Sitting of 18 October 1949

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 29th September, 1949—met at Half past Two o'Clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Pay Offices (National Service Men)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War how many men called up for service under the National Service Acts are at present employed in pay offices; and how many civilians have been replaced by them in these offices.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): It is not the practice to make public the numbers of soldiers engaged on particular duties and it is not possible to say how many civilians have been directly replaced by the employment of National Service men in pay offices. It can, however, be said that some 2,500 more civilians or regular soldiers would at present be needed in these offices in the United Kingdom if National Service men were not used.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I take it that that answer means that in fact in a certain number of cases the right hon. Gentleman has replaced civilians by men called up under the National Service Acts, and is not this attempt to obtain cheap labour a gross abuse of the purpose of the National Service Acts?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think not. This is part of the training of some of the National Service men. We may require these men on these duties in the event of an emergency, and obviously they must have preparatory training.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: Is not it clear that the right hon. Gentleman would not require National Service men for these duties if he had permanent or temporary civil servants doing them? May I ask
    456
    him again to assure the House that the National Service system is not being abused in the way in which his first answer indicated?
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, I am quite satisfied that there is no abuse, and I should like to tell the hon. Member that the National Service men in the Pay Corps do receive a certain amount of military training.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to give notice that, in view of the admission of the right hon. Gentleman as to the use which he is making of National Service men, I shall—if the Government last long enough—raise the matter again.
    Mr. Shinwell: We shall last long enough.

    Married Quarters, Suez Canal Zone
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many married families, officers and other ranks, respectively, are accommodated in War Department quarters in the Suez Canal Zone; and how many live in private quarters.
    Mr. Shinwell: Three hundred and sixty-six married officers' families and 484 married other ranks' families are accommodated in War Department quarters in the Suez Canal Zone. The numbers living in private quarters are 444 and 536, respectively.
    Mr. Low: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about providing more War Department quarters so that these men and their families can be properly accommodated?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are doing as much as we possibly can in the circumstances. We are putting up temporary quarters which perhaps are not entirely satisfactory, but which are adequate for our purposes at the moment; and we are stepping up the provision of married quarters in all theatres as fast as we can, but it is a long-term job.

    Expedition, Aqaba (Cost)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what has been the total cost of the expedition to Aqaba.
    Mr. Shinwell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his similar Question on 26th April last to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable time has elapsed since April last and that there is need for national economy; further, what proposals has he in mind for reducing this expenditure?
    Mr. Shinwell: This was a quite specific Question about the total cost of a particular expedition, and I have told the hon. Member that I have nothing to add to what I told him on a previous occasion.

    War Department Property (Repairs)
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of repairs to billets and barracks are at present carried out by Royal Engineers' services; and what proportion by civilian contract.
    Mr. Shinwell: Approximately two-thirds of the repairs to War Department accommodation, installations and roads are carried out by Royal Engineers' services using directly employed labour as against approximately one-third by civilian contract.
    Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any change of policy in this matter in recent months and, if so, what is the reason for the change?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are considering whether it is possible to reduce the amount of directly employed labour though obviously there are a number of duties which the Royal Engineers have to perform.

    DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (CLAIMS)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will give further consideration to extending the time in which claims for loss of development value can be made.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question on 31st May last by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
    Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister whether in cases where there has only been a matter of a few days' delay, arising out of the heavy rush of work at that time, he will—even in those cases—reconsider this matter?
    Mr. Silkin: I am sorry but I have no power to grant any latitude, apart from making an entirely new order.
    Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of particulars which are asked for and which have to be sent in is very large and that in a few months' time all these claims and other charges may be so much waste paper?
    Mr. Stokes: What is the legal position of a person who does not listen to the wireless and does not read the Press and who then finds himself dispossessed? What happens?
    Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that he is a very ignorant man.
    Mr. Stokes: No. Mr. Speaker, with great respect, does my right hon. Friend know that I never listen to the wireless and rarely read the Press?
    Mr. Silkin: My answer still holds good.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: Following upon that question, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what happens to the person who believes that this is a matter for the local authority?
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the aggregate amounts of claims for loss of development rights in respect of properties in England and Wales and in Scotland respectively, submitted by 30th June, 1949.
    Mr. Silkin: Claimants were not required to state the amount claimed in formulating their claims and the majority have not done so. The information desired is therefore not available.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister give the House any information about the total of the claims in respect of which amounts have been formulated?
    Mr. Silkin: Not without notice.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Sickness and Disablement (Statistics)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of National Insurance if he is aware that under the approved society system societies arranged statistical data showing periodically the incidence of sickness and disablement among their membership, separating males and females for the purpose; and if he will give similar details showing any disparity between the statistics under the old and the new system.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Arrangements have been made to collect and publish periodically comprehensive statistics of sickness experience under the National Insurance Acts. But comparison with the figures obtained under the old system will not be possible as detailed statistics were only available in respect of a few approved societies.

    Local Advisory Committees
    Mr. Tom Brownasked the Minister of National Insurance how the local advisory committees he is setting up under the National Insurance Act, under Section 42 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, will be constituted; and whether old age pensioners will have the opportunity of being represented on them.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The Committees will consist of about 20 members, of whom six will represent employers and six employees. There will be two or three representatives 'of local authorities and one or two of friendly societies. These will constitute nucleus committees and will be asked to select four or five persons with suitable local knowledge to complete the full committee. Any local old age pensioners' association or other organisation who wants to put forward names for consideration by a particular local committee should forward them, with particulars of their qualifications, to the appropriate regional controller of the Ministry.
    Mr. Brown: Will my right hon. Friend say how the local organisation will get to know if this is the method to be adopted for the appointment of the advisory committees?
    Mr. Griffiths: We shall do our best to make this as widely known as possible.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that employers and trade unions are to be represented, is it not desirable that the old folks' organisations should have representation as organisations because they will be very much affected by the work of these committees?
    Mr. Griffiths: I think that we have provided in the best way for representation on these committees and I hone that the associations will send forward names to the regional controllers.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Major Bruceasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will state the total amount of unemployment benefits disbursed in the year 1938; give an estimate of what the disbursements would have been in 1938 had the current rates of benefit been then in force; and the total benefits granted in respect of unemployment in the year ended 5th July, 1949.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The total amount of unemployment benefit paid in the year 1938 was £52,400,000. It is estimated that if the current rates of unemployment benefit and family allowances had then been in force the disbursements would have been rather less than £90 million. The total amount of unemployment benefit paid in the year ended 2nd July, 1949, was approximately £21,500,000, including £4,900,000 in respect of extended benefit under Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1946.
    Major Bruce: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that although the payments for the individual unemployed person have gone up, the total expenditure has gone down, and does not he agree that this is the finest way of economising in the use of the taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the nation will note the figures, for they show the success of the policy of full employment.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give the figures showing the purchasing power of the pound in 1938 and 1945?
    Mr. Griffiths: That is not a question for me to answer.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman send a special message to the United States of America to thank them for this policy which they have helped to make so successful?
    Mr. Griffiths: These payments are made from money which we provide in this country.
    Mr. Piratin: Has not the Minister made out a good case for an increase in unemployment benefit?

    Sickness Claims
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps are being taken to supervise sickness claims and to prevent abuse of the provisions of the insurance and health services.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The steps taken to supervise sickness benefit claims under the National Insurance Act are broadly the same as those followed by the approved societies under the old National Health Insurance scheme, namely, careful scrutiny of claims, sick visiting in selected cases and the use of the regional medical service of the Health Departments to obtain second medical opinions in cases of doubt. Responsibility for the administration of the Health Services rests, of course, with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Sir W. Smithers: What is the good of referring to old methods? Is it not a fact that under the policy of Socialism the administration has completely broken down, as I warned the right hon. Gentleman on 2nd November, 1944, that it would?
    Mr. Griffiths: The administration is working very well.

    Funds
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of National Insurance what is the present position of the original insurance funds taken over by the terms of the National Insurance Act; and how much of them has been applied to extraneous purposes.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 1st February last, a copy of which I am sending him. The position as stated then remains unchanged.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister give an assurance that none of these funds has been used to implement Socialist theories or to uphold tottering Socialist policy; and will he say how much of this money is invested in "Dalton two-and-a-halfs"?
    Mr. Griffiths: The position is that so far the scheme is working under its own steam and it has not been necessary to touch a single penny of the money we took over in 1948.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Control
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour what reductions he proposes in labour control.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I hope shortly to make a statement about the Government's intentions with regard to labour controls.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the Minister give an assurance now that there will be no increase in control?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Labour how many people have been directed to work since the coming into force of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1947.
    Mr. Isaacs: Nineteen men and 10 women since 6th October, 1947, the date of coming into force of the Control of Engagement Order, 1947. In addition, directions have been given since that date to 581 men to remain in their normal employment in agriculture or coal mining.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in many hundreds of cases, the mere threat of direction has the same effect?
    Mr. Isaacs: There is no threat of direction.
    Mr. Blackburn: Has not the Minister given an undertaking to all hon. Members of the House that he will personally investigate any cases of victimisation due to the threat of the use of this power, and has the Minister had a single case of victimisation which has been proved?
    Mr. Isaacs: The only case was in the early days of the scheme, when one of the exchange managers made a mistake and we promptly put it right.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the Minister give an undertaking that on no occasion in the past or in the future has the threat been used or will be used?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can give that undertaking. We have never threatened anybody.
    Mr. Mellish: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that direction into labour is a new thing in this country, and that in the past it was the policy to direct people out of labour?
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received advocating a more vigorous enforcement of his powers of direction of labour; what reply he has given to such representations; and whether any change in policy is contemplated.
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the question is "None, Sir," and the second part, therefore, does not arise. As I have already informed the House I hope shortly to make a statement about the Government's intentions.
    Mr. Blackburn: Can the Minister indicate how it has arisen that responsible newspapers have printed rumours, which they say were well authenticated, to the effect that the trade union movement has asked him to increase these powers?
    Mr. Isaacs: No such thing has happened, but we are accustomed to rumours in the newspapers. I can say that I have never had a single complaint from the trade unions about the operation of this particular power.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Has not the right hon. Gentleman observed the statement of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the effect that, in the event of his party being returned to power, the Transitional Powers Act will be replaced by a permanent Act in which Regulation 58A will become a permanent part of our law, so that an Order for the direction of labour can then be made without this House having the power to alter one word of it?
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement which has just
    464
    been referred to was to the effect that the particular Act would be passed in an amended form?
    Mr. Strauss: May I say that I should still prefer an answer from the Treasury Bench to one given by an aspirant?
    Mr. Isaacs: The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me if I noticed that statement. I have noticed that statement.

    Scotland
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Labour what percentage of the registered male unemployed in Scotland is over 40 years of age; and what plans he has specially in view to deal with this class of persons.
    Mr. Isaacs: At 13th June, 1949, the latest date for which details are available, 51 per cent. of the men registered as unemployed were over 40 years of age. The majority of the men concerned are in the Development Areas, and will benefit from the special efforts being made under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to increase the level of employment in such areas. In the rest of Scotland also many new industries are being set up. Apart from this, Appointments offices and employment exchanges take special pains to assist men over 40 who find it difficult to obtain employment, and local employment committees in the West of Scotland have been specially invited to consider this problem.

    Departmental Advertising
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Minister of Labour what is the cost of advertising for labour for his Department in 1947, 1948 and 1949.
    Mr. Isaacs: The expenditure incurred by my Department on advertising for labour, including the estimated cost of administrative staff, is approximately as follows: 1947, £7,000; 1948, £9,000; 1949 (January-July), £8,000.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister satisfied that a Department which is organised for the provision of labour should itself have to resort to other methods to secure it? Is it not a Department organised to secure its own labour?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; this is indeed part of the organisation. If an employer comes along and wants a certain class of

    465
    worker and we have not got that class of worker on our registers, we advertise to let the people know that the jobs are going.
    Sir W. Darling: May I take it that it is a fact that the daily Press is more useful in securing labour than the Ministry's own Department?
    Mr. Isaacs: Not in the least. The daily Press is often used as an adjunct to my Department.
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Minister of Labour why it is necessary for his Department to advertise for females between 15 and 45 when the vacancies of all Ministry of Labour offices and officers are at his disposal for such recruiting of staffs.
    Mr. Isaacs: The advertisements are being issued on behalf of the Treasury and Civil Service Commission. Their purpose is to call the attention of women and girls—whether they are registered at employment exchanges or not—to new opportunities for shorthand-typists and typists to secure permanent posts in the Civil Service in London.
    Sir W. Darling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take a very poor view of his own Department having to engage in advertising for girls to work in his Department when he has the resource of registering them?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer is the same as that which I have given to a previous Question. We have a number of young people leaving school who do not register at the exchanges; therefore, we advertise to let them know that these jobs are going.
    Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that people only apply to the employment exchanges when they are out of work, and that these advertisements are intended for those people who want a better kind of job?
    Mr. Isaacs: I could not put the answer better than the hon. Gentleman has done.

    Rugby
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Rugby at a recent convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: Sixteen males and 23 females at 12th September.

    Hosiery Company, Dagenham (Dispute)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour what is the cause of the dispute at the Windsor Hosiery Company, Dagenham; and what action his Department has taken to try and get it settled.
    Mr. Isaacs: The dispute arose out of a request by the union for a meeting to discuss wages and conditions of employment. Officers of my Department have been in close touch with the parties, and a further meeting between an official of the union and a representative of the firm is taking place today.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Labour why applicants at the local employment exchange have been sent to the Windsor Hosiery Company's works when an officially recognised strike is in progress.
    Mr. Isaacs: Submissions to these vacancies were made in accordance with the established practice of the Employment Service which maintains strict impartiality towards trade disputes. Vacancies notified by an employer which are affected by a trade dispute are brought to the notice of suitable applicants, but in every case the applicants are warned of the existence of the dispute. No person is prejudiced in any way if he is unwilling to accept a vacancy because a trade dispute affecting that vacancy exists.
    Mr. Parker: Will the Minister look into the complaint made by officials of the union about the way in which the local employment exchange behaved in this matter?
    Mr. Isaacs: Most certainly, if my hon. Friend brings the matter to my notice.
    Mr. Osborne: Could the Minister say how many people are involved in this strike? Will he also make it clear that the hosiery trade has for many years been free from strikes and has had good relations with the trade unions?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The number of persons involved is about 125. I would like to endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the good relations which have existed in this industry. This dispute

    467
    really arose because the employers did not give a reply for some eight or nine weeks to a question whether they would meet the union or not, and then did not give a definite date, with the result that the workers came out. I hope we shall get back to the industry's old position.

    Shipyard Workers
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many shipyard workers were unemployed in the Tyneside area at the latest available date; and what are the prospects of them obtaining work in their trade;
    (2) how many ship repair workers were unemployed in the Port of London area at the latest available date; whether other work has been offered them; and what are their prospects of work in their industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: The latest official figures of insured workers in the shipyards registered as unemployed relate to 12th September and are as follow: Port of London area, 344; Tyneside (including Blyth), 1,276.
    As regards the Port of London, there is no reason to expect an appreciable increase in the number unemployed, but as regards the Tyneside, a considerable number of workers have recently been paid off. Special efforts are being made to find suitable employment for these men and it seems likely that most of the skilled men can be found such employment in the near future.
    Mr. Piratin: Does the Minister mean by that reply that there actually are plans for more work going to the shipyards of the north-east? Will he bear in mind the fact that many orders have been going abroad, including Germany, where labour is cheaper, and will he not go into the whole question again?
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot very well comment on the second part of the supplementary question, because I have not given it special consideration. As to the first part, it is correct that efforts are being made, and I think will be successful, to get other work taken into the Tyneside area. So far as London is concerned, the number of unemployed has not added one to our unemployment figures.
    Sir Ian Fraser: Will the Minister inquire whether there are not many scores of thousands of railway trucks and wagons which cannot at present be repaired because the workshops are full up? Is this not very suitable work for certain kinds of dockyards?
    Mr. Isaacs: It depends on particular circumstances, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that whatever work can be sent there to be done will be sent.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will my right hon. Friend keep his eye on the Clyde on this question, because there is a good deal of unemployment among those who are engaged on repair work, which is now pretty well used up? Will he keep his eye on this matter?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

    Coahniners (Recruitment)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour, in view of the declining manpower, what special steps he is taking to recruit more workers to the coalmining industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: Coalmining continues to have first call on all available manpower. Recruitment publicity continues and coalmining employment is offered to all suitable unemployed men.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that the manpower in the coalmining industry is still 65,000 less than it was 10 years ago, and that, in view of this fact, the miners are to be congratulated on the present output? Will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the vacancies which now exist in each coalfield?
    Mr. Isaacs: I will not give an undertaking on the second point until I have considered it. As to the first point, it is true, of course, that production is being maintained, but there has been a good deal of mechanisation in the industry which leads to a reduction in manpower.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection that many pits are being closed as well?
    Mr. Hollis: Will the Minister explain exactly what he means by the phrase "first call" which he used in his answer.
    Mr. Scollan: The one before the second.
    Mr. Isaacs: It means that out of the list of priority jobs offered to men going to the employment exchange coalmining is the first job offered to them.

  SCOTLAND

    School Dental Service
    Colonel Comme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many schoolchildren in Scotland, during the school year ended 31st July, 1949, were treated by school dental officers; and of that number, how many were treated for fillings, extractions and other dental operations, respectively;
    (2) how many children were on the school registers in Scotland during the school year ended 31st July, 1949; how many were inspected by school dental officers; and how many were recorded as requiring treatment.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Of some 780,000 children on the registers during the school year ending in July, 1949, over 268,000 were inspected by school dental officers. Of these 188,000 were recorded as requiring treatment, which was provided for 136,000 children. I will circulate more detailed figures, with an analysis of the treatment, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information:

    SCHOOL DENTAL SERVICE IN SCOTLAND, 1948–49

    Number of children on registers

    781,294

    Number of children inspected

    268,290*

    Number requiring treatment

    188,007*

    Number receiving treatment

    136,409

    Number of fillings

    134,371

    Number of extractions

    176,887

    Number of other operations (scaling, root treatment, etc.)

    119,929

    * Provisional.

    Outhouses, Coastal Villages
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise the erection of outhouses for council tenants in coastal villages where the provision of shelter for line baiting and of storage facilities for fishing gear is essential.
    Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir. I am prepared to consider any plans submitted by local authorities in which provision is made for special accommodation for fishermen's gear. I have already agreed to this in several cases.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Why should there be this long delay? Is the Minister aware that a great many of the Cruden houses and others erected long ago by county councils have no outhouses because they are prevented from putting them up by his own Department of Health and that, as a consequence, the fishermen are baiting their gear in the houses themselves?
    Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. For instance, in his own constituency where the county council have put forward these propositions, my Department have agreed to them. I would like the hon. Gentleman to give me details of any contrary decision.

    Ploughing Subsidy
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider revising the date under which the ploughing subsidy is payable in the North of Scotland, having regard to the fact that much of this work is done in the early spring.
    Mr. Woodburn: As the date, which is applicable over the whole country, was fixed by statute, I have no power to revise it.
    Mr. Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to the fact that this season the Scottish farmer has to decide whether he will use his grazing to the full or whether he will have to cut it up in order to get the ploughing subsidy; and, further, swill the Minister receive representations on this matter with a view to reconsidering it?
    Mr. Woodburn: We are always prepared to consider any matter, but I must point out that the Scottish farmer received notice in August last year that the ploughing subsidy would come to an end this year, and he had to make his provisions accordingly. We will consider the matter, but I cannot hold out any great hopes.
    Mr. Snadden: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the national interest that grass should be grazed for

    471
    as long as possible, and that the better the grass the longer the grazing? Does not this decision penalise efficiency and run counter to his own exhortations?
    Mr. Woodburn: This has been an exceptional year and one cannot always budget for exceptional years. Moreover, the arrangements for this are always taken into account when settling other prices, and, therefore, what the farmer loses on the swings he gains on the roundabouts. In other words, he gets the price for his cattle if he keeps grazing them.
    Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister received any representations from the Opposition to cut out these ploughing subsidies in the interest of economy?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The Minister says that the whole country is subject to this Order under statute. That being so, is it not a perfect example of how stupid it is to treat the country as one unit?
    Mr. Woodburn: No, Sir. It may surprise the hon. and gallant Gentleman to learn that quite a lot of grass grows in England.

    Empty Houses (Local Authorities' Powers)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he is curtailing the powers of local authorities to requisition empty houses.
    Mr. Woodburn: Local authorities now have powers under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1949, to acquire and improve premises with Exchequer assistance, and I am satisfied that, they should normally rely on these powers rather than on requisitioning powers, which in any event are due to expire in the near future.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while local authorities have power to requisition premises, the power to requisition empty single houses—which is the point in question—is now being withdrawn from them, a fact which will create severe hardship in industrial districts in Glasgow?
    Mr. Woodburn: The point is that under the Act passed by this House local
    472
    authorities now have power to acquire these houses permanently. The requisitioning of them would only be a temporary measure, which would be much less satisfactory to the incoming tenant.
    Mr. Rankin: That being so, will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear to the local authorities—for they are not clear about it now—that they have the power to requisition these houses? The Corporation of Glasgow last week refused to requisition a particular house at my request.
    Mr. Woodburn: No doubt my hon. Friend's Question will call the attention of local authorities to their powers.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the houses are not worth requisitioning by the local authorities, and that night after night they are being advertised in the Scottish newspapers? The local authorities well know that these houses are condemned in their records, but the public do not know.

    Infantile Paralysis, Strathdon
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a special medical inquiry into outbreaks of infantile paralysis at Strathdon, having regard to the unique circumstances of which he has been informed.
    Mr. Woodburn: Medical officers of my Department are in touch with the local medical officer of health, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as their expert assessment is available.
    Mr. Spence: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this matter will be given the highest possible priority, and will he assure the House that he does realise the exceptional opportunity now being offered of getting some information on the cause of infantile paralysis?
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the whole country is very anxious to find out the causes and cure of infantile paralysis. The facts which he has put before us are of an interesting nature, and the medical research people are busy on the job.

    Air-Raid Shelters, Glasgow
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland

    473
    whether it is the Government's policy to remove air-raid shelters in Glasgow where the inhabitants complain of their presence.
    Mr. Woodburn: The present instructions to local authorities are that for the time being work on the demolition of shelters and the collection of Anderson and Morrison shelters should be discontinued. I am, however, willing to consider any special cases affecting public health or safety.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are numerous cases of these shelters becoming in-sanitary nuisances, and will he therefore arrange that in such cases the overriding instruction will be to take them away?

    WAR PENSIONS (STERLING EXCHANGE RATE)
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Minister of Pensions how many war pensioners live in dollar or hard currency countries; and what proposals he has to help them in view of devaluation.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): About 3,700 in the U.S.A.; 11,000 in Canada and 750 in other hard currency countries. The amounts of pension and allowances are stated in sterling in the War Pensions instruments, and I have no power to vary them in accordance with changes in exchange rates. I am, however, considering whether any means can be found of assisting pensioners in special cases, such as those receiving unemployability supplement, who may suffer hardship.
    Sir I. Fraser: If the American Legion, the Canadian Legion and other associates of the British Legion can bring particulars to the attention of the Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman see how far any of these men may receive higher assessments or some of the new allowances which those in this country have had?
    Mr. Marquand: My own officers in Canada are already collecting information, but if the sort of organisations which the hon. Gentleman mentions can give me more information, I shall certainly be prepared to consider it.
    Mr. Driberg: Since the Ministry of Pensions undertook various responsibilities for payment in this country on
    474
    behalf of allied Governments who had troops stationed here during the war, is it possible to make any reciprocal arrangements?
    Mr. Marquand: I hardly think so.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the great importance of this matter, could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is likely to be in a position to give a definite answer? He mentioned in his reply that he was giving consideration to this matter.
    Mr. Marquand: It is a little difficult to, promise a definite date, but I am making inquiries with all speed. Several countries are involved. Perhaps a Question could be put down in about a fortnight's time.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that dollar pensioners in this country have had a very substantial increase and sterling pensioners in dollar countries have had a very substantial decrease, will my right hon. Friend discuss with the American authorities some way of sorting out this situation?
    Mr. Marquand: The numbers are by no means equal, nor are the amounts.

