Lords Sitting of 13 October 1942

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

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert ("or, as the context may require, as if he were the mortgagor")
Clause 2, page 2, line 10, after ("and") insert ("in paragraph (d) of the proviso to that subsection")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. I think that we can take them together. This Bill, as your Lordships may recall, was passed by your Lordships in July last, and is accepted in all quarters as a useful and necessary amendment to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act; but, on further examination of the text of the Bill, it was found desirable, for the removal of all doubt, to make in the Commons the two small Amendments which are now before us. They do not in any way alter the essential character of the Bill; they merely make more clear what is its purpose and effect.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOME GUARD AND CIVIL DEFENCE FORCE.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will make arrangements without delay for the teaching of the elementary principles of national civil defence, including especially
612
the use of fire-fighting appliances, to all members of the Home Guard, while at the same time arranging for the teaching of the elementary principles of national military offence and defence, including especially the use of arms, to all members of the Civil Defence Force; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for asking your Lordships to consider this matter once again. We who are principally concerned in bringing the matter before your Lordships' House have been perturbed by the fact that the debates, on which we shave set such great store, have so far been conducted on what I may call the Ollendorff principle. I mean that when you ask "Have you the hoots of your great-grandmother?" the answer is "No, but I have the pen, ink and paper of my great-uncle" —the answer having no relation whatever to the question. On one occasion, when I pointed out that it was vital that every man should know the elements of how to use a rifle, the Government spokesman replied: "Have you not observed that the civilian population in Stalingrad are still pursuing their occupations?" His reply had nothing whatever to do with the point. When my noble and gallant friend Lord Cork and Orrery vehemently protested that the public had not been told their duties and responsibilities, the answer of the Government spokesman, my noble friend Lord Snell, was: "Do you propose to put every doctor in the trenches?" Of course we do not, but that was not the question.
On this occasion I venture to ask two quite simple questions, in the hope that, for the first time, the Government will be good enough to answer the points which we put to them. I put this matter now in the form of what may be called a bilateral obligation, because that makes it clearer. Will the Government see to it that every man in the Home Guard learns the essential and elementary methods of putting out a fire, and, conversely, that every Civil Defence man is told that he must help the Home Guard in putting out Germans? That is a perfectly simple proposition, and I want an answer to that perfectly simple question. The principle was laid down in very clear words from the Woolsack, to the effect that the duties are as I have described them; but the fact remains (and it will not be disputed in any quarter of this

613
House) that an immense number of people in this country—some say millions, and many whom I have consulted put it as high as 90 per cent. of the civilians of the country—do not realize that in the least.
It is quite easy for the Government, by means of the wireless, and by leaflets and in other ways—whatever may prove to be the most effective—to remove all doubt for ever from the public mind on this vitally important question. Therefore I would say, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, that if the Government will say: "Yes, of course that is the duty of the citizen"—put shortly, as I have tried to put it—"and we will make certain that every citizen knows it," then cadit quœstio. We will wait and see what steps they take, and we are quite sure that they will do the best they can. If, however, the Government adopt the Ollendorff grammar method, and say "Surely you do not want to put doctors in the trenches?" or "The civilians in Stalingrad are still pursuing civilian occupations," then we cannot let the matter rest. We cannot; we regard it as of paramount importance, and we know that we are right in so doing.
Two real dangers now assail this country, quite apart from what is going to happen overseas. Two real dangers are imminent. One is the danger of fire due to enemy action, to which I have already referred. The other is the danger of actual invasion by whatever means may be employed. I need not stress the matter of invasion being a danger, because quite recently the Government have said it would be "criminal folly" (their words, not mine) to ignore the danger of invasion. That being so, what steps are we going to take to deal with these dangers? We will take first the danger of fire. For myself, from all I have read in the newspapers I should say that the new plans will make firefighting not a business for a woman, but a business for a man. It is not the kind of job to set a woman to. If she be exceptionally equipped with physical strength, and volunteers so to act, probably it would be wise to accept her services; but for a universal and compulsory service—which of course there is in effect, as the Lord Chancellor has told us—I should say "men only."
I want to make quite clear that the duty is universal and obligatory to fight fire. There can be no question about this: it is not a matter for argument. The leaflet that was issued, the Civilians in invasion leaflet, following the Lord Chancellor's declaration, made it abundantly clear that every citizen—it did not say "male citizen," but that is presumed, I understand, under the law—every citizen was bound to obey any order, however exacting, which the military commander might lay upon him. Therefore everybody is bound to fight a fire. And, as I say, the new methods referred to in the Press seem to make it desirable that only men should be employed in this arduous and dangerous duty. How are you going to let people know this? Why do they not know now? The answer is that quite extraordinarily foolish things have been done. I am sure they are not knavish, but they are foolish. I think it is not disputed that millions of people do not know their duty. Why do not they know their duty? With all respect to His Majesty's Government, it is because of their failure to make it plain.
I will tell them now the extraordinary things they have done, or failed to do. The particular leaflet that was issued after the Lord Chancellor's speech was in very small print, and the important words laying the obligation on every citizen were put almost at the end of the document. They did not put on the front of it "Every man is bound to serve." Oh no, it was put tar away down. More than that—a fact that has not yet been brought out—these leaflets were not circulated in a way to reach the civilian. They have only been issued to people in the Services and, in addition, to various civilians concerned with the invasion problem. Would your Lordships believe that this vitally important leaflet, when issued to the Services, was in a covering envelope—so I am informed, in fact I know, because I have seen them—enclosing a notice to civilians how to act in case of invasion, and containing the words "Under no circumstances is this to be communicated to anyone outside His Majesty's Forces." Really, we live in the world of "Alice in Wonderland" when such a thing is done.
But, more than that, the other day I went to a meeting of Home Guard Members of Parliament, and I was there informed that this notice to civilians in case

