Lords Sitting of 26 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SELSEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FAVERSHAM OYSTER FISHERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HASLEMERE AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
WELLINGTON (SALOP) GAS ORDER, 1930.
STONE GAS ORDER, 1930.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders named on the Order Paper be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I do not think I need detain you very long to-day on this Bill. It comes up from another place, having been dealt with there with the friedly co-operation of all Parties. It is supported by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, by the Farmers' Union in Scotland and by the

1031
Farm Servants' Union. Clause 1 and Clause 3 contain the two main principles of the Bill. The first of those principles or purposes is to adjust the individual relations between various owners and occupiers of land. The second is to give the Government the funds and the power to undertake large schemes of arterial drainage for improving land that is in a bad state of drainage, and for the prevention of existing flooding; also to give the Government power to levy charges on the owners and occupiers for carrying out such work.
Clause 1 really embodies no new principle. As far back as the year 1847 there was an Act applying to land drainage in Scotland that gave certain powers to an owner or occupier to interfere with another owner or occupier if the state of the drains on a given piece of land was interfering with his own land, but the powers were very limited, and the machinery was very cumbersome and expensive. I believe that that Act has never really been used during the last fifty years. It is, therefore, completely out of date, and it has been rendered even more out of date than it was before the War owing to the break-up of estates. To-day there are actually 10,000 more owner-occupiers in Scotland than there were before the War, and, therefore, you have not got the large units of great estates, with the landowner to adjudicate between the interests of the various occupiers. Under this clause power is given to the owner or occupier of a piece of land to serve a notice on another owner responsible for flooding that is injurious to the former's land.
This may at first sight sound a somewhat strong power to give to a man, but if your Lordships look at subsection (4) you will see that there are adequate safeguards. There is a right of appeal to the sheriff and the sheriff must be satisfied that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is in danger of being injured by this bad flooding; that the person on whom a notice has been served is unreasonably refusing to remedy or prevent such injury; and that the cost of carrying out any operations necessary to remedy that injury may reasonably be borne by the parties. Your Lordships will agree that those are very adequate safeguards. If it is decided by the sheriff, or the expert adviser whom
1032
he appoints to look into the matter, that the cost of carrying out the operation is not such that the parties could be reasonably expected to bear, he shall report the matter to the Department of Agriculture, and, by doing so, he will make it possible for the Department to deal with the matter under Clause 3 of the Bill.
That brings me to the second portion of this Bill. Clause 3 provides for the carrying out of schemes of arterial drainage by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. As your Lordships know, there are no ad hoc drainage authorities in Scotland as there are in England. I believe there is, in fact, only one in the whole country. These schemes shall be either for the improvement of land or for the prevention of flooding. Once it has been decided that the scheme is to be carried out, that scheme will be compulsory on all the owners and occupiers who are affected, subject only to an appeal to either House of Parliament. The scheme will have to lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and will be able to be held up by an Address from either House. The basis of the cost of the scheme to the owner shall be assessed according to the benefit received. Supposing a scheme on a particular piece of land is to cost, say, £100, and the benefit to that particular piece of land is only £75, then the owner shall only have to bear the cost of the scheme to the extent of £75, the remaining £25 being borne by the Department of Agriculture. In assessing the benefit the owner receives, the Department shall take into account both the actual improvement to the land and the deterioration which might be expected to occur to the land if no such drainage works were undertaken. If the owner is dissatisfied with the assessment of the benefit that he is supposed to be going to receive from the carrying out of the scheme, he can appeal to the Department, and an arbitrator can be appointed by any Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session.
