Lords Sitting of 4 August 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SECRET SESSION.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now sit in secret.
Moved, That the House do now sit in Secret Session.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill I desire to fulfil a promise which I gave to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when, on the Second Reading, he asked for further particulars in regard to this measure. Reconditioning Acts have been in operation since 1926. Progress at first was slow, and by 1931, when the original Act was due to expire, only 4,500 cottages had been dealt with in England and Wales, and 5,900 in Scotland. The Act has been extended for further periods and by 1938 over 20,000 cottages had been improved in England and Wales, and 28,000 in Scotland. In England and Wales there was a marked increase of activity in the three years before the war, and in 1938–1939 the number of cottages reconditioned had risen to 4,000 for the one year. The Acts are administered in England and Wales by 47 county councils, 3 county borough councils, 122 borough and urban district councils and 141 rural district councils, and in Scotland by all of the 33 county councils and 91 town councils.
The Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the English Central Housing Advisory Committee reported on the working of the Acts in 1936, and found that progress had been very far from uniform, there being
156
marked disparities between neighbouring counties, and even between rural districts where the circumstances might be expected to be very similar. They considered that very much more could be done if the right methods were adopted. In their view, the giving of sustained and continuous publicity to the facilities available was essential to encourage owners to make application for assistance, and they recommended the Minister to prepare suitable educative publicity material. They also stated that:
"Our investigations have convinced us that, where the Acts are administered by the county council, full success is only possible if there is close co-operation with the officers of constituent rural district councils."
As a result of constant official pressure and encouragement, owners in country districts had before the war been made to realize more fully their responsibilities. The administrative measures already taken had not then had time, however, to come to fruition, and the rural housing situation still left room for considerable improvement.
Efforts would certainly have been intensified but for the war. War conditions have inevitably curtailed housing work, but, despite this, the Government have continued to approve the giving of grants under the Acts during the war in respect of the reconstruction of houses to be occupied by agricultural workers or by persons directly engaged in the war effort in other ways. There is no doubt, however, that much greater progress can be made with reconditioning under the Acts, and a big drive will be carried out as soon as the war ends. This will form part of the general rural housing campaign, for which plans were laid before the outbreak of war. These plans, with any necessary modifications due to the war, will be put into execution as soon as practicable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his courtesy in making a very full statement on the first opportunity which he has had after the Second Reading. It is a very useful method of procedure in your Lordships' House that, where circumstances make it difficult to have a full statement on Second Reading, there remains the occasion, of which my

157
noble friend has availed himself, to make a statement of a general character on going into Committee on the Bill. I do not think that your Lordships will be surprised or disappointed that there has not been very much progress during the course of the war, but I notice that my noble friend in his statement did not hold out any hope that much could be done until the conclusion of hostilities, and that is very natural and proper on his part. For one thing, the want of money might stand in the way of progress.
There are one or two questions which one might feel inclined to ask, but I do not wish to press my noble friend if he does not desire to answer them now. In the first place, I should have liked to know whether the procedure by loan or the procedure by grant has turned out to be the more popular. As your Lordships will remember, under these Acts the help of the central authority can be given either in the form of loans to owners of cottage property or in the form of grants. One would suppose that grants would be the more popular of the two, because, unlike loans, they do not have to be repaid. It is that kind of information which I should be glad to have, because it might throw some light on the apathy which has been shown in regard to the working of the Acts in certain areas. I noticed that my noble friend, when referring to the findings of the Committee which he mentioned, said that there was a great variation in the efficiency displayed by neighbouring areas, even when the neighbouring areas were of a similar character. Of course there must be a great variation, because as often as not neighbouring areas are not in a similar position. But he used that phrase—that even when they were in a similar position economically there was great variety as regards the effect of the Act. He attributed it, as far as I understood him, to the weakness of the local authorities—not of the county councils, but of the minor local authorities who have to act in the matter. He told your Lordships that the Government were going to take steps to stimulate the minor local authorities in this respect.
But, of course, a great deal has been done in rural housing in our lifetime by private enterprise, and great progress has been made. Indeed, as your Lordships are quite as well aware as I am, for you are all interested in this subject, the whole standard of accommodation in rural housing
158
has gone up, and what was considered to be adequate fifty years ago is not considered adequate now. All of us will be very glad that that should be so. I am sorry that the Government should have to announce a disappointment in the working of the Act. Of course, I do not want money to be spent recklessly, but there is no question of that. So long as the houses are made habitable, really habitable—fit for habitation—that is all that is absolutely necessary. In many districts with which your Lordships are connected, there is not much complaint to be made, but in others it is not so. As you drive through the country—if you have any petrol to let you drive through the country—you notice many houses which evidently are very much in need of repair. That is all I have to say. I would only thank my noble friend once more for his speech, and say that I am quite sure that your Lordships will be very much interested to see how the Act prospers as soon as hostilities are concluded.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I wish to thank the noble Marquess for having been instrumental in eliciting this statement. It is not appropriate or desirable, I am sure, for us to enter into a discussion on it now, but if a statement of this kind means anything it is an abundant justification for all those who have said for fifteen years that this Act would certainly be necessarily ineffective. Twenty thousand houses out of the hundreds of thousands of houses returned in this survey as unsatisfactory—that is all that we have to show after fifteen years or more of that Act. The subject bristles with points for useful discussion, and I will only conclude by again expressing our thanks to the noble Marquess for having elicited this statement.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to answer the inquiry of the noble Marquess respecting the popularity of loans as against grants. I am sorry I am not able to give him a satisfactory answer to-day, but as the point is of some importance your Lordships will no doubt allow me the opportunity to give the information on the Third Reading of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is the Third Reading to be taken on the next sitting day?
LORD SNELL: Yes.

NATIONAL SERVICE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I might be allowed to answer a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood at a previous stage of the Bill. On the Second Reading Lord Wedgwood asked whether people from Cyprus are included under the plans for conscription in Egypt. It is perhaps only necessary to say that as Cyprus is a Colony, Cypriots will be liable for conscription if they are normally resident in Egypt. Under the Order in Council which has been made they will in general be regarded as normally resident in Egypt if they have lived there for so long as two years.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

FOOD LICENCE REGULATIONS.
LORD SOUTHWOOD LORD SOUTHWOOD had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the administration of the regulations governing the tenure of licences by traders in food who engage in "Black Market" operations: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, In bringing this subject before your Lordships' notice I will not detain you for more than a very few moments. The subject of systematic illicit dealings in foodstuffs has been before this House on more than one occasion, and I make no apology for bringing this most important matter to your Lordships' notice once again. The number of persons engaged in this odious trade, is, I am glad to think, probably less, proportionately, than in many other countries, and doubtless the enforcement of the very heavy penalties since March last under the Defence Regulations has had to some extent
160
a salutary effect. We have all been very glad indeed to see the accounts in the Press of the drastic action taken in the Courts in imposing these heavier penalties, and to know that the penalties themselves and the publicity given to them have had some effect in discouraging this type of crime.
But the activities of the commercial Quislings who still indulge in this insidious and despicable trade are not inconsiderable and must be having a very serious effect on the public morale. The man in the street demands, and I think rightly demands, that the Government should pursue them ruthlessly and remorselessly. I know that the noble Lord the Minister of Food is keenly aware of his duties in this respect, and is trying to eradicate this evil from our national life. For the Black Market is obviously a national menace. It preys on our food supply, the very life blood of our national existence; it flouts justice, it frustrates the Government's efforts to distribute our food equally and fairly, and it encourages theft, conspiracy, bribery and corruption. I am bound to say that His Majesty's Government were none too thorough in their earliest efforts to cope with the Black Marketeers. I believe that representations were made to the Government before the war that the only way to check the growth of Black Market operations in this country would be to proceed forthwith to the licensing of all dealers in commodities likely to be in restricted supply or subject to price control. The Government recognized the wisdom of that course to the extent of instituting on the outbreak of war a system of licensing for all retail food traders. But, most unfortunately, a similar system of universal licensing was not at first introduced for wholesale dealers, and so the door was left wide open for the intrusion of those who nefariously exploited the national emergency for the purpose of private gain.
Not the least of the evils of this Black Market is the way in which it is affecting firms of high repute and respectability. Like a poisonous weed, it is choking and destroying all the things that we regard as decent and honourable in our dealings between men and men, and the more it is left alone the more it will flourish, until at last it will become difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. Here in Britain we

