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they can possibly give an early decision about the second part of the 10 years' programme. It is necessary that that should be given if the second five years' programme of planting is to be carried through successfully.
I would like to know also whether the Government have really committed themselves to the 50 years' programme. It is not as necessary to give an actual decision on the number of acres that ought to be planted in 50 years as it is on the first 10 years. However, as I interpreted the statement of the Minister, the Government were generally accepting the idea, although I do not think his actual commitment went very far. I should have thought it was desirable that some kind of
106
commitment should be given by the Government about their general intentions as early as possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in criticising the action of the Forestry Commission, made the rather surprising statement that he did not think they should go ahead with their programme until a complete survey had taken place of the land available for forestry. I agree it is desirable to carry out that survey as early as possible, and probably before a decision can be given about the 50 years' programme that survey should be completed. I should have thought that, as far as the immediate programme is concerned, and certainly for the first 10 years, there was plenty of derelict woodland on which we could go ahead straight away; also, if we have to take other land as well, there is land of a marginal character which is not likely to be of much use from an agricultural point of view. Therefore, we should be able to go well ahead for the first 10 years' programme without waiting for the survey to be completed. I do not quite understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
I should like to ask further about the question of finance. Objections have been made in the House to one Parliament or one Government trying to agree a programme for a large number of years on the ground that other Parliaments and other Governments cannot be bound by that programme and may want to upset it. I agree that that is constitutionally the case, but I should have thought that we had now reached in this House and in the country a sufficient degree of agreement on the whole of this question of forestry, that the main parties in the country could have had an understanding on an agreed programme for a considerable number of years which a Government, of whatever complexion, would feel it was bound to honour. It we are to have a proper forestry programme in this country, not only for 10 but for 50 years, there must be some kind of programme of that nature, and I should have thought that it was necessary for the Government to have discussions with the Opposition with a view to reaching agreement on a long term programme of that kind. We do not want a recurrence of the May Committee and Geddes Committee axes which upset earlier forestry programmes and we can avoid that only

107
by having agreement, and I think negotiation ought to take place so we could have that kind of agreement, so that, even though there might be alterations in the programme, subsequent Parliaments and Governments would have a general understanding of and agreement on the programme. It is the only way by which proper planning can take place, and I should have thought that at this stage we could have reached such an agreement on forestry. I do not want to press the point now, but with regard to other national industries I should like to say that I hope that at a later stage we may manage to reach agreement also about development programmes in particular national industries, not only in forestry but in other industries.
With regard to the financing of the programme, there are some further points I should like to mention. I was very pleased that the last Government, when they brought in their Bill to put forestry under the supervision of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Secretary of State for Scotland, did recognise the fact that forestry must be kept on an island wide basis and not split up under different commissions for different parts of the island. I think it is very important that in economic questions we should regard the whole of this small island as one unit. It may be desirable for administrative or cultural reasons to divide the island up, but in the economic field it is absurd to try to have separate institutions for different parts of the country. Even so strong a Scottish Nationalist as the Secretary of State for Scotland in the last Government had to say, when supporting that Bill, that there were two very strong reasons for having an island wide Forestry Commission, and the reasons he gave, I think, were that it was advantageous from the point of view of promoting research and of creating a career for people wanting to go in for forestry.
But I have a further point which he did not mention, and that is, that if we are planning the expansion of the industry on a large scale in this very small island, we should treat the island as one unit. I would point out to my Scottish and Welsh friends that the most of the finance of this scheme comes from England, but a very large part of the
108
planting is to take place in Scotland and Wales.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: We have never asked for it in Wales.
Mr. Parker: Many people in future who earn their living in forestry will be pleased that planting took place there, and it is certainly a fact that if planting programmes for Scotland and Wales had to be financed out of separate Welsh or Scottish funds, very much smaller programmes would have been put in hand than are now being put in hand in both those countries. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) seems to demur, but I would ask him just to go to Southern Ireland and see what a small programme they have been able to undertake there.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: But surely the hon. Member is not comparing Southern Ireland with Scotland?
Mr. Parker: Certainly I am, and though Southern Ireland may be able to claim some advantages from the satisfaction of their national aspirations, there are not many in the economic field, particularly in the field of forestry. I hope we shall not have the argument put forward that Scotland and Wales should be treated as separate units economically. When we are trying to plan the development of this small island of ours I hope that that separatist nationalism will not be pressed too far. Certainly it would mean a much lower standard of life for the people of Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for the other part of Fife—West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—is a strong Scottish nationalist, and I would point out to him that in the Soviet Union they do treat the whole of that large country as one economic unit, however much they decentralise for political and cultural purposes.
With regard to the question of the survey, I do hope that it will be pressed ahead and completed as rapidly as possible, because unless we have got that survey completed we cannot really go ahead with the planning of the right use of land. I think that the controversy about the use of land as between sheep farming and forestry is a rather artificial one. I take the view that, with regard to the cultivation of the Highlands and the re-seeding of the Highlands, we ought

109
to be able to increase the area under cultivation without in any way decreasing the number of sheep we have in this country, and that when that survey has been completed we ought to be able to plan the use of land with that object in view. By better re-seeding much of the hill lands, we should aim at keeping the sheep population up, at the same time as we use more land for the forestry programme.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife that it would be difficult to nationalise forestry very quickly. It may be necessary to take over quite large units fairly quickly if we are to get them replanted quickly in this coming period. I think that the Government's programme put forward for accepting the dedication scheme and so on is on trial. We shall see in the first five years or so how far it progresses. If it does not, I think we shall see the larger forestry areas taken over very quickly by the Forestry Commission.
There are one or two smaller points. Will the dedication scheme apply to local authority land? A few years ago I visited the area round Lake Vyrnwy planted by Liverpool Corporation. It was a very fine Sight to see. Last year I visited it again, and practically all the timber had been cut down for war purposes. It is important, I should think, that all reservoir areas required for water supply or for hydro-electric purposes, whenever possible, should be planted with trees. It is advantageous for preserving reservoirs from being filled up with silt, and for controlling flow into the reservoirs. I should like to know whether public bodies of that kind will be able to dedicate their land in order to get grants for replanting. There were certain grants on a limited scale between the two wars, but I suggest grants should be given to them, and that the Forestry Commission should have powers to compel them, if they think it is necessary, to plant suitable land of that kind.
As to the shelter belts that have been cut down for wartime purposes that require to be replanted, whose job is it to see that they are replanted? Is the job of the county agricultural executive committees or of the Forestry Commission? I agree with the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) about the supply of forest homes. It is essential to have some of the houses for the workers in the forest,
110
but I would urge the desirability, whenever possible, of mixing up the forest workers with other workers so that they can have a social and community life. We were not told anything about the important question of forest holdings. What number of holdings is it intended to create in the first five or ten years, and are all forest workers to be provided with holdings if they want them? How shall we group the holdings and are there to be marketing arrangements for the products of the holdings? I think we ought to be told rather more about the whole question of holdings, and what amenities are to be provided for the workers. I do hope, however, that the whole House will approve this programme, and that the Government will follow it. I am quite certain that if they do they will find support in the country as well as in this House.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. Hollis: I think the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has trailed his coat a little. He appealed to us to have an agreed programme, and up to now I thought, as a matter of fact, that we had all been getting along swimmingly, and apart from a private fight between the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) there was little difference of opinion and not a word had come even from the Welsh and the Scotch. Then, they were suddenly warned that they were being brought into an English scheme and now the fat is in the fire, and they will never be got to agree at all. On a slightly more serious point, I really cannot quite follow the hon. Gentleman's argument about the survey. Early in his speech he took up my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and disagreed with his objection to the plan being put into operation before the survey was completed. It did not seem to me, as the hon. Member made it, a very strong point, but I was very surprised to hear that he himself, later on in his speech, pleaded that the survey should be pushed forward as rapidly as possible because, according to him, one could not really go ahead with the planning of the right use of land until the survey was completed. I am in some confusion as to whether he was in favour of the survey or against it.
Mr. Parker: I was making a distinction between the short term of five or ten years

111
and the longer programme. I do think it is desirable to press ahead with the immediate programme, using derelict woodland and other land obviously suitable for forestry, but before committing ourselves to the full 50 years' programme, obviously we must have the survey.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I must apologise for not hearing the first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but that is precisely the point I was making. The danger is that the Forestry Commission will continue the prewar practice of taking any estate that comes into the market, irrespective of whether it is good agricultural land or not. That is what I want to stop, and this Act is intended to stop it. I was sorry the survey had not been carried on faster with a view to guarding against that danger.
Mr. Hollis: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, and I hope the hon. Member for Dagenham will agree with that, which seems to me to clear up the point.
I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland when he comes to reply will deal with the points raised by a number of hon. Members about small estates, and in particular, I hope he will deal with one point about dedication of small estates which is far from obvious to my mind. What is the position in view of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture about the application of the dedication scheme to small estates? I very well understand that it is not worth while applying the dedication scheme to estates so small and so uneconomic that they cannot make a sensible contribution, but the very terms of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on 30th November, which we are debating, show that there are certain small estates which do not come into that category. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"… woodlands which ought to be used in the national interest for timber production but are unsuitable for dedication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1945; Vol. 416, c 1781.]
I do not know if other hon. Members are clearer about it than I am, but I do not know why, if such estates are of value, they are unsuitable for dedication, and I should be most grateful if the Secretary of State for Scotland could clear up that point.
112
The greater number of hon. Members have properly approached this problem either from the point of view of the need for timber in case of war, or from that of the need for timber for immediate industrial purposes. Those are obviously two very proper approaches, but I should like to join with some hon. Members in looking at this problem from a more general standpoint. In all matters to do with land, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) showed by his quotation from Evelyn, the primary loyalty must be to the land and our duty is to hand over the land to our successors in as good a condition as we received it. There is, unfortunately, no dispute that, in the years between the wars and in the years before, that purpose was not fully carried out in the country—I will not now enter into the reasons. However, I would like to say a word which may seem paradoxical, or perverse, or even perhaps almost indecent to some people, a word in praise of the English weather. In these days of austerity it might be thought whatever else we are short of, at any rate we are not short of rain. But in point of fact there is no doubt that the English climate is by far the best in the world, and is the cause of most of the good things that we enjoy. Our prosperity, art and character we owe, I believe, to the English climate. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Welsh one?"] The Welsh is wetter. King Charles II, who said so many wise things, said that England was the only country in the world where a man can work out of doors 365 days in the year.
From the earliest times it has been recognised that there is a connection between trees and rain, but whether it be trees that cause rain or rain that causes trees is not quite certain. Odysseus when he came to the Isles of the Blest found that there were many trees there, and therefore there was much rain. There have been instances, such as in the Turkish Empire, in which the climate of a region has been changed for the worse by deforestation. There is not much danger of that here as an immediate problem, but there is the counter proposition that our rainfall, and the dampness of our air, do make this country exceptionally well suited for the growing of trees. The only conceivable excuse—I do not say justification—for the small

113
proportion of nearly four per cent. of home grown timber against 96 per cent. of imported timber would be that this country was climatically exceptionally unsuited for growing trees. As a matter of fact it is exceptionally well suited. I would refer hon. Members to the extremely interesting Appendix VI in "A Post-War Forest Policy" from which the Minister of Agriculture quoted in his opening speech. Figures given there show that the rate of production of timber is much higher in this country than it is in similar countries on the continent of Europe. It that is true of conifers, it is equally true of hard woods, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) and the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) have said. Therefore, there is not only no reason why we should not grow trees in our own national interest, but if we approach it from the point of view of world interest, it is clearly to the interest of the world that trees should be grown on an ample scale in this country which is so exceptionally well suited for growing them.
If I may, I will say a few words on a point which has been so adequately discussed by hon. Members—the financial policy behind afforestation. The hon. Member for Dagenham raised various questions about finance, but surely all turns on the question, which has been raised by other hon. Members, about what is to be the price policy for timber. We cannot say what will be the cost, or what people will be able to afford, until that first basic point has been settled. Hon. Members have adequately shown, and I need not, therefore, go through the argument again, the reason why, in these particular circumstances, grants are necessary and we welcome them, but on the other hand, they have also adequately shown why a policy of grants as a general rule is not a satisfactory policy. The real answer is that a proper price should be paid for the article, and this applies to all articles. I do not think there can be any answer to the point made by the hon. Member for East Fife, and other hon. Members who have asked for a revision of present prices. I was very disappointed that the Minister said nothing about this important question of price, and I greatly hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have something to tell us about it in his speech, and that he will be able to hold out some promise to us that the
114
whole price schedule will be revised in such a way as to make the forestry industry an economic industry. This is particularly important, because the finance of forestry has never been adequately considered in the past, as it was to such a large extent in the hands of people who were not primarily concerned about its finance. We have now passed on to a different era, where finance is important.
The reason why it is more important in forestry than in agriculture, important as it is in agriculture that the basis of the finance should be a proper price rather than subsidies, is that any industry is in an extremely dangerous and precarious condition if its prosperity is dependent upon payment of subsidies which are voted by an electorate not primarily concerned with the industry. The danger is that within a year or two some politician will take up the cry, breaking through that unity for which the hon. Member for Dagenham has pleaded, for removing the subsidy and thus ruining the industry. It is a great danger, as we all know, for agriculture to depend upon a subsidy, but it is a far greater danger to forestry; although the agriculturists may be a minority in the country, they are comparatively powerful and can make their voice heard, but the number of people who have a direct interest in afforestation is obviously extremely minute, and it will, therefore, be extremely difficult for them to put up a fight. The hon. Member for Thornbury spoke of landlords not interested in their forests. The proportion of landlords who are not interested in woodlands is obviously much smaller than the proportion of the electorate at large. One of the great difficulties we have to face, whatever pious tributes may be paid to private interests in forestry, is that we have an urban electorate of which all but a small proportion hardly know there is such a thing as an art of forestry, and think that trees are things that just grow, and that if you want some wood, you go and cut it down, and that is all there is to it. We have to face this fact. It will be an extremely precarious prosperity which is dependent upon subsidies voted by such an electorate, when no one can foresee the difficulties through the times ahead. I strongly appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland to give us an

115
assurance that the prosperity of this industry will be based upon a price policy, rather than upon a subsidy policy.
7.45 P.m.
Mr. Kinley: So far, it has appeared to be almost overwhelmingly the case that the only trees in which the Forestry Commissioners are going to show any interest are those which are grown to be cut down and sold for use. One or two Members have hinted that there ought to be another aspect, and that the Forestry Commissioners might grow trees for the benefit of human beings who are able to enjoy them. That is one side of the possible activities of the Commissioners which has received no mention from the Minister, and I hope that when the reply is made to the Debate we may have some attention paid to that. My only other point—because most of the ground has already been covered—is to ask whether the Forestry Commissioners have not yet heard of fruit trees and nut trees. These trees have not been mentioned during the Debate, and I want to concentrate upon them.
I am not able to say whether it is feasible for the Forestry Commissioners with their existing machinery to undertake additional work and duties, but I suggest to the Minister that as every part of the country is covered by a local authority, and every local authority have their parks and open spaces, he might use them as agents under the Forestry Commissioners outside, or if it is not within their jurisdiction, to use the staff already in the employ of the local authority to cover the whole of their area with fruit trees and nut trees. They are already trying to grow sycamores by the thousands, horse chestnuts, elms, occasionally beeches, very frequently ash and frequently limes, but one looks in vain for either fruit or nut trees. I know that even the smallest tree in a green is an advantage, but I suggest, whatever blessing it is in the spring when it opens its leaves, and however bright the little green things are, and however cheering when the full leaf has opened out, had that been a fruit tree, then for several weeks there would have been a great deal more pleasure derived by the people of that area from its blossom. There is no more cheering sight in spring time than a cluster of fruit trees in blossom. We are told that the Japanese for generations
116
made long pilgrimages in the season of the cherry blossom.
There is no reason that I know of why we cannot fill our streets, parks and open spaces with fruit and nut trees instead of the ordinary trees now being used. I should like to see local authorities experimenting to see how many varieties they can make grow in their area. While it is true that in many parts of the country we should get no fruit from our fruit trees, we are getting no fruit now, so we should lose nothing. Moreover, we should have added to the quantity of food which is grown in the country. Small boys, at least, would get a little more to eat than they do now. In fact, it may have the effect of persuading them to protect the lamps which they now smash because, when autumn came along, they would need the lamps in order to be able to see the fruit. But, seriously, I suggest that the Minister should endeavour to persuade local authorities to make as much progress as they can by the substitution, for the trees which are being planted at present, of suitable fruit and nut trees. In the springtime, when such trees are in blossom, there are no trees to compare with them except, possibly, the horse chestnut.
7.53 P.m.
Mr. Emrys Roberts: As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has said, the waters of controversy have been deeply stirred in this Debate by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I have given the hon. Member due warning that I should make offensive remarks about his speech if I were fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir. It was astounding to hear a Member of the Socialist Party decry the need for a planned survey, and say that trees should be planted here and there, choosing fields haphazardly as they become available and as estates come into the market; but it was positively sickening to hear an English Member tell Scottish and Welsh Members that our nations could not afford to plant a few thousand acres of trees. Of course we could, and make a good profit out of it as well.
It is absolutely unreal to suggest that there is no conflict between the claims of the Forestry Commission and the interests of hill farmers. This problem cannot be assessed at the Whitehall level. The conflict can only be grasped when you come to where people dwell. The report of the

117
Hill Sheep Farming Committee stressed that such a conflict was inevitable because both hill sheep farmers and the Forestry Commission want the same land. They want the lower fertile slopes, and it is the conflict over these that is going on in the absence of a planned survey. The forestry authorities, with their very large powers, are taking these slopes. Sheep can use grazings at any level, provided that they can be brought to the lower grazings for wintering and for lambing. But once you plant a belt of trees across those lower levels and split up the economic unity of the farm, you have made the livelihood of the farmer impossible. Last June I referred a case to the Minister where, out of 243 plantable acres of grazing land, the Forestry Commission proposed to acquire 200, thus making it necessary for the farmer to cut his herd of cows from about 40 to about eight, and his sheep from about 700 to 250. That is what will happen if the proposal goes through. I made further representations on 29th July, and I am still awaiting the considered reply of the Minister of Agriculture.
We are all agreed on the necessity for afforestation. There is an overwhelming argument for large scale planting, but I prefer not to base it on our strategic and supply needs in war. If that dretd possibility occurs we shall not need to worry very much about the wood coming from our forests. Let us put the case for the supply of timber rather on the necessities for the nation's building work. Proper afforestation can bring what the rural areas need—roads, transport, water supply, electric power and population. I believe that the pilot survey referred to by the Minister is in fact being made in my own county, Merionethshire, and I ask that its results be published as soon as possible, and that similar surveys be made elsewhere. But in these surveys, all the interests concerned should have a voice in their preparation, and I think that in that way we might resolve the present conflict. There are thousands of acres of cleared woodland—high grazing land and scrub oak which the plough has not turned over and which is not suitable for agriculture—which the Forestry Commission might take without harming the interests of the small farmers.
I would urge a more sympathetic view towards the small farmer. I ask that the Forestry Commission should not plant large areas, where foxes breed at such a
118
rate and in such large numbers that their extermination becomes a real problem for the farmer. It seems extraordinary that at this time the county war agricultural executive committees apparently have no voice in the selection of land for afforestation. I can produce a letter from the Minister in evidence of that. I cannot help thinking that that is fundamentally wrong. These committees are now being set up on a representative basis and their function is to ensure that the farmer produces the utmost for food and cattle. I feel that it would be much more satisfactory if the activities of the Forestry Commission were integrated with the work of these committees by having, for instance, forestry officers on the staffs of the committees. I believe that the control of the Minister of Agriculture over forestry is at the moment purely nominal, and that he speaks in this House with two voices—one on behalf of food production, and the other on behalf of the growing of trees. Both are tremendously important, but, surely, they can be correlated. The Hill Sheep Farming Committee did recommend one statutory body to administer all hill sheep land, and safeguard the interests of forestry and hill sheep farming. That recommendation has never been implemented.
I wish to associate myself with those who have deprecated the policy of subsidising private woodlands. If we are to have afforestation all over the country, let it be done by the State. It is a thoroughly evil practice that public money should be used to subsidise private growers.
I suggest that on these lines—responsibility of the State, integration of the work of the Forestry Commission with that of the county war agricultural committees, real control by the Minister and a widely based survey and democratically made—we may yet see the best interests of afforestation and of the production of food carried forward together successfully in this country.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Watkins: I did not think that I should have to follow another Welshman in a Debate upon forestry, but I am glad to do so because I well understand that Wales can play an important part in the forestry programme, partly because of the nature of our country and partly because South Wales coal pits depend a great deal upon the produc-

119
tion of timber. I would ask the Minister whether he has to any extent gone into this question, in its relationship to Wales.
In 1943–46, the total increased acreage acquired by the Forestry Commission was only about 3,138. I find that the total acreage of the planting programme was only 519 acres more since 1938. That was surely double what it was in 1943 More important still is the fact that we have only one more forest unit than we had in 1943. I join in the plea that has been made that results of the survey should be published as soon as possible. I also join in the plea made by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) that, in regard to Wales, the survey should be published as soon as possible in the form of a White Paper. I should be glad to know from the Secretary of State for Scotland if that is to he done.
I am not going to introduce a Welsh atmosphere here this evening, but I suggest that in Wales forestry could be accelerated a great deal. The hill slopes at the present time are simply covered with overgrown bracken. Slag heaps ought to be attended to, as they are an eyesore in South Wales. The sand dunes ought to be planted with trees. Under the Hill Farming Bill which this House has already considered attention should be given to forestry belts in some of the hill farms. I would call the attention of the Minister to that report, which has been well accepted in Wales, of the Reconstruction Advisory Committee, in 1944. It contains a number of suggestions. It is rather surprising to look at that report in 1946 and see that it suggested an advisory service upon afforestation. If that was of consequence in connection with agriculture, surely it is of importance in connection with afforestation as well.
I want to compliment the Ministry upon the fact that they have decided, according to the Welsh White Paper, to remove the offices of the Forestry Commissioners from Bristol to Aberystwyth. I compliment the Minister also upon having a school in Wales for afforestation. It is of great importance, if he wants Welsh secondary school boys to take an interest in forestry. There ought to be facilities for them in their own country. Mention has been made about the conflict between sheep farming and afforestation.
120
I would remind the Minister again of the Welsh Advisory Committee's suggestion in 1944 that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should settle such disputes by taking an assessor from the sheep farming interests and another from the forestry interests, to adjudge those matters and make a final decision. There is nothing wrong in that suggestion, and I cannot see that the Minister would be placed in any difficult position.
Mr. T. Williams: I would point out to my hon. Friend that we already have large training schools in Wales.
Mr. Watkins: Perhaps I might offer some words of wisdom to my right hon. Friend, and first I will refer to the question of the insecurity of the tenants of the holdings. At the present time, there is a tenancy for only 364 days. That limitation ought to be abolished. If tenants are turned out they ought to have a right of appeal. If they have been good tenants, and the Forestry Commission do not like them, and if they have improved their holdings, they ought to have compensation for those improvements. The Minister spoke about the development of roads through the forests. Do not let him forget the roads near to the holdings of those people. I suggest that the location of holdings should be such that the workers can cultivate their own gardens. I have seen gardens in forest holdings which could not be cultivated at all.
When I look at the people who have to administer these forestry plantations, I think there ought not to be so much class distinction between the officers and the workmen. There is a great deal to be said for having less stress on discipline. Surely the workmen are educated enough. If we want them to have an interest in forestry there ought not to be such stress on discipline. I had occasion last summer to walk in a forest to admire it and listen to the birds singing. Suddenly there was a shrill blast on a whistle. It was a forestry officer telling the chaps that they had to stop working. That is too great a stress upon discipline. There ought to be a tendency for foresters to have greater practical knowledge and not so much reliance upon theory. At the present moment promotion goes far too much by knowledge of theory.
Workmen ought to be allowed to make helpful suggestions for carrying on this great work. Consideration ought also to

