Lords Sitting of 29 July 1942

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

EARL KITCHENER.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XV be considered in order to its being suspended for the purpose of dispensing with the reading of the Patent of the Earl Kitchener. Your Lordships will require a few words of explanation about this unusual Motion which in special circumstances I am moving. It is provided, in effect, by Standing Order No. XIV that every Peer of the Realm claiming to be a member of this House by virtue of a special limitation in remainder, and not claiming by descent, shall be introduced with the ceremonial of supporters. This, as your Lordships will see, is a different procedure from that which is adopted in the ordinary case of the holder of a hereditary Peerage by descent, when the new Peer, as your Lordships know well, after his title has been investigated in the Crown Office, presents himself here at the Table with his Writ of Summons and signs the Roll without being introduced.
But Standing Order No. XV of this House provides that, upon the introduction of any Peer of the United Kingdom into the House, the Patent by which his Peerage shall have been granted shall, after having been read, be entered verbatim upon the Journals of the House as well as the Writ of Summons. It is those words of that Standing Order, "after having been read," to which I wish to draw attention. That is the procedure with which your Lordships are familiar in the case where a newly-created Peer is introduced and takes his seat. As your Lordships recall, his Patent is read as well as his Writ of Summons. The Earl Kitchener desires to be introduced and to take his seat to-day, and, since his claim arises by virtue of a special limitation in remainder, Standing Order No. XV would require the Patent granted to the late Field-Marshal Earl Kitchener to be read at the Table. The Patent is a document of over 3,000 words. The reading
56
of it would, I suppose, easily occupy half an hour. The document consists largely of recitals and, except to those specially interested in genealogical formulae, is not without a certain tedious repetition of phrases. I have formed the opinion that, in the very exceptional circumstances arising out of the war, which makes it important to economize time and to devote ourselves to essential business, it would probably be the view of your Lordships that the reading of this lengthy Patent should on this occasion be dispensed with. Of course, it will be entered in full upon the Journals of the House, as the Standing Order requires, together with the Writ of Summons.
The object of my Motion, therefore, is to secure from your Lordships this dispensation, but your Lordships would probably wish from me instead a very short statement as to the limitations contained in the original grant of forty years ago to the Field-Marshal. If I may venture a summary of 3,000 words, I would say that Field-Marshal Lord Kitchener who, as we know, was unmarried, received the Patent of Viscounty and the Earldom, and the course of descent prescribed was, first, to the heirs male of his body, with remainder, in default of male issue, to each successive daughter and her heirs male, and, in default of both male and female issue, then to the elder brother of the Field-Marshal, Colonel Henry Elliott Chevalier Kitchener and the heirs male of his body, and, on the death of Colonel Kitchener, and in default of heirs male of his body, then to the heirs male of Sir Frederick Walter Kitchener, a younger brother of the Field-Marshal, who was then already dead. In the events which have happened, as I have said, the first Earl died without ever having been married. Colonel Kitchener survived his brother, and succeeded to the Earldom, but never proved his claim or sat in this House. Colonel Kitchener's eldest son predeceased his father, and the present claimant, Henry Herbert Kitchener, is the eldest son of that eldest son. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he is entitled to these dignities, and to be introduced and take his seat in the House.
I have thus, my Lords, stated to your Lordships in a few sentences what is set out by a more ample and extensive use of language in the Patent, and this, I hope,

57
will justify the saving of time which the adoption of my Motion will secure. I would add this one thing. Our procedure in these matters is entirely governed by the decision of your Lordships' House either as to adopting or applying a Standing Order or as to dispensing pro hac vice with one of its provisions, and the claim of the new Peer arises independently of the Standing Orders under the terms of the Patent granted to the Field-Marshal forty years ago. At the same time I have thought it proper to inform His Majesty of the course which, for convenience, I was proposing that the House should take, and His Majesty has been graciously pleased to indicate that he appreciates the reasons for the course proposed. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XV be considered in order to its being suspended for the purpose of dispensing with the reading of the Patent of the Earl Kitchener.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then Henry Herbert Kitchener, Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent, having succeeded to the dignity of Earl Kitchener on the death of his grandfather, Herbert Elliott Chevalier, Earl Kitchener, by virtue of the Special Remainder contained in the Patent bearing date the 27th day of July in the fifth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Fifth, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:

Post Office and Telegraph (Money),

Isle of Man (Customs),

Pensions (Mercantile Marine),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Caernarvon),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Mold Gas and Water),

Pembrokeshire County Council,

London Passenger Transport Board,

Mid-Wessex Water,

South Wales Electric Power.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, the object of the proposed Amendments to Standing Orders which I am about to move is to allow shareholders in companies more opportunity for learning the purpose of Private Bills before the statutory Wharnecliffe meeting takes place. With your Lordships' permission I will move them en bloc.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, etc., be amended as follows:
Standing Order No. 71,
Page 38, line 37, after "situate" insert "the first of such insertions being not earlier than the fourth day of December"
Page 38, line 41, leave out "ten" and insert "twenty-one"
Page 38, line 42, after "meeting" insert "stating the offices at which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained, and"
Page 39, line 8, leave out "seventh" and insert "twenty-first"
Page 39, line 8, leave out "last" and insert "first"
Page 39, line 42, at end insert:
Provided that in the case of a Bill for which the Petition is deposited or proposed to be deposited after the twenty-seventh day of November the foregoing provisions of this Order shall apply subject to the following modifications—

(a) the first insertion of the advertisement calling the meeting shall be not earlier than the date of the deposit of such Petition; and

(b) the circular to proprietors shall be sent by post or delivered not earlier than the date specified in the notice containing a concise summary of the purposes of the Bill as the date on which copies of the Bill may be inspected and obtained.—(Lord Stanmore.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
Standing Orders amended accordingly, and to be printed as amended.

SIR ARTHUR HARRIS'S BROADCAST.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government the following question of which I have given private

59
notice: whether the msesage to the German people reported in to-day's Press as having been broadcast by Sir Arthur Harris, Chief of the Bomber Command, had received the prior approval of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government propose to adopt the practice of individual officers of the different Services broadcasting statements on war aims and on strategic policy.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE):My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part His Majesty's Government hold themselves free to select the personage most suitable for any particular broadcast.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I propose at a convenient time, after due notice has been given, to draw attention to what may be involved in this decision.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Cranborne, I beg to move that the Motion which stands in his name be agreed to.
Moved, that Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill [H.L.] over the other Notices and Orders of the Day, and for the purpose of passing that Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NATIONAL SERVICE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a The Amendment made in the Commons to the Bill as circulated to be printed.
BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (VISITING FORCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Motion which you have just passed suspending the Standing Order was required in order that this Bill, the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Bill, may be passed by this House with the greatest possible expedition. It was introduced, I may remind your Lordships, in the House yesterday. If it should meet with the support of the House and be carried to-day, it will then be possible for the other House to deal with it in time—if the other House so wills—to secure that it passes into law in the course of the next series of sittings. The effect of this Bill is to give statutory force to an arrangement which has been made between the Government of the United States and His Majesty's Government—an arrangement which is conveniently set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The Schedule is not a part of the Bill which would be open to amendment. It is in the nature of an exhibit. It is convenient to have it included in order that everybody who examines the measure may at once see upon what it is based. If any of your Lordships who have the Bill in your hands will turn to the Schedule you will see that it contains an exchange of Notes between the Foreign Secretary in this country and Mr. Winant, the Ambassador of the United States, on behalf of his Government.
I think that the most convenient way to approach the matter—and I shall not occupy your Lordships for more than a very short time—is to remind oneself that in the Great War, a quarter of a century ago, there was an agreement between the Government of this country and the Government of the French Republic under which criminal jurisdiction over members of our Forces in respect of offences they committed, or might commit, in France, was given exclusively to the British Military Courts, and the French Criminal Courts abstained from exercising any jurisdiction over our soldiers for offences in France. Now that is the general nature of the arrangement which we are now making with the United States Government in respect of members of the United States Forces in this country, including Northern Ireland. We know—and it gives us great satisfaction—that the number of United States troops crossing the Atlantic and for the time being within our country is very considerable and is rapidly increasing; and it is a matter of great importance

61
that we should at once regulate the questions which might arise, even in the best conducted Army, if some member of the American Forces so acted as to offend against the Criminal Law within our own borders. Apart from this legislation, there can be no doubt that in any such case there would be jurisdiction in the British Courts.
In view of the common source of the law in this country and in the United States of America, and in view of the similarity, both in content and in method, which exists between the Criminal Laws of the two countries, I must say that it seems to me very natural that the United States Government should ask to be left with the duty of administering punishment in the case of offences committed by members of their own Forces while stationed in this country. Moreover, as I have reminded the House, it is in strict analogy with the arrangements which we made with the French a quarter of a century ago. Such an arrangement should, at least in principle, be reciprocal, and I shall call your Lordships' attention to a paragraph in Mr. Eden's Note which deals with that matter.
Having, as I hope, clearly explained to your Lordships the general object of this Bill, I should like briefly to call attention to some of the paragraphs in the Note of our Foreign Secretary; which appears on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill, so that you may be satisfied that at any rate the main questions which might arise under this admittedly unusual arrangement have not been overlooked, but that, on the contrary, provision has been made for them. If your Lordships will be good enough to look first at the reply by Mr. Winant, on pages 6 and 7 of the Bill, you will see that he is authorized to accept, and does accept, the proposals and understandings contained in Mr. Eden's Note, without any qualification at all and he adds:
"In order to avoid all doubt, I wish to point out that the Military and Naval authorities will assume the responsibility to try and on conviction to punish all offences which members of the American Forces may be alleged on sufficient evidence to have committed in the United Kingdom."
We may therefore look at Mr. Eden's Note realizing that it is not merely a proposal, but contains the terms of the agreement actually reached.
I will first refer to paragraph 4, at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill, and I will, if
62
I may, read the passage to which I wish to call attention, because it is possible that some of your Lordships may not have a copy before you. Paragraph 4 reads:
"In the first place, the readiness of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to agree to the exercise by United States Service Courts of exclusive jurisdiction in respect of offences by members of their Forces is based upon the assumption that the United States Service authorities and Courts concerned will be able and willing to try and, on conviction, to punish all criminal offences which members of the United States Forces may be alleged on sufficient evidence to have committed in the United Kingdom, and that the United States authorities are agreeable in principle to investigate and deal with appropriately any alleged criminal offences committed by members of the United States Forces in the United Kingdom which may be brought to their notice by the competent British authorities, or which the American authorities may find to have taken place."
I would now call attention to the next paragraph, paragraph 5:
"Secondly, His Majesty's Government will be glad if Your Excellency will confirm their understanding that the trial of any member of the United States Forces for an offence against a member of the civilian population would be in open Court (except where security consideration forbade this) and would be arranged to take place promptly in the United Kingdom and within a reasonable distance from the spot where the offence wits alleged to have been committed, so that witnesses should not be required to travel great distances to attend the hearing."
In the next paragraph, paragraph 6, your Lordships may notice a reference to December 7, 1941, and may possibly speculate as to the significance of that date. That is the date on which the United States of America came into the war.
I shall not read paragraph 7 at length, because it is a long one, but it is the one which stipulates that it should be recognized in principle that an arrangement of this sort is capable of reciprocity. Although it may not seem very probable in present circumstances that large numbers of British soldiers, sailors or airmen should be inside the United States, and although the existing arrangements are, I think, satisfactory, nevertheless in paragraph 7 we ask that it should be recognised that
"the Government of the United States of America will be ready to take all steps in their power to ensure to the British Forces concerned a position corresponding to that of American Forces in the United Kingdom"
and so forth. I do not seek to press the application of reciprocity at the moment,