161
are proud—and I think I may say justly proud—of our long tradition of high commercial morality. It is appalling to see how swiftly our business codes, built up over centuries, can be damaged once these destructive influences have set to work. The nation desires that the Government shall, without delay, take the strongest possible action to exterminate this menace.
This action can be along two main lines. On the one hand, it can take the form of imposing very heavy penalties, both monetary and personal, for breaches of the law. On the other hand, it can take steps to put dishonest dealers out of business altogether. In totalitarian countries the punishment for Black Market criminals might well be the firing squad. That is not our way. British justice is British justice and, under Providence, it will remain British justice. Incidentally, as an instance of British justice, your Lordships will remember a case not long ago—only a few months ago—where a man of enemy alien origin, charged with murder, was, even in spite of our preoccupations with the war, given in effect three trials, the last one taking place in this House, before the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and four other eminent Judges. I merely mention this as an example of the meticulous fairness of British justice. We in this country, I hope, will never descend to the level of totalitarian countries. But punishment as provided by our laws, we are agreed, should, especially during the war, be prompt and drastic in order to have the maximum deterrent effect alike on the wrongdoer himself and on those who may be tempted to imitate him.
My object in addressing your Lordships is to ask the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, how far he has considered a more stringent use of his powers to cancel the trading licences of persistent and large-scale offenders. I feel sure your Lordships will agree with me that these culprits should be entirely barred from access to the supply of goods which may become the subject of improper transactions. No doubt some may argue that this is punishment superimposed on penalties decreed in the Law Courts. That contention may be quite valid in peace-time, but we are at war, fighting for our very existence—for all we have and are. We have welcomed the Order already made which increases the penalties that can be imposed in
162
respect of a Black Market offence up to a level intended to take all the profit out of the crime. But the difficulty as I see it is that the offence actually proved against a culprit may be, and in most cases certainly is, only one out of a series of such offences, about the rest of which evidence is lacking or incomplete. These are not isolated lapses in an otherwise blameless career. They are the coldly and carefully planned violations of the law by someone who knows how to make illegality pay a profit.
Now that the Minister of Food has extended his system of licensing to cover practically all forms of dealing in foodstuffs, he has in his hands a weapon—a potent and a most effective weapon—to cut off this evil at its source. All food trades are now under the vigilant eve of the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, and his enforcement officers are equipped with very considerable powers. It seems to me that the noble Lord has the remedy, the effective use of which should, within measurable time, make the Black Market a thing of the past. Let him revoke the licences of these racketeers, and so completely prevent them from trading. Here, indeed, is a ideal opportunity to make the punishment fit the crime. I believe that some time ago a promise was made in another place by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that, in appropriate cases, this course would be followed. My purpose to-day in raising the question is chiefly to give expression to the popular desire that this remedy shall be ruthlessly applied, and to ask him to give us and the public the latest information on the matter.
Your Lordships will have noted that I have confined my strictures to a given class of offender. We are confident that the Minister of Food will strive to exercise his powers with appropriate firmness and with strict fairness. I do not for a moment suppose, for example, that in the case where an employer is fined because of the misdeeds of an employee, acting without his consent and without his knowledge, he would take the extreme step of depriving him of his licence. Nor am I specially so concerned at the moment with a costermonger who overcharges a few pence, or any other trader who is guilty of a single minor lapse—not that I condone either of them. What I am concerned with is the cunning, callous, and completely unscrupulous person who

163
systematically offends and expects illegality to pay big dividends. I hope the noble Lord will be kind enough to give your Lordships some assurances on these points. May I ask him, too, what is the proposed procedure about border-line cases? I mean those in which there are elements of doubt or possibly mitigating circumstances. What machinerFy is there, I wonder, for an appeal?
As I have indicated, it may be suggested that the double punishment—one by the Courts, another by the Ministry—is excessive. I think I may assure the noble Lord that stern measures will be warmly welcomed by most members of the public. After all, there are innumerable cases of persons, law-abiding citizens, who through the exigencies of war have had to forfeit their businesses or give up their property. There are many thousands who have lost brothers, husbands, and sons in the service of the country. They certainly have no sympathy to spare for the man who loses his business because of a crime, a mean sordid crime, against his fellow-men in the hour of the nation's peril. The Ministry of Supply has powers to remove inefficient business men from their jobs. The Ministry of Agriculture can turn a bad farmer out of his farm. Inefficient business men and farmers hamper the war effort. How much more so do the criminals who gamble in food. If it is a question of pity, let us pity the people who are exploited. If it is a question of justice, let us first be just to the public.
Let the noble Lord who administers austerity with so much sweet reasonableness mete out his punishment with a firm and unsparing hand. Men who go in systematically for Black Market transactions are unfit to be used as links in the chain of national service of food distribution. They are unworthy to be favoured with a licence by His Majesty's Government to carry on a profitable trade when, under the pressure of war conditions, honest citizens are being forced out of business. Therefore I ask the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, to be good enough to give us some indication of the steps he is taking to stamp out altogether this abominable traffic which is degrading to our national honour and destructive of our national life. I beg to move for Papers.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, if I may venture to say so, places your Lordships in his debt by the persistency with which he pursues this subject, and he does indeed in the process give me great strength. There are no two views among respectable people as to what ought to be done in this matter. I have taken the powers, and I must convince your Lordships, if I need indeed convince you, that I will exercise them. It is perhaps much more important that I should convince those who attempt to transgress that I will exercise those powers than that I should convince your Lordships. I take this responsibility very seriously, and I believe I can count upon the support of your Lordships' House in the actions that I take. I know that it is proper that we should temper justice with mercy. I find it very difficult, when dealing with this particular sort of person, to stop and think about mercy. I cannot but think about all the ordinary common folk of the realm who are being robbed by such people, and it is they, I think, who have claims on our pity.
I have but one fear about this debate, and that is not fear as to the opinion of it in your Lordship's House, or indeed as to the opinion of it in this country, but I am a little concerned that it should not get out of perspective when reported abroad, because news, as the noble Lord knows, so much better than I do, is a very extraordinary thing. The news of good behaviour is no news at all, and the news of bad behaviour is good news. There must not be any doubt that this Black Market business is a profoundly evil thing, and I endorse entirely all the noble Lord has said about the pernicious and corrupting nature of its influence on our national life; but it is a very small thing, I am glad to say. The extent to which there are Black Market operations in this country is really remarkably small. Of the total offences against the food laws not more than .01 per cent. of the traders of this country commit any offence at all, and I am bound to say that I have very great sympathy with some of the offenders against the law. We have so many laws, they are administered, of necessity, not by the principals of the firms, but by their staffs, often not trained staffs, often very temporary and very new staffs, and if those people fail to display proper notices or if