121
be given to some minor matters, which may not count a great deal in this House but matter a great deal to the workmen. I refer to such things as provision for wet time and for proper protective clothing. I have seen men working out in showers of rain. Instead of having a proper shelter they had only a tarpaulin to get under. They looked like people taking part in an obstacle race in local sports. Consideration ought to be given also to labour-saving devices. I have seen the workmen doing really hard tasks which could have been done by labour-saving machinery. Greater consideration should be given to the people who are doing the work. Meetings should be convened of foresters and divisional officers, so that there is a real understanding of what is in the interests of the country, in respect to forestry.
I have one last word to say about the interests of the community in forestry. Nothing has been said about the Minister of Agriculture collaborating with the Minister of Education with the object of interesting the schools of the country in afforestation. It would be good if visits were made by scholars to the nearest forest. In some cases I suggest that small areas might be specially prepared for educational visits, even to the extent of labelling the trees as I have seen done in Germany. Young people should be encouraged to go on trips to forests, so that they may realise the damage which can be done by throwing lighted cigarette ends and matches on the ground. If they do not know about the amenities of the forests there is little that can be done with regard to fire prevention.
Last summer, I raised in the House the question of the picking of wimberries. In Wales, people have to pay 6d. or more to go into the forests to pick wimberries. It does not help afforestation, if a penalty is put on people who go into the forests to admire them and to pick wimberries. I hope that the local authorities will also take an interest in this matter. I find that one of my own local authorities near Merthyr, asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, only this week, for an Order specifying that "no person shall cut down or wilfully destroy any growing tree without consent." I am glad that the first local authority in South Wales to do that is in my own constituency, and I hope that that example will be followed
122
by all local authorities. I trust that, in the future, we shall have an afforestation programme which will be regarded with admiration, not because it is a Socialist programme, but because it is a programme which will lead to a really glorious Britain.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. Spence: May I be allowed to make a brief addition to the ground already covered in this Debate? In Scotland, we welcome, in broad outline, this Bill, which is so vital to our national economy. Scotland has provided over 5,700,000 tons of timber. Our woodlands are denuded and they have to be made good. If the provisions, which we are making today, work in a satisfactory way, we shall see a revival of forestry in Scotland.
I wish to address to the Secretary of State one or two opinions on the successful working of this plan. I think that he will agree that one of the most difficult problems which faces the Forestry Commission is that of manpower. That, in turn, brings in the absolute need that the scheme of dedication shall succeed fully. I represent a part of the world where there are many forests, large and small, which are privately owned. I have no interests in them myself, and I speak, therefore, entirely impartially. I know, however, that there exists today in the minds of many owners a doubt as to whether they would be wise to dedicate. There is a doubt as to what are to be the actual terms in the covenant of dedication, and there is a fear that by signing a deed of dedication they are signing away something which is very precious to them. I hope that the Secretary of State will give a reassurance to these people, and that he will see that an instruction is given to all officials in the Forestry Commission to develop good will and co-operation in every way between the Commission and these owners. There have been faults on both sides, but it is of paramount importance that this scheme should succeed, and it is of paramount importance to the scheme that the dedication policy should succeed. I hope the Secretary of State will give an assurance to all forest owners in regard to this matter.
I want now to refer to the grant. I was very glad to hear from the Minister of the increase in the planting grant to

123
£10 an acre, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the costs of planting today. I find, according to expert advice, which I got recently, that to plant 100 acres of ground would cost £2,000, that is, roughly £20 an acre. The cost of the trees would be over £1,000. In this estimate I take as being planted a crop one-third of larch, one-third of two-year Scots pine, and one-third of sitka. To plant 100 acres would cost £1,025 for the trees alone. This grant of £10 an acre is certainly a very great help and will be much welcomed, but like other hon. Members, I feel that the eventual selling price of the timber ought to be raised to an economic level. The maintenance allowance of 3s. 4d. is equivalent to one and a half hours' supervision per acre per year. That is not very much. I agree that the first 15 years are the important period, but I feel it might be a wise policy on the part of the Government to increase the grant, to revise the price of timber, and do away with the maintenance allowance. I conclude by making a very earnest appeal to the Secretary of State to deal with the question of dedication, which is vital to the success of the scheme. I am sure that if the full facts are known, if the actual wording of the deed of dedication is known and is suitable for the purpose intended, we shall find that there will be 100 per cent. dedication on the part of the owners.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I think hon. Members ought to hear a word from Scotland from this side of the House on afforestation. It is disappointing that the House is so thinly attended when a subject of such importance is on the menu. If there were as many potential lumberjacks here tonight as there were potential Foreign Secretaries here last night, we should be well on the way to solving the labour problem in afforestation. I would like to join hon. Members who have spoken in commendation of the work of the Forestry Commission. We have a very high regard for their work and for their assiduity and conscientiousness in putting through their programme, and we look forward to a great future with them in a great undertaking.
124
I wonder whether even the potential Foreign Secretaries realised the connection there is between the discussion of foreign affairs last night and afforestation. It is indeed one of the most striking parts of the tragedy of the depletion of our forests that it was brought about mainly by two things, one of them bad husbandry, or bad management, of the woodlands, and the other a bad foreign policy resulting in war and the heavy depletion of our timber resources. We hope that foreign policy for the future will take care of that part of afforestation. We have heard a good deal about the tragic side of the depletion of our forests, but I think we ought to look also to the very hopeful future which we can see basing itself upon the new policy, the new attitude, the new national consciousness, in regard to afforestation. We look forward to the redevelopment, the expanding development, of our timber resources.
There are other values which we set upon afforestation from the points of view of shelter, natural beauty, and the prevention of erosion. It is as important to agriculture as to any of these other matters. The strategic importance has been brought out within a generation by two wars, and we have the warnings of other countries as well. We have the "Dust Bowl" of the New World, we have the drought-deserts of Australia, and we have the centuries-old warnings of China, Iraq, North Africa, and the Lebanon. All these warnings remained completely unheeded in this country for generations, indeed for centuries.
In Scotland the history of afforestation has been the same as elsewhere—a tale of short-sighted exploitation without replacement, and neglect of timber reserves. In fact I do not think that there are any records of a Scottish timber planting policy of any kind until about the 18th century. Trees were regarded as being a perfect nuisance, rather as the enemies of agriculture, sapping away nourishment from the soil, and, as such, to be demolished and got rid of as quickly as possible. I believe that even to this day some of the prejudices with regard to afforestation, especially in Scotland, come down to us from those times. It may be that they are also caused partly by a rather careless selection of the sites for afforestation for there has been a certain amount of encroachment upon land which

125
might conceivably, with a little trouble, have been made into good agricultural land. I think that there is also without doubt a certain quarrel in some places with the hill sheep farmer in Scotland, and I sympathise to a great extent with the sheep men, in spite of the great importance of afforestation in those areas.
The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) did me the honour of sitting down in front of me as I began to speak. I meant to mention that in his constituency, in 1695, we had the first sawmill in the country. A good deal has been said about the softwoods, and if I understood him aright the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) deplored the emphasis which had been placed upon them. That again goes back to the work of the pioneers in research into the importation of foreign plants and variegation of Scottish planting practice. They introduced American and Canadian conifers—cypresses, spruces, Oregon pine, silver firs, and so on. We have also this to be said for us in Scotland. We had a Scottish Arboricultural Society before England or Wales had any similar society. I think we have a right to be proud in Scotland of that pioneering work and of the fact that we were forestry conscious some time before the English became so. But we did not in Scotland, or in Britain for that matter, become conscious as a nation until the warnings of the two wars had brought us a jolt—first in 1914, which resulted in the Acland Committee being set up in 1917, leading in turn to the establishment of the Forestry Commission, and in the second war, when we were reduced to a realisation that we could supply only 4 per cent. of our wartime needs of timber from home production. The German blockades and sinkings showed us how utterly dependent we were on other lands for supplies of strategically essential timber.
I think that we then became nationally conscious of the need for a progressive and urgent national afforestation policy, and that now on all sides of the House and in all parts of the country—that is, all countries of the United Kingdom—there is an urgent realisation of the need for going ahead with these afforestation and reafforestation programmes. We look today to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Ministry of Agriculture, who has great powers in England and, so
126
far, in Wales, as a result of the extensions promised in the way of finance under the increased forestry fund, using those powers to the full. He has all the powers of direction of that kind. He has considerable powers under the 1945 Act.
I would like to have this checked. In 1945, on the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill, the late Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), when giving figures relating to the Forestry Commission's record from 1919 to 1939 said that they had acquired 1,300,000 acres, of which 800,000 were suitable for planting and of which 400,000 had been planted. He said that private planting amounted to another 160,000 acres. He also said that only 1 million acres of woodland remained. He put it this way:
"The result that we face today is that we are left with not more than about one million acres of woodland in the whole country, mostly either immature or second rate woods very thinly stocked."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May. 1945; Vol. 410, C. 1739.]
I should like that figure checked because I have seen other figures mentioned, including one of around 3,300,000 acres.
Now I want to say one word about an area where, to adapt the saying, "we cannot see the woods because there are not any trees." I am referring to my own constituency. In taking over jointly last year, under the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture in England, the responsibility for forestry, much of the argument for doing so was based on the assurance that it was better to have a Minister responsible for both matters, each of which was complementary to the other, than to have a Minister for Forestry to whom the buck could be passed for a lot of things. This would be better than to have forestry shoved aside while agriculture went on its more important way. When there was joint responsibility for afforestation as well as agriculture, equal attention would be given to afforestation.
I would like the Minister to look into the very important aspect of uneconomic planting—the planting of shelter belts—from the point of view of erosion and the other values which such planting has for the development of agriculture in areas such as that which I represent. I raised this question on the White Paper discussions two years ago and shortly after that

127
in the general Debate in this House. I got no assurances. This is an extremely important subject in exposed spaces where agriculture would benefit from the planting of trees not for the sake of profit—uneconomic planting. The Minister has the powers. He is not going to be denied the finance. He has the large forestry fund. He knows its strategical urgency and its economic necessity, and thinks it is aesthetically desirable. There is every reason for vigorously expanding this policy, and he will have the whole country behind him. I should like to be quite sure that in considering the welfare of the whole country, attention will be given to the smaller places like my own constituency which has as yet received no attention from any Minister so far as forestry is concerned.
8.29 p.m.
Major Mott-Radclyffe: It is quite clear from this Debate that interest in forestry is evenly distributed between England, Scotland and Wales. Maybe on a later occasion something will be said about afforestation in Northern Ireland. There will be a general welcome to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman by all those who are anxious about the future of our woodlands. It is unwise—certainly I do not propose to do so—to look a gift horse in the mouth; but although the increases in the maintenance and acreage grant are very welcome, no hon. Member on either side of the House can seriously suggest that they are over-generous. I have no doubt we ought to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having wrung even the sum of £20 million out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the House will know, the cost of planting varies enormously according to the location and the circumstances. To clear, to replant, and subsequently to maintain felled areas is a much more expensive undertaking than planting heathland not covered by any plantation undergrowth at all. It is necessary in the summer, after planting, to clear always once, sometimes twice and even three times, the heavy undergrowth which establishes itself. This process of cleaning or clearing, whichever word one likes to use, must be repeated every year for four years until the young trees have their heads up. On my own not very large area of woodland I estimate that the cost is somewhere between £3 and £3 10s. an acre. Against that figure the
128
right hon. Gentleman's advance of 3s. 4d. is acceptable but certainly meagre.
The crux of the whole matter lies not in the grant for maintenance, but in the maximum controlled timber prices. I was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman made no reference in his speech to that factor. In agriculture the Government have recognised the principle that prices are to be related to cost of production, and I would have thought that exactly the same principle should be applied to afforestation where, like agriculture, labour is the largest single item of cost. Since 1939, although timber prices have not been reviewed, the actual increase in wages—allowing for shorter hours and increased holidays, which no one would deny to those who work on the land—is as much as 117 per cent., and there may still be, for all we know, a further rise in the minimum agricultural wage. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, when he winds up the Debate, say something about the views of the Government as to whether or not the present timber prices are adequate? Does he propose to review those prices from time to time? If he does not do so, does he expect woodland owners under present timber prices to be attracted by the dedication scheme?
I was glad to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman about loan facilities. They are a very important factor for what I might call the marginal woodland owner. Also I would like to support what the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), in his very well informed and extremely eloquent speech, said about the deed of covenant. We have heard a great deal about the deed of covenant but no one, as far as I am aware, has yet seen it, and I think it is reasonable to suppose that before any woodland owner finally decides whether to dedicate or not, he should at least see under what precise terms he and the Government are undertaking mutual obligations.
The third question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—I hope he will forgive me if it is an unfair one—is a legal one, and I know he has none of his legal colleagues on the Front Bench with him. One, at least, has recently been endeavouring to persuade M. Molotov into a more reasonable frame of mind by entertaining him at the cocktail bar of the "Queen Elizabeth." Could he tell us

129
what is the legal position under the deed of covenant on any estate which is mortgaged? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in order to carry out proper afforestation we have to have foresters and foresters have to have houses in which to live, whether the woodlands belong to the Forestry Commission or to a private owner. I did not get all the asides which passed in a sort of "dumb crambo" language between the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and the Minister of Agriculture. As I understood him, the Minister nodded his head when he was asked by the right hon. Member for Southport whether these houses to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, which are being built by the Ministry of Works for the Forestry Commission, would be let under an ordinary agreement and subject to Rent Restrictions Acts.
Mr. T. Williams: Yes.
Major Mott-Radclyffe: I am glad to have the right. hon. Gentleman's confirmation. That being so, will he answer this further question? If they are going to be let under an ordinary agreement subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts, supposing an employee of the Forestry Commission in one of those houses being built by the Ministry of Works wishes to change his employment to go on to a farm, or into some other occupation, is he to be allowed to stay in the house which the Ministry of Works has built for the Forestry Commission?
Mr. T. Williams: I think the hon. and gallant Member wants an immediate reply, but he should wait until the case arises.
Major Mott-Radclyffe: If the man is not to be allowed to stay in the house built for the Commission for the purposes of afforestation, can we congratulate hon. Members on the other side upon having, at long last, come to the conclusion that for a specific purpose, a certain number of tied houses are essential?
I beg the right hon. Gentleman at least to persuade his colleague the Minister of Health to cease preventing the private woodland owners from building any houses they may wish to build for their employees in their own woodlands. All he is doing at present is to make it almost impossible for private woodland owners to carry out the obligations he has asked them to undertake under the dedication scheme.
8.37 P.m.
Mr. Dye: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking in the Debate on this very important problem of forestry. It is important not only to the nation as a whole, but to those parts of the country which are being afforested and where since the last war there has been a great development of planting the importance is still greater. When the Minister announced the Government's forestry policy last November, I put one or two questions to him. One related to the danger of fire among forests in the Eastern counties, where the climate is dry, and where the trees are now growing to a height of 20 or more feet, and are therefore, becoming rather valuable. The Minister stated that the Forestry Commissioners had this matter in mind, but since then there has been a rather disastrous fire that went through two, if not three, miles of forests. On that occasion, it was found that the resources for combating fire in the forests were very inadequate. It has been noticeable that with rural district councils developing their water schemes for the neighbourhood there has been no contact and no cooperation with the Forestry Commission in endeavouring to supply water for the purpose of fire fighting in the immediate area. I also drew attention to the absence of hardwoods other than conifers in that neighbourhood. If the belts had been shortened, and perhaps if conifers had been planted at regular intervals, the burning of the conifers for such a long distance might have been prevented. I wish to ask the Minister again whether more serious attention has been given to the question of forest fires in the Eastern counties.
There is also another danger to which I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention. During the war a large part of the area North of Thetford was taken over as a battle training area, and it included part of the area which had been planted with trees by the Forestry Commission. A considerable degree of damage was done to the forest, not merely by the troops but because of neglect. Has that ceased? Another important matter in regard to this area is whether it is to continue to be used as a battle training school. If so, will it not limit the size of this particular forest? Hon. Members from the Benches opposite have spoken of planting trees in areas where nothing else can be done. Surely the matter has to be looked at from

131
an economic point of view of forestry. Where a large area is planted out it might be much more economic to extend that area, so that in the days when the trees are being felled, and use is being made of the wood, the forest can be worked over a much wider area. I ask the Minister seriously whether he has faced up to this question with the Secretary of State for War, and, if necessary, with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whether this area is to be a forest area and whether a national park is included, or whether an attempt is to be made to divide it between forestry and battle training. If so, sooner or later the War Office will win, and down will go the trees, and there will have been a wastage of some millions of pounds.
Another important question which was mentioned by the Minister greatly surprised me. It was with regard to housing forest workers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) drew attention to the Minister's statement that he was proposing to build 1,200 houses per year for several years for forest workers. I am happy to see that the Forestry Commission is in negotiation with the producers of the Airey house for a supply of them under contract, and as has been stated today, the Ministry of Works are being asked to erect them. From information that has come from other sources, I gather that these cottages will cost about £1,400 each. If the Minister is to have 1,200 houses a year built they will cost £1,680,000, and in five years—he said for several years—the cost would be £8,400,000. The allocation from the Exchequer is £20 million for five years, so that considerably more than one-third may be spent on housing alone, whereas we are proceeding on the assumption that the £20 million is for afforestation.
I take the view that the houses should be provided by the local authority, so that they can deal with this matter, not as a forestry problem, but from the point of view of siting the houses and the mixing of them with other communities. We have our villages in the Eastern counties. It is true that in the past they have worn a decayed look because there has been poverty in the neighbourhood, because this area, which was previously given over in part to farming, provided a very meagre income for those engaged in it in the lean years. Now it has gone over to forestry, the trees have grown re-
132
markably well and there is a prospect of a future for that neighbourhood.
Would it not be wiser for the question of houses to be taken out of the hands of the forestry authorities and for them to be provided in the ordinary way through the local housing authority? I did my best as a Member of Parliament for the area, and also as a member of the rural district council, to bring the Forestry Commission and the district council together to get an agreement so that the local council could build houses for forestry workers under their housing programme. I thought I had the support of the Minister in this. We had one meeting with the local authority and the council agreed to build houses for forestry workers provided they could add to their programme to meet the needs of the forestry workers, in addition to those of the agricultural workers in other parts of the district. However, at the second meeting the representative of the Forestry Commission said that the condition on which the Forestry Commission would agree was that the local authority should build the houses and then let them on a 99-year lease to the Forestry Commission. They wanted to be in the position to put their own tenants in the houses and to put them out when they were no longer forestry workers.
That is the result of the meetings which took place. The outcome was that the local authority declined to build houses under those conditions. In a neighbouring parish where the local authority proposed to build four cottages, they had a similar request from the local landowner. Before they started to build he wrote:
"When these houses are completed, will you let them to me so that I can sublet them to tenants and put in who I want and turn them out when I don't want them?"
Again, the local authority declined. Knowing the people who live in these areas, I am certain that the policy which is being pursued by the Forestry Commission is wrong. The only way to rebuild rural England, whether on a basis of forestry or agriculture or a combination of both, is to have the villages so modelled, planned, connected with water supply, electricity, sewage, educational facilities, and social and recreational arrangements, and so on that there can be a social life. To put these cottages away in the forests would not solve the problem. In the neighbourhood about

133
which I am speaking, there are cottages which have stood empty for more than 12 months. People will not go to live in out of the way places. I know there is a need for a few houses tactically placed here and there for fire purposes; but that point has been exaggerated. The way to firewatch properly is not by scattering cottages throughout the forest area but by building beacons here and there with telephonic communication so that the danger spots can be watched. This is a most important matter.
We cannot go forward with this forestry policy without the labour. On every previous occasion when forestry matters have been debated in this House, they have been discussed in an atmosphere which has been influenced by the fact that there have been up to four million unemployed in the country. That is not the position today. We are talking about a vast expansion of forestry but we have no unemployed, we have not the workers available to do the work and we will not get them unless they can be attracted. We are not able to drive them there and we will be unable to hold them by means of a tenancy or a tied cottage. Many people have left forestry cottages and holdings in my district because they have been dissatisfied with the conditions of employment. We are not holding the workers we have at present. During the war there were special means of securing conscientious objectors, women, and soldiers, to do the work. We are now entering an era of freedom so far as labour is concerned. The workers have freedom to move and we are not able to compel them to work under conditions of which they disapprove.
We must create the conditions that will enable people to take an interest in their work and take a pride in it, take an interest and a pride in their homes and give them security in their homes, not only while they are at work but also in their old age. I should have thought that one of the important matters to which the Government would have given consideration was not only to provide these people with homes and decent wages but also to have a superannuation scheme. People would thus be encouraged to give their life's work in the forests. I ask the Minister to give this matter very careful consideration and not allow the whole scheme for our forests in Great Britain
134
to fail because the labour is not willingly coming forward, because it will not do so unless the conditions are such that people are easily attracted to them.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. York: I want to come straight back to the dedication scheme. The Minister says that he was fairly satisfied with the results at the moment. There are two main causes for the holdup in dedications; first, the settled estate problem—and I am glad to hear that it is non-controversial—and, second, the general uncertainty among private foresters today. This uncertainty is in the minds of most private foresters and of all those to whom I have spoken. There is uncertainty about the future and uncertainty about the risks involved in borrowing money. There is uncertainty about timber prices and about profitability. There is a large forest owner whom I know who has kept very careful accounts for a number of years, and his latest accounts show that he is actually suffering a loss on his annual forest accounts. There is uncertainty about felling orders, some of which in the past have been most arbitrary. There is uncertainty about all the shortages which exist today, many of which cannot be helped—trees, labour and so on. The job of the Government, if they want to see the dedication scheme a success, is to allay these uncertainties and make plain their intention to encourage private owners.
My second point refers to the finances of the scheme. I do not believe that the grants, either the planting grant or the maintenance grant, will have any appreciable effect on the amount of ground planted. They are not adequate and they bear litle relation to the actual cost. Indeed, like many of my hon. Friends, I am absolutely opposed to the principle of the subsidy. I want to see forestry, like agriculture, put upon an economic basis, and that can only be done by relating the costs of production to the price received for the product.
I will, therefore, come straight on to timber prices. We have heard from various hon. Members today of the rise in the cost of production. There may be an argument, advanced against increasing these prices, that the trees that are now being felled were planted when prices were very much lower, but that is not

