Lords Sitting of 11 July 1940

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

POSITION IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can make any statement on matters arising from the present situation in the Eastern Mediterranean.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I am very glad to give such information as I can and, although the noble Viscount's question is couched in wide terms, I dare say that what he and other members of your Lordships' House will have especially in mind is the situation in the two countries with whom we have particular Treaty relations—namely, Egypt and Turkey, and my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has asked me also to say a word about Palestine.
It will be remembered that the Egyptian Government did not declare war on Germany in September last, but broke off diplomatic and commercial relations and in consultation with His Majesty's Government took all the other measures which had been foreseen as necessary under the Treaty of Alliance. When war was declared by Italy on the Allies the Egyptian Government followed a similar course, although the circumstances were different, since the Mediterranean now became a war zone and Italian possessions border Egypt on the west and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan on the south-east. In view of remarks that have been spread by enemy propaganda I would wish to make it quite plain that since Italy entered the war His Majesty's Government have never pressed the Egyptian Government to declare war on her. It was however obvious that the British Forces in Egypt, which at the request of the Egyptian Government had been strongly reinforced, would conduct

887
operations against Italy from Egyptian territory. We intended to fulfil our obligation to defend Egypt, whose independence and vital interests were threatened by the Italian declaration of war on Great Britain, Egypt's Ally.
I am happy to say that the Egyptian people as a whole fully understand that their interests are indissolubly linked with ours, that they regard Italian promises and fair words with well-founded suspicion, and view with extreme detestation the possibility of Italian encroachment upon Egyptian or Sudanese soil. They remember only too well Italian actions in Libya, in Albania and in Abyssinia and have no illusions about the scope of totalitarian aspirations. There was a certain delay in the departure of the Italian Minister and his staff in Cairo and they and other enemy agents were insinuating that if Egypt would ignore her Treaty obligations she might avoid the worst consequences of Italian aggression.
In these circumstances many representative Egyptians held that at this fateful moment for Egypt, the interests of the Egyptian people demanded a stronger Government in order to demonstrate Egypt's determination to carry out to the full the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Alliance. Speeches in the Egyptian Parliament also showed that Egyptian public opinion was prepared for a stronger lead in giving effect to all measures of defence and internal security. His Majesty's Government felt entitled to intimate to their Ally that this was also their view, since the defence of Egypt devolves primarily upon us and we have very definite obligations under the Treaty. The King of Egypt shouldered his responsibilities and after consultation with his advisers invited Hassan Sabry Pasha to form a Government. We should have been happy if it had been found possible to associate with the new Government the Wafd Party, whose leader, Nahas Pasha, was Prime Minister when the Treaty of Alliance was signed in 1936, but in wartime Cabinet making is not always an easy matter and I am glad to say that our relations with the present Government are completely satisfactory.
I think that what has passed in relation to the French Fleet at Alexandria has in part been made public, but perhaps I
888
might say a word about that. By agreement between the British Naval Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, and the French Admiral in command of the French naval forces at Alexandria, the units of the French Fleet there have been "demilitarized" by landing certain portions of their armaments and by reducing the amount of fuel on board to that required for harbour purposes only. The crews are being reduced to those required for care and maintenance only. The balance of the crews are being sent to Syria and later to France, as arranged by the French authorities. His Majesty's Government have undertaken to provide supplies and pay for the men left in charge of the ships and to ensure their return to France, after the war.
With regard to Palestine I am glad to be able to say that according to recent reports the situation in Palestine remains quiet and that, apart from isolated acts of banditry, the country is now enjoying a respite from internal disorder. General satisfaction has been evoked in Arab circles by the High Commissioner's recent announcement that in view of the improvement in security conditions Military Courts would in future no longer have power to inflict the death sentence, and that offences committed during the disturbances of the past three years would in future be tried not by the Military Courts but by the ordinary civil tribunals. The release from internment of a large number of Arabs has also been received with appreciation. One effect of the entry of Italy into the war has been to strengthen pro-British sentiment in all sections of the community. The illicit Jewish broadcasting station has closed down voluntarily after exhorting all Jews to assist the Allies against the common enemy; and the Jewish community as a whole is co-operating fully in matters of defence and in the various emergency measures which the present situation demands. The co-operation of the Arabs, who would view with abhorrence the prospect of the application in Palestine of Italy's method of colonisation in Libya, is no less whole-hearted. I am told that economic prospects, especially the position of the citrus industry, give some cause for anxiety, but the situation is relieved to some extent by the demand for goods and labour arising from the presence in the country of a large number of troops.

889
Finally, as regards Turkey we remain bound to Turkey by the closest ties. It will be remembered that on the entry of Italy into the war the Turkish Prime Minister declared that Turkey would maintain her present attitude of non-belligerency. His Majesty's Government fully appreciated the circumstances which led to this decision of the Turkish Government, who throughout have kept in close contact with His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile our Treaty with Turkey stands, as does the friendship and sympathy between our two peoples on which the Treaty is based, and which has rendered it in the past, as it also will in the future, a fruitful basis for constructive co-operation between us, both as long as the war continues and in the years of peace to come.
Meanwhile your Lordships may have observed that the Germans are actively engaged in stirring up unwarranted suspicions and alarms wherever they can in the Balkans and the Near East in the hope of making these countries the dupes of German policy. But, as I have tried to indicate, I hope and believe that the peoples of that region, some of whom are not without experience of the methods of the States ranged against us, will not be deceived and will remain steadfast in their loyalty to those principles for which we are fighting. I am encouraged to think that we are showing ourselves to be capable of affording assistance and protection to our friends and Allies in that part of the world. We shall certainly, I need not add, maintain our effort. We shall prosecute the war with the utmost vigour, being confident in the ultimate success of our arms.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Viscount for his extremely important statement.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL.
4.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I wish to move the Third Reading of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill. This is a Private Bill which was promoted by the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Gas Company to enable it to acquire another undertaking to extend the limit of its supply and to erect an additional gasholder considered necessary for its
890
work. It was introduced in another place and it was there petitioned against by the Newcastle Corporation and by some small property owners. It was passed with some Amendments and it came to this House, went through the First and Second Readings and was referred in the usual manner to a Select Committee presided over by Lord Carnock. The opposition was renewed, but the Bill, with a further Amendment accepted by the Corporation, was passed by the Select Committee and now comes to your Lordships' House for Third Reading.
I understand that Lord Rankeillour is to move that the Bill be re-committed to a new Select Committee. He tells me, however, that he does not propose to go into the merits of the Bill at this stage. Accordingly, I shall not say anything on the merits of the Bill at present, but will reserve my right to speak, if necessary, on the new Motion. I may say that I have no connection with either the Gas Company or the Corporation, but I am connected with the gas industry and it is on behalf of the National Gas Council of Great Britain that I am voicing these views. It may, perhaps, be of some use to those of your Lordships who do not usually sit on Select Committees, if I recall what the procedure is. All the other stages, except the Committee stage, in this House are purely formal. A Private Bill of this nature, after it has passed its First and Second Readings, goes before a Select Committee made up of five noble Lords with a Chairman selected by the Committee of Selection. They are the body who deal with the real examination of the Bill. They hear counsel and witnesses, they read the documents put in, and they do all the things we cannot do on the floor of this House. When they have reported to the House it is almost the invariable practice for the Bill to proceed. Very considerable expense has already been incurred and, if the Bill is re-committed, that expense would have to be incurred again, and as your Lordships will remember expenses of public bodies are found by the ratepayers and, in the last resort, by the consumers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Viscount Mersey.)
4.16 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR, who had given notice that, on the Motion for the Third

891
Reading, he would move, that the Bill be re-committed, said: My Lords, I feel constrained to intervene on this Bill because its recent history involves matters of principle and precedent with which the House, as a whole, is concerned. I have no local interest or any personal interest whatever in the matter in dispute, and I imagine that I was appealed to on this question largely on account of my being familiar with questions of this kind as Chairman in another place. When, however, I went into it, I came to the conclusion that there had been, in the course of the examination by the Committee, serious departures, I shall not say from the procedure, but from the practice of this House, with which your Lordships, as a whole, ought to be acquainted.
On the face of it, the matter is of no great national or general interest. It is the kind of question that might arise at any time. On the one hand, the Gas Company wish to have a new holder—not for gas-making but purely for holding gas—and, in the other hand, the proposal is opposed by the Corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne on the ground of its interfering with their town-planning arrangements and by a number, amounting to 200, of residents in the neighbourhood, 91 of whom are owner-occupiers. The Bill, as the noble Viscount has said, was not opposed on Second Reading, and was committed to a Select Committee, which met for the first time on June 18. They met at a moment of extreme general national tension—a tension which inevitably, and very naturally, could not be excluded from the Committee room. It became clear that the Committee were working under very difficult circumstances, and that they felt that it was very difficult to give attention to matters of this relatively small importance in those circumstances. I might illustrate the position by quoting one or two observations that fell from the Chairman at that time. First of all the Chairman said:
"Counsel will, I hope, keep this as short as they possibly can. The Committee are all anxious about other subjects."
The learned counsel for the promoters no doubt was much shorter than he would normally have been, but still he took up fourteen and a half columns of the Report, and his principal witness took up fourteen more, so that it cannot be said
892
he was in any way debarred from putting his case fully before the Committee.
But, as the hearing went on, it became clear that the Committee tried to effect an agreement, and put on, if I may say so, some degree of pressure that an agreement should be come to. The Chairman, for instance, said:
"…I must own I am very surprised that this case should be fought out now at this crisis. For all we know, Newcastle may not exist in a week's time."
And, at the end of the proceedings, he said:
"I feel, and I am sure their other Lordships agree with me, that at this time of terrible national crisis we ought not to be here in this room discussing a gasometer."
That argument from the crisis and the resultant tension surely cuts both ways. If they ought not to hear the opposition, why should they trouble themselves about this gasholder at all? The gasholder was not a matter of prime necessity. It was not in any sense a matter of importance, and, furthermore, it was extremely doubtful whether it could be constructed for a long time to come, because it was to consist largely of steel, and it was very doubtful whether the company could get the steel for a considerable time as it obviously had no priority. With regard to the question that they ought not to be discussing the matter in that room, well, the primary cause of their being in that room was not the opposition but it was the promotion of the Bill.
At the end of these proceedings a certain offer was made to the opposition, but it did not touch the real merits of the case. It only mitigated the apprehensions which were felt by the Corporation and the residents, and it was impossible for counsel for the opposition at that time to give an answer. Next day, when the Committee met, he stated that his clients could not accept the offer because they objected to the whole site where the gasholder was to be, and they were not disposed to accept this mitigation of the threat to their amenities on that account. In the course of conversation before the room was cleared the Chairman again addressed counsel for the opposition and said:
"…what we feel is this, that unless you have got some evidence different from and of more importance than that which you had before the Committee of the other House, although of course we must listen to you, you will not have the sympathy of this Committee."

893
I cannot help thinking that was an unfortunate observation. As I understand the work of both Houses, they are not in either case a Court of Appeal from the other House which has only to consider questions of principle and has to be satisfied with the evidence taken in the other place. They have to consider the question on its merits and de novo, coming to their own decision on what they hear, and not from what they infer from what they have read as happening elsewhere.
Later the Chairman said more. Addressing counsel for the opposition he said:
"…the Committee dislike the opposition to this Bill, and I am going to clear the room for a minute to discuss what decision we are coming to."
Later the Chairman said that they could not adjourn and tie up the whole question, as had been suggested, but they would be willing to go on in spite of what they had said that they disliked the opposition, and they would hear the opponents' case. Now that put counsel for the opposition in a very serious and awkward dilemma. They had been told that the Committee ought not to be considering the question at all. They had been told the Committee disliked the opposition, and it was quite clear to them that they could not hope to prevail. But not only that, it might well be that if they had fought and stated their case to the end, they would have been liable to have an order for costs of both parties made against their clients; and in view of that, leading counsel said that:
"We feel that the whole matter is so unreal after what has happened, that we have no alternative but simply to accept, even now, the offer and go away."
Of course I cannot say whether an order for costs would have been made against them, but that they could not have prevailed is, I think, perfectly clear from what fell from the Chair. It was said:
"We really think (I am going to tell you this now) that the promoters have made out their case…Naturally we are quite prepared to hear you to the bitter end, but-still that was the general feeling."
In those circumstances, I submit counsel could not possibly have gone on with the risk of bringing a great expense upon his clients. I have said that I would not argue the merits of the case. I do not argue them. Very possibly the decision that the gasholder should proceed may have been right. That does not affect me, but what does affect me is
894
that the Committee practically decided to ignore an opposition which they had not heard. I do not speak of what the effect of the gasholder would be, but what I do say is that a number of people, 200 small residents, 91 being owner-occupiers of property, were left with the impression that their case had not been heard and that justice had not been done to them. That is the gravamen of the matter, and it involves a reflection, if it is allowed to pass into a precedent, on the procedure in your Lordships' House. Therefore I ask and move that the Bill be recommitted. There are precedents for this. There was a precedent in Lord Morley's time, and there has been a much more recent precedent in another place, the Gas Light and Coke Bill in the Session of 1935–36. That is the precedent and that I suggest is the proper course for your Lordships to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out nil words after ("be") and insert ("re-committed").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
4.29 p.m.
LORD CARNOCK: My Lords, I was the Chairman of the Committee of your Lordships' House which dealt with this Bill. I want to say before I go into it, very shortly, three things. First of all, I have no interest whatsoever in any gas companies, or Newcastle. I have only seen it from the train. I therefore went into the Committee absolutely unbiased. I also wish to say that your Lordships' Committee were in no way influenced whatever by the decision that had been taken before a Committee of the other House. Of course we were quite aware what that decision was, although we were not influenced by it. The third thing I want to say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is that we never contemplated making an order for costs against the opponents of the Bill. It never entered our minds for one moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, has given you roughly the facts of the Bill. It seemed to us that it was rather like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning that we should be discussing a thing which was of no vital importance at that moment. Whether the thing would ever have come to completion I do not know. We do not know what the general situation, or the situation in Newcastle, will be after the war. I do not deny that I