165
they make the small extra charges that they most certainly ought not to make and for which they ought to be most severely reproved, they are not crimes against the State, they are just the ordinary peccadilloes that might almost be put on the same level as going thirty-one miles an hour instead of thirty, if your Lordships remember the days when you had any petrol with which to go anywhere.
It is not of these offences, however, that we are talking, but the extent to which there are people who are deliberately endeavouring, for their own profit, to go into a whole range of crimes. I would like to emphasize that. So often the Black Market offences are not merely an illegal charge for food. They begin with theft, they begin with people being led into theft, and they go through the whole range of rather despicable crimes in which it is very often extremely difficult to find the brains behind the crimes. Those are the people that I am after. My enforcement officers are searching for them and searching not only in conjunction with the Ministry of Food, because these people do not care whether they are dealing with food or with clothing or what they are dealing with so long as they are going to be able to make a profit out of it. They are even prepared, some of them, to deal with their country and make a profit out of that. We are all working together now, in different sections of Government Departments, pursuing these people. I hope that that statement will, at any rate convince the noble Lord that I am taking my duties and responsibility in this matter very seriously.
The noble Lord raises another issue. He asks me what I am doing with the marginal case. There are two forms of marginal case. There is the person with regard to whom we are not sure whether he has committed a crime or not. In those cases we are warning the people concerned because, if a warning will fulfil the purpose of prevention, then that is all that is necessary. The other cases we take to Court so that they may be judged. When a case has been before the Court and it has been adjudged that the person concerned is a criminal, that is the end of the man's punishment from the point of view of the law. But I have another responsibility. I am the Minister who licenses people to conduct trade in food in this country, and I am bound, when
166
a person has been convicted before the Courts, to ask myself whether I was right when I licensed that person to carry on the food trade of the country, and on the evidence before me I come to a conclusion. I have to conclude whether the person is likely, as a result of having been publicly punished, to be a person whom I can trust in the future to look after the food trade of the country as a person licensed by me. Now the responsibility for that judgment must rest on the Minister himself.
The noble Lord, Lord Southwood, has asked me, is there any appeal? It would have been possible for me to institute a tribunal to which people could appeal. Then I would have been able to come to your Lordships and say that the tribunal had gone into the matter and I had accepted the decision of the tribunal. I have not taken that view of my responsibilities. We are not dealing here with a question of law. There is no technical issue involved; there is just a simple question of fact and of the history of a man and of his transactions in business before he was convicted. On that I feel competent to come to a conclusion. Therefore I have not attempted to share responsibility with anyone else. The line I have taken is that if the record of that man in business—and I am only concerned with his record in business—shows that he ought not to be licensed, then I will remove his licence. I am bound to say that I have met with the other side of this issue on different occasions, because while people will urge you to take the strongest possible line of action, when you have taken it, they invariably discover that the man had a wife and that he had some children, that he had invested the whole of his money in this business, and that you ought to have a heart. I am so sorry. I have put away my heart into another compartment on this issue. I am not going to be moved by appeals to think of the man's wife and to think of his children. I beg him to think of them now. Then I shall not have to think of them later. I hope that that will convince the noble Lord that I am being almost as ruthless in the matter as he would be himself.
I am bound to confess that it is not always easy to get proof in these cases. They are extraordinarily difficult. One of my officers a short time ago stopped

167
a motor car at four o'clock in the morning on a country road because he thought he would like to see what was in it. Within a very short time a private motor car which happened to be passing—as private cars do at four o'clock in the morning on a country road—stopped for the driver to have a conversation with the person who was driving the first car in order to find out what was the matter. He had been suspicious. That was why he had been following the first car. We discovered by that means a whole range of Black Market transactions widespread throughout the country. I am glad to say the gentleman who stopped his car will not do so for another three years. Your Lordships might inquire whether I am as good as my word on this matter. We have withdrawn forty-one retail licences, but only one catering licence up to now. Twenty wholesalers have had their licences reviewed and in six cases they have been completely revoked. These figures are small. I am glad that they are small because I have tried to convince you that I am taking this question of the Black Market very seriously, and I have tried to convince you that all the forces of different Government Departments are seeking out these people. When I show your Lordships the comparatively small number of licences that have been revoked, I hope your Lordships will take that as evidence that that, ugly as it is, does indeed represent a very small blot on the honour of the food trades with which I am concerned. I hope that the noble Lord who has done the service of raising this issue will be convinced that my administration is as vigorous as he would wish it.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I am sure we are most indebted to the noble Lord for the very full statement he has given with regard to the Black Market. I never had any doubt that the noble Lord was doing his best to eradicate this evil. My fear was, knowing him as I do, that he would be perhaps a little tenderhearted. He has converted me now and I am satisfied that he is taking such steps as will eventually eradicate this evil from our midst. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

KNIGHT versus GUILDFORD CORPORATION.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Justice Hilbery in the case of Knight versus Guildford Corporation from which it appears that the Corporation charged Knight who was the Borough Engineer with not being a loyal citizen of this country, an allegation emphatically rejected on the evidence by the learned Judge; whether nevertheless Knight had been imprisoned under Defence Regulation 18B and had thereby been disabled from discharging his duty as Borough Engineer and had lost his job; and whether the Government proposed to make such changes in the administration of Regulation 18B as will prevent any repetition of gross injustice of this kind.]
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend, the Duke of Devonshire, is unable to be here, and I have been asked to reply to the noble Viscount's question. Mr. Knight was detained in May, 1940, by order of the then Home Secretary in the exercise of his powers under Defence Regulation 18B, on the ground that there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a person of hostile associations, and that by reason thereof it was necessary to exercise control over him. He was released in November, 1940, after review of all the circumstances of the case including the report of the Advisory Committee. If the suggestion is that the result of the recent action by Mr. Knight against the Guildford Corporation shows that the Secretary of State acted wrongly in making an order for Mr. Knight's detention in May, 1940, this suggestion cannot be accepted by His Majesty's Government. On the information available to the then Home Secretary he would have been failing in his public duty if he had not ordered the detention of Mr. Knight as a necessary measure of precaution. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State in the exercise of his powers under this Regulation to form a judgment as to the necessity for an order of detention upon the best information available to him; and if he makes an order, to inform the suspect