That very briefly states the main purposes of the Bill. I have not gone into any details because I think they can be more suitably dealt with in Committee, but I would say on general grounds that this Bill is one which it is essential to carry through for the benefit of agriculture in Scotland. At the present moment

1033
there is land amounting to hundreds of thousands of acres actually losing value or even going out of cultivation all over Scotland. This Bill attempts to tackle this particular problem from the point of view of owners and occupiers who are not themselves responsible for the position in which they find themselves. Separate grants entirely are being provided for ordinary field drainage. This Bill deals simply and solely with the situation where an owner or occupier of land is finding that his land is deteriorating either because his neighbours are not fulfilling their obligations or because there is no over-riding authority in the form of any drainage authority to deal with questions of arterial drainage. The object of this Bill quite simply is to deal with these two situations. It will increase very largely the productivity of great areas of land in Scotland, which should prove of immense assistance to farmers. It is also of interest to the Government and to us all in that it will provide employment on the land for many people who cannot now be employed there because the land is too wet and sour to pay to cultivate, and it will also provide work in carrying out the scheme. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I think the noble Earl in introducing the Bill has explained its objects very plainly, but has somewhat exaggerated the benefits that may be expected to flow from it. The amount to be expended is small—a very limited sum—and the whole of it will probably be required along the course of two rivers, or three at the most. The Bill is required for these limited areas only, I think, on any considerable scale, but some provisions of the Bill will be useful to solve local difficulties as between one owner and another. In Scotland, unlike England, we are not as a rule so much under water, but the floods are considerable in the one or two areas to which I refer. The increased number of owners to which the noble Earl referred is no doubt another reason for the Bill, so many of the larger estates having been broken up under the excessive pressure of rates and taxes. This measure has been considerably improved in another place
1034
by amendment and I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Second Reading. As the Bill was originally drafted excessive powers were given to a public Department, as is not unusual.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: As is usual.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: As is usual I might say, and the assessment of the benefits to be recovered from the owner by that Department after it has made its own expenditure as it pleases—and in its usual extravagant way no doubt—will have to be very carefully scrutinised in Committee. There are one or two other points which will require attention at the same time. I allude to the recovery of expenditure by the Department, because public Departments in Scotland especially know already much too well how to pass on the costs of their failures to the unlucky individual, and against that system it will be necessary to introduce every possible safeguard. Subject to those remarks I think the Bill as far as it goes is a Bill that should be supported, although at the same time I must admit that the whole policy of the Bill—which I believe is to be extended to England also—is one that does require very careful treatment in this House because it is an example of conferring autocratic powers upon a Department to which the unfortunate private owner will find himself subjected.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I intervene in the debate on a Scottish Bill because I think it is more than likely that a Bill applying to England and Wales may be introduced. I do not want it said that I raised no objection to the details of the Scottish Bill if similar provisions are inserted in the English Bill. I would remind your Lordships that this Bill goes much further than the Land Drainage Act of 1926, which applied to England and Wales. The costs may be prohibitive to agricultural landowners, who have little spare cash at the present time, and they will be largely at the mercy of the sheriff and the Department of Agriculture.
I notice in the Bill that the word "rivers" appears again. Your Lordships, at my suggestion, took that word out of the 1926 Act. How can Scottish landowners be called upon to clean out rivers, say, like the Tweed, the Clyde

1035
and the Tay? To my mind the suggestion is perfectly ridiculous. A heavy expense or a rate is going to be put on the landowner and the occupier quite out of proportion to any benefit that may be received. The land in Scotland, as in England, has lately been derated. Now comes along this Bill putting a new rate on the land which has just been derated. I read in Clause 3 of the Bill the words:—
"Where the Department … are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works …."
It is left to the Department to decide. What I ask is, what is the use of improving land for cultivation so long as the Government allow German bounty-fed oats to be dumped in this country below the cost of production?
I would also ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill why Crown lands are exempt from the Bill? In 1927 an Act of Parliament was passed which I understood at the time was meant to put Crown land on the same footing as any other estates, and it was received with approbation by all Parties. These Crown lands belong to the State, the revenue goes to the Exchequer and they are mentioned every year in the Budget. We know that the rent-roll of the Crown lands considerably exceeds £1,000,000 a year. There is no estate belonging to a private owner in this country that has a rent-roll of over £1,000,000 a year. Accordingly I ask why it is that the richest estate in the whole country is to be exempted under this Bill and is not to be called upon to drain any land or play its part in a drainage scheme. That seems to me to be absolutely wrong. Where the State owns land it is to be put in a privileged position above all private landowners.
Why are the Crown lands exempted? I do not think that they are exempted under the Land Drainage Act, 1918. I am quite aware that in Section 19 of that Act it would appear that they were exempted, but under Section 21 they are brought into the Act. I am going to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill to look at those two sections before the Committee stage, and perhaps he will then kindly give us his explanation of them. It is true that the sections are in different Parts of the Act, and it may be that the Crown lands come in under
1036
Part III but not under Part II. I suggest to the noble Earl that the Crown lands should come wholly into this Bill, and I ask him, if he can see his way to do so, to move an Amendment on the Committee stage bringing them into the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is very gratifying to find that the principles of this Bill are so thoroughly accepted. Of course I will undertake to look into the matter to which Lord Dynevor referred before the Committee stage. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that it might be to your Lordships' convenience if we put the Committee stage down for next Tuesday. I recognise that this will be a little early, but I would point out that the Bill was down for Second Reading last Wednesday and, at the request of the Scottish Peers, it was put off for a week. If it will suit the convenience of the House, I propose to put it down for next Tuesday.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TERRITORIAL ARMY TRAINING.