615
of invasion had been issued to them in their districts, to their committees, with the heading "Confidential." Are these not very extraordinary things for a House of Parliament to take into account? This House of Parliament, no doubt with the full approval of another place, said it is important the public should know. The Lord Chancellor stands up in his place and says, "Yes, this is the duty of the civilians." And yet these instructions are issued confidentially—"Not to be communicated to anyone outside His Majesty's Services." We all know it is not mischievous action on the part of some enemy agent, as some people have appeared to think; of course it is not. It is just that some tired man in a junior position in some Government office said, "Oh we cannot be bothered, the thing is of no consequence. Put that in here or there. "As I have said, I bring this forward in order that we may clear the air so that the civilian may know where he stands.
As I have said, I put this in the form of a bilateral obligation. If it be the duty, as it obviously is, of every citizen, as laid down, to come to the help of the fire guards in fire resistance, whether they be Home Guards or soldiers, conversely it is equally clear that the civilian—police, A.R.P., fire guards—must also come to the help of the Home Guards and the soldiers in expelling the Germans. Let us try to get away from topics which might be in dispute. I have dealt with the question of whether the duty of the citizen is in fact as I have described it. I think that is agreed, because there is no doubt that what the Lord Chancellor said is the fact—nobody disputes it. The only question that remains is: Is it desirable that these citizens should have a little practice in performing their duties? For the purpose of this debate I have had some conversations which have been facilitated by the Home Secretary, with whom I have been in close touch, on the question of the Fire Services and as to how far civilians can help these people waging war against fire by having some elementary knowledge. Their opinion is quite unanimous that the smallest elementary training is of immense value in preventing the bystander from being a hindrance and making him into a help.
One simple illustration was given to me which all your Lordships have probably
616
observed in the case of big fires when a fireman rushes forward with a hose trailing out behind him. If only everybody knew they could help very much when they see a kink in the hose, by loosening and straightening it out, that might help enormously. But as my informant—one of many—said, he had seen, again and again, zealous people who have not had this elementary training trailing behind the hose a hundred yards from the man, perhaps, and hauling on it as they might do if they were hauling up a lifeboat. Of course the inevitable happens—the hose breaks in half; and very often that may make a difference entailing thousands of pounds damage and the loss of many lives. If everybody had an elementary knowledge, if they knew that if they wanted to help in pulling forward the hose they should do it only with the man who is working it, it would be very, very valuable.
That is a simple case—there are many others. Put it this way, my Lords. A little knowledge of how to work in helping the man with the hose or in attacking the fire bomb may make all the difference and cannot possibly do any harm. In the same way, some knowledge of the use of the rifle or of the Mills bomb is valuable. We dealt with that last time, and I do not want to elaborate the point. But it is obviously true that if everybody knows that when we turn, perhaps on the same day—perhaps not very far away—from fighting the fires to fighting the Germans, if you snatch up a rifle as you are bound in law to do if the military tell you, if you know how to fire it you may be of some use, whereas if you do not know what to do, you may kill your next-door neighbour. Still more likely, if you are dealing with a Mills bomb, you may pull out the pin and throw it down. Clearly you must have this elementary teaching which I am suggesting in this Motion.
On the last occasion there was only one dissentient note, and that came from my noble friend Lord Latham, who, I thought, treated the opinion of Lord Nuffield with rather scant consideration and raised a point as to whether it would or would not interfere with war production if everybody had to know something about these things. On consideration; I rather think Lord Latham would say that even if Lord Nuffield is wrong, and that it will interefere with war production, it clearly will interfere very little for, first

617
of all, people know their obligations, and, secondly, they know as a consequence that everybody has to know something about these things. For my own part, I think Lord Nuffield is probably right. He has spent very many years tackling a most complicated problem, and he has been very successful. If he says that if this thing is made law, and it is accepted, it will not interfere with production by one hour—strong words—it is probable that that is true.
That brings me to this point. Of course that opinion, which is fortified by many others, I am glad to say, is based on the understanding that this elementary teaching can be made simpler and more expeditious by adapting our methods. The Air Ministry claim —and by no means recede from it—tiat by their new methods of training to arms they reduce the time to one-quarter and the expenditure of ammunition to less than two-fifths. We are entitled to ask the Government—because the Government are one—whether they will insist on other Departments adopting the same economy both of time and expenditure of money. That is the kind of thing that we here in this House are entitled to ask: Will the Government act as one in this matter? May I say, without delaying your Lordships much further, that what is wanted here surely, at this crisis of our fate, if we cannot get a Minister of Defence—the Prime Minister rejects it and for my own part I bank on the Prime Minister so much that what he says in this and other matters goes—then we want something like a Minister of Common Sense. Some such authority is becoming urgently needful to do the things that are obviously needful and to undo the things that are obviously foolish. Among the things that are needful, surely is this: when you have told the citizen he has got to do things, you must teach him how to do them. A working man said to me on my way to the House to-day, "It doesn't make sense to me to tell me I have got to be shot at and not teach me to shoot back." That is the positive side.
There is the other side—the absurd things that we are doing, and I use the word "absurd" advisedly—things by which soldiers from all our Dominions and the United States of America are shocked. I cannot bear to see them smile in a superior fashion. The things that we did
618
in the summer of 1940, which were a gesture of defiance then, have now become a laughable sign of timidity. Think of the things we do. With a United States citizen the other day I was moving through the country. He said: "I cannot make this out. You make plans to make it more and more difficult for me to find my way from one place to another, and all the time you do not teach your people to shoot." I have not got an answer, and I do not suppose anybody else has to that. The blotting out of all names from stations and from the signposts is all a sign of timidity, which is utterly foreign to our people's temper. For goodness sake restore those things. A distinguished Field-Marshal, who sometimes addresses your Lordships' House, walking along a road with me, saw the gloomy portal of a famous cemetery. He nearly exploded when I drew his attention to the fact that the portals of this cemetery bore the words "cemetery and crematorium" with a blacked out space. That was lest some German, come to bury his comrade, should find out that this was really Kensal Green. I do not think the noble Duke will dispute that. An even more comic thing is that a famous bank, so I am told, is allowed to put up the city whose name it bears so long only as it is not in that city, so that the German who comes anywhere into the vast realm of England may look at the bank and say "Oh, I see this is the London and Westminster Bank." But if the bank is in Westminster, no, perish the thought, do not let the German know where he is banking or burying.
Do let us get rid of it and of other similar things. Above all, let us get rid of the fantastic folly of warning the soldiers and the people of invasion by means of church bells. How foolish that is (quite apart from the questions which the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has to deal with) when you come to think of how the matter stands. There are the different ways of communication, the telephone, the wireless, telegram, pigeon, motor cycle and motor car, visual signalling by day and by night, all designed in the first instance to settle whether the message is genuine. That is the first question, especially in this emergency with which we are now confronted. The obvious thing is that you have to prepare for attack at any point by surprise, and it is vital to know whether the alarm is genuine or not. Every arrangement is made to see how