169
of his right to make objections to the Advisory Committee. The detained person is then given full opportunity of making representations and explaining matters for which his own conduct may have been responsible. If subsequently he is released it does not follow that his detention was unwarranted.
It is fully recognised that an order for detention under this Regulation may involve great hardship. For this reason amongst others there is need for the Secretary of State to exercise great care in examining all information available before making such an order, and in reviewing the case subsequently in the light of any representations from the suspect and any report from the Advisory Committee. In the case of Mr. Knight there was no failure to exercise such care, and there is nothing in the history of the case to justify the suggestion that the Regulation was administered improperly or without due regard to the importance of limiting detention orders to cases where there is reasonable cause to believe that this measure of precaution is necessary to national security.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am much obliged for the answer which has just been given, but there are certain aspects of this case which I do not think my noble friend was fully aware of when he made that reply. Does he know that Mr. Knight was dismissed from his position as Borough Engineer on the ground that he was a disloyal person and that he thereupon, as soon as he was able to do so, brought an action for wrongful dismissal against the Corporation? Is he aware that the case came on for trial before Mr. Justice Hilbery in the High Court, that he heard all the evidence that was adducible to suggest that Mr. Knight was a disloyal person, that he said with regard to some of the evidence that he without the least hesitation rejected it as unreliable, and as to other of the evidence that it amounted to absolutely nothing, and that in the conclusion the learned Judge found nothing in the evidence which even slightly savoured of misconduct on the part of Mr. Knight? Is my noble friend aware that the learned Judge thereupon gave judgment for Mr. Knight for the recovery of his contributions to the superannuation fund and gave him the costs of the action? Is he aware that none the less the Corporation also
170
pleaded that since Mr. Knight had been interned he was unable to discharge the duties of Borough Engineer and that therefore that was another ground on which they could dismiss him—in other words, that it was the action of the Home Secretary at that date which prevented Mr. Knight discharging his duties and enabled the Corporation to dismiss him?
Although he was aware that the Corporation, acting on both of these grounds, did discharge him, the learned Judge found that there was a frustration of his power to serve the Corporation and that, therefore, to that extent, the Corporation was justified in dismissing him. The result of the dismissal has been that a man who was subsequently found by a learned Judge, after the hearing of all the evidence that could be given, to be absolutely free from any taint of disloyalty, has, in fact, lost his job, and has been put to—I do not know exactly how much because I have had no communication with Mr. Knight—a great deal of anxiety and trouble, and probably, I suppose, had the whole prospects of his professional career very much interfered with.
Is the noble Lord aware, further, that Mr. Knight, seeking work in exchange for what he had lost, applied to the Air Ministry and has received an appointment by the Air Ministry as an aircraftman? No doubt they made full inquiries also into the question of his loyalty or disloyalty. I am not making any attack on the Home Secretary—please let that be clearly understood. The Home Secretary has to discharge as well as he can the duties imposed on him by this Regulation. Nor do I desire to raise even the general question of the Regulation, which may or may not be desirable. I am asking the Government to consider very carefully whether they do not agree that a very serious injustice has been done to this particular man in the circumstances of the case, and whether they are satisfied that the directions actually existing to prevent such injustices are really sufficient to prevent them; whether, in fact, they propose to take any action to lessen this danger.
I would only add that I hope every noble Lord will realize that this is not merely a question of minor importance, or of a minor injustice done to a particular individual. These are questions which go

171
to the basis of the whole of the structure of our liberty. As the learned Lord Chancellor will no doubt agree, these are matters of the most serious importance, and I think it would have been quite wrong for me not to bring them to the notice of the House when they had been brought to my notice. I beg to ask these supplementary questions. I am sorry that they have been so elaborate, but it was impossible to include them all in the form of a single question and I understand that there was no other way in which I could put them.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am sure it would be very difficult for me—as I think the noble Viscount himself will admit—to answer these long and important supplementary questions at such very short notice. The subject is in fact almost enough to provide the material for an afternoon's debate. I cannot, at present, add anything to the answer which I have given, but, of course, any remark which the noble Viscount makes or any other of your Lordships make on this or any other matter will be reported to the appropriate quarter, and, no doubt, the Government will consider what action, if any, they will take in regard to this question and others like it.

HOME GUARD RAILWAY FACILITIES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government, what is the reason for the different treatment of officers of the Home Guard with respect to railway travelling from that of officers of other branches of His Majesty's Army; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this question to the Government at the suggestion of the Home Guard Committee of both Houses of Parliament, which as your Lordships probably know is composed of members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons who are interested only in the welfare and efficiency of the Home Guard. They have asked me to take this action because all our efforts by means of correspondence, interviews and, finally, a deputation which saw the Secretary of State for War, have brought no satisfaction. The grievance is this, that whereas officers of the ordinary Services, whether the Regular
172
Army, the Territorial Army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve or any other Service, male or female, when they travel on duty are given first-class warrants, the Home Guard officer is given only a third-class warrant.
Let me make it perfectly clear that where units of the Home Guard all travel together, going to a range or to camp, where a whole company or a platoon travels as a unit, there is no grievance. No objection exists on the part of officers or men to all travelling in the same class of carriage in those circumstances. It is when detached officers of the Home Guard have to travel on duty that the grievance arises. Nor would there be any grievance if all officers and all ranks had to travel third-class, or if the first-class compartments were done away with altogether. The objection is that there should be this discrimination against Home Guard officers, and no satisfactory reason for it has been given to us. Let me give two examples of the anomalous situations that arise. Every Home Guard Battalion in the country has an Adjutant who automatically becomes a member of the Regular Army, though he may only have joined the Home Guard a week or two before. Now let us say that the Colonel and the Adjutant have to go by train to some place in the course of their duty. They drive up to the station in the same motor car, but whereas the Adjutant has the privilege of travelling first-class the Colonel, his superior officer, who has appointed him, has to go third-class. Here is another case. A certain officer holds His Majesty's Commission in the Home Guard and is also an officer in the Air Training Corps. When he travels as a Home Guard officer he has to go third-class but when he travels in the course of his duties for the Air Training Corps he goes first-class. My Lords, the whole situation is nonsensical.
Now dark hints have been thrown out that the Labour Party would object to the concession which is suggested by my Motion. That is nonsense. My noble friends support me in making this protest. The deputation which waited on the Secretary of State for War included a colleague of mine, a member of the Labour Party and a member of the House of Commons, who is serving in the ranks of the Home Guard. I myself approach this matter in a purely detached manner

173
for I serve in the ranks of the Home Guard. I can assure the Government that there is really nothing at all in this suggestion about the attitude of the Labour Party. Let us be realistic. Quite apart from the Home Guard officers, the rank and file of the Home Guard, I am sure, prefer that their officers should travel first-class. They do not really want their officers in the same carriages with them. That is no reflection on the officers, but the fact is that the other ranks would rather travel by themselves. I am not sure that they always want the sergeants with them, and I speak as one who serves as a non-commissioned officer.
The only other point I wish to make is that this concession would not cost the taxpayer or the Treasury anything whatever. Under present arrangements the railways have been taken over by the Government at a fixed rate, and how many people travel first-class and how many people travel third-class does not affect the revenue at all. The Home Guard is, I suppose, the cheapest voluntary Service the Government ever had, and it is not for me to speak of its value to the country or to draw attention to the sacrifices or the expense which so many officers of the Home Guard have had to bear and which they have willingly shouldered. I think that in the interest of the Home Guard—and I know I am speaking for all ranks—this matter should be seriously reconsidered. I hope it will be both seriously and favourably reconsidered by the Government.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the different treatment of officers of the Home Guard with respect to railway travelling from that of officers of other branches of His Majesty's Army.—[Lord Strabolgi.]
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful and indebted to the noble Lord who has just spoken for bringing forward this matter. As he has stated, it has been before the Parliamentary Home Guard Committee which sent a deputation to the Secretary of State for War, and I happened to be a member of that deputation. But it was far more appropriate that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi should present this matter. He
174
has not only dealt emphatically and fluently, as he customarily does, with this subject but he has also been able to dispose of the bogey that the Labour Party were in favour of matters being allowed to remain as they at present stand. The position is that no satisfactory explanation has been given. The deputation which met the Secretary of State put forward every possible argument, and he listened, but he gave no satisfactory explanation for arriving at a contrary conclusion to that which was unanimously supported by the Committee and by the deputation which waited upon him.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi has already referred to the anomalous position which arises. There was, I believe, a sort of understanding on the formation of the Force that everyone should be treated on a footing of equality. I remember very well that the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who answers for the War Office in this House, took great credit to the War Office on one occasion some months ago for the production of this efficient and very cheap Force; but, while taking credit for that and acknowledging it, I do not think that the War Office have acknowledged what is due to the officers and men of the Home Guard who have made that Force, and who have enabled it to be so cheap and so efficient. They have not yet acknowledged all that has been put into the training of the Home Guard in the way of voluntary service, the voluntary lending of cars, the voluntary use of petrol, when it was available, and so on. It is these little anomalies and disabilities which are so terribly felt in consequence.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned a case of the Colonel of a battalion and the Adjutant arriving at a railway station, and the Adjutant going first-class, because he was a temporary officer in the Regular Army, while the Colonel went third-class, because he was a Home Guard commanding officer. That is an anomaly, but it happens every day, and it is that kind of thing which is creating ill feeling among those who are doing their best in the country's service. I should like to quote from a letter sent to me by a Battalion Commander recently, in which he refers to the journey of a Lieutenant of his from Scotland to London and then on to Salisbury. The