135
only a ridiculous argument but it is both unbusinesslike and inefficient oil the part of any person, be he a private forester or a Government official, to advance that theory. The costs in a forestry account today are costs relating to present day prices, and the fellings—in other words, the revenue on a forest estate—have to pay today's wages and today's expenses. Therefore, there is little point in trying to relate past production costs to present day prices. I was not quite clear about what the Minister intends in relation to credits. I believe that there are sufficient credits in his scheme to meet all eventualities that the forest owner may require, but I would like the Secretary of State to be a little clearer and a little more detailed as to what these actual facilities are.
My next point refers to young trees. Forest owners who are trying to replant in this month and in the next two months, are held up because they cannot obtain supplies of young trees. One owner in Yorkshire has been told by his nurseryman that he can have only 25 per cent. of the young trees he requires. I understand that in their nurseries the Forestry Commission will have a surplus. In any case, as they themselves are short of labour, they can probably release rather more than they think their surplus is going to be. I would request the Government to ask the Forestry Commission to make up their minds today as to what their surplus is going to be so that they may get their young trees out of the nursery, or direct to the owners if that is possible, in order that the land may be planted before Christmas, because in the north of England we cannot plant at the end of December, January and February owing to the weather.
My two final points will be brief. I want the Minister who, I understand, belongs to what is called a "progressive party," to try to be progressive for once in regard to Forestry Commission finance. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a speech that I made on the Second Reading of the Forestry Act in which I put before him and my right hon. Friend a proper modern method of financing forest operations in which the capital and interest and the revenue expenditure of the Forestry Commission were sub-divided. As I cannot deploy the argument now, I would ask him to refer to that speech and to
136
consider whether he cannot introduce a really practical reform in the finances of the Forestry Commission. I welcome this Debate, and hope that the Forestry Commission will co-operate fully, both in labour and advice, with the private owners. It is only on the basis of cooperation that forestry will make headway. I believe it can; I only hope that it will be allowed to.
8.59 P.m.
Mr. Perrins: Although this Debate has ranged far and wide, there are two aspects of the subject which have not been mentioned during the time that I have been sitting in the Chamber. I listened very carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend because I wished to ascertain what was the policy with regard to disease in forests. I make special reference to this aspect because in my own county of Worcestershire, where I was born and still reside, we have a very strong incidence of disease in elm trees. The matter is of grave and serious concern to the war agricultual committee. It is not confined to a certain part of the county; it is widespread, and as the expert opinion is that this elm tree disease is contagious, it may sterilise every elm tree in the county for a long period. I would like to know what my right hon. Friend has to say about that. It must be equally important to protect the land that is under forest cultivation as the forests which already exist.
I have sensed in the course of the Debate that sooner or later there will be a conflict of interests between those who want land for agriculture and those who want it for afforestation. In my own native Black Country we have land which agriculturists will not tackle. To use a term which I think my hon. Friend who is to reply will understand, these areas consist very often of two, three or four acres of what are called "tocky banks." They consist of the spoil which is taken out of the earth where mining has been carried on. The people in the Black Country who live far from the green fields would welcome an acre or two planted with trees. The question of labour may arise, but as a town councillor for 18 years, I know that on these town councils in the Black Country are men who become fired with vision and imagination, and if those who are interested were

137
to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Kinley) and contacted their town councillors, I am sure they would be provided with useful training. They could go to these areas, bring back soil and analyse it, and make useful suggestions. I think the town councillors will be able to provide the labour without drawing on the limited resources at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. There are other points which I wanted to develop, but as the hour is late I will not detain the House. I shall want to catch your eye on a future occasion, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by expressing the hope that when he replies, the Minister will deal with the question of disease to which I have referred.
9.3 P.m.
Mr. Collins: In the short time at my disposal I wish, first of all, to add my welcome to the many which have been given to the Government's afforestation plans, and to say that, in my view, the fact that this is one of the most urgent and vital parts of our agricultural policy is very evident. Many of the fears which have been expressed as to the use of land will not arise because this is an integral part of our agricultural policy and will come under the direction of one Minister. I do not agree in the main with what some hon. Members here said about the dedication scheme, although I think the whole policy of afforestation should be approached in a spirit of dedication. No one should be under the impression that he can plant today and see any tangible results in his own lifetime—An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It depends how old he is, and what he plants but, in the main, anybody who plants now with the hope of receiving early profits had better have nothing to do with afforestation.
There is one matter which I would like to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend, and that is the question of commercial willow planting. That is something which will achieve comparatively quick results, and something which is very badly needed indeed. Not very many years ago we had 9,000 acres under willows in this country. Today there are less than 2,000, and each year we have to import 3,000 tons of willows, mainly from the Argentine, at a present cost of something like £300,000 per annum. That is essentially a section of English
138
agriculture which has been lost, which has been devastated by the policy of the interwar years. It is, in fact, a very unhappy commentary on the policy followed in those interwar years that at Long Ashton there is a research station with several acres of willow beds; so far, the only tangible product from those beds has been the hybrids which have been exported to the Argentine to set up there a very successful willow growing industry for re-export to this country. That is something which I suggest is intolerable.
There is a considerable acreage of land in Somerset which is eminently suited for the growing of willows. It is the home of willow growing, and it is not at present of any use, or very little use, for ordinary agriculture. For willow growing we do not ask for anything but the same assistance of assured markets and an assured future which is promised to the rest of agriculture. There is a 20 years' amortization on willow beds. Therefore, there is again a long-term problem which must be carefully considered by anyone venturing now. I also suggest that consideration should be given to the extension of willow growing in Scotland, as an adjunct to a cottage basket industry. It has been tried in Skye; it has been tried on the Duke of Montrose's estate, and in places where I myself have assisted in the rehabilitation of willow beds. It is a matter which I hope will be looked into, because I can assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that these two things, raw materials and basket making, are things which I have started myself in remote parts, and which I hope to see developed. I hope the suggestions I have made to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will receive his early and careful consideration.
9.8 p.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland is to answer all the questions that have been thrown at him tonight from all sides of the House, I shall have to finish almost as soon as I have risen, because I think a basketful has been handed to him. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is delighted that it is not his turn again, but that he can hand it over. This Debate has been of great value, if only that it has served to ventilate and give air to this truly vital problem of forestry in this country. Let me

139
avoid thin ice at once, and say that when I use the expression "this country" I mean the whole of Great Britain. It is high time the country realised what forestry means, and should mean. I join with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) in regretting very much the small attendance in this House, on both sides, for such an important matter. However, there it is. I hope hon. Members will read that to which they have not listened.
There is no doubt that forestry must be a major thing in our national economy from now on. As has been pointed out from several sources, two wars have denuded our forests to an extraordinary extent. In Scotland we have mile after mile of hillside absolutely laid bare, so that people who know it Well really hardly recognise it; and I have no doubt that in certain parts of England it is the same. I do not think that the mere fact that we have cut down timber like this is going necessarily to get into the people's heads what we have to do. I do not think that the people of this country, by and large, understand what is meant by afforestation; and I hope that this Debate, the publicity it will have in our constituencies, will make people realise that it is in their own interest, and not only in that of those of us talking about this subject.
I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, rather shyly, dissociate himself from the deplorable remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Inverness in August. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will publicly dissociate himself from what is a most outrageous statement, contrary to all the facts. A man in the Chancellor's position, even though addressing a Labour rally, had no business to mislead the country in that way. He had a perfect right and opportunity, the same as any of us, of verifying the facts. The Minister of Agriculture has convicted him out of his own mouth, not only on 30th November but again today. I think, if I may suggest it, that this subject of forestry must, whatever happens, in spite of our feelings, be kept out of the welter of party politics. It should go far beyond that, and I hope that that particular occasion will be the last we are to hear of party politics in forestry. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), with
140
that bee that buzzes so violently in his bonnet, maintained a magnificent calm in the circumstances. He has shown an example of what can be done with the busiest bee if necessary; and I think that he took a broader view, and made a most helpful speech.
As in all other industries, there is no doubt about it, one of the main troubles in this industry is housing. We cannot get away from the fact that we must have houses if we are to get the men where the work is to be done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us a little more definitely about the houses which are to be built for these workers. I am not yet quite clear about it. Does he mean to say definitely that these houses, when built, will be let on perfectly normal, everyday tenancies subject to the Rent Restriction Acts, and so on? Does he agree that that is the case? I will sit down if he will give us the answer now. Does that apply to the forest holdings? I should like a definite answer on that, and I know that the rest of the House would, too, because it is still very much in the air.
I should like to pass for a moment to training facilities. We have heard a great deal as to what is to be done. The Minister's statement was, perhaps, a little sketchy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said. I should like to hear a little more about it, and I trust that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give us a little more detail about what is going to be done in training men up to and including the university standard. What universities in Scotland are going to do this, and how much will they be able to do? It is a difficult job. I know they are full up, but if we are not to get these poeple trained up to university standards our programme will not go ahead as it should.
One other feature in connection with education. I might call it "reeducation." It is essential that many people, owners and agents, and so on, who have worked at forestry all their lives and have knowledge of it, should have an opportunity of being brought right up to date in modern scientific methods, as, perhaps, they are not quite so up to date as people with recent opportunities of learning. I believe that owners and agents and people like that should be given the opportunity of attending short courses. They must be

141
short courses because they are busy men; the courses must be central, and the bulk of them must be out of doors.
All forestry work, like agricultural work, must be done out of doors. A book is all right as far as it goes, but if you rely on a book for agriculture or forestry, you will be like the person who took a correspondence course in swimming and then wondered why he drowned when he got into the water for the first time. I do hope the Minister will give some consideration to this question of the possibility of training for people who are already in the forestry industry, because I think it would be valuable. Given the houses and the training facilities, I am perfectly certain that we should get the men as well. Thousands of men coming out of the Services today are horrified at the thought of going or returning to a cramped, unhealthy city life. They will tell you so all over the country, and if they could be sure that, for themselves and their families, they could find really good up-to-date houses and could also get the training, I am convinced they would go to this work. But there must be those two things. One cannot get away from the housing question and one cannot get away from the fact that they must be trained.
I would like to go into the question of employment in a little more detail. A great many statements have been made about it, and one rather remarkable statement was made by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye), who said there was no such thing as unemployment at present. Perhaps he meant only in his part of the world, in which case I must say that he is extremely lucky. But a point which is definitely germane to this subject is that unemployment is becoming a very important question in Scotland, and I will indicate the position because I do not think it is understood. Our Scottish population is one-ninth of that of Great Britain, while our unemployment is one-quarter of that of the whole of Great Britain. There are two men idle in Scotland for every one in England, and 4½ for every one idle in London. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State knows that that is the case, because he was told so in no uncertain terms by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) when both of them honoured my constituency with a visit not so long ago. The hon.
142
Member for Dumbarton Burghs gave those figures to the right hon. Gentleman and they show what a really serious position there is in Scotland these days. Forestry, properly handled, would be a very valuable contribution towards a solution of the problem, but we come up immediately against difficulties in relation to the hill sheep farming industry, and it does, of course, want the most careful co-ordination on the part of both the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State.
May I indicate what can be done in forestry as opposed to hill sheep farming? On good sheep ground in Scotland, and I have no doubt it is very much the same in England, three acres per sheep are needed. The average hirsel in Scotland is 400 sheep, so 1,200 acres are needed for that size of flock, which needs one man to look after it. On a typical hill farm in Scotland of some 6,000 acres, at that rate, five men would be employed, or, with the farmer himself and perhaps an orraman, seven men in all. Of sheep land of that quality, probably 75 per cent., if not 100 per cent., would be quite suitable for afforestation. I will take 75 per cent. which, when in full production, could employ one man per 100 acres. If I have got my arithmetic fight, that means that it could employ 45 men in place of the six or seven which the sheep industry employs in the same place.
These are impressive figures. I am not of course suggesting for a moment that that proportion should be taken away from sheep farming and given to forestry. I am only pointing out that that is the effect per 100 acres of the changeover from one to the other, and it is a thing which I hope the Secretary of State will consider very carefully. These figures are obtained from a very reliable source, and they work out too for continental countries where afforestation is carried to a high standard. I think that they are probably minimum figures. In addition, we have to realise that probably four or five men will be indirectly employed for every man directly employed in forestry, on haulage, in sawing mills and so on. It can be a very big contribution to the needs, first, of preventing unemployment, and, secondly, getting men on the land, where we want to see more good fellows with their families.
I should like to give emphasis to something which was said by the hon.

143
Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and that is on the question of hardwoods as opposed to softwoods. Hardwoods are essentially a matter for the Forestry Commission. Softwoods may give the private owner a few returns in his lifetime and that of his son, but in the case of hardwoods it will be his great grandson before there will be any return, and in any case the estate will probably have been broken up a long time before the greatgrandson is fortunate enough to receive anything. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Forestry Commission are dealing with this question of hardwoods.
I now wish to turn to the æsthetical side of this matter, which was dealt with so delightfully by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). It is important that our countryside should not be covered by grim Teuton or Russian forests. There can be beauty, if the thing is done properly. There should be a mixture. Flowering trees should not be forgotten on the hillsides of Scotland, England and Wales. Among the coniferous and other trees, a few flowering trees here and there would make a difference to what is the most beautiful countryside in the world.
This subject has received ventilation and consideration in this House today, and we all welcome it, because it richly deserves it. I hope and trust that Members who represent rural constituencies, who have the problem at first hand, will not be the only Members who think that this subject applies to them, but that Members who sit for urban constituencies and our great cities, who after all form the vast majority, will realise that this applies to them and their people just as much. The maintenance and restoration of our countryside is or should be and could be the most pressing problem of our time. Farming must take first place, because it is our daily bread and we depend on it, but forestry, certainly in hill areas, offers employment and repopulation on a much larger scale than that of hill farming. There is ample room for both, and ample need for both. Fundamentally they are one problem, and they should be treated as such. It may be difficult, but that is the job of the Ministers concerned. There must be an end to competition between the two,
144
because they are and should be complementary.
We thus have on problem, and that is to restore this countryside of ours, this beautiful country in which to live is at once our privilege and our opportunity. I know that this question of forestry is of immense importance in England and Wales, but to Scotland it is absolutely vital. It is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland that this great problem lies. It is an immense responsibility. They have the power, as has been pointed out. Have they the drive, the will and the energy to push it through, because if all other industries fail, it will be bad enough, but if the land fails, it will be the end? As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), vast areas in the world have been turned into deserts by man, and we want to be sure that that does not happen again. The main feature in turning those areas into deserts was the cutting down, on a vast and ruthless scale, of the forests and woodlands that previously existed. If you play the fool with nature, you will always lose. So far, it has happened far less in our country than anywhere else. It is for us, as representatives of our people in all parts of the British Isles, to decide which way we are going in this matter of forestry and farming, because those are the factors which will eventually decide the issue.
9.26 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): In my reasonably long membership of this House, now reaching back over 24 years, this is, to the best of my knowledge, the first occasion on which we have spent a full day of Parliamentary time in discussing afforestation. I think that is some answer to the challenge that has been made as to whether the Minister of Agriculture and I are showing the necessary drive in getting on with the job of afforestation. I think we are. My right hon Friend, in outlining the policy we are seeking to pursue, has indicated that we are determined to make forestry an essential part of our national economy. It has not been that in the past. I shall not apportion the blame tonight, because I am speaking to a Motion, in which I hope sincerely the House will support us, to approve the Government's policy. Even though the House has not been full to

145
capacity to hear this interesting Debate, the Debate has been full of meat from the beginning. It would be impossible for me to deal with all the points that have been raised, but I shall endeavour to reply to the more important ones. I assure every hon. Member who has spoken that the OFFICIAL REPORT will be scanned by my right hon. Friend and I for the purpose of gaining all we can from the Debate, and that we will give the fullest consideration to every one of the helpful suggestions that have been made.
In Scotland we have a grave unemployment problem. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) that we have here a way of dealing effectively with that problem. It is one of the measures by which we can bring back to rural Scotland some of those people who have left the rural areas, and can at last take effective steps to bring about the repopulation of several of the areas that have been depopulated in the past.
One or two points which I will now mention were raised by the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). He suggested that we should have a careful look at the people engaged in getting timber out of Germany. I assure him that not only have we to see that we plant and grow trees in our own country, but that it is essential, in the interests of our own forests, that we should at the moment get the maximum amount of wood out of Germany. To get that wood we have had to part, rather regretfully, with some of our own forestry workers and experts. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the most careful consideration is being given to this matter. I am sure he will agree that if we are to save many of our immature trees we must get the maximum amount of wood out of Germany. It will be an effective way of making the Germans pay reparations without economically and disastrously affecting them, while benefiting us socially in a material way by providing us with wood for our houses and pit props for our mines.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman can do it with fewer men
Mr. Westwood: I do not think it is possible to get the maximum wood out of Germany in any other way, and we are not parting with any of our men unnecessarily.
146
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the cost of the houses. That cost varies from month to month and I cannot give him the cost. It will be no greater than the cost of building other houses. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that in last year's legislation we provided subsidies to enable us to build houses in the remote areas. The capital cost of these houses will be no greater than if they were built by the local authorities who would have the right to get the subsidy for those remote areas.
Mr. Dye: What subsidy will be paid to local authorities?
Mr. Westwood: I cannot give the figure for England. That is a matter for the English Minister. The subsidy for Scotland can be as high as £35, plus an additional grant, with no limit for remote areas. We must have the facts before we can determine finally in the Department what the grant is to be.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Forestry Commission said in their report in 1943 that the cost then averaged £494. Surely, he knows what the cost will be. Will it be £1,000, £2,000 or £2,494?
Mr. Westwood: I have told the House that I cannot say. I shall not give any figure on which hon. Members can trip me up afterwards. Hon. Members have known me now for 24 years and I shall not give any figure of which I am not absolutely sure. All I can say is that the cost will be no higher than that of similar houses that might have been built by the local authority.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: It was indicated to us by the Minister of Agriculture that the Scottish Special Housing Association would be building these houses. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate the timetable to which the Association will work?
Mr. Westwood: It is true that the Special Housing Association in Scotland is being used as agent or instrument for the building of houses in these remote areas. That is one of the reasons why we set up the Special Housing Association. The hon. Member for East Fite (Mr. H. Stewart) need not try to get me to give figures of which I am not sure. No one would be more ready than he to look up the figures in order to see whether,

147
a week afterwards, he could catch me out. He is not going to catch me out tonight. It is not so easy, because sometimes the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) waits until I am not here to attack and seldom attacks when I am here.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is making an entirely unjustified statement. He was not here, because he chooses to be out of the House during Scottish Debates, when he ought to be present.
Mr. Westwood: This is getting very interesting. I have noticed the period of time during which the hon. Member for East Fife has been in the House during this Debate.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have been here longer than the right hon. Gentleman—much longer.
Mr. Westwood: I wish certain hon. Members were able to take medicine, as well as try to give it. There were one or two very important points raised by hon. Members during this Debate—
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer the questions which I asked. I asked whether, as far as England is concerned, the Minister of Agriculture had abandoned the idea which he put forward in his speech of 30th November that the local authorities were to build houses, and I also asked about the rents that would be charged for these new houses.
Mr. Westwood: The rents will be comparable with the rents charged to agricultural workers. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that that is very reasonable. As far as the local authorities are concerned, speaking for Scotland, if I can induce them to build, I will. If I cannot, the Forestry Commission will carry on the building in accordance with the plans already indicated to the House. I will have some figures to give concerning Scotland, if I can get time between now and 10 o'clock, when the Debate automatically ends.
Several hon. Members have raised the problem of education in its connection with forestry. The Minister of Agriculture and I and the Forestry Commission are fully aware of the need for training
148
and for special education facilities for forestry. We have three different types of training and education. There is the training and education for forestry officers. They are university trained, so as to be able to plan and supervise afforestation. Then we have the foresters. They are trained in the Commissioners' schools to supervise the workmen in the forests. Then we have the workmen, including ex-Servicemen, who are to be trained in manual operations under the Ministry of Labour's scheme. There are four university schools for forestry officers—in England and Wales—Bangor and Oxford; in Scotland, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. If anyone asks me whether they are giving the turn-out we would desire, my answer is that that would be impossible at present, but they are doing what is possible in existing circumstances to give us educational facilities and trained men. The output from all four schools is estimated to be 27 in 1947, 64 in 1948, and 109 in 1949, so that there is a progressive increase. We will do what we can to try to improve the speed and provide additional facilities.
The problem of housing has been referred to repeatedly. The Minister of Agriculture and I, along with the Commissioners, recognise the need for attractive houses with all amenities. I want in Scotland, in the development of afforestation, to work with the health services. I am referring to rehabilitation. I am thinking of the men who have to be rehabilitated after accidents in mines, after industrial disease, and after ordinary diseases which make it impossible for them to go back to their own occupations. Like the Minister of Health, I see a glorious opportunity of associating afforestation with the health services, so that a man who is certified by his medical attendant as being unable to go back to the mines will have a chance, if he can be fitted into the afforestation scheme, to become a useful citizen, creating his own livelihood, instead of gradually deteriorating in health and strength, and finally becoming a burden on the community. Again, I cannot get personnel into forestry unless I can provide for those who come into forestry as good housing conditions as are provided elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I, along with the Commissioners, recognise the need for attractive houses with all amenities.