895
spoke strongly—probably too strongly—when I expressed what I believe to have been the feeling of the whole of the Committee. I felt, and I still feel, that in the stress of the present crisis, when such vital questions are at stake and when the enemy are at our very gates, the opponent and promoters of the Bill should have been able to settle the matter between themselves. It cost money and the time of counsel, of solicitors and of witnesses who had to be brought down from Newcastle, all to discuss a thing that may never come to pass. That is why I adjourned the Committee in the first instance. I begged the parties to try to come to a satisfactory conclusion and I adjourned for the whole day in order to give everybody time to discuss the matter.
The offer made by the promoters before I adjourned was about the height of the new gasholder. I may mention that when the Bill left the other House the height was fixed at 175 feet. The promoters stated before us that at an expense of £15,000, by digging a deeper trench, they would lower the height to in feet. I thought that was a very generous offer. It was to cost the gas undertakers £15,000, and I frankly told the opponents of the Bill that I thought it was a very generous offer and that in my opinion they should accept it. I may go further and tell your Lordships that I have a very strong impression that the line which divides the two parties is not so wide as it is made to appear and that there was a possible point at which they might have come to an agreement. However that may be, and however strongly I may have spoken, I wish to emphasize this fact, that I never closed the door to a continuance of the opposition.
The noble Lord read out what I said. I always said we were prepared to listen. Counsel for the opponents were still, and always were, at liberty to insist on being heard, however hopeless they may have thought it. If they felt that I spoke too strongly it must not be forgotten that we were sitting in very abnormal circumstances when the discussion of what was to happen in the future in Newcastle seemed to me—and I know to other members of the Committee—almost a waste of time. I may as well say that some of the members of the Committee
896
were engaged in work of very great national importance, and that it was essential that they should be attending to those duties and not sitting in a Committee room of your Lordships' House. At the same time I am glad of this opportunity of pointing out something which I think has not been sufficiently realised, that counsel themselves offered rather hurriedly to withdraw their opposition. Moreover, when counsel for the opponents, though refusing to continue with their case, accepted the generous offer made by the promoters—this very costly concession—their attitude might have been more consistent if they had refused to accept any compromise at all. But they accepted the compromise. Now they are objecting and want the whole case brought up again. That is all I say. I say nothing about the merits of the Bill. We did not go to see the site, but we were shown photographs and plans. Newcastle is not a garden suburb and the gasometer is alongside the railway. I leave the matter in your Lordships' hands.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, as I was a member of the Committee I should like to say a few words on this matter. I have only been in your Lordships' House for a short time and this is the first time that I have addressed you. Your Lordships, I am sure, will realise that I should not go out of my way to choose the occasion of the discussion of a rather technical and dry subject of this kind to make my first speech, but if I have any modesty left after twenty-four years' political life in another place I have enough left to lead me to think that I may be able to help those of your Lordships who were not members of the Committee in coming to a right conclusion on the question of re-committing this Bill. If I can say so without disrespect, I think a certain amount of what has been said already this afternoon is rather beside the point. I think the only real point is that our Chairman, after the room had been cleared and the parties had come back, said quite distinctly:
"Yes, Mr. Craig Henderson and Mr. Turner, I understand that we should be creating a very unusual precedent if we adjourn. Therefore we will ask to hear the opponents' case."
That was followed by the learned leading counsel for the petitioners saying:—

897
"If that be the decision.…we feel that the whole matter is so unreal.…that we have no alternative but to accept, even now, the offer and go away."
Your Lordships, and even perhaps some members of the Committee, may think that some things might have been done or said differently, but there is no question that the ultimate decision not to proceed with the case was taken by-learned counsel instructed for the petitioners.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? It was taken in view of the very distinct intimation made to him both on the previous day and on that day.
LORD BELSTEAD: That is, of course, undoubtedly true, and we were all impressed by the studied moderation with which the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, moved his Motion. But the Chairman was not alone in his opinion. I have preserved a very rough note which I passed to the Chairman before the room was cleared. Like a good many notes of this kind that may be brought forward in evidence it may cut both ways, but with your Lordships' permission I will read it:
"If you feel that this hearing ought to be adjourned owing to the war circumstances I am with you, but think we ought to consult the Clerk on this point. If, how-over, you consider the promoters' case reasonable and that the petitioners' appear to be worthless I entirely agree so far, but think we simply must hear the petitioners."
That was our view at the time. Although my experience in your Lordships' House is very short I took great interest in Private Bill legislation in another place for eighteen years, sitting on Committees as Chairman and for a long time as; Senior Chairman. I think it would be most undesirable, if I may say so respectfully, that noble Lords who were not present and cannot be seized of the whole circumstances, the evidence and the atmosphere, should now support a Motion to recommit a Bill which has been examined by a Committee selected from the membership of your Lordships' House.
4.40 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I also was a member of this Committee. I have sat on Private Bill Committees for thirty years now and it has always seemed to me that it is impossible to draw an exact line as to whether a Committee
898
should or should not hear evidence. The question has arisen over and over again in the proceedings of Committees on which I have sat. Sometimes the most drastic measures have been taken to stop evidence, and I have always understood that your Lordships gave the Committee to whom you had referred the Bill a large amount of discretion in this matter. In my considered opinion that discretion was not overstepped.
4.41 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I think perhaps you will expect me to say a few words on this matter, but they will be a very few words, because while the Committee was sitting I was so unfortunate as to be absent from your Lordships' House, and I have, therefore, only the records upon which to base such an opinion as I may have been able to form. Noble Lords who have spoken before me have put before your Lordships the case and the circumstances as they arose, and therefore I will say a very few words on that point. It appears to me—and I speak subject to correction—that after the opening speech for the promoters and part of the first witness's evidence, the Chairman strongly indicated—I think he has intimated to your Lordships that he spoke strongly—that the Committee considered that the parties ought to come to an agreement, and he therefore adjourned the Committee till the following day in the hope of such an agreement being reached; but next morning it was found that this had not been possible.
Then the hearing continued for a short time, after which the Chairman again intervened and said that the Committee wished to hear no more evidence from the promoters, and that though, of course, they would hear the opponents' case, they were against the opposition and it would take strong evidence to alter their point of view. As the result of these remarks, counsel for the opposition said that in view of the attitude of the Committee they would take no further part in the proceedings but would accept the offer made by the promoters to lower the height of the gasholder to no feet. Then the proceedings closed and the Bill was reported with that Amendment. The owners and occupiers of the houses then decided to bring the matter before your

899
Lordships' House with a view to your Lordships considering the re-committal of the Bill.
With the information at my disposal, and after reading the evidence—the papers and notes—very carefully, I confess I agree that my noble friend expressed himself, shall I say, perhaps rather more strongly than possibly is usual in Committees of your Lordships' House. But it appears to me, if I may say so with great respect, that counsel for the opponents were also precipitate in refusing to continue their opposition. Whatever the feeling of the Committee may have been, whatever my noble friend may have said, the door to the opposition was not closed; and, as has been pointed out to your Lordships, I think, by every speaker, my noble friend made this perfectly clear.
Of course this matter is one entirely for your Lordships to decide. The criticism of the Committee is to the effect that my noble friend expressed the Committee's view rather too strongly before the arguments had been heard for the opposition. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Carnock made it clear that the Committee did not refuse to hear anything that the opponents might wish to say either by counsel or by means of witnesses. But Mr. Craig Henderson, who was counsel for the opponents, stated that he felt the whole matter was so unreal after what had happened that he had no alternative but to accept the offer—that is to say, no feet instead of 175 feet—and go away; and Mr. Keen, who was representing the owners and occupiers, supported the attitude he had taken up.
Your Lordships' House has always most carefully, and rightly so, insisted on maintaining the high reputation and confidence which Committees of your Lordships' House enjoy all over the country and among all local authorities in particular. If your Lordships consider that the action of the Committee or the language used by my noble friend was such as to prejudice the interests of the opponents your Lordships may think it is advisable to agree with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. On the other hand, in view of the fact that although it was more than once urged upon learned counsel that the Committee were ready
900
to hear them "to the bitter end," in the words of my noble friend Lord Carnock, yet they did not pursue their argument, your Lordships may perhaps in those circumstances consider that the matter may be left as it is. But it is a matter entirely for the decision of your Lordships whether you should accept the advice of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, or whether you should consider that, after the explanation that has been given by three members of the Committee, including the Chairman, the matter may be allowed to remain as it is.
4.46 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I am very sensible that this House, like the other House, always wishes if it can do so to support the decisions of its Committees. After the speech of the Lord Chairman, and seeing that no one else has supported the point of view I have taken up, I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division. Nevertheless, I do not regret bringing this Motion forward, because I think it was quite clear that the Committee had come to a decision in their own minds without hearing the opponents, and that that was so clearly intimated to Counsel that in the circumstances it was really impossible for them to proceed. They might have run the risk—because they could not know what was in the mind of the Committee—of bringing down upon their clients an order for costs on the ground of unreasonable opposition. Therefore I think it was right that this matter should be noted, but in all the circumstances I will not press the Motion to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
BOROUGH OF WESTON-SUPER-MARE ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF BENFLEET (PARISH OF HADLEIGH) ORDER.
RURAL DISTRICT OF MERE AND TISBURY (PARISHES OF MERE AND TISBURY) ORDER.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Croft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CARDIFF CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
4.52 p.m.
LORD DENMAN LORD DENMAN rose to call attention to the constitution of the L.D.V.; and to
902
move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have brought forward this Motion this afternoon not because I want to criticise the Local Defence Volunteer Corps, for that is certainly not the case; indeed, I am glad to note the wonderful progress which the Corps has made in the last few weeks. Over one million men have now been enrolled, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a noteworthy achievement. The Corps has been in existence only for a few weeks. I think that great credit is due to Mr. Eden for having started this movement within two days of taking over office as Secretary of State, and great credit is due also to the Joint Under-Secretaries, Sir Edward Grigg and my noble friend Lord Croft, for the work that they have done in this matter. I think my noble friend will admit, however, that much work remains to be done and some confusion cleared away before the Corps can be regarded as really efficient. I have initiated this discussion in the hope that it will give members of your Lordships' House who are serving in the L.D.V. at the present time an opportunity of expressing their views and of pointing out where, in their opinion, improvements might be made.
I will, if I may, make one or two suggestions of my own, although naturally they may not be so valuable as those that will be made by noble Lords who are serving in the Corps itself. The first point that I should like to emphasize concerns the authority which is given to section leaders and to platoon and company commanders under this scheme. I expect it is the case that units vary very much in different parts of the country, and that the provisions of the scheme as it exists at present are quite satisfactory in a great many places, while in other places they do not work so well. In some districts I think that platoon commanders rather feel that they have not sufficient control over their men. I have had a letter from a gentleman in a remote country district which illustrates this point rather well, and I will read it to your Lordships. He says:
"Since the Corps was formed, various commanders have been appointed, but they appear to be commanders without power to act as such. Attendance at parades held for the purpose of drill and instruction is looked upon, and in fact is, purely a matter of individual choice. Posting notices in the village to the effect that there will be a

903
parade at 8 p.m. may result in the attendance of eight out of twenty. These will arrive at times between 8.10 and 8.30. The only method of ensuring their attendance is for the platoon commander to ask each man personally for the favour of his attendance, and the still greater favour of punctual attendance. The position of the said commander, therefore, may be compared with that of the secretary of a local flower show, out touting for entries and attendance."
This gentleman goes on to say that when members do attend they pay great attention to the instruction, and the progress is very satisfactory and the material is first-class.
This may, of course, be quite an isolated instance, but from correspondence which reaches me I do not think that it is; and I suggest that some further control should be given to section leaders and platoon leaders in this Corps. This is, of course, a Volunteer Corps, and discipline on the lines of a Regular regiment is quite out of the question; but I think that the defect in this particular case arises from the provision whereby a man can resign on giving a fortnight's notice. That may be all very well in peace-time, but I suggest that in the critical times in which we live, something more stringent is really necessary.
The writer of this letter goes on to mention that he has to man an outpost on a moor which can be reached only on foot over rough country, and it takes half-an-hour for a man to get there, with this rather bad going. He says that he has applied to the War Office for a field telephone, but has been told by the War Office that field telephones are not available for the L.D.V. I should have thought that field telephones ought to be available for this purpose, and if the War Office cannot supply them they should be obtained elsewhere. I also think that there are country districts—possibly rather remote country districts—where L.D.V. posts should be linked up with the posts of the Observer Corps. I do not think that that is the case at present.
There is another point which I wish to mention, and it is this. My noble friend Lord Croft, in the able and inspiring speech which he made in this House last week, said that the backbone of the Corps consisted of old soldiers who had fought at Ypres, on the Marne, on the Somme and elsewhere. No doubt that may be the case in a great many units, but there are others in which I
904
think that that does not obtain. What has happened? At the beginning of the war many keen old soldiers joined up in the A.R.P. and other civil services and at first, when the L.D.V. was started—it has come rather late on the scene—they were not allowed to transfer. I believe that since then in some districts it has been made possible for them to transfer, but in others I understand that the A.R.P. authorities, like Pharaoh of old, have hardened their hearts and will not let the people go. I think that they ought to be allowed to go; I think that these old soldiers, who have been trained to use a rifle or machine-gun, would be a most valuable asset, especially in country districts. It is of the country-districts that I am speaking, because in the towns it may very well be that the A.R.P. work is as important as that of the L.D.V. I would ask my noble friend if it would be possible for him to bring pressure on the Minister of Home Security to allow old soldiers to transfer from the A.R.P. and other civil services into the Local Defence Volunteers in country districts.
Another point that my noble friend Lord Croft made last week was that he wanted to see the Defence Volunteer units recruited to the full in coast towns and villages. I think we must all agree that that is most desirable; but I should like to point out that in these villages certainly, and in a good many of the coast towns, the population is small and the numbers of the L.D.V. are therefore not strong. It is also a fact that in some cases there are a few miles back in the country bigger towns or great centres of population, where the L.D.V. are numerically very strong. I would ask my noble friend if he would consider the possibility of strong contingents of the L.D.V. in these big towns being specially trained with a view to being sent by motor transport to reinforce units that are engaged in guarding the coast.
Another matter is that of allowances. When this force was first introduced I think no allowances were given at all, and officers had to pay for everything like office expenses and a good many other things out of their own pockets. A friend of mine, for instance, who lives in a country district where bombing has been rather frequent, paid for helmets for his men out of his own pocket, and of course