    LAW OF LIBEL (LEGISLATION)
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Prime Minister whether legislation will be introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Porter Committee for the amendment of the law of libel.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Effect has already been given to all the recommendations of the Committee relating to practice and procedure which can be dealt with by Rules of Court. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to deal with the remaining recommendations during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Sir S. Reed: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a declaration by a high legal authority as to the inequity of the present law and the desirability of amendment? Will he consider whether appropriate legislation could usefully be introduced in another place?
    The Prime Minister: I have considered that matter, but I am afraid that the legislative programme in both Houses does not allow of that.

    COUNCIL OF EUROPE (BRITISH DELEGATES)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister the relationship between our Parliament and the British delegates to the Council of Europe; and in what way their activities at Strasbourg will come under review in this House of Commons.
    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom representatives in the Consultative Assembly speak and vote in the Assembly as individuals, and are not responsible to this House for the speeches which they make in the Assembly. His Majesty's Government, under the terms of the Statute of the Council of Europe, decide how the United Kingdom representatives shall be appointed and, of course, are responsible to this House in that respect. The general principles governing the appointments on the recent occasion are contained in the statements made by the Lord President of the Council on 5th May, and by myself on 2nd June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the Committee of Ministers, is answerable to the House for his actions in that body.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Could a report on the proceedings at Strasbourg be placed in the Library so that we can read what is happening there?
    Mr. Gallacher: Nothing happens.
    The Prime Minister: That is hardly a question to put to me, but I will look into it and let my hon. Friend know.
    Mr. Scollan: After the recent experience we had of what took place at Strasbourg, are the Government not prepared to reconsider this question, especially in view of the irresponsible statements dangerous to the welfare of this country which were made by people who were thought by the Continentals to represent this House?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While agreeing with the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether it will be possible in the near future to have a Debate on the question of foreign affairs covering the matters that were raised at Strasbourg?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question to the
    476
    Leader of the House some time on Business.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of medals to delegates whose services were not required at Strasbourg?

    ATOMIC ENERGY (INFORMATION)
    Mr. Piratinasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the refusal of the United States Government to give His Majesty's Government information in the technical use of atomic energy, he will consider approaching the Soviet Government in order to obtain this information.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend does not accept the statement in the first part of this Question. The answer to the Question is, "No, Sir."
    Mr. Piratin: Is it not the fact that a few months ago the British and the Canadian Governments requested such information from the United States and were refused it? Is it not also the fact that in the Soviet Union atomic energy is reported as being now used for industrial purposes? As there is a need in our country for increased productivity, should we not seek this information?
    Mr. Mayhew: So far, the Soviet Government have shown themselves reluctant to part with information of this kind.

    FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Lord President of the Council, in view of the economic difficulties of the country, if it is still proposed to proceed with the arrangements for a fun fair in Battersea Park during the Festival of Britain.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir, but "fun fair" would be a misleading description of the Festival Gardens as a whole. The so-called fun fair, which is better described as the amusement section, will be only a small part of the Festival Gardens. It will take up only about a sixth of the whole area. It is clear that some people are still thinking

    477
    of the Festival Gardens project as one huge hurdy-gurdy. But the rest of the Festival Gardens—about 30 acres out of the 37 earmarked—is to provide rest, refreshment and amusements and entertainments of other kinds for visitors to the South Bank exhibition. These amenities would normally be provided on the same site as the exhibition and as an integral part of it, but because of the limited site on the South Bank this is not possible.
    As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 12th July, most of the attractions in the amusement section are to be provided by concessionaires who will pay rent for them. It is not expected that this section of the Festival Gardens will result in any loss.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these serious and difficult times it would be better to divert this effort into something which would bring economic help to the people? How does he expect the people to appreciate the seriousness of the situation when this sort of rubbish is put over to them? Is he trying to impress upon them that we are now round "recovery corner" completely?
    Mr. Morrison: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman adopts this point of view he ought to advocate the closing of every cinema and every form of amusement in the country. Taking this project by and large, it is a sound economic proposition which will also bring dollars into the country. I very much hope that this will not be the subject of partisan consideration.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that his use of the term "amusement section" instead of "fun fair" does not mean that those who enter the amusement section will be expressly forbidden to have any fun?

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Savings
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement upon the present position of National Savings.
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
    478
    make a statement upon the present position in relation to National Savings.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I shall be making such a statement tomorrow evening at the National Savings Rally, but if the hon. Member has any particular points as to which he desires information perhaps he would put a Question down.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not this the proper place in which a statement should be made? I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in particular whether he is prepared to make the terms offered more attractive to savers.
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the week-end speech of his colleague the Minister of Health who said that people's money would be redistributed by way of retribution? Will that help savings?
    Sir S. Cripps: I shall hope to deal with my own speech and with that of nobody else.
    Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear—it is not clear from his answer—that this House is the proper place in which to make important statements?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not propose to make any important statement. I propose to make a statement at the National Savings Rally, at which representatives of other political parties will also make statements.
    Sir J. Mellor: Are we to understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose to make any announcement whatsoever, and does not propose to make any departure from his existing policy with regard to National Savings?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

    Sterling Exchange Rate
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to protect the tourist industry, in view of devaluation and the possible resulting rise in costs to hotels, restaurants and places of entertainment for foreign visitors bringing dollars and other foreign exchange to this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: None at present. I hope that increases in internal costs and prices will be avoided as far as possible.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Empire and foreign Governments he consulted and informed, respectively, before he announced the decision of His Majesty's Government to devalue the pound.
    Sir S. Cripps: Either directly or through the International Monetary Fund, I informed all Commonwealth Governments, all members of the Fund and of the Or-ganisation for European Economic Co-operation, and the Governments of Burma, Iraq and Israel. Communications were made by His Majesty's Government to the Governments of Belgium, France and the Netherlands in accordance with the provisions for consultation in our Monetary Agreements with those countries.
    Sir W. Smithers: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman delay that announcement to all the other countries because he did not dare admit the utter failure, owing to his folly, of the Socialist administration?
    Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction expressed by the French Government at the lack of notice given to them on devaluation? Was the notice in accordance with the Treaty of Dunkirk?
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes; we gave the notice in accordance with the practicabilities of the situation. seeing that we had to safeguard our own reserves. We gave as long a notice as possible.

    Exchange Control
    Mr. I. J. Pitmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the losses to the nation, in the period leading up to devaluation, due to absence of exchange control or ineffective control; what percentage of such total loss is attributable to transactions involving sterling by persons not susceptible to the jurisdiction of British statutes; how much attributable to the transactions susceptible to such laws; and if he will estimate the amount, if any, lost by reason of transactions by British citizens ineffectively controlled.
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give any reliable estimates of losses which have been incurred, either as a result of activities of persons outside our jurisdiction, or through evasion of Exchange Control regulations on the part of our own residents; nor would it be possible to estimate the proportion of the losses caused by the first category as compared with the second. I am satisfied, however, that the great bulk of the losses that occurred were due to operations by traders outside our control, and that those due to deliberate evasion on the part of our own nationals were relatively small.
    Mr. Pitman: May we not all be gratified, then, that exchange control in itself and the acts of those who have been working at it have been very satisfactory and that nothing has been left undone, either in regulations or in the administration of them?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am sure the Exchange Control authorities will be most grateful to the hon. Member.
    Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are currently in force to ensure that exports of capital from Britain to the rest of the sterling area do not result in a drain on our gold and dollar resources; whether he is satisfied with these measures; and what steps he proposes to take to reinforce them.
    Sir S. Cripps: Every Government within the sterling area exercises exchange control powers similar to our own with the object of preventing a drain on our gold or dollar resources. While I am satisfied that the existing system of control is very effective in achieving this object, the system is kept constantly under review in order that concerted action can be taken to strengthen it whenever the need should arise.

    Miners and Railwaymen (Concessions)
    Mr. Norman Bowerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the amount of tax lost to the revenue in a year through the free distribution of coal to miners by the National Coal Board and the provision of free travel facilities to railway employees by British Railways.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot say what tax would be paid if benefits in kind like those referred to were made liable to tax.

    India (Sterling Balances)
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the sterling balances of India are held in the United Kingdom; and what rate of interest is paid or credited.
    Sir S. Cripps: The sterling balances of India, which include the holdings of commercial banks and other commercial and private holders as well as those of the Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India, are in the form of bank balances and holdings of short-term and other debt, such as Treasury Bills and British Government or other securities. In so far as the obligations held by Indian institutions or residents are those of His Majesty's Government, the interest at present payable on the holdings is at the rate current for each type of debt.

    Reparations (Policy)
    Mr. David Ecclesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement concerning His Majesty's Government's policy in relation to Article 6A of the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparations of 21st December, 1945.
    Sir S. Cripps: Not yet, Sir, but I hope to be able to do so shortly. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am ready to answer a Question on this subject.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Turtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Dr. Hart, of Alne, is being pressed to pay £61 as Purchase Tax on streptomycin sent as a gift, from December, 1947, to March, 1948, from the United States in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of his three-year-old daughter who was suffering from miliary tuberculosis; that Streptomycin was prescribed by the Streptomycin Regulations, 1948, as being within the scope of the Penicilin Act, 1947, and was exempted from Purchase Tax in April, 1948; and whether, in all the circumstances of this case, he will abandon his claim for Purchase Tax on a gift of an essential drug sent in order to save life.
    Sir S. Cripps: Purchase Tax was legally chargeable on Streptomycin at the time these consignments were imported, whether or not they were sent as a gift and it was duly paid by the agents who acted for Dr. Hart. No claim has been made for its refund.
    Mr. Turton: Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that Dr Hart has protested vehemently ever since the tax was levied on this life-saving drug and that he holds letters from the Customs and Excise acknowledging the fact that he has so protested? It is quite wrong to say that he has not
    Sir S. Cripps: I said that no claim has been made for its refund. The tax was paid by B.O.A.C. and they have not claimed any refund.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Are we to understand that, if a claim is now made for refund of this Purchase Tax, in these circumstances the matter will be reconsidered?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly; all claims of that type are always considered in the light of the circumstances.
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that retail exports involving a large number of dollars are being lost to this country because of the inability of visitors from North America to pay for their goods in retail stores and take them away with them instead of having to fill in forms and have the goods delivered to ship, and in view of the overriding necessity of obtaining dollars if he will alter the regulations so that visitors from abroad who produce their passports and pay in dollars can collect their goods in the normal way and the retailer can reclaim the Purchase Tax by producing evidence of the dollars banked and the passport number of the purchaser.
    Sir S. Cripps: Such a scheme already exists. Citizens of the United States or Canada who exchange dollars through a bank in this country (or draw sterling from an American or Canadian account) can, under suitable safeguards, buy limited quantities of clothing free of Purchase Tax, and collect their goods in the normal way. Full details of the scheme were published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 20th August, 1949.
    Mr. Lewis: Would the Chancellor say what he means by "suitable safeguards" and what that involves in respect of the visitor from North America who wishes to make a purchase?
    Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member would be good enough to look at the article in the "Board of Trade Journal" to which I have drawn attention he will find the safeguards.
    Mr. Lewis: Does it mean that this visitor has to fill up some form or other or to take some irksome step other than just going into the store to purchase the goods and take them away? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to this country because people do not stop here; they go to France where they do not have this difficulty.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the method employed between 5th December, 1947, and 13th March, 1948, in determining the value for Purchase Tax purposes of gifts of streptomycine sent from the United States of America in an attempt to save the life of a child suffering from miliary tuberculosis.
    Sir S. Cripps: The importer's agent declared Purchase Tax values of 16s. 3d. a gramme for three consignments and 22s. for a fourth. With the exception of one consignment declared at 16s. 3d. which was revalued at 22s., these declarations were accepted. I understand that the higher figure is in line with trade prices at about the same time.

    British Aid (Post-War Gifts and Loans)
    Major Bruceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount to date of aid granted by Great Britain to other countries since the end of the war, distinguishing between amounts loaned, outright gifts or grants, and grants made under the Intra-European Payments Scheme.
    Sir S. Cripps: Aid by the United Kingdom to other countries in the form of gifts or loans of cash, goods, and services, has amounted to £950 million since the end of the war. Of this, £65 million represents drawing rights exercised on us under the Intra-European Payments
    484
    Scheme, £400 million is in gifts or grants, and £485 million is recoverable aid.

    Treasury Bonds
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present holding of 2½ per cent. Treasury Bonds now quoted around 69 per cent. in the National Insurance Fund and in the Post Office Savings Bank; and what was the average price at which the stock was purchased in each case.
    Sir S. Cripps: Statements showing the nominal amounts of 2½ per cent. Treasury Stock held in the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund on 31st March, 1949, and in the Post Office Savings Bank's Fund on 31st December, 1948, have already been issued by the National Debt Commissioners and laid before Parliament. The accounts of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund, which will show the cost price and market value of stock held in that Fund on 31st March, 1949, will be laid before the House in due course. In accordance with long-established practice, I am not prepared to anticipate or add to the information regularly given to Parliament under Statute.
    Mr. Osborne: I should like to ask the Chancellor what he means by "in due course," because there is a good deal of nervousness about the investment in this stock of these two Funds. It already shows a depreciation of nearly one-third. It is very important to people whose interests are involved.
    Sir S. Cripps: "In due course" means when, under the Statute which regulates the matter, they have to present their accounts to Parliament.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Chancellor aware that if any private citizen behaved as his predecessor did when he issued the stock he would find himself at the Old Bailey?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any private citizen issuing Government stock.

    Overseas Insurance Companies (Investments)
    Mr. Pickthornasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of the liabilities of overseas

    485
    insurance companies to policy-holders in this country was invested in dollar securities at the end of 1946, 1947 and 1948;
    (2) what is the amount of insurance premiums collected in each of the last five years in this country by overseas insurance companies and invested in dollar securities.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.

    Dollar Allowance (Mr. G. C. Chelioti)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowance of dollars was made to Mr. G. C. Chelioti, chairman of Claude General Neon Lights, Durams and Glass Bulbs, a director of the General Electric Company and a member of the General Council of the Engineering Employers' Federation in respect of his visit to the United States of America in October, 1949; and what were the purposes of such visit.
    Sir S. Cripps: As I have repeatedly stated, it would not be proper to disclose details of individual applications for foreign exchange made to the Bank of England under the Exchange Control Act, 1947.
    Mr. Blackburn: While I in no way wish to interfere with the freedom of speech of a British subject anywhere in the world, would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that those who, like Mr. Chelioti or Mr. Stewart Granger, go to the United States of America and run down this country and the workers of this country are despised by decent-minded people both in the United States and here?

    Lower-Paid Workers (Wages)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking in consultation with the trade union leaders, the boards of nationalised industries, and the employers, to bring about an increase of wages for the lower paid workers, in view of the increased difficulties arising from the devaluation of sterling.
    Sir S. Ctipps: None, Sir. It is not for me to initiate movements for wage increases.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Chancellor's reference to the family in his devaluation speech, and his announcement about practical help to the poorer paid families, would not practical help to them be of much more value than the continuance of this sentimental twaddle?
    Sir S. Cripps: This is not dealing with sentimental twaddle but dealing with the level of wages.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Chancellor read his own speech? That talked about the importance of the family and recognised the need for increasing the incomes of the poorer-paid families. Will not the Chancellor take some steps to assist them?

    CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL RIGHTS)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is now the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the implementation of the Masterman Committee's Report on the political activities of civil servants;
    (2) if he will make a statement as to the result of his discussions with the staff side of the Civil Service Whitley Council on the subject of the proposed restrictions on the political liberties of civil servants.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now announce the result of the Government's reconsideration of their decision to adopt the Masterman Committee's recommendations.
    Sir S. Cripps: Action to implement the recommendations of the Masterman Committee remains suspended. The Staff Side of the National Whitley Council have submitted suggestions which are under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now give the assurance, which the Lord President refused to give on 30th July, that no limitation shall be put on the existing political rights of any civil servant until this House has had an opportunity to debate the matter?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I cannot make any further statement until after the discussions

    487
    cussions which I have mentioned have proceeded.
    Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that this is a very reasonable request for this House to make? I did ask the Lord President before we adjourned. All that we are now asking is whether, when these discussions are over, this House will be given an opportunity to discuss the matter before decisions are taken.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide discussions in this House. All I can say is that I can make no further statement until these discussions have proceeded.
    Mr. Keeling: Was it not a mistake for the Government to publish their decision simultaneously with the Report itself? Would it not be better in future to await any Debate in this House? In this case the discussion was highly critical on both sides of the House.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is no case for restricting liberties which have been enjoyed in practice by a section of the community unless it can be shown that those liberties have been abused?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Business for this week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. I have the following statement to make on this week's Business:
Today, as already announced, we propose to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Overseas Resources Development Bill, and the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill [Lords] and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
The Sea Fish Industry Bill will not now be considered today. The Government have decided to propose an Amendment to the Bill, and this will make it
488
necessary for the House to consider a further Financial Resolution before the Bill can proceed.
On Friday, the Second Reading of the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill will not be taken in view of the representations made by the local authority associations who have asked for more time to consider the Bill.
The Business which is proposed for Friday is as follows: Second Reading of the Telegraph Bill; Second Reading of the Nurses Bill [Lords] and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and, if there is time, Second Readings of the following Consolidation Measures; the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill [Lords], the Representation of the People Bill [Lords], and the Civil Aviation Bill [Lords], which are usually formal.
Mr. Eden: May I further ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House when it is intended to inform the House of the Government's proposals to deal with the present financial and economic situation?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement after Questions on Monday next.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, bear in mind on Thursday the arrangements the Government have in contemplation for a Debate upon that statement?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. No doubt discussions can take place through the usual channels. I think that it will be for the convenience of hon. Members generally if they have time to consider the statement which the Prime Minister will be making, but certainly we shall be willing to discuss the question of a Debate through the usual channels, and they can proceed at a convenient time.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last Thursday the Prime Minister said that there would be a statement within a few days? I think it was our hope that it might have been possible to make the statement this Thursday so that the House could consider the matter during the week-end and debate it next week.
Mr. Morrison: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister is anxious to make the statement as soon as possible, but the House will appreciate that there are a considerable number of Departments involved that must be properly consulted if proper and firm conclusions are to be reached. I do not think the Prime Minister will be able to make the statement before Monday of next week.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: In view of the fact that the Government knew as long ago as August they were going, to devalue, are they not taking an incredibly long time to announce the complementary policy that must inevitably go with such a thing?
Mr. Morrison: I think not. In any case, the hon. Member is getting into somewhat acute controversy that may be more effectively expressed on both sides during the Debate.
Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the contents of the statement will not be made known to any other body before they are made known to this House?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Morrison: Well, Sir, it is impossible for me to give a firm affirmative in reply to that. The Cabinet has got to know before anybody else knows.
Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that in the Prime Minister's statement something is said in regard to this matter of the wages of the poorer-paid workers?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman had better wait to see what is in the statement, to see which matters he wishes to raise thereafter.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), can we have an assurance that the first public statement to be made on the Government's measures to deal with the crisis will be made in this House on Monday and not before?
Mr. Morrison: I have no reason to think that the Prime Minister is anxious to make the statement to another body rather than to the House; but as to what
490
communications pass between the Government and representative bodies of citizens, that is within the discretion of the Government, and the Government when they do so, are themselves responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, as a matter of general doctrine, I am not prepared to give this special undertaking.
Capt. Crookshank: Will there be some leakages instead?
Mr. Charles Williams: On a matter of this grave importance is not the House entitled to have the first notice, rather than other bodies such as Savings Committees?
Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman not only make this statement as early as possible but take action as quickly as possible, because of the unsettling effect upon trade and industry of this uncertainty? Can we have steps taken quickly, too?
Mr. Morrison: That is clearly the intention of the Prime Minister and of the Government.
Earl Winterton: Could we be told when we are to have the further stages of the Auxiliary and Reserve Forces Bill—an important Bill which was accepted on both sides of the House and which, for some mysterious reason not hitherto disclosed by the Government, has not since been brought before the House? When will this be taken? What is the reason for the hold-up?
Mr. Morrison: I think, perhaps, it would be more convenient if the noble Lord put that Question on Thursday, and I shall take note of it in the meantime.
Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that Mr. Arthur Deakin has announced that before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his devaluation broadcast he told the Trades Union Congress General Council, may we be told why the paymasters of the Government should be told before this House?
Mr. Scollan: When dealing with this question, will the Leader of the House tell the House if anything is going to be done about the recent circular that has been issued by the Institute of Directors calling upon all key people in industry to oppose the Government—evidently to oppose the plan for trying to bridge the dollar gap?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') to empower the Treasury, under section twelve of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1948'), to guarantee certain other charges as well as interest, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to guarantees authorised by the new Act in the sums issuable out of that Fund under the Act of 1948;

  (b) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for providing or replacine sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund by paragraph (a) of this Resolution;

  (c) the payment into the Exchequer of receipts of a Minister under section thirteen of the Act of 1948 in respect of guarantees authorised by the new Act;

  (d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the said receipts and their application in accordance with the provisions of section eighteen of the Act of 1948."

  Resolution agreed to.