149
There is one point that I want to emphasise in connection with the Commissioners. It has been suggested that we give orders to them as we do to civil servants, but they are not civil servants in the ordinary way. I want to pay a full meed of praise to the splendid work which all those engaged in forestry, officially, have been doing, particularly during the last 12 months. Very few of these Commissioners are fully employed or fully paid; a few are partly paid, but the major number are citizens of both England and Scotland who are willingly giving of their knowledge and service to help us in dealing with this great problem. It is but right that from this Box I should pay a tribute to that public service which they are giving—irrespective of politics—because they were not chosen for their politics but for their knowledge in connection with forestry work, and they are doing a splendid service in the interests of Scotland. I am sure the same applies as far as concerns England.
The Commissioners agree that housing must be of the best we can provide. So far as possible houses will be put in communities, but there are cases where this is not possible in the interests of effective management. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning): fires will sometimes break out at night and we must have our forestry workers on the spot. But we have to see that although they may be isolated from their fellow workers the conditions under which they live are, if at all humanly possible, uniformly good so far as housing is concerned. Where the local authorities are able, we shall allow them to provide houses, as I have already indicated. There will be no need then for the Commissioners to provide them, but where the local authorities do not build, houses must be retained for the workers required in the forests, but they will be subject to the ordinary conditions as already indicated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Alpass: Will that be under an ordinary tenancy?
Mr. Westwood: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has already explained that, and I am repeating it.
Major Mott-Radclyffe rose—
Mr. Westwood: I have not much time and I have not interrupted other hon. Members. Another important question which has been raised is that of fire protection. This is a matter to which the Commissioners have given, and will continue to give, their fullest consideration. I am advised that it is not to be solved by towers and telephones alone, although some may be necessary, but that it requires an integrated system of detection and the prompt arrival of the fire fighters, adequately equipped. Above all, prevention must be sought by precautionary methods and we have to try to interest children in trees. By using our educational system we will endeavour to inculcate in them a love of trees. Far too often children, because they have not been trained aright, destroy the trees in our countryside. We shall have to see that our educational system also fits in with the policy of afforestation, and we shall have to teach the hikers and the others who will be using our national forests—which must work into and become part and parcel of our forestry proposals—that it is wrong to light fires and then not to see that all the embers are put out before they leave the spot. We have to educate the adults as well as the children in the need for a real preventive action and preventive measures if we are to avoid forest fires.
The Commissioners are sometimes worried by the carelessness of the general public, and if we are to make a real success of afforestation I agree that it is not by the Commissioners themselves doing the work, or by the Minister and I supervising that work and being responsible to Parliament for it. It is by all members of the community realising that these are their trees and their forests, that they have to take a personal interest in seeing that they are safeguarded and that we are enabled really to get on with the job, and that the trees are not destroyed as a result of the carelessness of individuals.
I was asked some important questions in connection with the dedication scheme, and I can give assurances to the House—assurances on behalf of the Government and of the Commissioners—that every help and cooperation will be given by the Commissioners and they will expect every help from private owners to make the dedication scheme a success. I can say without any hesitation that the fullest cooperation and help will be forthcoming

151
so far as the Commissioners and the Minister and I are concerned to make the dedication scheme a success. I hope I have touched on the main—
Mr. York: Timber prices.
Mr. Westwood: It is certainly true that there is a need for revision in connection with timber prices. I cannot give a date at the moment when the announcement will be made. I can assure the House that this matter is receiving active—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the proper Parliamentary word; the Minister assures me, the very active—that means it will not be too long delayed before an announcement is made—consideration of His Majesty's Government, but I am not in a position tonight to make the announcement or to fix the date when an announcement will be made.
I would like to say a word or two about Scotland in particular. I have to emphasise not only the great interest of the Government as a whole but my own personal concern so far as the success of afforestation in Scotland is concerned. I am responsible as Secretary of State for Scotland. There are three subjects to which I have devoted my life in Scotland—education, health, and I am glad to say that for 25 years I have been an advocate of afforestation. I have always realised that in the economic development of Scotland afforestation must play a very essential and important part. We must have large scale scientific forestry if we are to make a real contribution to the prosperity of Scotland. Sometimes I have to do my work in Scotland—and I have never wasted a day when the House has not been sitting, and not even when the House has been sitting, when I have been in Scotland, in trying to find out for myself some of the problems I have to deal with. In my tours of the countryside I have had an opportunity of inspecting some of the extensive forests such as Glenbranter, Ben More, Glenfinnart and Ardgartan, amongst others, and I have observed for myself how well the trees are growing and some of the scientific experiments that are being carried out successfully in growing trees where there used to be peat bogs and barren wastes. Afforestation is one of the essential things required in our Highland regions.
152
I want to see afforestation coupled with the development of hydro-electricity—this is part of the plan which I have been aiming for for Scotland—with agriculture, and with fishing. I have seen, too, in my travels through Scotland the great scars left on the hillsides by the fellings made during the last seven years, and the great stretches of poorly utilised country which could be made available for forests. There is sometimes a conflict between agricultural interests and forestry interests, but that is the problem I have to solve so far as Scotland is concerned, and my right hon. Friend has to solve it so far as England is concerned. I have an effective machinery, not in Whitehall, but in St. Andrew's House, for dealing with this problem, and if there is a conflict between the Forestry Commissioners as to the wise use of land and my own Department of Agriculture, then at the end of the day it is I, as Secretary of State for Scotland, who have to accept the responsibility of determining to what use that land will be put. The aim and object of my policy is to use that land to the best advantage in the best interests of Scotland and of its economic development. Therefore, I do not allow real conflict to take place between the Commissioners and my Department. I have to he the arbiter if they cannot get agreement, but up to the present there has been reasonable agreement—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not always."]—not always, otherwise they would not requite me as an arbiter, but there has been reasonable agreement so far as the Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture are concerned.
For the removal of the thinnings from the more advanced plantations, better forest roads are required. I saw those difficulties when I was visiting these forests, and we are developing a road programme so that we can deal, effectively and in an organised and scientific way, with this problem of afforestation. The Forestry Commissioners, through their research work and by large-scale ploughing operations—and it was suggested that we should use the best machinery with heavy tackle—have shown how many types of very poor land, which was formerly considered of little use for growing trees, or, indeed, for any other purpose, may be successfully afforested.
Here, then, to my mind is a venture which, integrated with agriculture and fisheries, holds out high promise and con-

153
sequently is worthy of the strongest backing which the Government and this House can give it. I am glad to say that the Forestry Commissioners themselves have recognised the importance of Scottish forestry in their provisional allocation of the estate planning programme for the next five years. The total is 290,000 acres and, of that area, 123,000 acres or 42 per cent. has been devolved on the Scottish National Committee, of which my predecessor, Mr. Tom Johnstone, is the chairman. Ofttimes we have spoken about the Goschen formula in this House. I think I have come fairly well out of this particular formula so far as afforestation in Scotland is concerned.
I would have liked to deal with many other points but my time is almost up. There are two points which stand out in my mind when I am considering the whole forestry problem. The first is the effective, perhaps I should say the essential, contribution which Scottish woodlands made towards victory. That has already
154
been pointed out by a previous speaker. The second is the way in which postwar developments of all kinds are held up by a shortage of timber for house building, etc., and we are now paying very heavily for our neglect of forestry in the past. I can commend to the House the Motion now before us, in the sincere hope that it will be unanimously adopted by hon. Members
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved:
"That this House approves the policy of His Majesty's Government for Forestry as announced by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 30th November. 1945."

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Ten o'Clock.

  HOUSING (LAND, BILLBOROUGH)
  HOUSING (LAND, BILLBOROUGH)
  COMMITTEE ON LONDON GOVERNMENT
  COMMITTEE ON LONDON GOVERNMENT
  RETIRED TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS)
  RETIRED TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Vocational Training
  Vocational Training
  Available Manpower
  Available Manpower
  Trade Unions (Closed Shop)
  Trade Unions (Closed Shop)
  Statutory Orders (Explanatory Notes)
  Statutory Orders (Explanatory Notes)
  Building Industry (Direction of Labour)
  Building Industry (Direction of Labour)
  Domestic Servants (Austrians)
  Domestic Servants (Austrians)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Employment Exchanges (Vacancies)
  Employment Exchanges (Vacancies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  P.A.Y.E.
  P.A.Y.E.
  New Coinage
  New Coinage
  Old Age Pensions (Dominion Subjects)
  Old Age Pensions (Dominion Subjects)
  Postwar Credits
  Postwar Credits
  Securities (Government Holdings)
  Securities (Government Holdings)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (American Visit)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (American Visit)
  Leaflets (Cost)
  Leaflets (Cost)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Customs and Excise (Candidates)
  Customs and Excise (Candidates)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Discharges)
  Ex-Service Personnel (Discharges)
POST OFFICE
  Local Telephone Directories
  Local Telephone Directories
  Evacuated Staff
  Evacuated Staff
BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
  News Bulletins (Comments)
  News Bulletins (Comments)
  Licence Renewal Form
  Licence Renewal Form
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Silicosis Board (Reports)
  Silicosis Board (Reports)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Pension Claims
  Pension Claims
  Dental Fees
  Dental Fees
  Pensioners (Figures)
  Pensioners (Figures)
  Administrative Offices
  Administrative Offices
ALIENS
  British Wives
  British Wives
  Hospital Domestic Service
  Hospital Domestic Service
  Polish Soldiers' Wives
  Polish Soldiers' Wives
  Naturalisation (Poles)
  Naturalisation (Poles)
  CHILD CARE (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  CHILD CARE (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  WAR DAMAGED BUILDINGS, LIVERPOOL
  WAR DAMAGED BUILDINGS, LIVERPOOL
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
  POLICE (RETURN FROM ARMED FORCES)
  POLICE (RETURN FROM ARMED FORCES)
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (PROSECUTIONS)
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS (PROSECUTIONS)
  ADOPTED CHILDREN
  ADOPTED CHILDREN
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION
  WELSH CHURCH COMMISSION
  ELECTORAL REGISTER, MANCHESTER
  ELECTORAL REGISTER, MANCHESTER
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Artificial Limbs (Repairs)
  Artificial Limbs (Repairs)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  TUBERCULOSIS ALLOWANCES SCHEME
  TUBERCULOSIS ALLOWANCES SCHEME
BRITISH ARMY
  Hong Kong (Mails)
  Hong Kong (Mails)
  Diphtheria and Typhoid
  Diphtheria and Typhoid
  SS. "AQUITANIA" (VOYAGE TO NEW YORK)
  SS. "AQUITANIA" (VOYAGE TO NEW YORK)
  ROAD WORKS (GOVERN MENT PROGRAMME)
  ROAD WORKS (GOVERN MENT PROGRAMME)
  RAIL AND ROAD FARES (MANCHESTER)
  RAIL AND ROAD FARES (MANCHESTER)
  RAILWAYS (ALTON— LONDON SERVICE)
  RAILWAYS (ALTON— LONDON SERVICE)
  CLOTHING COUPONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  CLOTHING COUPONS (PERSONAL CASE)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
  ARMED FORCES (STRENGTH)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (COMMERCIAL INTERESTS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (COMMERCIAL INTERESTS)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (COORDINATION)
  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (COORDINATION)
  AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES
  AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES
  COLONIAL SERVICE RECRUITMENT
  COLONIAL SERVICE RECRUITMENT
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (COSTS)
  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (COSTS)
  MALAYA (CLAIMS COMMISSION)
  MALAYA (CLAIMS COMMISSION)

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

COINAGE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Coinage Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to effect the removal from the currency of that element of silver which it now contains. The principal reason for the Bill is the need for repaying the United States of America the loan of 88,000,000 ounces of silver which was made during the war and which we are under contract to repay in silver during the next five years. The Bill provides for a coinage of a cupro-nickel alloy to take the place of the existing currency. I propose to say a few very brief words on each one of these topics.
It is a very long time since the intrinsic value of our silver coinage has corresponded with its face value. At any time during the last 130 years if you were to melt down, say, what was called the silver shilling the value of the silver which you would have got as a result would have been substantially less than one shilling's worth. This means that the silver coinage has been essentially a token coinage; that is to say, it depended for its value not upon its intrinsic material but upon the fact that it was to be accepted in certain circumstances as legal tender. As token coinage it did not differ in essence from the paper currency except that, whereas the paper currency is of course intrinsically worth hardly anything at all, the intrinsic value of the coinage we have had has varied from a few pence up to very nearly its face value, and I think even more than that at one time. Up to 1920, except at a time some centuries ago, the silver coinage consisted of a very large proportion of silver. But in 1920 the value of the silver in the silver coinage,
672
owing to the rise in the price of silver, had become so great that for a brief period the intrinsic value of the silver was actually greater than the face value. That being so, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he then was, who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, decided that it was necessary to reduce the amount of silver in the currency, otherwise there would be a tendency for people to melt down the coinage in order to get the greater value the metal had over the face value imprinted on it. He reduced the amount of silver in currency to fifty per cent., and at that figure it has remained ever since, so that the shillings and half-crowns and sixpences which we have today are not silver coins, they are coins made of an alloy of which silver is exactly half. The purpose of this Bill is to change that alloy from a silver alloy to a cupronickel alloy, as I shall describe more particularly a little later on.
Why is it desired by the Government to make this change? The first reason is that silver is becoming steadily dearer at the present time, and as we have to keep on purchasing metal for our expanding so-called silver currency it is a considerable expense to us at the enhanced price to go on buying silver. Broadly speaking, silver, which was 2s, an ounce in 1939, is now 4s. 7½d. or thereabouts per ounce, which you will see is a very considerable rise, and it may well be that the price of silver will go on still further rising above what it is at the present time.
That in itself would be a considerable reason but, as I stated earlier, a more important reason still is the fact that during the war we borrowed 88,000,000 ounces of silver from the United States of America. We entered into contract to repay them during the next five years, and that repayment has now become due. I may add that the Government of India have a similar liability for an even larger amount. If we were to buy all this silver in the open market in order to repay the American loan, in the first place we should have to pay a very considerable price, and it may be an increasing price, because of our increased demand which might well send up the price far above its present figure. In addition to that we should be taking silver away from use in industry, which I understand is a growing one at the present time. I think in those circumstances your Lordships will agree that there is no object in

673
making use of our very limited foreign exchange in order to buy silver and that, much as we may regret it from a sentimental point of view—and I suppose none of us do not regret it—it is a sound proposition for us to get rid of the silver from our currency and make use of an inferior alloy. So silver will go the way of gold and no longer find itself jingling in our pockets or residing in our purses.
So far, I imagine, I shall have, with perhaps one or two exceptions, the general consent and agreement of your Lordships. I now come to a point which, judging by the debates in another place, may give rise to some difference of opinion. I refer to the question as to with what we shall replace the silver alloy which has hitherto formed the substance of our silver currency. As your Lordships know, the proposition in the Bill is that for the present alloy there shall be substituted an alloy which is called cupro-nickel and which consists of three parts of copper and one part of nickel. I want to say straight away that this alloy is a white metal eminently suited for coinage and that the Mint are in a position to set about producing those coins immediately. They cannot come into direct use by the public quite so soon because a little interval will elapse, but as far as the Mint are concerned the minting of those coins can proceed at once and will in fact proceed directly this Bill has been carried into law.
Some criticism has been made of this alloy and it is argued that pure nickel should be used instead. I have no inherent objection to a nickel coinage, but I should explain to your Lordships first of all what difference there is between nickel and cupro-nickel coinage for practical purposes and then give the reasons why the Government have come down for the moment on the side of cupronickel. It is argued by people who have not seen these alloys made into coins that the cupro-nickel alloy is unsuitable for coinage for several reasons. In the first place, it is said that it is dirty and possibly a yellow or a drab colour. That is quite a misunderstanding; the appearance of a cupro-nickel coin is in every way as white and as bright as pure nickel, and in fact the two coins are indistinguishable unless they are very carefully examined one against the other. It is perhaps not generally known that on the other side of the Atlantic the so-called nickel in the United States of America is cupro-nickel.
674
The so-called nickel in Canada, on the other hand, is pure nickel. The United States nickel, which is cupro-nickel, has been in currency ever since 1870 and, so far as I am aware at any rate, there has been no criticism of the United States coin or any suggestion that it is in any way inferior to the Canadian pure nickel coin. I think probably the idea that cupronickel is a yellowish substance exists in the public's mind because they imagine that that is the alloy from which our present twelve-sided threepenny bit is made. That, of course, is entirely incorrect; our twelve-sided threepenny bit is not made of cupro-nickel but of nickel-brass, in which nickel, I think, plays a very small part. As I have already said, cupro-nickel is almost indistinguishable from pure nickel.
It is also said that cupro-nickel is soft and can lose its shape. That is quite untrue. It may not be quite as hard as pure nickel but it is very hard indeed and it is quite impossible to bend it out of shape. It is said that it is easily counterfeited because it melts at a low temperature. That also is quite incorrect. It is true that it melts at a lower temperature than pure nickel but it melts at a temperature 200 degrees above the alloy which forms our present silver currency. It is said that it becomes discoloured and pitted after a time, but there is no evidence whatever of that. As a matter of fact in several countries of the world—notably, as I have mentioned, in the United States—it has been in existence for a long time.
That I think disposes of nearly all the objections which have been raised against the use of cupronickel, but, as I have said, I am not out to defend cupronickel as a better substance than pure nickel from which to make coinage. Why is it then, that the Government are asking in this Bill that in the first instance at any rate cupronickel shall be used? The answer is that we want to get this operation proceeding at once and we could not do that if it were decided to change over to pure nickel. Nickel, as I have already said, requires a higher melting point, and I understand that the present furnaces and the present set-up in the Mint would not be able to produce the disc from which the currency would have to be stamped if nickel were used. If nickel coins were to be used, the only alternatives would be that private firms should be asked to produce them or that, with considerable

675
delay, the furnaces and the other apparatus should be got together and installed, if it were possible, in the present premises, and if that were not possible some additional premises would have to be found. Taking one thing and another, it is exceedingly likely that at least a year's delay would take place before a new nickel coinage could be made.
There is another point to bear in mind. Nickel is harder than cupronickel. The designs which enable the present currency to be cast are of a relief which will suffice for the stamping of cupronickel coins but would not be correct for the stamping of pure nickel. Nickel being so much harder, it is not possible to have so deep a relief and therefore it would be necessary to have new designs in order to provide the lower relief which alone could be efficacious in the case of pure nickel. For those reasons there will be considerable delay. Therefore, the Government have decided, as is stated in this Bill, that cupronickel shall be the coinage which shall immediately replace, or begin to replace, the so-called silver coinage. I hope I need not go into the precise significance of the individual clauses. If there is any point on them it can of course be raised in the course of the discussion or in Committee, if it is thought fit to have a Committee stage.
There is just one clause to which I think I should call attention, and that is Clause 3. In that clause it is proposed that by proclamation it will be possible to vary the material from which the coins will be made. It may be that in years to come use may be made of that clause, which will mean that it will not be necessary to come back to Parliament to obtain sanction for a change. On the other hand, I would remind your Lordships tint that proclamation will be open to what I think is known as a negative Resolution. In other words, a Prayer can be put down against it, and if there should be any reason to disapprove of it and in the opinion of the House that is so, the proclamation will not take effect. With those few words I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful
676
to the noble Lord for the way he has explained this Bill. We on this side of the House admit that in the circumstances the measure is necessary, and therefore we do not oppose its introduction. Notwithstanding that, it is worth thinking a moment that this is indeed a melancholy occasion, because the Government have virtually invited us in this House to go, as it were, to an All-Party funeral for silver. I am sure there are mourners on all sides and in all quarters of the House at the disappearance of silver from our coinage. Although in principle we do not oppose this measure, nevertheless whether the Government's proposals are the best, and whether what the Government propose is the only way to do what they wish, are matters of some difference, some comment, and some question, from myself and other noble Lords on this side of the House.
Although, naturally, the noble Lord as a member of the Administration responsible for the change did not say so, we must admit that this is a warning regarding the state of our finances at the present time. The Bill is a measure indicating the straitened circumstances in which this country is carrying on at the present time. The coinage of this country has in the past been a token of its stability and respectability. It was rather like a well-cut, well-preserved suit in which somebody goes out to do business. We are now donning—and there is no question about it—what is really a shoddy garment of, I am afraid, dubious wearing quality, and it seems to me that it marks one more step towards that utility life into which we are all being led at the present time. We have got utility furniture, we have got utility radios, we have got utility this and utility that, and now we are to have rather a drab, dreary, utility coinage. It is, of course, true that in the technical sense our credit is unimpaired by the change in this coinage, but it must have a bad effect on the ordinary citizens in the other countries of the world with which we are doing our trade. There must be a bad psychological effect as the result of this bad substitution for our age-long silver coinage.
I want to ask the noble Lord if the Government would consider taking particular care to brief our commercial secretaries and our trade representatives in foreign countries as to the true need of this measure, what it is and why we

677
have to introduce it, in order that any bad psychological effect upon the credit of this country may be offset. No one disputes the need to save, nor indeed do we dispute the merit of saving. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in another place, and the noble Lord has repeated to-day to your Lordships, that the main reason why the Government have introduced this measure is that we have an obligation to repay 88,000,000 ounces of silver to the United States over the next five years; and there is also our reluctance to buy silver at the present enhanced price in order to continue silver in our coinage. We have been compelled, therefore, to take the step with which noble Lords on this side of the House do not disagree.
But I want to question whether we are really doing the best for this country by the substitution of cupro-nickel. The noble Lord said that we are doing this for the present time and that the Government have come down for the moment on the side of cupro-nickel. He also said that he was not out to defend cupronickel, but nevertheless he put up a very good defence for that particular alloy. The noble Lord put up a certain line of defence but, if you will allow me to say so, I think it is arguable whether that defence was either sufficient or really correct in certain respects. It has been generally argued that nickel would, if it could be used, be a more satisfactory material for our coinage than cupro-nickel. Indeed, in another place the Financial Secretary of the Treasury said he very much regretted that the Mint could not cope with the work at the present time, if in fact nickel is the better material. I hope that what I will call the "escape clause"—the noble Lord referred to it twice in his speech, saying "for the present cupro-nickel," and that he had come down on the side of cupro-nickel "for the moment"—means that the Government have not closed their minds to the possibilities of abandoning cupro-nickel as soon as circumstances allow, for a coinage of nickel, which has generally been admitted—and no Government spokesman has tried to deny this—is a more desirable metal.
There are three reasons given for what I will call this second-class decision to which the Government have had to come. The chief reason is the difficulty of minting. Many of us have read the debates
678
in another place, and I would summarize the reason for the difficulties of minting under three headings. Firstly, they have not got adequate building space to put in new machinery; secondly, they have not got the new machinery; and thirdly, if they had the new machinery I understand that the foundations of the building would need modification. The noble Lord said that the Government have to take this step of introducing oupro-nickel at once, and therefore they could not wait for those remedies required for the Mint to be brought into operation. I put it to your Lordships that that explanation is not really enough. The Government have now been in office some eighteen months. As soon as Lease-Lend ended they must have known of the call which was likely to be made on us to repay the 88,000,000 ounces of silver, and surely in a year to a year and a half the Mint, with Government support, might have got the machinery required, and the buildings might have been enlarged or the Mint removed to a more suitable place. Also the foundations might have been put right to such an extent as to allow of putting in such machinery as it might have been possible to install.
It does seem to me that it is a peculiar position with respect to a nationally operated industry that, after eighteen months, when a Government pledged to the maximum degree of nationalization are asked to cope with a particular situation, they declare themselves unable to do so because the industry has not got the fittings, the plant or the necessary foundations. Of course, the Mint has been operated—with great credit, I am sure, to those who have been conducting the operations—under State ownership for a large number of years under various Administrations, some of those being Administrations not so fond of State ownership and nationalization as the present Government are. But it does seem to me to be poor testimony to the policy of industrial nationalization if the present Socialist Government after eighteen months have to admit that their own plant is inadequate to meet a position which they should have foreseen a year ago.
It is due to this delay that there is only one step open to the Government as an alternative to the step which is now to be carried out, and that would be to seek the aid of private enterprise. It is

679
understandable that there would be a certain amount of reluctance on the part of the Government to go to private enterprise, when nationalization appears to have failed, to make arrangements for the production of a nickel coinage, instead of one of cupro-nickel. But the introduction of nickel coinage, instead of cupro-nickel, could be brought about now and the technical difficulties with which the nationalized industry cannot cope could be overcome by going to private enterprise. I cannot help feeling that the circumstances of the present time fit in somewhat conveniently with the Socialist theories of Government ownership and their feeling that in no circumstances would they go to private enterprise. Lord Pethick-Lawrence said that this alloy, cupro-nickel, is just as attractive to look at as nickel, and he made out a case regarding its wearing qualities which I think was rather overdone. I have here two coins which I shall be glad to pass to the noble Lord provided he returns them to me. One of them is of cupro-nickel and was made in 1946. The other is of nickel and was made in 1928. I am quite sure that Lord Pethick-Lawrence or any other noble Lord who looks at these coins will find no difficulty in deciding which of the two is much the better, cleaner, brighter and nicer-looking. It is the coin made in 1928.
Then there is the question of counterfeiting on which the noble Lord touched very lightly. He said that cupro-nickel was really no more likely to be made the subject of counterfeiting than nickel. My information is somewhat to the contrary. I am not a great expert—I do not suppose any of your Lordships are—in this technical business of counterfeiting. But I have taken some trouble to look up the subject—it is always good to be prepared for future possibilities in the years to come when perhaps our currency has been so reduced that it is virtually useless. In the case of coinage made from silver alloys, counterfeits are made in zinc or lead, and they are easily detected. Therefore, the traffic in them is restricted as they can be passed only in limited quantities. Now cupro-scrap, I understand, is fairly easy to obtain and fairly cheap, therefore we can look forward to the possibility of something happening here such as now happens in India.
680
In India, I am informed, counterfeiting is regarded as a comparatively popular profession into which to put a young man. There is, I am told, a regular black market in counterfeit coinage, the average price being somewhere around 40 per cent, of the value of genuine coinage. Counterfeit cupro-nickel coins are difficult to detect, whereas counterfeits of nickel coinage can be easily detected by the aid of a magnet. I am not suggesting that every citizen should carry a magnet around with him in order to decide what coins that pass through his hands are counterfeit. But it would be quite easy by means of this test for any one in business to find out the genuineness or otherwise of coins if we used nickel coinage. That is a safeguard which we shall not have when we use cupro-nickel coins.
There is another aspect of this upon which the noble Lord did not touch, and that is the aspect relating to Imperial trade. Nickel is an Empire product, and I am informed that approximately a further 12,000 tons of Empire-produced nickel would be absorbed if we had a pure nickel coinage instead of one of cupro-nickel. But I believe that more important than this actual absorption of 12,000 tons of nickel is the possible effect of the Government decision in influencing other countries that are at present on nickel to go on to cupro-nickel, with a consequent bad effect upon an Empire primary product. Another point upon which the noble Lord did not touch was this. There is, I understand, only one refinery for nickel in this country. That refinery is located in South Wales and is at present working to only 50 per cent, of its capacity. Could not the Government have weighed the possibility of giving further employment to this refinery, before coming to their present decision, and so assisting South Wales where the spectre of unemployment is already beginning to show itself? If they had decided in favour of nickel it would have given a substantial measure of assistance to that particular area.
I repeat that we regret this measure but we do not oppose it. Nevertheless we do offer some criticism and before we give this Bill a Second Reading it is of interest to think for a moment just how far along the road we have travelled to a make-believe world or, to use what I believe is