905
a great many other things like that have been paid for by officers of the Corps. I understand that now the local units of the L.D.V. are linked up with the local Territorial Force Association and that certain allowances will be given for office work, office staff and similar things. Possibly my noble friend may be able to give the House a little more detailed information on that point. But there are other expenses, and I rather doubt whether they will be provided for. For example, I am told that in London, where men are not well off, they go for musketry to Bisley and have to pay their railway fare and expenses. In other ways like that men have to pay for things out of their own pockets. I think some allowance should be made. I do not mind whether it comes from the Territorial Association or where it comes from to meet men's out-of-pocket expenses, because after all they are giving their leisure and their services for nothing, and they should not be mulcted in other ways when the do so.
There is just one other point, and that is the question of rifle ranges. From letters that have reached me I gather that some keen men are disappointed at not yet having had a musketry course. I dare say shortage of ranges would account for that. I suppose in towns and cities the L.D.V. must use the regular ranges in the neighbourhood, but I think in country districts short ranges could very easily be improvised. It was pointed out last week in this House that this war is being fought at close range, and if you could train men to fire at one hundred and two hundred yards that really is probably all that is needed, at any rate at the moment. It might easily be possible for a great many ranges, especially in hilly country, to be improvised, and I do not think any question of amenity or private property should stand in the way of their construction. I would only say, in conclusion, that for my part I want to see this Corps strong and efficient, strong to resist, strong to attack, and thoroughly imbued with the offensive spirit. I beg to move for Papers.
5.6 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement as to the suggestion that the L.D.V. in the London area had been
906
officially refused the use of arms. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question I have on the Paper bears on this same-subject, and perhaps it might be convenient to noble Lords if I put it now. I want to draw the attention of the House to a statement which was made on July 3 by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who informs me that he cannot be here. It was to this effect that Sir Cecil Pereira, who is in command of the L.D.V. in London,
"has laid it down that Local Defence Volunteers in London do not need weapons. I want to tell my noble friend Lord Croft here—I have already done so privately—that there is great indignation among patriotic Londoners who have joined the Local Defence Volunteers, and are prepared to give their lives and everything else they have got, at what they consider an insult. If he had meant that they could not have weapons to start with but would have them later when they were available he should have said so, but he said they did not need weapons in London. Unless that is satisfactorily explained I am going to ask your Lordships to support me later on in demanding that General Sir Cecil Pereira should be removed from the command of the Greater London District."
I was quite certain that there must be some mistake or misconception on this matter, and I have discovered that that is the case. I shall be very glad if my noble and gallant friend Lord Croft is able to make a statement on the subject.
5.8 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time I crave the customary indulgence of your Lordships to one in such a situation. The noble Lord who opened this discussion referred to the fact that there were over a million men who have responded to the call of the Local Defence Volunteers. That is a measure of the sense of danger which the nation feels, but it also indicates the nation's sense of opportunity which has arisen for service. I feel that this great body of men should have it brought home to them that they are not an entirely new force, created for the first time in the history of this land for similar duties. They are the direct heirs of the Volunteers of 150 years ago, and I wonder whether the name, Local Defence Volunteers, is that which is most apt, whether it might not recall to them the past and the services of men of an earlier generation, faced with like dangers, if it were remembered that in every town, in every village, in every parish in the days of Napoleon there were created

907
the Association of Loyal Volunteers, and whether this force, instead of being called Local Defence Volunteers, for the sake of association with the past might not be called Loyal Defence Volunteers.
Whatever the precise title of this body may be, they have important services to render, but it is clear that the nature of their service should be precisely understood and made precisely clear to them. Whilst, in a sense, they are a part of the Army, their functions are different from those of the Army. There are limiting factors in the way of the time they can give, as the noble Lord, Lord Denman, has indicated, in the nature and extent of their training, and in the amount of their equipment and armament. To my mind, the invaluable services which can be rendered by this body can be put under these headings, to some of which expression has been given before, but perhaps not to all. I would say their first function is to observe and to report; their second, to delay and to contain the enemy; their third, to assist the civil power in keeping the civilian population calm in the event of attack and seeing—to use the now familiar phrase—that the civilian population "stay put." Then there is the organisation of the factories, and in addition a matter to which too little attention may have been directed hitherto—namely, the provision of guides.
It is easy to say that members of the L.D.V. are to observe and report. Observation is a faculty acquired by practice and the result of opportunity. Reporting involves that there should be the physical possibilities of making the report, and I would ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he is quite certain that too much reliance is not being placed upon the use of the telephone in an emergency. We all know that the telephone is not always readily available for messages in peacetime. Many of us know that when we have had messages to send relating to matters affecting the war, either the giving or receipt of orders, it has not been very easy always to get quickly through on the telephone even between one great town and another. How much greater is the difficulty in the case of an isolated village with perhaps a single telephone line! It seems clear to me that, in the events that have to be contemplated, the single telephone line which often runs between a village and the
908
nearest military encampment would be so much required either for the purposes of the Regular Army or of the Civil Defence Services that it would be very difficult to obtain the use of it for the L.D.V.—if it had not already been cut. One must anticipate that not only will there be pressure on the telephone line, but that the telephone line will not be there at all. Therefore I would ask my noble friend whether, in the absence of field telephones, which I do not think are a practicable proposition for the L.D.V., for various reasons such as the requirements of other Forces, he is satisfied that a sufficient number of dispatch riders will be available. I know that he has had in mind this whole question of conveying information by dispatch rider.
I wish to ask him to bear in mind the necessity of co-ordinating this aspect of his work with that of the Ministry of Home Security. If motor cars, motor bicycles, and pedal bicycles are to be immobilised in accordance with certain orders that have been issued, there might be a difficulty at the crucial moment in obtaining motor cars, motor bicycles or pedal bicycles for the purposes of making a report. Do not let it be forgotten that reporting will be far more difficult, and take a far longer time than might be expected under normal conditions, even with the use of motor cars and the like Sign posts have been removed, many country lanes are narrow, nights may be moonless and starless, and there will be—or at least we hope there will be—road blocks at intervals, manned by alert members of the L.D.V. It will take far longer for messages to travel by road than it would under normal circumstances. Mere mileage is not a sufficiently careful test. I know of instances where journeys have to be taken of fifteen miles in the darkness for the purpose of giving messages to the military authorities for the L.D.V.
Having regard to the road blocks that intervene, it would be a reasonable calculation that, from the moment of seeing the enemy—parachutists, air-borne troops, or coming in the form of tanks up the road, whatever it may be—it would take three hours before our troops, even under the best conditions, could reach the spot at which they were required. By the time they reached the spot required at the moment when observation was made, the enemy would have reached a far different

909
place. Three hours is a long time in a war of movement such as we have to expect here, with tanks, motor cyclists, parachutists, air-borne troops, all alert, finding their way about the countryside. We do not want them to have the time to disperse. We want to contain them when they arrive. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State if he will look into this question of speed of communication.
If we require speed for the services of our own Forces, one of our objects must be to delay and contain the enemy- For that purpose a mere line of defence is, I submit, insufficient. In fact, it is, I believe, becoming generally and more fully recognised that defence in depth is the only defence upon which we may safely rely. Defence in depth involves also to some extent this, that your blockhouses and your road blocks should face both ways. I am not now contemplating, as some have done, simultaneous attacks from the east and the west. I speak in the presence of a Marshal of the Air Force, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but it is a view which can be held that airborne troops might alight in the neighbourhood of the coast for the purpose of attempting to reinforce enemy troops already landed at the coast or—and it is and/or—air-borne troops who may alight in England with a view to marching from within the country towards the coast. I am not at all sure that there has not been rather too much of a tendency, as far as my observation goes up to the present, to construct the road blocks on the footing that the enemy would advance exclusively from the coast. I should like to see block-houses constructed in such a way that they are equally available for defence against an enemy advancing from within or against an enemy advancing from both the coast and within at the same time.
It would be wrong, addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, that I should endeavour to traverse the whole ground, or to delay your Lordships unduly. I would only ask that I may be allowed to add that if the L.D.V. are to be told what their functions are to be, they must be told with precision and they must be trained for those specific functions. I think perhaps there is rather too much of a tendency to rely upon the rifle to the exclusion of other weapons. I should like to see men trained in the
910
use of the rifle, other groups trained in the use of the bomb, other groups, again, trained for the purpose of sniping and also fortifying houses in villages and on the outskirts of villages. But I doubt whether any of the training can become really effective unless the unit, be it a company or a battalion—it is a minor matter which—is assisted by a Regular officer with recent war experience, in the same way as an Adjutant has been attached in peace-time to each unit of the Territorial Army, and perhaps a staff of permanent instructors. But in particular it does seem to me to be essential that block-houses and road blocks should be sited by soldiers with special qualifications for that particular task, and that sniping posts should be similarly sited. I do not think that the L.D.V. can perform their functions with sufficient adequacy and confidence unless they have some assistance from the Regular Army.
Lastly, I would ask the Under-Secretary of State if he could give some information as to the machinery of mobilisation, how exactly the L.D.V. at the moment of danger are to be informed that that moment has arisen, especially if they are distributed during the day at their own daily work. And after mobilisation, could the Under-Secretary state what are the arrangements for rationing the L.D.V., for their sleeping, and for the care of casualties? There has been a considerable demand for opportunities for women to serve with the L.D.V. The Auxiliary Territorial Service have been a great advantage and help to the Territorial Army. Would it be possible to form an Auxiliary L.D.V. for the women who might help the L.D.V.? I believe that there are for the L.D.V. functions of enormous importance to be performed for the national safety, and your Lordships' House may, I would submit, be well satisfied that in such a short period of time so large a body of patriotic men have come forward for the performance of those duties.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before addressing a very few words on this subject to your Lordships, I would like to be permitted, with the greatest possible respect, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, who has just sat down, on the very interesting

911
speech which we knew from his reputation we might expect to hear. I would like to ask my noble friend who will reply for the War Office if he cannot, either now or at some very early date, make on behalf of His Majesty's Government, a perfectly clear and precise statement as to what exactly the Local Defence Volunteers are expected to do, and what they are not expected to do. It is now, I think, nearly two months since the Force was started by the broadcast on the 15th May by the Secretary of State for War. We all remember then that he indicated that the purpose was to guard against possible landings by enemy parachute troops, and the Volunteers were immediately given the name of "parashots." I would suggest that, as time has run on since the Force was formed and developments have taken place, and so many hundreds of thousands of people have been devoting a great deal of time to developing the cause of the Volunteers, the feeling has arisen, at any rate in some quarters, recently, that under the operational control of the military command, under which the Volunteers come at the appropriate moment, they may possibly be used for purposes other than those which Mr. Eden laid down, and possibly, indeed, for purposes for which they are not fitted and for which they are most certainly not equipped. Reference has been made to the number of ex-Service men. Of course there are many districts where, in a particular section or unit, the number of ex-Service men is, for one reason or another, very small.
Now the only authoritative statement that every Volunteer has seen is the enrolment form. I do not know that he attached very much importance to it, because it is quite inconsistent. The signature admits him under military law, but at the same time he is committed to part-time service only. He is not required to live away from his home, and is empowered to resign. In addition he is, of course, unpaid. These conditions hardly seem to be quite consistent with being under military law. However, those are the conditions upon which he joins. It is, of course, absolutely right that the Volunteer should not be paid. He is not one who expects to be paid. He is naturally anxious to do what he can in his spare time to help in the crisis. I would only say in passing that I think I am right in
912
stating that the Observer Corps is paid and that the new Coastguard Volunteer is paid. I only mention that because if there are inconsistencies questions are asked, and it is well that when there are questions of that sort a clear answer should be given. These questions do lead some Volunteers to think and say that perhaps the scheme was not very clearly thought out from the beginning, and that as things developed a certain amount of improvisation took place which makes the duties that the Volunteer has to perform not always quite clear to him.
At the start, of course, everything went smoothly. The primary rule was laid down of observation and information, and what has been described as static defence. As we know, posts all over the country are manned, patrols are out during the necessary hours, communications have been set up with the police and military, and the guiding of troops is all arranged. I am sure that everyone agrees that on this basis the Volunteers are already performing a most valuable service to the country. But some do feel that more recent intentions have disclosed the possibility that the Volunteer may be called upon to do things which he did not realise when he joined and which many think he is not fitted to do. It may be a mistaken idea, but there is an idea that some of the Volunteers in certain circumstances, and all of them in other circumstances, may be called upon for full-time service and receive pay and allowances. I hope my noble friend will be able to clear that up because some men are employed on work of national importance.
LORD CROFT: Perhaps my noble friend will permit me to interrupt him, because I think it is desirable that I should correct that at once. I can assure my noble friend that there is no question whatsoever of any such change. I should not like it to go out to the country that that was so, although no doubt my noble friend has heard that in some areas there is this misconception.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. He has made the statement which I hoped he would make. It is important that wrong impressions and wrong ideas in a matter of this kind should not get about. In some localities, no doubt for very good reasons which we can all understand,

913
equipment is not issued in the same way and to the same extent as in some other localities. That we can very well understand, but it is a little unfortunate when men see photographs in the illustrated Press of most wonderfully equipped Volunteers parading with tin hats and so on when they have not got any of these things themselves. That again leads to questions, and when I say leads to questions I am putting it very mildly. I suggest that unless points of this kind are cleared up, as I am sure my noble friend will clear them up, the original enthusiasm with which men joined may be damped, especially if they do not know exactly what is required of them. I suggest that unless there is the fullest precision and clarification there is a possibility that different military commanders in different districts, may put a different interpretation upon what they are entitled to call upon Volunteers to do in their operational command. Experience, I am told, has shown in recent days that the men now joining are studying the enrolment form much more carefully before signing it than men did at the beginning, which is evidence that the men are not quite clear as to the limits of the obligations which they are undertaking. I hope my noble friend will be able to make a statement on the lines which I venture to suggest to him.
5.37 p.m
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say a few words about the duties and the wants of these Local Defence Volunteers, coming as I do from a place just outside Ipswich, in East Suffolk, which is within ten miles of the coast, where they feel—as I dare say other people feel now in other parts of England—that for certain reasons they are more in the front line than some of their fellow-countrymen and women. I have nothing critical to say about my noble friend Lord Croft or of the War Office, or of what they have done. They have treated us very well, perhaps because they thought we would be required sooner or would be more required than in other parts of the country. We have some 4,000 Local Defence Volunteers in Ipswich and the country districts around, and we have a promise that if not by to-night, at any rate by the end of the week, every single Volunteer will have uniform and rifle. That is good work, considering that six weeks ago the Force was not even started.
914
One thing which all the Volunteers, and particularly the best of them who are old soldiers, will appreciate enormously is a steel helmet. That is what they ask for whenever you visit them. It may be illusory or it may not, but a steel helmet gives a wonderful feeling of safety and confidence. Steel helmets are what the men most insist upon and steel helmets are procurable. We can get some of them even locally if the War Office could help us with the Home Office. The Ipswich Corporation could supply us with some steel helmets and I believe with 20,000 sandbags, but they want authority from the Home Office before parting with what is on charge to them for another purpose. The police also have plenty of excellent rifles, but we cannot get them for the Local Defence Volunteers. In our case they are issuing Ross rifles and Lee-Enfield rifles; many of the Lee-Enfields are new and excellent rifles. But I hope there will be no mixing in rural areas of the rifles issued to any one small section. That is most important. I know that in rural parts of the county if such a situation were to arise our agricultural labourers serving in the Local Defence Volunteers would very soon be what we call in Suffolk wholly "doizzled." There is a sign in some districts of the first enthusiasm wearing off.
These men are not to be paid—I do not suggest for a moment that they should be paid—but a very large number of them have only one civilian overcoat. They have done a lot of digging work and night work; they have been lying down on the ground in these coats; they have done all sorts of dirty work in them, and it would be a very great comfort to these men, with the colder weather coming on, if there could be an issue of a greatcoat. In the same way, many of the men have worn out their boots in their digging. The issue of a pair of boots and a greatcoat is a thing which perhaps might be contemplated, or at any rate perhaps we might have a favourable reply that the matter will be seriously considered. The other plea I want to put forward for these men is that they may be given steel helmets—"tin hats"—at the earliest possible moment. Even if there were not enough to go round, one per man, at least it would be a great thing to have a considerable quantity of them in the area.