619
quickly you can secure that knowledge, quite apart from the obvious things. Yet by a method which I read was obsolete in the time of the Armada, military), opinion is supposed to say: "We still have to warn the people by the ringing of the church bells, and the bells are to remain silent until that day." In the interests of military efficiency, I implore the Government to say they will put an end to that.
I have one added reason which will appeal to my noble friend Lord Addison, who lives in the country, and that is that I do not think the scheme would work. The other day it fell to my lot as a churchwarden to assist at the induction of a clergyman. He wanted to ring the church bell which he is supposed to do according to canonical law. I inquired from the military authority whether it was possible to do that, and the military man said: "Of course, we would like to agree, but we are not able to do so." The clergyman tried to see whether the bell would work if the military relented, and this is what happened. He went up to the bell with the sexton; he pulled carefully without producing a sound; and then he pulled with a tug, but of course in two and a half years the machinery of the bell had been so affected that the bell would not ring. I am pretty sure that would happen all over the country. I have ventured to interpolate something about these follies into what is a serious debate, because I think we want this Minister of Common Sense.
To go back to the vital point which I have raised, if only people knew their duty they would not fail. They have not been told what their duty is, and the responsibility rests on the Government if they do fail. It is the Government's responsibility to tell the people what they are to do. In a speech which anybody who heard it will never forget, the Prime Minister, in Edinburgh, quoted twice from Scottish verse. He said, quoting the Scots, "Give us the arms". That is what we ask now on behalf of our people. There are, without doubt, a few scrimshankers who evade all forms of service—too many of them. By this means you will find out who they arc, and will ensure that neither the Home Guard nor the Fire Forces shall have to bear all the burden. Tell the people the truth, and if you do we will withdraw all further claims and
620
hope you will be succesful. Refuse to do so, and I and my friends in this House and in another place will not rest but will pursue this matter until we see done what I am sure is vital to be done for the safety of our cause—namely, that the people are brought to a knowledge of their obligations and are allowed to defend themselves with their lives. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to arrangements for teaching the elementary principles of national civil defence, including especially the use of fire-fighting appliances, to all members of the Home Guard, while at the same time arranging for the teaching of the elementary principles of national military offence and defence, including especially the use of arms, to all members of the Civil Defence Forces.—(Lord Mottistone.)
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am not going to occupy your Lordships' attention for more than a few minutes. I do not propose to inflict my views on this matter upon the House again, but I do wish to associate myself with everything the noble Lord has said, and I hope that his concluding appeal to the Government will be met as we desire it should be. What I do wish to do now is to bring before your Lordships one or two matters which I think indicate what the real danger of this country is. We must have a change of outlook in the middle, among the local authorities. As regards people not being told what they have to do, being a member of a local invasion committee, I wanted to get the consolidated instructions to be given to the committees. I could not get a copy in the country so I came here and asked them to get me one, and I got one. When it arrived I found that it came in two envelopes one inside the other, marked O.H.M.S. and containing a personal letter from the Minister of Home Security. I fully appreciate his ability and kindness in writing me a letter, but surely the position ought not to be that a voluntary member of one of these committees cannot get the instructions how to act without having them sent in two envelopes marked O.H.M.S. and accompanied by a personal letter from the Minister.
That, however, is not exactly what I wanted at the moment to say. I have in my hand something which I think your

621
Lordships will agree indicates that we do want a change of mentality among the local authorities. This is a signed statement by a gentleman which was written on the 3rd October. This is what he says in regard to what he had been told of his duties:
"I drive my own lorry as a volunteer for the rescue party of the local urban district council. I am the leader of a voluntary squad called a Heavy Rescue Squad. I have been told by the local A.R.P. Controller that, in the event of the Germans occupying my district, I am to stay, behind and continue to carry on with rescue work. I wanted to learn to shoot, but the Controller said that, under the Geneva Convention, I was not allowed to carry firearms even when the Germans were in or approaching my district, whether I was actually engaged on rescue work or not."
The mind that can conceive an order like that has no imagination and cannot think what conditions would be like in this country when an invasion was taking place. Is it likely that the Germans would allow a perfectly good lorry with an able-bodied man to remain behind and dig out people who were unfortunate enough to be in the ruins? One might hope that scores of Germans would be buried in the ruins. What would happen would be that if the lorry and driver were left behind, the lorry would be requisitioned by the Germans and the lorry driver, who as a local man would be an invaluable guide, would be compelled to drive the Germans where they wanted to go, with a pistol at his back ready to be fired if he took the wrong turning.
I would like to tell your Lordships of a case which happened only the other day. There was an invasion exercise in which two London boroughs were engaged. It was arranged beforehand exactly where they were to meet on the Friday and what was to be done on the Saturday. The Home Guard turned up to a man and the whole of the Civil Defence members from one borough. None of the Civil Defence members from the other borough turned up because the two town clerks had had a disagreement as to whether a particular spot was in one borough or the other. The exercise was brought to nought by a pig-headed small-minded disagreement. I can only hope that, if we are to leave lorries behind to do rescue work and are going to dig out Germans from the ruins, we shall be consistent and see that every lorry is fitted with hot water, so that when the Germans
622
are dug out we can offer them a cup of hot tea and give then welcome to our land. This muddled meandering of medieval minds that dwell in the prehistoric days when the Geneva Convention had any authority, is a great stumbling block in the way of any progress. The Government may decide what they like, but if people of this sort are left in authority, what will be done? Nothing.
If all officers over a certain age are to be cleared out, surely there ought to be a heresy hunt for minds also, and these people should be cleared out, too. How very different it is in Russia. I read in to-day's paper a dispatch from a correspondent quoting from Pravda. The correspondent says:
"Pravda to-day gives a fresh reminder that winter is now close at hand in an article on the necessity of putting millions of people on skis, especially civilian reservists. It emphasizes that they must be able to move quickly and easily on skis in all conditions of terrain and weather, and be able to fire a rifle, throw a grenade and operate with the bayonet without getting off their skis,"
That is the training civilians are undergoing in Russia—a very different pair of shoes from remaining behind to dig out people who may be lost under ruins. I do not propose to add anything further except to say that I believe we shall be failing absolutely in our duty to defend our country if we do not see to it that every able-bodied man is not only trained to arms, but is associated with some military formation; and that obviously must be the Home Guard. It is not only the Government but the whole of this generation or of two generations that will have to bear the responsibility. They will have to abide by the judgment of history if we are successfully invaded and lose our freedom.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I regret that on this occasion I am unable to give to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, quite the same support as I have accorded him on the numerous occasions on which he has recently expressed his views in your Lordships' House. The suggestion contained in the first part of his Motion I regard as unworkable, and frankly this debate seems to me to be a little untimely. It is just a fortnight since the noble lord, in a very eloquent speech, put before your Lordships the advantages that would accrue if the whole population were trained to arms. In that I entirely concur