681
now considered the more correct technical term, "a phoney world." This is where we have arrived. If any of your Lordships go to a racecourse—as perhaps some of you sometimes do—you will read on your race programme, possibly, that a race is being run for 2,000 sovereigns—that is to say horses are supposed to be racing for a prize of 2,000 sovereigns. Those sovereigns do not exist. If you search your pockets you may perhaps find a £1 note which bears inscribed upon it a promise that upon presentation £1 will be paid for it. But it is worth only a fraction of £1 to-day. Now we are having a coinage in which shillings and half-crowns will have no silver in them. It is not unnatural that we on the Opposition Benches here should sometimes think of things from the political angle. My only crumb of political comfort in view of the misgivings which we feel lies in the thought that we critics may well be shown to be correct in the years to come and that the repellent aspect of old "cupro" will be a constant reminder to succeeding generations of the Administration that introduced this measure.
4.38 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, may I add my lamentations to those of Lord Bantu of Inchrye for I think that this marks a very serious and sad moment in the history of our currency. It is one that we all regret, but in one way, I suppose we must all realize that the step is inevitable in the circumstances to which Lord Pethick-Lawrence has referred. But let us pause for a moment to think at the same time what this means, not only to our people but to other peoples who have regarded our currency as they should, that is as one of the oldest sound currencies in the world. Credit may remain but the currency is gone. That is not a thing which can be without its significance, either here or elsewhere. I hope it does not mean that that sequence of events to which the preacher referred in the book, with which you are probably familiar, must continue. You will remember that about fifteen years ago in this country the golden bowl was broken, when we went off the gold standard; rightly or wrongly—I do not know, and it is irrelevant here. Now, the silver cord is loosed, too. We hope that the sound of the mills will not diminish unduly, or that singing will cease to be heard in the land. But whatever sentimental
682
regrets we may have, we also feel that a decision of this sort has to be taken, together with many others which arise from the position in which we find ourselves as a result of the war.
It is particularly sad to me, having for many years past—and notably during the war years—had a very great deal to do with currencies of all sorts, good, bad and indifferent, and including—among many varieties which were created—currencies referred to by the British Army as "funny money." I also had to deal with one currency which will always be a very happy recollection to me; and this is relevant in this context. I had through my hands what I believe was at the time virtually the only silver reserve possessed by His Majesty's Government, in the form of Maria Thérésa dollars which were held in a currency reserve of which I had charge. It was the last intrinsically valuable silver coin in the world—certainly one of the most beautiful—and one which was minted, shipped and created for war purposes without debasement and without any alteration in value or silver content as compared with what it was when the Maria Thérésa dollar was first made. We felt that in view of the purposes for which we were going to use that coin we were not entitled to cheat anybody of the value which they thought they were receiving. Accordingly, we gave them the full value to which they had been always accustomed.
There is no question here of cheating anybody of value, except that little value which our silver coinage may be said to possess. There are, however, certain areas, and one in particular, where the question of intrinsic value still has a bearing. Some of your Lordships may be aware that the English shilling and two-shilling piece are in current use, and are legal tender, in the Sudan. Moreover, substantial quantities of this coinage were shipped to the Sudan to increase circulation there, which was then very short, owing to our troops and their activity in that part of the world. Is that currency to remain, or are the population of the Sudan also to receive, in place of their shillings and two-shilling pieces, cupronickel or some other alloy? If they are, have steps been taken to prepare them for this change? If not, it will come as a shock, and in any event I fear that it cannot be well received.

683
I will not enter into the relative merits of cupro-nickel and nickel—a subject with which I am not at all familiar—nor possibly would it be entirely desirable for me to do so, owing to certain business connexions which I have with nickel producers. But I would put in a plea, not so much for nickel, as against cupronickel or experimenting in alloys. Certain institutions in this country have acquired a public reverence which makes it, if not blasphemy then almost blasphemy, to refer to them in disrespectful terms. These institutions are well known to your Lordships—the Royal Mint, the Astronomer Royal, the Brethren of Trinity House. With their long tradition, and past history, they stand for certain standards of production and everything else to which we are accustomed in this country. Can we continue to have the confidence that we should have in the Mint, and its experimentations in alloys for coinage, when some of us have had experience of where those experiments have led?
The use of alloys, other than silver, for coins of a shilling and over, is not new in the British Empire. It will probably be within your Lordships' recollection that after the first Great War it was decided to withdraw the silver shilling from circulation in British West Africa, and to replace it with an alloy coin of about the same size. This was to be a great new coin, cheap to produce and suitable for West African circulation. It was alleged, when it came out, that it would keep its colour and its attractive appearance—an appearance so attractive that some cynics suggested that its shiny brass colour was intended to deceive the West African population into thinking that it was made of gold. That coin might have had that effect, if the alloy had lived up to expectations. But those of your Lordships who have been in West Africa will know how within a very short space of time that coin, even in its improved alloy, loses its colour in the West African climate within—I was going to say a few weeks, but I think a few days would be more correct. No one will know that better than two recent Ministers of State in West Africa.
Apart from this, those of your Lordships who have circulated perhaps a little nearer to the ground than might become
684
your Lordships' dignified positions may also have noticed that that particular alloy discolours in a variety of shades and hues which can only be attributed to the diet of the wearer. Are we certain, my Lords, that this alloy which is to take the place of our silver coinage is guaranteed proof against discoloration from the diet to which we are subject in this country? Do we know that a coin which has been worn in Scotland will have the same colour after a year as a coin worn in Wales? We have the unfortunate experience of having little confidence in these experiments in alloys perpetrated by the finance authorities in this country.
If the example which I have quoted is not sufficient, may I invite your Lordships' attention to the alloy used for making the East African shilling—a very remarkable alloy? I am no metallurgist, and I do not know what the coin is made of, but having dealt with many tons of the currency I know that it has one very peculiar property, apart from discolouration—also, I think, according to the diet of the wearer. That is, that a coin which has been passed as sound and shipped—"having the proper ring" is the technical term, I think—loses that ring by a process which I believe has mystified a number of people. Therefore a coin which has been in circulation for a certain time, although perfectly genuine and perfectly all right in every other way, acquires a dumb sound which makes it, in many respects, indistinguishable from a counterfeit. I had a good deal of trouble with that coin myself in some of my currency transactions for His Majesty's Government. I was told on inquiry that the coins which I had received, which had this property and which had been shipped to me, were no less authentic and no less carefully made than those which preserved their note, and it was not possible to find a reason for the change.
I have given you those two examples. May I give you a third? I think I am right in saving that when shortly after the last war the change in the silver content of our coinage in this country was made, to which the noble Lords, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Pethick-Lawrence, have referred, an alloy was used which produced a coin looking very like silver when new or in mint condition, but which acquired a yellowish tinge on account of the alloy or the base metal content. I think I am also right in saying that that

685
alloy was subsequently changed for another, which is the one in current use today, and which does preserve a more or less silver colour without getting yellow. Here we have three examples of the use of alloys in British coinage, all of which can only be qualified as wholly unsatisfactory and not creditable to the authorities in this country responsible for their introduction.
On the face of those examples, and with the criticism which has been made in another place, in the Press and in your Lordships' House this afternoon, is it right, so quickly and so definitely, to decide on the use of a cupro-nickel coinage, when the vast majority of other countries which have adopted metal other than silver for their coins have used nickel rather than cupro-nickel, and those who have used cupro-nickel have in certain well-known instances turned to nickel? I know it is no use appealing on sentimental grounds to the flint-hearted, armour plated officials in the Treasury, who feel they have to raise silver to repay this loan. Any appeal on those grounds would obviously be a waste of time and breath. But I appeal for further consideration, even if only for a few weeks or months, before deciding on a step which may be as unsatisfactory as those to which I have referred, and which may have far more unsatisfactory consequences in that the experiment will be made in this country with our silver coinage, and not in the rather more remote parts of the British Colonial Empire.
I cannot help feeling that this decision, brought to your Lordships' House, as it has been, at the end of a Session of Parliament, with only a few days to go, savours a little of some indecent hurry to get a Bill passed before people have had time to organize their opposition to this particular alloy, or have had time to think about better alternatives. My friends—and I know I am speaking for them—would not and could not oppose the grounds on which this Bill has been presented, but, on my own behalf and on behalf of those of your Lordships who feel as I do on this rather important issue, I trust that the Government will give further consideration to the alloy out of which our coinage is to be made, and not now decide on cupro-nickel.
4.55 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. In putting the
686
case for pure nickel as against cupronickel, I suppose I must make the usual disclaimer that I have no financial interest in any nickel concern, nor am I ever likely to possess an abundant supply of any coins whatever their content. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have too much good sense, I know, to believe that those who disagree with them must automatically be led to their beliefs by vested interests or by moral corruption or by mere inaccessibility to reason, although I think that some of their sympathizers outside the House incline to that view.
This whole issue has been launched on the country as if there were a sudden emergency. In actual fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has pointed out, the Government have had well over one year to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, went in great detail into the difficulties of the Royal Mint in making a pure nickel coinage. If he really considers those obstacles so insuperable, is he giving a very good testimonial to the initiative and flexibility of a State-run enterprise? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has made his case for the Bill and it was slightly different from that of his colleagues in another place, who did not hesitate to say that pure nickel was essentially a better material for coinage than cupro-nickel.
There is, however, a wider aspect of this matter. As your Lordships are well aware, some ninety per cent, of the world's nickel supplies, by special dispensation of fortune, is to be found in the Dominion of Canada. In peace-time the nickel industry forms a vital part of the whole of Canadian industry. In war, its use to the Empire as a whole is beyond all compare and beyond all price. Therefore anything that benefits the nickel industry benefits Canada, and if nickel in war-time is a vital Imperial interest, surely the maintenance of that industry in peace-time is equally vital? This country had good reason in the war years to be thankful for Canadian nickel, and none of your Lordships in this House today will deny the indebtedness of Britain, and indeed of the Empire as a whole, to the Dominion of Canada: not only to the prowess of her Armed Forces in the common cause, but also to her boundless generosity which continues to this day.

687
Would it not then have been a very practical and appropriate gesture of gratitude to select a nickel coinage, whose superiority over the present cupro-nickel no one seriously disputes?
It has been argued that, if this were done, the amount of nickel that would be used would not materially affect this Canadian industry. I would remind your Lordships that Britain still sets an example in this world in many fields of human activity. Many other countries may be changing their coinage in the near future, and Britain's example would materially affect their choice. The cumulative result of that would confer a very substantial benefit on Canadian industry. It has also been argued that, because the Canadian Government have made no official representation to His Majesty's Government on this matter, Canada is indifferent to this issue. The Canadian Government have a right to believe that Britain will regard her interests without Governmental representation or any official prompting.
This country is famous for quality; our genius is for quality and not quantity. We are famous for the quality of our men, our institutions, and our merchandise. If we embark upon anything that is second-rate, as this cupro-nickel coinage will be second-rate, we appreciably diminish that prestige. Before I sit down I would like most cordially to support the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that this measure should receive further consideration, and that before we take this step we should review the possibility of using a pure nickel coinage which will give us a coinage of which we can be proud and which will be undimmed not only by the discolouration of a base metal but by any possible implication of ingratitude.
5.01 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I add to the tale of lamentation we have heard to-night from all quarters? I approach this Bill with very great regret. I deplore this further breach with our tradition, which seems to me just another step from the position we once held as the financial centre of the world. A first-class people should have a first-class coinage. We were once a first-class people, a people of substance, and we had a coinage of substance,
688
a first-class coinage. Now, though we are still a first-class people, a second-class coinage is being imposed upon us by a Government that some think has a second-class record.
I wonder whether this step would really be necessary if the Government were to approach the United States of America for a postponement of this repayment of silver. Surely it cannot be to the interests of the silver bloc in the United States that Britain should demonetize silver in this way. Surely if they knew this step was inevitable if there were no postponement, they would press the Administration to allow a postponement until the price of silver was on a more reasonable basis, as it certainly will be one day. There is another point. We are still a great Oriental power, and it is both our interest and our duty to protect in every way the interests of the teeming millions of the Orient. As your Lordships are aware, the traditional savings of the Orient are in precious metals—gold and silver ornaments: gold for those who can afford it and silver for the rest. Surely nobody can deny that by divorcing ourselves from the silver market for our monetary purposes we are withdrawing a support from that market and thus our support for the value of their savings.
I know the pundits disapprove of investment in precious metals. They call it hoarding—an opprobrious term wonder whether over the last forty years they could have shown these teeming millions a practical investment which would have turned out so well as these hoards of gold and silver have turned out to-day. I do not think so.
Another point we must remember is that it was the sale of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of bullion by the peasants of India which enabled us to maintain the value of the pound in the early 1930's. Members of the Socialist Party on public platforms are particularly prone to perpetrate platitudes on the subject of the raising of the standard of living of the Oriental masses. It is left to a Socialist Chancellor to be the first to pull one prop from under the value of the savings of those same people.
5.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies I would like to make an appeal to him and to reinforce

689
what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his extraordinarily interesting speech. I have recently had some responsibility in West Africa and I can assure Lord Pethick-Lawrence that, from the point of view of counterfeiting, he is completely misinformed, at least unless the intelligence of the people of this country is far below the intelligence of the people of West Africa, because counterfeiting in West Africa is one of the staple industries, and it is practised with the most incredible success—in the counterfeiting of these alloys to which my noble friend Lord Rennell has referred. As to the disgusting character of the coin, anybody who has seen it can bear complete witness.
I am not going to reinforce or to repeat all the arguments which have been used—practical, æsthetic, and Imperial. I do not think that the noble Lord himself would wish to deny the force of any one of them. I am sure he is as disgusted at having to introduce this Bill as we are at having to pass it. Now assume that something has to be done here and now, and assume that we have got to avoid the expenditure of buying whatever is the amount of silver that would be required month by month. I understand we are to do this by the process of issuing the new coinage, or replacing the silver coinage by the alloy, by a gradual process. We shall save whatever it is—a million or two dollars—if we make a start on this as soon as possible. But I believe that everybody wishes, if it could be done, that we could have a nickel coinage. I do not want to keep to a silver coinage myself. I have not got that sentiment which I think I should have if I had such a distinguished city connexion as Lord Rennell, and such a rewarding one. I am not going to say keep silver, but I do want to reinforce the plea for nickel on every possible ground.
Why should not we do that? I know the Government really would like to do this just as much as we should. No defence has really been put forward for cupro-nickel as against nickel. If the Mint could do the nickel to-morrow, the Bill would be a Bill to introduce a nickel coinage. Why should the Government not reconsider it, and use private enterprise? I understand that you can get the nickel coinage made by private industry in this country to-morrow. The plant is there; certainly the nickel is there. If that be
690
so, have not the nickel refineries, to which my noble friend refers, in South Wales ample capacity? At any rate, let us be definitely informed whether this is not a possibility. What would it cost us in dollars if we postponed the conversion until such time as either in a private factory or in the Mint nickel coinage could be introduced? We really cannot have the great national industry of the Mint going on as an incompetent institution indefinitely. It ought to be able to do this. Let it be put in a position to do it as soon as may be. In the meantime, let private enterprise make the coinage which is necessary until the Royal Mint can undertake it. Then we should have a coinage which would still be worthy of this country and would fulfil all the desires which everybody in every quarter of the House has expressed.
I would add just this. Having had some experience, if not so wide an experience as the noble Lord, Lord Rennet, I am sure that not only are we going to be disgusted with this thing as the years go on, but that on both practical and aesthetic grounds we shall change and come—and come too late—to a nickel coinage. Then we shall be spending twice over, and spending in the long run a great deal more public money than we should if we now postponed the transaction for a while. I do ask the noble Lord, who I know does not like this any more than we do, whether he cannot give further consideration to the suggestions which have been made from all parts of the House.
5.11 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I speak again with the consent of the House, as an answer has been asked for. If facilities for producing nickel coins were identical at the present time with those for producing cupro-nickel I think there is every reason to suppose that it would have been contained in this Bill. We are not taking some terrible step in the dark by proposing to make the coinage of cupro-nickel, and I really do not find any justification for the pessimistic suggestions that have been put forward by the noble Lords who have addressed the House on this Bill.
To take up the point which was made by the noble Viscount who has just sat down, as to whether we could not get a private firm to produce nickel coins, and whether we could not put our pride

691
in our pocket for a little while, the answer is that we could not get a private firm to produce coins that were equally accurate in weight and every particular. They have not got the machinery for doing it with the same accuracy that the Mint can do it, and it would not be a reliable way of going to work. The noble Viscount spoke of the incompetency of the Mint. I do not think that he could have meant that. What I think he was really pursuing was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the Mint was unable to produce these particular coins at this particular moment. That can hardly be regarded as incompetency. It has been highly competent in the job it has had to undertake up to now. It is just not in a position to do something now which it did not expect to be called upon to do.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not desire at all to cast reflection on the people who run the Mint. Perhaps I should have spoken of the incompetence of the Government. Quite frankly, I do not think it is competence in business if you are not in a position to do the thing which you might be required to do. Whoever is responsible, I do not think they have acted competently. It has been known for a long time, ever since the agreement was made about repaying this silver, that we should have to come on to an alternative currency. Then whoever was responsible should have seen that the Mint had the machinery to give us the coinage which we all want to have. If the noble Lord prefers it, I will say there was incompetence and lack of foresight on the part of the people who should have given those directions to the Mint.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I gave way again to the noble Viscount, but I think he will appreciate that he has now come round to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. With regard to that I do not agree at all. To begin to produce nickel coins now we would have had to get the apparatus and would have had to deal with all these things. It is not at all correct to say that had this Government, when formed, regarded as a matter of prime importance the production of these nickel coins, we would have got them successfully delivered at the present time. I cannot accept the accusation levelled against us.
692
With regard to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who quoted a large number of instances where he said coins had gone wrong and were not satisfactory, I cannot, of course, follow all the cases, but with regard to two that have been put forward, the question of Africa—I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord quoted East Africa—
LORD RENNELL: I did, both.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Well, East Africa has not got cupro-nickel coinage. I understand that in East Africa there is a retentional quota of silver.
LORD RENNELL: I did not say it was cupro-nickel. I was quoting the cases of three alloys that as alloys for coinage were unsuccessful.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That may be true, but I think the impression produced on the House was that the attack of the noble Lord was against cupro-nickel. I am pointing out that a great many of the cases to which he referred are not cupro-nickel at all. When you come to West Africa, which I think was also quoted by one noble Lord, that is not cupro-nickel but nickel-brass. The Government have gone into this matter and have satisfied themselves that cupro-nickel is much more successful than has been suggested. I gave the illustration of what is called the "nickel" in the United States of America, where ever since the year 1870, that is seventy-six years ago, they have continued to make their coins of cupro-nickel. I should have thought that seventy-six years was a pretty good period for experiment. While I retain the position with which I started, that it is quite open to us if in time to come we find it would be better to change over to nickel to take that course, and the Mint can if it is thought desirable at the appropriate time proceed to make this machinery capable of producing nickel coins, for the practical purposes of this Bill, which is getting the silver out of the currency in order to pay back the silver to America, that does not really meet the case at all. I am afraid I cannot agree to hold up the Bill and change over to the production of nickel, which noble Lords seem to think is a practical proposition.
I would only add this one thing in regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, as to whether

693
it is possible to brief representatives abroad, as it were. The first point is that they are in regular receipt of our Hansard, The Times newspaper and various documents which cover the case, and no doubt on a matter of this importance they will acquaint themselves with the position. However, the Foreign Office will consider whether anything special should be done in addition to that so that there shall be no question of the position not being understood.
Lastly, I would make this point. I hope that nothing the noble Lord said will produce in the minds of the outside world the impression that the value of the currency is being depreciated in any way. Whether the pound sterling is able to buy as much as it could buy, or in what proportion its buying value has fallen, has nothing whatever to do with the character of the currency as such. In the step that was taken in going off gold and on to paper, the change was not due to the fact that it was paper instead of gold; it was due to the fact that the paper had not got a gold basis as it had in the days gone by. Precisely the same is true here. No alteration of the metal alloy of which the silver coinage is made has any effect whatever in depreciating or lowering the purchasing power of what is called the silver subsidiary coinage that we have. I think it is important that nothing shall go out from this House that will convey any different impression.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Will not the noble Lord say something about the appeals to Canada?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have not been approached by the Canadian Government on this point. After all, what we are doing in this Bill is to increase the use of nickel and what the noble Lords opposite want is for that process to continue on a still greater scale. I do not see that we are doing anything which is offensive in that respect.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (NO. 2) BILL.
5.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, it is now about six months since the Public Works Loans Bill was passed and the Royal Assent given to it. That Bill provided for the Public Works Commissioners to be entitled to make loans to the extent of £100,000,000, and it was contemplated at that time that that sum would suffice for a period of about a year. Actually since that date the Commissioners have, up to the end of last month, made advances to the amount of about £33,000,000. If the normal procedure were all that had to be taken into account, there would be no need to trouble your Lordships' House with the Bill now under consideration. There is, however, a situation to be taken into account which arises out of the Local Authorities Loans Act of 1945.
Under that Act, local authorities were, broadly speaking, placed under the compulsion of seeking loans from no source save the Public Works Loans Board. The procedure is for the Commissioners to give their approval in principle to prospective loans when the projects are put forward by the authorities requiring to raise money for them at a particular time in the future. Doubts were raised as to the power of the Commissioners to enter into commitments towards the local authorities in regard to their future projects if the maturing of the commitments would cause them to extend the limit for actual advances tinder the current Public Works Loans Act. The Law Officers, who were consulted upon this matter, advised that the Commissioners could not lawfully commit themselves finally to making loans in excess of the amount placed at their disposal by the current Act, although they could enter into provisional commitments subject to Parliamentary sanction in due course.
The whole position was reviewed in the light of that advice and it became apparent that the lending powers of the Commissioners would nearly be exhausted by the end of this month, for in addition to the £33,000,000 actual advances since the Act became law the Commissioners had, by the end of September, entered into unconditional commitments amounting to about £100,000,000 and, as a temporary expedient, had given provisional undertakings as regards a further £22,000,000—those provisional undertakings