LORD TFMPLEMORE LORD TFMPLEMORE had given Notice that he would call attention to the recent War Office decision to curtail the number of permanent staff instructors with Territorial Army units; ask His Majesty's Government whether full consideration was given to the effect which this decision will have on the training and interior economy of units; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Earl again so soon after his recent effort and to bring him back, as it were, from the plough to the sword. Last week we were debating the condition of the Army in general, and to-day I want to trouble the House for a short time with a matter which may appear small in itself but which, to my mind, is likely to have a very bad effect on the training of the Territorial Army. I refer to the recent decision of the War Office to curtail very drastically the number of permanent staff instructors allotted to infantry battalions. Your Lordships may be aware that the establishment of permanent staff instructors for concentrated Territorial battalions—in that

1037
category come the battalions in London and a good many of those in our big cities—is three: namely, a warrant officer, class 2, who acts as sergeant-major, and two sergeant-instructors. In the case of scattered battalions—that is battalions in some towns and in all counties—an increase was allowed on the reformation of the Territorial Army at the expiration of the War based on the various needs of the units in different parts of the country. In the case of my own battalion, which is typical of many—that is why I bring it in—the number was fixed at six: one warrant officer sergeant-major and five sergeant instructors.
At the beginning of February a War Office letter was sent round containing proposals for reducing very drastically the number of permanent staff instructors, and also laying down—I shall refer to this in detail later—that, where a company was stationed at the headquarters of a unit, the regimental sergeant-major should take on the duties of permanent staff instructor to the company. This letter was sent round to the commanding officers and, so far as I was concerned, I commented on it in terms which were forcible but, I hope, respectful and asked that the matter should be held in abeyance. At the beginning of March, almost, I imagine, before the views of commanding officers had really had time to be considered, there came a further letter from the War Office ordering that this reduction should take place. I can speak with certainty only as to what is going to happen in the Hampshire Brigade, but, since the original letter which I mentioned was evidently what might be termed a general Army Council letter, I imagine that the same thing is going on in all Divisions in the country, and I rather fancy that the noble Lord behind me, who is going to follow me, will speak to your Lordships of the consternation that has been caused in the 51st Highland Division on account of this order. The total reductions in the Hampshire Brigade are to be five, of which my own battalion is to lose two.
First of all I want to deal with the taking away of sergeant-instructors from scattered companies. What is the result going to be? The result must be that you will have to arrange to reduce the number of drill nights in the companies affected, because with the best will in
1038
the world the sergeant-instructor is only human and he cannot possibly supervise more than one drill at one hall on a certain night. The consequence of that will be that there will be loss of efficiency, loss of interest and a gradual extinction of small stations that are now kept together only by means of constant supervision on the part of one of the regular sergeant instructors. The second point is even more important. I refer to the order that the regimental sergeant-major is to act as permanent staff instructor to a company. I do not know if the noble Earl is fully aware of the position, but, in case he is not, I will tell him what the duties of a sergeant-major in a Territorial battalion are. In point of fact the sergeant-major is employed for half his time, or rather more, acting as orderly-room sergeant in the office, dealing with the numerous letters and returns that have to be made out. In the case of my own battalion and, I should think, in most others he is assisted by a clerk who is a civilian and generally an ex-soldier. If the sergeant-major is going to take on the duties of sergeant-instructor, the services of a second clerk will certainly be necessary, and a question will arise as to who is to pay him. I think I may say that the Territorial Associations, with their very attenuated resources, will not be willing and cannot be expected to do so. In addition to this, the arrangement will entail the sergeant-major doing such things as cleaning rifles, going round to the houses of men who may not have returned their kit, and doing work of that kind which will very much detract from the status and dignity which in his case it is so important to keep up.
Quite apart from the question of the loss of efficiency, I think that if these reductions are going to take place, the War Office will be asking these men to do too much. And I should like to warn the noble Earl and the War Office that service with the Territorial Army is not now so popular with the non-commissioned officers of the Army as it was. These men think that they are badly and shabbily treated in many respects and the noble Earl will remember that he was good enough to allow me to send him privately at the end of last year various points in which they were badly treated. The noble Earl was very civil and

1039
courteous to me in his reply, as he always is, but I cannot honestly say that he gave me much satisfaction. These non-commissioned officers in addition to their duties as sergeant-instructors are expected to act as recruiters to the Regular Army. They are expected to provide so many recruits a month, and if they fail to do this they run the risk of being badly reported on by the district recruiting officer and getting a bad mark which may militate against their future advancement. I hope that if the War Office are going to curtail their numbers in the way that I have described, the noble Earl will give special thought to this point about recruiting for the Regular Army, because I do not see how they are really going to carry it on.
It will be noted that in this arrangement the concentrated battalion—the battalion which has the easiest task already—does not suffer at all. It carries on with its three permanent staff instructors, as it always has. The whole curtailment of staff will fall on those units which admittedly have the most difficult task now—namely the scattered battalions. Really, one is inclined to say that the War Office do not make it easy for commanding officers and adjutants to run what I call a good show. I cannot understand the General Staff and the Territorial Directorate sanctioning a reduction scheme like this. I think it was last year that the Director-General of the Territorial Army held a series of conferences in every Command in Great Britain, where, at the headquarters of the Command, he met all Territorial commanding officers, and discussed proposals by the War Office, and matters of that kind, and asked their view, and it is a great pity that the idea was not followed up this year. It was a most useful thing, and a scheme of this kind might have been followed up. We might have been asked our opinions, instead of having it thrown at our heads without our views really being properly considered.