623
with him. On that occasion the Government, as usual, rejected the obvious, and only by a somewhat half-hearted promise to review the matter further were saved from enduring a well-merited defeat. That was only a fortnight ago and I think that there has not been really a sufficient interval to justify this debate being taken all over again. The arguments used up to date have been, I think, precisely those of a fortnight ago. Certainly they are no less cogent, but the Government having rejected them, I do not think that another debate is justified at such an early date.
The more important part of the Motion, however, seems to me to be the suggestion that the Home Guard should be taught fire fighting. Frankly it seems to me that the Home Guard is in danger of being called upon to do too much. I do not suppose there is anyone in your Lordships' House who has made more efforts than I have to drive any suitable man into the ranks of the Home Guard, but I think it should be realized that, with the stiffening up of training which is quite rightly going on at this time, to ask the Home Guard to acquire a knowledge of fire fighting as well is hardly reasonable. I know that in my own area, a rural one, it is going to be quite difficult enough to get men who are working very long hours to put in the number of drills which high authority thinks desirable, without inflicting fire fighting lessons on them in addition. Even in cities where men are more accessible and the question of travelling is not so difficult, it still has to be borne in mind that the great majority of Home Guards are doing a full day's work in addition to their Home Guard training, and, moreover, that the great majority of them are men of forty years and upwards who cannot have extra duties thrown upon them without in most cases feeling a strain which may, to some extent, unfit them for their often very vital day-to-day work or their still more vital training as Home Guards.
I should like to have from the Government some information as to what is the official attitude in regard to some remarks made by one of the more loquacious of His Majesty's Ministers a few weeks ago, when it was apparently suggested that compulsory fire fighting might be applied to the Home Guard. I hope nothing
624
further will be heard of this suggestion, but I should be glad to have an official assurance on it. I should also like to know whether all the ordinary Civil Defence Services are required, or will be required, to do fire-watching duties, because there does not seem to me to be any reason why, say, a member of the National Fire Service who does merely an eight-hour day like many other workers—work no more arduous than that done by them—should be exempt from fire-watching duties; unless, of course, on an occasion when there has been an air raid of some severity or a large fire, not caused by enemy action, in his particular locality. But I do suggest that there is a danger of overloading the Home Guards with more training of an unnecessary kind than they can really undertake, and thereby reducing their efficiency.
Finally, as an obiter dictum, I would like to ask His Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of an issue—in the near future, not at the end of the war—of some mark of recognition that could be worn by those members of the Home Guard who enlisted in that body in the first three or six months, say, of the war, because it was they who, after all, had to endure not merely the heat and burden of the day but the chills and rigours of the nights, without uniform, with no weapons except what could be scratched together locally, untrained, and with no means of defence except stout hearts and patriotism. I feel that something in the nature of a star or rosette, such as was given to the 1914–15 troops, would be justified at the present time and would give a great deal of encouragement to those men who, without thought of self, volunteered for what seemed to be the prospect of facing immediate invasion in those dark days of 1940. While I entirely agree with the general views of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I feel that on this occasion the application of those views may possibly do more harm than good.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I cannot say I quite agree with the statement of my noble friend who has just sat down that this debate should not have taken place because of a debate which took place a fortnight ago. That former debate was on a different subject altogether from that which we are

625
discussing to-day. The subject to-day, as we know from the wording of the Motion, has reference to the arming of Civil Defence workers. That is a subject which, if I remember rightly, was not brought up in the last debate. I admire the tenacity of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. He reminds me of a General who, unable to make an impression on his opponent—in this case a very kindly opponent—on one part of the front, returns to the assault, seeks out a weak spot and attacks again with some hope of success. I believe the fact that our Civil Defence workers are untrained and defenceless is a weakness in our organization against invasion of this country which must be remedied. Supposing the Government, after giving the question of the training of all civilians in arms the serious consideration which they said they would do, decided against it, there is all the more reason why Civil Defence workers should be trained to fight in their own defence. In an attack on a town civilians would, presumably, be rushed to the rear. To use the word coined, I think, by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, they would not be "weapon-worthy," and therefore they would be of no use. They would be sent to the rear to dig trenches outside the fighting zone. In that event the only untrained and unarmed civilian personnel left in the fighting zone would be the Civil Defence workers, and also those brave women who would be ministering to them and to the troops and driving ambulances and so forth.
Let us imagine for a moment what would happen if the enemy attacked a large town or city. They would be met by the military and. the Home Guard, but they might still be pressing; forward into the city. Houses would be blazing from artillery and mortar fire and from bombs from aircraft. The fire brigades would be active trying to deal with the fires; the rescue squads and first-aid parties, and perhaps decontamination parties would be in action. It is perfectly possible that small parties of the enemy might infiltrate past our fighting line, and appear on the flanks of our men putting out fires. It seems to me that as things are at present these men would have to run away if they got the chance: the probability is that they would be mown down. But supposing they were trained to arms.
626
Knowing that the enemy was near and might interfere with their work, they would take good care to have men with tommy-guns, etc., protecting their flanks. One of the main objects of an invading force would be to induce panic, confusion and chaos in the area in which it was operating. One of the many duties of the Civil Defence personnel is to allay panic and restore confidence and order, and it must be apparent that in so doing they would not meet with encouragement from the enemy. They would not be tolerated; they would be destroyed promptly like so many animals; and they would have no opportunity under the present system of making any resistance.
Civil Defence services to-day are a highly organized and skilled system, disciplined and controlled but depending upon the military authorities for protection against an armed enemy. It has been proved on the Continent and elsewhere that with the best will in the world military protection is often lacking for the civilian element, and it is this possibility of military protection being absent which must be guarded against. As your Lordships know, part of our Civil Defence organization is that we should be able to send reinforcements of Civil Defence workers from one place to another. When military protection is lacking it is not difficult to visualize a convoy of Civil Defence reinforcements being held up, and, at the lowest computation, transport exceedingly valuable to the enemy falling into his hands. One invader with the equivalent of a tommy-gun could overcome such a convoy single-handed, and similar conditions could occur if it became necessary to prevent the operation of the Civil Defence services at any particular spot. A single man could paralyse the services assembled at that spot.
The fact of possessing weapons would have a tremendous effect upon the personnel themselves. They would tend to regard themselves as being, very much in the fray, and they would have the confidence which arises from the knowledge that they were in a position to hit back hard. The possibility of untrained men—untrained in the military sense, that is—becoming confused when confronted by an enemy can, I think, be discounted. Any man, untrained or otherwise, very frequently puts up an admirable resistance, and it is my belief that that would