63
but I think it is right, if we surrender by this Bill, as we do, our jurisdiction, that we should make it clear that we expect in this matter reciprocal treatment in case of need. To all that our American friends have most willingly agreed.
Paragraph 8 deals with machinery. Perhaps I may be allowed to speak for a moment as a lawyer, and to say that as a matter of fact the machinery of the law, the practical way in which it is carried out, is, at any rate to our notion, and also to the notion which obtains in America, as important as the substance of the law. You may have the most magnificent laws denouncing all sorts of misdeeds, but unless you have a machine which will apply that law successfully, your general propositions will give you very little indeed. We have been at great pains, therefore, to secure that the necessary machinery will be provided, and that is dealt with in paragraph 8. Let me tell your Lordships what the suggested machinery is. From time to time it may need some overhauling, but a great deal of trouble has been taken by both sides to get it into proper shape, so that it can start at once, as it obviously ought to do, if we are going to authorize this legislation at all.
Most important in the British system is the British policeman. I think we should be very slow to admit that anybody could be usefully substituted for him in respect of the functions which he performs. If I may adopt a line from The Pirates of Penzance—
"When constabulary duty's to be done, To be done,"
the British policeman will continue to do his duty in this connexion, and it is he who will be concerned in case of need in detaining or arresting a suspected person. If your Lordships will turn to the body of the Bill, to the first words of Clause 1 (2), you will see we have provided that:
"The foregoing subsection shall not affect any powers of arrest, search, entry, or custody, exercisable under British law with respect of offences committed or believed to have been committed against that law,"
and so on. Therefore, if you take what is ordinarily called a criminal offence and if the case were to arise where an American soldier stationed in this island was suspected of having committed it, the British policeman would retain his
64
right and his duty in proper circumstances to arrest and to detain. But it is at that point that we depart from our ordinary procedure.
Apart from this Bill, whatever the nationality of the person upon whom the policeman lays hands on such a charge, he would, of course, take steps with as little delay as possible to bring him before a court of summary jurisdiction—before the magistrates; and the magistrates would consider whether the evidence made a case. They would either deal with it summarily, if that was the proper way to deal with it, or they would commit the case to the Quarter Sessions or Assizes for trial. Under this scheme, while the policeman will conduct his duties with his ordinary faithfulness and discretion—and I have always heard that our American friends have a great admiration for the British policeman—when that has been done, the next step will be that he will report to his Chief Constable, as he always does, and then it will be for the Chief Constable to report the matter to the local United States commander, who will then be able to deal with the case as one which under this Bill is to be dealt with by the American military authorities.
Careful inquiries have been made to ascertain that our own ideas of Criminal Law and the Criminal Law which is administered in the American Military Courts correspond. I rather think under our own Army Act a Court Martial does not in this country try for murder, manslaughter or rape, but the American Military Code is wider and deals with every class of offence; and as the result of that very careful investigation that has been made, and thanks to the very full information which has been provided by the American authorities, His Majesty's Government are satisfied, and I am personally satisfied, that the American Military Courts in this country will be perfectly well able to deal with these cases of criminal offences thus handed over to them.
Of course, I wish to make it plain—it is the first point that occurs to a lawyer or, I would add, to any other clear-headed man—what the law is which the American Military Court is going to administer. Is it British law or is it United States law? The answer is that it is United States law, with the American standards of punishment, which are quite as severe as ours.

65
But you could not, of course, expect—nobody, I think, would suggest that you should—that you should load on American Military Courts the duty for the first time in their lives of first ascertaining and then applying English Criminal Law as such. The truth is, however, that the two things practically correspond, and we do not see any difficulty in making this transfer. But there is another class of case, a case which, though of less severity, has to be considered, and which may have occurred to your Lordships. Supposing it is not a case of what we may call a serious major crime—theft, manslaughter and so forth—but one of those minor offences of which there are many in this country—road offences and other smaller breaches of the Criminal Law—what then? Well, very careful inquiries have been made, and we have ascertained and are definitely assured by the American military authorities, that they can satisfactorily deal with that too.
In such a case—take a road offence—the policeman of course does not arrest. He may stop you and take your name and address and the number of your car, or whatever it is, but he does not lay hands on you. He reports what he has ascertained to his Chief Constable, and the Chief Constable, if he thinks the case of sufficient gravity, then takes out a summons, and the case proceeds before a court of summary jurisdiction. Well, here the same process will be carried through up to the point of reporting to the Chief Constable, and then, as before, the Chief Constable will communicate with the local American commander, giving him the detailed information and what the charge is, and it will then be for the American Military Court to deal with it. They will deal with it under provisions—very useful for the purpose—by which it is laid down that a member of the Armed Forces of the United States in a friendly country commits the offence of having "acted to the prejudice of good discipline" if he has acted in breach of local police regulations. I think that is a very fortunate circumstance, because otherwise some difficulty might have arisen in that case. But, if I may say so, having had something to do with this rather difficult and intricate matter, I am so completely convinced of the good will of the United States authorities in this matter and of their sincere desire not only to do what is just and right, but to give us satisfaction in what they are doing, that
66
I really do not think there is any need to anticipate difficulties on that score. If there be difficulties it may be that, hereafter, some supplementary arrangement will be made.
Finally, I would call attention to the proviso at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 1, a proviso that
"upon representations made to him on behalf of the Government of the United States of America with respect to any particular case, a Secretary of State may by order direct that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply in that case."
The instance which has occurred to us, and which we put to the American authorities, was this sort of case: Suppose that you have a member of the American Forces who is charged with some criminal offence in some remote corner of the island, perhaps the extreme north of Scotland. It may be there will not be available an American Military Court within anything like a reasonable distance. You could hardly ask that the witnesses should go half way across the country in order to give their evidence. If such a case arose, that would be the sort of instance in which this proviso would be useful. The American authorities might say, "We should be glad if you would deal with this case, although this is the case of a member of the United States Forces"; and it would be dealt with accordingly.
I think your Lordships will see that this is a very interesting and, I admit, a most unusual proposal: one which would never be justified or tolerated except under conditions of war, and except under conditions of the closest feeling of comradeship and of common legal traditions which exist between the United States and ourselves. I commend the Bill to the House; and, if you will allow me to say so, His Majesty's Government tender it to the United States as a proof and a pledge of the genuineness of our confidence in them and our sense that we are indeed in this business together from the beginning to the end. In that spirit I feel sure the American Courts will seek to administer the exclusive powers they will now possess, and in that spirit I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, as this war has proceeded Parliament has been called upon to pass legislation which has in many instances and in large degree run contrary to our practices and traditions. This Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor is such a Bill. Nevertheless the circumstances of the case and of the time are so exceptional, and the desire of everyone in your Lordships' House and outside is so great to prove the genuineness of our comradeship, to use the phrase which the Lord Chancellor has used, with our American Allies, that we are united, I believe, in offering this as a gesture to our American Allies, notwithstanding the breach with our traditions and our practice. My noble friends who sit upon these Beaches certainly associate themselves with what the Lord Chancellor has said in that regard. There are, however, one or two practical points to which I would draw attention in the hope that, if the noble and learned Viscount does not feel it suitable to deal with them to-day, he will at all events bear them in mind when this measure comes into operation. Be it noted that the offences which the British Courts are to be precluded from taking into account are offences not of a military nature only, but any criminal offence in this country alleged against a member of the United States Forces. I am glad to think—I emphasize this—that the principle is left intact that under normal conditions, and in the ordinary case, the jurisdiction of the King's Courts remains unaffected so far as all United States subjects within these islands are concerned, save only those serving in the United States Forces. Such civilian Americans remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of this country so far as all criminal and other proceedings are concerned. I am glad that that principle is in that way maintained.
As the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, not only are the American Courts to exercise jurisdiction, but they are to apply American law. American law may not, and indeed it is common ground does not, in all respects coincide with British Criminal Law though, as the Lord Chancellor has said, the underlying principles are very much the same, and they have a common origin. In our Criminal Law there are certain matters dealt with in the Courts which are in the nature of civil complaints rather than criminal complaints, though they take the form of
68
crimes under our law. For instance, there is the matter of criminal libel. I do not know whether criminal libel is a crime under American law. It may be so, but I am only giving that as an example of where, possibly, there may be cases in which matters which are dealt with as crimes under English law do not fall within the category of crimes under American law. Be my example well chosen or not, I shall be interested to know whether the Lord Chancellor has contemplated what procedure should be adopted in the hypothetical case where an American soldier has been guilty of criminal libel against a British subject, and where criminal libel is not a crime according to the law of the United States. What is the remedy of the British subject?
Be it noted also that by this Bill the King's subjects are excluded from the King's Courts as regards seeking remedies against members of the American Forces in this country against whom a criminal offence is alleged. What is the remedy of the British subject to be in such a case? The Lord Chancellor referred in very clear language to the right of a constable to arrest being left by this Bill unaffected. What will be the position when the correct way of initiating proceedings is not by arrest but by the issue of a summons? To what tribunal does the British subject refer to set in motion criminal proceedings which he may be entitled to set in motion against one who has perhaps assaulted him? What exactly does he do, where exactly does he go, since, under this Bill, the Courts of this country are precluded from entertaining an application for such a summons? That is the sort of case where elucidation, as it seems to me, would be helpful. There are a number of other such questions of a practical nature that I might put the Lord Chancellor. I refrain from doing so because I am certain that it is the desire of the American authorities to operate these arrangements in such a way as, at one and the same time, to retain authority and jurisdiction over those serving in the American Forces and to ensure that any British subject who may have cause of complaint shall be able to obtain his remedy not less at the hands of the American tribunal than he would at the hands of a British tribunal in ordinary circumstances.
There is another point which I wish to put to the noble and learned Viscount.