915
There are some smaller points which I should like to mention in a cautionary way, but they are not of vital importance. The sandbag posts are being in some places replaced by concrete posts, and some of these—though not by any means all in our area—have only one loophole, presumably intended for a machine-gun. They do not appear to me, from my experience of the Great War, to be particularly suitable for several men firing rifles. In their nature and their shape they afford very little protection, and there would be a great probability of a direct or a ricochet bullet coming in and doing considerable execution. That is my opinion. These matters, of course, are to be regarded differently by different people, but it only makes it clear how important it is that the siting of all these works should be done with the assistance of competent professional advice. Lord Nathan mentioned that, with the object that the posts themselves should be done in the best way possible, but I mention it for an additional reason, that the men should not have to do the same work all over again. In our part of the country, in agricultural East Anglia, the harvest will be on us in about three weeks, and if there is an enormous amount of work to be done it must be taken in hand and carried through at once, because with shortening hours of daylight and the increase of civil work in harvest-time it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get more work out of these men.
One other point that I should like to put forward is this. I do not know how far it is practicable, but it would be to my mind a very great advantage if the air-raid precaution workers in the country, the Special Constables and the Local Defence Volunteers could all be brought under one authority. What has happened, of course, is this. At the beginning of the war we thought only in terms of bombing and not at all in terms of invasion, and at that time all the best ex-Service men and all the keenest of the other men set to work at once, with bombing in their minds, to go into airraid precaution services, fire services and such things for the protection of their homes, their wives and their families. Now they are not available for the Local Defence Volunteers. In the country district, to put it in homely language, it is
916
far more important that the active and patriotic man, and particularly the young man and also the experienced ex-Service man, should have a rifle in his hand to shoot parachutists rather than be employed, let us say, to prevent looting—a thing which is not likely to occur in country districts. I would add for that reason that in the country districts, if it is practicable, the air-raid precaution services, the Special Constables and the Local Defence Volunteers should be brought under one authority.
In conclusion may I say how much, at any rate in our part of the country, what has been done by headquarters for these services is appreciated? But we also appreciate how much has been done locally, by the local military authorities and the local military commanders, to help in every possible way. They have been extremely good: there has been no question at all of sneering at "these amateur soldiers," but they have been most helpful to them and most considerate and kind. But we should be greatly comforted if we could feel that a certain issue of steel helmets were on our way. There should also be a greater supply of small-arms ammunition, so that that sniping which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, advocated could be practised. It is all very well to advocate the training of men, but you must have plenty of ammunition actually in hand and plenty in reserve if you are to undertake that training. Finally, perhaps, a more homely touch, I would ask whether Lord Croft would consider recommending that there should be an issue, at any rate well before the winter, of a pair of boots and a greatcoat per man.
5.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am sure it will be your Lordships' pleasure that I should immediately congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken. We have had the pleasure of listening to him twice this evening, and no doubt we regret that we shall not enjoy the opportunity of hearing him for a third time. In any event I am sure we all hope that he will take a prominent and active part in our debates, and that we shall have the advantage of his wide and long experience of another place. I feel that some apology is needed for addressing your Lordships on this matter when I have expressed my views on it so recently.

917
This constitution of the Local Defence Volunteers is, however, a question of such importance that perhaps no apology may be needed for referring to it. We are, indeed, deeply indebted to my noble friend who has introduced this Motion this afternoon. If once more I am compelled to take a critical attitude towards this movement, it is not because I am unconscious of the skill in organisation, of the efficiency in leadership, with which the affairs of some of the units are conducted. I am fully aware of the patient, self-sacrificing work that has been done. But this matter must not be judged, I suggest, in the light of conditions that may prevail in one district. The whole question of the Local Defence Volunteers must be judged as one matter, and it must be judged in the light of the duties which they are asked to perform, duties which now make them a vital and integral part of our system of national defence.
This being so, it seems hardly possible to defend a constitution which permits a Volunteer to resign at a fortnight's notice, this resignation making it impossible to enforce orders with any certainty. It is also, surely, unsound that he can refuse a transfer from one area to another, however grave the emergency may be. I suggest that the real urgency of this matter cannot be appreciated unless we examine somewhat the duties which these Volunteers are being called upon to perform. Originally these duties were defined as observation, obstruction and detaining the enemy. Now I suggest to your Lordships that the conception is out of date. Already, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, suggested, these Volunteers are being asked to perform duties far exceeding those which were originally contemplated, duties which can only be called front-line duties. If I may be permitted an example, the unit to which I am privileged to belong recently took part in a manœuvre. A trial alarm was sounded; there was, of course, no means of compelling attendance at a parade, and as a result only 50 per cent. of the strength were available. None the less, these men were asked to hold firing-pits which formed, in fact, the front line of our defences, and this in a coastal area. Again, I have had brought to my notice more than one instance in which these Volunteers have been asked to man important road blocks, sited on main
918
roads. They have been asked to do this with inadequate numbers, with no machine-guns, and in some cases they have had to refuse the task.
Now these men of whom I speak are imperfectly trained and some would welcome further musketry practice. But I wish to make it clear to your Lordships that they do not resent being asked to perform tasks of this nature. They are not deterred by any danger, and they will not refuse any combatant service; but they do ask to be given the training and the equipment to qualify them for such tasks. Much could be said on the question of training, but I have no desire to detain your Lordships at so late an hour, and I will deal with this matter briefly. I would say, however, that it is not possible, in my view, to rely upon instructors whose knowledge relates back to the last war. If Regular instructors are not available in adequate numbers, surely it should be possible for the section commanders to have some short, intensive instruction. That would not require the services of as many N.C.O.'s as if the whole battalion were to be taught; and the section commanders, with their existing knowledge, would in a short space of time be able to act as efficient instructors of their men.
As regards equipment, I do not ask that these men should be equipped on a scale comparable with that of the Regular Army, but I do think that in addition to a rifle they should be provided with a uniform and, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has pointed out, with a steel helmet. It is not so much for its protective qualities that I emphasize the importance of the latter article, but rather because of the advantage that it gives from the point of view of concealment; by covering the face it undoubtedly makes the defensive position which is held far more difficult for enemy aircraft to detect. The shortage of these articles might be accepted—and no doubt would be—with good grace were it not that they are freely offered for sale in many districts. In the area where I serve, many men have been forced to buy their forage caps out of their own pockets, because none have been issued to them. These things are on sale in the shops, and the men naturally ask why the Government do not commandeer the stocks so as to provide this elementary equipment without delay. The subject of

919
equipment brings me to the question of storage, and here is a point which is non-contentious, and which I hope is not without substance. The organisation does not provide for acquiring any place for storing equipment, nor do I believe it to be easy, even if it were possible, to secure payment for any buildings rented for this purpose. It would be a great relief to those in charge of these units if some definite assurance on this point could be given.
I am aware, of course, that many of the difficulties which I have mentioned can be overcome by skilful and efficient leadership, but this brings me to another defect in the organisation of these Volunteers. It never is very easy to get rid of a superior officer, and it is certainly more than usually difficult in the case of these Volunteers to get rid of those who are not suited to their tasks. More than one case has been brought to my notice of senior and junior officers who are both idle and incompetent. In one case which I was asked to bring to your Lordships' notice, the whole unit threatened to resign unless a change in the command could be effected. There is also resentment that civilians with no military experience at all are appointed to higher commands, which I know has happened in some cases. That covers the bulk of the points that I wish to make, with perhaps two exceptions, to which I will refer as briefly as possible. One is the question of co-ordination. My noble friend Lord Denman mentioned the difficulty of getting telephone wire and of securing liaison between the Observer Corps and the Local Defence Volunteers. I should like to say that in my own area the liaison difficulty has now been overcome, although we are still unable to obtain field telephones for a front-line post. The other question to which I wish to refer is the possibility of redistributing the men. We have in the urban areas units which are not only up to strength, but which even have a waiting list; yet we have rural and coastal areas of great importance where it is impossible to obtain enough men to man the defences.
The suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Denman, put forward, that in urban areas near the coast men should be trained and moved at short notice to more vulnerable spots, appears to me, if I may say so, to be an admirable one. I have
920
it in mind, however, that it may be necessary to go somewhat further; it may be necessary to ask for Volunteers in the urban areas, men who are not too strictly bound by family or business ties and who would be willing to be billeted in the coastal or rural areas, provided that they were given free railway travel to and from their work. I do not know whether such a thing would be possible, but no doubt the noble Lord will give it his consideration.
I should like, if I may, to thank the noble Lord who will reply for having so patiently and courteously listened to me in voicing criticisms which I fear must, in the main, be unpalatable to him. Many of these points, it is true, were fully debated some five weeks ago. If I say that in those five weeks little seems to have happened, I am sure that it is not in any way the fault of the noble Lord who will reply. We still seem to think in terms of months when the limit of time which divides us from an attempt at invasion should be measured in days, possibly even in hours. There is still time, however, to redouble our efforts. We have the men, and we know the spirit of these men; surely it should be possible for us without delay so to organise and equip them that they may be fully able to play those parts which they are so ready and anxious to take up.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain your Lordships long, but there is one main point which I desire to make. Only the consummate tact for which your Lordships' House is naturally famous has prevented this from being a most unfortunate and dangerous debate. I do not wish to suggest that the noble Lord who introduced it was in any way to blame for doing so, because his tact is notorious and he certainly did not raise any subject of difficulty; but it might well have been that a great many things might have been given away which we did not wish to have discussed in public. It is unfortunate that we were not able to have a Secret Session. I quite understand that there may be serious difficulties in the way of having too many Secret Sessions; it may not be possible whenever any noble Lord wishes to raise some difficult point that he should at once be able to call for a Secret Session. I do think, however, that we want

921
to make it quite clear—and I have no doubt that when the noble Lord, Lord Croft, replies, he will make it quite clear—to that splendid body of men who are enrolled as Local Defence Volunteers, that this has been only a superficial debate, and that it has not been possible to go into some of the matters which they would like to see altered. I am certainly not going to give anything away myself, but there are many things which they must know will have to be improved. I should like it to be made perfectly clear to them that we have been tied down by the condition of having to debate this matter in public, and that it does not mean that some of the things for which they are hoping have been overlooked, but that we really know quite well about these things and are intending to take more serious notice of them than we seem to have done today.
We have a magnificent body of men. We have been told to-day that a million men have been enlisted, and there are among them some of the very best types of ex-Service men. Those men will soon lose heart unless they are encouraged and unless they know they are being taken seriously. I think that is the main danger at this moment. I am not, I am sorry to say, a Local Defence Volunteer myself, having been rejected on the ground of age, but I come in touch with a good many of them, and I am afraid that there may be a tendency for them to lose some of the zeal with which they started, and with which they certainly intend to continue, unless they are convinced that everything is going to be done for them and that the high hopes that were raised as the result of the formation of this Corps will be justified. Our public men have no right to go on saying what a magnificent Force they are, and how valuable they are going to be to the country, unless you are going to give them the opportunity, which they certainly desire, of carrying out their duties and justifying all that has been said about them.
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT TREDEGAR: My Lords, speaking as an L.D.V. who has seen active service in the particular part of the country from which I come—for we have received visits from the enemy for a fortnight past—I should like to raise
922
one small point. The morale both of the civil population and of the L.D.V. is excellent, and the relationship with the A.R.P., the police, and the military could not be better; we work together like brothers, everyone helping the other, both in regard to information and the mobile column. But there is one suggestion I should like to make in regard to the fortnight's notice. I suggest that the fortnight's notice should remain for the men, but that officers should be required to take some form of oath to His Majesty that they will remain at their posts for the duration of the war. It would be too awkward in the case of the men to make any change in the fortnight's notice, but I think that the officers should take that oath.
6.2 p.m.
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate but as a platoon commander in the L.D.V. there is one point I want to mention. My noble friend Lord Denman referred to the difficulty that some of us have in getting men to attend parades. Your Lordships must not lose sight of the fact that these men are doing a great amount of work in other fields. Most of my men are working all the hours of daylight in agriculture and in other work which might be considered of national importance, and they are unable to give full time to the drills and training that would otherwise be desirable. At the same time, they are keen to do their duty one night a week, and to do as much as they can for the defence of their country. It is essential to remember that when thinking of the question of compulsion. With regard to the fourteen days' notice, a good many of these men said: "We do not see how we can carry on this work as well as our own, but we are ready to try it and do our best, and as we observe that we can give fourteen days' notice if we find we cannot do both, we will have a shot at it."
6.4 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, when the Secretary of State and others of us connected with the War Office see that there is a debate taking place on a subject such as this we naturally feel some little trepidation lest anything should be said which might conceivably give any assistance to the enemy, and I desire in my opening remarks to say how grateful I