175
Lieutenant had to travel third-class, and this Battalion Commander says:
"It is very difficult for other ranks to realize that Home Guard officers have any standing or command if they are treated in every respect like privates. If they are, however, to be treated publicly as ordinary privates, it is going to be extremely hard to expect troops to regard their rank as having any standing whatever; but in actual operations they do hold their rank with Regular troops, and in many cases they have to command those troops."
That is in fact the situation. In actual operations, a Home Guard officer ranks just junior to the similar rank in the Regular Army, but when travelling by train the one is given a first-class warrant and the other a third-class warrant. That does not seem to me to be treating people equally.
I do urge, therefore, that this matter should again receive the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, in order that this anomaly may be removed. The cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said, is trifling, and there would be a gain not only in discipline but in comradeship, because a difficulty arises on long journeys owing to the fact that there is not the same freedom if commissioned ranks and other ranks are mixed, and it is not possible to secure the respect to the commissioned ranks on which command is built up. I have therefore very great pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with his Motion.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like, as one who spent many years in the War Office, to beg him to cut this Gordian knot, and, it he is not able to do so at once, at any rate to promise us that in the near future he will endeavour to get rid of this fantastic anomaly. As the noble Lord knows, I have been responsible for recruiting many tens of thousands of Home Guardsmen. Let us take an actual case. Take the case of Jones and Smith. Jones is appointed to be the Commander of an important Home Guard battalion, and Smith is one of his subordinate officers. Jones says to Smith: "I am going to recommend your appointment as Adjutant." The War Office accept the recommendation, and Smith becomes the Adjutant. When they go to the railway station, after the
176
Gazette is out, what I have called this fantastic anomaly happens, that this junior officer, Smith, who has been recommended by Jones, is forced to go into a first-class carriage, and sees his commanding officer get into a third-class carriage. There may be something to be said for all ranks travelling in one class, but it is senseless to have this inverted folly, and surely the noble Lord must see that it must be put right.
I have referred to it as folly, but there is a serious side to it. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Croft, remembers this, but in a recent debate the spokesman for the Government said, in effect, "We need not bother about this, because people do not think that an invasion is very imminent just now, and they are not taking invasion so seriously." That is perfectly true, and that is the danger which I have ventured to point out. The attitude taken up is: "The Home Guard? We need not bother about them. Think of the vast masses of troops that we have here now—the Canadians, the Americans in Northern Ireland, with pictures of them in all the papers, and so on. What do we want with the Home Guard?" That is the only possible excuse for this absurd anomaly—the idea that the Home Guard really does not count. I plead with you, my Lords, to join with me in asking the spokesman of the War Office to say that we want the Home Guard more than ever now, so as to free all the troops to go to whatever part of the world they are needed in, and so that we may be entirely self-supporting in martial forces. We should take the Home Guard more seriously than ever now, and, if we do, we must treat the officers of the Home Guard like the officers of all other Services—no better and no worse. I beg the noble Lord to give us some satisfaction on this point.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that there has been a considerable amount of feeling expressed on this matter which is embodied in the Motion of the noble Lord, and also, as many of your Lordships know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War has recently discussed the matter with representatives of the Home Guard both in your Lordships'

177
House and in another place. The question has always been one of difficulty, since it involves a conflict of two principles. On the one hind, it seems reasonable on the face of it that officers holding the King's Commission should be treated alike, particularly in the eyes of the public; on the other hand, it has been a fundamental principle, from the very beginning of the Local Defence Volunteers, there there should be no financial discrimination between the several ranks of the Home Guard.
It is not so very long ago that the Local Defence Volunteers were formed, and men of every class and age enrolled at once, without question of rank, to meet the national emergency. Their leaders were, and have always been, the best men available locally and there has never been a question of an officer class in the Home Guard. It is true that, in the early days, King's Commissions were not given to the Home Guard, but at the end of 1940 it was found that unless officers of the Home Guard were given the King's Commission—although there was not unanimity on that subject—there would be serious difficulty in bringing the Home Guard under the operational control of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, and thus co-ordinating the operational role of the Home Guard with that of the Regular Army, and making for the greater efficiency of the Home Guard and its leaders. Before Home Guard Commissions were granted, the decision to do so was announced in another place by my honourable and gallant friend Sir Edward Grigg who was then Joint Under-Secretary of State for War. He made it clear then that the grant of Commissions would involve no differential treatment in the way of financial privileges between officers and other ranks of the Home Guard. It was on this understanding that Commissions were granted to members of the Home Guard, and this understanding is completely in line with every other financial arrangement which has been made for the Home Guard since its inception.
In the vast majority of cases the principle of equal financial treatment has worked well, and, I think I may say, with the approval of the Home Guard as a whole. To depart from it now in the face of assurances to the contrary given in Parliament would constitute a breach of faith with those who joined as volunteers in the early days and introduce those artificial
178
distinctions of privilege and comfort which they agreed to leave behind them when they joined the Home Guard. These are the solid advantages which would be abandoned if a change were to be made now. The change, if it were to be made, would affect comparatively few officers, since the Home Guard is so largely a local force. It is the exception for a Home Guard officer to have to travel by train in the course of his duties, while as your Lordships know, there have been for months past only third-class carriages available on certain lines shared by officers and men alike, with no weakening of discipline. It is not therefore as if a large body of Home Guards was affected, and I think that when your Lordships weigh up the arguments for and against the change you will agree that on balance a clear advantage lies in maintaining in its entirety the principle of equal financial treatment for the Home Guard which, all things considered, has worked so well in the past two years.
I would only like to add in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—though I do not think it is necessary for me to say so—that His Majesty's Government, like all your Lordships, realize more and more how dependent we are on the Home Guard, and I cannot believe that this comparatively small point can have any effect in persuading the public that we are not treating seriously this great Force—perhaps the most remarkable Force that has arisen in any country in the world.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, seldom in the period in Which I have had the privilege of sitting in your Lordships' House, have I heard an argument put up from the Government Bench so totally inadequate as a reply to the question proposed. The noble Lord is lavishing encomiums upon the Home Guard, but at the same time he—or, it is to be hoped, his advisers in the War Office—seems totally unable to understand on the one hand what a burning question this has become and, on the other, how really unfair it is to the officers of the Home Guard. There was a difference of opinion, it is true, among the ranks of the Home Guard as to whether the granting of Commissions was or was not a good thing. Personally, it seemed to me that it was a good thing, although I admit that others took a different view. But