627
happen in this case. The arming of Civil Defence personnel would in many instances release for field work numbers of the Home Guard who, at present, or on an invasion, are detailed to undertake the picketing of certain key Civil Defence buildings. I am certain that such work would be accepted by Civil Defence personnel with gusto.
Why is it that the Government refuse to utilize, as my noble friend the Earl of Cork and Orrery has said, the experience of the Russians, the one people who know what invasion means because their agony has been longer and more sustained than any other? Their A.R.P. and Civil Defence workers are trained to arms. They carry rifles on their backs and dynamite in bags. They do not trust entirely to the bravery of their trained troops. They are ready to defend themselves and the women who minister to them. I can see no difficulty in finding the arms or the instructors to give elementary training in the use of rifles, machine guns and hand grenades, which is what is required. Even if they could not have the arms now they could be trained in their use. They could always acquire them when the moment comes. What can be the cause of the slowness of the Government in tackling these problems? What are the obstacles they find before them? Obstacles can always be overcome if there is the will to overcome them. I do not know what it is. Are they afraid that the men of this country do not wish to join up, and that they do not like compulsion? I know for a fact that on Clydeside, as I said a short time ago, large numbers of them want compulsion. Why, then, are the Government afraid that the people of this country will not rise to the occasion?
In my opinion—and I have consulted those concerned with Civil Defence in my part of Scotland—if these Civil Defence personnel are armed, they should not at once be put under the military, but should remain under the Civil Defence Controller until the last moment. When the time comes when they can no longer deal with their proper work, they should take part in the general defence of the area under the Military Commander. Needless to say, the Civil Defence Controller must be in close liaison with the Military Commander. If the authorities agree with what was suggested in the debate last
628
September—that is to say, that all fit men in the civil population should be armed—I see no reason why the Civil Defence personnel should not be trained at the same time, as there would be enough weapons and instructors for them all; but if, in finding arms to put into their hands, the question of priority arises, I think that the civilians should be armed first. The Civil Defence workers are a disciplined body of men and women, with their own job to do, which is not soldiering, and therefore the men who are to be soldiers should first be provided with arms. This does not mean that I withdraw one word of what I have just said; I firmly believe that it is most important for every male Civil Defence worker to be able to defend himself.
With regard to the first part of the Motion, I agree that it is necessary for the Home Guard to have some knowledge of fire-fighting and other Civil Defence duties. The men of the Home Guard, and especially those in List B, should be in a position to render all the help possible to fire-fighters and other members of the Civil Defence Services when heavy air attacks are again made on this country, as assuredly they will be. In many parts of this country, members of the Home Guard are learning about fire-fighting and other Civil Defence matters. I understand that my noble friend who moved this Motion considers that the Government should take steps to see that this is done more universally. I think that that it what he means, although I am not sure. In my own county, the rescue squads, of ten men each, have in many places been divided into two by the inclusion of Home Guards, so that we have in each party five trained Civil Defence men and five Home Guards. I presume that these ideas are not being carried out everywhere. I think that the Government should immediately take steps to see that something further is done on these lines, and to bring home to both sides that they must carry out this collaboration, which is so extremely important. We are only half fighting this war unless this matter is put right. Let us follow the example of the gallant Russians, and show the world that we have left nothing undone to ensure that, if this country is invaded, the enemy will be decisively beaten.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, it is my intention to say only a brief word in support of the Motion of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. In my part of the country we already have close co-operation between the Civil Defence organization and the Home Guard; in fact, a great many Civil Defence workers are already in the Home Guard, and a great many members of the Home Guard are now being trained in Civil Defence. I have the opportunity of frequent consultation and discussion with the A.R.P. Controller, who in o case is the Chief Constable; we have very friendly conversations, and both of us agree that the only way to help the A.R.P. side to work in with the Home Guard is to get the Home Guard to work in with the A.R.P. workers. That is the line which we take. I am glad to say that a very happy union has been achieved, a limited extent, and I hope that it will improve in time. I hope and believe that the results will be useful and fruitful. This co-operation is only beginning to take place at the moment.
We have arranged for joint training. A good many members of the Civil Defence Services are already in the Home Guard, have been members of it for a year or more and have done their training with it, and more members are now joining it. In the same way, I have arranged that the Home Guard shall undertake A.R.P. training once a fortnight, which will not interfere too much with their Home Guard training. That means that they will at any rate have a first-hand smattering of knowledge such as is essential for dealing with fires, handling pumps and so on. I think that that is the most sensible way of dealing with the matter. Should such a system come into existence in other counties, I am sure that the noble Lord who has moved this Motion will be more than satisfied. I am told that on the whole the Civil Defence Services and the Home Guard work together better in Scotland than in England. We hope that the English will follow the Scots, as they always do.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I think that the reply to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said is this. I have watched the Home Guard, and know that they are very fully occupied and have not much time for extra training, but, in an emergency, the noble Earl will realize
630
that it is far better for a man in the Home Guard to know how to deal with an outbreak of fire than not to know it. It requires very few hours' instruction to understand the elements of how to deal with a hose and with fire-fighting appliances, and to become in that way a useful citizen. I hope that we have all tried our hand at it, and have learnt something about how to deal with a fire should one occur in our own home. In exactly the same way, I feel that the men in the Home Guard ought, in an emergency, to be able to deal with an outbreak of fire and do the right thing.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, since the outbreak of war I have had very considerable experience of Civil Defence organizations, and have seen something of the Home Guard. I think that the lesson which I have learnt is that the problems in one part of the country are wholly different from those which arise in another. In many parts of the North-West, the Region in which I last served, there was what appeared to me to be an extraordinary lack of co-operation between the passive Civil Defence side and the Home Guard side. There are factories there, many of which are doing vital work and could not really be replaced under some months if they were destroyed. Many of those factories could easily be put out of action by a comparatively small number of men dropped from the air, because at certain times in the week—during the night, or towards morning—there may be only a small inlying picket of the Home Guard, trained to arms, present in the building; yet there will be a maintenance squad, probably a works' fire-brigade, and certainly a number of Civil Defence workers coming under other heads, including decontamination,, and there will be ambulance parties.
In one of those factories, in which there were ten men on the inlying picket, there were over a hundred other men, and over a hundred arms in the armoury of the works; yet in the course of an exercise, when an attack on the premises was made by a party supposed to have been dropped from the air, only the inlying picket was available for defence. That seems to me to be quite silly. This is a form of attack which has nothing to do with a general invasion of the country; it is an attack against a- special factory. There could be no difficulty whatever in