  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  NEW FOREST BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In moving the Second Reading of the New Forest Bill, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that since its introduction it has been considered elsewhere, and its present form is the result of deliberations and of consultations with the local and other interests who presented petitions. I think that I may claim that the Bill is now acceptable to those interests, as it is to His Majesty's Government.
  It will, of course, be common knowledge that for many years conflict and
  492
  disagreement—greater at some times than at others—existed in the New Forest, between the Crown and the commoners who have various rights over the Forest, the most important of these being the right to depasture their animals over unenclosed parts of the Forest, more generally known as the open forest. In more recent years, it has been considered desirable to bring the general position in the Forest under consideration in the light of present-day conditions, and to this end a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. Harold Baker.
  The terms of reference of that committee, as the House will know, were
  "to investigate the state and condition of the New Forest and, having regard to existing rights and interests, to recommend such measures as they consider desirable and necessary for adjusting the Forest to modern requirements."
  The committee took evidence from all interested bodies, local bodies and those of more national concern, and their report was published in November, 1947. I think that it is right to say that there is agreement on all sides, that it is an excellent report, and I have great pleasure in adding the tribute and thanks of my right hon. Friend, because it is to the right hon. Gentleman and to the other members of the committee that we owe thanks, for the very great public service which they have so freely rendered.
  I do not think that I need at this stage, go through the main conclusions of the committee, but there are some important issues which have been the subject of discussion as the Bill proceeded on its way in another place and which, perhaps, ought to be referred to now. The first matter is that of the Constitution of the Ancient Court of Verderers. At the moment, the Court consists of an official verderer appointed by His Majesty and six verderers elected by local residents and the commoners, by personal voting which involves no element of secrecy. The Baker Report recommended that there should be a chief verderer to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, four verderers to be elected by the commoners, and six to be appointed by interested parties.
  I do not think that we need at this stage go into the various considerations which led us to feel that this recommendation could not be wholly accepted, but, following discussions between the Forestry Commission

  493
  and the local interests, provision has been made for an official verderer to be appointed by His Majesty as heretofore, five elective verderers, and four to be nominated, one by my right hon. Friend, one by the Forestry Commission, one by the planning authority and the other by a body concerned with amenity, such body to be designated by my right hon. Friend.
  There was a fear in the minds of some of the local interests that in certain, although possibly remote, circumstances the elected verderers would be outvoted by the combined votes of the official verderer and the nominated verderers, although this would only happen on the assumption that the chairman had the casting vote. My right hon. Friend hopes very much that the verderers, whether they are elected or nominated, will not treat any matter brought before them as sectional, but will consider it in the light of the interest of the Forest, coupled with the national interest.
  However, it is my right hon. Friend's desire in this, as in all other matters, that there should not be any possible chance of the elective verderers being outvoted on the important matters, for example, of enclosures for afforestation and for agriculture. The verderer nominated by the Forestry Commission will not be allowed to vote on the afforestation issue and, similarly, the agricultural verderer will not be allowed to vote on the agricultural issue; so when considering Clause 1 of the Bill which deals with the constitution of the Court, it is necessary for the House to bear in mind the provision of subsection (4) of Clause 12 and subsection (6) of Clause 14. The effect will be quite obviously that the five elective verderers will have the final say on these matters, if they so wish, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt that after considering the pros and cons of any issue put before them they will exercise this power in a wise and statesmanlike manner. Clause 5 provides that elections in future will be by secret ballot instead of by the present provision.
  The next point upon which a good deal of discussion has centred has been that of finance. It was maintained by the local interests that the local verderers should be financially independent, so that they would not have to agree to anything which they considered contrary to the
  494
  best interests of the Forest, simply because of the possible alternative of bankruptcy. It has been visualised, rightly or wrongly, that instead, of being able to give unfettered consideration to proposals for enclosures under Clauses 12 and 14, they might be forced to agree to them on account of the need for funds. This objection has been met by the inclusion in the Bill of paragraph 8 of the First Schedule whereby any reasonable expenses incurred by the verderers in the preparation, maintenance or provision of the electoral register shall be met by the Forestry Commissioners, and of subsection (3) of Clause 18 which provides for compensation for loss or diminution of common rights consequent on the grant of licences.
  It has already been arranged that the Forestry Commission should bear the cost of the preparation of plans showing lands to which rights of common are attached, that payments would be made to the verderers in respect of any enclosures under Clauses 12 and 14, and that compensation for loss of common rights would be payable under Clauses 16 and 17. Therefore, I think that one can say that the verderers' expenses will be limited strictly to matters arising out of the exercise of the rights of common, mainly the care of the commoners' animals.
  The major source of income to the verderers is by way of the fees payable for the turning out of animals on the Forest, which fees are at present limited by the New Forest Act of 1877. The change in money values alone justifies the increase in these fees, and Clause 9 will enable the verderers, inter alia, to increase them to such amount as they think right and proper. Tenants of my right hon. Friend in the New Forest who turn out animals under licence granted by my right hon. Friend will in future have to pay the appropriate fees to the verderers, which means that there will be a new source of revenue which the verderers so far have not enjoyed.
  When dealing with the constitution of the verderers, I covered to some extent the matter of the enclosures for afforestation and agriculture provided for in Clauses 12 and 14, and I think that it is only necessary at this stage to say that there is agreement on all sides as to the urgent need of land for afforestation. We

  495
  need in this country a great deal of increased planting of trees for the future, and my right hon. Friend trusts that the verderers in their consideration of this matter as it affects the New Forest will give due weight to the national need and ensure that the New Fore pays its just proportion towards meeting it.
  As regards the agricultural provision, the ultimate aim is to improve the grazing and thus benefit the commoners. Views as to the best method of carrying out this improvement are not unnaturally at variance, and the Clause in question leaves the permission for cultivation followed by permanent pasture entirely in the hands of the verderers. It is the view of my right hon. Friend that in addition to a substantial increase in the number of animals turned out in the Forest there is room for further afforestation and for the temporary cultivations. It is of the utmost importance that the Forest be used to its fullest extent consistent with the preservation of the amenities, and my right hon. Friend wishes me to commend this fact to the verderers in their deliberations on any presentments which may be made under the Clauses in question.
  The liability for the management of the drainage, culverts and bridges in the open forests, and the keeping of the grazing in the forest sufficiently clear of seedling trees and scrub, has also been the subject of a good deal of discussion. In the past this work has been done mainly by the Forestry Commission, but there is in fact no statutory liability on anybody at all to do it. The Forest is to all intents and purposes a national forest park; it is extensively used and enjoyed by the public, and there is much to be said, I think, in favour of part of the expense of maintaining it being met from public funds.
  Clause 11 puts this duty squarely on the shoulders of the Forestry Commissioners, in so far as such work is reasonably necessary, having regard always to the interests of amenity. It is not the intention that the Forest should be converted into something like a London park, but rather that it should be maintained, as nearly as possible, in its present natural state; but of course we must always bear in mind, as those concerned must always bear in mind, the needs of modern times,
  496
  which are changed compared with those that existed in the past.
  Another matter which I think I should raise is with regard to Clause 7. There is a feeling locally that the Forest should be divided into five electoral districts, each to elect one verderer, and much discussion has proceeded between officers of the Forestry Commission and representatives of local interests. I think it can be agreed that there are many pros and cons, but it seems very difficult to reach a decision until the electoral register and the plans referred to in Clauses 3 and 4 are prepared. It seems to my right hon. Friend impossible in present circumstances to say just where boundaries should be in order to divide the lands occupied by commoners into five more or less equally representative areas; and there are other matters, such as the position of commoners who occupy lands in more than one district, the location of the open forest relative to the commoners' land, and various other points which have come out in discussion.
  When the documents I have mentioned—the plans and the electoral register—are ready, it will be less difficult to assess the whole position, and it may be found that some of the possible disadvantages disappear, or equally that the disadvantages grow in their relative importance and outweigh some of the advantages. In Clause 7, therefore, my right hon. Friend is seeking power to cover this matter if, at a later date, the verderers submit a satisfactory scheme. The position is kept quite open, and if in the light of all the discussions it is found to be the right thing to do, and a satisfactory scheme comes forward, my right hon. Friend is seeking power in Clause 7 to do it.
  Clauses 16 and 17 deal with public roads in the Forest, and provide machinery for the transfer of land of the Forest which may be needed for road improvements to the appropriate highway authority, with provisions for the protection of Forest interests and for compensation. Clause 16 relates to the existing trunk road between Cadnam and Ringwood, which passes through the northwestern part of the Forest for a distance of about seven miles. This road forms part of the national system of trunk roads for which the Minister of Transport is the highway authority. It seems to us

  497
  that through traffic, including traffic between London and Bournemouth—which some of us have experienced at different times—should use this particular road, passing as it were through a corner of the Forest, rather than be encouraged to use A.35, which passes through Lyndhurst and the centre of the Forest. If that is so, this particular trunk road between Cadnam and Ringwood may eventually have to be widened and improved to carry the increased traffic, but no major works are envisaged or likely to be possible for some years to come.
  The Clause therefore includes powers to enclose the trunk road to prevent the risk of accidents due to ponies or cattle straying on to the road, if it should become necessary in the light of circumstances as they develop. If this should be necessary, care will be taken to preserve amenities. It has been suggested that the best way of dealing with the problem would be to provide what I am told is called a ha-ha ditch, in order to prevent animals straying easily on to the road, and the Clause includes a provision for consultation between the Minister of Transport, the verderers and the local planning authority—in this case the Southampton County Council—on any proposal to use raised fencing. Provision is also made for crossings which would be desirable if the road were enclosed, to allow animals to pass properly from one side of the road to the other.
  Clause 17 relates to other public roads in the Forest for which the highway authority is not the Ministry but the Southampton County Council. They may need to be improved or widened from time to time, although the intention is, as I have said, that the main flow of through traffic should use the trunk road. This Clause contains no provision for fencing. Any area of the Forest land which would be needed for these road improvements would obviously be very small in relation to the area of the Forest.
  There have been very wide consultations and discussions; a whole variety of points from one side or another have come up and been considered. I think it is fair to say, having regard to all that has now happened and been said and done, that this Bill, in its present form, should do much to preserve this ancient forest as far as possible in its natural state, and to make for more harmonious
  498
  relations between what are sometimes described as "the conflicting interests." My right hon. Friend is confident that, provided its provisions are operated in a co-operative spirit—and that obviously involves everybody—with the national as well as the local interest in mind, this Bill can be made to work satisfactorily. It is with the greatest pleasure, and in the assurance that we are here doing something to help along a very important and valuable part of our national heritage, that I move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  3.57 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has explained the Bill to us in a speech of great lucidity but of extreme rapidity, and were it not for the fact that I had some acquaintance with the subject matter of the Bill before I heard him speak, I should have found it more difficult to follow him than I have done. If I myself proceed at a somewhat slower rate of utterance, it will not be because I desire to hold up business but because I think I am incapable of such articulation, at once clear and rapid, as that to which we have just listened.
  The Bill is made easier to understand because—as is quite evident to one who has seen many Bills in his time—great skill has gone into its drafting. Perhaps the House will permit me to remark that I happen to know that this is the last Bill with which Sir Denys Stocks, the distinguished legal adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, will be concerned. Though I never as a rule name those who are advisers, I think the House would permit me to say, because he served me so well in my time and has ever since served the Ministry, that we wish him every success and happiness in the retirement which he has so justly earned by right of distinguished service to the Ministry of Agriculture.
  This Bill affects both private and public interests. It is clearly of great interest to the commoners themselves, whose rights are affected by the proposals; but it also affects the public, inasmuch as the New Forest is now a State forest. Quite apart from that formal link, the New Forest, as is well known, is one of our finest beauty spots and is a treasure to the whole nation, so we all have an interest in any Bill which concerns it, not

  499
  only to see that justice is done to those private citizens most intimately affected, but also to see that this great national heritage is handed down by us unimpaired to the next generation.
  This Bill, therefore, takes the form of what is called a hybrid Bill. It has been said about some hybrids in the past that they have neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity. I do not think that can be said about this Bill, because it has a very long line of predecessors in legislation dealing with the New Forest. As for its posterity, I am sure that not even the right hon. Gentleman would claim that this will be the last Bill about the New Forest to be introduced to Parliament. Times change and we change with them, and it is obviously necessary to amend our enactments so as to bring them up to date.
  The reason for so much legislation in the past about the New Forest is, I think, to be found in the diversity of the interests which any Act affects. There are the rights of the commoners themselves, pasture, mast, turbary, fuel and marl. These rights as a group constitute a valuable body of privileges. Then, of course, there are the interests of the State in producing food and timber, and the interests of the public, not only in access to the New Forest, but in seeing the beauty of the forest so maintained as to make access to it continue to be desirable.
  This Bill, like the legislation which preceded it, is an attempt to reconcile these sometime conflicting interests. Like all compromises, it cannot be all that any single interest would desire for itself. At its first seeing the light, there was a considerable feeling against it expressed by some of the commoners, and I cannot help feeling that some of this could have been, if not avoided, at least mitigated by earlier and franker consultation with the commoners as to what was proposed. Surely the history of the question, at any rate since 1851, should have warned the Government of the suspicion engendered by any further proposals to enclose part of the forest. Commoners in the past have protected their rights only by constant vigilance.
  There is no doubt that in fact this is in part, an enclosure Bill. By Clause 12 up to 5,000 acres may be enclosed by
  500
  the Forestry Commission, and by Clause 14 up to 3,000 acres may be enclosed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. These enclosures are sought to be justified by the argument by which every enclosure in the past has been supported—namely, the economic necessities of the times and the need to secure greater production from the land. Is it true that these enclosures can take place only with the consent of the verderers, but it is proposed by this Bill to change the constitution of the Court of Verderers, and it is but natural that the commoners in these circumstances should look somewhat closely at the new constitution it is proposed to erect, to see how far the new body may be capable of protecting their rights and interests from further encroachments.
  It is at once clear that in the proposed new body there will be a decrease in the proportion of elected members and an increase in the proportion of nominated members. Under the Act of 1877, there were seven verderers, six elected and one nominated. Now there are to be five elected and five appointed, and one of the appointed verderers will, I understand, have a casting vote because he is the chairman. By an Amendment made in another place, it is now proposed that the appointees of the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture shall not vote on proposals for enclosure sponsored by their own Departments, which is a considerable improvement on the Bill as introduced, but it is still a matter for consideration whether it goes far enough to Rive confidence to the commoners. I would stress the importance of this new scheme being started in the right atmosphere of mutual trust and co-operation. That is a matter for further consideration in the other stages of the Bill.
  Certainly it is an improvement that the qualification of a verderer is enlarged. The old qualification of ownership of 75 acres of land with common rights was difficult to justify, and the new qualification of one acre in occupation will greatly enlarge the field from which people able and willing to undertake this important and at times no doubt thankless task may be selected. The electorate is also changed. Formerly anyone who was a commoner or had a Parliamentary vote in the Forest could vote in electing a verderer. Now the qualification to vote

  501
  is to be the same as that to stand for election, namely, the occupation of one acre of land with common rights.
  There is only one observation which occurs to me on this proposal. There must be a number of people excluded from voting for a verderer in future who could have voted under the old law. They may not be in occupation of an acre of land with common rights attached, and yet they may be vitally interested in how the Forest is administered. I think, for example, of all those who depend for their livelihood on catering for visitors. It may be too late to do anything about this, but it seems to me that the point merits consideration.
  Our national necessities are such that it is difficult to resist the proposals to produce more timber and food from the Forest, but the proposals require the greatest care in their administration so that the legitimate rights of the commoners are not needlessly or wastefully invaded, and that the beauty of the Forest is not impaired. Much will depend on the careful selection of sites for these operations to secure the minimum of interruption with the natural life of the Forest. The choice of trees is an old controversy into which I do not propose to enter today, but it is of great importance, not only from the point of view of the look of the place and of the trees, but on account of the different effects on the soil beneath conifers, on the one hand, and broad-leaf trees, on the other. The pines are unkindly to other forms of life, and the hardwoods are much more hospitable to the soil and its pasture, and also to the birds and beasts of the region.
  As to the proposal in Clause 14 to make it possible to enclose land for the purpose of regenerating the pasture, it is difficult to see how the Minister justifies 3,000 acres, although it is true that that is the maximum of what can be enclosed for the regeneration of pasture. I should have thought that a much smaller area would have been sufficient for what must be an experiment; it is a worthy experiment, but it is as yet only an experiment. I am aware that the county war agricultural executive committee made some efforts in this direction during the war, but I have never seen any detailed reports of them or of what they cost. I should be very interested to know what the cost
  502
  was and what the return was for the money.
  It is a very difficult problem to regenerate some of the land of this forest, much of which is acid and of poor quality. The ponies with their chisel-like teeth crop very close, and it is very difficult to establish a good sward in these conditions. I wish the experiment all success, but I do counsel the Minister in this matter to start in a manageable small area before he accepts any definite rotation as the right and best one for this difficult piece of land.
  I see that by Clause 14 the land is to go back to the commoners when the pasture has been regenerated. I think the best way of commending this proposal to the commoners would be to make a success of a small area in the first place. Then there would be little difficulty, I think, in getting widespread support for an extension of cultivation. I think that the best way to improve the rougher pasture of the area is to put more cattle on it; that policy would show better, or at any rate quicker results than what is proposed in Clause 14.
  There are many other points of a local character with regard to this Bill. Being a hybrid Bill it will go to a Select Committee and then to a Committee of the Whole House, and I do not wish to advise the House to hinder its progress in any way. I see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is here. I know that he has been very active in the discussions which have led up to this Bill, and I hope we shall hear from him during the Debate. For my own part, I advise the House to accept the Motion for Second Reading.
  4.11 p.m.
  Mr. Shackleton: I am glad that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this Debate since I am the possessor of property in the New Forest, to which common rights attach. I can therefore speak as a New Forest commoner, although not with anything like the expert knowledge of the New Forest as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who I am glad to see has recovered in time to be here. It is surely a climacteric in his life. Remembering the part his grandfather played 80 to 100 years ago

  503
  in connection with previous New Forest Bills, it is apt that he should be here himself to advise the House and to help us pass this Bill into law.
  The discussion we have had so far has been peaceful and easy, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) has welcomed the Bill for the Opposition. I do not think the House appreciates what turbulent emotions have been aroused in the New Forest. In the calm and dispassionate atmosphere of the House we are not fully aware that there was almost a danger of embittered commoners armed with pitch-forks and riding on ponies—no doubt led by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch—taking up a position in defence of the rights which they cherish and claim to have inherited over many years. I feel that a lot of the opposition, doubts and anxieties which have been aroused over this Bill have been based on false information and suspicion of what it might do rather than the reality of what it would do.
  Let us recognise at once that the Bill seeks to do something which is virtually impossible, namely, to provide for the mutually conflicting interests of the commoners, the public and the Forestry Commission which, of course, also represents the public. There is some conflict there, and it is right that we should recognise it, decide how far we can delimit the areas and how far we can decide what is reasonable to satisfy each side. I believe that the Bill is an absolute necessity, and I think the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will agree that something had to be done about the finances of the verderers. That was the primary factor in bringing forward this Bill at all. I feel, with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, that there was some clumsy handling in the early stages.
  Undoubtedly, there was a great fear on the part of people in the New Forest that there would be large-scale enclosures of the Forest which, I am convinced, were quite unjustified but which, none the less, were there. There was a suspicion that conifers, which are particularly objected to by many in the New Forest would be grown wholesale over this lovely area. There was a feeling that Lord Robinson.
  504
  the able chairman of the Forestry Commission, was so devoted to conifers and that it was entirely as a result of his initiative that a conifer appeared in Trafalgar Square last Christmas.
  Of course, it is quite unfair to suggest that the Forestry Commission are not concerned equally with the amenities of the Forest. There is a national need for more trees and it is desirable that more should be grown, if possible, in the area of the New Forest. But I repeat, the proposals for these enclosures were primarily actuated as a result of a desire to assist the verderers in their finances. I believe there are areas in the New Forest which can be properly enclosed. Although I cannot speak with the authority of all in that area, I am advised by a number of my friends, whom I regard as able in cattle management, that the forest is under-grazed and that there is scope for the increased growing of trees without seriously affecting the stock or pony raising capacity of the Forest.
  The real problem, however, which the Bill has had to try to solve has been in a provision of finance. Members of another place have seen fit, in their wisdom, to take responsibility for upkeep and management of the open Forest from the verderers and put it on the Forestry Commission.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It has never been on the verderers.
  Mr. Shackleton: The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. The financial responsibility has now been clearly laid on the Forestry Commission. This will cost the country some money—I think the Bill suggests something like another £1,500 per annum. Are we justified in laying this additional obligation on the taxpayer? It is small, but there is a principle involved. Is it right that the State should contribute towards the cost of maintaining land which will be used by commoners individually for the profitable raising of stock and ponies? Personally, I feel that it is an arguable point, but I agree with the Minister about the desirability of arriving at some sort of compromise which will satisfy local interests.
  I do not believe that this is a good compromise; I do not believe that it will

  505
  necessarily ensue peace. I think there may be a serious danger in what is proposed, and that it is rather extraordinary that the users of this piece of land should not be a people who are financially responsible for its upkeep. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will point that out. None the less, a compromise has been put forward and I hope it will be accepted and given a trial. I hope that this division of interest will be recognised so that people will avoid falling into the pitfall, especially from the commoners' side, of pressing the Forestry Commission to do what they feel they should do and blaming them if they fall short of what they consider they should do.
  It is clear that there will be required both from the verderers, the Deputy-Surveyor and the Forestry Commissioners in the area, qualities of a high order of diplomacy. The previous Deputy-Surveyor, Mr. Young, was a man who was greatly respected, and who succeeded in fulfilling his duties of looking after forestry interests while having satisfactory relations with local interests. It is important that every effort should be made to continue that sort of good will which was in serious danger of being destroyed when the Bill was first laid before Parliament.
  There are a number of specific points to which I should like to refer, but I shall only mention them very briefly. First, there is this question of the adjacent common areas—the areas of land in which people, not being commoners of the New Forest, have common rights, and from which areas cattle are apt to wander into the New Forest itself. This Bill makes no attempt to solve the relationship between those areas and the New Forest proper. There are people in the New Forest who strive continuously to improve the quality of the stock. For instance, one day if it should be possible or desirable to make the whole of the New Forest a T.T. area—and I do not know whether that is a practical proposition or not—this question of the adjacent commons would have to be solved.
  Then again there is the proposal with regard to trunk roads. The Parliamentary Secretary glossed over the difficulties that are involved in the fencing of these roads. They are very real and very difficult, and
  506
  if it is possible in any way to consider routing the main roads outside the area of the New Forest, I would urge that it be done. It is difficult I realise, but it is a very real problem to have cattle or ponies wandering across the roads at night. I myself have had the misfortune to kill a pony which was in collision with my car at night. I know a young man in the village where I live who was killed when his motor-bike ran into a pony. It is a difficult problem to adjust an ancient system of agriculture within our modern civilisation but on the subject of trunk roads and the fencing of them, the difficulties will be immense if cattle and ponies are to have the right of freedom to wander at large over the forest.
  I believe the most important issue raised by this Bill is one to which little attention has been given, namely the protection of the scientific interests of the New Forest. The original report, that admirable Baker Committee Report, pointed out that the New Forest was one of the most important if not the most important areas of scientific interests in the whole of the country. They recommended that a curator with scientific knowledge should be appointed by the verderers, and should be answerable to them for the protection of scientific interests over the whole area of the Forest.
  I realise that the verderers, in their new role, are not the appropriate people to employ a curator, but at the same time what assurance have we that the Forestry Commission or the verderers may not take steps in agreement either towards the growing of trees or the improvement of land from a commonable point of view which would be disastrous to some type of wild life in the Forest? There is always the possibility through drainage of alteration of the water table, which may, in fact, be disastrous, and I feel very strongly that those scientific interests, which are of great importance, should be protected in some way.
  I do not know whether my right hon. Friend would look favourably on the suggestion of an Amendment laying down that a verderer broadly representative of the scientific interests of the country should be appointed. It would not seriously upset the balance of the Court of Verderers with regard to local interests. Indeed, I do not see how it could endanger local interests at all. It

  507
  would help local interests, but I feel that some sort of an assurance should be given by the Forestry Commission as to what is intended so as to ensure that the Nature Conservancy will be able to fulfil their duty in this most important area. Unless we have some assurance it may be necessary at a later stage to move an Amendment authorising the appointment of a verderer representative of those scientific interests.
  I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House and the people of this country would agree that the wild life and the ecological study of it is of great importance and for that reason the New Forest should be protected. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this issue. The Nature Conservancy are themselves empowered under the National Parks Bill to enter into an agreement with the owners, in this case the Forestry Commission, to secure that certain lands should be managed as a nature reserve. Even so, quite apart from those specific and limited areas within the perambulation of the Forest, I believe that there should be a general assurance that nothing will be done to damage the wild life of the New Forest.
  This sums up what I have to say. I shall only conclude by saying that I hope the people in the New Forest, the commoners in particular and the Forestry Commission, will really make an endeavour to co-operate. Bad feeling has been growing up recently, but now I think it is agreed on all sides that this Bill must go through. It must be accepted as the best compromise possible, and it is incumbent on everyone to do his best to work it. If there are difficulties, it may be necessary to come to the House again and have a new Bill brought forward to put them right, but meanwhile I ask that there should be an attempt to co-operate and that so far as possible good will shall grow and exist in the development of the Forest's preservation and of those important amenities which are a national birthright.
  4.27 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before I come to the speech of the junior Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) or the Bill, I should like also to pay my tribute to the work done
  508
  by Sir Denys Stocks. He has had a far from enviable job in dealing with the many complaints and the many questions put to him not only by representatives of the New Forest, but I suspect also by his Minister as well. The way in which he has dealt with the matters of the Bill itself is a tribute to a civil servant and to a man who has given of his best in order to try to achieve the best result.
  I would pay my tribute too to the former Deputy Surveyor of the New Forest, Mr. Young. He has now retired, but in the years in which he represented the Forestry Commission in the New Forest he gave of his best to try to see that the conflict of interests which the hon. Member mentioned, and about which I myself will have something to say later on, were as far as possible reconciled so that the best should be made of the New Forest in the national interest.
  Now I come to the Bill. If one reads the Baker Report, one is given the impression that the New Forest is a sort of miraculous survival, something which, despite the changes of fortune, has managed to survive all the vicissitudes of encroachment and enclosure by the various Governments that this country has had. That is not true at all. The only reason the New Forest has survived is because the people there have for centuries been willing to fight to protect not only their own rights, but the rights of the general public to ensure that the New Forest shall survive as an entity.
  If one goes back—and I must trouble the House with this—two or three centuries, one finds that during the 18th century one Royal Forest after another was dissipated by Acts of Parliament, in which a certain percentage of the forest concerned was granted to the Crown because of its rights and a certain percentage to the commoners because of their rights. Both sides were allowed to enclose their areas, and within a very few years the forest so apportioned disappeared. The same thing would have happened to the New Forest if it had not been for the fight made by the inhabitants.
  I must quote in evidence one of the renowned Prime Ministers of my party, Mr. Pitt, who, in 1792, introduced a Bill to try to enclose the New Forest. That Bill was stopped in this House and in another place by the action of the