923
am to my noble friend Lord Denman for the very helpful manner in which he set the tone of the debate, and to all the noble Lords who have followed for their constructive suggestions. My noble friend Lord Denman in putting this question on the Paper asked me to explain the constitution of the Force. I have a few words to say on that subject, but I think in view of the very large number of questions which have been put to me it would be the desire of the House that I should first deal briefly with the points made in the debate, and, if I may, deal with my noble friend Lord Rankeillour's question at the end of my remarks. May I also take this opportunity of saying—although it is almost impertinent from such a newcomer as myself—that I should like sincerely to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Belstead, upon the admirable contributions to the discussion which they have made in their maiden speeches this afternoon?
The noble Lord, Lord Denman, referred to the difficulty of getting well attended parades in the villages. I have made a very considerable study of this matter, and that difficulty has been before us all the time. We have to realise that in the villages, especially in the small villages, the whole of a platoon, or it may be a section, is drawn from the agricultural labourers, who have been working all day long, and if you expect them—as we do whenever there is a warning—to be on duty at their block, it is really more than we can ask of them that, in addition, they should turn up at numerous parades at eight o'clock or eight-thirty in the evening. I think that has specially to be borne in mind in regard to the rural areas; of course it does not apply in anything like the same degree in the case of the towns. I would also remind your Lordships in connection with that point that all the men in this Force are in fact volunteers and entirely unpaid, and if one takes into account the contribution they are making whilst carrying on the life of the nation in their own occupation, I think it will be found that in many cases they are doing not too little, in attending parades too rarely, but are suffering great physical fatigue owing to the extra duties they are taking up.
Some noble Lords mentioned the question of telephones. The point which is
924
made, that we must not rely on field telephones, is a very important one. That has been stressed from the very time of the setting up of this Force in view of the lessons that we have had from the fighting on the Continent, and I think I may say that every single platoon system throughout the country has its means of communication already set up as alternatives to the telephone—I am not going to explain too elaborately what they are. I do not think that communication between these formations in any one area will be so much delayed as was possibly suggested, because I think they all have their arrangements by which those who are engaged in communications are recognised and can pass very speedily through. Even if it were desirable to have field telephones for the whole of the L.D.V., I am afraid, with the enormous standing Army that we have at the present time, that the field telephones must go first to the Regular Army, and it would be dishonest on my part to suggest that they will go at an early date to the Local Defence Volunteers.
It was suggested both by Lord Nathan and Lord Belstead that the A.R.P. services should as far as possible be brought into closer contact with the L.D.V. It is a point which has been discussed before in your Lordships' House, and I think everyone who has anything to do with the rural areas realises the extreme difficulty, owing to the fact that so many of the ex-Service men were already in the A.R.P. and other services before the L.D.V. came into being. The more they are woven together in the rural areas the better it will be for the safety of the State. The matter is all the time being very carefully considered. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, also urged that Regular officers with recent experience should help, especially in the siting of road blocks and so on. I think my noble friend will find I am right in saying that in almost every case now road blocks have been sited with the assistance of Regular officers. Certainly that is true of the areas I have had the pleasure of visiting during the last three weekends. Every assistance is also being given, wherever possible—but it will be understood that there are limits to human endurance—to enable Regular officers and non-commissioned officers who have recently returned from France to convey their personal ideas to

925
the Local Defence Volunteers; but we do want these officers and men to go round the whole of the great Army in the country which is not included in the L.D.V.
I was asked what about mobilisation and what is the signal. That is, I am afraid, not a question I can answer in the House. I can only say it is a subject that is ever present in the minds of the Area Commanders, and has been completely worked out. As to what arrangements are to be made for feeding, I gather that question relates to the scene of operations when, perhaps, invasion has taken place. I can only tell my noble friend it has been decided that, wherever L.D.V. troops are involved in fighting, the War Office will immediately undertake the feeding of these men as if they were engaged in the Regular Army. My noble friend Lord Bessborough suggested that perhaps there were unfair comparisons between different grades of men, and he referred to the Observer Corps and the coastguards. I have not been able to check it, but I gather that the men engaged in both these forces are in full-time service. That is certainly my impression, and if that is so their position is in no way comparable with that of men who are carrying on their normal lives.
LORD STRABOLGI: Observers are not full-time.
LORD CROFT: If that is so, I was unaware of it, but I think the coastguards are. If the observers are wholly voluntary, it is a remarkable piece of work that has been going on from the beginning of the war. I can only take off my hat to them, and apologise for the suggestion that they were in any other condition of service.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: May I say that the Observer Corps falls into two parts? One is whole-time service, the other is part-time service.
LORD CROFT: That was my impression. Their part-time service is similar to that of the L.D.V. and the man does not give up his career. He is still able to earn his living at his ordinary avocation. Then I was asked as to changes in conditions since the first enrolment went out. My noble friend wisely urged us to take great care that no one feels he is asked to undertake any work that
926
was not in the original constitution of the Force. I answered him at the time, as I thought it desirable at the earliest moment it should be stated that, as far as I was aware, there is no change in the conditions. I must qualify that, of course, by saying that if the L.D.V. ever find themselves in Hertfordshire, Dorset, Sussex, or Kent, actually fighting the enemy, there can be no nonsense about that. We are all fighting for our lives, and then, of course, they will have to be treated as soldiers. That is the only condition, as I understand, where that would be contemplated.
I may also mention that in areas where people have been evacuated, owing to the fact that they have been brought into danger areas, as in some cases in the eastern and southern counties, the men of the L.D.V. have stayed behind while their wives and children have gone away. I pay every tribute to them on that account. It was immediately decided in these circumstances that we must give some subsistence allowance to these men who, by their own voluntary decision, are fulfilling the functions of soldiers. That is not a change of conditions. It merely means that the War Office decided that they must have some recompense. My noble friend Lord Belstead insisted that we must consider the question of greatcoats. Not only would I have been inclined to yield to his threatening tone, but I can inform him that the matter is being considered very seriously. All those experienced in the Forces will realise that we could not go through the winter without providing these men with greatcoats or substantial waterproof coats, whichever is more desirable. That matter, as I say, is at this moment under consideration.
My noble friend Lord Buckmaster asked the specific question whether anything was being done in regard to idle and inefficient commanders. I want to give him this assurance, that, now that this whole organisation has passed, as I will explain in a moment, under complete military supervision, if it is found there are any commanders either idle or inefficient—though, I, for one, must confess I have come across few cases other than those meriting the highest praise—the War Office will be ruthless in insisting that they shall be replaced by men more fitted to command. Lord Tredegar mentioned the question of the fortnight's notice. There are difficulties, as he stated, and

927
as was pointed out in another speech, regarding the fortnight's notice. If a man engaged on those terms, and there was a good reason given, there might be a grievance if that arrangement were violently or suddenly altered. My noble friend pointed out that it is desirable that officers should take an oath and be under control for the duration of the war. I can only say I regard this Force so seriously that I shall most certainly convey his idea to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who, I am asked to say, also regards this Force as a vital element in the main defence of the nation. I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for the suggestion, which I shall certainly pass on.
As regards the constitution of the Force, I want my noble friend to realise that the creation of the L.D.V. was decided upon under emergency conditions owing to the totally unexpected collapse of the Army of our great French Ally. There was no machinery whatever for the formation of such a force except the Lords-Lieutenant and the Territorial Army Associations, which were more or less in suspension owing to the fact that the Territorial Army had passed into the Regular Army. The Lords-Lieutenant were immediately approached by the Secretary of State, and under their guidance zone commanders and company commanders were at once selected from all those officers who had volunteered and who, from their previous war service and other military experience, were considered to be the most suitable. There may be some square pegs in round holes, but, anyhow, the most suitable people were selected amongst those who responded. The response, as a whole, was really remarkable, because within a month after the first appeal 500,000 had been enrolled; a fortnight ago the figure was 700,000, and to-day, as has already been mentioned, it is well over 1,000,000.
The Local Defence Volunteers are organised and administered by the War Office, and are under the operational control of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces, Sir Edmund Ironside. In each military area the L.D.V. is organised and commanded by the Area Commander under the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of the Commands in which those areas exist. The Force is organised in zones which
928
usually correspond with the police zones. They are as a matter of fact—my noble friend Lord Mottistone pressed the point the other day—really what we might call county organisations, and the zone or county area is divided into battalions, companies, platoons and sections. The administration is under the Director-General of the Territorial Associations, Sir John Brown, at the War Office, and is carried out locally through Territorial Associations in their own areas. I want your Lordships to realise that all these L.D.V. appointments are acting and unpaid. My noble friend Lord Denman asked if there was any assistance for meeting administration expenses. I want to assure him that all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses are now met, and that the Territorial Association is allowed a paid official up to £300, I think, a year. That is not a big amount, but, at any rate, he will not be largely out of pocket, and clerical assistance is also paid wherever it is regarded as essential by the Territorial Associations and other units.
As your Lordships will have realised, since we last debated this question, an Inspector-General, Lieutenant-General Sir Henry Pownall, who was recently honoured for his great services by His Majesty as the Chief of Staff of Lord Gort in the British Expeditionary Force in France, has been appointed, than whom perhaps no finer choice could be made, for dealing with the problems of this Force, and he is assisted by liaison officers for each military command. They are six or seven in number, and I can assure your Lordships that if I mentioned their names they would at once win the confidence of this House. A great improvement has resulted in the organisation in dealing with the special difficulties which have been mentioned here to-day that have arisen from time to time and which, in a matter of this kind, are bound to arise in the future. The astonishing growth of the whole Force might indeed be regarded as a fairy story at any other time and in any other land, but it is no fairy story; it is the expression of British spirit which has called forth a response of such magnitude. In addition to a great professional Army, which we now possess, a great Navy and a great Air Force, we have over a million men, most of them, I think we can say, with a knowledge of

929
war, who are offering their services without pay or hope of reward in defence of their hearth and home. I think it will probably be found that it is the most extraordinary spontaneous offer of service which has ever been given by a free people in answer to the threat of a tyrant, and it really ought: to shame any defeatist if there remain any such in our midst in this country to-day.
I should like, if I may, just to say one word to the L.D.V.s themselves through your Lordships, who take such a great interest in their work, and who will be grateful for the words of Lord Bingley who paid a tribute to the spirit which exists and which we recognise in the Force. I would say to them, do not be discouraged if in a week or so the latest recruits are not all fully equipped. I remember some years ago, and some of your Lordships also will remember, a Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons who certainly was not granted adequate finances in order to maintain anything like an effective Army and who rather plaintively said: "I am not a conjurer and I cannot produce a rabbit out of a hat." All I can say is that when we have a million Volunteers suddenly offering their services owing to the total change in the strategical situation of the war, we cannot produce a million rifles, helmets and uniforms with equal speed out of the hat either, although I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State is tireless in his efforts to produce these articles as quickly as possible. The men in the Force, I venture to suggest, realise that discipline and training are all-important, that much remains to be done in building the defence works which have been referred to this evening, and that the Volunteer, even if he cannot at first get musketry practice or even get practice on a miniature rifle range, may, nevertheless, be a great support to the civil power.
Although some of these men may at present be unarmed, they are yet being trained and disciplined and will be a great support to the civil power. In some of the large cities a force of disciplined men organised in companies, platoons and sections would in case of serious raids be of first-rate service to the State. They would be able to deal with any panic amongst the population, or any panic in perhaps some quarters of great cities where we have alien populations congregated to
930
gether. They would help to control the movements of any population that for the moment might panic, although I do not suggest it would be for more than a moment. They would keep the streets clear in the case of serious fires, and arrest at once anyone showing any indication of sabotage or of what has wrongly perhaps been called fifth column activities. They could do this valuable work whilst a far larger number of their comrades, fully armed, are guarding all the vital points in the cities, such as power stations, telephone exchanges, public buildings, water supplies, munition factories, etc. When the hour strikes every man is wanted. That is why we want fit men in the organised ranks of the L.D.V. for the test will be such that without discipline the citizen, however willing, might be indeed an incumbrance, whilst if trained and in an allotted formation, he will be of the utmost service to the State.
When I spoke a week ago the Force appeared then to be about 700,000 strong, and I said that very shortly every man would be armed with some effective weapon. While that was true when I spoke, and it actually is in the process of being completed, perhaps this week or next week, the astonishing increase in the Force in the last fortnight I confess makes the arming of everyone less easy, but even so, I can say that now the essential blocks and vulnerable points throughout the whole country will be manned by armed men. We have now got a second half million and for those men we may not be able to supply uniforms so promptly. It is far wiser for me to say this now, because, frankly, we did not expect the second half million so soon, and indeed if we had expected it we could not have provided uniforms immediately. It is essential that our attention should be given first to the Regular Army which we are now expanding at the rate of 7,000 men per day. When your Lordships realise that I think you will realise that we cannot make any promises of immediate issues of steel helmets to the Local Defence Volunteers. The matter, however, is very close to us, and we will certainly do everything we can to concentrate upon the production of steel helmets in large quantities. In the event of immediate invasion, however, these articles of equipment, whilst highly desirable, are not so absolutely vital for resistance to the enemy.