69
In the cases brought before the American tribunals witnesses would have to appear. Will the witnesses be under the same penalties if they omit or refuse to appear as they would be if they were called upon to appear before a British Court? Will they have any liability for contempt of court, and in that event to what jurisdiction and what Court will they be subject? Most important of all, will the same protection extend to witnesses giving evidence in the witness-box in the American Courts as it does to witnesses giving evidence in a British Court? Does the protection extend of unqualified, absolute privilege against any proceedings for slander, libel, or anything of that kind? Will they be in the same protected position in the American witness-box as in the British?
Then there is the question of the position of the Press. As your Lordships will have been glad to observe, it is provided by paragraph 5 of the Foreign Secretary's Note to the American Ambassador that in normal cases offences against a member of the civilian population will be heard in open Court. It is one of the traditional safeguards of the subject that such should be the case, and I am glad to see that it is to be carried into the new procedure before the American Courts. Under this Bill, what is the position of newspapers? Are newspapers which publish fair and accurate reports of proceedings before the American tribunals protected in the same way as if they published the like reports about: proceedings in the British Courts? That is an important question because it affects both the position and the freedom of the Press.
I put these points to the Lord Chancellor, as I am sure he and your Lordships will understand, not in any sense of carping criticism. I never saw the Bill until this morning, and I have had little opportunity for studying it. These are purely practical points that occur to me at first sight on reading this Bill. They are matters which, it appears to me, reasonably require some consideration, if indeed they have not already had it, as well they may have done. But nothing I have said is to be deemed in any way a criticism of the principles embodied in this Bill, or a modification of what the Lord Chancellor has said, with which, on behalf of my noble friends, I associate myself, as to the desirability, as an exceptional matter in the exceptional circumstances
70
of this exceptional time, of this Bill being passed into law.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I venture respectfully to ask your Lordships to help to pass this Bill as soon as possible as I am quite sure, for reasons given by the Lord Chancellor, it is highly desirable that it should become law without delay. As has been said, similar, though not at all identical, procedure prevailed during the last war in France, and all of us who had experience of it there know how eminently desirable it was that offences committed by our troops should be tried by our Courts. The accused man thought that was more fair, and if there was any criticism of undue leniency or undue severity it fell, as it should fall, upon the fellow-countrymen of the accused man, or criminal if the accused man turned out to be guilty, rather than upon those who were not of his own country. For every reason, therefore, it seems to me desirable that this Bill should pass. I am asked one practical question by my noble friend Lord Crewe, who desires that this point should be elucidated—whether there is, or is not, a difference in the United States State laws in criminal procedure, and if so how that will be settled and decided in this case. It may be that that point cannot be answered at once.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a very natural question and I think the answer is one I might as well give now. What will be administered by the American Military Courts will be American Military Law, and that is the regulation of the American Army and is not a State federal matter.
LORD MOTTISTONE: That completely clears up that point. Speaking now as a lawyer, as the Lord Chancellor would say, and on behalf of other fair-minded men sitting on these Benches, or lucid-minded men as the phrase is, we all cordially commend this Bill and hope it will soon be passed into law.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, of course every one of us would welcome this Bill as machinery for administering the law as between us and a very friendly nation across the water. There is one question which comes to my mind that does not appear to be within the four corners of the Bill. Your Lordships will realize that among the American fighting

71
Forces, whom we welcome here and to whom we extend a hospitality to our family hearths, there is a proportion of coloured troops. I would like to ask the Government to give some consideration to this question. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has told us that a good deal of the responsibility will rest upon our friend the policeman, and he told us that constabulary duty has to be done, but he omitted to give us the second part of the quotation: "And sometimes his lot is not a happy one." We must realize that there will be a lot of borderline cases from which inconvenient situations might arise. Difficulties might arise with serious consequences to our country. Therefore I hope that His Majesty's Government will give serious consideration to the sort of questions that may arise, and will do their best to meet them if they become acute.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack one question on a point that might otherwise give rise to some misapprehension if it is not cleared up? In answer to a question by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, he said that the law that would be administered under this Bill in this country would be the American Military Law, which was federal and not State. Perhaps he could make that a little plainer. Suppose a murder or burglary is committed by an American soldier in this country, is he to be tried according to the code of Military Law and not in the same way that any individual in America would be tried who committed a similar crime there?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think those who wish to take part in the discussion at this stage have taken the opportunity to do so, and I will do my best to answer briefly the various questions put to me. With regard to the last question put by my noble friend Lord Samuel, I do not know exactly how the United States Military Code for defining and punishing criminal Offences compares with the provisions contained in different State codes, but I should suppose that it has adopted what is regarded as the best standard. I have seen some of the provisions, and, comparing them with our own, they appear to me to be of very proper severity and breadth. I do not feel any anxiety under that head.
72
As regards the points put, if I may say so, very usefully, by Lord Nathan, I think I can deal with them, because, as he has anticipated, there has been a great deal of thinking round this subject before this Bill was introduced. As regards witnesses, first of all the witnesses will certainly be under the same compulsion to attend as they would be if they received a subpoena to attend an English Court. It is partly for that reason that we have stipulated that they shall not be required to go unreasonable distances, but that the American trial shall take place near to the scene of the alleged offence. The point is provided for by the Order in Council recited in the first paragraph of the Preamble which I will not detain the House by describing: the one which is made under the Allied Forces Act, 1940. In the same way the protection of witnesses against proceedings because of what they have said in Court is provided for under part of the same Order. I have not had time actually to verify my impression about the position of the Press, but having regard to the fact that, if I recall accurately, the Press are protected if they give a fair account of a public meeting as well as of a law suit, I do not feel any real doubt that they are adequately protected if they fairly report the proceedings in open court of an American Court Martial sitting in this country. I am obliged to the noble Lord for mentioning the point and I will make sure of it. We can provide for these matters by additional Orders in Council, if necessary, under the Allied Forces Act, and it does not therefore raise any question which need delay the passage of the Bill.
Then the noble Lord referred to the case—a perfectly fair case to take, though a rather unusual one—of criminal libel. That crime certainly occupies a rather curious position in our English law. In the ordinary way—99 times out of 100—when you hear of a libel case it is an action in the Civil Courts for damages or for an injunction because the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has unjustly defamed him. There is nothing criminal about that. But it is quite true that we have also in our Criminal Law a very unusual offence—that is, it is very seldom brought to an issue—of "criminal" libel which also involves the publication of defamatory matter but which is regarded as a crime and not as a civil injury. It

73
is regarded as a crime because it is considered to be of so defamatory or insulting a character as to be calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, because even in this peaceable age and among quiet-mannered British people, if somebody publishes something about a person which is not only untrue but grossly scandalous and abominable, there is a temptation to hit the other man in the face.
In such a case a person can prosecute for criminal libel, and may succeed, even though what was said about him was true. The defendant can only succeed if he proves that not only was the statement true—it might be about something which happened thirty years ago—but that it was to the public advantage that he should publish it. He very seldom jumps both those fences with complete success. I cannot honestly say that I have turned my attention to the possibility of an American soldier perpetrating a criminal libel and of his being stopped on the way to the Old Bailey. I think we may comfort ourselves by this, that undoubtedly the American Military Court would deal with such a case, and I think would deal with it fairly as being a very gross breach of discipline, because they insist that the proper conduct for their Forces when in a friendly country is to behave themselves, and it is anything but behaving yourself if you perpetrate a criminal libel.
Lastly, there was the point mentioned by my noble friend the Earl of Shaftesbury. I do not suppose that my noble friend suggests for a moment that any distinction should be drawn between white and coloured soldiers. I am certain that neither the British Parliament nor any one of us would contemplate that for a single moment. I agree with him that the administering of this Bill will call for a great deal of discretion and good sense. I think that one of the advantages of the Bill will be that there will be an opportunity for consideration, even after the policeman has intervened, to decide whether or not the case is one which the British authorities wish to bring to the notice of the local American commander in order to admit of punitive action. We shall certainly do so in cases which call for it, but my own belief is that the Bill has been so framed and so much care has been taken about the regulations to be made as to ensure that as between ourselves and the United States Forces it will work with the minimum of friction and
74
inconvenience. I am very much pleased to find that your Lordships' House has generally welcomed the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.

  SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.
  LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that these Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.
  Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOLE) BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think only a few words of commendation from me are required. This is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Order if confirmed will enable the Borough of Poole to make an increase in the charges for the supply of water for domestic use and for other purposes. The borough carry on their water undertaking under the Poole Corporation Act, 1906, and other Acts and Orders. The maximum rates and charges for water supplied for domestic use and water supplied by meter are prescribed by Sections 45 and 52 of the Poole Corporation Act, 1906. In the preparation of estimates for the year ending March 1942, it became evident that there would be a deficit in the account for the year. To remove this difficulty it is proposed by

75
Clause 4 of the present Order to enable the Corporation to charge for a supply of water for domestic use a rate not exceeding 15 per cent. per annum of the net value of the premises supplied and if the supply is by meter at the rate of 2s. 6d. per thousand gallons. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

SCIENCE AND THE WAR.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what further measures have been taken, or are proposed, to make the most effective use of the scientific and inventive talent of the nation for war purposes; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will appreciate that the very important business we have been dealing with has rather delayed the debate on the Motion I am now proposing, but that was inevitable and I shall deal with this highly important subject as briefly as I can. It is a subject which has been discussed more than once in your Lordships' House and my object now is to invite the Government to report progress. I do not suggest for a moment that a great deal has not been done and I would like to take the opportunity of paying some tribute to former Lords President of the Council who have had this special responsibility of harnessing the scientific forces of the country to the service of the State. They have done very admirable work. I refer particularly to the late Earl of Balfour who, as Lord President of the Council, was a great friend of scientists and to my noble friend Earl Stanhope, who when he was Lord President took a very close and intimate interest in the harnessing of the scientific forces of the nation to the services of the whole people.
I would like also to make it perfectly clear that I have no sort of complaint to make about the attention I have received when it has been my duty to bring the inventions of others to the notice of the various Service Departments. I have ha very great help from my noble friends Lord Sherwood, Lord Bruntisfield and Lord Cherwell whenever I have approached them on behalf of inventors who complained that they could not get attention.
76
They have been most helpful in mobilizing the Departments under them to look into the matter. But of course every inventor must not think that I can interest myself in his invention. I suspect that there are many valuable inventions at the preesnt time being lost or bogged in the multitude of Committees and Sub-Committees which are scattered about London and in certain parts of the country.
On July 14 Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, the Minister of Production, speaking in the House of Commons, said that he and the Lord President of the Council at the present time—who is not in charge of scientific matters—were investigating the scientific organization of the Government. He said it would be found that this has reached a higher standard than was generally supposed. A few minutes later, in the same speech, the Minister of Production described the Joint War Production Staff set up last March as being composed of representatives of the three Services and of the Ministry of Production. He never said a word to suggest that there was a scientist upon it. My own impression from studying this matter, and from the information which I have received as a member of the Parliamentary Science Committee, which I have been from the beginning—and in passing I may say that I believe that that Committee has done very valuable work—is that while there are eminent scientists attached to the various Ministries, notably the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, their work is departmentalized. They sit on various Committees and do important work for the Departments, but there is no Scientific General Staff. There is a part-time body, the Scientific Advisory Committee, it is true, including Professor A. V. Hill, the member for Cambridge in another place. But to judge from the remarks made by Professor Hill from time to time it is hard for it to do useful work. I notice that whenever the Government are asking for a vote of confidence in another place, Professor Hill always votes against it. As he is one of the most eminent scientists to be found in either House, I think that that is rather significant.
The suggestion which I venture to put forward is not new and I was delighted to see that since I put my Motion on the Paper my noble friend Viscount Samuel produced a most interesting article in one

77
of the Sunday newspapers last Sunday. I was overjoyed to note that he made a similar suggestion to that which I now venture to put before your Lordships. My proposal, and it has the support of members of both Houses of Parliament who have been working on this matter, is that there should be set up a Scientific General Staff consisting of a team of the best brains available in the British world of learning, working whole time, and with a prestige equal to that of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The Chairman, who must be very specially chosen of course, should sit on the Defence Committee and attend meetings of the War Cabinet in an advisory capacity whenever required, and that should be nearly always. I go further therefore in this particular matter than my noble friend Lord Samuel.
My view that more could be done to mobilize the scientific knowledge and experience of the Empire seems to be widely supported, and I would remind your Lordships of the very lively correspondence which was published in The Times newspaper recently and supported by leading articles. As recently as July 22 a most remarkable article on the War Cabinet appeared in The Times. Your Lordships might not have been so surprised perhaps at my quoting it had it appeared in the Daily Herald. But I cannot refrain from doing so. I think these sentences are particularly noteworthy and, if your Lordships will allow me, I will read them:
"Authority at the centre must extend over the whole field. The great agglomeration of administrative organs cannot be steered and driven unless the War Cabinet has full and real control of policy and strategy."
I here break off to remark that this is the real "Thunderer" of old times, the "Thunderer" of the great days of the past. The article goes on:
"Conversely, the administration must be shaped, where necessary, to allow of this control. Can there be effective strategic planning, for example, when there is no effective mechanism for the initiation and preparation of plans, when the professional supervision of planning is entrusted to Chiefs of Staff overburdened with executive cares, and when science is dill vainly trying to find its right place in this incomplete hierarchy."
I am the first to admit that in certain directions our scientific effort in preparation for war, and during the war, has been most admirable In this connexion I would mention radiolocation, antidotes to
78
the new devilries of the German inventors in the shape of novel types of mines and aircraft design. In passing, I would like to say that I hope that in aircraft design we are still keeping ahead of our enemies. The very fact that we began to expand our armaments later than the Germans should have meant that we had better weapons and war inventions than they had. Yet I do not think that can be claimed over the whole field of munitions of war and war-like implements. It was certainly not the case—and here I speak with diffidence in the presence of my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook—when they were wanted on the field of battle, with regard to tanks and anti-tank artillery.
I have given the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who I understand is going to be good enough to reply on behalf of the Government, notice of one or two questions which I venture to put. Have our best scientists been asked to investigate the problem of more rapid and cheaper shipbuilding? Are we looking ahead to the next great development in war—the air-home Army? I venture to suggest that that great new tactical development is as important as the Panzer Division, and that it will be as far ahead of the Panzer Division as that Division was ahead of the Army organization which took the field in 1914. The next development will be this system of the carriage of whole Armies with their artillery, supplies, equipment and ammunition by air-transport. We have seen the beginnings of that already in this war. The attack on Crete was a small example of what can be done using aircraft to carry troops and munitions. It will not be merely a question of parachutists, but a whole Army with all its equipment will be carried by air. You see the beginnings of this development now on the Russian Front, where the Germans have got over the difficulty of making an Air Force mobile.
It is a most curious paradox that a force which in action is the most mobile of all Forces should yet, in a sense, have a very low standard of mobility, owing to the difficulty of moving the equipment for the aerodromes and the necessary ground staff, spare parts, repair apparatus and so on. The Germans have overcome the difficulty to a great extent by organizing a flying train—a great fleet of air transports which carry ground staffs, equipment, bombs, spare parts, ammunition and all the supporting paraphernalia required for

79
the servicing of an air squadron. They carry these things by air. That is the point. This means that half-empty aerodromes to-day are rapidly tenanted by great squadrons ready for a sudden offensive to-morrow, supported and succoured by ground staffs carried by air wherever they are wanted. When we ask, "Why have not you sent more bombers to the East?" we are told that an Air Force is not really mobile because the ground staffs and means of repairing, the necessary equipment for the servicing of the squadrons, the petrol, oil, bombs and so on must be sent by ships. The answer should have been to send them by air, as the Germans are now doing on the Eastern Front, I am sorry to say to the discomfiture of our Ally.
That is going to be the next development, and we should be able to do far more than anything that the Germans have done or can do, in view of our immense manufacturing potentialities for aircraft in this country, and in view of the immense aircraft manufacturing resources of America behind us. As soon as this new principle of using the great mobility of the air in transporting striking Armies is appreciated and understood, we shall be able to do far more than the Germans. I feel very uneasy, however, about whether our people and leaders who have to take decisions at the centre of things to-day are even yet seized of this immense possible future development; I fear that they are still thinking in terms of the war of 1914–1918, or even of the Boer War. This is a matter in which scientists can help us immensely, and I would ask my noble friend whether we are looking ahead and considering this development. If he does not desire to do so, he need not reply to me in public, though for heaven's sake do not let us have a Secret Session to deal with this particular matter!
Have we surprises in store for the enemy when, as we have promised and pledged ourselves to do, we open a Second Front in Europe, or are we going to proceed by the old, classical methods outlined by my noble friend Lord Moyne in your Lordships' House last year, when I ventured to express regret that we had not opened up a Second Front? Lord Moyne said "Are you going to land men With rifles on open beaches?" That is
80
what Nelson did in his amphibious operations. Are we going to attempt the same thing, with only the added advantage of motor barges, or are we going to hop over the elaborate defences and fortifications which the Germans are making along the whole of the Western coasts of Europe and take the thinly-spread defenders in the rear? Are we going to be really ahead of the enemy when we open a Second Front, by having a new technique and a new type of weapon, such as the scientists of this country can invent and design and develop in abundance if only we enable them to do so?
Have we the best scientists looking for the most effective means of countering U-boat attacks? My noble friend will say that the Board of Admiralty have been wise in enlisting the services of very eminent scientists, and that is true. I know some of them, and they are admirable and devoted public servants. But they look on everything to do with sea warfare as their own particular preserve, and if, for example, the most eminent physicists that this country has produced managed to find some wonderful means of combating the U-boat, if they were not in the service of the Admiralty they would have the greatest difficulty in breaking through the entanglements of departmentalism which surround each little team of scientists attached to separate Government Departments. My noble friend Lord Snell, who has been looking into this matter in order to reply to my Motion, will be forced, however reluctantly, to confirm what I say.
Do we really encourage inventors in this country? In this connexion, let me draw your Lordships' attention to what has already been done by our American Allies. The American scientific world seems to have been fully mobilized already, although the Americans have been in the war for only seven or eight months. There was a remarkable article in the Manchester Guardian of July 10 last, in which this extraordinary organization was described. I will deal first with the results. So far, more than a hundred devices put forward by scientists in America have been officially adopted by the American Army and Navy, and several of these are considered to be of the greatest importance. The Office of Scientific Research and Development—