  509
  residents of the New Forest. In the 19th century the same thing happened. A Bill was introduced in 1851 by a Government with a large majority, and the Government said frankly: "We can get the Bill through, no matter what anybody says." The Bill was designed to reduce the New Forest to nothing. It gave the Forestry Commission, in exchange for taking away the deer, the right not only to enclose 20,000 acres of the Forest but, once those 20,000 acres had grown up to a height at which the trees could not be damaged by cattle, to enclose another 20,000 acres. By that kind of rolling power it was proposed to take away the whole of the New Forest. A member of the Office of Woods at that time said: "It is right for the Crown to try to exercise their power in this way. The sooner they take away the open forest the sooner will the commoners' rights be found of no avail."
  It was only by the Act of 1877 that the New Forest was preserved. The inhabitants of the New Forest had fought the matter for 26 years, between 1851 and 1877. The Act of 1877 said that the Forestry Commission should have no more than the acreage that they then enjoyed, and that the rest of the open forest would stay permanently unimpaired, not only for the benefit of the commoners but for the benefit of the people of the country. What was the answer of the Office of Woods? They said merely: "It happens that you have won this fight in Parliament, and we cannot enclose any more. So far as the open forest is concerned, we therefore have no interest whatever. We will not spend any money upon it because we have lost interest in it. We shall confine our activities to those bits that we have been allowed to enclose." When the hon. Member for Preston said that another Bill was necessary because the verderers' finances were inadequate, he said what is true. When Parliament passed the Act of 1877, it did not envisage that the Forestry Commission—or the Office of Woods, later called the Forestry Commission—would take the view which they did, that, having been defeated in their attempts to enclose the New Forest, they would take no further interest in its maintenance. That is why another Measure was necessary.
  When the verderers asked for a further Act they asked for one that would put
  510
  them in an independent position and would enable them to do their duty properly as representatives of the commoners and the public. Their task was to maintain a just balance between the Crown, the commoners and the public. When the present Bill was first produced, it was a Bill of blackmail, and blackmail only. Its clauses were so designed that the verderers would either have had to agree to further enclosures or they would not get any revenue. It is as a result of the action taken by the residents of the New Forest in fighting the Bill in another place that the Bill has been so altered that now the verderers are to be put in an independent position, so far as maintenance of the open Forest is concerned, by seeing that duty of maintenance firmly placed on the shoulders of the Forestry Commission.
  Mr. Shackleton: The hon. and gallant Member said that the Bill was deliberately framed as a piece of blackmail, but I am sure that he does not really mean that. The Bill may have given that impression and it may have been clumsily worded, but I am certain that my right hon. Friend had no intention whatsoever of bringing undue pressure to bear on the people and the commoners of the New Forest.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am very glad to receive that assurance from the hon. Member. I would ask him to study the evidence given in another place by Lord Robinson, Chairman of the Forestry Commission, on this very point. He said that it appeared to him unfortunate—that was the word he used—that the verderers should be faced with the conflicting interests of either getting no further revenue or surrendering the lands concerned. I suggest to the hon. Member that he would be well advised to see his right hon. Friend again and to go into the reasons which made the right hon. Gentleman give that undertaking.
  That is, briefly, the history of the Bill. When the hon. Member for Preston said that he regretted the suspicion—I think that was actually the word he used—I would point out that it is entirely due to the fact that Governments, not only this Government but many other Governments, have seen in the New Forest something easy to seize, something from which they could get immediately a tangible

  511
  reward, if only they could do away with the rights of the commoners and of the public as a whole.
  I ask the House to consider this case. We shall have time later in Committee to go into it in detail. Let us take into consideration the powers under which the Forestry Commission are now asking for 5,000 acres of forest. In another place, in a Select Committee, Lord Robinson was asked to state whether he knew that the 5,000 acres could be taken and whether he had any idea exactly from where they could be taken. To both of those questions he replied "No." All that he said in defence of asking for those powers was: "There are 40,000 acres of unenclosed forest, and if I cannot take one-eighth of them I shall be very surprised." What a reason for asking for a Clause of this nature. There was no reference to the needs, the rights or the requirements of commoners and public—simply a bald statement: "I must be able to take with advantage one-eighth of what remains."
  Those people who know the New Forest must be aware that the best land has been taken from the forest and that the enclosures are all of the better, low-lying ground. In many cases watering has been taken away and land that was most suitable for immediate profit by afforestation has been that taken by the Forestry Commission. Were the Commission to substantiate the taking of a further5,000 acres—this question was thoroughly debated in another place—the Commission should have been able to show from where this could be taken without doing grave permanent injury to the rights of the commoners. I hope that the Minister will say something more on this point.
  Then there is the question of the 3,000 acres suggested for agriculture. I have not only discussed this matter with soil experts, but have listened to the evidence given in another place. From where do the Ministry of Agriculture think that these 3,000 acres will come? They say that that is the maximum, and that they probably will not need so much. If they do not need it, why should they put it in the Bill? If they put it in, surely before asking Parliament to give them this power they should have taken the trouble to see that that acreage was available. So far as I know, no survey has been made.
  512
  I should be the last simply to condemn out of hand all that the Ministry of Agriculture have done for the New Forest. As a verderer I could not do it, having agreed to the temporary enclosures which they now hold, but I believe that for any real benefit to agriculture in the New Forest they are going about it in the wrong way. We do not want large reseeded areas. Such areas, very naturally, because of the nature and the newness of that grazing, congregate all the cattle upon them, and the ancient feeding places tend to go back. The new feeding places tend to be over-grazed and very quickly deteriorate. Instead of this producing any lasting benefit, I think it is upsetting the balance of the agricultural position in the New Forest. All the people with whom I have talked say that what really counts is to try to get back the small traditional grazing places and once more make them the natural habitat of the cattle of the district.
  I was horrified to find that the hon. Member for Preston knew something which I did not—due entirely to my ignorance—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he thinks £1,500 a year will be required to maintain the open forests. In another place the minimum sum set down was £3,000. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not come to this House and say that, despite the obligations which he took on there, he is now going to cut them by half and thereby reduce the value of what we understood would be obtained as a result of the Select Committee in another place.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not develop arguments based upon assumptions which have no relation to anything I may have said about the New Forest.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not saying that the right hon. Gentleman said it, but the spokesman on behalf of the Government said it in another place. It was laid down that the Forestry Commission should become responsible for the maintenance of the open forest. In evidence which was not challenged, that maintenance was set at a minimum of £3,000 a year. In this Bill the expenditure is put at £1,500. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why that discrepancy has arisen, and I hope that he will say why

  513
  when he replies. I was not suggesting that he was present in another place. I am merely asking how the divergence of figures has occurred.
  The final matter I wish tonight to raise concerns the Court of Verderers. Some people may not quite appreciate what a Court of Verderers is, as it is an archaic body which has come down to us through the centuries. From the time of William the Conqueror, verderers were officers appointed with the sole job of seeing that the Crown rights in the forests, paramount as they were, were not used to such an extent that they acted against the legitimate rights of the small commoner and the small farmer. The duty of the verderers was, while maintaining the prerogatives of the Crown, to ensure that justice was done to the small man.
  In this Bill, for the first time in history, it is proposed completely to alter the composition of the Court of Verderers. Instead of being an independent body with the very well-defined job of maintaining the balance between the various rights, the verderers are now to become a body half of which is to be elected and half to be nominated. In all the discussions I have had, I have not heard one reason from the Government why that should be so. Why is it that, in this year in which we are alleged to have a Government which believes in democracy and all the rights of the small people, the Government want to take this independence from one of the few bodies which have functioned well throughout the centuries? I hope to hear something more about this from the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Minister wishes to have in this Court a member of the Forestry Commission, and a member of the Ministry of Agriculture for the grazing and the enclosures sides of the verderers' work. Also a member of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and members of such bodies as he may consider it necessary to consult for amenity purposes; and, instead of being an elected body to deal impartially with all the rights of those concerned in the Forest, the verderers will now become a Court half composed of nominees of the Minister. Why does the Minister wish to do this? In the Acts of Parliament throughout the last century and this century, he has complete powers to maintain the rights of the Crown which have now devolved upon his
  514
  Ministry. Why does he therefore wish to put his representatives on the Court? What good will they do? What purpose will they serve? They cannot help in the administration of the Forest. By their very nature they will be people concerned purely with the interests of afforestation or temporary enclosure for catch-crops of some seven years. They can add nothing to the deliberations of the verderers. As to the representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, I should like to know what the Minister thinks he will do.
  As the hon. Member for Preston said, we in the Court of Verderers have always said, I believe rightly, that there are a very great many interests, particularly of the wild life, which must be preserved in the New Forest. We have always said—and we asked in the petitions in another place—that we should be given power to co-opt two members to the Court of Verderers who would advise and help us on these problems of wild life. I am certain that that would be an advantage, but I can see no reason whatever for all these stooges of the various Ministries to come on to the Court. If I were evil minded—I must admit that I sometimes personally feel the suspicions mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston—I could see only one reason for this, to try to invalidate the independence of the Court and to obtain sufficient nominees on it to secure the power to sway the decision of the Court.
  In the New Forest we are proud that, of all the Royal Forests and of all the heritages of the small fanner and the commoner, we alone now remain. We have done that, quite honestly, by fighting and by making it clear to every Government that we will not tolerate an invasion of our rights. The Bill as originally drafted was an invasion of those rights on a major scale. Many of the things to which we objected have been taken out in another place. I hope the Government will realise the value of the New Forest; of its tradition and the part it can play in English agriculture, and will remove the other matters which I have mentioned. If the Government do that, we shall have a Bill which will be a worthy successor to the Act of 1877 and will enable the New Forest to go on not only as a pleasure to countless

  515
  thousands of holiday-makers but also as an invaluable centre of the small agriculturist.
  4.50 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am at least thankful that no tangible opposition has been expressed to the Bill so far, apart from the regrets of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre).
  The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) said quite rightly that this Forest was a thing of beauty, something of great national value as well as of local value, and that all those who had any responsibility for it ought to walk warily before they damaged what has been an historic traditional right of the common people. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that has been the desire in all that we did, or attempted to do before this Bill was produced. Had it not been for the finance expended by the Forestry Commission for a number of years, I am certain that there would have been a Bill long since, despite what the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch said about the magnificent administration of the historic verderers, since they have been literally bankrupt for a long time and could not have done the kind of work that has been done over a long period by the Forestry Commission.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Having made that assertion, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us details of the work done?
  Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of that without my giving him details here, since the history of the contribution made by the Forestry Commission is well known not only to himself but to all those associated locally with the New Forest.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again? He has made a grave statement—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, because it impinges on all the verderers have done. Apart from the 1937 conference, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, has any money been spent by the Forestry Commission on the open forest?
  Mr. Williams: The Forestry Commission of their own volition have been spending money annually for quite a time. The hon. and gallant Member knows that while there was no statutory obligation either on the Forestry Commission, or for that matter on anyone, the Commission have dealt with drains, the clearance of scrub, and so forth, for quite a period. Clause 11 is only imported into this Bill to make that a statutory obligation for, I hope, all time. In any case, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, stated that since this is an area where not only commoners are interested but the whole nation to a minor extent, since tens of thousands of people enjoy the open moors, it is not unreasonable that the Government should make a financial contribution in some form to the maintenance of the amenities, and Clause 11 is designed to do that.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred particularly to Clause 14 under which there is a possible enclosure with the assent of the verderers. That apparently still does not satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch who, I am sure, never would be satisfied even if we gave him the moon. The right hon. Gentleman said that when ploughing up areas of land or carrying out experimental reseeding programmes we must be careful. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have been experimenting with the reseeding of commons for 10 years, almost always with success. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member will consult their colleague the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), he will be able to tell them about the various successes in experimental reseeding, not only in the New Forest but in various other parts of the country.
  The hon. Member for Newbury, writing in "Country Life" on 26th August last, illustrates the value of what the county agricultural executive committee has done in the New Forest, where, thanks to the verderers not having had the wherewithal to perform their duties if these were their duties—I am not suggesting any lack of enterprise or lack of desire on their part to do the job—large areas which were of no use to man, horse, or any other animal were taken over by the agricultural executive committee. After illustrating

  517
  the useless scrub, this issue of "Country Life" which I hold in my hand gives a picture of the first result of reseeding, then the first crop of oats, then the scene after reseeding. There, on two sides of one article contributed by the hon. Member for Newbury, is the full story of what has been done, and I recommend the hon. and gallant Member to consult his hon. Friend if he wants knowledge of the potential value of cultivation and reseeding.
  Mr. Stubbs: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman apologise?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope I made it quite clear that some of these agricultural experiments had done well.
  Mr. Stubbs: The hon. and gallant Member did not say that.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think I did; if not, I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Williams indicated assent.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman has nodded his head, and he is as good a judge as anybody. However, is he aware that 300 acres which he took over has cost his Department £6,000, and does he consider that good management?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. and gallant Member asks me what any particular experiment has cost, I tell him readily that I cannot offhand say what any part of an experimental scheme has cost. However, when the hon. and gallant Member suggests that some scheme may have cost £6,000, I wonder if he has looked at only one side of the balance sheet?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No, both sides.
  Mr. Williams: I imagine that must be the case—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is what the Minister's own experts say.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has looked at the cost but he has not looked at the potential income, and certainly has not paid any attention to the possibility of a heavier carrying capacity of animals of various kinds after reseeding had been undertaken.
  518
  However, I am quite certain that Clause 14 will be used with the assent of the verderers for experimental purposes exclusively in the interests of the commoners. The Ministry of Agriculture has no other object in view than to render many acres capable of carrying more ponies or cattle; in other words, continuing what they did during the war by removing the useless scrub, taking a good harvest of oats, of potatoes, reseeding, and leaving the land in a much better state for the commoners than it was in before. That could be the only object which any Ministry of Agriculture could have in mind.
  And so with the Forestry Commission, I am sorry that, even after all the concessions that have been made to try to make this an acceptable Bill, the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch still seems to regard the Forestry Commission as a body of Pitts who want to enclose the New Forest for their private use just as enclosures happened 150 or 200 years ago. The hon. and gallant Member should remember that the Forestry Commission is a body of civil servants acting for the State, not for themselves, who want to grow timber on land useless for anything else. They want to make better use of our national assets than has been made before, and instead of condemnation I should have thought that would have merited praise. Whether it be actually 5,000 acres that can fit fairly into the scheme of things without destroying the amenities of the Forest. I am unable to say.
  Therefore, in Clause 12 we say that if the Forestry Commission make a presentment—and it literally means the assent of the verderers within a certain area—a maximum of 5,000 acres shall he enclosed for afforestation. What can there be wrong in that? If there is an area of land which is rendering no contribution to the State or to the commoners, but can render a contribution to the growth of timber, then, surely, the Forestry Commission are the right body to determine whether or not that land is suitable for timber. I should have thought that by now, after all the conflicts from 1877, 1879 and onwards, the hon. and gallant Member himself would have been longing for a period of reasonable compromise such as he has had during the past few months, and not the

  519
  sort of suggestions he has been making in his speech today. We have gone as far as any Government could be expected to go. Perhaps, in our efforts at sweet reasonableness and compromise, we have gone a little too far, but it is clear that nothing we could do would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) asked about the enclosure of roads in the interests of safety. In Clause 16 we have taken power to enclose the main trunk road, which cuts across a corner of the forest rather than through the middle of it, and only by that means, with appropriate high fences or something lower down, will it be possible for animals to roam from one portion of the forest to another without endangering either human or animal life.
  My hon. Friend asked another question about a special verderer being appointed to represent the Nature Conservancy. The Select Committee, following their first discussion in another place, had that proposal before them and turned it down, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it always was the intention of the Forestry Commission to co-operate with the Nature Conservancy to ensure that scientific investigation and so forth can be carried on. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, one of the verderers must represent some organisation representing amenities; and the Ministry can designate that particular verderer. I assure my hon. Friend that, with the power of the Minister to appoint that particular verderer representing amenities, and with the undertaking of the Forestry Commission always to keep in close touch with the scientific position, wild life in the New Forest will be cared for after the passing of the Bill.
  There were not any further points to which I need reply, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch will feel that he has had his fling. Perhaps, quite rightly, he felt that with the tradition and history behind him, dating back to the days of his father, grandfather and all the rest, he must be the last person not to put up a struggle for the New Forest—a feeling that the Forest belonged to him. I
  520
  have made no complaints but, having gone so far, having compromised so readily and having conceded 99¾ per cent. of all that has been asked for, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not delay the Bill further or even expect to secure more concessions than he has already obtained.
  The Bill, representing as it does only a tiny corner of Britain, is of some importance. Tens of thousands of people delight to pay visits to the New Forest and to enjoy the luxury of its fresh air. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why I thought it was necessary to change the appointment of verderers and to appoint one each representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning since, as he said, these representatives could render no contribution to the verderers. I can only say that I beg to differ from the hon. and gallant Member. The person chosen to represent agriculture will be the sort of person who can advise the verderers on things which they do not themselves understand; who can advise them where it will be wise or not to undertake reseeding or any other agricultural function. The person so appointed might, in fact, be better able to advise and guide the verderers because of his scientific knowledge which they, perhaps, may not possess.
  Similarly, with the representative of the Forestry Commission. If an area is under consideration for afforestation, surely the person deeply saturated in the science of silviculture ought to be able to be of valuable assistance to the verderers, In future the verderers, with their appointed chairman and the persons representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and, perhaps, amenities, and with the five elected verderers, will be a far better body than the traditional verderers who, for one reason or another, were unable very often to do the job that all of us would have liked them to do on a comprehensive scale.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Are the appointed verderers likely to be resident locally or may they come from any part of the United Kingdom? Will they have special local knowledge or not?
  Mr. Williams: I could not say where the person who is to represent the Ministry of Agriculture would actually reside. He would, however, be appointed because of his expert knowledge of agriculture, and not because of geography or the place where he happened to live. Similarly, the representative of the Forestry Commission will be appointed because, perhaps, of his scientific knowledge of silviculture; that, and not his actual place of residence, will be the basis of his appointment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, four to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection:
  Any Petitions against the Bill deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the sixth day after this day to stand referred to the Committee, but if no such Petitions are deposited, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee to be discharged and the Bill to be committed to a Committee of the whole House:
  Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, to be heard against the Bill provided that their Petitions are prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House, and Counsel to be heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitions:
  Power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:
  Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. T. Williams.]

  NEW FOREST [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects the New Forest in the county of Southampton, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (a) of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act;

  (b) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I of the
  522
  Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session conferring functions on a highway authority other than the Minister of Transport;

  (c) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session involving payments out of the Road Fund;

  and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries thereunder in so far as they accrue under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to enclosures for cultivation and improvement of grazing."—[Mr. T. Williams.]
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not want to delay the Committee, but I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about the sum of £1,500 a year. Perhaps it would be convenient for him now to answer.
  Mr. T. Williams: I am sorry that I omitted to answer that question. If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the top of page iv of the Financial Memorandum, he will find that it reads as follows:
  "The additional cost of maintenance of the Forest as provided in Clause 11; estimated at an average of £1,500 per annum. Some of the work is already carried out by the Forestry Commissioners as part of the normal management of the Forest, the cost being met out of the Forestry Fund."
  The point about the £1,500 is that it is purely an estimate, as it must be. It may well be that in some future year when, perhaps, a large drainage undertaking might be carried out, the cost might be double this figure or even more. This is an estimated rather than an actual figure, since in a matter of this kind nobody can get nearer than an estimate.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As it was part of my question, may I ask why in evidence in another place—and it was not challenged—the average cost was given as £3,000 a year? How is it it now appears as £1,500 a year? I do not see where the 50 per cent. cut has taken place, or for what reason.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member cannot have read the words I have just quoted. This is an estimated additional cost.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood me. In another place evidence was given that the additional cost, exactly on

  523
  the same basis as this, would be an average of £3,000 a year and the right hon. Gentleman is now putting in this memorandum £1,500 a year. I should like to know how the difference arose.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member must know that the Forestry Commission have been spending £2,000 or £3,000 per annum. This £1,500 is additional to £2,000 or £3,000 per annum and not a reduction, and therefore it is not
  524
  £1,500, but may well be £3,500, or even more.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.
  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]
  Adjourned accordingl, at Twelve Minutes past Five o'Clock.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (STRENGTH)
  TERRITORIAL ARMY (STRENGTH)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Poland (Creditor Claims)
  Poland (Creditor Claims)
  Old People (Tobacco Concession)
  Old People (Tobacco Concession)
  Pound Sterling (Devaluation)
  Pound Sterling (Devaluation)
  Bulb Riddles (Duty)
  Bulb Riddles (Duty)
  Savings
  Savings
  Currency Allowances (France)
  Currency Allowances (France)
  Education Report (Corrigendum)
  Education Report (Corrigendum)
  Dollar Allowance (Mr. G. C. Chelioti)
  Dollar Allowance (Mr. G. C. Chelioti)
  UNIVERSITY STAFFS (SALARIES)
  UNIVERSITY STAFFS (SALARIES)
  CHRISTMAS (PUBLIC HOLIDAY)
  CHRISTMAS (PUBLIC HOLIDAY)
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES)
  HIGHER CIVIL SERVANTS (SALARIES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Anglo-Soviet Trade
  Bread (Wrapping)
  Bread (Wrapping)
  Japanese Cloth (Import)
  Japanese Cloth (Import)
  Research (Secret Information)
  Research (Secret Information)
  Periodicals (Art Paper)
  Periodicals (Art Paper)
  Books (Import)
  Books (Import)
  Colonies (German Exports)
  Colonies (German Exports)
  French Timber (Imports)
  French Timber (Imports)
  Tourist Board and Travel Association
  Tourist Board and Travel Association
  Khaki Shirts (Supply)
  Khaki Shirts (Supply)
  Cut Flowers (Imports)
  Cut Flowers (Imports)
  Weights and Measures Orders (Revision)
  Weights and Measures Orders (Revision)
  New Factories, Scotland
  New Factories, Scotland
  AFFORESTATION (QUANTOCK HILLS)
  AFFORESTATION (QUANTOCK HILLS)
  AGRICULTURE (CROP ACREAGES)
  AGRICULTURE (CROP ACREAGES)
  MINERAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
  MINERAL DEVELOPMENT (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Norfolk Broads
  Norfolk Broads
  Chicheley Hill, Sherington
  Chicheley Hill, Sherington
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Family Allowances, Scotland
  Family Allowances, Scotland
  Assistance Grants
  Assistance Grants
EMPLOYMENT
  Occupations (Statistics)
  Occupations (Statistics)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Foundry Conditions
  Foundry Conditions
  Ministry's Staff
  Ministry's Staff
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX
  RETAIL PRICES INDEX
  GOWERS COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  GOWERS COMMITTEE (REPORT)
AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND
  Farmers (Warning Notices)
  Farmers (Warning Notices)
  Experimental Farms
  Experimental Farms
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
SCOTLAND
  School Dental Officers
  School Dental Officers
  Water Schemes
  Water Schemes
  Air-Raid Shelters
  Air-Raid Shelters
  Stirling County Council Election
  Stirling County Council Election
  WALBERSWICK BEACH (OBSTRUCTIONS)
  WALBERSWICK BEACH (OBSTRUCTIONS)
  FEEDINGSTUFFS
  FEEDINGSTUFFS
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Hospitals (Children's Beds)
  Hospitals (Children's Beds)
  Doctors' Remuneration
  Doctors' Remuneration
  Executive Councils' Decisions
  Executive Councils' Decisions
TRANSPORT
  Bridge, Selby
  Bridge, Selby
  Thames Water Buses (Drivers)
  Thames Water Buses (Drivers)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  DOCK STRIKE LOSSES
  2.34 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether any figures can be given showing the loss to (a) the country and (b) the workers, of the recent dock strike.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, it is estimated that about 260,000 working days were lost by the workers directly involved. This represents a loss in wages to them of about £300,000. I am afraid that statistics are not available of the indirect loss of working time in other industries, or of the financial loss to the country, but stoppages of this nature have widespread repercussions, and the country undoubtedly suffered considerably.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Viscount whether he has any information to show to what extent this strike was due to the Communist Party and its directors in Moscow.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I have no more information than that which I have no doubt the noble Earl has seen in the Press.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I would like to know whether any recognition has been given to those members of His Majesty's Forces who kept the country going in regard to foodstuffs during that period. They worked hard, as we all know, and saved the country from a serious situation. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could tell me of any recognition given to them by His Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I think the recognition which they had and which they well deserved has been fully appreciated by each of the three Services.

  NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
  2.37 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, in rising to move the Second Reading of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill I am greatly encouraged in the knowledge that this measure does not lead to Party divisions. I have always felt that legislation which did not divide on purely Party political lines was easier to pilot through the House. I have also felt that perhaps the best legislation placed on the Statute Book has been legislation of that kind, where Party feelings were not aroused over much, where Party differences were not over-emphasised and where there was a great amount of common agreement. Only the other day I was discussing Party and non-Party legislation with one of those Liberal Conservatives with strong Socialist leanings—which definition, according to the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford, could be applied to most Bishops, and which I sometimes think could be applied to others who are not Bishops—and we agreed that if it be the case that non-Party legislation has an easier passage, then I can look forward with confidence to your Lordships' granting a Second Reading to this Bill.
  It is amazing at times how many years separate the original advocating of a change and the implementing of that change by legislation. That means that few pioneers have the good fortune to see the fruits of their labours: they oftentimes sow where others reap. But in this case there are a number still with us who were responsible many years ago for advocating the changes embodied in the Bill. There are a surprising number of Reports on the question of national parks and access to the countryside. It would take much time for each of your Lordships to read all of them, but, if I may say so, it would be time well spent, as they are very informative. Perhaps the most surprising feature is the degree to which they agree. They are separated by a number of years, and the personnel of the Committees were different, but it is amazing how little their Reports differ in substance. There are differences in the

  879
  suggestions and recommendations made, but not many, and very few of them are of any substance.
  It appears that the earlier Reports have been the basis for the later Reports, and those responsible for the later Reports were good enough to acknowledge their debt to those responsible for the earlier. I have been reading the Dower Report, in which the late John Dower (I need not tell your Lordships that few men had a greater knowledge or interest in this question than the late John Dower) makes reference to the Report of an earlier Committee, set up almost exactly twenty years ago. It will interest your Lordships to know that the Chairman of that Committee was my noble friend Lord Addison, the Leader of the House. The Dower Report uses this sentence in reference to the Addison Report:
  "The Report remains a valuable assembly of facts and opinions, on which I have drawn freely and to which I acknowledge my debt."
  The Hobhouse Committee pay a similar compliment to the Dower Report. I copied out their words referring to it. They said:
  "Its comprehensive exposition of the problems involved and its wise proposals for their solution have been the basis of our whole inquiry and have formed a sound foundation upon which we have built."
  As regards the Hobhouse Report itself, few Reports have been more appreciated in the country and by both Houses of Parliament. In fact, the test of this legislation seems to be to what extent it agrees or disagrees with the Hobhouse recommendations. Those who criticise the legislation suggested do so largely on the grounds that it does not carry out some of the many recommendations made by the Hobhouse Committee. Another interesting feature which will appeal to your Lordships is that we have with us to-day two members of your Lordships' House who took part in the preparatory work. They are my noble friend Lord Chorley—who the House will be pleased to know is likely to intervene in the debate later and deal with the points raised—and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who himself took a great part in the work of that Committee.
  When we try to make percentage calculations to decide how much of a Report has been embodied in a Bill, I think we are in danger of being misled. It would
  880
  be futile to tell your Lordships that 90 per cent. of the recommendations made by the Hobhouse Committee had been implemented in this Bill. Your Lordships would at once say: "Yes, but are you aware that the other 10 per cent. consists of major recommendations and, therefore, your percentage calculation is utterly useless?" I will not make any percentage calculation, except to say this: that much as many are disappointed, I think there is sufficient of the Hobhouse Report in the Bill to make it acceptable to your Lordships' House. I hope that during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House we shall be able to allay many of the anxieties which I know exist. I said that the Bill did not divide us on Party lines; that there would be no Party passions aroused and no Party feeling fostered; but I suspect that we may find a little personal feeling being shown here and there during the discussions, merely because, as I have already suggested, the Bill is on some points at variance with the Hobhouse Report.
  Before I deal with the provisions of the Bill—not in great detail, but in general—I would refer to three questions which it seems to me would suggest themselves to any of us in reading the Bill. The first is: Why national parks? Then we ask ourselves: How national parks? And finally we ask that very important question: Exactly what do we mean by national parks? Now the word "park" has a clear and definite connotation to most of us. The park which I thought of at once was the park with which I was best acquainted—the park in Wigan. It may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that there is a park in Wigan, but there is, and it is a very attractive park. Let me also mention that there are other very attractive spots in and about Wigan. It was the park where I spent much of my boyhood. It is an area of ground covering several acres and is surrounded by railings. It is very neat; there are pleasant walks; a number of ornamental gardens, a pond and a bandstand. I need not tell your Lordships that such a park is not closely related to the national parks envisaged in this Bill. Nor are those other parks I saw overseas—those vast stretches of attractive country in the United States, Canada, or elsewhere. We have to rid ourselves of that conception of a park when dealing with this Bill.

  881
  I think the Hobhouse Committee were very wise when they decided that they would accept the definition of "national parks" given by the late John Dower. Perhaps your Lordships would like me to read that definition. It is:
  "… an extensive area of beautiful and relatively wild country in which, for the nation's benefit and by appropriate national decision am action, (a) the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly preserved, (b) access and facilities for public open-air enjoyment are amply provided, (c) wild life and buildings and places of architectural and historic interest are suitably protected, while (d) established farming use is effectively maintained."
  That was the definition accepted by the Hobhouse Committee, and that is the definition which the Minister and Government had in mind when designing this Bill.
  There is another question which will be raised in general discussion, but which I think it advisable to mention here and now: If this Bill is intended to make the countryside and certain areas known as designated areas more attractive, what power does it give to deal with the British Electricity Authority and other undertakings which may despoil that beauty and rob the park of one or more of its attractive features? I thought it desirable that that question should be brought out at once. Indeed, in dealing with it, I would like to emphasise that the Bill does not give much power to the Minister or to anyone else to deal with this problem. Let me put it bluntly: there is no guarantee in this Bill that such activities will not be carried on in the areas designated as national parks. Your Lordships know that from the point of view of area this is a very small country. It is a country very thickly populated, and it is deeply engaged in the struggle to survive. The parks may cover as much as 10 per cent. of our land—a much higher proportion of our still undeveloped land. No responsible Government of any Party, could possibly undertake that developments of the kind referred to would be completely prevented in whatever areas may come to be designated as parks.
  What I can say on behalf of the Government is this: that the Government do undertake that every development of that kind will be considered by the appropriate planning authority from the point of view of the interests of the park; and that any development that is likely to injure the interests of the park will be pre-
  882
  vented if—and it is a mighty "if"—it is feasible to do so without serious injury to economic or other equally vital interests. Let me emphasise here that the National Parks Commission set up under this Bill will be consulted on any important development of the kind before any decision is taken which would allow the development to proceed. As we all realise, the view of the Commission cannot be final—the final decision must be left to the Government—but the view of the Commission will carry very great weight, and the Bill provides that they are to submit a report on recommendations they have made, whether accepted or rejected by the Government. More I cannot say, but I would urge your Lordships to keep very much in mind that the economic and industrial development of the country is sometimes so essential that we cannot always guarantee that areas designated as national parks will not be interfered with by these activities.
  Now I will try briefly (I realise that many of your Lordships are anxious to intervene in this debate) to give some idea of what is involved in the Bill. It may help if I take each Part separately. I have looked at Part I very carefully, so much so that I could almost recite it, but I do not think it is likely to give rise to any question, except that some of your Lordships may fear that Clause 3 gives power of direction to the Minister. During the Committee stage in another place, the Minister suggested that he had no special subjects in mind, and expressed the hope that it would be possible to proceed for a very long time without giving directions. Apart from that particular reference in Clause 3, however, I feel sure that the relationship between the Minister himself and the Commission, as set out in this Bill, will be acceptable to your Lordships. All the Bill says is that he will instruct or advise the Commission from time to time.
  It also provides for an annual report by the Commission to be submitted to the Minister, and for the Minister to place a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament. This obligation to publish an annual report is not simply a formality. I know there are members of your Lordships' House who will seize upon this report and will consider every suggestion made by the Commission—especially those not accepted by the

  883
  Minister of Town and Country Planning. I think the very fact that the Commission are in a position to advise and, having advised, to report as to what happened to the advice, does in fact strengthen their position. I hope that noble Lords will not feel too concerned because the whole of the Hobhouse Committees' Report on this question was not accepted.
  In Part II the general duties of the National Parks Commission are laid down. The Commission, subject to confirmation by the Minister, will carry the main responsibility for the designation of areas as parks. They will carry the main responsibility for the care and development of the parks. The Hobhouse Committee's recommendation that the National Parks Commission should be empowered to compensate farmers in special cases for damage by national parks visitors has not been accepted, for to do so would place farmers in national parks in a privileged position as compared with farmers in, say, the Home Counties. There is also the difficulty of proving who caused the damage. It should be remembered that one function of the Commission is to see that the public do not do damage.
  I know that Part II of the Bill will appeal to many of your Lordships. Here I propose to read a summary of Clause 6 because in that clause your Lordships will find the general duties of the Commission outlined. A brief summary of Clause 6 would read as follows: The Commission will be responsible for designating the parks, for producing programmes for them and seeing those programmes through, and for seeing that both general and particular park authorities are doing their job properly. It will be necessary for them to keep under surveillance any development in the parks, whether by Government Departments or private individuals or bodies, and they will have to advise the Minister in the carrying out of any of his functions in relation to the parks. There we get the responsibilities of the National Parks Commission very clearly set out.
  The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, must be kept very much in mind when considering this Bill. That Act came into operation only in July last and it was bound to be closely related to this
  884
  Bill. Let us look briefly at what that Act does in relation to the work envisaged in this Bill. As your Lordships are well aware, under that Act, the local planning authorities are the county councils and the county borough councils. They have extensive powers to control development, to prevent building or other development in the wrong place and to insist upon its being carried out in the right place. The Minister also has extensive powers under the 1947 Act. There is appeal to him for permission if any development is refused. He can direct that any proposals for development or proposals of a certain class must be referred to him for decision. He must approve plans. He can contribute towards various types of expenditure on planning purposes by the local planning authorities. Thus already under the Act of 1947, a planning authority—or the Minister—can refuse to allow disfiguring development in one of the national park areas; or they can insist on any development that is allowed being of a very high quality. And they can do these things without, broadly speaking, incurring a liability to compensation.
  So far as national parks are concerned, the Bill only adds to the powers in the Act of 1947. It increases the rate of exchequer grant available for certain purposes, provides new grants for other purposes, and insists that in the exercise of powers within the national parks the Minister must consult and be advised by the National Parks Commission. I have already mentioned compensation. All I would say now is that the Bill enables the Minister—this is a concession made in another place—to nominate one-third of the members to serve on every joint board, advisory committee or local authority with responsibility for the care and management of a park or part of a park.
  As your Lordships are aware, the decision to use the local planning authorities and to limit the National Parks Commission to an advisory rôle has created almost endless controversy. This controversy nevertheless served a very useful purpose in another place. The Bill that was introduced in another place differed drastically from this one, because the Minister showed great willingness to accept Amendments; and in this regard he has strengthened the position of the Commission immensely. The summary

  885
  of Clause 6 which I read out gives great powers to the Commission, though not the powers suggested by the Hobhouse Committee.
  In my journeys I found that a number of people were complaining about the appointment of the so-called "national" element. They said that it ought to have been left to the Commission to appoint the national element—the one-third to which I have already referred. I can see no substance in the complaint, as the Minister is required to consult the Commission. That means that the Minister in practice will nominate people in agreement with the Commission. I cannot understand why that should not be acceptable. I should like to refer to a feature in Clause 8 which I know has caused a little concern—namely, the establishment of joint planning boards to administer a national park which lies in the area of more than one planning authority. This has given general satisfaction but I know there is some uneasiness in certain quarters. That uneasiness exists because Clause 8 enables the Minister to dispense with joint boards. But—and here again let me say advisedly that this is another very important "but"—he can do so only in exceptional circumstances. Those words were not put in to enable the Minister to do something unacceptable to the Commission.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: "Special circumstances."
  LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: I am corrected: the word is "special" and not "exceptional." The word "special" as used in the Bill is not intended to enable the Minister to do something disapproved of by the National Commission. It is there for the purpose of being "special," and the Minister would exercise such powers only on the representation of any of the authorities involved, and after consultation with the Commission. I think that is sufficient for Part II of the Bill.
  I do not think I need dwell at any great length on Part III of the Bill. I can think of no assembly in the whole world which is more likely to be interested in or to support more readily the establishing and maintaining and managing of nature reserves in Great Britain than your Lordships' House. As your Lordships will remember, a body
  886
  known as the Nature Conservancy was set up some months ago by Royal Charter. This body works under the authority of the Privy Council, with the Lord President largely responsible. The objects of the Nature Conservancy are to provide scientific advice on the conservation and control of the natural flora and fauna of Great Britain; to establish, maintain and manage nature reserves in Great Britain, including maintenance of physical features of scientific interest; and to organise and develop the research and scientific services related thereto. I know that those three purposes will be wholeheartedly approved by your Lordships. All that the Bill does, and all that it needs to do, is to enable the Conservancy to provide nature reserves, and this they can do in one of two ways: either by making agreements with owners that they will manage the land as a reserve, or by acquiring lands themselves, compulsorily if need be, and managing it as a reserve themselves. The Bill also empowers local authorities to set up local nature reserves.
  Part IV of the Bill is the part which I think your Lordships will examine with the utmost scrutiny. This Part deals with public rights of way, and requires every county council in England and Wales to survey all rights within their areas, and within three years to show these rights of way on a map, though the map referred to here may not be the final map. Provision is also made for new rights of way, and for compensation to be payable where the value of an interest in land is depreciated by an order creating a right of way. This Part also provides a simple but very necessary procedure for diverting an existing public path or for closing one which is no longer needed. Both diversions and closures must be confirmed by the Minister. The need for such a provision was long overdue. How often I have felt the need for a provision of this kind when walking along a path (for I am very fond of walking in the country, ten or twelve miles a day) which often cut a field in half, sometimes going diagonally, thereby creating unnecessary difficulty for the farmer in his effort to secure the maximum production from the land and at the same time to preserve the path. A path is not intended as a short cut to somewhere a path is intended as

  887
  a means for a man from the town or country enjoying the country, and not as a short cut.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Placing the liability for the maintenance of footpaths on the highway authorities and thus removing any doubt is, I feel sure, a proposal which will meet with the full approval of your Lordships.
  Here I must mention a feature of the Bill which will appeal to some of your Lordships. Probably your Lordships are fond of long walks in the country, as I am. Sometimes those walks have been interrupted because we have not had a scheme for long-distance paths. This Bill provides, for example, for the linking up of the Pennine Way, which will be a godsend to some people; for long-distance paths round the coast, and for the completion of sections of the Pilgrims' Way. If the Minister approves the Commission's proposals, the local authorities responsible for the creation of new paths are required to carry out the schemes, although the whole cost will not be on the local authorities but will be reimbursed to them by the Exchequer.
  Part V of the Bill, I think for the first time, makes it possible for the public to walk on private land without being trespassers. The Access to Mountains Act of 1939 did give this right on mountains, but that Act was never put into effect. Local authorities are empowered under this Bill to make orders that land should be open to the public, and can also make orders confining that right to certain times of the year. In this case, compensation is payable for any depreciation in the value of the land due to an access order. This compensation is not to be assessed until five years after the order is made, so that some experience can be gained of the actual effect, though interim payments can be made if there seems to be a case on the grounds of hardship. As I suggested earlier, I can quite understand how the thought of the crowds from the towns descending on the countryside may well cause great concern and uneasiness to many of your Lordships. Past experience is not too reassuring. The visit of the town dweller has not always been clear of unpleasant
  888
  incidents. Uncontrolled dogs, broken glass and thoughtless conduct have resulted in heavy losses.
  The attitude of the farmer or farm bailiff to an occasional trespasser, however, is much better and much wiser than it was in my boyhood days. Many a time in those days I would wander into a field to pick blackberries or indulge in some such innocent pastime, but before long I had to take to my heels at top speed, pursued by an irate farmer or farm bailiff, and were it not for the fact that the pace of the pursued was faster than the pace of the farmer or farm bailiff, I would have been caught many times. On the other hand, on one occasion I was in North Wales, in the area known as Snowdonia. I was talking with a farmer and he and I were surveying his land from a hillock. We saw a number of men stop a car, get out and go and pick some mushrooms. I was amazed at the farmer's broadmindedness. I said, "Those fellows are trespassing on your land," but he replied, "Yes, but mushrooms are a rarity. You can hardly object to them picking a few." That was not the attitude of the farmer in my boyhood days. Things have improved since then, even among the farmers.
  Conduct prejudicial to the countryside is dealt with in a manner that should safeguard the amenities and, what is equally important and no less necessary, should help to educate the town dweller—a most necessary thing, I admit—in a manner that will add to his knowledge without lessening his enjoyment of the countryside. This aspect of securing greater access to the open country without increasing the dangers to amenities is well looked after in Clause 61. I need not go into that clause now. Authority is also given for the making of bylaws to secure good behaviour, and also to appoint wardens to assist in securing a decent standard of conduct. I was surprised to see some references made throwing doubt upon the value of these wardens. I should have thought that they would be most necessary and would help in achieving something that has always been wanting in the safeguarding of the amenities of the countryside. There has been a continuous clamour from certain quarters that access to all uncultivated land should be given as a matter of right, with only a few exceptions. The Bill

  889
  does not go so far but, in an attempt to meet this demand in another place, it now provides that planning authorities must survey all their uncultivated land before deciding how much action they ought to take. In the Bill the public are given the opportunity of criticising their action if it is considered inadequate.
  As to the financial arrangements contained in the Bill, it will be remembered by your Lordships that the Hobhouse Committee recommended that the whole of the cost of administration by the National Parks Commission should be borne by the Exchequer. This the Minister was unable to accept—and I shall be surprised if your Lordships press for more than is provided in the Bill. He went as far as he could to meet the point. It has been suggested, that although the grants reach up to 75 per cent., and in some cases 100 per cent., they are not big enough to induce authorities to do everything that should be done in the parks. It may be that I ought to remind your Lordships that the poorer county councils—and there are some to which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will refer—already receive assistance from the Exchequer under the Exchequer equalisation grants which are given to all needy authorities by the Minister of Health. The result is that in some cases an authority will receive over 90 per cent. towards its expenditure on national parks. So the financial provisions can hardly be termed ungenerous, especially to-day. It may be that at the end of March, when this Bill was in another place, it would have been possible to improve on those provisions. Having regard to the present position, however, I do not think any of your Lordships will ask for more than the Bill provides.
  On the whole, this Bill has been well received throughout the country, though like most, if not all, Bills it has failed to give complete satisfaction. But even its most outspoken critics—and there are a good number—agree that it is a substantial step in the right direction. If, as I think it will, it enables thousands of our fellow countrymen to discover for the first time what peace and quiet and the beauty of the countryside can do for the human race; if, as I think it will, it helps to create a healthy mental outlook, to develop that steadiness and
  890
  stability so greatly needed in the world to-day, then it will be fully justified. I sometimes think that whilst mechanisation in industry has made possible greater leisure for the masses, mechanisation has also created for the worker, if he is to develop fully, and for his family, a greater need of days and weeks far removed from mechanised industry. This Bill is designed to help in that direction, and I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
  3.14 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for the charming manner in which he has presented this Bill to us. I do not know that he has told us a great deal about the Bill, but what he has done has been done extremely pleasantly. From my side of the House I should like to say straight away that there is virtually universal acceptance of the objectives of the Bill before us to-day. How could there be anything else! The objectives are the preservation of the countryside, the prevention of spoliation, the opening up of greater access to the enjoyment of the countryside. When one thinks of that great body of 150,000 or 200,000 young ramblers organised throughout the country who to-day are finding immense enjoyment, and who in future may get more, I think we must all be pleased. Looking at it from the point of agriculture, one must feel that anything which builds up a greater feeling of understanding and friendliness between town and country is all to the good.
  As the noble Lord rightly said, this is certainly not a political Bill. It owes its immediate inception to Mr. "Shakespeare" Morrison in appointing the Dower and Hobhouse Committees. Sir Arthur Hobhouse was a great Liberal, I think, and therefore we owe that debt to the Liberals. And now the Labour Government are introducing the Bill. I am very glad the noble Lord reminded us of what we owe to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and I may claim a little responsibility for that appointment. I was Under-Secretary in that Department at the time, and on the dual grounds that it would keep the noble Viscount from criticising and that he would do the job extremely well, we decided to make the