931
We have to concentrate on first things first. A little time ago the call went forth that every citizen should be trained. I think the phrase found its way into the newspapers that if they could not be fully equipped they should be armed with broomsticks. We can do far better than that. We can declare that every citizen enrolled in the Local Defence Volunteers can have his training and his allotted task in the formation with a reasonable hope that, in the not too distant future, he will have effective weapons to defend his post, to stop and, if necessary, destroy, as I honestly believe he can, any vehicles which may try to rush the posts, even the heavier type of vehicle.
I must say a word of regret that a considerable number of men who have registered have not been enrolled. That is due primarily to the fact that in certain crowded areas the number of Volunteers who have registered was for the moment in excess of local requirements. For instance, in one town 4,000 men were enrolled, and that town has a population of only 40,000. That is a simply astonishing result and it must be clear that in some cases like that it is difficult to take in all the Volunteers at once. In other cases commanding officers did not wish to enrol more men at the moment than they could at once arm and equip. I think perhaps they were wrong about that, because I agree that it is a good thing to get on with the training of men even if they cannot all be armed or equipped at once. It was obvious to us, however, that where there was exceptional recruitment in one district, we could not take men from that district and put them into another area where the Force was weaker, unless we were going to upset the whole idea of the movement and take men away from the localities in which they lived. We realise the disappointment that has resulted to some men and I can only express the hope and belief that as the organisation settles down, and as men who are unsuitable for physical or other reasons are discovered and weeded out, other men will be required.
In conclusion I would like to say, before I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, that all the evidence we get shows that the Force is in very good heart and apart from fulfilling its static role it is freeing the
932
Regular Army for full training and for preparation to strike at any threatened point with full offensive fight. The question which the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has raised refers no doubt to a statement which appeared in the Press some little time ago. Arising out of the inquiry from my noble friend Lord Strabolgi in debate last week I corresponded, as promised, with Major General Sir Cecil Pereira. Lord Strabolgi stated that Sir Cecil Pereira had "laid it down that Local Defence Volunteers in London do not need weapons," and that "there is great indignation among patriotic Londoners…at what they consider an insult." Sir Cecil Pereira replies as follows:
"All rifles at first were allotted by the General Officer Commanding, London Area, to the outer zones of London. At first for the inner zones, the only thing possible for the L.D.V. was therefore to provide parties in aid of the police, which might be, and still will be, urgently wanted. My words were cruelly distorted by some newspaper correspondent. I never said the words imputed to me—namely, that I had 'laid it down that Local Defence Volunteers in London do not need weapons.' We had at the time that I was alleged to have made the statement nearly sixty defended localities all fully armed."
It will thus be seen from Sir Cecil Pereira's reply to my inquiry that not only did he not make the statement, but that it was inconceivable that he could have done so when under Sir Cecil's administration substantial guards were being formed from the men under his control in sixty different localities to whom arms had been issued under his instruction.
With regard to the command of the London District Area Command, also referred to by Lord Strabolgi, this is vested in Sir Bertram Sergison-Brooke, the G.O.C. London District, with Brigadier Whitehead acting under him as Commander, whilst Sir Cecil Pereira, as Chairman of the London Territorial Association, is responsible for administration. I should like to say to your Lordships that I think London is under a very great debt of gratitude to Sir Cecil Pereira, who has been Chairman of the London Territorial Association not only prior to but also during the period of the doubling of the Territorial Army. He has devoted himself as few unpaid servants of the Crown have done to this work. I hope in these circumstances my noble friend will withdraw some of the

933
words he used—no doubt inadvertently—in the debate last week. I say that because I recognise the chivalry of my noble friend, which I so often witnessed in another place.
6.39 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course I do that at once. I had no intention of making any special attack on Sir Cecil Pereira, but as other noble Lords in the House have sometimes done I believed too much of what I saw in the newspapers. The statement was, however, published and I dare say there was some misunderstanding. The whole matter has been put right now and I am glad that there is no imputation on the reliability or pugnacity of the Cockney. Certainly there is no sort of imputation against a most distinguished soldier.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for the interesting speech he has made in reply to my question, and I also thank him for the very full answer he has given to the specific questions put to him by succeeding speakers. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH PURCHASING MISSION IN AMERICA.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had the following Notice on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government if the limitations originally imposed from this country on procedure with regard to our purchases of war supplies in North America which hampered the activities of the British Purchasing Mission there have now been effectively corrected. Also if with regard to both the United States of America and Canada responsibility for the assembly of demands in this country and for their execution in so far as this lies under British direction in North America is confined to individuals who have been previously familiar with conditions in the United States and Canada respectively; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the output of auto-trucks in the United States is reputed to be about four million per annum. In this country it is about 450,000—just about one-tenth of the productive capacity of the United States. Canada has a population I think about
934
40 per cent. greater than in 1914. The productive capacity of Canadian industry is appreciably greater than the relative proportion of that population. There is a tendency when assessing the population of the Dominions to regard ten millions of population in Canada or six million in Australia as being some indication of their relative importance, compared with that quantity of population in other parts of the world—for instance, in Europe. It is as well to bear in mind that if you take as a standard of measurement their value in annual production or in foreign trade, their relative importance is very much greater than their populations indicate. That is particularly true of Canada. It was understood that this war would be a war of material, and that results would be determined very largely by the products of industry and not by numbers of man-power. The capacity of the North American Continent is therefore—with a view to focusing it right on your Lordships' minds, I quoted those initial figures—of predominant importance to anybody who chanced to reflect about it at the beginning of the war: he would have immediately seen that the. potential capacity of the arsenal of North America was of predominant significance.
I chanced to be in the North American Continent at the outbreak of war, and in the few weeks succeeding the outbreak of war I was circulating in Ottawa and Washington, as well as being in touch with industry in general. As indeed anybody would have been, I was surprised at the apparent tardiness with which we began to supplement the productive capacity of this country with orders on the other side of the water. So big an automobile industry obviously indicates a terrific engineering industry. The capacity of the United States was therefore great in machine-tools, and one would have thought that there would have been an instant move, not only to obtain supplies from the existing machine-tool output either in the United States or in Canada, but also to take immediate steps to expand that industry.
That brings me to the first point on which I want to focus your Lordships' minds: the perplexity as to whether there was a long-range policy thought out from the start of the war: that if we were going to embark upon big expenditure in the North American Continent it should predominantly be anchored to British soil;

935
that we should develop the Canadian industry in priority to expanding the American industry. There is a very definite belief that the policy which was upheld did not adequately either have that in mind or, if it did, in its management of it carry it out. It is said that conservation of exchange was one of the causes that retarded our buying in the United States, and that Canada and the United States are from the exchange point of view the same. I respectfully submit that it is open to argument that, whatever may have been the risk of strain on the exchange, at least subsequent to the passing of the neutrality legislation, the risk of losing everything by defeat is greater than the risk of imperilling the exchange by over-purchases. After all, the placing of orders does not require immediate payment. I see Lord Addison sitting over there: no one knows better than he, as a Minister of Munitions in the last war, the difference between placing orders and getting deliveries. I submit that a more adventurous spirit would have at least made sure that we harnessed that tremendous productive capacity, of machine-tools first and of various items of standard military requirement afterwards, and that, even if up to £100,000,000 sterling were not wanted at once, it should be brought over and be sitting on the quays of the North American Continent ready at any moment to expand the industry of Canada and the United States, rather than that we should risk the shortages which have occurred.
Those are the sort of views which actuated me when I returned at the end of October, and I took some trouble with responsible people in Whitehall trying to put them forward, appealing that there should be a forward perspective and adequate realisation. But, to put it bluntly, those in charge had either insufficient imagination or insufficient knowledge of the North American Continent, and I found little sympathy and gathered that there was no response. I want at once to say, in fairness to those at whom I propose in a minute or two to level criticism, that I realised how difficult this problem was from the start. I take it that the Fighting Services were in difficulties in indicating what they wanted, and that they in turn would be subject to the disadvantages of rapid changes of
936
aim and of national policy. In these circumstances I can quite understand some bewilderment on the part of members of co-ordinating committees of the Service Departments in knowing exactly what to order or the scale on which to order it. Your Lordships are all fully aware of that, for your Lordships' House has provided debates which have clearly enough signified the rapid changes of aim; and change of aim makes difficulties of supply, as we shall quickly recognise.
If you take the Canadian trade returns and look at the exports of manufactured goods, you will see that the increases since the beginning of the war over the previous year are negligible. I am given to understand that all the military supplies are included for Customs purposes in the records of exports. Take the case of the United States—I specifically exclude aircraft. The total exports were again very small—and in dealing with purchases from the United States I want at once to put all raw materials and foodstuffs in a different category entirely from that of manufactured goods. There is a very deep-seated belief that much of the reason why greater supplies have not been available from the North American Continent is that those responsible here had an insufficient knowledge of either the United States or of Canada; and I refer particularly to those civil servants on whom the decisions seem to have been reposed.
I am going to risk intruding on a tradition respected both inside Parliament and outside. I think that any member of your Lordships' House would sooner stand up under fire than risk saying or doing anything which directly conflicted with tradition in this House. I want to say something, however, which I myself believe to be true, and in the ten days which have elapsed since I returned from the United States and Canada I have found that belief confirmed in conversations which I have had, and I have seen it widely expressed in the Press. This belief—and it is a strong belief—is that, possibly owing to the rapid extension of the bureaucracy in the last two decades, the availability of civil servants has resulted in their coming to occupy a position of executive responsibility rather than being confined to administrative work. This is a delicate matter to which to refer, and I know that it is against

937
tradition to criticise the Civil Service; but I am going to go still further and say this. In this particular matter of purchases from the other side of the Atlantic for the Armed Forces, the Ministry of Supply was largely responsible. Since I left this country, the Government have changed, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, sitting on the Front Treasury Bench. I propose to refer to aircraft later. We can at least be relieved that so far as it is humanly possible to do anything, in one branch at least it will be done.
There has been a change of Minister, but one cannot but believe that responsible civil servants bear a great measure of responsibility for what has and has not been done, and one does not gather that there has been a marked change in the administrative heads there. I have heard it said this last winter, that the Ministry of Supply was run as a political and not as a commercial department. That may be unfair criticism, but I would ask for the indulgence of your Lordships if, as one who at an early age had an important position of control in the Ministry of Munitions towards the end of the last war, and who happened to be thrown in close contact with the administration which Lord Inverforth set up, I state my honest belief that the system was more efficient in the Ministry of Munitions in the last war than it has been in the Ministry of Supply in this war. I base that on personal experience. I will go further and say that one particular phase of the activities of the Ministry of Supply, of which I have intimate knowledge and on which I am qualified to speak through a long commercial experience, has been deplorably done, and it is the civil servants and not the business men who have been brought into it. Bluntly, in the last war Lord Inverforth arranged for the executive decisions to be taken by business men, and for the administration to be carried out by civil servants; and the work was well done.
My experience at that time—I say this with all humility—has taught me a great deal. It taught me a profound respect for the Civil Service; and since the last war I have never hesitated, in the House of Commons and elsewhere, to eulogise the Civil Service. I did so continually in the course of my commercial experience, as for instance when I was President of the
938
Federation of British Industries. There is nothing like our Civil Service in the world—but as administrative personnel, not as men responsible for rapid executive decisions. Why? I ask you, my Lords, to reflect for a moment. The life's training of a civil servant is based upon time for decisions, upon taking no great risks, upon making sure that a long career will be dignified, that there will be no record of opportunities not taken, but that at least no serious mistakes will ever be made. I have been departing from a tradition, but I have explained to your Lordships that I am not criticising civil servants in their proper function. The Government in this country have undergone a material change since I went away, and perhaps it was the practice of those who have been at the top to put the civil servant in an unfair position. In any case, what I do want to say is this, that we did not get the stuff that was necessary, and which could have been obtained in bigger volume in another way.
If I may now turn to the question of purchases in the United States, I have prefaced what I want now to say by my remarks about the Civil Service because, so far as North America is concerned, it is no secret that a very curious system was adopted, with everything going by the route London-Ottawa-New York and New York-Ottawa-London. That must inevitably have slowed things down immensely. Before the American neutrality legislation was altered, that was perhaps justifiable, but it was surely maintained long beyond the time when it had been useful or had borne any fruit. The result was that an inelastic peacetime formalism was imposed, with results with regard to the size of contracts, conditions and terms of payment, and various other matters, which had a vital effect upon the speed of production. There is a disposition to dismiss criticism coming from North America as originating from disgruntled contractors who have failed to secure the orders they expected. I do not believe that that is a fair point of view. On the other hand, I know that anyone who seems inclined to advocate greater consideration for the United States of America will be criticised for being too considerate of America. I do not hesitate to admit that I went to the United States at an early age—it may be called an impressionable age—and I became very intimate with the methods, habits and

939
practices over there. I speak, I think, with full knowledge when I say that had larger orders, dispersed more widely, been placed there at the beginning of the war, it would have had a marked sentimental effect, and would have got rid of the allegation that we were not doing very much over here and that the war was not being taken too seriously—an unfortunate belief entertained in some quarters.
Having said what I have about the Civil Service and administration, I should like to emphasize that from all quarters in the United States—industrialists, bankers and legislators at Washington—one heard nothing but admiration for the head of our Mission, Mr. Arthur Purvis. I have, like other members of your Lordships' House, known him for a great number of years, and I do not believe that any man could with more brilliance, more energy, more self-sacrificing devotion and more swiftness of decision, have carried out the work that he was charged to carry out, provided he had complete liberty of action. I believe, too, that he would be prepared to pay tribute to the assistance he had from M. Jean Monet. It was a unique instance of a French head of an Inter-Allied Committee who worked very effectively in London and who was in a position to give, and did give, the greatest assistance. I am sure that M. Monet contributed very much to what was achieved.
So much for the other side. There is a belief that, however slow the production, it resulted very largely from the deficiencies on this side. By that I mean that the necessary work was hampered by lack of co-ordination at this end, that the machinery of collection and preparation of demands or indents from the different Departments lacked the guidance of people familiar with North American conditions, who could visualise at this end what they are aiming to attain over there. I specifically exclude aircraft for, with Lord Beaverbrook in the team now, thank goodness, there is going to be no lack of the necessary knowledge under that heading. I would like to add here that I gathered in Washington and elsewhere in the United States that nobody could have achieved under the circumstances better co-ordination than Mr. Arthur Purvis has secured, and now that the American preparedness programme has got a greater move on, and Colonel Frank Knox and Mr. Stimson have joined the
940
Administration, this will contribute greatly to the happiness of Mr. Arthur Purvis at the head of our Mission.
Turning to Canada, there I intend to limit my remarks, for again, Lord Beaverbrook being in the picture with his intimate knowledge of Canada, what necessity is there to say anything? But it is only fair that something should be said in this House because of the criticism that Canadian manufacturers were dilatory or selfish, for no one could have believed the sense of indignant frustration and bewilderment that one found among manufacturers in Canada at the paucity of orders placed up to that time. That finally culminated in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association taking action and appealing to Ottawa. I would like to read to your Lordships a few sentences from the communication that was sent by the Association to Mr. Mackenzie King, which has been published. They say:
"Unfortunately only a small fraction of Canadian industrial capacity has been utilised. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has a deep-rooted conviction that there exist some definite causes that are responsible for Canadian plants receiving orders for only a small percentage of their capacity, and respectfully urges the Canadian Government to take steps…to clear away misunderstandings presently existing in order that Canadian industry may be speeded up immediately and take its full share in the defence of our Empire and country. The Association advocates the mobilisation of the entire personnel, skill, experience, equipment and resources of Canadian industry in order to comply with all requirements of the Canadian and British Governments."
There was a melancholy tale as regards Canada, which has all been ventilated either in Parliament at Ottawa or in the Press, that orders were only given on a small scale, that there was an absence of blue prints, constant changes of design and so forth.
With regard to aircraft I realise that aircraft production and the training of air personnel are extremely intricate matters, and any subject connected with aircraft is so technical that it is dangerous for the layman to deal with it at all. But since I put this Motion on the Paper I have received a very great number of messages, telephone calls, requests for visits, all emphasizing the restlessness and perplexity which exist with regard to purchases from the other side. I do not exclude aircraft, but I do know that some of those who within the past ten days have had access to Lord