I am quite aware, and all commanding officers are quite aware, of the necessity for economy, but this is what I call a bad economy. It is very disheartening to those who are trying to run their difficult battalions, such as scattered battalions always are. I think it is laying too great a burden on the sergeant-
1040
instructors who still remain, and altogether I regard it as a bad move, which will, I fear, have, not sudden, but gradual ill effects on the training and general efficiency of the Territorial Army. The noble Earl and I have had many friendly talks about the Territorial Army. I believe he is well disposed towards the Territorial Army, and he knows that I wish him well in the administration of his Department of the War Office. He will do a good turn for the Territorial Army if he will say, as I hope he is going to say when he replies this afternoon, that this scheme will be reconsidered, and that fresh orders will be issued with due regard to local conditions and the views of commanding officers, after the subject has received rather more examination than I think it has up to now. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the temerity to address your Lordships' House. I should like to crave your indulgence in advance for any mistakes in procedure that I shall make in doing so. I rise to support the remarks that have been so ably made by my noble friend who has just preceded me. I understand that it is the policy of the Government to make 1930 a Territorial year, that is to say a year in which the training of the Regular Army is as far as possible to be subordinated to giving every assistance to the Territorial Army, and it seems almost ironical, and in a large measure discouraging, to find that the first manifestation of that policy is to be a reduction in the number of men who can best help the Territorial Army.
I think it is generally agreed that there are two methods by which the Regular Army can best help its sister force. One method is by attaching for a specified time a certain number of expert officers and non-commissioned officers, for instance, during camp. That is one method, and although in theory I think it is a good one, the result you usually get is that the Regular officers come full of knowledge and enthusiasm and only too conscious of the very short time they have to impart it; and, on the other hand, the Territorial officers feel that they are amateurs in the presence of professionals. They are diffident and shy, and if you get many Regular instructors they feel

1041
that perhaps they are best out of it, and that they are being a little swamped by the Regular element. It is not intended, but it is so in practice. And for about the first week there is a considerable element of shyness and stiffness, which militates against any beneficial result being got in a time that is already too short.
The alternative method is that you should attach a permanent staff, with the accent on the word "permanent," that they should be attached to the unit, that they should in many cases wear the uniform of the unit to which they are attached, and that they should assimilate the Territorial point of view. If an instructor comes to a battalion and confines himself to carrying out his official drills, he is not doing half his job. But, if he takes part in the local life, if he gets up local shooting matches, local boxing contests, runs concerts, in fact, takes a living part in the corporate life of the community to which he is attached, then he will find that any trouble or enthusiasm that he has spent will be repaid abundantly in the loyalty and support he will obtain from the Territorials. To do that it is essential that permanent staff instructors should have the time to spare.
I should like your Lordships not to think in terms of the Home Counties, but in terms of the British Isles; and I should like to quote a few instances of a battalion recruited in the Western Highlands to show how under present conditions the permanent staff are diminished to the minimum. In one company the permanent staff instructor has to go forty-five miles from the company headquarters to an outlying station; that is to say he has to go forty-five miles out and forty-five miles back to do a drill. And he has to do this in winter conditions in the Highlands, when it may be raining and blowing and almost impossible to ride on a motor bicycle. The actual road along which he goes I know myself, and it is so dangerous that there are constantly accidents to motor cars. It runs along the side of a loch, and in November it is hardly passable. Another half company is on an island and to get there from its own company headquarters the instructor would have to go ten miles by land, then five hours by boat. And it is five hours under favourable conditions. The last time the commanding officer
1042
went to visit that company he was held up for three days before the boat could go. When he gets to the island he has stations scattered anything from five to twenty miles to visit. It is perfectly impossible for one man to do what the two men can barely do now. I could quote further instances. In another company the instructor has to go fifty miles over a road that is generally so impassable that he usually prefers to go by boat. In consequence, to take a drill of one hour he has to travel forty-eight hours, most of it being by boat.
I bring these facts to your Lordships' notice because conditions in the West Highlands are so different and in order to show that the taxpayers' money is not being wasted upon permanent staff instructors who have nothing to do and who can be diminished. As a matter of fact, they are already less than is reasonably necessary to carry on, and the reason that they have been able to achieve good results in spite of that small permanent staff is that there still remains a large number of Territorial non-commissioned officers with War-time service who, out of loyalty to the detachment, have themselves formed an unpaid corps of instructors. One may say that, from the taxpayers' point of view, perhaps it would be better not to recruit these men, but these men are the very salt of the earth. They were the very finest type of men and formed the spearhead of the Highland Division in the War. They are men whose fathers are stalkers, some of them sea-faring men, who live in the open-air and are out-door active men. They are the finest men in the Territorial Army.