  891
  appointment. If, therefore, some of us are a little critical of some parts of the Bill I hope that noble Lords, especially those opposite, will realise that it is from an anxiety to see its success and to make it as effective as possible.
  Before dealing with the Bill itself perhaps I may be allowed to deal with what seem to me to be two major misconceptions in the minds of many people. The first is that there is any sense of bad feeling that has to be dealt with as between the land owner and the farmer, on the one hand, and the organised rambler on the other. Speaking from personal experience—and I have taken some trouble in making inquiries from others about this matter—I have never heard any complaint from any farmer of damage being caused by these young organised ramblers. We have heard a great deal of legitimate complaint about the irresponsible action of those who wander on to land leaving gates open, breaking down fences and having with them uncontrolled dogs, and so on—a problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald has referred. But with regard to the organised ramblers there are not the same criticisms. In certain areas we have heard even of what I am afraid I must describe as active hooliganism; but there again, it is clear that the rambler, if he got hold of the hooligans, would want to deal with them just as severely as would the farmer. The second misconception, which I think is not quite so common as it used to be, is that the problem is one of dealing with the private land owner. He is not the problem.
  As to 90 per cent. or more the problem is rather that of controlling the activities of Government Departments. Without having the figures before me, I would be prepared to contend that 95 per cent. of the obstruction of the countryside that has taken place during the last ten, or even twenty, years has been at the hands of Government Departments. It is not the private land owner who takes hundreds of thousands of acres for the services; it is not the private land owner who is responsible for what is going on in Wales at the moment, or what is intended to happen in Snowdonia. It is the Government Departments that are responsible for tearing up great areas of
  892
  soil in the search for opencast coal; it is public bodies that are responsible for threatening to take roads through "the Backs" at Cambridge, and for extending the gasworks in one of the viewpoints at Oxford. I do not want to be taken as saying that all these practical developments which have to be made in the countryside are necessarily wrong. Indeed, we have to be very careful to keep our eyes on the interests of the countryman, who lives in the country for twelve months of the year, as well as on the interests of the townsman who visits it for perhaps only two or three weeks in the course of the year.
  To refer to one development which has aroused frequent complaint in the past, there is the erection of electric pylons. A great many protests have been made about this subject, and I remember myself making one such protest in my younger days. But when we realise that to put the electric cables under ground costs two and a half times as much as carrying them on pylons, that someone has to pay for them, and that at the present moment the extra expense must fall on the farmer or other consumer to whom the electricity is carried, then it is plain that we have to be prepared to take a balanced view of problems of this kind. At the moment, however, I am simply making the assertion that these troubles which have afflicted the countryside are due, not to the private land owner but mainly to Government Departments or statutory boards, set up by Government Departments. It is important to be clear as to what is the problem.
  The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has dealt with Part I and Part II of the Bill, which are concerned mainly with the powers, duties and constitution of the National Parks Commission. There has been a great deal of discussion on these matters, and there are many points concerning the constitution of this body which may well have to be dealt with later, when the Committee stage is reached. The question will have to be considered as to whether the Minister has arrived at the right balance as between national and local interests. It seems to me that this is an extremely important question, but not, perhaps, the question with which we need concern ourselves particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill. First and foremost, I want to know—and I am

  893
  afraid that the answer is only too clear—whether this National Parks Commission is to be a Commission in the full sense of the term, or is it to be simply an advisory committee to the Minister?
  The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, spoke for several minutes on that subject, but what he said failed to convince me, and I imagine that it failed to convince a great many other members of the House, that this body really is a Commission at all. One would like to know why we cannot have a body that have the status and the statutory powers necessary to enable them to stand up to Government Departments and deal with them on an equal basis. What is the status of this Commission vis-à-vis the local planning committee? As I see it, they have the power to make suggestions but no real power to initiate action, no power to lay down standards for bylaws, no power—and this is something I wish to labour a little later—to lay down a code of country behaviour. Further, as I see it, the Commission have no power over finance. How are a body of this character, with no real powers, to attract to themselves men of the status and weight that are required to deal with problems of this character? The whole machinery envisaged in Part I and Part II of the Bill, is light-weight. The National Parks Commission are an advisory committee, and the local planning committees are virtually sub-committees of another body. That, I think, is a matter with which we should certainly try to deal when we reach the Committee stage.
  Lord Macdonald was right in saying that in another place the Minister went to considerable lengths in attempting to meet some of the criticisms which have been made. But he has not gone nearly far enough if he wishes this Bill to be effective. There is a condition which is essential for the success of this measure, and it has already been referred to indirectly. It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be so framed as to reconcile urban and country interests and to make quite sure that the new visitors to the countryside will be welcome. We were glad to hear the noble Lord speak of the changed attitude of the farmers. Incidentally, I think that the farmers have changed more than Government Departments for, only a few days ago a member of this Front Bench was turned off Government land for picking mushrooms.
  894
  The task of reconciling interests, it seems to me, is not going to be a very difficult one. I took part last night in a meeting which was quite remarkable and very interesting. It was attended by representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association and the Standing Committee for National Parks, who were in a position to speak on behalf of ramblers. We found ourselves in almost complete agreement on the measures needed for the protection of food production and for control of national parks. The representatives of the ramblers showed me one of the posters which have been put up in the Peak District. I can hand it to the noble Lord, and I recommend it to the attention of the Minister. I suggest that the headings on that poster, drawn up by the ramblers, contain points which would be welcomed by every farmer of the country, and they might well be used as headings for the code of country behaviour which we should so much like to see laid down.
  Farmers are in a very friendly mood today, but noble Lords in all quarters of the House will know that they are also extremely nervous, particularly in the hill areas. In the hill areas they live in remote districts, where life is hard and it is extremely difficult to gain even a semblance of a livelihood. Now, we are urging them to improve their farms and to embark on various kinds of developments; we are asking them to spend money on improving their pastures, and on buying more stock. This is a matter which is very relevant to this particular question, for as we know they are now to become liable to have large numbers of people going over their farms, and we are pressing them to engage in the breeding of attested stock for the lowlands, where the increase of such stock, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, is extremely important. I cannot help feeling that although the relevant clause, Clause 5 (4), has been altered and is slightly improved, when all is said and done it remains only an aspiration; it gives no real protection either to farmers or to foresters.
  A general idea has grown up, to some extent from the propaganda about the Bill and from some things which Ministers have said about the national parks and access areas, that anybody will in future be able to go anywhere in open

  895
  country. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has said, that is not so. It is not meant to be so. I hope that spokesmen on behalf of the Government will help to make that clear. On the Committee stage, we shall have an Amendment to take out the words "open country" and insert "uncultivated land," or some such words, which would make the position clearer. What we really want is a code of country behaviour, such as that laid down in the highway code for our roads. And I do not see why the Minister cannot give it. If the noble Lord would see that that was put forward, that it was widely distributed, and that behind that code of country behaviour there was an effective body of wardens to enforce it, we should be much nearer to a position of confidence in the countryside.
  In his speech in another place, the Minister made a good deal of the fact that the wardens have no powers. Yet in the Hobhouse Report it is particularly stressed that these wardens should have effective powers, and in some cases even the powers of a special constable. There is ample precedent for this. In the New Forest the foresters of the Forestry Commission have these powers, and there are the Gardes Champêtres in France. Under the Bill the wardens have no power to give any instructions, or to take names and addresses, and they can deal only with the actual access areas, whereas, as we know well, a great deal of damage will take place through people straying outside the access areas. Therefore the powers of the wardens must go outside the actual access areas. I hope that the noble Lord will see to it that these points are carefully considered.
  At the present moment there is no provision for ensuring that the members of the National Parks Commission and local planning committees should include those who have knowledge of agriculture and forestry. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill here will make a note of that point for consideration. The noble Lord also spoke at some length on the subject of compensation. At the present moment the farmers can be subjected to very considerable losses from comparatively trivial happenings, such as the leaving open of a gate or the breaking down of a fence. That may mean, for instance, that outside cattle may get in to an attested herd. In such
  896
  a case it is almost impossible to value the loss that a farmer is going to suffer. The Hobhouse Report recommended that there should be compensation for specific damage. I confess that I see all the difficulties, but the Minister's suggestion that this problem should be dealt with by insurance suggests that he has not given much thought to that solution as a serious proposition.
  The noble Lord spoke of insisting on a higher standard of building in these areas than outside them. I took a note of his words, and I think he will agree that what he said, in effect, was this. If he or I were farming in these areas and wanted to put up a cowshed, and we were compelled to spend an extra £200 or £300 on it in order to suit the special conditions of a national park, should we not have a deep sense of injustice because we had to pay for the good looks of a national park which was for the enjoyment of the general public? I shall have a proposal to make on that on Committee stage; I am merely warning the noble Lord of the points likely to arise at a later stage in the Bill.
  In conclusion, I should like to deal with one further point. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill this afternoon will realise that there is a considerable feeling of disquiet and discouragement in the hotel and catering industry about the proposals envisaged in it and at the dropping by the Minister of his own suggested clause for protection. In the early copy of the Bill Clause 14 laid down that planning committees could not embark on catering, hotel-keeping or other activities unless they were satisfied that the existing provision was inadequate. This is a matter of some importance, particularly at the present moment. Apart from the question of justice, which is so clear that I need not argue it, at a time when we are appealing to the hotel and catering trades to spend money on developing and improving the facilities which we can offer to foreign visitors how can we expect them to embark on development when they have this Sword of Damocles hanging over them—namely, that local planning committees are able at any time to come in and take the bread out of their mouths? I hope that on the Committee stage we shall be able to persuade the noble Lord to meet these apprehensions, which I think he will agree are fully justified.

  897
  On these, and naturally on many other points, there will be Amendments moved on Committee stage. I can only repeat my assurance to the noble Lord that all of them will be designed to improve the Bill, to make the National Parks Commission more effective, to increase confidence between town and country, to ensure protection for food and timber production and to give confidence to those living in these areas to develop hotel and catering facilities. I hope the noble Lord will rise to the occasion to the extent of reconsidering decisions he has already taken. I trust, and the whole House trusts, that the Bill, improved as it will be, will reach the Statute Book at an early date.
  3.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, your Lordships' House discussed this subject in April of last year in a debate on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. On that occasion we on these Benches joined in the expressions of opinion in all quanters of the House that it was most desirable that a National Parks Bill should be introduced and passed in this Parliament. We are all grateful to the Government for having taken that course, and we shall join in giving a most cordial welcome to a Bill which we ourselves have desired. I am sure the introduction of this Bill must give great pleasure and satisfaction to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who devoted his youthful efforts to this proposal at the age of sixty, and who now, reaching middle-age at eighty, sees their fruition.
  This Bill has a double title, and deals with two subjects: one national parks, and the other access to the countryside. The latter occupies no fewer than fifty pages of the Bill, and comprises fifty-six of its clauses. These provisions are comprehensive and useful as a code (my noble friend behind me suggests that perhaps, as a consequence of this measure, in addition to the present Highway Code we should have a Byway Code), and it will be generally accepted on all hands as a most valuable piece of legislation. I do not propose today to enter into any of its details. There is also another admirable portion of the Bill dealing with nature conservation. In our crowded industrialised island nature has been so harried and harassed that she needs a helping hand if she is to be pre-
  898
  served at all. These clauses will be universally welcomed; and with enthusiasm. The remainder of the Bill deals with the national parks.
  The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has emphasised the importance of the rights and interests of agriculture being fully safeguarded in this new enterprise. With that we shall all heartily agree. The promoters of the national parks are not animated by the slightest hostility to the agriculturist. On the contrary. We all recognise that it is impossible that these very large areas should be lost to food production. We need the food itself, and we need its value to save our imports. But, apart from that, what appeals especially to those animated by the spirit that underlies this whole movement is that the agricultural landscape is generally beautiful in itself. Our poets and painters have taken as themes for their arts the pastures, the flocks, the herds, the tillage, the farms, the villages and the churches—all that makes the beauty of the British scene. Although, of course, there is value in solitude, and there is a pleasure in walking, as I have done, from early morning to late at night across the highlands without meeting a single human being, if that solitude is caused by depopulation, if it is the result of soil erosion or other avoidable calamities and is detrimental and destructive to agriculture, then that solitude is in itself morally offensive and cannot be truly regarded as beautiful. A sullen landscape is not as beautiful as a smiling one. There is surely nothing more satisfying, whether æsthetically or philosophically, than a ripe harvest field in the sunshine under an English sky.
  Therefore, from every point of view we want to see the agricultural landscape preserved. All this poetry is translated into the crude, cold statutory language of Clause 5 (4) of this Bill, which says:
  "In the exercise at any time of their functions as respects any National Park the Commission and local authorities shall have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
  All those who have been concerned for many years past in this movement will cordially agree with the intention and purpose of that clause. In other words, it says that the normal life of agriculture should go on inside the national parks. One might add—though this is a different point—that it should also go on, so far

  899
  as possible, in the green belts that will surround our cities. But the same does not apply to the development of industries. We have to be grateful to industry; the whole population lives by it, and its interests must also be considered. But there is one great difference between agriculture and manufacturing industry. Agriculture must be sited where the land is. That is so, too, with the mines, but not necessarily with manufacture. Manufacture need not be anywhere and everywhere; it can be directed towards particular areas, and, where necessary, it can be excluded altogether from areas which have a much higher value to the nation for the æsthetic, health and spiritual purposes—which, one might say, are the objects of the national parks.
  In the last 150 years this land has ceased to a large extent to be "green and pleasant." Great areas of it have been covered with slums and slag heaps, and until recent modern changes our industrial towns in general have not been creditable to a nation that wishes to be truly civilised; they are not worthy of a great Imperial State. Therefore the Town and Country Planning Act has at last been introduced, though based upon many other Statutes on the same lines. I am glad to think that the Government of which I was a member more than forty years ago introduced the first planning Act, but the main and far more extensive Act was that passed in the present Parliament only two years ago, which we hope will prevent the recurrence of these evil conditions for our descendants in the future. As has been indicated, this Bill is supplementary to the Statute of two years ago. There are in this country certain surviving areas which as yet have not been industrialised or urbanised at all; and we want to keep them so. Public opinion is alive to this necessity, and I believe there is a general recognition throughout the nation of the value of this Bill.
  The only question is whether it will be fully effective in its purpose. That is where there is some degree of doubt. May its functions not be evaded, as Acts of Parliament often are evaded, and its objects defeated? It all depends upon the constitution and the powers of the various authorities that are set up to carry out these tasks. That subject has been much
  900
  debated in the other place, and has given rise to considerable controversy, both in Parliament and outside. Your Lordships' House will no doubt give close attention to this aspect of the Bill. When they do so they will recognise that it is a subject involving a real difficulty, because there are legitimately conflicting interests—both amenity and industry are national interests—and from the necessities of the case some balance has to be found between the claims of each; and occasionally one has to yield to the other. When such controversies arise, who is to say on which side the verdict is to be given? Until our own generation, what is called development—the extension of industry and building—went its own way, uncontrolled and unrestricted, and the results are what we see. When we have our national parks, the motives which led to that extension will still exist.
  There are great pecuniary interests behind these extensions, and we shall find that they will still endanger the national parks. Pecuniary interests, as we are continually being told to-day, and as we all know to be the case, provide the strongest incentive to effort. Therefore, we shall find attempts at all kinds of undesirable developments in these areas. And the question is whether the forces resisting them will be strong enough. We have had many instances of late of cement works companies saying that the only place where works can be established is in some beautiful and famous valley; of factories insisting that they must be established on the banks of one of the most lovely of our lakes; of hotels seeking permission to erect their buildings at the very centre of the beauty spot, because it is a beauty spot.
  The worst example of all occurred only a few weeks ago when, just before the Parliamentary Recess, there came before your Lordships' House a draft order approved by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning for the expenditure of nearly £1,000,000 on extending the notorious Oxford gasworks—leaving them there to spoil what would have been one of the most beautiful views of one of the most beautiful cities in Europe or in the world. In that particular case the procedure required that the order should be sanctioned by your Lordships' House. It came before your Lordships' House, and at the very last moment we succeeded in getting the order referred to a Select

  901
  Committee. The Select Committee, without hearing even the objections of the university, and hearing merely the evidence of the corporation, at once threw out the order with ignominy. But the important thing is that it was the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whose business it is to save us from these things, who, under the influence perhaps of his more forceful colleague, the Minister of Fuel and Power, was pushing this scheme through. Now the whole matter is transferred to the new Gas Board. I venture to prophesy—something I very seldom do, in spite of my name—that it will be found that the Gas Board will be able to find some entirely different solution which will involve no noticeable extension of those works but will contemplate their transfer to some other place at no distant late.
  If Government and Government Departments are under pressure, local authorities are also under pressure. They have to consider their own constituents, who look at things largely, and not unnaturally, from the ratepayers' point of view. What they say is: Are we to lose the rates which might come from an extension of buildings or industries in this locality? Are we to stop people getting employment here in our neighbourhood by not putting up these new works, or whatever it may he? They are under constant pressure, and without any evil intent they often find it desirable or unavoidable to yield to that pressure. That is why there must be someone to state the case for amenities, to defend it and to share in deciding the issue. That is the point of importance. It must be a body who will also have a specialised and expert knowledge of how to manage and conduct these national parks. That is not something which can be understood as a matter of course by any county council in any part of the country. There is almost a science of the management of national parks that has been developed in the newer countries of the world, where such parks have been in existence for a generation or more.
  Here in this matter there are three parties concerned. There is to be the Commission, a body with precisely those functions that I have sketched. Then there is the local planning authority who, under the Town and Country Planning Act, are responsible for the actual ad-
  902
  ministration and control within their own area. They must necessarily take an important place, because under the British democratic system of local government they represent the population, whose interests must take a prominent part in the matter. Then there is the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The question that is before us in this Bill is: How are the powers and functions to be allocated as between those three parties? When we debated this matter in the House in April last year, this point was discussed to some extent. On that occasion I pointed out that there is a danger of a conflict between the national interest and the local interest, between the national interest, which may in the long run he superior, and what may be immediately and on the spot a more powerful interest. We want these national and local interests to co-operate, and we do not want to create bodies which from the origin will consist of two sides, face to face with one another and always antagonistic. To my mind there is a great danger of creating a kind of dyarchy in the administration of these national parks, which might lead to constant deadlock.
  Many local planning authorities, of course, are enlightened, firm and reliable. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will be taking part in this debate, and he speaks on behalf of the East Sussex County Council which is concerned with the management of an area which is to be a national park—namely, the South Downs. That county council have done their work admirably. I have walked time and again across the South Downs with a walking club called "The Sunday Tramps," which was established in the 1880's by Leslie Stephen and some of his friends and which is still ambulating. I am extremely grateful for the action taken by the East Sussex County Council and other bodies in preserving those Downs for the enjoyment of all of us. But it is not so with all the local authorities, and there may be some which will have charge of certain of the national parks who cannot be relied upon to withstand local economic pressure and to do their full duty in the sense that is desired. The Minister is to be the arbitrator, and I cannot refrain from saying that, since the passing of the Town and Country Planning Act, certain decisions, such as that which I have mentioned,

  903
  by the Minister of Town and Country Planning have greatly shaken confidence in the Ministry as an adequate guardian of these great interests.
  Moreover, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, in introducing the Bill to-day seemed to me a little ominous. He laid great emphasis on the fact that we must clearly understand that the Government are not prepared to take any strong action with regard to electricity and other undertakings of various kinds which may seek to make their way into the national parks. Of course it is true that this great area of the country—including the conservation areas, amounting to a very large fraction indeed—cannot be rigidly closed to all means of communication and so forth. I should, however, have been glad to hear from the noble Lord some such expression as "But of course every application will be scrutinised with the utmost care, and where it is clear that some alternative is possible the Minister would not hesitate, in a proper case, to refuse sanction." At all events, I hope that the matter will be dealt with administratively in that spirit.
  All these are questions for the Committee stage. Most of them arise on Clause 8. My only point at this stage is this: that the share of the Commission in local cases being so much less than was contemplated by the Hobhouse Committee, we ought to see whether that share cannot be strengthened. In any event, that is all the more reason for securing a strong central Commission; the fewer powers the Commission has locally, the more weight it must carry at the centre. That, I think, was fully recognised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. Its membership should be such as to entitle it to respect and influence, and its functions and powers should be fully adequate for its purposes. These, I repeat, are matters for the Committee stage, and they must be considered in scrupulous detail. As to the Second Reading, which is before us to-day, I feel certain that all in your Lordships' House will be agreed.
  4.3 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I venture to intervene for only a few moments. In the first place, it would seem fitting that some voice from these
  904
  Benches should join in the chorus of welcome which has been given to this Bill and the chorus of gratitude which has, quite rightly, been expressed to the Government and to the Minister for bringing it forward. Those for whom we on these Benches may be specially regarded as speaking ought at least to be the quickest to respect and reverence spiritual values, and certainly ought to take a keen interest in the rightful use of leisure. The purposes behind this Bill include the intention to do everything possible to preserve what is left of the natural beauty of this country, consistent with a proper regard for inescapable economic necessities; and, in the second place, to enable as many people of all kinds as possible to find recreation of every reasonable kind in those beautiful surroundings. On these grounds I am sure that all who sit on these Benches—"Liberal Conservatives with strong Socialist leanings"—will be grateful for the Bill in its general outline. I cannot help saying in passing, however, what a regrettable and melancholy fact it is that the Bill should have seen the light just when we are all waiting, with mingled hope and fear, to learn what further economies we in this country must practise. It would seem almost fantastic to hope that in the near future it will be possible, however desirable, to spend much money to implement the provisions of the Bill. But we must take long and hopeful views.
  The other point I wish to mention at this stage is one which was dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I desire to lay even more stress on it than perhaps he did himself. I want to emphasise not so much the lack of power given under the Bill to the National Parks Commission as the magnitude of its duties if it is to function effectively. Those two questions are bound together more closely than at first appears. After all, great powers can be given to a body, and yet that body may not be very effective in using them or may not use them to much good purpose. If there is a body which is manifestly inspired by vision, insight, and understanding, it will itself command respect throughout the country and will have that kind of moral power which in the last resort is more effective for bringing about such results as we desire than would be a mere addition of statutory power.

  905
  When reading carefully through the debates in another place, it occurred to me to ask myself whether even the Minister himself has envisaged the magnitude of the task which is being given to the National Parks Commission under this Bill. If it is to achieve its purpose, I ask myself, what are some of the qualities which members of the Commission will have to show if they are to be really effective? They must be people with an intimate knowledge of the areas which are to be declared national parks, and such intimate knowledge takes a long time to acquire; and there must be sufficient people on that body to brag to a focus the requisite amount of detailed local knowledge of all the areas affected by the Bill. In the second place, these persons must know what is the worth of their local authorities—what are their planning capacities, what they have done and what they are likely to do. They must themselves, as the noble Viscount said, carry out their duties with the help of such precedents as they can get. They will certainly need an immense amount of tact and understanding. They will have to deal with immensely different areas. They must have sympathy as well as vision in order to persuade local authorities wisely.
  The real danger is that this central body will become merely a reviewing body of plans already formulated but in themselves inadequate. We need a body which can help local authorities from the start by advising them in sufficiently wise and big ways. If they are to do that, it is not only the chairman (who must be whole-time) and not only a deputy chairman or a secretary but the whole of the members of the Commission who must be prepared to bring to its service practically the whole of their time and effort. There are many other qualifications, but I think it is important from the start to get a big enough view of what this National Commission can do. It will have its own representatives, so to speak, on every planning authority; but it is going to be very important that these people at the centre should be able to gather all the representatives of the different local areas from time to time so that they may be all working, on their local planning committees, not only with the special requirements of their own area in mind but observing as well the
  906
  common standards that ought to apply to all such areas throughout the country.
  I know that there are a great many Amendments to be moved in Committee. Behind many lies the fear that this central body will not have sufficient power and knowledge and that the proportion of members representing national interests on the local planning authorities is not, even now, sufficiently large. I am not yet prepared to say what attitude I shall adopt to any of these Amendments: but I believe that if we get the right body at the centre a great number of the dangers which many fear will in fact be removed.
  4.9 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, previous speakers have given this Bill a cordial welcome. If I am not quite so welcoming, it is simply and solely because I am apprehensive of the effect of creating national parks upon the area and the life of the people who live in those parts, and also upon the economic future of the nation. Various speakers have gone into the history of national parks, going back as far as the Addison Committee of twenty years or so ago. I want to go a good deal further back into the history of national parks, because the idea of these national parks is an importation from the other side of the Atlantic. According to the Hobhouse Report, the first national park ever created was the Yellowstone Park in the United States of America. The Yellowstone Park is an area of something over 2,100,000 acres—nearly half the size of Wales, for instance. There are many other parks in America. I believe that the total area of those parks in the whole of the United States is of the order of 20,000,000 acres. Canada, her next-door neighbour, has, so I am informed, an area of 29,000 square miles of national parks. Those two countries are not nearly so thickly populated as is this country. America has, I believe, forty people to the square mile; Canada has the almost ridiculous figure of three people to the square mile. Indeed, it is a statistical fact that if the whole of the population of Canada were crammed into their various national park areas, they would not be nearly so thick on the ground as the people now living in England and Wales.
  Against that, in England the area of national parks proposed in the Hobhouse

  907
  Report, which is the only intimation we have of where the national parks will be, is 3,626,000 acres, divided into twelve different national parks. The largest park is the Lake District, which is, I think, 570,000 or 590,000 acres. The population in England and Wales is 750 people to the square mile. So that we have in our imported idea of national parks areas which are much smaller than the national parks in the country where the idea originated, and which are much smaller than the generality of national parks throughout the world; and we have a much greater population who will want to make use of those parks. Therefore, the user within the areas of the national parks will be much heavier, with a consequent much greater upset (if I may so put it) to those who live and work within those areas. Remember—there are over 3,000,000 people who are inhabitants within the areas which are marked in the Hobhouse Report as national parks. It is against that background of a much greater user that we must consider the whole problem of national parks in this country. I hope your Lordships will keep that in mind when you consider the arguments that I shall try to put before you.
  So far as the first two Parts in the Bill are concerned, I have not a great deal to say. I do not propose to discuss the organisation proposed in the Bill; there are others who have already done so and who will again make their criticisms of what is proposed. But I do want to emphasise one thing which I think was said by my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, and that is that the designation of a national park by the National Parks Commission does not give the right to the public to roam at large over the area. It is a common belief amongst a great many people, even amongst those who ought to know better, that the designation of a national park will give the public the right to roam at large over the area so designated. It is not so. As a matter of fact, so far as I can see, the National Parks Commission are merely a planning authority very much under the thumb of the Minister, and one additional planning authority superimposed on other planning authorities to bedevil the life out of those who live and work within the areas concerned.
  908
  There is one other point with regard to the National Parks Commission. Reference has been made to their safeguarding of the business of agriculture and forestry. But your Lordships who have read the Bill will have noted that Clause 5 (1) says that:
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas specified in the next following subsection, and for the purpose of promoting their enjoyment by the public."
  It is only subsequently that a sort of "saver" is inserted in favour of agriculture and forestry. From the way in which this is put it is quite clear that, so far as the National Parks Commission are concerned, their primary duty is to the public who are going to use the parks for pleasure, rather than to the individuals who are using those parks for the purpose of obtaining their living and helping the economic life of the country. However, as I said, the National Parks Commission are only a planning authority. They will not have much chance of doing either good or harm in that direction.
  The two Parts of the Bill which really give the public access are those dealing with public rights of way (Part IV) and with access to open country (Part V). With regard to Part IV I, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, think it is a most admirable provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, himself said, it is long overdue. I cannot subscribe to his view that rights of way are not short cuts. Practically all the rights of way that I know originated as short cuts and, in the course of time, have become rights of way which people use for enjoyment as well as in order to take the shortest way to their work. But there is a clear case for a complete revision of rights of way, and in my view, if necessary, a considerable extension of rights of way—not only long-distance routes along the Pennines or in places like that, but also even quite short ones in and around towns, whether they be country towns or the big centres of population. If those rights of way are properly marked it will be a great help to those who wish to take country walks and, generally speaking, will do no harm to those who own the adjoining land.