179
how it can possibly be defended that once His Majesty's Commission has been granted to a certain section of the armed Forces of the Crown, those who have the honour to have that Commission should be treated in an entirely different way from the other branches of the Services, passes my comprehension.
My noble friend Lord Elgin modestly forbore to mention that he is himself a Zone Commander, the highest rank which I think a Home Guard Officer can hold. If Lord Elgin wishes to go to No. 1 Home Guard School in the South of England, he must travel third-class, unless he pays the difference himself. If, on the other hand, an officer of the Air Training Corps goes off on a course, no matter how junior his rank, he travels first-class. There is no doubt that there is in the Home Guard a feeling and a realization that the officers of that Force are being treated differently from Regular Army officers, and that their Commissions are, therefore, not equivalent to Commissions in any other branch of His Majesty's Service. The result is, quite undoubtedly, not good for discipline. In my own experience whilst walking along the street in a small town in my own county, which I often have to visit in uniform in the course of my duty, I have frequently seen Regular soldiers approach, perceive what they deem to be an officer in front of them, prepare to come to the salute, see the Home Guard flash, and promptly resume their normal method of procedure without paying any further attention. And the general demeanour of the rank and file of the Army towards an officer in the Home Guard is that towards a colleague whom they regard as a possibly rather superior kind of corporal. I have even seen junior officers in the Regular Army refrain from saluting Home Guard officers of field rank, and it is certainly not good for discipline, particularly, as has already been said, when it is appreciated that
Home Guard officers, in the event of hostilities occurring in this country, will have possibly quite considerable forces of Regular troops under their command.
It is very much to be hoped that the War Office and the Treasury—if it has anything to do with the Treasury, which I doubt—will reconsider their attitude. It is not going to affect the taxpayer one iota, and to assume that either a majority of the Home Guard or, I believe, a majority of the people of this country will concur in the continuance of this anomalous, ridiculous and painful situation is a very grave mistake. I do not know what attitude the noble Lord who introduced this Motion will take, but if he is inclined to press it to a Division I think he will find very considerable support.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the reply of the noble Lord completely missed the point, and he must be conscious of the fact that it is the weakest reply ever made on the Government's behalf in your Lordships' House. Only a few officers, he said, are concerned; it is not the case, except in rural areas, especially in Scotland and Wales, that Home Guard officers have to travel very considerable distances; it is the financial difference between officers and other ranks. In the Home Guard really the boot is on the other foot. To-day, Home Guard officers are told, "If you have to go a long distance on duty, you will be given a third-class warrant, and if you want to go first-class you pay the difference yourselves." There is no financial question involved apart from that. So unsatisfactory was the reply that I have consulted my noble friends who are particularly interested, and I feel we must press for Papers.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS

Sutherland, D.

Maugham, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Crewe, M.

Plumer, V.

Hampton, L.

Marley, L.

Abingdon, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Milne, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Mottistone, L.

Mansfield, E.

Barnby, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Bingley, L.

Stanmore, L.

Camrose, V.

Borwick, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cowdray, V.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Teviot, L.

Esher, V.

NON-CONTENTS

Simon, V. (Lord Chancellor.)

Margesson, V.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Croft, L.

Sherwood, L.

Selborne, E.

Faringdon, L.

Snell, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Latham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

BROADCASTS ON WAR AIMS AND POLICY.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to call attention to the practice adopted by His Majesty's Government of broadcasts on war aims and policy being made by senior officers of the Services not responsible to Parliament; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to a matter of proportionately different importance. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that on July 29 I called attention to a broadcast statement that had been issued, and which was published widely in the Press, by Sir Arthur Harris, Chief of the Bomber Command. I asked whether this statement had received the prior approval of His Majesty's Government and, if so, whether the Government proposed to adopt the practice of having individual officers of the different Services broadcasting statements on war aims and strategic policy. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, replied that the broadcast had received the prior approval of His Majesty's Government, and he added that His Majesty's Government held itself free to select the personage most suitable for any particular broadcast.
I confess that, being somewhat of an old Parliamentary hand, I was not much impressed by the august nature of the latter part of the noble Earl's reply, and, not being satisfied, I immediately gave notice that I should call attention to this matter which, in my judgment, embodies a practice that should not be continued. It is solely on that ground that I now call attention to it. It places everyone—and I feel it very much myself—in a position of real embarrassment. My question was not put with any feeling whatever in connexion with this gallant officer who gave the broadcast. He is doing a distinguished duty with great distinction, and I hope nothing that is in my question will in any way be related to the efficiency and quality and worth of the public service
182
of Sir Arthur Harris. The only point is this. I understand that Sir Arthur Harris was selected to make this broadcast. I use the word "selected" because I believe the broadcast was drafted for him. I have no doubt he may have made a few personal emendations, but I am told that it was thought better that a statement of this kind addressed to the German people—for that was the intention of the broadcast—should be addressed to them by somebody with a brass hat rather than with a tailcoat.
There may be something in that piece of psychology—I cannot say whether there is or is not—but the view I take of this subject is this. The person selected to make a broadcast may be a serving Admiral to-morrow or a General the day after, or anybody else, who is not subject to Parliamentary question, and cannot be held responsible to Parliament for what he says. It is not a statement that can, so far as he is concerned, be called in question in Parliament, and that is why I deliberately asked in my question whether the statement had received the prior approval of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl said it had. Very well. If that was the case then it clearly is necessary, and most desirable, that when statements of high importance—because this is a statement of high importance—are made, we should be told that the statement is made with the approval of His Majesty's Government and that such and such a Minister has authorized the statement. Parliament can then address appropriate questions to the Minister, if it wishes to do so, on the statement itself.
It is altogether a mistake—I would not put it any higher—that authoritative statements should be made on matters of high international importance as this is—by anyone who is not subject to the usual Parliamentary questioning if thought right, and we should not expose any serving officer, as this gallant officer has been exposed, to questions about his broadcast: first, because he cannot answer