81
which is just the sort of organization for which I am pleading, and for which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and others in this country have asked—is directed by the very well-known Dr. Vannevar Bush, the President of the Carnegie Institute in Washington. It spends $75,000,000 a year, and it is cheap at the price, if they get results of the kind to which I have already referred. It has a team of 1,200 scientific workers, including virtually all the outstanding scientists of the United States in all fields which bear any possible relation to the war effort. America has numbed the whole scientific brotherhood of the United States and taken the best brains, who are being put to work on finding means for winning the war quickly, and as painlessly as possible. I want to ask my noble friend what link exists between the scientists engaged in our war work and this American organization, and what link there is between the Russian scientists, who are doing outstanding work, and our scientists.
Again, in America there is a National Inventors Council, under Mr. Charles Kettering, himself a famous inventor, and in peace-time Director of Research for General Motors. They invite inventors throughout the country to send in plans, suggestions and proposals. Think of that! An inventor here who sends in a proposal is treated almost as if he were a madman or a criminal, and he has the greatest difficulty in getting any attention at all; but in America the inventor is invited to send in his proposals, and all the proposals submitted are investigated. About one in a thousand found to be useful. For a period during the last war, I had this job myself at the Admiralty, and I know that it needs very great patience, diligence and faith to carry on with it, because a great many so-called inventors are merely cranks; but if you are patient and approach the matter with a scientific mind—and I had, of course, scientists to help me—you can occasionally get from the great mass of material something that is valuable. We found that at the Admiralty, and the ideas so obtained were of great service to the State.
Among the devices which the Americans have already developed by means of this organization, since the war began, are certain new explosives, which I hope the Germans are going to know all about very
82
soon, and a war vehicle to travel on land and water—not an amphibian tank, but something which goes a great deal further than that. We are pooling shipping and materials with the United States, but are we pooling our brains with them? Are we pooling our brains with the Russians? The trouble with Service Departments on both sides of the Atlantic, and I dare say in Russia as well, is that with professional soldiers and sailors there is always what I may call a "sales resistance" to new discoveries. Although things are better now, the Admiralty's record in the past over steam engines, breech-loading guns, and paravanes has been appalling, as has also been the record of the War Office over tanks in the last war, and in this war in regard to anti-tank mines and anti-tank guns. There has been a sales resistance in both those great Departments of State. The Air Ministry, I believe, has been much better; it is a newer Department.
I should like to ask what steps are taken by the War Cabinet to break down this sales resistance? If there is something which is going to be of value to us in the war, what means are taken to force it down the throats of the Service Staffs if necessary? I will give one example. I am told on very good authority that Mr. Constantinesco, who invented the synchronized firing of machine guns from aero planes during the last war, a Rumanian scientist of great eminence, has designed a motor torpedo-boat capable of travelling 200 miles an hour in a rough sea; yet he cannot get a hearing. As I say, I am informed of that on good authority. I have not seen Mr. Constantinesco for some years, and I did not get this information from him; I had it from a colleague of mine in another place.
As to the neglect and misuse of scientists generally, which I am sorry to say still takes place, in spite of the tributes which I have paid, I have in my hands a twenty-five page memorandum on the use of our scientific and technical resources, drawn up by the Association of Scientific Workers, and containing chapter and verse for their complaints of overlapping, neglect, want of use, misdirection and things of that kind. They have sent copies to the Minister of Production, the Trade Union Congress and other authorities. I suggest that the first job of the Scientific Central Committee or Board or Scientific General Staff—call it what you

83
will—which I hope will be established, should be to investigate these complaints by the Association of Scientific Workers. They are very fully documented, and I shall be very glad to send my noble friend a copy if he would like to have it. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has rendered a useful service in introducing this subject, which, as he says, has already once or twice been before your Lordships' House; indeed I had the privilege myself in the early part of last year of moving a Resolution in not dissimilar terms to that which is now before your Lordships. At that time the reply on behalf of the Government was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who was able to announce that the Government had appointed a Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, and he explained the work that that Committee was intending to do and the organization by which it meant to achieve it. That was received with much satisfaction, and for a long time there were very few complaints such as have been heard in this House to-day and have recently been heard in the Press and elsewhere.
Certainly no one would deny for a moment, indeed we should all emphasize the fact, that British science has achieved very great things, that there have been in many directions a splendid initiative and most remarkable inventions from this country, which have given leadership to the world. It is quite certain that in our aircraft production, for example, we have been for a long time, and probably are now, in advance certainly of any European country. If that had not been so the results of the Battle of Britain would have been very different. But nevertheless, there have been, as I say, of late very serious complaints. Those who are not inside the administrative machine find it difficult to judge how far these complaints are justified, and whether there may be some exaggeration in them. Possibly they may be too sweeping. I am not sure that it is true to say, as the noble Lord has just said, that anyone in this country who presents a new invention to the Government is regarded as a criminal—no, certainly that is an exaggeration.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, a crank.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: A crank or a criminal. Well, I do not know that that is necessarily true. Certainly there is an Inventions Board which investigates all these proposals, and without doubt the vast majority of them are altogether impracticable. But, as I say, anyone who, like myself, is not in the closest touch with the administrative machine finds it difficult to form a decided opinion. Nevertheless, the reports which reach us all are too many and too specific and too detailed to make it possible to doubt that there is in general substance in them. The noble Lord has referred to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. That is, as your Lordships are aware, a non-official body, consisting of a number of members of the House of Commons, a smaller number of members of your Lordships' House, and representatives of a very large number of engineering and chemical institutes and of other industries which are based upon applied science. It contains also representatives of that very useful body the Association of Scientific Workers.
That Committee, having at several meetings heard a number of these complaints, including the memorandum from the association to which the noble Lord has just referred, decided that their best course would be to lay the whole matter before the Government, and with that end in view they sought an interview with the present Chairman, the successor to Lord Hankey, of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Cabinet. It is now Mr. Butler, the President of the Board of Education, and he received us—I had the honour as President of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee of introducing the deputation—and gave the closest attention to what was said to him. There was really a remarkable series of spokesmen, some of the heads of great industrial corporations, the authorized representatives of these various professional institutes of the different industries, research professors, representatives of the Association of Scientific Workers, and members of your Lordships' House and of another place; and there was expressed at that deputation a sense of frustration. That is the popular word at the present time, and it expresses very precisely what was the complaint which was addressed to the Government on that occasion. The spirit of departmentalism which has long been rife in this

85
country, as in most countries, unquestionably is a barrier to the adoption of the various proposals with sufficient speed. In the long run possibly they may be successful in making their way, but we are not waging a war in the long run, we are waging it very much in the short run. It is of vital importance that there should be everywhere this pressing sense of urgency, and that these matters should be dealt with day by clay and hour by hour, and not handed from one Committee to another for leisurely investigation.
The Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, as I say, performed a useful function and such complaints were in abeyance for a long time. It is a very small body of men of the highest qualifications. It includes the President and the two Secretaries of the Royal Society, one of the two being Dr. A. V. Hill, who has rendered invaluable service in this connexion, and two or three others of similar high qualifications. But they are all men under extreme pressure of work. Perhaps it would he unfair to say they can only give to this Committee the odds and ends of their time, but they certainly cannot give it their chief attention. And similarly the present Chairman is the head of a great Department of State, he is President of the Board of Education, and he is engaged not only in many tasks of great urgency arising out of war conditions but also, as we know, is planning a very wide educational policy, to be put into effect after the war: a man of keen mind and of great constructive energy, much interested in this particular duty, but unable—he cannot be expected—to give to it the close attention which the urgency and volume of the undertaking require.
Now what proposal is to be made? The noble Lord who has just spoken suggested that we should learn a lesson from the American organization, and those who are intimately acquainted with the whole matter do consider that the American organization is superior to our own. Under Dr. Bush there is that great system which has just been described by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. I concur that it is something on those lines which we should adopt here in Great Britain. Whether it should he precisely on those lines and, if not, what the modifications should be, only those who have the most intimate knowledge of the whole subject here and there could possibly effectively
86
say. I confess I do not like the title that was suggested by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, a Scientific General Staff. I think that is rather an ad captandum title, it has rather a journalistic touch about it, and I do not think it would earn a very friendly reception for the new body from the military, naval and air Services. The words "General Staff" are very clearly understood, and to have a number of scientists and engineers and others bearing that title would, I think, possibly secure for them rather a cold reception when they were in close contact with the real and genuine General Staffs. Whether it should be called the Joint Scientific Board or the Central Scientific Board—whatever it might be—is a matter of small importance that would be decided by the Government after the best consideration they could give to it.
The important points are, I think, these. First, it should have a Chairman who has sufficient status and authority to give to the whole organization prestige and influence. If he could be a member of the War Cabinet so much the better, with a Deputy Chairman to undertake the day-to-day duties. It happens that there is a member of the War Cabinet who is a man of scientific training with a keen interest in all these matters. If he could devote sufficient time from his duties—he has no departmental obligations—he would be the one who would be, in my view, the most effective Chairman for the purpose. Whether that is practicable or not I do not know. It is important that a Chairman should not be appointed who would have to learn the whole matter from the beginning. You must have someone with an understanding of science in relation to industry. The suggestion that has been widely made is that the membership should be very small, but, above all, that the members should devote the whole of their time to this work. They should sit full hours every day, and make it their sole business from now on to keep track of all the different developments, and make the necessary contact with the various Departments concerned.
Such a body, committee, council, or office—whatever it may be named—would have to be in the closest touch with the directors of scientific research in the three Service Departments, in the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of

87
Supply, and also the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and other bodies. No doubt they would have to have a large number of associates in touch with various departments of the scientific and industrial world, and able to form a liaison between the central body and the whole of the immense ramifications of our great machine. That is the suggestion which has been put forward, and which I have no doubt is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. Whatever organization is adopted, I submit in conclusion, it should not be rigid. It should not be necessarily a formalized system to be created now once and for all, but it should be created according to the needs of the time, with power to grow, with power to add to ifs numbers, perhaps, and to develop in various directions as the results of experience and the requirements of the situation demand.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, when I came down to the House this afternoon I hardly expected to have to speak, but as the first Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee and of the Engineering Advisory Committee I ought perhaps to say a few words. When I was asked to undertake that work, in each case I felt it was not such an easy job as it looked. The terms of reference were very limited, especially in the case of the Scientific Advisory Committee. The main terms of reference were, "to advise the Government on any scientific problems referred to it." I suppose your Lordships might expect, in the case of such a Committee containing names of such distinction, that Government Departments would be falling over one another to refer questions to it. I was under no such illusions. I had worked a great many years with another, possibly even more distinguished, body called the Committee of Imperial Defence. When I joined it in 1908 I found, to my great surprise, that hardly anything was being referred to it by Government Departments. I was only Assistant Secretary, but I looked round to get work—literally looked round to get work—for the Committee. There were all sorts of methods. One would go to friends in Government Departments. One would go to Ministers—Lord Haldane was a great helper—and Sir Charles Ottley, my Chief, would go to the Prime Minister, and get them to
88
refer questions. Although we were the tail, I am afraid in that respect the tail sometimes had, through indirect channels, to wag the dog.
When I began this work I realized that really these Committees would have to take their own initiative. The modus operandi in each case was that I invited the Committees to begin by ascertaining what the position was of science in Government and, in the case of the other Committee, of engineering in Government. We conducted very elaborate inquiries. We had very great help from Government Departments, from scientific bodies, from individual scientists, and from manufacturers, and the last time I addressed your Lordships on this subject I gave you some account of the official work of the Scientific Advisory Committee. If I had lived a little longer in official life I should have given your Lordships a similar account of the work of the Engineering Advisory Committee.
In both cases the Committees themselves were surprised to find how much and how elaborate was the scientific work of all the Government Departments, not only the Service Departments, or most of them, not only the Supply Departments, but it also extended far away into medical research, agricultural research, civil defense, and many other departments of which on that occasion I gave an account. What was true of science was true to a great extent also of engineering. Nevertheless the Committees naturally found that science and engineering were better in some respects than in others, and they made a great many recommendations most of which have been adopted. For instance, the Scientific Advisory Committee made recommendations—it did more, it definitely arranged with Departments including that of the noble Lord on my right (Lord Beaverbrook), who was in charge of that work—for very close liaison with the United States of America. I feel quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, when he comes to reply, will be able to reassure Lord Strabolgi about our knowledge of what is going on in that country. I should be very surprised if that is not so, though some of these developments have taken place since my association came to an end.
We made recommendations about some of the other things the noble Lord men-