631
bringing a great many of these Civil Defence workers on the factory staff up to a sufficient standard of usefulness, with a rifle or a grenade or even a machine gun, to enable them to take part in the defence of the factory till the Home Guard men really detailed for the defence of the factory, who are at home at that time, could be called out. We tried to see what could be clone about cases of that sort. Of course we know now that the ceiling for the Home Guard is being raised, but that does not meet the point. There are men on the spot, and it has always seemed to me that those men should be in a special section of the Home Guard. They are Civil Defence workers, and they would not be musterable because many of the maintenance men are absolutely irreplaceable; they have got to be on the job as long as the factory can be kept working. And so they have no immediate use attaching to themselves from the point of view of any field operations of the Home Guard, unless the enemy is right on the factory, but they are of great use in defending the factory against a sabotage attack.
Now there is the other side to this question, which turns up frequently in different parts of the country. We know that there are certain old-fashioned towns through which main roads leading to the coast pass, and as they pass through the old-fashioned towns they degenerate into old-fashioned streets, which, if they were attacked by the enemy, would become quite impassable with fire and debris for a time. And you will find in some of these old-fashioned towns a relatively small Civil Defence Force and a Force quite incapable of dealing rapidly with a concentrated attack which might be made to turn such a town into a block. There may be strong Home Guards in the neighbourhood, and it has always seemed to me to be most desirable that such towns as those at least should have an organization by which the Home Guard could be brought rapidly to the assistance of the small Civil Defence units of that town, or even Home Guards from some distance could be brought, if Civil Defence columns were not available.
And so I think there are a large number of special cases which want study by the Departments concerned, to see whether in fact the rather rigid universal rules that
632
have been made for these Services are applicable. I cannot see any reason why there should not be a special section of the Home Guard, non-musterable and including within its ranks only those men who are Civil Defence workers, indispensable process workers or maintenance men in the factories, who are there all the time. And I cannot see why in certain parts of the country, where there are towns that could be bombed and so used to block the way to the coast—roads that would be used by the field army coming to deal with any invaders—there should not be arrangements made for the Home Guard to be made available and trained to co-operate with Civil Defence Services in fire fighting and road clearance. And not only the Home Guard.
These are cases which I think require attention, but there is another thing. We have now to recognize that to-day in the Home Guard and in the Civil Defence Services we have organizations which strategically are defensive. Now the civilian offensive is production, and whether it be in the farms or in the factories, that is the civilians' share in the offensive. I know from personal examination and discussion with the men how hard some of them are working, and if we were to add to the burden of those men the duty of a double training—because many of them are Civil Defence workers or Home Guards—I think we should break them. And therefore I do not think it is possible to adopt a double training—or rather a triple service, because they have their civil work to do in addition to the Home Guard and the Civil Defence work. I do not think you can ask a man to fulfil three functions and be efficient in all of them. But there are these special cases, and so I would suggest to the noble Lord that if he were to press for the special cases being dealt with first and then see how that worked, he might then perhaps proceed to the larger scheme which he has in mind. But there are two caes, I think, in which arms should be given at once, especially in the rural districts; one is to the police, many of whom are still quite unarmed, and the other is to the mobile Civil Defence columns which sometimes have to move long distances and might have to move through enemy infested, but not enemy held, country. I hope that on those points His Majesty's Government will take action.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I crave indulgence to add a word in case I have been misunderstood. I entirely agree with the admirable speech that we have just heard. Where Home Guards can make it an essential part of their duties without loss of other efficiency then they should certainly, in any circumstances, be trained for fire fighting, but Lord Mottistone's Motion applies to all members of the Home Guard, and to that I emphatically demur, because in many cases it would break them, and in many rural areas it would take up a lot of time without any corresponding good results.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVON SHIRE): My Lords, I know you will entirely agree with me when I say how very cordially you welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. The noble Lord has made a weighty and thoughtful contribution to our debate, and we look forward to his addressing us on many occasions in the future. He made some valuable suggestions, which I have no doubt will be considered, and considered most carefully by my noble friend. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised the question of some sort of distinguishing badge for those Home Guards who assumed their heavy responsibilities early on, and have borne the heat and burden of the day. My noble friend informs me that that subject—proper recognition for the Home Guard—is under active consideration. I cannot go further than that to-day, but the noble Earl will be glad to know that that point is being considered. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, raised one or two questions, but they dealt rather with matters of local politics, or local tactics or strategy than with the main direction of Government affairs. The noble and gallant Earl did a valuable service in raising these matters, and I have no doubt they will be looked into by the Department concerned, but they are not, I think, quite the proper subject for debate in your Lordships' House.
I hope that my noble friend who raised this Motion will not think that I am adopting the 011endorff method of referring to the speeches of other noble Lords instead of his own. I have no intention of doing so, but I must warn him that
634
these matters under discussion to-day are not under my purview, I am only answering for another Department. Indeed, it is a very far cry from the question of home defence and strategy, the defence inch by inch of our native land, to the deeds and speeches of the Mahatma who occupies so much of my working thought and time. And I must also point out that those responsible for briefing their spokesman on these questions tend rather to go on the principle that the less straw they provide their spokesman with the fewer bricks he is likely to drop.
To come to the Motion, My noble friend's Motion is really in two parts. The first urges that all Home Guards should be taught "the elements of national civil defence, including especially the use of fire-fighting appliances," and the second urges that all Civil Defence personnel should learn the elements of "national military offence and defence, including especially the use of arms." I can say at the very beginning that the difference—if difference there be—between my noble friend and the Government, is not one of principle, but of degree only, and that the Government are endeavouring to get closer and closer to the position suggested by my noble friend. As has been from time to time made plain in Parliament, the Government have long realized that shortage of man-power would make mutual and between the Home Guard and the Civil Defence forces increasingly essential. The Home Guard, like the Army, have frequently given active assistance during and after air raids, and a certain number of members of the Civil Defence Services have been members of the Home Guard almost from its formation. Early in the present year, however, it was felt that something more was needed, and accordingly, last February, arrangements, framed so as to avoid prejudice to either side, were made, whereby more part-time members of the Civil Defence Services might join the Home Guard and more Home Guards might give assistance to the Civil Defence organizations both during and after air raids and as a routine stand-by duty from day to day during lull periods.
It was realized that effective help could not be given by either service to the other without proper training. Civil Defence personnel who joined the Home Guard got that training automatically, and it