183
himself, and secondly, because it is not fair that officers should be placed in that invidious position. It is altogether wrong. That is why I am making this protest, and I think it should be made.
There are one or two points in the statement itself which I am going to mention not because I am so much concerned about what was in it, but there are one or two statements of which I think I ought to remind your Lordships in order to get the matter in its right perspective. It was said:
"We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end"—
and then, addressing the German people:
"You have no chance. Soon we shall be coming every night and every day, rain, blow or snow—we and the Americans."
Well, as an interested onlooker I should question the accuracy of that statement. It is not long since we were told that even in June large-scale bombing raids were not possible because of the weather, and I dare say that is quite correct. I am not in the least questioning the accuracy of that statement. Only the other day I believe, the day of the second raid on Hamburg, the weather was so bad that some of the machines had to be called back. Quite right. If the weather was such that they could not do what they wanted to do, it was no use sending them. That is good sense, but it does make one wonder why Sir Arthur Harris, with his heavy responsibility, should have been asked, or induced, or made to say that they were going over with the Americans, "rain, blow or snow." I do not think anybody can expect, in view of all that we know, that weather will not sometimes prevent raids. It certainly will. Unfortunately, from many points of view, it has prevented them far too much. We wish it would not prevent them so much. But still, who put these words into the mouth of this gallant officer? I wonder what amateur drew up this broadcast.
Then it went on to say, appealing to the German people:
"You can overthrow the Nazis and can make peace. … It is not true that we plan a peace of revenge."
That is true, of course, but a statement as to the character of the peace we want I and so forth should, I contend, be made by a responsible Minister. Ministers can explain more what is in their minds and can be asked to say what they mean.
184
But the real point is the manner in which the broadcast was made and who was selected to make it. The statement really contained a lot of stuff so bombastic that you might have thought that Mussolini made it. If you read some of the statement it seems much more like Mussolini than an Englishman. It is not a British habit to brag in advance of all you are going to do. That can be left to our enemies. I am sorry to find that somebody—in the Ministry of Information I suppose—has been trying to imitate them. If we succeed in bombing them into a disposition to throw over the Nazis, then we can say to them: "This is what we are doing. Throw over the pernicious fellows you have accepted as leaders and we will stop it and give you a chance of making peace." But to brag in advance of what you are going to do, "rain, blow or snow," sounds like Goebbels's statement that no bombs shall fall on the Reich. It is just about as sensible.
I do hope that this deplorable bombast is not going to form a part of British propaganda. We have a magnificent case. It has not been the British habit to brag or boast in advance. Let us do a good job of work beating the Germans and then we can have some right and justice in saying what we are going to do about it. This sort of thing seems to me to bring our name rather into contempt. At all events, whether it is well timed or not, so far as the content of this particular broadcast is concerned I would urge upon your Lordships—and I hope the Minister will not be too truculent about it in his reply—that broadcasts of this sort should not be imposed on serving officers who cannot answer for themselves but should be made by a responsible Minister or his representative who can be answerable to Parliament. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, we cannot be surprised that the noble Lord who leads the Opposition has thought it right to bring forward this Motion to-day. As he has clearly explained, he has done so entirely, or almost entirely, on the question of principle and not in regard to the subject matter of this particular broadcast. It has been said, as the noble Lord told us, in reply to his earlier question, that His Majesty's Government reserve the right to entrust a broadcast to any person they consider most fit. No doubt that is quite

185
true. That person might be a member of one of the Fighting Forces, he might be a member of the Civil Service, he might be a diplomatist and considered by the Government as the most suitable person. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, pointed out, he could not be a Government mouthpiece. If he is a self-respecting man, he would not be content to be a mere gramophone repeating something set down by a capable private secretary attached to His Majesty's Government. He would want to say what his own opinions are, subject, of course, to the limitations of censorship which are imposed upon anybody who makes a broadcast. But His Majesty's Government cannot possibly in common sense undertake responsibility for such a broadcast.
The possible explanation, as the noble Lord suggested, is that in addressing civilians in a country like Germany, where particularly in Prussia the worship of the military uniform has for generations reached almost the point of insanity, if you are to persuade or frighten the German people into something like a rebellion against their present Government, teat can only be done by some person who also wears uniform. That I believe to be a complete error. If the rule is applied to one branch of the Forces, it would, I suppose, have to be applied to the others. I do not feel quite sure where the distinguished Admiral would come in, but it is very easy to suppose that His Majesty's Government might desire that the voice of some very distinguished soldier should be addressed to the German people. As we all know, the belief of many people, indeed I think most people, is that it would be impossible to conclude hostilities in this war without the military occupation of Germany. It might be thought wise to impress on the German population that, although it certainly would riot be conducted with any of the shameful brutalities which have disgraced the occupation, of other countries by German forces, yet no advance of that kind could be made without great destruction of property and probably also loss of civilian life, and calling upon them to draw the same moral which is to be drawn from the broadcast of Sir Arthur Harris.
As regards the subject matter of that broadcast, perhaps some of your Lordships may have seen that it has been distorted by the German announcers into an assertion that it is proposed mercilessly to
186
bomb the civilian population of Germany. Of course that is completely untrue. What Sir Arthur Harris did say—and it cannot be contradicted—was that in making attacks on purely military objectives such as dockyards or factories by bombing, it is not possible to avoid a certain loss of civilian life and destruction of the houses in which people who are not actually engaged in the Army live. That we all recognize in considering the attacks that have been made on this country. We draw a clear line of distinction between the casualties which have been inflicted on civilians in the immediate neighbourhood of military objects of attack, and the loss of life which has occurred in such places as Bath or Exeter. Undoubtedly that warning or caution was what was contained in the broadcast of Sir Arthur Harris. I can only say that I am in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in his expression of regret that His Majesty's Government have taken this course instead of confining the delivery of broadcasts or warnings of this kind to responsible members of the Government, many of whom are most fully capable of undertaking them. With these few remarks I offer my full support to the views which Lord Addison has expressed.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, may I say in a very few words that it does not appear to me to matter so very greatly who does these broadcasts to our enemies, but what does matter to a very great extent is—as has already been stated—the substance of the broadcasts? It is arguable whether senior officers of any of the Fighting Services form the right channel through which Government policy should be disseminated. I am very much inclined to agree that they do not constitute the right channel. But, as I say, it is arguable. It is also arguable whether it is wise or sound strategy to inform your enemies about your intentions in advance. But surely one thing admits of no argument whatever, and that is the question of broadcasting your policy before you are in a position to implement that policy. To broadcast your strategy, as I see it, without being able, forthwith, tactically to pursue it seems to me to be the supreme height of folly, and it has been all too apparent all through these summer months that, in fact, we have been unable to do all we had hoped to do.
An American acquaintance of mine who has just landed on this side received a

187
cable from those on the other side who are directing his mission over here. I would just like to read that cable to your Lordships. It runs:
"Press reports British Air Marshal appeals German public overthrow Nazis and make peace, otherwise Allied Forces will bomb Reich end to end. This appeal is sanguinary nonsense. Would British or American public respond to similar request? Definitely no. When calling Air Ministry tell them do it, not talk about it, and make it as near as possible every hour, twenty-four hours every day, seven days per week, four weeks per month, and no fooling."
Is it unreasonable to conjecture that similar opinions, if, perhaps, less forcibly and less picturesquely expressed, may be held in other quarters of the globe? I think that we are not very fully endowed with the finesse and discrimination that are so necessary in dealing with this very difficult sphere of propaganda. I would ask of the Government to let us be sure that we do not use this weapon in such a way that it recoils on our own heads like a boomerang, that we do not imitate Goebbels in being, as a noble Lord put it, bombastic and un-British, and, above all, that we ensure that, whatever we do put out, we do nothing that will in any way disappoint, discourage or dishearten our friends or our Allies.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, I think that my noble friend and possibly other speakers have raised this matter under a certain misapprehension. If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Addison, correctly, his principal objection to Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris's broadcast was that it was delivered by an officer who was not a responsible Minister of the Crown, and who, therefore, was in the position of expounding the policy of His Majesty's Government while not in a position to defend that policy himself in either House of Parliament. I think that that states the principal criticism of my noble friend correctly. I see he gives his assent.
LORD ADDISON: May I supplement that? I also suggest that this is bringing officers into a sphere into which it is not fair to bring them.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: That is really another way of putting the same point. In regard to that I do not think that in principle there is any difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government
188
and the noble Lord as to the correct manner in which to announce a new Government decision of policy. That clearly should be announced by a member of the Government, preferably in one or the other House of Parliament where it can be challenged and debated at once if necessary. This, however, was not a statement of that nature; it was a statement made on behalf of the Government to the people of Germany. The Minister of Information takes full responsibility for the statements contained in this broadcast, which was also circulated as a leaflet to Germany. For the statements made in this leaflet and broadcast the Government take full responsibility, and therefore my noble friend's point in that respect is satisfied. He can challenge this statement, as he is challenging it now, and, if he were in another place, he would be answered by the Minister of Information. As there is no representative of the Ministry of Information in your Lordships' House, it falls to my unworthy self to defend the policy of the Ministry. The noble Lord's main point, therefore, is completely met; the Government take full responsibility, and are prepared to defend the broadcast and the leaflet in either House of Parliament.
Then the noble Lord asked why this statement was not made by a politician and why it was made by a serving officer. My Lords, it is a mistake to regard this as a new announcement of policy. The purpose of this leaflet and broadcast was to explain to the German people what was already the policy of His Majesty's Government. That policy had already been announced. The policy of bombing Germany, city by city, was announced by the Prime Minister himself many weeks ago, and it is a policy which is thoroughly well understood in this country. It is the function of political warfare and of propaganda, however, to explain to the German people the fate that awaits them as long as they continue to follow the Nazi Government in the prosecution of this war. My noble friend Lord Ailwyn said he thought it would be much better to bomb them first and talk to them afterwards. That is a matter of opinion, but personally I believe that a great deal can be done over the radio to make the German people understand the true position of affairs.
I think that it is a great error to minimize the value of propaganda. Herr