89
tioned—for instance, inventions. We ourselves received a very large number of inventions, and saw that they were looked after. It is absolutely true that an enormous proportion of the inventions that are received are of no value, and others received are of value, but because there is such an enormous amount of research going on inside Government Departments, which you very often cannot possibly expose to outsiders, rather unsatisfactory replies are made. The thing has been anticipated, and yet there you are. I remember in the last war, after the invention of the tank, and after the thing was in fill exploitation, some Belgians were brought to me who had almost exactly the same idea. I was never more embarrassed than in knowing how to handle them. The tank was being kept as the deadly secret of the war. I could not give away that we had the whole thing, but naturally they felt very hurt afterwards because they were not told. That happens again and again.
The noble Lord spoke of a hundred inventions by American scientists being taken up. I should like to know how many inventions have been made in connexion with the different aspects of radio and radiolocation alone. I spend half my time at present in collecting, training and scrounging for young scientists and engineers to handle these things that are coming out. Last time I spoke here I said that the young scientist was not being fully used. Now I speak of the difficulties of getting enough young scientists. Every university has its bursaries, and I suppose quite a hundred technical colleges are training these people. I really do not believe that in these particular respects we are in the least behindhand.
When these Committees had concluded the big reviews and made a number of recommendations, there were quite a lot of loose ends. The next step was to follow them up. What we wanted was to get the confidence of Departments like the Committee of Imperial Defence. Once we got their confidence then the flow would come from the other end. It is no vice in the Departments that they do not come to a body like that. It simply is that everybody is frightfully busy and overworked. That makes them rather self-centred, and they do not go to an outside body until that body has won their confidence and made its usefulness felt. Until then such a body does not reach its
90
full usefulness. That is what we were trying to build up. I had brought the two bodies together. We had quite a number of inquiries touching both science and engineering, so that the opportunity came to sit together in panels; not always the same group but different groups very often sat together, and that is where I left it. I was asked to retain the Chairmanship of both these bodies, and I considered the matter very seriously, but I knew that to carry the work further and to get right into close contact with the Departments it did require a Minister of Cabinet rank. I felt it could not be done without Cabinet rank, and so, with great reluctance, I gave it up and it was taken up by Mr. Butler, who is very keen and I know has handled it with very great ability. Even so, I knew that the difficulties were going to be rather great.
The scientists have heard of setbacks here and setbacks there, and the public and others said our tanks were inferior or something else was inferior The engineers felt that rather gravely. Then there were shipping losses. The scientists felt that there was a kind of reflection on science and the engineers felt there was a kind of reflection on engineering that these things had happened. There was a sense of frustration, the word which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, used, and it is the only word to use in this connexion because it exactly describes what they did feel. Therefore I was not very surprised when I heard that there was a movement of scientists and engineers working to get rather more into the picture, to get people in whole-time instead of part-time, realizing, as I think they did, that they must win the confidence of the Departments. I was very glad to read the article of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the last issue of the Sunday Times, and I was glad to hear what he said to-day. I have very great sympathy indeed with this movement, but I am really not quite sufficiently informed to discuss it in detail. I do not think the American system is quite applicable to us as it stands. It must be done mutatis mutandis. Moreover, the whole question is, as I understand from what fell just now from Lord Samuel, sub judice, so I will only say two things.
My advice, for what it is worth, would be first of all to the Government to make as much use of science as they possibly can; not to use it only in Supply Depart-

91
ments but to extend it even further than they have extended it to operations. And when I talk of operations, I would even dare to include planning. I believe that scientists can make a contribution to planning. I have been so much in touch with them that I am quite convinced of that, and that they should be brought into some association with it, I will not say exactly how. To scientists I would say "Don't open your mouths quite too wide at first, don't expect absolutely everything you are asking for straight away," because it may be that when scientists really get inside they will see for themselves that that is not the way to do it. "Get a further step if the Government will give it to you now, and be content for the moment with that." When I say that I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Samuel that this is not a time to delay. But it may be a case of the more haste the less speed if you rush in with too many people and with too elaborate an organization. Go as fast as you can but go at the fastest economic speed, so to speak. I finish by saying to the scientists: "Once you have established the right contacts your sheer ability, used with tact and energy, will do the rest."
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I am bound to say that I feel very strongly that there is in more senses than one a sense of frustration abroad in regard to this enormously important problem of harnessing the results of science to the war effort. Speaking for myself, and I believe for many others in this country who have a profound belief in scientific research and its due and prompt application to the problems that we have to face, I am bound to say that it is a little unsettling when the noble Lord at the head of a Department, obviously in entire sympathy with the progressive working of it, abandons that task and no longer is a member of His Majesty's Government. I am equally disturbed when I find that a man of the eminence of Sir Henry Tizard, who until recently was directing the scientific side of aircraft production, is transferred to the headship of an Oxford College.
I would like to congratulate and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as President of the Parliamentary and Scientific
92
Committee, for the very valuable work which that Committee has done during the last few months in bringing this problem to the close attention of the various Government Departments. When the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, says that on the initiation of the Scientific Advisory Committee hardly anything was referred to it by Government Departments, my answer would be that the Government Departments themselves are not scientifically minded, and that a very small proportion of the large staffs of the various Departments concerned in the war effort have either knowledge of or sympathy with science in any respect whatever. Over and over again I have heard both in your Lordships' House and in another place observations to the effect that after all the British people are the most unscientific and most illogical people in the world. That may be so, and if it is so I think it is reflected very naturally in our Government Departments. It is a very dangerous thing if during the perilous crisis which now confronts us it retards and obstructs the passage of scientific discovery or inventions of real value to the war effort and prevents them from reaching those who might put them into useful operation. That is what the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee have discovered to be the case as a result of the deliberations of people of the highest scientific achievement as well as others who are sympathetic and who are members of one or other House of Parliament.
I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will forgive me if I read three paragraphs from the memorandum of that Committee presented to the Government in this regard. The memorandum says:
"Although we possess innumerable research workers of the highest ability they are too often insufficiently harnessed to research work connected with the war or to the operation of scientific control in the fighting Services or war production. Plenty of scientific workers have, it is true, been taken into war industry, but our basic structure of scientific employment has still to be brought properly up to date. Too many trained scientists are still either working in non-essential occupations or working below their actual capacity in essential activities."
Then comes what I regard as the most significant and valuable paragraph of that memorandum:
"Many scientific workers are conscious that they might do still more for the national effort. Either they are employed in some activity that is not directly necessary to the war or they