In the War they formed the spearhead of the Fifty-first (Highland) Division, but in peace time they have an equally good record to show. I will give the instance of the battalion I know so well. In the last two or three years this battalion has won the Lewis Gun Cup open to all battalions of the Territorial Army, won the Vickers Gun Cup open to every battalion in the Territorial Army, won the Imperial Tobacco Company Challenge Cup open to every battalion in the Army, and this year has won the Lord Lieutenant's Challenge Shield open to every battalion in the Territorial Army. In addition two years ago a detachment of this battalion

1043
went to Bisley for rifle shooting. When there they thought they would like to enter for machine gun shooting and, in that competition, they beat every Territorial battalion there and every Regular and Territorial battalion combined except the one of the School of Musketry. They are men who are imbued with loyalty to their country and their battalion, recruited from father to son over many generations.
I am sure it would be far from your Lordships' wish that these men should be discarded by a very false economy. Sometimes one feels a little disheartened and wonders whether, for some high strategic motive, efforts are being made to see just at what point of the load the Territorial camel's back will break. If this year is to be a year of encouragement to the Territorial Army, so far from reducing the men who can best help them, I submit that it would be a good thing to encourage the best men to go to the permanent staff of the Territorial Army. If ever war comes again it is obvious that any commander for one Regular soldier will have half-a-dozen embodied civilians. From that point of view it is all to the good that the more experience of Territorial soldiering the Regular non-commissioned officers can obtain the better it is in war. I will detain your Lordships no longer except to express the hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the very mistaken policy of reducing the men who can best help the Territorial Army. I understand that the policy of the Government is to encourage the Territorial Army and that they are friendly to it and support it. I accept that in all good faith; it has been stated in another place and I believe it. But, if it were not so, if it were the policy of the Government to discourage the Territorial Army and to diminish its military efficiency, then they could not have selected a more effective method of achieving their object than by reducing the number of permanent staff instructors, the very backbone of the civilian force, who stand there ready to give as unsparingly and unhesitatingly in the future as in the past the best that lies within them.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I only want to press one matter on the noble Earl which arises from the remarks of the noble Earl who has just sat down and whom we hope we shall hear again
1044
on many future occasions. I would remind him that, at the time when the Imperial Yeomanry were raised in 1900 and 1901, it was found that the staff necessary and the allowances necessary for the Highlands were different from those of the ordinary concentrated yeomanry regiments in the South. Whatever reply he intends to make to the speech of my noble friend below me, will the noble Earl keep his mind open with regard to the Scottish regiments and the regiments which have great difficulties of distance to contend with? I assure him it is absolutely impossible to deal with both on the same lines. If there are reductions in both classes of regiments they will have serious results to the Territorial Army in Scotland and to those who, as the noble Lord has said, not only form the backbone of the Territorial Force but are a most valuable source of recruitment for the Army.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would like to express the hope that the noble Earl in his reply will be able to tell us how much is saved by this measure. I should be rather surprised, if he answers that question, if we find that it is a matter of any considerable extent. I sympathise with the noble Earl very sincerely in his efforts to keep the expenditure down. I have been in the same position that he is in now for some time, and I have had to bear the shafts and arrows slung at me from various sources, either for not reducing enough or for reducing too much. I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend who raised this matter that, however greatly we may support economy, this is one of those economies which is really a false economy.
I am only going to press one particular point on your Lordships which I would have dealt with at greater length the other day only that I knew this matter was coming up for discussion. My noble friend tells your Lordships that this reduction of staff will mean that the sergeant major will have to undertake the cleaning of rifles, the looking after kits which have gone astray and things of that kind. That means that the duties of storekeeper and looking after all the war-like stores of the battalion will have to be performed just the same, but the people who have to perform them will be fewer in number. What will be the re-

1045
sult? Either training will suffer or the stores will suffer. As I said the other day, I am rather afraid that there is a tendency in many quarters to think that you can safely make reductions in the storekeepers. I do not agree, and when the noble Earl has had an opportunity of going round and visiting a number of the headquarters I think he will find that it is desirable to get more care of the perishable stores. I remember myself going round Territorial headquarters and I found that the leather was in a very bad condition. Then take the technical corps—signals. They have very delicate instruments, which want looking after and are costly things to mend. I believe that by increasing the permanent technical storekeepers you would save money rather than waste it, and I hope that the noble Earl will take this into consideration before an actual decision on this matter is taken.