695
being subject, of course, to Parliament making the moneys available in due course. Obviously it would be most unsatisfactory to local authorities if as a matter of regular practice the Commissioners were only able to enter into provisional commitments and if to that extent the local authorities were left in the air as regards the moneys coming to them for the financing of their projects. The Government therefore concluded that the right course was to ask Parliament to authorize a further issue to the Commissioners as a matter of urgency and to take steps to clarify the position for the future.
It is for that reason that Clause 1 of the present Bill proposes a new limit of £250,000,000 for the actual advances to be made by the Commissioners before a further Bill is introduced. It is difficult to estimate the rate at which local authorities will call on the Loans Fund during the next year or so, but clearly their demands for capital expenditure will be considerable. Clause 2 of the Bill is designed to reconcile the statutory position with the procedure for administering the Local Authorities Loans Act of 1945, to which I have already referred. The clause empowers the Commissioners to enter into commitments provided that at no time during the currency of the Bill do their live commitments when added to the actual cash advances exceed £500,000,000. Although this figure is large, the Commissioners will start the period with some £130,000,000 of commitments already incurred and they should be equipped with adequate powers to enable them to cope with the great capital schemes now in course of preparation.
In Clause 3 advantage is taken of this Bill to remove an anomaly. In 1935 the general provisions as to the minimum rate of interest on loans from the Local Loans Fund were abolished, but specific restrictions in the case of loans to housing associations and certain other borrowers under the Housing Acts remained in force. The general trend of interest rates has rendered a minimum rate of 3⅛ per cent, inappropriate and the removal of this minimum will make it possible for all borrowers from the Local Loans Fund to share the benefits of the cheaper rates now prevailing. The Bill is urgently needed to ensure the continued smooth
696
flow of funds to local authorities for the great capital schemes entrusted to them. Of the projects put forward in terms of the money required, some 90 per cent, are in relation to housing and electricity In view of the urgency of this Bill and in order to remove as soon as maybe an anomaly which has disclosed itself, I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Nathan.)
5.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I agree that this is a Bill to which your Lordships should give a Second Reading. I shall have only one or two words to say upon it. I find it a little difficult to reconcile all that was said by the noble Lord in introducing this Bill with the reasons given for the Bill in another place. As I understand it, this Bill is needed for two purposes. First of all because the Law Officers have held that the Commissioners have no power to make an undertaking for a future advance unless they have, so to speak, a sum in the till which will cover it. Now if the Treasury and the Commissioners have entered into illicit commitments, quite obviously we have got to make honest women of them, and pass this Bill. I have every sympathy with that, because I recollect that many years ago the Law Officers discovered that I had been doing certain things which everybody considered quite proper, but which were wholly illegal. I was personally liable for a few million pounds because what I had done could only be done by the Board of Trade, and not by the President. No Board of Trade had existed for a hundred years. In these circumstances, I would hasten to give my support to this whitewashing and legitimizing measure.
I understand it is also required for another purpose and on that I do want to say a word. Of course, the whole system under which the local authorities do not go on the market themselves but come to the Commissioners is obviously a very sensible and right one. It was introduced by the National Government, so of course it is right. Obviously it would also be quite out of date to have any figure of interest put in. Years ago, I think it was three and one-eighths. This measure should have the advantage of whatever is the lowest money rate possible at the

697
time. When the earlier Bill, giving authority for the year was introduced, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that he thought £150,000,000 would be all that would be required for the year. Now it is said that that estimating was not very good, and indeed it was not. What is going to be required, not as coverage for the Commissioners' future undertakings, but for actual advances, is not going to be £150,000,000 but £250,000,000. I do not think the House should part with this Bill without placing on record its view, and its very definite view, that estimating should not be of that loose character.
The Treasury has a very great reputation, and always has had, for accurate estimating. It is a most extraordinary thing how year after year, as the Budgets come round, even astronomical figures are estimated by the Treasury. But it really is rather alarming how hundreds of millions of pounds change hands to-day, and unless we have at least six ciphers at the end of a figure, it does not seem to be worth talking about. I do not think we should just pass without a single word an estimate which is wrong by £100,000,000. It may be quite right that more demands have come in since which have been authorized, and if indeed some more expenditure is required for housing than the mere modest estimate which was expected—if a hit more money is going out for housing than they thought was necessary—and that is going to mean more houses coming more quickly, then certainly nobody in this House is going to refrain from giving it the fullest possible authority and encouragement.
But with great respect—and I am sure the Secretary of State for India will confirm this with all his old Treasury knowledge—there is no political controversy between us over this measure. Careful estimating is very important, and it is all wrong that the Government should come with some round figure and say, "I want an omnibus authority for £250,000,000 because I may spend somewhere nearly up to that." That is not good enough. It is not the way estimates are presented to the House of Commons. Expenditure should be accurately estimated, and if the Government find that they are going to spend more then they should come back to Parliament just as they do for a supplementary estimate from the spending department. In the same way, when it comes to this borrowing
698
and lending they should present us with accurate estimates of what is going to be required If they find that an estimate is likely to be exceeded then they should come back to Parliament. It will not take long. I do make that point very definitely, and I am sure that the noble Lord who is leading the House will endorse it, because it is a very very important principle.
5.36 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I think there has been a slight misunderstanding in the mind of the noble Viscount on this point. In the first place, I do not agree that you can give accurate estimates in a Bill of this kind. This is a sum which has always been in excess of the amount required in a given time. Very strict care is taken by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who deal with the matter. There are two points in which the noble Viscount was mistaken. In the first place, he said early in his speech that this is a Bill to put straight something which has been done wrong. That is not the case.
VISCOUNTS SWINTON: They were on the verge of doing wrong.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: They were on the verge of so doing, and before they overstepped the line the matter is being put right by this Bill. The second point with regard to which the noble Lord was mistaken is that the dates are different, and that is what he does not appreciate. In the original Bill the period envisaged was a year from that date, that is, from last March, and it would still almost certainly be true that the charges thrown upon this Fund by the decisions of the Commissioners will not exceed the £150,000,000 before the end of the period. Each Local Loans Bill ends with the start of the new Bill, and the estimate needed is that for a year from to-day, which carries on for twelve months from now, and the amount sufficient to allow for the actual expenditure will be £250,000,000. It is not in place of the £150,000,000, but in place of the unfinished part that would have been used, which is about £120,000,000, plus whatever may be paid out in addition over the following year when the original year comes to an end up to a year from now. I hope I have made that clear.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord, because it was certainly not at all clear when it came from another place. We were left under exactly the opposite impression.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Estimates cannot be of the hard order, but at the same time these Bills are designed for a certain period, and Parliament is informed how long the sum is expected to last. I do not think there was any misinformation in the original case. Now that a new Bill is necessary a new figure is forthcoming, and in addition to that there are the amounts which are put forward without the money actually being required. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that explanation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EIRE VOLUNTEERS) BILL.
5.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I count it as particularly good fortune that the first occasion upon which I move a Second Reading in your Lordships' House should be the Second Reading of this Bill, a Bill which will benefit those gallant men the volunteers from Eire who served in His Majesty's Forces with us during the war. It is only fitting that now that we have returned to conditions of peace, some attempt should be made to show our appreciation of the work which these volunteers have done and the gallant service which they have rendered. What has happened to these volunteers since the cessation of hostilities? Some, of course, may still be serving with His Majesty's Forces. Others have already been demobilized, and many of these have, no doubt, returned home, where they have to settle down again into the conditions existing in Eire.
It may well be that numbers of them are already finding it difficult to obtain work. Obviously they are, from a number of points of view, in a rather difficult position to obtain work. One has to realize that, very naturally, the Government of Eire have given precedence to those men who have been serving with
700
their own Forces, and, in the meantime, the men of whom I am speaking have lost benefits which they would otherwise have had under the Eire Unemployment Insurance Acts. Their rights there will have lapsed because, of course, they have not been making the contributions which are required under those Statutes. This means that if the man is unemployed (as I have suggested there is very considerable likelihood of his being for a time), he will not be able to claim unemployment benefit under the scheme which prevails in his own country, nor has he the same benefits as a man who has been discharged from the Eire Defence Forces, because, in the case of that man, his period of service counts towards the qualifications for benefit under Eire Unemployment Insurance Acts.
In this country, the position under the unemployment insurance scheme is that every person (with the exception of regular officers) who is discharged from service in His Majesty's Forces is credited with contributions for the period of his service, and therefore if he is unemployed after his discharge he may qualify for unemployment benefit. But the benefit is payable only in this country, and so it happens that the Eire volunteer who has returned home and is unable to obtain work is not able to avail himself of the benefit of the contributions which have been made on his behalf under the unemployment insurance scheme and which he would otherwise obtain. We have been seeking, for some time, to rectify this situation. Your Lordships will recall that on several occasions the attention of this House has been focused by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery in particular, upon the need, and, indeed, the sad plight, of many of these Eire volunteers, and I am sure that you would wish me to pay tribute to the unremitting way in which the noble Earl has kept this important matter before us.
Your Lordships have been made aware of the sympathy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the hardships suffered by these ex-Service men and ex-Service women too, and earlier this year we were able to report to your Lordships that His Majesty's Government had put forward proposals to form the basis of discussions between the Government of Eire and ourselves. There followed meetings between officials of the

701
Eire Government and the Ministry of National Insurance, I am now in the happy position, this afternoon, of being able to say that His Majesty's Government and the Eire Government have agreed upon arrangements for bringing into operation this scheme under which unemployment benefit can be paid at our rate to these Eire volunteers. In these arrangements, I am glad to be able to say, the agreement of the Government of Northern Ireland has been obtained.
The Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day will enable this scheme to be put into operation. It is proposed that under this scheme the Eire volunteers shall be able to qualify for up to thirty weeks of unemployment benefit at our rates and subject to our contribution conditions. They must also satisfy the other conditions in force in Eire for the receipt of unemployment benefit. But those conditions are substantially the same as our own, and these men will be eligible for increase in benefit for their dependants. They will not receive allowances for more than two dependent children, because the third child and subsequent children are already covered by the Eire family allowances scheme. Our rate of benefit, of course, as your Lordships are aware, is: for an adult man, 24s, a week, for a dependent wife 16s, a week and for the first two children 5s, a week each.
With regard to the number of Eire volunteers who may qualify under these proposals—the number that is who have served in His Majesty's Forces during the war—it is not possible to make an exact statement, but they are estimated as totalling something like 40,000. Again it is estimated that some 10,000 of these have given a home address in Eire on demobilization, and may well have already returned there. The cost of the benefits to be paid under this arrangement will be defrayed out of the Unemployment Fund in this country. The three Service Departments and the Treasury, as no doubt your Lordships are aware, pay contributions into this fund to enable ex-Service men and women to qualify for unemployment benefit on their discharge. Should they become unemployed, their period of service is treated as if it had been a period of insured employment.
I pass now to the Bill. There are few points, I think, which I need bring to the attention of your Lordships. Clause 1
702
provides that the arrangement will operate from a date which will be laid down by Order in Council, and it will last for a period of two years. This period may be extended by mutual arrangement between the two Governments. The scheme will apply to Eire volunteers discharged from His Majesty's Forces, who were ordinarily resident in Eire before they joined the Forces. In addition to the Armed Forces, it will cover the Auxiliary Services, including the women's services, the nurses, and the medical and dental services. To qualify for benefit, such ex-Servicemen and women must have had not less than thirty weeks' service with His Majesty's Forces during the two years before their claim. Under Clause 4, which is of some importance, the Minister is empowered to make regulations to put into effect any adaptations which may be necessary when the National Insurance Act comes fully into operation. As your Lordships appreciate that Act has not yet come into operation. When it does, on the appointed date, it will enable the necessary arrangement to be, so to speak, transferred.
In conclusion, I should like to say a word about the future. The National Insurance Act makes provision for reciprocal arrangements to be made between this country and other countries. It is very much to be hoped that the arrangement which is now being made by this Bill will be the forerunner of reciprocal arrangements under the National Insurance Act. Of course, this is not itself a reciprocal arrangement at all. It may, nevertheless, be the forerunner of some future scheme of reciprocity of insurance between the two countries, under the wider powers provided in the Act. We have long had this object in view but under the current Act it has not yet proved possible to effect such agreements. Whether they be secured or not, this Bill does at any rate give us the opportunity of introducing a scheme under which practical expression can be given to the very real debt of gratitude which we in this country feel to these gallant men who served us so faithfully in His Majesty's Forces during the war. There is nothing at all in this Bill, I think, which can be in any way contentious, and I ask that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chorley.)
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am glad that we have now come to a Bill to which we can all give an unreserved and enthusiastic welcome. The noble Lord is fortunate that his début in charge of a Bill, which he made so agreeably, is on such an auspicious occasion. The excellent way that he has discharged his task shows that he will be equally competent in a more controversial field—and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of those, in which he will be abe to show his talents. In all quarters of this House we are delighted that this Bill has come to us, and we shall speed it on its way. It enables us to pay our tribute, and indeed something of our debt, to these men who came from Eire. They were all volunteers, and they certainly had no encouragement from the authorities of their own country; in fact, I have no doubt that many of them came in the face of difficulty and discouragement.
There were at least 40,000 of these men, who rallied to the cause of freedom and fought with great gallantry. Many of them earned distinctions, some of them the highest distinctions which can be won for valour. We shall not forget them, and we rejoice to be able to pay this debt. I hope that we shall give them not only unemployment benefit but also employment in this country. There is plenty of need for man-power here to-day, and if any of those who fought so gallantly for us in the war are willing to come and work with us in this country in the peace, I am sure that the Government will give them every opportunity and every welcome. In the meantime, we do what we can in this Bill to give them, as nearly as possible, those benefits which they would have had if they had been soldiers resident in this country.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR- TIME REGISTRATION) ACT, 1944
5.57 p.m.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved to resolve, That the date of expiration of Section one of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, be postponed to
704
the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is, unfortunately, unable to be here for the purpose of moving this Resolution personally, and I therefore do so in his name. The purpose of the Resolution is to prolong the operation of Section 1 of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Administration) Act, 1944, for a further year; that is, to the end of 1947. The 1944 Act provided an alternative to the machinery of registration prescribed under Section 5, subsection (1) of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943. The administrative and clerical operations necessary under that Act had been found to be too intricate to be put into operation, with the staff of electoral registration officers who were then available, who were neither experienced nor sufficiently numerous. Consequently, the 1944 Act provided that a person should be registered in the electoral register for the address at which he had registered in the national register as residing on a qualifying date. The Act of 1944 was to expire at the end of 1945, unless renewed by Resolution of both Houses. It was renewed last year, but the practical difficulty which registration officers would have in operating the complex procedure of that Act is still extremely formidable, and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the right course is to continue the Act of 1944 for a further year. I beg to move accordingly.
Moved to resolve, That the date of expiration of Section One of the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Act, 1944, be postponed to the 31st day of December, nineteen hundred and fortyseven.—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD SALTOUN: Is it not under this Act that a great many local government electors are deprived of their franchise, in places where they have considerable property interests?
LORD NATHAN: I do not think so. As I understand it, the purpose of the 1944 Act, broadly speaking, is to substitute a qualifying date for a qualifying period.
LORD SALTOUN: I see. Thank you.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HILL FARMING BILL.
6.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Grants under schemes for improvement of hill farming land.
(3) In this Act
the expression "hill farming purposes" means the maintenance of sheep of a hardy kind and the keeping and management thereof in accordance with the recognized practices of hill sheep farming, and includes other activities carried on in connexion therewith; and
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3), after "includes", to insert "wintering or" The noble Lord said: My noble friend the Duke of Montrose has asked me to apologize for his unavoidable absence to-night and to speak to this Amendment in his name. On a great many hill farms it is the normal practice in the winter for the farmer to send his hoggs down to better and lower ground for feeding and to bring them back again in the spring. On the Second Reading my noble friend asked for an assurance that the ground used for this purpose of wintering would rank for improvement grants just as hill land, and the noble Earl who spoke for the Government gave that assurance provided, of course, that the farmers in question had hill land in addition to the low ground. The object of this Amendment is merely to ensure that this provision is included in the Bill for all to see. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("includes") insert ("wintering or").—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): I appreciate the intention behind this Amendment, but I think that your Lordships will agree that the great object we all have in drafting a Bill is to make it as brief as possible and
706
to cut out any redundant phrases or words. In fact, I think it has been my experience with draftsmen that the more words you put in the more you limit the intention of the clause. In this particular case I would like to call the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, which says that
"the appropriate Minister may approve schemes duly submitted to him within five years from the commencement of this Act providing for the making of improvements for the benefit of such land or of other land suitable for use therewith for hill farming purposes."
I can assure the noble Lord that this obviously does include wintering. Wintering is a fundamental part of hill farming, therefore it is already included in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance and withdraw his Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Earl for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Attachment of conditions as to letting, etc., of new and improved cottages.
10.—(1) Regulations shall be made by the appropriate Minister—
(a) for securing that, where an improvement grant has been made in respect of cost of work done for the erection, improvement or reconditioning of a cottage, conditions with repect to the occupation and maintenance thereof shall apply to the cottage for such period from the date on which it first becomes fit for occupation after the completion of the work (not being longer than twenty years) as may be specified in the regulations, including (without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) a condition prohibiting the occupation of the cottage otherwise than by the owner or a tenant thereof; and
6.5 p.m.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "made" to insert "under this Act." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is not to try to alter what I am sure is the intention of the Government, but merely to try to make it indisputably clear. As this clause stands, it seems to me that it is just possible that the regulations to be made by the Minister under this clause could be made to apply to cottages in

707
respect of which grants had been made under the late lamented Housing (Rural Workers) Act, under which so much good work was done before the war. I know in Clause 1 there is a passage which says:
"the appropriate Minister may … subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act make out of moneys provided by Parliament grants (in this Act referred to as 'improvement grants')…"
It is possible that this phrase "improvement grants" in Clause 10 refers only to grants under this Bill. I am not entirely happy about that and I therefore feel that the words that I propose should be inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, after ("made") insert ("under this Act.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Again I can assure the noble Lord that, according to legal advice, very definitely any grants made under this Act would refer only to schemes which have been prepared under this Act. I think that there is no possible cause for misapprehension. I do hope that in view of that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD POLWARTH: In deference to the legal experts, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "thereof", where that word occurs a second time, to insert "or any of his farm servants." The noble Duke said: In view of the unavoidable absence of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, I hope that it is appropriate to speak to this Amendment on his behalf. Your Lordships will be aware that the agricultural executive committees and the farmers generally are already much concerned about the prospects of labour for farm work and production next year. This will apply also to shepherds on hill farms; it will apply especially in the sense that modernized houses are not available, and it will apply even more so in the case of labour and houses wanted for farm servants working on important schemes.
As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said on Second Reading, there is a generous grant towards the building of a new non-tied house, but that is not likely
708
to meet the serious position which exists. I think that the noble Duke who put down this Amendment wanted it made perfectly plain that the cottages referred to shall be available for the shepherds and for any farm workers on the farms, and that the farmer will be assured of his labour. I expect this conflicts with the policy with regard to the tied house, and it may therefore be difficult to secure all that is asked for. I do hope, however, that the Government will realize that there is considerable anxiety, which we think it necessary to record, and will reconsider their attitude at the earliest possible date. We would, of course, like them to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 46, after ("thereof") insert ("or any of his farm servants").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I consider this is a very important Amendment because it deals with the controversial subject of the tied house. To my mind it strikes at the very root of the main trouble, or one of the main troubles, in agriculture to-day; and that is housing. It is well known that the shortage of labour is to a very great extent due to housing shortage. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that it is very hard to expect a landlord, even with this generous grant of 50 per cent., to build or recondition a house in respect of which at the end of twenty years there is a very good chance that he will not be able to use it for his own farm servants. There seems to be a great deal of difficulty in the mind of His Majesty's Government in differentiating between what I call urban rural housing and rural housing—or to use a horrible expression, truly rural housing. Might I suggest that those of us who do live in these districts realize what a tremendous problem there is? Your truly rural house is sometimes the best part of eighteen to twenty miles away from the station, and completely in the wilds.
All the legislation up to now has really been against helping to bring modern conditions in some measure, even temporarily, to the people in these glens, where houses which we all know are not entirely satisfactory have to fill in the gap until such time as new houses can be built. That time is likely to be some time hence, because there is a great lag to make up and we must try to develop a larger percentage than at present of

709
agricultural housing, in conjunction with urban housing, if we are to keep this country sound and economically balanced. The Government are not doing this. A landlord does not care to take the risk, even with this generous grant of 50 per cent, of building a new house or reconditioning an old house where he is unlikely to be able to get the use of it after twenty years.
To my mind, there are three main difficulties at present in the case of these far-flung parts of the country. The first is that you cannot build a house for £1,700; it takes the best part of £1,700 to £1,800 to build a house in those districts. The second difficulty is this: What local authority are going to build a house at that distance, with all their heavy urban rural housing schemes? Finally, how can you expect a landlord to build without any security of tenure under the Bill? I suggest that the whole concept of the housing policy of His Majesty's Government is entirely out of touch with rural conditions as they are to-day in Scotland. You must, in my humble opinion, do what you can to provide conditions for these rural people which will make it worth their while to settle in those areas now. Yet these uplands are the absolute key to breeding in this country, whether it be of stock or of potatoes. If you have a weak stock you go and get a bull or a tup from the uplands. You cross it with the softer stuff and thereby get a more virile product. The same with potatoes: if you want a seed free from disease you go to the uplands to get it. You cannot afford to neglect these uplands, which are the key to the whole of your policy for farming.
You must do everything to fill in the housing gap by giving us back the rural housing grants for reconditioning houses. Do anything you like, but get on with that somehow and produce conditions, even of a temporary nature, which will allow us to keep the labour where we must have it. If we are to keep these people in the glens, I suggest that we must stop living on ideals and fetishes. We know our own people up there, and we know what they require. We are fully cognizant of the fact that this is entirely a temporary measure. But you must encourage the landlords to go on with what they can do until the country is again on its feet and can tackle the
710
larger problem of agricultural housing. Then, if you like, tighten up the regulations as vigorously as you can. In the meantime, however, you must encourage and not discourage everyone to meet the need for improved housing, if we are to keep the people in those parts of the country. You are doing exactly the opposite under this Bill as it stands. If this clause is not amended you will have created exactly the situation which you do not wish to create, and it will be entirely due, I think, to the violent antagonism of His Majesty's Government to the existence of tied houses.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that I would like to add a few words on the more general question. Scotland is a country which looks very much like England, but is rather different, and one of the very great differences is that even their shortest communications are very often completely cut off by snow. What His Majesty's Government are trying to do is to charge the entire social system, and they are trying to do it too quickly. I am very glad to see my noble friend Lord Westwood here, because he will know the absolute truth of what I am saying. In the past all farm workers on the land who are married have been engaged on May 28, and they go into houses and their contract has been for one year. That has been the protection of the Scottish farm servant because, whatever happened, that man could never be put out of his house except at a time when he knew that other houses were open to his occupation and other engagements ready for the married man. That was his protection, and that is a very vital point. When you put the farm servant on a monthly engagement, as very many farmers I know have long wanted to do, you put him at the mercy of the farmer.
Another point is that because of the great difficulty in getting about it is much more important for the farmer to have his staff on the farm, and living on the farm. I know there has been a great drive to get the Scottish farm servant into villages. When you go through Scotland you do see a lot of places which look like English villages, but they are totally different. They house a great many people whose occupations are ancillary to country life, but very seldom in Scotland—certainly not in any part of Scotland