93
are employed under conditions which prevent the full development or application of scientific methods. To a large extent this latter consideration arises because the scientific worker is entirely subordinate to the administrator, who may be completely lacking in scientific or technical knowledge. The younger scientists are not given enough incentive to develop their inventive capacity. The senior scientists occupy merely advisory positions with no responsibility for the consequences which follow from the rejection or acceptance of their advice."
That paragraph alone to my mind, unless it can be refuted, is quite sufficient justification for the establishment of a new body in close touch with the heads of Departments and with the Prime Minister, preferably called by some such title as my noble friend Viscount Samuel suggests. I think he suggests that it should be a central scientific board presided over, if possible, by some Cabinet Minister of acknowledged scientific eminence. My noble friend suggested that there is such a person. If there is, then surely during the present war that is his optimum usefulness and that is the job which to the exclusion of all others he ought to be asked to undertake.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Scientific training I think I said.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I do not know the early academic history of all our Cabinet Ministers but even a scientific training is better than nothing, and I do not think we have a sufficient degree of scientific training in most of the personnel of cur Government or of the heads of our Government Departments at the present time. There is in this country, I suggest, to a larger extent than in any other civilized country in the world, a lacuna or gap between scientific research and the application of its more useful results. I should like to ask the noble Lord who will reply to this debate one question to supplement those put by the noble Lord opposite. To what extent are discoverers able to put their discoveries before the heads of Departments?
Before I finish I should like to acknowledge with satisfaction the announcement made by the Minister of Agriculture in another place yesterday, in regard to the greater measure of scientific application to the war-time needs of the farming community. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the problem of our food supplies becomes increasingly a matter of public and official anxiety. It is satisfactory
94
to notice that both the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture are bending their minds most energetically to this problem of how to win from our own soil the largest possible quantity of essential food. They have realized, and they have confessed that they have realized, that there has been in the past all too scanty application of agricultural science to the practice of farming in this country. Many of us have realized that for years. We have some of the most eminent agricultural research workers in the whole world. Having travelled in most civilized countries on tours of agricultural investigation during the past forty years, I have found that not only are the discoveries of scientists in other countries being more rapidly and more enthusiastically applied to the needs of what is after all the greatest and most vital industry, but that other countries are applying to a greater extent and more rapidly the results of our own British research.
Very often long before we have begun to apply them on any large scale in this country they are being applied to the requirements of agriculture in other countries. I do not think there is any sphere of national activity in the past—discounting what has been happening during what I may call the hectic period of agricultural activity during the last two years—in which to so dangerous an extent we have failed to apply the discoveries of our eminent research workers to the needs of the industry which they are so well calculated to serve. The trouble is that scientific discoveries are made and scientific research is conducted, and the results of those discoveries and that research are not rapidly or sympathetically brought into the sphere where they can be best utilized. I do not want to say anything else except that I am glad that this matter has come once more before your Lordships. I only wish that there were more noble Lords sitting on these Benches and displaying their sympathy with this subject, for none could be more important. I most cordially endorse the suggestion made by the noble Lord, and amended by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as to the eminent desirability of a special central organization, not advisory only but in a position to carry out in practice, at the behest of the Government, what is most required in bringing science and scientific opinion to bear upon our war effort.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I share with your Lordships the view that the discussion which has just taken place has been of a most interesting and vitally important character. The time which has been given to it could scarcely have been given to any more important phase of our national life. But the speeches to which we have listened when they did not imply, or assert rather, that the Government had failed to make use of the valuable scientific knowledge in our country, almost made specific statements in that respect. As I understood it, the argument is that scientific proposals when submitted get caught up in a vast mass of official machinery and endless conflicting Committees, and that such proposals as emerge from these serious ordeals are either too late to be fully effective or have been so modified that their original value is greatly reduced. It is further implied, or asserted—not here to-day but outside—that defeats which have occurred in the field have been due to our inferiority in guns and in armour. Now these are very serious criticisms, but they are serious only if they are well founded. To the extent that these criticisms are based upon mere feeling they arouse a certain apprehension in the country which is not good for our war effort at the present time. Everyone will agree that all suggestions that are made should be most carefully examined and with all convenient speed, and when they have been examined and approved, if approved they are, they should be at once put into full operation.
Agreeing with that in principle, your Lordships, if you have any knowledge of the temperament of inventors, will know that there are always a great number of disappointed inventors who are unable to induce others to share their own enthusiasms for the things that are in their minds. That sense of frustration—to use a word which is becoming popular—is not limited to inventors. All of us who are engaged in social and political work have daily to suffer these frustrations through a long period of years, and yet our faith in the democratic institutions of our country is not reduced on that account. Many of the proposals that have been made may not be entirely practicable but they are not overlooked. Inventors have been encouraged by His Majesty's Government; you might almost say that they have been pampered. Each great Supply Department
96
has a specially trained section of scientists who deal with hundreds of suggestions every week. Each suggestion is examined and a reply varying with the quality of the suggestion is given in each case. There is full co-ordination between the sections at the Supply Departments so as to ensure that no possible line of utility is overlooked.
A great number of proposals, as your Lordships may assume, are either opposed to the invariable principles of scientific knowledge, or are not immediately practicable, or have, already, wholly or in part, been adopted. When I was a student of economic history I remember reading about a period of invention during which there appeared one inventor who aimed to become a benefactor of the human race and who applied for a patent to protect a device for raising the wind. His idea, which, had it succeeded, would have been universally popular, would have saved many of us from a great many anxieties. But, alas! its promise was not fulfilled. There are a great many proposals of a semi-scientific nature of which a Government cannot avail themselves for immediate purposes.
Science is, of course, an indispensable feature of our national life. I do not agree with the suggestion that we are slower in our scientific uptake than other nations; I think that the history of our country over a long period will show that we have been as alert as other nations to the importance of scientific discovery. It is evident that our inventors, at any rate in the past, have been able to break through whatever obstacles may have existed in their path. The real point, however, is that at all times and in all circumstances and under any Government which may exist, under our system of democratic government the Minister must in the end be personally responsible. Parliament is the supreme authority. The Minister is responsible to Parliament, and we cannot allow any set of men, however eminent, to put their judgment before the judgment of the Minister, unless we are to make very serious inroads into the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility and into our normal democratic system. I suggest that the right thing is for scientists to work in co-operation with the Minister who has to bear the responsibility.
It has been suggested that what is needed is a Scientific General Staff. The

97
idea appears to be that this body should have direct access to the War Cabinet or to the Defence Committee, and that it should have authority over the great Departmental organizations, or that its advice should be taken in preference to the advice of those organizations. I would ask the supporters of this idea to consider how it can be reconciled with our system of government, and in particular with the individual responsibility of Ministers of the Crown. It is clear, I think, that it cannot be so reconciled. Decisions must be taken by Ministers who are responsible for the consequences of those decisions, and it is to the responsible Ministers that the War Cabinet in the first place must look for advice. Nor could the executive heads of the organizations for scientific research in the great Government Departments be expected to continue to exercise their great responsibilities with enthusiasm and courage if their decisions were at any moment liable to be overridden by some central body of scientists. I do not wish, however, to give the impression that the present organization is regarded by the Government as necessarily perfect. That organization is not static, and the Government are continually considering methods by which it may be supplemented or improved. It may be that something further can still be done to this end, and I can assure your Lordships that full consideration will be given to everything that has been said in this debate.
With all our admiration of scientific achievement we need to remember, of course, the equally great achievement of our nation in the development of a democratic form of government, and we have to take care that nothing undermines the strength of that. Science, as Herbert Spencer said, is only organized knowledge. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said: "Science is a first-rate piece of furniture for a man's upper-chamber, if he has common sense on the ground floor." We want to combine common sense with a full appreciation of all that the scientists have given to us and yet may give. Science has made great contributions even in the present war, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, in the antimagnetic mine device, in radiolocation and in other ways with which I cannot pause to deal. The Government are aware of the help that scientists can give. They deeply appreciate all that scientists have
98
done, and it is impossible for us to believe that the Government have ignored, belittled or hindered scientific progress or the application of science to our national needs when so much is at stake.
The Motion of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi appears to deal only with actual war operations, but the whole field of science has to be considered, and not merely guns and armour. The Government have established, for example, a Medical Research Council and a Flying Personnel Research Committee, and these have almost as much to do with the successful prosecution of the war as have actual weapons of war. It may interest your Lordships if in a very few minutes—I am sorry to detain you, but, after all, the Government case must be given—I attempt to show what it is that the Government have done and are doing at the present time. The Lord President of the Council is the member of the War Cabinet who has special responsibilities for the general management of the broader aspects of scientific effort in its relation to the Government, and two main Committees have been set up; the Scientific Advisory Committee, composed of men of outstanding scientific experience, and the Engineering Inquiry Committee, composed of engineers. The Chairman of those Committees was at first my noble friend Lord Hankey, and I know that your Lordships will permit me at this juncture, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of you all, to pay tribute to the work which Lord Hankey did when he was charged with such great responsibilities. He brought to his work not only zeal but a long specialized experience.
These Committees, when they began their work, first of all looked around them, and in March, 1941, after a five months' survey of the situation, the Scientific Advisory Committee made a Report and gave enthusiastic support to things as they then found them. In view of the criticisms which have been made, it may be desirable, and also reassuring, to quote a few of the things which they said. Some of the main points of their Report are as follows:
"The main conclusion that we should draw from our survey of the scientific activities of the various Government Departments, and particularly of the Defence Services, is that they are far more extensive, and far more effective, than is commonly realized. We are convinced that much of the criticism that has been offered

99
on this score has been due to a lack of knowledge of the facts."
Then, in answer to the criticism that the Government have failed to make effective use of the services of outside scientists, the Committee stated:
"In answer to this particular criticism we may say that the documents that we have considered contain the names of 283 senior scientists, for the most part not permanent members of the staff of Government Departments, who are at present engaged on official scientific work. … we have little doubt that in the more important fields the great majority of those who are especially well-fitted to assist our war effort have already been given an opportunity to do so"
Referring to junior scientific workers, the Committee accept the difficult problem involved, but say "we believe that in general criticism of the present system is quite unjustified." Almost unnecessarily the Committee reassert this by recording their general satisfaction with the range and effectiveness of the Government's scientific activities and their belief that
"much of the criticism that has been expressed has resulted from a lack of knowledge of the facts. In commenting on the existing organization of the scientific activities of the Defence Services we have stressed the great value that has been shown to derive from the close co-operation at every stage of research, development, and production, between the operational and scientific staffs."
I do not know that I need to read any further extracts from that Report, except perhaps in regard to the matter of delay, which has been referred to this afternoon. The Committee state that they have been "favourably impressed with the existing organizations for scientific research" and that
"In view of the supreme urgency of speed, in a war that may depend in large part on the relative efficiency of the belligerents at some critical phase, we would urge that all possible steps should be taken to remedy any existing factors that make for delay."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I understand that is a Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet. Could the noble Lord tell us on what date that was issued, and also whether the Report has been published?
LORD SNELL: I cannot give the noble Viscount the information as to whether it has been published or not, but the Committee reported in March, 1941, as I previously said.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: If the Report has not been published, which I think is the case, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the rule which applies in another place also applies in your Lordships' House—namely, that no official document may be quoted which is not put upon the Table of the House for the information of members. I do not want to press the noble Lord unduly, but I am sure that that Report would be of very great interest to the House and to the public, although now somewhat out of date; and, as it has been quoted by a Minister in a Ministerial statement, I would ask him whether it would not be proper that it should now be made available to members generally
LORD SNELL: I will see that that point is considered, but meanwhile I have done something to make some of its contents known. In regard to ideas, which we are told are always very unwelcome, the Committee say that out of 317 letters recived in a certain period and referred by them to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 243 were forwarded without inquiry to the responsible Departments. This shows two unnecessary links, as, had those letters been forwarded directly to the Department concerned, they would have been dealt with earlier.
I had perhaps better say a word about the future work of the Committee. They said:
"It seems to us the Committee is well suited to convey to the Cabinet through the Lord President of the Council the considered and agreed opinion of the scientific staffs of Government Departments, and of representative outside scientists, on any scientific problem in which the Government is interested."
The Engineering Advisory Committee, to which I have not referred, was set up in April, 1941, after the first Report of the Scientific Advisory Committee had been dealt with. After seven months they reported on mechanical and electrical undertakings and gave a general report of what was being done. Since these expressions of satisfaction were made by men who at least knew the facts as they then were the Government have not been notified of any change of mind. Moreover, the Government on their own initiative have introduced many alternative proposals with a view to efficiency. I need not delay your Lordships by quoting the details of these, but there is the Aeronautical Research Committee and the Advisory Committee of