We had a very interesting speech just now from the noble Earl, Lord Breadalbane, and if I am permitted to do so, as I am succeeding him in speaking, I should like to congratulate him upon the great ability which he has shown in addressing your Lordships on a subject with which he is evidently well acquainted. I hope, as I am sure do all your Lordships, that we may have the advantage of his advice on this and kindred subjects in the future. He laid great stress upon the point of the scattered battalions, where the permanent staff have to go very long distances, and the fewer people you have the more these outlying places must suffer. It would be really false economy if you are going to reduce the outstations. That, however, is not the point on which I rose, and when the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, replies, I hope he will be able to give us some reassurance that the matter of the custody of stores will not be lost sight of.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, if I may be permitted to do so I would like to join with Lord Onslow in expressing what I am sure is the feeling of the House—namely, the pleasure we have all felt in hearing the speech of Lord Breadalbane. He spoke with real enthusiasm on the, subject, as indeed did Lord Templemore, and it must make all of us who are in any way responsible
1046
for the Territorial Army feel what a heavy responsibility we have got in administering a concern such as this built up, as it is, mainly upon voluntary effort. I hope in the course of the few remarks which I am going to make to be able to convince noble Lords that what we are doing in this scheme for the re-organisation of the permanent staff instructors of the Territorial Army will not in any way affect the efficiency of the Army.
As Lord Templemore is quite aware, we have periodically a revision of the establishment of permanent staff instructors with Territorial Army units. The last revision took place in December, 1929, and on that occasion, of course, we had to take into account the re-organisation of infantry battalions which had come about as a result of the introduction of a machine-gun company. On the basis of well-established practice and with full regard to the needs of training and administration, a scale of instructors was arrived at with the agreement of all the military authorities concerned. This scale was drawn up to codify the conditions under which the permanent staff have been allotted, and it represents no departure from old established principle, nor was it done solely from the point of view of economy. I want to make this point clear to the noble Lord, that the subject was discussed originally purely from the point of view of principle and it was not until later, when we came to work out how the scheme would actually apply in practice, that anybody had the slightest idea that it was going to bring amount this number of reductions. In applying this scale it was found that in fifty-three battalions reductions amounting to sixty-seven permanent staff instructors would have to be made, and that in eight battalions there would have to be an increase of one instructor each. In every case local conditions were considered and in every case Divisions and Commands were fully consulted.
The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, mentioned I think the fact that he wished it could have been discussed at conferences such as had been held the year before. I would stress the point that in every case Divisions and Commands were fully consulted. In some cases motor cycles will be provided in order to enable instructors to cover a wider area,

1047
and in other cases where whole time instructors are not considered to be justifiable, part-time instructors are being provided.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: They have been refused.
EARL DE LA WARR: They have been refused in some cases, but they will be provided where we are convinced that there is a strong case for them. The review is not complete, and it will have to be extended to all branches of the Territorial Army other than the infantry. But we have realised that this reorganisation will result in rather more reductions than we anticipated, and in order to avoid hardship which might come about from carrying out the reductions too quickly, we have undertaken not to introduce them until October 1, after the summer. This delay will give units time to settle down to the new basis of organisation and to adjust the new scale of instructors before next winter. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has suggested that the reorganisation will entail a reduction of drill nights and the eventual closing down of certain out-stations. That is not our opinion. We think that the noble Lord is being very pessimistic. I feel sure that units will do everything in their power to co-operate with us to make this scheme workable and will endeavour to employ their instructors to the best advantage. If—and this, perhaps, strictly applies to the remarks of the noble Lord—any really exceptional and special difficulties are found to be operating in some particularly scattered districts, the Army council will, of course, endeavour to make suitable adjustments. But I want it to be clear that this is not in any way an invitation to all units to put in for reconsideration, because we intend to adhere, and adhere very strongly, to this new scale. At the same time, our desire is to be reasonable and to consider any special local circumstances that may arise.
The noble Lord has referred to certain extra duties that the permanent staff instructors will have to perform.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The sergeant-major especially.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think he rather gives his case away. He mentioned particularly the cleaning of rifles, I
1048
think. That example really supplies us with one of the reasons why difficulties arise in connection with the permanent staff. It is clearly laid down in paragraph 245 of the Territorial Army Regulations that the duties of the permanent staff are those of instructing the officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the unit and supervising the instruction given by the officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers to the men. The Regulation goes on to say that in certain cases it may be necessary for instructors to undertake also the elementary training of recruits before they join their squadron, battery or company, but so far as possible this should be carried out by the unit. We know, in fact, that permanent staff instructors are being used at the moment for the training of recruits to an extent that goes very far beyond the intention of this Regulation. I would suggest to the noble Lord that before complaining of the shortage of instructors under the new scale all units, his own included, should be sure that this does not arise from employing them on duties which ought to be carried out by Territorial Army warrant officers or non-commissioned officers. That consideration applies also to the point of cleaning rifles which I have mentioned. I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, also mentioned harness and other things.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: In paragraph 246 of the Regulations it is clearly stated that instructors will not be required to clean arms, and so on, but that as it is essential that men should have a thorough knowledge of such duties in case they are called upon to undertake them in the field, they should carry out the duties of cleaning their own arms and harness. If they cannot do that, other arrangements must be made by the county association, but preferably—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not mean exactly the actual cleaning but the keeping of stocks. When you have valuable stores which have to be kept they are apt to deteriorate unless they are very carefully looked after.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think in general the noble Earl admits that it is primarily desirable that the men should be able to look after their own and should do so.