711
that I know well—do you get an English village inhabited chiefly by workers on the land. Even if you wish to put Scottish farm servants into villages you have not got the houses there to put them into. If you did put them into these villages they could not carry out their work on the land. I do beg His Majesty's Government in this matter to go a little slowly. Whatever change you want to introduce into Scottish country life we will do our best to make it a good social life and help it as well as we can, but at this particular moment I submit that it is not a case for hurrying but rather for going slowly. It is not merely a great change of system you are introducing, but you are interfering with a very ancient and long-established system.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would like to say I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Airlie and the noble friend who has just sat down said, but this problem is not entirely confined to Scotland which is the impression that may be got. It applies in not quite the same degree to the whole of Wales and the Welsh border from which I come. The distances, I admit, are not quite so long but they are quite long enough to make it absolutely impossible to run the hill farm unless you have accommodation for such shepherds and stockmen as the farmer engages.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid that with this Amendment we come on to rather controversial grounds. I do sympathize with what the noble Lords have said, particularly with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and we obviously do recognize the difficulties of the hill farmer. This recognition, of course, underlies the intention of this Bill. It is a step towards helping the hill sheep farmer and the owner of hill sheep land to get on their feet and to try and improve the general condition of their properties, of the land, and of the houses. Here we get to the very controversial issue of the tied cottage, but I would like to try and clear up what I think may be one misunderstanding on this subject. I am not certain if I heard the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, aright, but he seemed to think that at the end of twenty years he would not be able to control his cottage. I should like to point out again that the object of this Bill is to prevent
712
cottages in respect of which grants are made from becoming "tied" cottages for a period of twenty years. We are trying to ensure that for that period of twenty years they shall not be "tied" cottages in the sense of becoming service tenancies.
EARL DE LA WARR: And they can be tied after twenty years?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would not like to give an assurance one way or the other. This Act does not prescribe what is to happen after twenty years.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am not clear. As I understand it at the end of twenty years you might not be able to have your own farm servant in there. I will give an instance. Suppose you had a disagreement with a man who was in that cottage and you engaged another man, or wished to engage another man at the end of twenty years, you could not turn him out and put in the man you had engaged.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The answer is that they may be tied in twenty years' time but possibly by that time further legislation will have been brought in which will alter the situation. After all, this Bill only provides for a period of five years. Under this Bill there will be nothing to prevent cottages being tied after twenty years, but we want to ensure that for that period they will not be subject to a service tenancy. We do appreciate very much the difficulties of these remote cottages. It is an exceptional problem in hill farming, but at the same time all that this clause is designed to do is to bring these cottages within the Rent Restrictions Acts. There will still be the same machinery if, for instance, a worker leaves or is discharged. The farmer or whoever it may be, can ask for a certificate in respect of his cottage and he can then, if necessary, apply to the Courts. The only thing is that it cannot become a tied cottage in the way of a service cottage; in other words, that the man receives his cottage as part of his employment remuneration.
I think noble Lords will appreciate the feeling that exists on this subject of tied cottages. It is a great political issue at the present time and I do not think the noble Duke who moved this Amendment can really expect that we can go back and accept an Amendment which would

713
completely nullify the intention of this clause. On the other hand, I would like to point out that obviously a shepherd or a workman in a cottage of that kind would be a tenant. All this clause would do is to limit the tenancy so that it comes within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I do hope I have made myself clear, and I would beg the noble Duke to withdraw the Amendment in view of the issues involved.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I frankly cannot understand, although I have tried hard to do so, what the noble Earl has explained to us. Are we to understand that these cottages come under the Rent Restrictions Acts, or do they not come under the Rent Restrictions Acts? If they do come under the Acts, then the farmer or proprietor will not be in a position, if a shepherd is moved who does not want to move, to turn him out in order to put another shepherd in his place. That sets up an absolutely impossible position. The noble Earl says that this is a political issue. Are we not to measure up the conditions which exist in the country which we are trying to improve? Are we on an issue of this kind to be governed entirely by politics? That seems to me to be the line which the Government are taking over this matter, and I think it is a very poor admission inded to say that we must do this thing because it involves a political issue.
Does the noble Earl or the Government think that in fifteen or twenty years, whichever it may be, the glens are going to change, that the hills are going to change, and the places where our sheep are reared are going to change? They cannot change. You cannot change the configuration of the land unless you have an earthquake, or something of that kind. Twenty years hence these hills and glens will be exactly as they are to-day; sheep will be grazing on them as they are to-day and, if the other part of the Government's Act is successful, more sheep we hope. But it will not change the conditions so far as the shepherds are concerned, who will have to live amongst their sheep in order to be able to herd them and keep their flocks together. I suppose we have to accept the Government's decision in this matter, but I can assure the Government that it is done with the very greatest reluctance, because they are flying in the face of the whole conditions which exist in Scotland in this matter, and those, as my
714
noble friend Lord Bridgeman has said, which exist in Wales. And not only in Scotland and Wales. I can conceive that there are places in the West of England, and other parts of England where you get similar conditions. Consequently, in this case we are being entirely turned down as an industry for political reasons.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think there is only one point upon which any of us feel that we can congratulate noble Lords opposite in the handling of this rather sorry question. We can congratulate them on the skill with which they have kept the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, off their Benches both today and the other day when we were discussing this subject. They know full well that the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, is a countryman. He knows the conditions of the country; he knows the conditions under which farms are run, and he knows perfectly well that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has already said, you cannot run a stock farm, certainly not in these remote fastnesses., unless you have proper provision for your labour.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, would have smiled as I noticed two or three noble Lords opposite smiling when the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, reminded us—and this is so—that these hill farms are at least one of the essential keys to the future of the agricultural industry. It may well be that in a few years' time when we want to rebuild the livestock of this country, not merely in the interests of agriculture but because we have got to feed ourselves, that the Government will bitterly regret this blow they are dealing at the attempt that has been made—and, admittedly, theoretically they are making it; it is their Bill—to rebuild the hill farms. As the noble Earl has already told us, this matter is not being decided on its merits at all but as a political issue. I can only say that we on this side of the House—we are not an elected body—are not going to advise our friends to divide on this issue, but we do want to make it abundantly clear where the responsibility is going to lie if, as we prophesy, the progress under this Bill is not as great as the interests of the country demand.
All we want to ensure is that the country receives the maximum benefit from the maximum development of the areas. Not only are these houes needed for the shepherds, but, as the noble Duke who has

715
already spoken on this matter has said, the houses are going to be needed for the works that are to be initiated under this Bill. Unless the labour is there, this Bill is a dead letter, and I cannot see how the labour is going to be there unless the houses are built. Can you imagine that a landowner is going to undertake an expenditure of £1,600—or, as the noble Earl has said, anything between £1,700 and £1,800—on putting up a cottage in these remote fastnesses of Scotland, England and Wales if the moment there is any change of employment—if he loses his shepherd—that cottage is at least going to lie under the risk of there being nobody whatsoever in it who is engaged in the running of the farm?
What I would ask the noble Earl is this. If by putting a provision of this character into this Bill he is going to make it virtually impossible to get cottages built in these hills by landowners, are the Government prepared to undertake that task? The rural district councils are now the people who are looked to for houses, and are those rural district councils going to be encouraged to go up five, ten, fifteen or twenty miles into the hills and build their council cottages there? I think that is a very fair question and a very fair challenge for me to put to the Government. If the landowner is not going to be able to perform what we believe to be his duty, are the Government prepared to take that duty off his shoulders and perform that function themselves?
One last word. We know that this is an old, old controversy, with its history away back in the past, when, as I think all of us on this side of the House as well as on the other would be prepared to admit, social customs and social ideas were quite different from now. It may well be—and I am certainly not going to say it is not—that the feelings we are really discussing to-day are justified by certain realities from the past. We recognize that, but cannot we make an appeal to the noble Earl to take this back to his colleagues? Whatever be the facts of the situation in the lowlands—and I think we all know the very considerable difficuties there are going to be if there are no tied cottages in the lowlands—cannot we differentiate in the case of these hill farms? If noble Lords opposite feel that their Party must adhere to its principles
716
with regard to loans for tied cottages, cannot we get them to realize that here is an exceptional case? After all, there are those exceptions that I ventured to mention on the Second Reading. The policy of the Government is to have tied cottages for the employees of the Forestry Commission, they allow tied cottages for school teachers and police, and I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is going to be allowed to stay in his flat after he loses his job. There are many exceptions. Could not they say with regard to hill farms that they are prepared to consider making exceptions? Whilst not asking my friends on these Benches to divide against the noble Earl, I do ask him once more to try for a serious reconsideration of this part of the Bill with special reference to the special problems of the hills.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I have listened with great attention to the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. I think, if I may say so, that this question has been a little exaggerated—not as to the difficulties of hill farming but the difficulty of getting rid of one workman from a cottage and getting another in. I would like to make clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the procedure to which these houses would be subject. They would come within the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts and in the event of the farmer or landowner wishing to get rid of his workman if he was a bad workman or in the event of the workman leaving the landowner's employment and not wishing to leave his cottage, the landowner could apply to the local committee for a certificate to be given to him—in practice it is usually given to him if the need is genuine—showing that the cottage was necessary for his farm. In that event, if the inhabitant of the cottage still refused to leave, the farmer or landowner would have the right to go to the courts and apply for the tenant to be evicted. What we are trying to stop is the old-fashioned service tenancy by which a man can be turned out at a moment's notice—his job is terminated and in the next moment he can be turned out on to the road. We are seeking to avoid that sort of tied cottage and that sort of eviction.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but actually the procedure which he has outlined may take

717
about three months. What is going to happen if, say, at Whitsuntide you change your shepherd and your former shepherd will not go? You must apply to the courts and go through all the procedure which the noble Earl has outlined. That will probably take three months. What are you going to do with your sheep in the meantime? There will be nobody to look after them.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I admit that there may be cases in which it takes a long time, but I would like to draw the noble Viscount's attention to the fact that they are exceptional cases. As a rule, the shepherd either wishes to leave his job or, alternatively, if he is not a good shepherd he is given notice to quit. In any event he will want to leave his cottage if he finds work somwhere else; he will not want to stay on in a distant cottage in quite a different part of the country from that in which he gets his new job. I think you will find that this applies only to these very exceptional cases where, either because there are two contiguous farms involved or for some other reason, the man still stays in his cottage. Therefore this clause will apply only to what we hope will be exceptional and rare cases. We are obviously trying to help the private landowner in this case by giving him a very big grant—50 per cent.—to build these cottages. That, I think noble Lords must recognize, is a very generous grant in this respect.
I would like to mention one other point, which is that this clause affects only cottages which do receive a grant; we are not trying to affect by this Bill cottages which do not receive a grant. The cottage that is a tied cottage remains a tied cottage. What we want to ensure is that money given by the Government for this purpose shall not be used to create tied cottages. That really is the substance of this clause. I hope noble Lords will recognize that although on this occasion we cannot yield to this Amendment, we have the interests of the hill farmers at heart. We do want to help this industry. For that reason I should like to urge the noble Duke, if he can see his way to do so, to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I do not agree with the noble Earl that this is necessarily an exceptional case; but at any rate, who is going to lay down a lot of money now, while there is the risk that, in the type of case which is perhaps not so rare as the
718
noble Earl says, in twenty years' time he may suddenly be ruined?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I hope this House will always endeavour, so far as possible, to treat agriculture on a non-Party basis. The Government have asked for co-operation in agriculture and in housing, including rural housing, and I feel that this is a matter in which closer co-operation and a more practical approach would be very helpful. I trust that the Government and their supporters will in the course of time see their way to granting this concession. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
6.40 p.m.
First Schedule [Improvements which may be included in schemes for rehabilitation of hill farming land]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved at the end of the Schedule to insert "24. Connexion to the public telephone." The noble Lord said: This Schedule gives a very comprehensive and generous list of improvement; that should be eligible for grants, but it seems to me there is one very important omission—namely, the installation of the telephone. Surely there is no other improvement, with the possible exception of the supply of electricity, which could be of greater benefit to the occupants of the very outlying hill farms with which the Bill is concerned. In the first place, the farmer is a business man just as much as the man in the City, and what occupant of a City office would think of dispensing with his telephone? It is indeed an essential part of his equipment. Secondly, there is the case of illness, when a doctor has to be summoned, and also the case of disease or injury to stock when the veterinary surgeon has to be sent for. There is seldom time for the farmer to make his way to the nearest public telephone, which may be ten or fifteen miles away.
I know that on the Second Reading the noble Earl who spoke for the Government pointed out that the Post Office will install a telephone in any premises within three miles of an exchange for the sum of £4 a year. Now that is all very well, but

719
the majority of these hill farms are a great deal more than three miles from an exchange, and in some cases the cost of bringing the telephone to these places may be very considerable. The noble Earl also said that the Post Office at the moment are hard pressed. I know they are short of labour and material, but then they are not unique in that respect. After all, if we applied the same principle to all the other improvements which are included in this Schedule, we should find that at present a great many of them could not be carried out owing to shortages of labour and material, and we should be left with a very thin looking Bill indeed.
Take, for instance, the case of electricity. The electrical industry is, I should think, every bit as hard pressed at the moment as the Post Office. They are just as short of poles and wire and the labour to put them up. By the time the schemes come through under this Bill surely things will be beginning to become much easier. After all, the Post Office starts with an advantage in that it is already nationalized, whereas the electrical industry is still awaiting the great benefits which are going to come from this process. I am not asking the noble Earl, the Postmaster-General, to do a favour to one section of one industry in the country. That would be too much to ask, but I am asking the Government to help the hill farmer to pay the bill for the installation of a telephone, a bill which may be very much increased owing to the remoteness of the place where he has to carry on his business. If it would make my Amendment any more palatable, I should be very glad to accept the limitation of the grant in those cases where the farm is outside the limit for connexion at a standard rate, and to limit the amount of the grant to the additional cost above the standard rate. I am sure that no hill farmer would grudge paying the ordinary cost of connexion. In any case, I do hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, the good effects of which will be out of all proportion to the sum of money which will be involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 39, at end insert ("24. Connexion to the public telephone.")—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Quite briefly, I should like to support this Amendment very strongly. It is no good beating about the bush, but from the way they have been talking I have an idea that His Majesty's Government have got no conception at all of the conditions in these places and I do not believe they care. I am sorry they are such strong words, but I do not believe they care. Most of you just pull a plug or you turn on a tap, but these fellows are living in conditions of which you have absolutely no conception, and this is one of the essentials which they have got to have. I can give you an example of a farmer who is nine miles away from an exchange and who has to pay £25 a year for the use of a telephone. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is in his place. That is a pretty good sum to have to pay, apart from installation, and it is absolutely essential for him to carry on his business. I hope the Amendment will be added to the Schedule.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Again I sympathize very much with this Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth. Obviously hill farmers need telephones and probably in many cases more so than people in urban areas. In these remote places it is a necessity, not only for business but for use in an emergency. But there is a difficulty about this. This Bill, as your Lordships have seen, provides for a 50 per cent. grant to be made for various schemes. The present arrangement, as I understand it, is that telephones are provided not on a basis of the payment of a capital sum but on an annual payment to the Post Office. In fact, apart from a purely nominal charge of fifteen shillings, no capital charge is made by the Post Office at all for the provision of a telephone service. Payment takes the form of an annual rental.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Which is £25 in the instance I gave.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I heard what the noble Lord said. The standard rental for business purposes is £5 18s. per annum where the distance from the nearest exchange does not exceed three miles. Above this distance an additional charge is made of £1 per furlong per annum with a reduction in the charge if two or more persons share the line. I

721
think your Lordships will see that in these circumstances it would be quite impracticable to give a 50 per cent, grant towards what is a continuing annual payment. Therefore I do not think we can accept this Amendment or have anything of the kind under this Bill. At the same time His Majesty's Government thoroughly appreciate—and sympathize with—the need of these telephones, and I will consult with my noble friend the Postmaster-General to see what can be done to provide them. I do not think, however, that under this Bill we could accept the Amendment as it stands.
LORD GIFFORD: I know nothing about hill farms, but surely in all kinds of business an interest or annual charge can be capitalized and vice versa. It seems the most extraordinary argument.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I should like to support the need for telephones in remote parts of the country. We are most anxious that people who live in remote parts should get the telephone service at the earliest possible moment. I know the noble Earl will appreciate the fact that it means employing a very great amount of labour, carrying telegraph poles as a rule over long distances, and the labour is just not available at the moment. I am sure your Lordships appreciate that there is a long waiting list in the towns and that would require less labour to be cleared off. But I do assure noble Lords that we at the Post Office are most vividly aware of the need and we shall meet it just as soon as we possibly can.
LORD GIFFORD: Surely the remedy is to insert a rider that this particular part of the grant shall be delayed until the Post Office can meet the requirements.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think that would be possible.
LORD POLWARTH: I appreciate that there is this difficulty about the question of capital or annual rental, and, in the circumstances, I see that this Amendment cannot be made to the Bill, but I hope that the noble Earl and the Postmaster-General will do their best to bring about a levelling down of these charges for rental, and will follow the example of another of the services for which the Postmaster-General is responsible—namely,
722
the postal service. After all, a man who happens to live in a remote hill farm does not have to pay extra for having his letters delivered; the cost is spread over the whole community. Therefore, even if it is impossible to make a standard rate for the whole country, I hope that the noble Earl will endeavour to level out the rate to the greatest extent possible, so that those living in the remoter parts of the country are not penalized for the fact that they do so. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
PROVISIONS AS TO VALUATION OF SHEEP STOCKS IN SCOTLAND.
PART I.
Provisions as to a valuation made in respect of a tenancy terminating at Whitsunday.
1. The Land Court or the Arbiter (in Part I and Part II of this Schedule referred to as "the valuer") shall ascertain the number of, and the prices realized far, the ewes and the sold off the hill from the stock under valuation at the autumn sales in each of the three preceding years, and shall determine by inspection the number of shotts present in the stock at the time of the valuation.
6. In making his award the valuer shall value the respective classes of stock in accordance with the following rules, that is to say—
(a) ewes of all ages (including gimmers) shall be valued at the basic ewe value with the addition of fifteen shillings per head;
6.52 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in paragraph 1 of Part I, after "the"—[the ewes]—to insert "draft". The noble Duke said: This Amendment and the definition of "draft ewes" which I have on the Paper at page 31, line 19, are closely related. I am reluctant to speak again, but I feel it is important to say a few words on this very vexed subject of valuations of bound sheep stocks, which has caused deep concern for a great many years, particularly in the Highland areas. It is a complicated problem, and if nothing were said here and no Amendment moved it might be believed that everyone concerned was satisfied and that the position was satisfactory. That, I am afraid, is not so. I am sure that everyone will agree with what the Balfour of Burleigh Committee say in paragraphs

723
89 to 93 of their Report and again in paragraphs 225 to 235. There have been many discussions concerning sheep-stock valuations, and I will not go into details now. I will only quote a few of the opening words of the Report in this connexion. They are as follows:
"Over the past fifty years the system of sheep stock valuations commonly adopted has become increasingly unsatisfactory, and valuations have tended to diverge more and more from real values. From time to time there have been various cases of exaggeration which are indicative of the faults underlying the general run of valuations."
This is a statement of fact from which we cannot get away.
There is nothing wrong with the principle of valuing the ewe and the lamb, but unfortunately the additions have become most excessive. The Committee rightly say that
"…what is wanted in place of the present system is a practical method of assessing the real commercial worth of a bound sheep stock as a going concern."
I feel sure your Lordships will all agree that what is wanted is a valuation which is fair to everyone. The thanks of Parliament are due to the Balfour of Burleigh Committee for the immense trouble which they have taken over the matter of these sheep stock valuations. They have endeavoured to find and to suggest a formula, and everyone hopes that this formula will be a great improvement on anything that has gone before. But I am afraid it is doubtful whether that will be so, and that it is perhaps even more doubtful if it is possible, by legislation, to find a solution of this problem. I am sure that everyone hopes that in return for the assistance to the industry a big effort is being made by the Government to put valuations on a more satisfactory basis.
We are moving this Amendment because we are doubtful whether the formula will achieve the purpose which it is desired to achieve. I am afraid that references to loopholes are being made quite openly in discussions among farmers. I hope that the Amendment can be accepted as strengthening the expression of the intention of the Government. It is difficult to know what objection there can be, but if the Amendment is objected to because the definition is not satisfactory, then I am sure a more satisfactory wording can be found. Again, if the
724
objection is that this might not be agreed upon, I feel that there would be more agreement than there is at present if the words were incorporated. If the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment, can they give any assurance that they will watch the position very carefully?
I feel that it is necessary to give a friendly warning on this subject. On this occasion, curiously enough, it is the members of the Government who are safeguarding the interests of the landowners, the proprietors, who are, principally, the Department of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission. They are the chief sufferers. Apart from any personal losses, either to individuals or to the taxpayers, the harm to the industry is considerable, especially when it is realized that good men willing to go into these farms are discouraged from doing so by not knowing what high prices they may have to pay for the valuation on going in. In consequence, many of these farms are not tenanted by people who would otherwise take them on, and they have to remain in the hands of the proprietors.
Since the Committee stage in another place, last summer, there have been many conversations in Scotland about these valuations, and I am afraid that it is the case that one commonly hears expressed among knowledgeable valuers and farmers the view that there is a serious danger of Parliament encouraging and legalizing a form of robbery. I hope that that is not correct, but I am very anxious about it. If this happens I would like to know what the Government intend to do; if they will watch the matter and take further action. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted, but if it is not, I trust that the Government will consider in what way they can best strengthen the position before the Report stage and the Third Reading.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 1, after the second ("the") insert ("draft").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I understand that the Amendment which my noble friend has just moved is to insert the word "draft" before "ewes and the lambs" in the first line of page 29. I have got two Amendments later on to lines 5 and 6 which really affect the same point. I suggest that the word "cast"

725
should be used. My noble friend suggests the word "draft." I have no objection to the word "draft," I think that in some parts of the country the word "draft" is used and in other parts the word. "cast" is used, but they amount practically to the same thing. These are sheep that are sold off the hill and not what you might call the breeding animals. They are sheep sold for profit every year off the hill. I have no objection to adopting my noble friend's Amendment to insert the word "draft," and in that case I would not move my Amendment to insert "cast" unless the noble Lord who is to reply says that he prefers my description of "cast" to "draft."
My noble friend has made a fairly full statement us to the reasons why this word should be inserted, and I would like to amplify it a little. If one or other of these words is not included, if we do not refer to "draft" ewes or "cast" ewes, then it will be possible for a dishonest farmer who knows that he is going out of his holding in a year—or three years, under the Bill—to pass out not only his draft ewes, but a certain number of the gimmers and other ewes of higher value during each year, thereby increasing the average value of the whole of the stock which will form the basic value of the property. If the noble Lord tells me that legally this has a certain meaning, my reply is, why should it not be made quite clear? As I understand this Schedule, it is intended that it shall refer to good draft ewes; so why not insert the word "draft," so that there can be no misunderstanding about it? Then we shall all be satisfied. This question does not affect only the proprietor; it affects the incoming farmer as well. I support the noble Duke in his Amendment that the word "draft" be inserted before "ewes" in that line.
LORD WESTWOOD: I. assume that the noble Duke and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, wish me to deal with the proposed Amendments together, because there is a similarity between them. The proposal is to calculate the average prices of ewes and lambs sold at autumn sales in the previous five years, instead of three years as provided in the Schedule. The adoption of the three years' average as a clearly defined basis for sheep-stock valuations was one of the recommendations made by the Committee on Hill Sheep Farming in
726
Scotland, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was Chairman. As with other recommendations made by the Committee, this was thoroughly discussed with representatives of the main interests concerned, before being incorporated in the Bill. It can be said, therefore, to have been accepted by these interests as a reasonable basis upon which the arbiter can begin to assess the future profitability of the stock under valuation. In any case, a three-year average is no less reliable as a guide to future profit-earning than a five-year average.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt for a moment? The noble Lord has referred to the Report of the Balfour of Burleigh Committee as supporting the present wording of the Schedule. If the noble Lord will look at Recommendation 236 in the Report he will see that it says:
"For a Whit-Sunday valuation
(a) The valuation shall be based on the averages of the prices obtained for all the cast ewes and all the ewe and wether lambs sold off the hill in the autumn sales in, the previous three years."
The noble Lord will notice that the Committee used the words "cast ewes," but the Bill does not. I am quite prepared to accept "draft ewes" because it means the same thing.
LORD WESTWOOD: But the Balfour Committee dealt with this matter, and the point I raised was one of the recommendations regarding sheep stock valuations. If an arbiter were called upon to distinguish "cast" or "draft" ewes from other ewes he would have to determine what classes of ewes should rightly be regarded as "cast" or "draft," in the light of sound practice as applied to the particular flock he was valuing. There can be no hard-and-fast rule about what ewes can properly be sold out of a particular flock, by an honest and capable farmer, without impairing in any way the balance of the flock and, therewith, its profitability to the new owner.
In practice, however, the arbiter would have a problem still more difficult to solve. Equipped only with sales notes, he would be required to pick out from a list of prices those which he thought had been paid for ewes, other than the cast or draft ewes, which, in his opinion, had properly been sold from that farm. I am advised that he could never do so on that evidence alone. If he were led in any