635
was provided that local arrangements should be made to ensure that Home Guards received the necessary training in Civil Defence work. The arrangements were brought up to date in July, and on that occasion emphasis was laid on the growing depletion of the fire guards because, among other things, of the direction of many of them into the Home Guard. The necessity of training in advance and of joint exercises was again stressed. Recently commanders of Home Guard units down to platoon level have received further detailed guidance, and a Civil Defence training syllabus has been included in the training instructions for the forthcoming winter. The Civil Defence duties which Home Guards may undertake include dealing with incendiary bombs, rescue and ambulance work, fire-watching, messenger and wardens' duties, cordoning off and clearing blocked streets, helping to evacuate areas threatened by fire or unexploded bombs, and traffic control. What is now required is to realize fully that during the coming winter there is a serious danger to the country from the air, and particularly from fire. It is desirable that while, so far as is practicable, members of the Civil Defence Services should have some elementary military training, as many Home Guards as possible should prepare themselves, both by training and by undertaking spells of duty during lull periods, to help the civil side to deal with the very difficult situation with which they may be faced if, and when, serious air raids are resumed.
There is one point on which there has been some misunderstanding, I do not say in this House, but in the country generally. The objection has sometimes been raised that Home Guards are statutorily exempt from fire-guard duty under the Fire Prevention Orders. The position is that any Home Guard can, and every Home Guard will, when necessary, be ordered by his Commanding Officer to act as a fire guard as a military duty and as part of his ordinary 48 hours obligation as a Home Guard. He is in a very different position from a person who is not a member of the Home Guard. Individual Home Guards may have to do this duty acting either in units under their own officer or as individuals posted to a Civil Defence unit. It is possible that in many areas Home Guards who have com-
636
pleted their primary military training could be spared for Civil Defence training and duty for a substantial proportion of their time. Many of those who can spare the time are already, of course, doing an aggregate of more than 48 hours a month in Home Guard training. If they can give part of their spare time to Civil Defence, while continuing a substantial amount of Home Guard work, they will be performing an essential service for their country. On the Civil Defence side, Civil Defence authorities have been asked, consistently with the needs of their services, to give all possible assistance and encouragement to enable part-time men to enrol in the Home Guard. The scheme provides that, where local arrangements permit, Civil Defence personnel may join as units and serve in the Home Guard under officers also enrolled from the Civil Defence. That is already happening in certain parts of the country, as my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland said, and is proving a very satisfactory system.
These are the existing arrangements. As they are extended—and they are being extended—a position nearer to that desired by the noble Lord who raised the Motion will be reached. We can say that a position very nearly approximating to that which he desires will be reached in a reasonable time. His proposition that all Home Guards and all Civil Defence personnel should receive training would, I am afraid I must tell your Lordships, never be possible even if it were desirable. There are many hundreds of thousands of men in the general Civil Defence services as well as a great many more fire-guards, but the casualty services, for instance, are quite properly excluded from the arrangements to which I have just referred, and many in all services are in the higher age groups. Moreover, nine-tenths of them, and all Home Guards, are part-time, and most members of both forces are giving their spare time to the service which they have joined after a hard day on work of national importance. Only a proportion of them can reasonably be expected to give more time to Home Guard and Civil Defence work and training than they are now doing—and here I agree with what my noble friend Lord Geddes said towards the end of his remarks. The problem of production is one of very great importance indeed.
LORD MOTTISTONE: The noble Duke says they are excluded. Of course he means excluded for training. Surely he cannot mean excluded from liability, because every citizen is equally liable to do all these things. Has the Department, in furnishing him with the straw, given him the impression that anyone is excluded from liability to serve?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have not had that impression, and I did not mean to give it to the House. There are substantial numbers of key men in the Civil Defence Services who cannot be spared, and who should not be available, for any other purpose. In the same way there are certain key men in the Home Guard who should not be available for diversion to any other service. You could rapidly disorganize both services if you attempted to make them wholly interchangeable. You certainly cannot do it without the risk of very considerable dislocation. I hope I have said enough, however, to indicate that the Government are working along the lines advocated by my noble friend and that an increasing proportion of the Home Guard is being made available for Civil Defence work and an increasing proportion of the Civil Defence Services is being made available for Home Guard purposes.
There is one point to which the noble Lord asked for a definite answer. That was on the question of the so-called tabloid training given to the Air Force. My noble friend Lord Croft promised him a reply on that subject some time ago, and no doubt he will reply to him in detail more fully than I propose to do this afternoon; but, broadly speaking, I can tell my noble friend that he is not really quite comparing like with like. The tabloid training, the 4o hour intensified training which is given to Air Force personnel, is training given to men who have already passed through a recruit's training and who are in fact more than partially trained soldiers already. It is also given to men who are already stationed with an Air Force, and it is given by very highly skilled Army instructors lent for the purpose by the Army to squads of never more than twelve specially selected trainees. I think one moment's reflection will convince your Lordships that no such training as that is even remotely possible for the widely scattered civilian personnel of the Home
638
Guard or of the Civil Defence Services who have to spend much more than 40 hours to receive their training, because many of them have considerable distances to cover in order to get to their training point. Nor could the Army, with the enormous demands made upon it, possibly find the many thousands of skilled instructors required for the purpose. It is quite true that the Air Force have devised a very highly concentrated and worked-out method of giving specialized training to a particular type of Air Force recruit, but they are men who have already passed through the six weeks training of recruits and are troops under Air Force discipline. That training is not comparable with that necessary or desirable for part-time civilian personnel.
The noble Lord also raised the question of various absurdities of one sort and another, as he called them, such as the removal of signposts and the use of church bells in case of invasion. I have been into that latter question with the Civil Defence authorities and I must confess to a feeling personally of very considerable sympathy with the noble Lord. I miss the church bells very much. I feel that something of real value, something that is part of our long heritage of Christian civilization, is missing when these church bells are silent. But I am informed that the military authorities have most carefully considered that problem. They have considered the desirability of once more allowing the use of the church bells. They have also considered the unsatisfactory nature of church bells as a warning in case of invasion; but, having considered all those matters, they are still of the opinion that, as a standby, it is desirable that the church bells should be kept in reserve in case of necessity and, therefore, their use on other occasions cannot be alowed. I think it is necessary that we should know that the military have considered this particular matter, and that the decision which has been taken is not a political decision but that of the military authorities. Therefore, they having duly weighed the facts and desiring that the decision should remain as it is, I think we must put up with the loss of our church bells at present and look forward to the time when invasion, having either been frightened off by the preparations we have made, or repelled by the use of the church bells, we shall once more be able to hear them in time of peace.
LORD MOTTISTONE: The noble Duke has not answered the specific question, the most important one in my Motion—would the Government take all proper steps to inform civilians of their duties?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am sorry, my Lords, that I forgot that point. My right honourable friend believes that he is in fact taking the proper steps to keep the people informed. Indeed, I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote to my noble friend a short time ago explaining what had happened. To inform every member of the civil population of his or her duties would necessitate a waste of effort and paper on a gigantic scale, and he does not contemplate that method. Every member of every invasion committee has received a copy of the circular which my noble friend referred to, and it has reached down to as low a level as every platoon commander in the Home Guard. It has also been issued to the Press and I have no doubt that by means of the Press and by broadcast the public could have this matter brought before them at very short notice. My noble friend complained that in certain cases—indeed he said he had seen copies that gave ground for the complaint—the invasion instructions were being marked "Confidential." Inquiry has been made into that and it is certainly not the wish or the intention of the Government that these copies should be marked "Confidential." I can conceive of two possible explanations. One is that there are scattered up and down the country now a very great number of office tables and on these office tables there is a rubber stamp which will reproduce the word "Confidential." Some busy person may have got busy in the absence of anything else to do with his rubber stamp. That is one possible explanation.
Another is that a booklet has been issued entitled Consolidated Instructions to Invasion Committees. The statement of 8th June, that is, the Plans for Civilian Action in Invasion is reproduced as an appendix to the booklet. The booklet itself is not confidential, but there are certain paragraphs in marginal lines containing confidential matter which the committees are told not to disclose outside their own members and services, and it may be that my noble friend may have
640
seen that particular document which was issued in a confidential way. That is not to say it is not issued on a very wide basis. The matter of its being kept before the public is under review by my right honourable friend. He is not losing sight of it, but is keeping in mind the question of getting as wide a publicity as possible to show every person what his or her duty is. That is being kept constantly under review.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Duke disarms us by his opening phrases, and indeed, with his unfailing courtesy, he does his best to answer the questions, but he did relapse into the 011endorff method once or twice. For instance, if I may respectfully say so, about the church bells. It was not suggested for a moment that they should be rung because we like to hear them, as the noble Duke does. What was suggested was that it was a dangerous and foolish thing for the military to rely upon a method which is peculiarly open to every kind of mischievous enemy action. For that and other reasons I pointed out that this method of warning of invasion was considered obsolete in the days of the Armada. One cannot help feeling that the reply on this point is not the really true one—I am sure it is not—and that the noble Duke has been misinformed. I cannot imagine that the military people believe seriously that we must keep this method of warning as a vital element. I hope the noble Duke will reflect further upon this matter, and remember that in the view of every intelligent person with whom I have spoken on the subject, it is really a very dangerous thing to rely upon church bells to give the warning. That is apart from the very great difficulties which are associated with this method of warning.
On the main issue I would not enter into a controversy with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, except to say that he is really barking up the wrong tree to-night, for I have a letter from the Home Secretary in which the whole point is conceded that it is desirable there should be complete co-operation between the two Services, and that the Home Guards are being encouraged to learn Civil Defence duties. To the noble Earl and to Lord Geddes—I agree with the noble Duke that we are very glad to hear the noble Lord and hope he will often take part in our