941
Beaverbrook have had evidence of the determination and approachability with which he is dealing with this matter. But there is still in Canada no explanation of why, last October, the offers of the Whitney Company and the Curtiss-Wright Company to erect factories in Canada for the production of aircraft were turned down. The feeling is widespread that there could have been a greater development of war industries in Canada than in the United States.
I want to turn for a moment to the problem of export from the United Kingdom to North America. I was asked by the Export Council before I went out to give such assistance and investigation to this matter as I could offer. As will be known, the Pavilion at the World's Fair is very properly being used as a current spearhead. We are spending a vast sum in purchases from the United States. Would it not be natural to see that fullest mobilisation of possible advantage of this to assist export, current and future, should be made? I understand that little has been done. I know that Mr. Arthur Purvis is fully alive to the possibilities and is of course expeditious and co-operative. That, however, is not his function. It may be replied that it is the function of the Commercial Counsellor. I would like to picture the position of the Commercial Counsellor in Washington. Whatever his desire is, he is overworked and under-staffed. He cannot possible circulate, as he would doubtless like to do. There is undoubted need for assistance and this is no reflection on the existing staff, who are achieving so much.
I now want to turn to another point, the long-range rôle of Canada. What is the British Government's policy under changed conditions of a possibly protracted war? Must we not contemplate a naval struggle involving gradually dispersed so-called home bases and so edge gradually to greater dependence on the North American Continent? One can learn of no evidence of determination rapidly to develop bases which would have to be on the Nova Scotia coast. There are plenty of good natural harbours. It may be assumed the Dominion Government would be co-operative. Surely prudence requires envisaging Canada as the second line of industrial and naval defence. Why not aim at the
942
development of plants there and negotiate for expansion to include transfer from the United Kingdom of selected plants or parts of plants, with necessary technical personnel? In brief give evidence of the commencement of a planned drift from industrial concentration in this island to expansion in the Empire in North America.
I realise, from the wording of my Motion and the fact that there has been notification that reorganisation is in progress, that there may be difficulty in reply. I ask your Lordships' indulgence for having detained the House so long, but so wide have been the references to this subject that I have been encouraged to believe there is an intense interest in it. I have a good many examples here which, if I had had time, I should like to have quoted, but I think I have made clear what in the main is the nature of the complaint from the other side. However, I believe that so much change has taken place, and I am given to understand that so many of the restrictions have been removed in the last two or three weeks since I have been on the water, that it would be better to assume that the whole matter is in process of reorganisation. There has been some suggestion that a statement was to be made—for all I know it may have been made to-day—in another place, which would indicate that the whole thing is subject to reorganisation. I hope that is the case.
I recognise that this general question is intimately wrapped up with difficult technicalities on the aircraft side. I see my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook here, and while I cannot expect him to say anything in detail, I know that, the thing being in his charge, everything that can humanly be done will be done. I would just say this to him, that after the approaches I have had and the comments I have heard and learned on the other side, particularly in Canada, there is much anxiety about what was done in the past. At the Ministry of Supply we may have confidence that Mr. Herbert Morrison will introduce great changes in the régime of his predecessor and will take advice on matters connected with the United States and Canada. The terms of my Motion, particularly the second part, cover what appears to be the cause of much of the uneasiness which has existed and which appears possible of correction.

943
With regard to the future, there is assurance that those responsible in the lower executive positions, both in Whitehall and on the other side, will have more knowledge of American conditions. I beg to move for Papers.
7.12 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I intervene for two or three minutes only to ask the noble Lords (Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Woolton) whom I see opposite, one or two questions. I am sure we all realise the enormous importance of this subject, and I only regret that it should have been raised so late owing to our other proceedings, and that the House has not had an opportunity earlier of hearing the statements which I am sure will be made by the two noble Lords opposite. We have all heard—it is inescapable—the vast volume of complaint that has arisen from time to time as to the dilatoriness and inadequacy of the proceedings of our Purchasing Commissions overseas for many months. I only hope the noble Lords opposite, as I fully expect, will be able to give us an indication that the procedures are being greatly simplified. I remember the difficulties we experienced in the last war when finally the arrangement which worked very well on the whole was that we had our Purchasing Commissions over there, well staffed, and with considerable authority to give effect to a programme. Within the limits of that programme, reference to and fro on all manner of details was not required. There was a governing and overriding control in respect of ultimate price, but our costing department was represented on the Purchasing Commission over there and, as a matter of fact, except for very major questions affecting either programme or prices, reference to and fro in detail was frequently not required. I gather that what has been happening in the past has been that you have had a continual reference to this side on all manner of detail—specifications, changes, types, size of orders, prices, and all the rest of it.
I was rather dismayed at what the noble Lord said. I hope it does not represent the truth. It was what he described as the power of the Civil Service in this matter. I well remember the organisation that worked before, and it is quite unthinkable to me that we should ever have been in the position whereby the Secretary of the Ministry of Supply should have
944
been able to exercise a dead hand on this business. If that ever was so, I can trust the noble Lord opposite (Lord Beaverbrook) to alter that. I hope also that he will keep sufficient control of the dead hand of the Treasury, of which some of us have had a good deal of experience. I dare say that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was partly responsible for its performances from last September onwards. I only want to ask the two noble Lords, whoever may reply, to give us an indication of what the machinery now is, how it is proposed to work, how you remit your programme.
I am not asking what the programme is, for that would be improper. I take it that the objective is to obtain from the splendid manufacturing resources overseas what we urgently need and cannot make ourselves for the successful prosecution of the war. We cannot afford to waste much time about it. At all events, there is a programme. Subject to the programme, what measure of authority is remitted to your purchasing organisation over there? How do you exercise your supervision, so far as you exercise it, with regard to specifications, types, and prices? I know from long interviews I had with those concerned with the Ministry of Supply in the last Government that arrangements were cumbrous and unworkable, and one wants to be assured that we have got something that will work more expeditiously and effectively now. I should like to express my unmixed pleasure at seeing the two noble Lords opposite, from whom we expect a statement, and to express once again my sincere regret that this question has had to come on so late in our proceedings that a fuller House is not present to hear what they have to say.
7.18 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I wish to take the opportunity of congratulating my noble friend Lord Barnby on his very interesting remarks on this all-important question. He had a very wide range of experience, as your Lordships know, in the last war and since, and has just returned, as he told us, from the United States and Canada. It is clear from what he said, and also from what has been said by my noble friend Lord Addison, that this matter has an importance that cannot possibly be overstressed. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to submit a few remarks in regard to the aircraft

945
aspect of this matter, and I am emboldened so to do because I was privileged in 1918, together with the late Sir Sefton Brancker, to be aeronautical adviser to the American Government of that date. Since then I have maintained very close contact with all phases of American aircraft design, production, and use, whether for Navy, Army or civil purposes.
Already it has been a privilege on another occasion in your Lordships' House to express appreciation of the value of the work that has been done so effectively and rapidly by my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister for Aircraft Production. That work has been really fine, and has been most useful, and his reorientation of the British aircraft industry by devoting to specific channels all fighter and bomber production materials and labour has been a good and effective one. Perhaps your Lordships would allow me, as a brother pilot of his son, whose record we all of us saw the other day, to congratulate his Lordship on the wonderful performance of his son in the air against the common enemy. The value of the work of the Ministry of Aircraft Production is considerable viewed from the standpoint of the Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Air Force, and there is every evidence that improvements in different directions are taking place rapidly; but the absolute need of obtaining all possible materials from the U.S.A. is admitted on all hands.
Even those of your Lordships who follow these matters fairly closely will have been surprised and disappointed to hear some of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Barnby and, if I might suggest the reason why all is not well at the moment, it divides itself into two or three phases. Firstly, the consideration of technical specifications by our representatives over there takes far too long. There is far too much of a desire to make American machines British machines, and that does not work without a tremendous amount of delay. The American aircraft industry is one of the finest in the world, and is well capable of turning out effective aircraft for whatever purpose they may be required. It is not my privilege to speak at all for the Royal Air Force, but so far as the Fleet Air Arm is concerned we want and urgently require more aircraft, and there are certain types of aircraft being
946
made in America to-day which we would have right way without any single modification beyond the national identification mark. That is exactly what our view is on those matters. The other reasons have been referred to by two noble Lords who have spoken already. They are in relation to the administrative arrangements. Those arrangements which may be suitable to a Victorian England in peace-time are certainly not suitable to America in these very desperate days, and should be changed most definitely. These problems are serious, and I am quite sure are well known to my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, who is working to put them right with all possible speed.
There is one other aspect if I might just refer to it, and that is in regard to American national opinion. It is most important that the nation of America should be well-educated with regard to our cause. Our cause is a great cause, and we want the American line of thought out there to travel along the same lines as our own. Not enough is being done in respect to that. It has been left primarily to people over there. We cannot surely leave our friends there alone to fight the German-American Bund, which has vast sums of money and is very powerful. We have the greatest of causes, and I think we should present it far more actively ourselves than we have hitherto done. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook would agree with me that when American thought travels along the same lines as British thought in regard to the ideal for which we strive, then the American programme will attain to productive efficiency far more rapidly than it has done. Therefore I think we should change our policy, and ask America to show by productive effort that she is doing all she can to give rapid effect to those words of Senator Pitman, spoken but a few days ago, that a British victory will be an American victory.
May I, with your Lordships' permission, read a paragraph only from the letter of an old friend of mine in America, one of the leading figures in service and civil production who has been concerned with these matters for some twenty-five years, just to illustrate the points which have been made by your Lordships who have spoken in this debate and myself? He says:

947
"There has been a great deal of confusion in the whole set-up in regard to the Allied Procurement Missions…The question of just what armament the Allied Missions desired seemed to change every day.…The Mission has not been particularly helpful to the American industry and a great deal of criticism by our industry has been directed towards its attitude which gave the impression that the American industry was attempting to rob the British."
Now, it is entirely wrong that that should be so and I am perfectly certain it is not the wish of your Lordships' House or of anyone in this country that such a false impression should get abroad. The American aircraft industry is very fine. There is no finer in the world. They can teach us a lot and no doubt we can teach them things too, but now we want them to turn out all the American naval and military aircraft they can, the only change being the alteration of the national identification mark. If I may do so in conclusion, may I suggest that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, in thinking of these questions should consider the motto of that great Admiral, Jackie Fisher——
LORD STRABOLGI: Jackie Fisher's motto was "Sack the lot."
7.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply has asked me to reply to the Motion which the noble Lord has brought before the House. The Motion raises issues that affect both the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry for Aircraft Production, and I shall, of course, confine my observations to matters for which the Ministry of Supply is responsible, and leave in the much more competent hands of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, the task of dealing with the questions with which he is particularly concerned. My right honourable friend the Minister of Supply is glad to have the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and welcomes an opportunity of hearing at first hand from someone who has just come from North America observations on the position there. I was glad to hear Lord Barnby say that he thought things were probably better now than they were earlier on. Of course they ought to be, because we have had several months of experience.
I think that it might be useful if I adumbrate the arrangements that exist for
948
obtaining war supplies from the United States of America and Canada. Shortly after the outbreak of war, Colonel Greenly, the chairman of Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox, himself a distinguished engineer, was selected by His Majesty's Government to proceed to Canada and the United States of America as the head of a British Mission. At that time the United States Neutrality Act had not been altered. The Mission was, therefore, established at Ottawa in the first instance, but as soon as the change was effected in the United States Neutrality Act, arrangements were made which extended the activities of the Mission to the United States. The organisation adopted was that of a British Central Supply Board for Canada and for the United States of America, with Colonel Greenly as Chairman. Mr. Purvis, who took charge in the United States, was a member of the Board and all the other members, who were technical, financial or contracts officers, were sent out from this country. Subsequently arrangements were made for the co-ordination of French and British purchases in the United States and an Anglo-French Purchasing Commission was set up in New York with Mr. Purvis as Chairman. Since he continued to be a member of the British Central Supply Board, co-ordination between these two bodies was thus effected.
That was the position whilst France was in the war. It has now been arranged that British supplies should be obtained in Canada through the Munitions Department of the Dominion Government, and in the United States of America through a separate British Mission under the chairmanship of Mr. Purvis—again assisted by the necessary technical, production and financial assistants. I should wish to take this opportunity of paying, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, a tribute to the services rendered by Colonel Greenly who, before his return to this country, did a great work in organising in the early stages the production of munitions in the Dominion of Canada. At the same time, I should like to express, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, our sense of the great services rendered by Mr. Purvis, and I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord in his remarks about Mr. Purvis. He has been Chairman of the Anglo-French Purchasing Commission in the United States, which organised in addition to other things the great joint scheme on aircraft construction in the