1049
If the men are not there sufficiently often, and they go only two or three times a week, to look after them, and they have to be looked after every day, I think it is obviously better and cheaper that special arrangements should be made by the county association for the cleaning of that equipment rather than that skilled men such as these permanent staff instructors should be used for the purpose. That is certainly the opinion of the military authorities at the War Office. Therefore, for these reasons I cannot really offer any hope to the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, that we can go back on these decisions. They were only come to after very long consideration by all the authorities concerned, not only at the War Office but in the districts, and they were decided on after full consideration of all training requirements and with full regard to the interests of the Territorial Army. The noble Lord has mentioned his unit as having come off particularly unfortunately.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I did mention my unit particularly, but I did say it was typical of others throughout the country.
EARL DE LA WARR: That makes, I think, what I was going to say more valuable. I was only going to put this as an addendum to show how we have considered local circumstances. Actually if we adhered strictly to the scheme as laid down, the noble Lord's unit would only have had three instructors and not four.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: That is not in accordance with your schedule.
EARL DE LA WARR: In accordance with the schedule I think Bitterne is within five miles of Southampton, and therefore there should really be only one instructor, so that the noble Lord's point shows that we have considered the particular local circumstances, and given him very favourable consideration. It also shows we are prepared to consider all local circumstances generally, and to make the scheme as workable as possible. There is only one further word I should like to add if your Lordships will allow me. It is a point which does not really concern this Motion, but it has to do with the Territorial Army, and I would be very obliged if the Press would give
1050
this as much publicity as possible. Certain statements have appeared to the effect that we are considering at the War Office a reduction of the camping period from fifteen days to eight days. I should like to state very definitely that there is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion, and I hope it will be made quite clear.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I was very gratified to hear the last statement made by the noble Earl, because I must frankly say it was to me the most interesting and the most comforting sentence he has used during the whole of his speech. I gather from his speech that he is not very well satisfied with this new arrangement. It was a long apology. He hoped that it would not work out quite as badly as my noble friend behind me suggested. I was not particularly impressed either by the profound sagacity of the scheme, because he admitted its results were bound to work out in far more reductions than had been expected by the authorities who devised it.
I am afraid I am not too much impressed by his confident statement that Divisions and Commands were consulted, and that they were thoroughly in sympathy with this reduction. I have spent three years at the War Office, and I have the greatest admiration for the professional soldier, but when reductions have to be made I very rarely found that the professional soldier thought these reductions ought to be made in the Regular Army; he thought rather that the Territorial Force was a far more suitable object on which to try ideas and schemes of economy. Is the noble Earl distressed at my statement? I am sorry if I have disturbed the equanimity of the noble Earl. Therefore, one would like to have known further, what was the exact question that was put to these Divisions and Commands. Were they told that some economy had to be devised, some reduction of money had to be secured? If they were, it was very natural, I think, that they should look upon the younger brother, upon the second line, and think that the economy must be derived from that Force rather than from the Regular Army.
Although I listened with great interest and care to the statement of the noble Earl, I did not discover that he had

1051
made any answer to the challenge of my noble friend Lord Onslow, who asked him what money economy was to be obtained by these remarkable reductions. It is very difficult for the House to judge of reductions unless one knows what money is going to be saved. If it is £1,000 or £10,000, the economy may be so small that you may well say the injury that is done to the Force in other ways is such that the economy is hardly worth making. I am in favour of economies, but I think it is fair to know—and we are not told by the noble Earl—what is the economy in money that is to be made out of this scheme? Sometimes these well-intended schemes of economy result in further expenditure, and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has suggested that further clerks may have to be paid in order to do work which has been done by these non-commissioned officers.
Although the noble Earl has, in the conventional phrase, held out to us the statement that this scheme cannot be reconsidered, I do hope that the Government will take into account the objections that have been impressed upon them both in this House and in the other House. I am not so closely connected with the Territorial Force as I used to be, although I am at present a member of a Territorial Association. But I was very largely responsible at the War Office for the reconstruction of the Territorial Force after the War. We at that time went most carefully and particularly into the question of the necessary staff that ought to be used, and I am bound to say my own impression is not that the staff is too large but rather that it is far too small, and that it would be better if the Territorial Force were to be further strengthened by an addition of selected non-commissioned officers from the Army rather than by their reduction.