101
the Ministry of Supply, with many formidable names attached to them.
Questions have been asked by Lord Strabolgi and others to which I will attempt some kind of a reply, first of all in regard to an airborne army, about which the noble Lord was anxious to have information. The Government is certainly looking ahead but not through a telescope so that it sees one point only magnified out of all proportion to the rest of the vast arena. The resources required for the immense amount of equipment essential for an air-borne operation on a very large scale must be kept in balance with other requirements over the whole field. It would he fatal to detract too much from other air efforts and thus jeopardize the command of the air, which is an essential preliminary to air-borne operations. Then my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, rather naïvely I thought for him, asked whether we had any surprises in store for the enemy. Well, whatever surprises we may have in store would cease to be surprises if I were to announce them in your Lordships' House. I therefore am not able to answer the question that he has put. Then, in regard to contact with America, there is full and constant interchange of scientific information, both through scientists attached to missions in each country, and through a special central scientific office in Washington and in London.
A charge was made that inventors had the greatest difficulty in getting heard, that in some cases they could not break through that wall of resistance and were not heard. The name of Mr. Colin Constantinesco was mentioned. The Admiralty have the greatest regard, I am told, for the brilliance of this gentleman's mind, but, even so, they cannot be expected to place orders for something about which he will not disclose the drawings or the details. The First Lord of the Admiralty has even gone so far as to give Mr. Constantinesco a personal assurance of adequate safeguards against any form of exploitation of information disclosed, bat this has been refused by Mr. Constantinesco, who prefers to have his boat built by private enterprise. Immediately anything concrete made available to the Admiralty, they will at once subject it to examination and trials. That is as much information as I can give to the noble Lord on that point.
102
There is only one other point I should like to touch upon. It relates to Sir Henry Tizard. Sir Henry was not directing scientific matters at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. He gave that up and became Scientific Adviser. We have no knowledge of his intention of giving up this because of his acceptance of the appointment at Magdalen College. It is by no means certain that Sir Henry will give up that appointment, because we ought to remember that both Sir William Beveridge and Sir Will Spens have also had duplicate undertakings of that character. I need not delay further except to say that the Admiralty employ, and take advice from, hundreds of scientists at universities, private firms, etc., although shipbuilding is more a matter for marine engineers. Lord Strabolgi referred to 1,200 scientists in America being in war work. For what it is worth, the number employed in our three Supply Departments alone is 4,000 directly and 145 eminent outside advisers.
I hope I have said enough to show that, after all, the Government have something to say for their own record. I am not expected to know intimately the details of these scientific Committees, and I have tried my best, at very short notice, to explain as far as I can the attitude of the Government in this matter, the scope of their work, and their attitude towards scientists and inventors. The answer to Lord Strabolgi's question is that far more scientific research work is going on than is generally realized. While the Government cannot be satisfied with anything less than the proved best, they feel there has been good progress, that many most valuable contributions have been made by scientific workers, and more are still to come. The Government appreciate most sincerely all that scientists have done, and wish to encourage them in their work, but that work must be in co-operation with the Minister. Nevertheless there may be ways of improving certain relationships, and some accommodation may be possible to remove from the minds of scientists, if they feel so, the sense of frustration which has been mentioned. This will receive the immediate and full consideration of the Lord President of the Council and others concerned.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord personally for

103
the trouble he has taken with his reply, only two facts prevent me from pressing my Motion for Papers, so unsatisfactory do I find the reply to be. The two facts are, first, I do not wish to be accused of springing a Division on the Government, or of want of respect for my noble friend Lord Templemore; and, secondly, the fact that there are not many of your Lordships here at the moment, so that the Division figures might give an entirely wrong impression. I found the noble Lord's reply profoundly disturbing and unsatisfactory. The only consolation I have is that my colleagues in another place, in respect of these matters, have been waiting for my noble friend's reply, and they intend to press matters further. I hope they will be more successful with the Government than I have been to-day. May I thank those noble Lords who have taken part? I was particularly impressed with Lord Bledisloe's most serious charge—it does of course affect the war effort immensely—that the results of our scientific research work are not taken advantage of. I hope the noble Viscount will press the Government further on this point and perhaps bring up a special Motion as soon as possible. I can promise him that my noble friends on this side will support him.
My noble friend Lord Snell completely misunderstood my suggestion. I still stick to my proposal for a Scientific General Staff. You have to use that term to give it the necessary prestige—there are too many Committees already. But I never suggested it should have executive control. It should be only advisory just as the Planning Committees in the Admiralty or in other Service Departments and the Joint Planning Committee itself are advisory. They work on problems and schemes as directed and are advisory. My noble friend, I am sorry to say, completely misunderstood my idea. Just look at the results to date. What surprises have we provided for the enemy in this war with the one exception of the eight-gun fighter? I ask my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who has been cheering the Government as usual, what surprises have we sprung? Possibly I could add the Asdic device. We did far better in the last war. Take the news in last night's paper that General Auchinleck's offensive was halted by Rommel's mine-fields. Have we any scheme for getting through
104
land mine-fields? We had this problem at sea in the last war, and we forced on the Admiralty the paravane invention which saved hundreds of thousands of tons of shipping, both warships and merchant ships.
As for the air-borne Army, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, again cheering the Government, as is his habit, supported the ridiculous reply put into the hands of my noble friend—the perfectly ridiculous reply—that it was too complicated a question. Your Lordships must all be aware that the effort expended on one of our big bombing raids on Germany—the same effort, weight, and horse power—would carry a whole Division with its light artillery, mortars, and everything else. I would ask Lord Trenchard, who is so amused at any new idea, as he has been for the last ten years, which would do more damage—his 1,000 night bombers or a whole Division of picked troops landed in the Ruhr to clean up Essen and all the rest of the place? How would he, as an old soldier, like to deal with a completely armed Division landed right in the middle of his country? That is the way to fight modern warfare, and the sooner we get rid of some of our old gentlemen who cannot get over the ideas of the last war the better.
We hear of the importance of scientific men. It is said that the Prime Minister has a great regard for scientists and employs scientists. I am very glad to hear it because there could be no greater antithesis than between the brilliant mind of the Prime Minister and the scientific mind; they are completely opposed to each other. When I heard Lord Snell speaking for the Government and when I contemplate their actions, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who was a very wealthy stationowner in Australia, a man of great importance. He could not read or write, but he had the greatest regard for learning and he would not employ a shepherd unless he was a Master of Arts of Oxford University or at least a failed Bachelor of Arts of Cambridge. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I may remind your Lordships that, in the debate in Committee on his proposed Amendments to clause 5 (1), Lord Wedgwood asked for further consideration to be given to the position of certain members of the Allied Forces who may have joined those Forces under some misapprehension as to the powers of the Allied Governments to compel them to do so, and since joining have deserted from die Forces and are now in civil life. Lord Wedgwood pressed that these men should be allowed the option of serving in the British Forces and I promised to consider the point before the Bill was read a third time. The Government, after full consideration of the whole matter, regret that they cannot accept the Amendments in view of the considerations which I laid before your Lordships when the Bill was in Committee, but also because the position of the men to whom Lord Wedgwood has referred can be dealt with satisfactorily under the Bill in its present form.
These men, not having been discharged from the Allied Forces, are still members of those Forces, and while they remain so they clearly cannot be called up for the British Forces. Since, however, the Allied Governments have not taken steps to get these men back into the Allied Forces, there is a strong presumption that the Allied Governments do not desire their return and would not take advantage of the Bill to recall them. But in order to clear up the position, it is proposed to suggest to the Allied Governments concerned that they should issue certificates under Clause 3, subsection (1) (c) of the Bill, certifying that the men in question are no longer members of their Forces. If such a certificate is issued in respect of any man it will become possible to apply to him the main clauses of the Bill and, subject to any deferment that may be allowed him because of the importance of his civilian work, to call him up for the British Forces. It will still be open to any of the men concerned, or to any other person, to make representations to the British Government, and in that event the British Government would, in a proper
106
case, approach the appropriate Allied Government. That is the best that I can do for my noble friend Lord Wedgwood. I beg to move the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Snell.)
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, immediately after the debate yesterday I got a letter from a Mr. Brattel which exactly emphasized all that I said. He does not speak Polish; he has been in this country many years, having left Poland when ten years of age. He was recently employed upon the Evening Standard and is now with the Daily Telegraph. He is terrified of what would now happen to him if this Bill passed. He writes:
"I could be arrested any day the moment the Bill is passed as a deserter. There is nothing to stop the Polish Government transferring me … to a Polish unit in Russia or the Near East, where I could be court-martialled for desertion, far which, under Polish law, I should be shot."
He said he was speaking for about a hundred people in the same position.
I think that the explanation of the noble Lord to-day meets the point. It is perfectly clear that when this Bill is passed this Polish subject, and the other hundred people who have been for a time in the Polish Army, are liable to arrest as deserters. They are liable now whether the Bill passes or not. They have been liable for many months but the Polish Government have not arrested them for desertion. The Polish Government evidently do not require them in their Army. These people have only to apply, I presume to the British Army, to secure the necessary certificates from the Polish Government which shall free them from any liability to be arrested for desertion and enable them to get into the British Army. This particular man applied to get into the Army both during the Munich crisis and at the outbreak of war. I believe he has applied to get into every branch of the Fighting Services, including operational work in the Air Force. Now he will be able to get a certificate which he could not get before, and it will be possible, I hope, for him to join something more useful than the Pioneer Corps. I am very glad that the Bill should pass.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT: HOLIDAYS AT HOME.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Snell.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to ask the Government whether they have any statement to make with regard to the holidays at home campaign.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, the Government have asked the public to avoid unnecessary travelling, and this year the majority of workers will be taking their holidays at home. The Minister of Labour and National Service is anxious that, in the interests of production, workers should obtain the maximum benefit from the
108
short holidays they will have at home, and it is important that ample facilities for outdoor recreation should be available within easy reach of industrial towns. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland are therefore appealing to owners of moor and mountain land and other suitable areas to allow the public to have reasonable access to their property wherever this is possible during the present holiday season. I feel sure that those of your Lordships who are landowners will respond readily to this request. I hope too that holiday makers will show their appreciation by taking special care not to do damage, for instance to fences, walls or ditches, on property which they may be permitted to use for walking, cycling, camping or other recreational purposes, and in particular to avoid any damage to growing crops or to the harvest.
House adjourned.