949
United States, the benefit of which, owing to the lamentable disaster to France, will now accrue to this country. The labours and responsibilities of Mr. Purvis grow steadily greater, but His Majesty's Government are fully confident that he will be found equal to every call that may be made upon him and they will not fail to vest in him the powers, and all the powers, necessary for the purpose of carrying out his work.
That gives an outline of the organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asks whether the limitations which origin-ally hampered the work of this Mission have been effectively corrected. My right honourable friend cannot accept the suggestion contained in this question. The Mission was spending vast sums of money. I observe that the figures are well over one hundred million pounds, and it was obviously necessary that some control should be exercised on this side over the activities of this Mission for which my right honourable friend is responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was necessary, in cases where capital expenditure was involved in order to provide new capacity, that there should be reference back to this country. From the experience that I had, when I had the privilege to be a member of the Supply Council, I can assure the noble Lord that there was no delay on this side in arriving at conclusions and conveying them to Colonel Greenly.
Moreover, the Board in Canada had wide discretionary powers in negotiating price.
LORD BARNBY: Is that in Canada only?
LORD WOOLTON: I said in Canada; and the financial allotments for each purchase were invariably based on the Board's own recommendations. The noble Lord has asked whether the responsibility for the assembly of demands in this country and for their execution under British direction in North America is confined to individuals who had previously been familiar with the conditions in those countries. I am sure that Lord Barnby would not expect me to be able to answer this question literally, and to say that all the people engaged in the assembly of demands in this country were technical experts. It would obviously be impossible to staff the whole of the production department with individuals
950
acquainted with the conditions in the United States of America and in Canada, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Ministry of Supply Controllers of the various raw materials are men of wide business experience, both here and abroad, and the noble Lord will, I think, know from the intimate acquaintance that he has of those subjects, that, on the whole, the raw materials that are being used by the Ministry of Supply and purchased on the other side, have been purchased through normal trade channels; but the significant and important fact is that the purchasing procedure has, from the start, been worked by persons actually situated in North America, all of whom had special qualifications for their work and have been in close touch with the industry' both in Canada and in the United States of America.
I must, I think, make one other observation. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has suggested that decisions have rested on the shoulders of civil servants. Surely it is the business of the Minister to take the responsibility of all his civil servants. I can only say that when I was a member of the staff in that Department I was one of the business men brought in to equip the Army with its clothing and other things, and throughout the whole of that time I had complete power in my own Department. I only went to the civil servants when I wanted advice. I went to the Minister when I wanted instruction and direction. But I can assure the noble Lord on that intimate personal experience that I at any rate never found anybody getting in my way. I must maintain that Ministers, and Ministers only, are responsible to this House and to the country for administration of their Departments.
7.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER FOR AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (LORD BEAVERBROOK):
My Lords, I shall address myself particularly to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in relation to aircraft, but first I would like to join in praising the Commission in America and in praising Mr. Purvis, the head of that Commission. They have spent a great deal of money and I think they have done it very well. They have given the supplies demanded of them and that seems to me as much as could be asked

951
of the Commission. The question was asked whether the Government here have made full use of the Commission and availed themselves of all the opportunities and advantages of that kind. I cannot say that I rank myself with those who believe they made full use of the Commission within the limits of Government policy, but perhaps Government policy is somewhat extended now and under my right honourable friend Mr. Herbert Morrison, I am sure, experience will be very satisfactory. Mr. Morrison has a more difficult task than falls to my lot, but he is discharging it extremely well. In fact, when I sometimes look at his work, I get advantages and benefits in the discharge of the task that falls to me.
So far as my Ministry is concerned we have our own representation, in America at any rate. We do not rely upon the Commission at all. We have appointed a very useful man in Mr. Morris Wilson, the President of the Royal Bank of Canada. I may say that when that appointment was made by me it was received with universal acclaim in Canada and by those who know Mr. Wilson in the United States. That appointment has redounded to my credit. He works without salary, he gives his services freely and they are worth while. He spends three days a week in New York. The whole business of the Ministry is in his hands. He can take decisions, he can spend money subject only to the responsibility of the Minister. That responsibility of course I keep always before me, and I do not propose to relinquish it on any account. The Commission in New York, of course, is made use of in dealing with our affairs, but we are making use of it under our system by which Mr. Morris Wilson is the agent of the Ministry, and the Commission facilitates our transactions.
I may say that the Commission in that respect is entirely satisfactory to us, and I must praise Mr. Purvis, the head of it, for the patient endurance he shows when he is dealing with the many troublesome issues that arise. Of course, there are plenty of criticisms of the conduct of the Ministry's business in New York, and these criticisms I accept and listen to with attention, because I have now been in the Ministry some six weeks, and if there are troubles and difficulties in America I must take responsibility for them. First of all we are told that the technical people we
952
have out there in America are not quite satisfactory. The size of the staff ought to be satisfactory, anyway, because it is very big indeed. We are adding to it and strengthening it, so that perhaps we may be able to take from it also after a little while! As I have said before, the decisions in America, which are another subject of criticism by my noble friend Lord Barnby, can be taken instantly by Mr. Wilson.
Then, again, I have heard that our representation in America—and I may say this is directed against the Commission and not against the Aircraft Ministry, Mr. Morris Wilson—is too English. Well, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Purvis are Canadians, and it seems to me that the criticism might well be that the Commission was too Canadian rather than that it was too English. We are told that the inspectors are a nuisance and that we ought to have American inspectors; that is another point of criticism. My noble friend Lord Sempill will agree with me in sticking to the present system of English inspection, and therefore I do not need to make any departure at all.
The fourth point of criticism concerns the modifications which it is said are continually being put forward, thus delaying the progress of delivery. In the aircraft industry there are not any modifications; we buy types, we simply purchase a type of aeroplane. We must give an instruction as to the arms, the armouring and the radio, but the principle of the order is the type. The arms, the armouring and the radio are done to some extent sometimes in America, but usually over here. Whether they are done here or there, there must be some delay on account of the difference. It would be impossible to adopt the arms system of America, and the armouring system there has not yet reached the development that it has attained in this country. The arming and the armouring work must be done and must constitute some delay, here or there, and it is here that we get the information as to our requirements, for we must have that knowledge from the men who fight; it is not to be got elsewhere. The organisation of our American Department and the Aircraft Ministry here is under the direction of a gentleman named Mr. Westbrook, a very forceful character, and I am prepared to stand on his work. He has a very big job, because, of course, when the aircraft from America reaches

953
this country it has to be assembled. It comes in bits and pieces, and the task of assembly is a very big job, requiring an enormous amount of labour and a great deal of space.
The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked me about our programme, and here I can tell him our programme. I will not be disclosing any secrets to the enemy, or telling anything to the Americans they do not know. Our programme is perfectly simple: it is to buy everything we can get. In the pursuit of that programme I may say that, including the purchases we have been taking over from the French, which constitute just as much labour and consideration as any other purchases, we have spent 10,000,000 dollars a day for every day that the Aircraft Ministry has been in existence.
LORD STRABOLGI: This is very important, when my noble friend says that we buy everything we can get; that is the best thing we have heard for a long time. Does that apply only to aircraft, or also to other munitions?
LORD BEAVERBROOK: Oh, I speak only for aircraft, as I told my noble friend. In aircraft the sky is the limit: buy what we can get. As I say, since this Ministry was set up we have spent 10,000,000 dollars every day. I do not know whether that will be as pleasant to the taxpayer or the wealthy citizen as it is to those of us who buy in the Aircraft Ministry; but altogether, with the French purchases, we have spent over 600,000,000 dollars on the purchase of aircraft that would have gone to France if the French collapse had not taken place. As the whole programme is something over 1,000,000,000 dollars, you can see that we have been very busy to have spent as much as 600,000,000 dollars in the last six weeks. No time has been wasted in spending money, at any rate, and if it is wisely spent it is well done. As I say, the business is constantly receiving our attention because of the changes and the variations that we must necessarily deal with on account of the enormous expansion of the programme.
I should like to say one word about the Treasury, and here I stand, a member of this House, defending the Treasury and yet not part of it! We have had to get out of that ancient institution these large sums of money that I have just mentioned to you, and we have had no
954
delay, no procrastination and no obstruction. As far as we are concerned, it has been quite easy all the way. We have made our explanations and made them very fully and very completely, and never have we suffered one moment of worry, never have we sustained one hour of delay on account of the Treasury. As for the Americans, I have praise for them too. They are up-to-date on their programme, they have delivered to us so far everything they have promised, and they are a little bit ahead of time. I can also give the news to the House that the imports from America in this month of July will be very considerable—a very handsome programme. My noble friend Lord Barnby referred to the difference between placing orders and getting goods, and I am aware of that difference, perfectly conscious of it; but some of the aircraft now being delivered to us in the month of July were actually purchased by me. Of course the explanation is, again, the French collapse.
I am sure the House would like me to say a word about our programme at home. It is not raised in the Motion of my noble friend, but perhaps I could have your Lordships' attention, or perhaps you could be patient with me, if I spoke of that programme. Our production here is limited, most severely limited. We are doing everything we can to expand it, and it is a difficult and heavy task, but we are facing it with all the ingenuity that we can develop. We have no shortage of aircraft at this moment, but of course we shall need more aeroplanes every day, and we must go on developing that programme as fully as possible. That is why I have been asking for aluminium. We want as much of it as we can get, for we have full use for it in the expanding programme. For such expansion as we have been able to get so far, I must give very grateful thanks to the masters and to the men, to the managers and to the directors of the aircraft plants. They have really done the work. The lines for production have been organised by me, but they have kept things moving. They have done the rest of the job, and they have done it wonderfully well.
Another problem which has confronted us is the defence of our factories and of the airfields attached to the air factories. For that we put ourselves in the hands of Admiral Evans, and we could not have

955
made a better choice. It was a remarkable selection. If your Lordships go to one of our aircraft factories and fields, you will there see the work of Admiral Evans, marvellous and magnificent. I could not get on in my office at all without the support of Sir Charles Craven. Mr. Hennessy and others. We owe a great deal to the Service officers—Sir Wilfrid Freeman and his organisation.
My noble friend Lord Sempill raised a question concerning the Fleet Air Arm, and there I may say that we are on the very best of terms with the Admiralty. In order to get on the very best of terms with the Admiralty under Mr. Alexander, the First Lord, you have to give them what they want; and so, since I can claim to be on good terms with the Admiralty, I must have been giving them what they want. My noble friend asked a question with regard to a particular type of aircraft which he thought ought to be available to the Admiralty. I can assure him that I regard that suggestion as having great force, as I have already carried it out. At the same time, I am glad to feel that his mind is moving in the direction in which I have been acting. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked me about the machinery for the future. I can say that that machinery will want constant attention, and will be watched always and changed frequently. There will be no permanency at all so far as we are concerned. We, of course, acknowledge that the Air Force give us our inspiring example. They are the torch that lights us on our way, and we give them the fullest credit and confidence in the handling of the machines that we try so hard to supply for their use.
7.54 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like before the Motion is put to intervene to express my unbounded gratitude to Lord Beaverbrook for his encouraging statement, but also to say to Lord Woolton that the very correct Departmental reply which he read out filled me with complete dismay, and that, therefore, I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject again.
7.55 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the words which have just fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, dispose of
956
anything which I was going to say on that matter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woolton for the considerate way in which he has replied to my Motion. We well know that his participation in the Ministry of Supply resulted in a signal success in procuring the requirements for which he was particularly responsible, and that signal service is one which has been admired and appreciated. I feel encouraged by his reassurance with regard to the administrative points which I raised. I want to repeat that nothing unfair should motivate any departure from tradition. With regard to any insinuations of where responsibility lay, the motive which actuated my remarks sprang from the belief in this country that the production for which the Ministry of Supply has been responsible has not been adequate. It is on those grounds that the country looks to see where responsibility may lie.
The future is indeed encouraging, because I gather from what has been said that there has been a definite change since the present Government took over. I am sure that we can feel confident that Mr. Morrison, with his brilliant record of achievement and of administration behind him, will bring about great changes and be responsible for great drive and great achievements. I cannot refrain from commenting on the remarks which my noble friend Lord Woolton made with regard to the original Mission which went out to Canada, which he described as having special qualifications for their work and intimate previous contact with Canada and the United States. Thanks to the hospitality of a distinguished civil servant, I was able to meet them immediately on their arrival in Canada, and I want to say that the impression which would have been given to any one of your Lordships would not have been in accordance with the description which Lord Woolton has given. Lord Woolton did not refer to two points I made. One was with regard to exports from this country—the mobilisation of this tremendous expenditure for the purpose of trying to help our exports. Perhaps he will draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to this matter. The other point related to the long-range picture of Canada, and there again I hope that he will convey that to the proper quarter.

957
I am sure that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. I shall feel that my putting this Motion on the Paper has at least afforded an opportunity of giving great encouragement to the country as a whole by the statement which Lord Beaverbrook has just made so frankly and with such businesslike lucidity. The remark which he made with regard to the absence of any handicap from the Treasury is, I am sure, an astonishing tribute to the new-technique of persuasiveness which he has introduced into Governmental activity, and that remark will give rise to great confidence in the country. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has replied to the points I raised, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
7.59 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to ask whether any statement can be made as to future business.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on Tuesday. July 16, the Report stage of the Solicitors Bill will be taken. We shall also take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which was received from another place to-day, and of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Bill. Lord Davies has taken the Motion, which stands in his name for this day, off the Paper. On Wednesday, July 17, the Emergency Powers (Defence) (No. 2) Bill, to extend further the powers which may be exercised by His Majesty under the Emergency
958
Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is expected to be received from another place, and the House will be asked to take it through all its stages that afternoon. Arrangements will be made to circulate the Bill in the Commons form before it reaches your Lordships' House. The Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill will also be taken through all its stages that afternoon. There will then be a Royal Commission. It is proposed to ask the House to allow Government business to take precedence of other business that afternoon, and the Lord Chancellor has kindly arranged to make it possible for the House to meet at three o'clock in order to avoid encroaching upon the time available for the discussion of the important Motion in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, on the provision of facilities for physical training. On Thursday, July 18, we shall probably take the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, as we are anxious to make progress with this important measure, and of the Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Bill. The House will meet at four o'clock on Tuesday and Thursday and, as I have already said, at three o'clock on Wednesday.

POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS ORDER, 1940.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Urban District Council of Poulton-Le-Fylde:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.