Noble Lords must not forget—I am sure it is in their minds—the tremendous change that has taken place in the whole position of the Territorial Force since the War. Many of us remember what it was before the War and the responsibilities we then had. The responsibilities, of course, have been enormously increased, and now the Territorial Force has been recognised by successive Ministers of War as the second line of the Army. If you have that Force recognised as the second line of the Army, I
1052
am bound to say it would require a great deal to persuade me that it was worth while in any way threatening its efficiency for the sake of what is apparently a very small money saving by the reduction of these non-commissioned officers.
We all remember what happened at the beginning of the War. The Territorial Force and its associations were to some extent thrown over, and a new force was raised which in many cases competed with the Territorial Force. That has gone by, and it has been laid down again by a succession of War Ministers that if war did unfortunately arise the Territorial Force, through the Territorial Associations, is to be the basis on which the whole of the new Armies would have to be raised. In that case surely it is necessary that the nucleus which you have now—and it is a comparatively small nucleus as we all know—should not be impaired in its efficiency. I trust that the noble Earl and his friends will consider again whether this very small financial reduction is worth the considerable risks they may be running, and whether perhaps in some other direction they might not secure the economy which they desire, rather than obtain it at the expense of the Territorial Force.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, after the remarks of my noble friend there is really very little left for me to say in winding up this debate. I can honestly state that I am not in the slightest degree satisfied with the answer which has been given to me by the noble Earl. It is all very well to say that this was considered by the War Office who had the local circumstances in, front of them. They cannot know the local circumstances in the same way as the commanding officer and the battalion staff know them. It is quite impossible. The noble Earl says that Bitterne is five miles from Southampton. That may be. I do not know how far it is. But that is not the point. I invite the noble Earl to come to see me in Hampshire. I will put him up for the night, and I will take him round and he can see things for himself. That is a fair offer and I hope he will accept it during the Easter holidays. I shall be very glad to see him. The noble Earl, I gathered, found fault with the way in which non-commissioned officers were employed. He said they were employed on duties that they should not do.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am making no charges against particular units.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It sounded very like it. I would like to tell the noble Earl that I know exactly what my non-commissioned officers are doing. My Adjutant reports to me at intervals whether I am in Hampshire or here, and I know that not any of them are employed on duties that they ought not to be doing. As regards the Territorial personnel cleaning rifles, which the noble Earl said they ought to do, of course they ought to do it, but in this imperfect world people cannot always do what they ought to do. They are not always available. But things have to be kept in order and it means sometimes that the permanent staff have to do them. The noble Earl said he hoped units would do all in their power to help. Of course we shall, and the noble Earl knows the British officer and man well enough to know that, of course, they will do it. I do again urge the noble Earl to reconsider this matter—to reconsider it with more regard to the views of commanding officers on local conditions than has yet been done. I object to this very strongly, and I think it is a bad move as regards the training of the Territorial Army. It is putting too much work on the permanent staff of instructors who remain. In fact, I think it is bad in every way. I should very much like to take a Division on this in order to show my dissatisfaction with the answer of the War Office, but I do not wish to put your Lordships to the inconvenience of a Division which, after all, would have no practical value. I therefore respectfully beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

REDECORATION OF THE ROYAL GALLERY.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON had given Notice to ask if it is intended to take any action with reference to the redecoration of the Royal Gallery in view of the Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices of 6th March, 1930.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Newton, rises to put the Question standing in his name, I desire to tell him that on Thursday next the Chairman of Committees, who unfortunately cannot be here to-day, will move the consideration of the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices. That Report raises directly the whole question.
EARL PEEL: Is that next Thursday?
LORD PARMOOR: To-morrow week. That raises the point which the noble Lord desires to deal with, and it will provide an occasion for answering his Question "if it is intended to take any action with reference to the redecoration of the Royal Gallery in view of the Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices of 6th March, 1930." That is the very Report which the Chairman of Committees desires to bring before your Lordships on Thursday of next week. I have ascertained after speaking to the noble Lord that he might be prepared to accede to the suggestion—and there are other noble Lords who also have been consulted—that the matter might be conveniently dealt with next week.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I dislike very much agreeing to these alterations, because there is already a great deal too much uncertainty about the way in which the business of this House is carried on. Noble Lords are frequently brought here on what I can only term false pretences, imagining that a particular Motion is going to be moved and nothing comes of it. However, I cannot resist an appeal coming from such a quarter, and if it is the general wish of the House I am quite prepared to withdraw now on the understanding that the debate will really take place on Thursday next week.
LORD PARMOOR: I think we are all much obliged to the noble Lord and I hope he will not be caused any inconvenience.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.