  909
  The provision for the access to open country comes under a rather different category, because it may give to the public the right to roam over large areas. There is one point which I should like to make—namely, that when any question of an access order comes along the work should not be dole piecemeal. There is likely to be a certain amount of controversy over any access order as between town and country. If these access orders come forward one by one it will focus attention on each one individually, and one side or the other, according to the result of the inquiry, will claim a victory or feel defeated. It would be undesirable that there should be that individual focus on one place at a time; and I hope, therefore, that whatever is done may be done as nearly as possible to avoid piecemeal access.
  In the provisions for access there are also provisions for excepted land; they are detailed in Clause 61 (5). If one looks at the marls at the end of the Hohhouse Report showing the areas which are there proposed for national parks, one realises that there will be within each national park area, to a greater or lesser extent, considerable areas of excepted land. As has already been mentioned, round each national park there are also areas which are not within the national park and which are probably under fairly high production, agricultural or otherwise. My fear is that those who use this access land will probably have only a map to go by (a great many people are not very good at map reading), and there will be considerable incursions on excepted land and possibly considerable incursions on land outside the national park area, with, in consequence, considerable damage. Remember, my Lords, that the people who will go to these access areas will go mostly in the spring and summer, at the time when the greatest amount of damage can be done. I know it is possible to prosecute them if they do damage.
  Mention has been made of wardens, and the occupier or owner of the land will have a case if he can catch the offender. But anybody who has owned land or had any experience of this trouble knows how difficult it is even to see the person who does the damage. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has said, even if you do see them, you cannot catch
  910
  them if they run faster than you do yourself. Fear gives them wings. If damage is done—and damage undoubtedly will be done—I cannot see the wardens being very much more successful than the farmer himself. I agree with my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, that, generally speaking, the organised ramblers are well-behaved. But they are only a minority of the people. I have had actual experience this year of people, not roaming at large over the land, but merely leaving gates open. This has caused me great disturbance in regard to my own attested cattle, because the people who left open these gates let out somebody else's cattle which might have got in amongst my own. That has happened three times this year, and on no single occasion have I been able to find the culprit.
  There is another point which I would like to mention with regard to excepted land. The proviso to Clause 67 (1), says
  "provided that nothing in this subsection shall affect the doing of anything whereby any kind becomes excepted land."
  If I interpret that aright, it means that any developments in agriculture or forestry can be carried out by the owner or occupier of the land without getting permission from anybody; and by so doing he can, if necessary, convert land which was access land Into excepted land. But it is not going to be so easy as all that. Once people have got into the habit of roaming over a piece of land, if some advance in agriculture enables the owner there to make use of it by putting up a fence or by ploughing up and reseeding, or something of that sort, are they going to be denied access without any complaint on their part?
  I was particularly struck by one remark about Dartmoor in the Hobhouse Report. It was described in these words:
  "The essential core of this famous area is the old Forest of Dartmoor'"
  and then the Report goes on later:
  "Round this lies a heather zone, and to the east and west of the principal moors a country of heather, gorse and bracken. Which has invaded wide stretches of once cultivated land."
  That land was once cultivated. Under the pressure of economic events, it may well be needed again to be cultivated. It will not be easy to make it cultivated land if it is access land and the public have got into the habit of going across it—I do not

  911
  say it will be impossible, but it will make it the more difficult. And in some controversial cases, feelings may be aroused which will cause a great deal of trouble. I do not say that that is not provided for in the Bill, but I have some fear that these things may happen.
  As a Forestry Commissioner, I am more interested in the impact of the Bill upon forestry than upon agriculture, partly because the areas most concerned are areas which I know of only from the forestry point of view, and also because they are areas where the Forestry Commission will necessarily have to look for land if they are to carry out their obligations under the Government's policy to increase the afforested area in this country. So far as I can see, except for damage caused by trespassers, existing Forestry Commission plantations are properly safeguarded, though inevitably there will always be the danger of people who, not knowing that they are not supposed to be there, go in and do damage. I am not so certain about the new areas, and this is the same point that I made about bringing back land into cultivation for agricultural purposes.
  People seem to get wrong ideas about a particular area. I have in mind the Quantocks, in the area of Exmoor. Your Lordships may remember that quite recently—in fact it is not resolved yet—there has been a controversy about the 1,400 acres which the Forestry Commission were proposing to lease and afforest. There has been a lively controversy about the proposal, and if that is to become an access area in a national park the controversy will be materially fortified on the wrong side. I might say, too, that even the Hobhouse Committee were not immune from—I should not like to say exaggeration but from over-idealism. They say of the Quantocks:
  "Their tops are heather-covered, mixed woodlands clothe their lower slopes, and unspoilt villages and fine manor houses adorn their hidden valleys."
  I do not know about their hidden valleys, but I did walk over almost the whole of the 1,400 acres which is in controversy with the Forestry Commission at the moment, and my description of that area would be somewhat different. The mixed woodlands, in that particular case, are now practically entirely oak scrub, much
  912
  of which is dying and none of which is beautiful. The heather-covered tops are thigh-deep in heather, gorse and a few other things of that sort. If any of your Lordships should imagine a stroll over these "heather-covered tops" to be something like walking over a moor in Scotland, I can assure you that it is nothing of the kind. To walk over them at all is extremely difficult, and if you tried you would find also that it would be very painful.
  Not only is this the case, but that area is ripe for a fire whenever the weather is suitable. We in the Forestry Commission have already had considerable trouble in that area with fires which might well have spread to our adjacent plantations. There are other areas in the Quantocks of the same sort. I could take Lord Macdonald to an area which has a three-mile front of gorse and bracken fronting a flourishing plantation of the Forestry Commission. That is practically all I have to say so far as the Forestry Commission are concerned. It would be fair to assert that the Forestry Commission are capable of looking after themselves and their own affairs, but a private woodland owner is in a rather different position. The private woodland owner's protection within an access area where he has or may have plantations is set out in Clause 61 (5) (c). It is there laid down that the only land which is under trees which can be excepted is land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant, entered into under the Forestry Acts.
  It is often assumed that the only woods that are liable to fire or damage are young plantations. That, of course, is not so. If a fire gets going strongly enough, even mature plantations will go up in smoke. The definition in the Bill is very limited, especially in view of the fact that the dedication scheme has not yet got going. There are a large number of plantations which have been planted by land owners who have not received any grant from the Forestry Commission, and the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has made it clear that if a woodland owner, managing his woods properly, refuses to dedicate, he does not stand in jeopardy of having his land compulsorily acquired. So there may well be a continuing number of private woodlands within these access areas which will have no protection under this measure.

  913
  The Access to Mountains Act, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has said, never really got working—it was passed in 1939 and certain events have occurred since then which have prevented even a trial of its value—in Section 2(2)(c) defines lend under trees to be excepted as:
  "land used for a plantation or a wood or for the growth of saleable underwood."
  I think that probably that is going too far. I should like to see something in this Bill which widened the scope of the exception of privately owned woodlands. I would suggest as a possibility that if there were my controversy as to whether a wood was worth maintaining from the commercial point of view, or whether it should he thrown open to the public, the Commission, as the Government's forestry advisers, might be asked to express an opinion, or that there might at any rate be some arrangement of that nature. From the point of view of the private woodland owner, that additional safeguard would be most welcome and I think that he ought to have it.
  This matter, I submit, is important, because the encouragement of private woodland owners is a very important part of the forestry policy of this country. I would go so far as to say that if the private woodland owners are discouraged, the whole forestry policy which has been agreed to by His Majesty's Government may well be put in danger of failure. Having in mind the fear which I expressed at the beginning of my speech, that there will be a far greater user of national parks in this country than has even been experienced in national parks in other countries, and having in mind also that this is going to be a fairly expensive amusement—it is, indeed, a luxury—I wonder whether we are justified in going ahead at this juncture with national parks and access to land.
  I say this partly because of the expense to the public purse and, if I may so put it, the expense to the local purse, and also because there will be a diversion of effort with n the areas concerned. We must remember that they are areas to which a great many people are looking for increased production, other and more valuable parts of the country already being considered to be producing almost the maximum which they can produce. There must also be borne in mind the fact
  914
  that there will be a diversion of effort on the part of those who own or occupy land within these areas They will have one more body which will, as I said just now, bedevil them. They will have the feeling that life is becoming too difficult and it may well be that they will be disinclined to make that effort which at the present time we need from every man, woman and child in this country. I hope, therefore, that His Majesty's Government will seriously consider whether they can postpone the active operation of those parts of the Bill which deal with national parks and with access land.
  4.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, it is always a matter of some difficulty to take part in a debate of this sort, after speeches of the kind to which we have been listening have beef made. Previous speakers in this debate have been so accurate and so informative, and they have gone into such detail relating to matters with which this Bill is concerned, that there is little left to say. Indeed, it is only left to me to clear up, as it were, a few pieces—except with regard to one particular matter, on which I think nothing has so far been said. That is the matter of transport. We must face the fact that there is good reason why these parts of the country which we are now making into parks have been so little visited and, to some extent, so little lived in in the past. The fact is that they have been difficult of approach except for those people who have a certain amount of money and a certain amount of leisure. I would therefore like to make a plea for much better transport.
  The first difficulty, of course, is the matter of approaching these areas at all. In general, they are not close to the main areas where population is thick. Apart from the Peak District, which has considerable towns fairly close to it, and, of course, the South Downs, which are not far from a number of large cities, most of these areas are far from where the workers whom we would like to see visiting them live. I would make the plea that some investigation should be made, possibly by the Minister, possibly by the National Parks Commission, when it is formed, into the question of special trains, special buses and other methods of taking people quickly, and above all cheaply.

  915
  from the large areas of population to these areas. My own home, the Pembrokeshire coast, is a case in point. It is isolated, being many hours' run by any conceivable method from Cardiff and Swansea, which are the nearest large towns; and is even farther away from any of the big English towns.
  A further transport point is the question of moving about in these park areas when people have got there. In the natural course of events, most of these areas, having a low density of population, have poor transport facilities. Buses may run at infrequent intervals, or may be totally lacking. Railway facilities are likely to be even worse. In many parts of the country, especially where these areas are served by small railway branch lines, there are often no trains on a Sunday, and of course it is on a Sunday that most of the visiting to these parks is likely to be done. The same applies to buses; over large parts of our parks there are likely to be no buses at all on the Sunday. Although a number of visitors will be hikers, we must remember that many of them will want to get about in public transport. We must also have adequate accommodation for these people when they get to these areas. We have already heard that consideration should be given to the position of local hotel keepers and others, and that to some extent they must be protected against unwise setting up of canteens and hostels by local committees where such facilities are unnecessary. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, to make certain that the question of prices reigning in existing accommodation, and in existing eating houses and refreshment places, is taken into consideration when the necessity of setting up extra hostels is considered.
  There is, too, the question of the spacing and regularity of these hostels. My own home happens to be situated in a little village which in mediaeval times was the last pilgrim station on the pilgrim road to St. Davids. From the positioning of these pilgrim stations, it seems obvious that a good able-bodied pilgrim was expected in mediaeval times to cover about ten miles a day—I do not know how much he was slowed down by split peas in his shoes, or a hair shirt. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I understand, made his ten miles a day
  916
  quite easily, and I expect modern hikers to do as well, or even better. If we are building continuous footpaths across these areas, let us make sure that at regular intervals along these paths accommodation is available at prices which hikers are likely to be able to afford. It is all very well to consider the preservation of these areas and the setting up of facilities in them, but if people cannot afford to get to them, to maintain themselves in these areas when they have got there, and to move about in them as freely as they like, the whole purpose of this Bill will be frustrated.
  4.47 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, if I may take up the last words that have fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, I think that one of the problems that undoubtedly will arise, not only in regard to the areas he has indicated but preponderantly in regard to the national parks, is the question of accommodation. I find it difficult to foresee, under the present conditions of stringency obtaining in this country, who is going to provide the hotels and other means of accommodation, and at whose cost. I leave that matter there for what it is worth.
  The agricultural point of view has been so ably put forward by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that, contrary to my usual practice, I do not propose to refer to agriculture at all. I have a sort of semi-parental interest in this Bill, because about twenty-five years ago, after visiting various national parks in both the United States and Canada, I came to the conclusion that this was a deeply needed want in this country and that we ought to take early, if not immediate, steps to satisfy it. I put forward the suggestion in another place that a Royal Commission should be set up to inquire into the whole problem. It was, in fact, set up, and was presided over by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I was the first witness to give evidence before it. I cannot help wondering why the Report of that Commission has remained lying on the shelf for over seventeen years.
  However, all one can say is, better late than never. For my part, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme for establishing on a sound basis national parks in this country. Therefore I shall

  917
  feel impelled to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, though I am bound to confess that the scheme as formulated is not to my mind a good working scheme, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has indicated in better language than I car command, and I cannot help thinking that as time goes on it will require drastic alteration by way of amending Bills.
  A national park, properly so called, is established in the interests and for the benefit of the general public, whether of this country or of other countries, with a special eye on those tourists from our overseas Dominions who seem nowadays prepared to spend considerable sums in this country and help largely to ease the dollar shortage.. I would like to indicate for a moment the sort of institution the national park is in New Zealand, where I had the great felicity of spending the five happiest years of my life as representing the late King. New Zealand is roughly the size of the United Kingdom, but it contains only one-twentyfifth of the population of Great Britain, which, I admit, is a material factor in establishing anything like a comparison between the two countries. There are ten national parks in New Zealand, with an aggregate area of over 3,000,000 acres, apart from scenic reserves under what is called the Scenery Preservation Act which comprise another 840,000 acres. Those national parks are administered by national park boards which have wide powers, subject to ministerial approval, especially in regard to formulating bylaws and fixing fees for camping and picnicking in the parks. They are supported by large grants from the Government. The public are given right of free access, with a limited power on the part of the Government controlling authority to charge a small amount for admission.
  As I have indicated, the conception of national parks is taken from other and mainly newer countries overseas, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and more recently in south central Africa, Kenya and other adjoining territories. They have proved a great success and have very considerably increased the health and happiness of the people. What I most earnestly want to ask is: To what extent, if at all, have the Government
  918
  framed their scheme on the basis of those successful parks operating in other parts of the world? It may be blindness on my part, but I cannot see included in this Bill those factors which have operated overseas to make those parks such an outstanding success and worthy of our imitation in this country.
  Many noble Lords have mentioned their own environment in this connection, and I may say that I live on the borders of the Forest of Dean. When I appeared as the first witness before the Commission presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I ventured to suggest that the Forest of Dean, will its adjacent area of the lower waters of the Wye, although a relatively small area compared to those which have been made national parks in other countries, might well be chosen by way of experiment as the first national park in England. I did so speaking as the senior verderer of the Forest of Dean—an office which I have held for the last forty-three years—and with the full approval of my fellow verderers. What has happened in connection with the Forest of Dean is really rather farcical. In recent years the Government have established what they are pleased to call a national forest park, a little area of I believe fourteen to sixteen acres only, which is a sort of picnicking ground for those who have discovered that there is an extremely attractive area in England known as the Forest of Dean, and who are prepared in holiday time to come and spend a day there. In connection with that area, I would say, from many years experience, that although there is probably no district in the whole of England to excel that in scenic beauty or historical interest, the bulk of die inhabitants of this country, particularly in our cities, do no know where it is, and least of all have they ever gone far enough afield to discover what a pleasant holiday can be spent there.
  I no longer press that the Forest of Dean, with the adjoining attractions of the lower waters of the Wye, should be amongst the areas at present selected for a national park, but I do venture to hope that it will not be overlooked, because there is an immense amount of local sympathy for such a project, and., incidentally, it would interfere very little, if at all, with the agricultural activities of that part of England and Wales. What I do want to

  919
  emphasise is that these parks, if they are to justify themselves, must be for the benefit, not of the local people who know these areas reasonably well, but of the crowded thousands in our great cities to whom these districts, set apart for their health and enjoyment, would prove to be a valuable asset in the way of improved health and happiness.
  I fail to understand how, under this Bill as drafted, you are going to get these national parks to operate. Even if they are established on the initiative of local planning authorities, I fail to see how you are going to maintain a sufficient amount of zeal with regard to their maintenance, development and proper equipment without some controlling or co-ordinating central authority. In this connection, the complaint of my noble friend Lord Samuel and others—and I entirely endorse it—has been with regard to what powers are to be given to the National Parks Commission. I think it must have been a slip on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, when he said that it is the duty of the Commission to see their policy through. It seems to me that it is extremely difficult under this Bill for them to build up a policy. He went on to say—and I took down his words:
  "The Minister has given great powers to the Commission.…"
  I cannot see a single word in the Bill which gives the Commission any powers at all. It is true that these local authorities are given powers, but all the Commission are given is a duty. That is rather remarkable.
  In Clause 6, which sets out what are to be the rather hazy functions of the Commission, we read that it is to be the duty of the Commission to consider, to make recommendations, to keep under review the progress made, to give advice to the appropriate planning authorities (with no indication of whether the advice is to be acted upon), to assist such authorities in formulating proposals and to give advice where any Minister chooses to consult the Commission as to proposals for the development of land. The word "powers" is used only in relation to the local planning authorities. The only word which governs the Commission's functions is the word "duty" The planning Commission are given certain duties but apparently no actual powers.
  920
  What puzzles me a little is this. If a national park is to be of sufficient area to justify its existence, I take it that in most cases more than one county will be brought within its ambit. Now I happen to be an alderman of the Gloucestershire County Council, and I also happen to sit upon the local planning committee. I believe that it will be difficult, especially if any part of the charge is to fall upon the local rates, to get the local planning authority to develop any burning interest in this national parks scheme, but there will be even greater difficulty when several county authorities are associated in the development and administration of the scheme. Reverting to the area to which I have referred—an area included in the counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Monmouthshire—I find it extremely difficult to visualise concord between the local planning authorities of those three counties when far more immediate local concerns are at the present time obsessing their minds.
  We are told that a 75 per cent. grant is coming from the Exchequer. I venture to say that, under existing conditions, the other 25 per cent. will be extremely difficult to "screw" out of the pockets of the local ratepayers. And, for the life of me, I do not see why, bearing in mind, as I said before, that these parks are to be national parks and not local parks, and it is the nation at large and particularly the people within our crowded towns who will get the main benefit of them, local ratepayers should pay. I warmly support the principles of this Bill. I only wish that I could honestly tell your Lordships, particularly after my experience in one of the Dominions of the Crown where national parks are such a success, that in its actual operation it is likely to prove the success which the Government anticipate.
  5.7 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I do not think it is fully realised by the general public, and for that matter by some of the professional bodies interested in land, what very great changes this Bill is going to make over large areas of our countryside. Some of these changes will certainly be for the good, but some Amendments will have to be made if we are to make the Bill acceptable to those people who live in the national park areas.