727
way to consider that the profitability of the flock had been impaired by improper management, he would have only one means of deciding whether his opinion was well or ill-founded—namely, the state of the flock. Similarly, his only method of discounting the extent to which it had been impaired would be to make an appropriate adjustment in terms of paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule. Even if the word "cast" or "draft" were included, the net change would be to leave the procedure essentially the same as it is now.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whose view that is?
LORD WESTWOOD: The view of the Department concerned.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: As opposed to the Committee. The Department have not accepted the Committee's recommendation, because the Committee specifically said "cast ewes". It seems that in one instance the Department accept the recommendations of the Committee, and in the next they repudiate them.
LORD WESTWOOD: I did not say that the recommendation of the Committee was "draft" or "cast" ewes. The recommendation of the Committee was on a clearly defined basis for sheep-stock valuations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have read out from the Committee's recommendation. I cannot say more.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: A rather greater assurance would be welcome on some of these points, but I hope that in the course of the Third Reading the Government will be able to give a satisfactory assurance as to how sheep-stock valuation will work out in practice. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, leave out ("sales") and insert ("auction sales and at the graded sales of the Ministry of Food").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
LORD WESTWOOD: I think the answer which I gave in respect of the first point raised by the noble Duke about the adoption of the three-year average as a clearly defined basis for sheep-stock valuations was the correct answer in dealing with that particular point. I think that the Amendments on page 29, line 2; page 29, line 21, and page 30, line 16, are all similar. The answer is a comprehensive one and covers the point raised.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Do we understand from that that the Government accept or reject these Amendments?
LORD WESTWOOD: The Government do not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Which is the Amendment?
LORD WESTWOOD: The one proposed by the noble Duke at page 29, line 2.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in paragraph (1) of Part I, to leave out "three" and insert "five." The noble Viscount said: I am going to raise an issue now which I hope the noble Lord may be able to consider. Under the Bill it is provided that the basic value shall be worked out on a three-year average. In my humble submission, a three-year average is not long enough, because during those three years it is possible for a dishonest farmer to sell some of his better stock each year, and, consequently, bring up the average at the end of the three years. The life of sheep stock is between five and six years. I suggest that the three years should be increased to five years, for the simple reason that I hear on different sides that there is a movement on foot to try and get three years' notice to quit a farm. Supposing that were to come about, it would be quite within the capacity of a farmer, as I have said, to get his stock increased to such a value that the basic value would be higher than it ought to be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD WESTWOOD: The Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount seeks to

729
specify the expression "autumn sales" as "autumn auction sales" and "the graded sales of the Ministry of Food."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That was the last one. We have passed that one.
LORD WESTWOOD: That is the question dealing with the valuation proposals as a whole, which I think the noble Viscount has raised, and there is a third point, that fifteen shillings is an arbitrary addition to recognize the fact that the basic ewe value, while a good measure of the value of the older age of ewes in the flock—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is not the Amendment.
LORD WESTWOOD: That is the Amendment as I have got it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK. No.
LORD WESTWOOD: I think I dealt with that in the very early part when I mentioned that we did not see any difference in making it a five-year valuation. A three-year valuation is just as simple as a five-year valuation. The adoption of the three-year average as a clearly defined basis for sheep-stock valuations was one of the recommendations—as I have already mentioned (however much the noble Viscount may differ)—made by the Committee on Hill Sheep Farming in Scotland. As with other recommendations made by the Committee it was thoroughly discussed with representatives of the main interests concerned—that is, the National Farmers' Union, the Land and Property Federation and all the other people involved. It can be said, therefore, to have been accepted by all interests as a reasonable basis on which the arbiter can begin to assess the future profitability of the stock under valuation. In any case, a three-year average is no less reliable as a guide to future profit-earning than a five-year average. We have already stated that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord has now answered my Amendment. I cannot agree with him over it, but I beg leave to withdraw it, as there is no other course open to me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, at the end of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 6 of Part I, to insert "for acclimatization
730
value when such is payable." The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which to some extent is designed to get clarification of what the Bill really means. Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule says:
"In making his award the valuer shall value the respective classes of stock in accordance with the following rules, that is to say—
(a) ewes of all ages (including gimmers) shall be valued at the basic ewe value with the addition of fifteen shillings per head."
I want to know what that fifteen shillings per head means. Is it, 15s. per head for acclimatization and heftings, or is it 15s. that must be added to the basic value? If your Lordships will refer to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule you will see that it states:
"The three year average price for ewes shall be subject to adjustment by the valuer within the limits of ten shillings upwards or downwards as he may think proper having regard to the general condition of the stock under valuation.…"
As I see it, the result of this is that: if a sheep is valued at 60s. the valuer may add ten per cent., which is 6s. As it reacts here, he must add another 15s., which would be 21s., and there is no reference at all to acclimatization and heftings, which are today very often valued—I know of a case quite recently—at 22s. 6d. per head. The amount above the basic value would be £2 2s. 6d., a great part of which either the proprietor or the farmer would have to meet.
The first question I want to ask the noble Lord is: Must this 15s. be added? The second question I want to ask is: Is this 15s. the value of the acclimatization and the heftings? The third question is: Why is it that in the whole of this Schedule there is absolutely no mention of acclimatization values and heftings except in paragraph 6 (d), in which reference is made to the valuations of tups having regard to acclimatization? Perhaps the noble Lord can give me an answer to these three questions, and also to my fourth question as to what are the lines upon which the acclimatization and hefting values are to be made by these arbitrators.
LORD WESTWOOD: This proposal is at variance with the underlying conception of the valuation proposals as a whole. Fifteen shillings is an arbitrary addition to recognize the fact that the basic ewe value, while a good measure of the value of the older age of ewes in the flock, is

731
something less than the value of the younger age of ewes. Ewes with two, three, or four more years of breeding life ahead of them are worth proportionately more than the basic value. This 15s. addition in respect of younger ages takes account of that factor. It is a cardinal feature of the new valuation proposals that no recognition shall be made of acclimatization except in so far as it affects the general condition of the flock and its profit-earning capacity. To the extent that acclimatization has a bearing on that position it will, together with other relevant considerations, be taken into account by the valuer on paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord if that 15s. is fixed, or is the amount to be varied according to the condition of the stock?
LORD WESTWOOD: Fifteen shillings is an arbitrary addition to recognize the fact that the basic ewe value, while a good measure of the value of the older age of ewes in the flock is something less than the value of the younger age of ewes. It is a fixed amount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved to add to the Schedule the following new Part:
"Part V,
(1) There shall be established in Scotland a 'Court of Arbitration and Sheep Valuations' which shall be the Court of Appeal against any valuations made under Parts I and II of the Second Schedule.
(2) The Court of Registration and Sheep Valuations shall consist of not more than five members, one of whom shall be of the legal profession, who will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will be remunerated on a scale to be determined by him in consultation with the Treasury.
(3) The Court of Arbitration and Sheep Valuations shall:

(a) have full power to adjudicate upon and adjust in equity and in accordance with the facts, any valuation brought on appeal before that Court;

(b) have full power to require the outgoing and incoming tenants including the proprietor or his factor to attend the Court, and to inform the Court upon any point in dispute and to call for the production of any books, figures or other material which
732
may assist the Court in arriving at an equitable decision. The Court's decision shall be final;

(c) the costs of any appeal shall be borne by the parties in accordance with the decisions of the Court."

The noble Viscount said: I know the hour is getting late but this is an important issue even if the Amendment is not accepted. I wish, in the first instance, to refer to a statement made on hill farming by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He said this:
"It is commonly said that there are three levels of value, one, the lowest, for an incoming tenant, another, a higher one, when a landlord takes over a stock, and a higher one still when a stock is taken over by a Government Department."
The mere fact that the statement can be made, be it literally true or not, suggests that something is wrong with the system. It is generally understood in Scotland that something is wrong with the system, and in 1937 there was an attempt to improve the system by a Bill which was brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Thankerton. That has not improved the system as results since then have shown.
Now this is a Bill which purports to improve the system and I hope it does improve the system. Still, in spite of that, in this Bill conditions are laid down by the Government upon which the values are to be made. Will the noble Lord give me his attention for a moment? This Bill purports to improve the terms of valuation in Scotland. Certain conditions are laid down upon which the arbitrations of the valuations shall take place. When these were made there was no provision in the event of dissatisfaction with such valuations for an appeal. I am given to understand there may be an appeal to the Court of Session. We all know how cumbersome and how expensive such an appeal would be. My intention in this is to ask the Government whether they will not set up a special Court of Appeal which I have called here a "Court of Arbitration and Sheep Valuations" for the purpose of enabling proprietors and farmers, if they are not satisfied with the valuation that has been laid down under the terms of the new Schedule, to appeal to such a Court—the Court will be so formed as to have a special knowledge and ability—charged with dealing with such appeals.
I feel that if such a Court were established it would give a much greater faith

733
throughout the industry upon the terms which are now presented to them as the terms or conditions by which these valuations will be made. In fact, I would have gone even further if it had been possible—but as the Bill is submitted it would not be possible to do it—to make the Government establish a Court of Arbitration and Sheep Valuations for any of these valuations. Then one could have hoped that one would have got a much fairer valuation than has been the case in the past. I will not say anything more. That more or less seems to be my case. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 19, at end insert the said new Part.—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD WESTWOOD: In reply to the noble Viscount, the Bill already allows for a substantial alteration in the law as at present with regard to sheep-stock valuations. The arbiter called upon to carry out a valuation under a new lease will no longer be able to make an award without indicating in detail how his calculations are made. He will be required to conform to a strict formula starting from the basic ewe and land values calculated from sales notes available to both parties and variable thereafter at this discretion only within defined limits. Unless he conforms to these requirements his award will be open to be contested in the Courts. Again, in so far as any party has no confidence in a private valuer the Land Court can be called upon to undertake the valuation. The establishment of an additional Court of Appeal is not considered to be necessary.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: There is nothing very new in what the noble Lord has said. At the present time under the 1937 valuation they have to state exactly how they have made up their valuation. Practically everything that the noble Lord said must be done is already being done. What I am anxious about is lest, in spite of these valuations and certain new conditions—I agree they are new conditions—there should still be wrong valuations. That is why I have advocated an Appeal Court. But the noble Lord says: "If you are not satisfied, go to the Courts in the country." That recourse has always been open to us in the past, but the cumbersomeness of the machinery and the ex-
734
pense involved have always prevented the farmers and the proprietors from using it. I cannot thank the noble Lord for his reply. I can only ask that as time goes on, if it is found that these valuations are not as accurate as is hoped under the Bill, the establishment of an Appeal Court will be considered. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
7.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 91.]
Clause 10, page 9, line 26, after ("Treasury") insert ("by order").
Page 19, line 26, at end insert:
("(2) Any order made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be laid before Parliament immediately after it is made; and if either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such order as aforesaid is laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, it shall thereupon become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved

735
or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.")
Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert:
("Provided that Section two of that Act (which confers temporary powers for speedy acquisition of land in urgent cases) shall not apply to any compulsory purchase of land under this section.")
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendment read.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 58.]
Clause 144, page 91, line 28, leave out ("September, nineteen hundred and forty-six") and insert ("January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven").
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Westwood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INCUMBENTS (DISCIPLINE) MEASURE, 1946.
7.34 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, even at this extremely late hour I am afraid I must detain your Lordships for a few minutes on this Measure,
736
because it is an important one. I am not quite sure what the subject matter of the discussions I have recently listened to was. I think it was sheep farming at one time. This deals with another kind of sheep farming, generally called pastoral work. There are in the Church of England some 20,000 clergymen. Their standard of professional conduct in the sacred ministry is, generally speaking, very high indeed; but among that very large number of men there must be occasions, although the occasions are relatively rare, when a clergyman is not suitable for the incumbency that he holds, either because he has become a victim of physical or mental disability or, more rarely, because he has fallen into some kind of negligence or misconduct. As a result, there has been a very long series of what are called Clergy Discipline Acts of Parliament and Measures.
The problem is always complicated by the parsons' freehold. That system has positive advantages; it also has real disadvantages. But, in any case, everybody would agree that the parsons' freehold cannot be allowed to operate so as to inflict serious harm on the spiritual welfare and interests of a parish. In the nineteenth century there was a long series of Acts which I will not now detail. In 1926 the Church Assembly passed a Measure which became law called the Benefices (Ecclesiastical) Duties Measure. That dealt with both disability, by which I mean clergymen who become incapable by mental or physical infirmity, from doing their duty, and also with discipline, by which I mean cases where clergymen had become negligent or fallen into misconduct. The Measure was not successful, partly because it put together in one Measure two utterly distinct things. It is one thing for a man to lose his mental faculties, and that is a thing to be dealt with by itself; it must not be confused with a man who has fallen into misconduct. That Act, partly for that reason, became a dead enactment. In 1931 the clergy themselves of the Church of England in the Church Assembly, zealous for their professional standards, took up the matter again, desiring to get a satisfactory solution of the matter. Ever since 1931 the Church Assembly has been actively concerned about it. That is a very long period of gestation, and after fourteen years something has been done.

737
First of all, in 1945 the Incumbents (Disability, Measure dealing with this mental or physical incapability, was passed by the Assembly and received the Royal Assent and is now law.
This Measure which I now bring to your Lordships deals with discipline. It is necessarily long and complicated, because it is careful at every point, even over-careful, to guard against any possibility of a miscarriage of justice. May I as briefly as I can indicate the substance of the Measure? First, it does not deal at all with any complaints involving questions of doctrine, ritual, ceremonial, social or political opinions. Those are all definitely excluded from the Measure. It deals only with cases—and I quote the words—" of conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in Holy Orders or of serious, persistent, or continuous neglect of duty." I shall have to come back to that phrase, "conduct unbecoming the character." That is the class of offence that is dealt with.
May I now very briefly tell you the procedure? A complaint may be laid with a Bishop of an incumbent by certain named responsible people. The Bishop may discuss the complaint with the incumbent concerned and decide whether he wishes procedure to be taken under the Measure. If he says it shall be taken the complaint goes to a ministerial committee. That ministerial committee is composed of six clergymen taken from a panel elected from the Diocesan Conference. Out of that panel of six clergymen is formed a ministerial committee, and they consider the complaint. They may, if they will, dismiss the complaint, or by a majority of four out of the six they may agree to take the next step. You will observe that at that point the incumbent against whom a charge is laid is being examined by six of his own brethren, of his own peers.
The next step is that the complainant has to define his charges in a prescribed form for submission to a Special Court. When he has done that, the ministerial committee reads his complaint and may at that point dismiss it again. If they do not, it goes on to the Bishop, who also may dismiss it. If he does not, it goes to the Special Court, That Special Court consists of the Chancellor of the Diocese, two clergymen and two laymen, similarly taken from a panel—two clergymen, quite rightly, since a clergyman is charged, two laymen, also quite rightly,
738
because the laity are as deeply concerned as the clergy in the character of their clergy. The Special Court then gives its judgment and there is an appeal to a Provincial Court, both in the Province of Canterbury and the Province of York. The Special Court gives its judgment on what charges are proved and also—I would emphasize this—gives its opinion as to the gravity or otherwise of the charge proved; in other words, it can say, "This is proved and it is a serious thing," or, "This is proved, but, to tell you the truth, it is not really a very serious misdemeanour."
That is a very careful and elaborate system. After it is concluded, if the man is found guilty, the Bishop then has powers of action. There are three kinds of action he can take. He can censure the clergyman; or he can inhibit the clergyman for three years—he does not take him out of his freehold but he does prevent him from engaging in ministerial work for those three years—or he can vacate the benefice, that is to say, dispossess the incumbent, but only on one condition, and that is that he has to go back to the ministerial committee with whom the whole thing started, and can only vacate the benefice if he has the support of five out of the six members of that committee. I think you will see that the safeguards are quite immense and you will see why I said at: the beginning that the Measure has perhaps been over-careful to prevent any miscarriage of justice.
I must comment on two further points, and for this reason. I must say frankly that there is an association of clergymen—I have no knowledge of their number but I do not think it is very large—who have agitated against this Measure going through, who approached the Ecclesiastical Committee when they were considering it, and who have, I believe, approached some Members of Parliament in this House and the other. As far as I know, their ground of complaint is twofold. First, it is said That the phrase "conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in Holy Orders" is too vague and may therefore be open to abuse. The choice of language in the Measure was deliberate. It really is impossible to tabulate every kind of conduct which would lead to this result, and if you tried to do it you would thereby give free licence to a man to do anything that

739
was not in the table. Therefore, as I say, the choice of language was deliberate. I think, as I have described the working of the Measure, I have amply proved that nothing can go through that is not really in the minds of clergy, lawyers, Bishops and laymen properly described as "conduct unbecoming the character of a clerk in Holy Orders." I believe in the Army regulations there is a provision that an officer may be cashiered if he behaves in a manner unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman. I do feel that it is absurd to say that there is any ground of complaint against the Measure there.
The other ground of complaint is that it is an invasion of the parsons' freehold. My Lords, it is. In the final result a parson can be turned out of his benefice, but is there any reason on earth why, after this elaborate procedure, that result should not follow? In paragraph 2 of its report to Parliament the Ecclesiastical Committee said:
"Any Measure of this nature must necessarily affect the rights of incumbents, but the Ecclesiastical Committee are satisfied that the Measure safeguards their rights so far as it is practicable having regards to its object; indeed the Committee are inclined to think that the safeguards may prove in practice to be so numerous and cumbersome as to impair the efficacy of the Measure."
The Measure received general approval in 1942 without a division. It was then referred to every diocesan conference of the country, receiving general approval from forty of them and disapproval from two. It was then referred to the largest Revision Committee that the Church Assembly has ever appointed—I think sixty members—representing all Houses. It came from that to the Church Assembly once more and so reached final approval.
One complaint is that when it came to final approval in the House of Bishops it passed by the narrow margin of eleven votes to eight out of a total House of forty members. I wish to say here that I greatly regret that so many Bishops were absent from that division, but there is some explanation, I think, in this. Many Bishops felt that they did not want to be imposing a system of discipline on the clergy and they felt that they would not be too anxious to be present at the division for that reason. I think there were
740
others who said to themselves: "This Measure is so hampered with restrictions that we very much doubt if it will do much good. Therefore we are not going to bother to vote." Whichever way it was, I regret that they did not exercise their proper duty in making a decision. In the House of Clergy it passed by 113 votes to 89—a substantial minority but, after all this discussion, a real majority. In the House of Laity—and I would draw your Lordships attention to this—the Measure was passed by 179 votes to 40. That is an 81 per cent, majority, which I think gives an indication of how the Laity wish this for their own protection in these rare but, when they occur, very distressing cases.
With that, I would put the Measure before your Lordships. The Ecclesiastical Committee said that in points of details the Measure is open to criticism, but so, if I may say so with all respect, all too often are the Acts which pass your Lordships' House. They are, however, convinced as a result of their conference with the Legislative Committee that there is a real need for the Measure and that procrastination rather than improvement would be the result of further consideration of its terms by the Church Assembly. I have made it quite clear that I think the Measure is hampered by an excess of care, but it is better than anything we have had hitherto for dealing with these cases and I therefore beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Incumbents (Discipline) Measure, 1946, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would like to say, if I may, with what enormous pleasure I have listened to what the most reverend Primate has said. I would like to ask him what occurs in the second case, when the incumbent is inhibited for three years. How is his flock looked after and does he still enjoy the revenues of his office?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish I could give an absolutely certain answer. I think the members of the Government generally have somebody, as I gathered just now, to provide them with an answer,

741
right or wrong. I had an official here to brief me but he gave up hours ago! I think I am right in saying that if an incumbent is inhibited he may not officiate. The Bishop appoints someone to take the cure of souls in his place and I think the cost of that falls upon the inhibited clergyman. He draws his income but he has to pay enough to enable the work to be done to the Bishop's satisfaction.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to thank the most reverend Primate and also to express my regret that my contentious friends have kept him waiting so long.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GERMAN COAL.
7.50 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government the amount of coal exported from the British zone of Germany within the last twelve months, and on what accounts it has been exported, and the extent to which it has been balanced by imports for German consumption.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, the coal exports in the twelve months ended September 30, 1946, amounted to some. 12,660,000 tons of which 2,010,000 tons were sent to Austria and 10,650,000 tons to the countries supplied through the European Coal Organization. The transactions were on a straightforward sale basis except in the case of Switzerland, which has supplied electric power in return. Several of the countries receiving coal are supplying essential imports to the British zone, but their import and export contracts are not linked.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS.
7.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, if they will now arrange for the publication
742
of the reports of investigations into accidents to British civil aircraft which involve loss of life or serious personal injury.]
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, hitherto the general practice has been to publish only the conclusions arrived at by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. In future, however, unless for security or other reasons publication would be contrary to the public interest, I propose to publish the complete reports of his investigations into accidents occurring to British civil aircraft operating scheduled journeys (within the meaning of Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946), or engaged on charter in all cases where death or serious personal injury has occurred, or from which I think useful lessons may be learnt in connexion with the practice of flying, technical development or aircraft construction or where other special features are present.. It will be understood that this announcement applies only to British aircraft operating in the United Kingdom or the Colonies, as reports on accidents to Dominion or foreign aircraft in the United Kingdom or the Colonies, or to British aircraft in Dominion or foreign territory, cannot be published without prior arrangements with the Dominion or foreign authority concerned.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Arising out of that decision, which I am sure is a wise one, I would like to ask the noble Lord two things. First of all, will the inquiries in future be held in public? Secondly, will he do what he can to persuade other countries to follow suit, bearing in mind that it was one of the provisions and certainly the intention of the International Convention that there should be the greatest possible pooling and publication of information, and that the greatest common interest there is in civil aviation is safety?
LORD NATHAN: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving me an opportunity of saying that I shall certainly pursue discussions with other Governments, both foreign and Dominion, with a view to achieving the results to which he refers, believing as I do that safety is of the very first importance to

743
the whole future of civil aviation. As regards the other question the noble Viscount put to me, as to inquiries being held in public, I have given careful consideration to the suggestion which has been made to me from various quarters to that effect. I have reached the conclusion that while I should not be prepared to make a statement that the inquiries should, as a matter of course, and in general, be open to the public, I am prepared to say that inquiries into those accidents which give rise to matters of real public interest, or from which it is likely that benefits may be derived in regard to information as to technical de-
744
fects and development, those inquiries be open to the public.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the

City of Canterbury;

County Borough of Middlesbrough;

Borough of Wisbech:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolutions and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at four minutes before eight o'clock.