189
Hitler himself has borne testimony to the efficacy of British propaganda in the last war, and I believe that when the history of this war comes to be written it will be found that British propaganda has been equally effective, and for the same reason—namely, that in this war, as in the last, we have done nothing but tell the German people the truth. What is contained in this broadcast and leaflet is the truth. The truth is that we have begun a policy of systematically bombing the cities of Germany where munitions of war are produced; and, as the broadcast itself pointed out, it is a mistake to think that all this lies in the future. It is going on at the present moment—Lubeck, Rostock, Cologne, Emden, Bremen, Wilhelmshaven, Duisburg, Hamburg, Saarbruecken, and now Düsseldorf. That is a formidable list of accomplishments. The purpose of this message to the German people was to explain to them that this was only the beginning of a policy which had been deliberately undertaken, and that, whereas they could see for themselves that Great Britain already had the means to carry out that policy to a very considerable extent, they should realize how very much better we shall be able to carry it out when we have the great help of America, which is now fast coming to assist us in the task. I think it is perfectly right, therefore, to send a message of this kind to the German people, and the sooner they realize the truth of it the better.
Then the noble Lord asked why an Air Marshal—the gallant Air Marshal commanding Bomber Command—should be asked to send this message. It was judged by my right honourable friend, and I think rightly, that a message coming from Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris would carry great conviction with the people of Germany. As the noble Marquess said, the German people are military minded; they are accustomed to respect the utterances of serving officers, and possibly to attach to them even greater importance than they would attach to the utterances of a politician. I think that that view is right. The object of asking the Air Marshal commanding Bomber Command to deliver this message was to convince the German people that we were really in earnest in this matter. Is not it worth while doing everything we can to convince the German people that we and the Americans are in
190
earnest in this matter? Is not it worth while doing so, even though it may involve doing something which perhaps was not done in the nineteenth century, and for which there are not many Parliamentary precedents?
If my noble friend will allow me to do so, I would remind him that he is continually urging His Majesty's Government to adopt new and up-to-date methods for the prosecution of the war. I think, therefore, that, profiting from the good advice which he has given us in the past, we should be entitled to create precedents, if they will serve to shorten the war. We have not, however, even created a precedent in this case, because this is not the first time that a serving officer has broadcast. Several other broadcasts have been given by serving officers in the past; but this is the first time, so far as I am aware, that the fact has been noticed in either House of Parliament. Therefore, while His Majesty's Government entirely agree with my noble friend that new utterances on policy should be made by Ministers of the Crown, and preferably in Parliament, we do retain the right to ask any individual, whatever his position, to write a leaflet to be dropped in Germany, or to broadcast a message to the German people, if we think that some purpose, useful for the prosecution of the war, will be served thereby; and I submit that we can do that without infringing any constitutional principle.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I must apologize for speaking after the noble Earl, but unfortunately the noble Earl seemed to think that all his foes were in front of him, and that there was no danger to be apprehended from behind, and therefore he rose to reply before I could speak. I must congratulate the noble Earl on his reply, because of the masterly way in which he has side-stepped the main impetus of the attack. Because, if I understand correctly the intention of the noble Lord, one of the objects, if not the chief object, of his speech was to show how undesirable it was that matters concerning high policy should be adumbrated by serving officers. On that point I am in complete agreement with him. It is not a question so much of the contents of the broadcast, but it seems to me that we have here a departure from our old and salubrious habit that

191
serving officers should not take part in discussions of high policy. The mere fact that a great many serving officers of all the Services have given military commentaries on subjects on which they are authorities and are entitled to speak does not in my estimation justify this new and, to some of us at least, regrettable innovation. Surely, it would have been better for the Secretary of State for Air to make the political part of the speech, and then to have announced that the Chief of Bomber Command, either immediately following him, or on the following hight, or in a subsequent week, would elaborate, as far as was considered prudent—if the the whole thing was prudent—the methods by which those political intentions were to be carried into practical effect.
Then, as regards the actual contents of the broadcast, I must say that I, too, did not Very much appreciate the definitely bombastic tone. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, and with our Allies on the other side of the Atlantic, that it is far better to do things first and talk about them afterwards. Furthermore, I think the country as a whole is rather disappointed that we have not been able to implement to the full earlier promises given by the Secretary of State for Air and others in regard to the heavy attacks said to be impending on Germany. And if an appeal is to be made to the people of Germany to overthrow their rulers, I think it is very questionable indeed whether it should be done in a broadcast of this description. There is a considerable divergence of opinion in this country as to whether a mere rising by the German people and the overthrow of their present régime is going in any way to absolve the rest of the German people from the consequences of having installed and suffered that régime. And to make a promise that all will be forgiven provided they rise and hand over a certain limited number of their leaders to justice is hardly, for many of us, a satisfactory way of bringing the war to a conclusion. While we do not want to treat the German people with the brutal severity that they use to other nations whom they have victimized, to suggest that the present situation is merely the result of the activities of a small clique is, I think, straining both verisimilitude and politics very far indeed. It is to be hoped that after the ventilation of this subject
192
this afternoon the Ministry of Information will reconsider their policy, and will ensure that in future questions of high politics will be discussed only by Ministers of the Crown, leaving it to the serving officers to put before the public the details of the way which the policy is to be carried into effect, but not the Policy itself.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, I would express the hope that the House will appreciate the importance of the matter which has been brought forward, and that the noble Lord will represent to his colleague, the Minister of Information, that the speeches from noble Lords of all Parties and from all parts of the House, in their general tenor, have been unanimous in criticism of this broadcast. Whilst no doubt the Minister will continue, as the noble Earl has said, to exercise his right, which he is entitled to do, I hope that we can say that in future he will exercise his right with rather more discretion and forethought than appears to have characterised the effort on the present occasion. I was well aware that there were precedents for serving officers making broadcasts, and I think if the noble Earl will cast his mind back, he will find that they are not very fortunate precedents. I have a lively recollection of a very gallant officer who broadcast to the Germans that they were being led by people who were non-commissioned officers, suggesting that they were bereft of commissioned officers, and I can recall one or two other broadcasts which have been rather unfortunate as prophecies, and the less we say about them the better. Anyhow, so far as the main principle is concerned, I am sure the noble Earl will willingly represent to his colleagues the general sense of this discussion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1942.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raises important questions of policy and principle; that the Order is founded on precedent; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be

193
passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HORLEY DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1942.

  KIDSGROVE GAS ORDER, 1942.
  Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petitions have been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOLE) BILL.
Reported without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.