  921
  I myself own property in the Peak district of Derbyshire, and therefore I feel that I can claim to know that area fairly well. For many years there has existed in that area a large number of footpaths and rights of way. In the actual district of Bakewell, in West Derbyshire, it is true to say that the whole of that area is more or less riddled with these footpaths and rights of way. I know of no farmer, or land owner for that matter, who is not prepared to permit ramblers over his land in those areas where it is unlikely that they can do any harm, and provided that they behave themselves. They are two provisos which are most important, though they are largely incorporated in this Bill. What I am doubtful about is whether this Bill will justify the large expenditure which will be entailed in putting it into practice. Are the public, in fact, going to he so much better off than they are already? In the difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves in this country, I doubt whether this is a suitable moment to implement this measure.
  I would like to ask the noble Lord who will be replying what sort of people he envisages will he asked to serve on the National Parks Commission. It is important that the National Parks Commission should be impartial and should be representative of all interests concerned. I sincerely hope that it will not consist only of members of the T.U.C. and of the Workers' Rambling Association.
  LORD CALVERLEY: What about your Primrose Leaguers?
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: Very well. After all, one of the greatest industries in this country, agriculture, will undoubtedly to some extent be adversely affected by the setting up of the national parks, and I am sure we all agree that at this moment more than ever it is vitally important to increase agricultural production all over the country. That means that the increase will probably fall largely on open country and marginal land. It is undoubtedly on the marginal land that the greater increase can be brought about. Here we immediately find conflicting interests, and I was surprised to see that the only mention in the whole Bill of agriculture and forestry is in Clause 6. I feel that we should have representatives of the National Farmers' Union and of
  922
  the Central Landowners' Association on the National Parks Commission. I also feel that in all cases the agricultural executive committees should be consulted both before and after the setting up of a national park—and, indeed, at all stages.
  Now I wish to turn for a moment to the question of compensation. It is common knowledge that a certain amount of damage is done by the public every year to agricultural land. It is difficult to estimate the full amount of the damage. Perhaps in my area, the Peak District, we have been rather unfortunate in the past in oar damage experience. It is a great pity that these fairly isolated acts of vandalism should cause resentment in the countryside; but I am afraid that they do definitely cause resentment among the country people. Under the provisions for compensation contained in the Bill, most cases are provided for. Compensation is provided where there is likely to be destruction of an interest in land owing to action taken by the authorities under the Bill. I think that is the least that could be done. But I feel that the real need, one which may involve hardship, is for compensation to be given for damage done by the general public in the exercise of their rights under this measure in the national park areas—in their use of rights of way and of access. Surely it is unjust that the unfortunate farmer and landowner should be asked to meet the cost of this damage merely because an Act of Parliament gives the public the right to wander over his land or ramble near it.
  The Hobhouse Report actually suggested that farmers should be compensated for acts of damage, in order to avoid antagonising the farming community. Surely it would be possible, in regulations under this Bill, to set up some form of repair service, particularly in the national park areas. In this respect I am sure that the agricultural executive committees could be used to great advantage if help were needed. As we have heard this afternoon, it has been suggested that farmers should insure against this damage. This matter has been looked into, but the scheme proved to he quite impracticable. But why should the farmer be asked to pay a premium at all?
  I welcome this Bill. It has been welcomed by all political Parties. I feel that, as a whole, if it is fairly

  923
  administered, it should prove successful. But I hope that before it leaves this House we shall make certain improvements, and so ensure that the great agricultural industry is suitably protected.
  5.16 p.m.
  LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, in company with many of you I find this Bill of great interest and even of great importance; but I am bound to say that I should have found it of more interest and more importance had it been introduced two years or even twelve months ago. To-day we are faced with rather sterner things. We are told on all sides that a crisis exists; and it is acknowledged by all Parties that we are in danger of such things as unemployment, national bankruptcy and even starvation.
  It is a great many years ago since Swift expressed the oft-quoted opinion that the man who grew two ears of corn or two blades of grass where only one had grown before had done more to earn the gratitude of humanity, and was of more direct service to his country, than the whole race of politicians. I have always thought that that was a little hard on politicians; but I am bound to say that a sneaking doubt creeps into my mind when I think of all the man-hours that were occupied in another place during the Second Reading of this Bill, and upstairs in Committee. Forty members—some, I have no doubt, quite "ordinary chaps" but others the best brains of all Parties—spent some two months over it. Inside and outside this House, we are going to spend a great many more man-hours; and I confess that a little doubt creeps into my mind whether we might not be better occupied in some more directly productive occupation—may I suggest lifting sugar beet or even that lowly form of work known as muck-spreading? But the Bill is before your Lordships, and it is your duty to examine it and if possible improve it.
  The Bill itself states that it has two main objects. One is to preserve and enhance the beauty of the countryside. Of that we are all in favour. It is a duty that in the past fell mainly on the owners, and I do not think anyone will deny that they made a very fair job of it. The owners in the past did not do a great deal of disfiguring of the
  924
  countryside. The second object is to enable people to see the countryside, get to it, and enjoy it. With that also we shall all find ourselves in agreement. But I could wish that there was in the Bill, in the same place, a third object: to teach the people to preserve this beauty and not destroy it. I know that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has said that words to that effect can be found elsewhere in the Bill, but I would like to see it as one of the main objects. After all, there are a great many people in this country who have not the fine spirit of the Ramblers' Club, and who give way at times to an orgy of destruction.
  I think one of the saddest sights, and one that I have seen several times, is the destruction of a bluebell wood in the course of a single day. In the morning you see the bluebell wood, a mass of beautiful blue, under the dapple green of the beech trees. Perhaps near some towns the bluebells are out and there arrives on the scene by car, by bus, and by bicycle a concourse of people. In a couple of hours there is not a bluebell left in that wood. The shoots are trampled down and some are torn up; boughs are torn off, not cut off, the trees, and in two hours the people are streaming away from the scene and back to the town, strewing the road behind them as they go with bundles of bluebells which have withered within twenty minutes of being picked. This Bill will do some good if, in some form or other, it teaches those people that a bluebell wood growing is one of the finest gifts of nature, but that bluebells picked are of no value whatever as a table decoration.
  Turning to the Bill itself and taking Part I, dealing with the National Parks Commission, I share with some of your Lordships a doubt as to what a national park is intended to be. Clearly, it is not going to be anything conceivably like one of the great national parks that my noble friend has mentioned, because, for one thing, it is much too full of people. Those great national parks are mainly designed to preserve the fauna and flora within them, and for people to go and see what those vast stretches have been from time immemorial. In most cases the visitors are kept strictly within certain bounds; in some cases they are not even allowed to get out of their cars, because it is not

  925
  considered safe for them to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, quoted an interesting statement as to what a national park was to be, but unfortunately the Minister who introduced the Bill in another place did not say the same. He said—and I agree with him—that the Bill itself shows clearly what a national park is to be. This is what the Bill says:
  "an extensive area of outstanding beauty suitable for open-air recreation by the general public, but where the normal life of the existing public goes on."
  That is a fairly simple fact. The objection I have is that it might just as well have been made in the same stretch of country before this Bill came to the stocks at all. This Bill does not make it any different from what it was before.
  I do not wish to say much about the National r arks Commission, save that with other speakers I feel a certain sorrow that the Commission have, in fact, so few powers that they are almost entirely an advisory body. I feel that the more because, in company with others of your Lordships no doubt, I have often sought advice and very often been given it—most excellent advice—but I regret to say I have often done exactly the opposite! I fear that that may be the case here. I, too, hope flat it may be agreed on both sides of the House that we should have on the Commission one or two people with a knowledge of agriculture. That is of great importance.
  With regard to Part II, it should be noted and no doubt has been noted, that under this most important Part no additional privileges of any sort or kind are conferred upon the general public. What it does do is to give to local authorities powers and indeed, duties to provide certain facilities and amenities. Again, I must share with my noble friend who spoke earlier some worry about that matter, because those duties will involve considerable expense, a great deal of hard work and possibly a heavy addition to the rates. Those of your Lordships—and there must be many—who are members of counts councils will know the immense amount of new work and expense that has been thrown upon the councils in the last year or two. The Town and Country Planning Act alone is only one-quarter digested by many county councils. As regards expense, my own poor little half-county is faced with water schemes to cost
  926
  over £5,000,000, and with education and building expenses of the same amount. There must come a time when the back of the camel will he broken by the additional expenses that fall day by day on those bodies. Indeed, there is some difficulty at the present time in getting people to do the work.
  I feel that we are nearly all in favour of nature reserves. They are much more like the national parks a broad, and in that respect I take it that one of the objects of the Bill is not to let people in but really to keep people out. I imagine—it has not been said—that people will go into these nature reserves more or less by ticket, having shown that they take an interest in the natural wild life therein. It seems to me rather unfortunate, but I presume it is inevitable that there will have to be wardens there, because, sad though it is, the fact that one of these districts is labelled "nature reserve" brings to the notice of many of the evil-disposed that included in that area is something worth looting—something like a rare egg, a rare butterfly or a rare plant. Once these districts are scheduled, it is inevitable that there must be wardens therein. I think that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree with Part IV, but I would again draw your attention to the fact that this is yet another additional expense which is going to be thrown upon the local authorities.
  Part V, dealing with access to open country, is to me the most important and controversial section of the Bill—controversial because it imposes a new status and alters the law of the land; important because of its relation to agriculture. Your Lordships will, no doubt, have noted that, whereas at the present moment anyone who enters on land which he does not own or which he is not on for the purpose of his lawful occasion—employment and such-like—is a trespasser, when this Bill becomes law he will no longer be a trespasser. I do not know exactly what his status is. I should describe him as a "licensed entrant," or something like that. No doubt a name for him will in due course be found. But I would point out to the noble Lord opposite, as no doubt he knows, how very transient is this status of licensed entrant; it may go in the twinkling of an eye. Suppose his dog slips its lead at the sight of a rabbit and, as

  927
  many expensive and well-broken dogs do, pursues the rabbit into a wood, what then? Suppose, also, that one of these licensed entrants with a concourse of his friends marching over the links, as it is said "like a buck in spring," is led to shout to the concourse, "Three cheers for Sir Stafford Cripps." Some of your Lordships may say that is unlikely, but it is not impossible. What happens then? In either of these two cases, hey presto! in the twinkling of an eye, the man is no longer a licensed entrant but once again a trespasser; and in the second case it is not very clear from the Bill how the offence is purged. It is reasonable, perhaps, to suppose that if be in turn should say "Up Winston" or "Down with the Minister of Food," he would thereby cancel out his offence and purge it, and once again, instead of being a trespasser he would be a licensed entrant.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Perhaps he could be, called a "chartered libertine."
  LORD CRANWORTH: Perhaps we may be told that. But there are two points, one of which has been touched on, which are of more importance to me because they deal with food production, which to my mind is paramount in this matter. We are called upon now to make a great increase in the agricultural production of this country. A great target has been set, and farmers are aiming at it. As has been said, a great portion of it must come out of the marginal lands and those lands which are sometimes euphemistically called rough grazing—16,000,000 acres of them. Many thousands, and possibly even millions, of these acres are fit to grow crops—though sometimes at great expense. It is imperative that the people who farm those lands should be encouraged to make use of them.
  Clause 67 (1) states that these access lands can be made excepted lands. My noble friend Lord Radnor assumed (I thought all too rashly) that anyone ploughing-up such land, or doing other things such as reseeding or putting on artificials, thereby caused the land to be excepted. The Bill does not say so, and if it is so I think it should say so. The alternative is that the farmer asks leave from the local authority, the local authority will ask leave of the Commission, the
  928
  Commission will put the matter before the Minister, the Minister will consult with the Ministry of Agriculture, and that Ministry will consult other Ministries and will then report back to the Minister. And so it will go on down the scale, a process with which we are all too painfully familiar at the present time and which will delay production in a way in which it should not be delayed. I sincerely hope I may be assured later on that it is the first and not the second alternative that is meant to be adopted under this subsection.
  The other question I wanted to ask is this. At the present moment anyone going on to marginal land is committing a trespass. Nothing happens to him, of course. He does no damage and nothing happens. Nevertheless, he is a trespasser, and when he enters on land, as I understand it, he does it at his own risk. To what extent will that status change? On these marginal lands there are now herds of heifers grazing. There should be many more, and I hope there will be. With them is a hull to help their increase. The bull has a great sense of responsibility to his herd, and he does not like the influx of a band of strangers in bright colours. Indeed, being a highly intelligent animal he has a particular dislike to red. When, therefore, a concourse of people approach, it may well be that he will resent their advance and in turn advance towards them. They will retire; he will come faster; they will run away. Then he will run, and finally one or more will fall into a ditch, or possibly be pushed in, and may suffer a grievous injury. Is it or is it not clear that the farmer is not responsible for an injury incurred in that way? I feel that is a matter which must be made quite definite, otherwise no farmer will be so foolish as to graze a herd of heifers and a bull on that land, any more than I would dream of putting a bull on to a meadow in which there was a right of way. It should be made abundantly clear in this Bill what the position is, both for the benefit of the licensed entrant and for the benefit of agriculture.
  My Lords, there is just one thing more with which I want to deal which has not yet been mentioned—namely, sport. We must be a little careful that we do not do damage to one of our national assets. Shooting and fishing bring into this country a good deal of money. They

  929
  relieve a good many rates and give pleasure to a vast number of people. I believe there are over a million people who shoot, and more than that number who fish; and both are delicately managed sports. Very little of these sports lies in the hands only of the rich man. They are far more democratic in essence than sport in any other country in the world. I recall being in Canada, in Victoria, when the shooting season started there. The shooting season lasted three days. In that, time everything was killed, and there was no more shooting. I was in Canada for the partridge shooting season, which lasted ten days. But in this country, where vastly more people shoot, the season goes on all the time, and we should be very careful before we do damage to an asset of great national and natural value.
  I have occupied too much of your Lordships' time. In conclusion I would say merely that to my mind this Bill will be of value only in keeping with the spirit in which it is administered. If it is administered with the two objects stated in the Bill, with the one which I feel ought to be added, well and good. But if it is to be used as just another stick to flog the oppressed and depressed classes—and your Lordships will realise who they are—then it will do ill. It is with the hope that it will be the former and not the latter that I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, I have been reading with some care the documents and pamphlets which have been circulated—as is often the case before important debates of this character—in order to provide your Lordships with information and, if necessary, with ideas. I find in) self extremely disappointed, and feel that the Minister of Town and Country Planning must also be disappointed and slightly astonished at the critical reception which this Bill has had from interested bodies. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Friends of the Lake District are naturally supporters of this Bill; they have always wanted what the Bill wants, and this should be for them a great day of achievement and success. There should h: surrounding everyone who believes in national parks an atmosphere charged with the feeling: "He's a jolly good fellow."
  930
  But as a matter of fact the contrary is the case. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is faced with a very grudging welcome to this Bill. The general impression I get from these documents is that a first-class Committee was appointed under a very intelligent Chairman, Sir Arthur Hobhouse. A cloud of excellent witnesses gave evidence, and with such expert assistance in procreation it was assumed that the Ministry would produce one of those glossy thoroughbreds which Sir Alfred Munnings paints for the Royal Academy. On the contrary, these societies have looked this gift horse in the mouth, and have found it to be a very sorry nag indeed. What has anragonised these ardent supporters? If it were the agricultural interests or the Forestry Commission, who have aims that are praiseworthy but divergent from national parks, who were concerned, I could understand the coolness of the reception accorded to this Bir. But why should people whose aims are identical stand aloof? I think the answer can be found in the treatment that the National Trust have received under this Bill.
  The National Trust have always believed in national parks. They have tried to create them on exactly the lines of which the Ministry approve. The Trust own some 150,000 acres in England and Wales, of which some 40,000 acres are in the Lake District. And they are still acquiring large areas. Except where the interests of agriculture or other compelling reasons demand the contrary, the Trust encourage, and have always encouraged, the greatest possible degree of public access to their land. The Trust were established for the purpose of preserving suitable places for the public, and throughout then fifty-four years of existence they have done their best to ensure that the public shall enjoy those places. The Government have recognised the special position of the National Trust by providing in this Bill that their inalienable land shall not be acquired except by special procedure. This gives a certain degree of protection for which, on behalf of the Trust, I express my gratitude. I am still more grateful to the Government for having on second thoughts exempted such land altogether from compulsory acquisition under Part V and Part VI of the Bill. But, under Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill it is still

  931
  possible for National Trust land to be compulsorily acquired.
  I hope that I shall not be accused of ingratitude if I express my regret that the Government could not see their way to grant absolute exemption to National Trust land. The object of the Trust is to give the public the greatest possible degree of access to their land, consistent with any special obligations of the Trust—for example, in respect of nature reserves. That, surely, is also the object of the Government. Yet the Government have looked upon us with a suspicious eye. I think they have trusted the National Trust to a certain extent, but not completely. They are afraid, I believe, of setting up a precedent on behalf of a body who do in point of fact deserve special treatment. The Minister of Town and Country Planning is accessible and sympathetic, but, to my mind, he is too cautious. Suspicion creates suspicion. This Bill reduces the powers of the National Parks Commission and therefore means an increase in the powers of the Ministry. There is a suspicion that it would be better if it were the other way round. There should be no objection to the Ministry being more powerful than the Commission, yet the amenity societies all show that they prefer the Commission they do not know to the Ministry they do.
  It is said in defence of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that they are a young Ministry and that it is very difficult for them to stand up to other Government Departments especially the Service Departments. Nevertheless, in spite of that, I feel that they could have earned the loyalty and the enthusiasm of supporters of the national parks if they had shown more enthusiasm themselves, and less suspicion of the people who support them. It would probably be unseemly of me to lament the temperament of a Minister of the Crown, but I am sorry that the Minister did not throw his bonnet over the mill and go baldheaded for national parks. I should have liked him to say to himself: "Well, Lulworth Cove may be closed by tank traps; Barker's may commercialise Kensington Square; the Green Belt may be built on, but all these things will be forgotten if I support my child—national parks. This is my place in history." I should have liked him to think that
  932
  "Silkin's National Parks" would become as famous as "Lansbury's Lido." I am very much afraid, however, that they are more likely to be classed with "Belisha's Beacons."
  I do not think it is too late to remove the mutual distrust that has arisen between the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the natural supporters of the Bill. No Amendment will be moved during the Committee stage on behalf of the National Trust asking the Government to exclude their land from the compulsory clauses of the Bill. But they hope that the Government themselves will move such an Amendment, and they are looking to them to make a gesture of conciliation. I well remember a few years ago, when John Dower was at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the atmosphere of faith, enthusiasm and co-operation that existed at that time. A great deal of that has gone, and it is a great misfortune, because I cannot emphasise too strongly that we are the people who are really interested in national parks, and our good will is vital to their future.
  5.50 p.m.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, after this somewhat lengthly debate, I should like to make one or two remarks from the point of view of the local planning authorities, bodies which have hardly been mentioned in this debate, except in terms of execration. As has been said by many others speakers, there has been a lack of agreement as to what a national park should be. Had there been agreement, I believe that a great many purposes of this Bill could have been met under the Act of 1947. Now we have this Bill. It is extremely difficult from a reading of it to tell or guess what physical changes in planning will result from it—or, indeed, are intended. It may be that all the ideas of the Hobhouse Committee will be put into effect. On the other hand, it may be that everything will go on much as at present, because evidently a great deal depends on what the Minister decides on appeal cases. The only concrete fact one can gather from the Bill is that the Parks Commission is to be set up. As has already been said, that is not such a very concrete fact, because the Parks Commission is somewhat of a new departure, a body not exactly advisory and not exactly executive, but a combination of the two.

  933
  I am grateful to the Minister for resisting the pressure to take the national parks out of the control of the local authorities, without regard to the consequences that may happen in any given locality. I confess that I am not entirely happy about this new compromise solution, because it seems to me to be a perfect example of the modern local government doctrine of synthetic decision, under which no one committee or authority is allowed to decide anything finally, but policy has to be evolved, as it were, by a process of general consultation all round. I agree that in many cases consultation has its advantages, but in practice it too often means that some perfectly trivial problem, which any sensible person could solve in ten minutes, has to go circulating round Whitehall, creating a great deal of delay and frustration to anybody who is trying to get something done. I do not want to exaggerate difficulties. So far as this consultation may be applied to making a scheme, I think that not only will there be no great difficulty about it but that it will be a valuable thing. Anyway, there will be plenty of time for it.
  In my own county of Sussex, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has kindly referred, we have a scheme on which we have spent a great deal of money and about which we have taken a great deal of trouble. As a result, we have had no sort of complaint from anybody—hikers or ramblers or anybody else. We have been rather mystified about why people should want to undergo such a large measure of reorganisation as has been demanded, at least in another place. I do not in the least mean to be intractable or to suggest that our plan cannot be improved. If the National Parks Commission have any good ideas, I can say in all sincerity that we shall be most anxious to co-operate with them in every way. But I hope that once the scheme has been agreed and confirmed by the Minister, the Government will not encourage any form of dual control in its administration.
  As your Lordships know, under the ordinary town planning procedure a constant stream of applications comes from all over a Liven area to the local planning authority. Not only do the local planning authority decide these cases having regard to whatever scheme they are work-
  934
  ing on, but the Minister also has a default power to call in individual applications for his decision. In my experience, he does so carefully in eases of particular difficulty, and I have never heard of anybody taking exception to that. What I am afraid of is that, in the face of the exaggeration of difficulties and the setting up of the Commission, strong pressure will be put on the Minister to call in a much larger proportion of these applications, if they come from national park areas, on the plea that the local planning authority cannot be trusted. This is in contradiction to the arguments advanced when discussing the Parliament Act; for popular election seems to have been more of a term of reproach in tide discussions on this Bill. If the Minister should accede to this pressure, I feel that eventually there will develop a situation in which, to put it colloquially, the local planning authority will say. "Either we run this show or you do; but we cannot both go on running it."
  It will be unfortunate if mistakes are made, as probably they will be made; it is doubly unfortunate that mistakes may give rise to Parliamentary Questions; but I do not know how we are going to develop a sense of responsibility among local planning authorities unless we give them the power to make mistakes. It is not simply a question of an academic argument between the local planning authority and the Parks Commission. The people who will suffer will be the individuals who put in their applications for consent to develop. They will be in a constant state of doubt about what they can do and what they cannot do. My plea, therefore, is for the clearest possible instructions from the Minister as to the policy which the local planning authorities are to pursue in these national parks, and for the minimum of possible interference in the carrying out of that policy. I think it would be a very good thing if the intentions regarding the physical planning in these parks could be clearly explained. It would be good for the public, good for the owners, and—not least—good for the planners themselves. If I may put tills colloquially again, there has been a good deal of discussion as to who should do what and, I think, far too much concentration on the "who" and far too little on the "what."

  935
  As for Part V, dealing with access to land, I cannot speak for any part of the country except my own, and even of that I have no specific authority to speak. But I should be surprised if anybody in Sussex would wish to go to a great deal of trouble and expense merely to put on a more legal footing the practices which have gone on for a long time without anybody taking exception to them. I am glad to see that in Clause 63 the Minister has allowed for that point of view. I think we should feel that the purpose of this Bill will be served if we safeguard a sufficient tract of country, if we provide footpaths for people to walk on and car parks for them to put their cars in. In passing, I may say that I am much more afraid about the motorists than I am about the hikers. If people do stray from the footpaths, they must do so, in my view, on their own responsibility, as is the case if they stray from footpaths anywhere else in the country.
  I have no doubt there is a school of thought which thinks the right to ramble, as indeed the right to do a great many other things, ought to be conferred by Parliament, and that the conduct of the ramblers should be regulated by bylaws. It seems to me, however, that by the time you have defined your access areas, worked out the boundaries, put notice boards to indicate to the public what those boundaries are and what their rights and responsibilities are, arranged for the enforcement of the bylaws, dealt with the complicated questions of compensation which will certainly arise and dotted every "i" and crossed every "t," you will have built up an immense entanglement of red tape and I very much doubt whether the result will be pleasing to anybody.
  I was reading the other day a poem by Shelley called Lines Written in Dejecttion near Naples, and I pictured a poet of the future, I suppose no longer able to go to Naples and therefore repairing to some access land, possibly overlooking one of our new towns. Even there I fear that his meditations might be rudely interrupted by a uniformed warden approaching him and presenting him with a copy of the Second Schedule of this Bill. Apart from the question of romance and glamour, however, I do not believe that bylaws are going to be altogether effective. On the South Downs
  936
  one of the most common complaints—in fact, the only chronic complaint—comes from the farmers, and is directly not against human beings but against dogs that worry sheep, usually by night. It is a very serious matter, and it has certainly contributed to the diminution of the number of flocks on the Downs. But I do not see how you can deal with dogs under any form of town planning. For those reasons I do not think we should wish to operate this part of the Bill except in special cases. I feel that if there is any demand for it, it is more likely to come from the farmers and the owners than from the general pubic.
  Finally, although I am afraid I have not been able to give an absolutely unqualified welcome to this Bill, I should like to express gratitude to the Minister for defending against a good deal of pressure the principle of uniformity in town planning. While I think a great deal of this Bill is unnecessary, it certainly fits in with the 1947 Act, and I hope it will continue to do so. On a previous occasion I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that we should not get very far with town planning if the charter of planning was going to be altered every few years. When I read that the Conservative Conference wants to repeal entirely the 1947 Act, and when I hear that the Minister of Health and the Government are going to reform the entire function of local government, I think we must be thankful for small mercies, and the local planners must pursue their very uncertain objective in a spirit of resolute resignation.
  6.7 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WATER ORDER, 1949
  Special Procedure Order (together with a certificate from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on July 26 last discharged, and Bill committed.
  SCOTLAND'S TAXATION CONTRIBUTION
  SCOTLAND'S TAXATION CONTRIBUTION
  STATE BODIES AND TIED HOUSES
  STATE BODIES AND TIED HOUSES