641
debates—may I say that they are falling into the error into which people so often fall? When people are told that there is something to be learnt there is always a group who say that that means you have to learn everything. I would ask the noble Lord to let his pellucid brain play around this. It is like saying of an illiterate population who have to be taught to read and write, that it is no good teaching them unless you teach them to write an essay. There is another illustration that will appeal to him. The Royal Ocean Racing Club insist that everybody should know how to swim. They do not say that every man should be able to swim ashore with a rope, but they do say at least let him learn to swim.
It is one hour of teaching what to do and, above all, what not to do, that is vital. It is obviously true, so why not admit it. It is Ollendorff over again. "Have you the boots of your grandfather? No, but I have the penknife of my great aunt." The noble Duke says it is true that the Air Force have found a plan by which they do things very well, but that involves a great many other things and you could not possibly apply it to other formations. The Air Force have evolved a plan: involving the use of mechanical methods just as in the savings movement, to which I devote a great deal of my time, we are using mechanical methods in the issuing of Savings Certificates. The Air Force are saving three-quarters of the time and four-fifths of the ammunition. If they are doing that, are the other Services practising like economies? If not, why not? I really think we ought to have an answer to that.
On the main issue I see peeping out from the noble Duke's reply the whole fallacy that underlies this matter. We shall not get on with the job until we are clear of it and now is the time to get clear. The noble Duke says there are certain categories of people who could not possibly be spared to do this, that or the other in the case of "Blitz" or invasion. That is a fallacy which was completely disposed of by the noble and learned Viscount, the
Lord Chancellor. Everybody is bound to serve, whether he is a fire fighter or any other kind of defence worker. He is bound to obey the military and do what they ask him to do. When the Lord Chancellor said that here a new factor was introduced, and I may tell your Lordships—and I think it will affect you—that a great shout of joy went up, as I am informed, from all the people fighting so hard in Russia. They gave a shout of joy, I am informed on high authority. They said "That is splendid, that is what we were waiting for." Little did the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, know—it is not fantastic but probably true—that he saved Stalingrad. I present the Lord Chancellor with that bouquet and. I say it is not altogether removed from the truth. Certainly it was a great happening. It has been minimized ever since and that is why we do not get on with the job.
I would ask the noble Viscount who leads the House to say: "If it be true that millions of people do not know their duty, that is very wrong and I will see to it." There is no need to waste a lot of money. It could be done through the wireless, by a speech from the Prime Minister or somebody else specially selected to do it, or it could be circulated through the Press. Any means could be adopted except sending out a document which has been stamped "Confidential" by some clerk. I ask the noble Viscount to say: "It is wrong that millions of people should not know and we will see that they do know." I and my friends regard it as vital, and we would not take it so seriously unless we were convinced that it was vital, for every citizen to know his duty. Then everything else would fall into place. I beg the noble Viscount who leads the House to get out of the difficulty by saying that he will see to it that the millions who do not know will be told the truth.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Granville, E.

Davies, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Nathan, L.

Fairlie, L.(E. Glasgow.)

O'Hagan, L.

Esher, V.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Southwood, L.

Marley, L.

Stanmore, L.

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

Monkswell, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Winster, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simon, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Geddes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hankey, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Devonshire, D.

Jessel, L.

Addington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Salisbury, M.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Bethell, L.

Sherwood, L.

Cavan, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Snell, L. [Teller.]

Lucan E.

Cecil, L. (V. Cranborne.)

Soulbury, L.

Manvers, E.

Croft, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Poulett, E.

Denham, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
URBAN DISTRICT OF CHISLE HURST AND SIDCUP ORDER.
RURAL DISTRICT OF DUNMOW ORDER.
SEATON DELAVAL NORTH, SEATON DELAVAL SOUTH, SEGHILL, BACKWORTH, AND SHIREMOOR WARDS OF URBAN DISTRICT OF SEATON VALLEY ORDER.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Wednesday last be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)

PALESTINE POLICE
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I desire to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House the starred question which stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have made any changes in the administration or command of the Palestine Police or in the rates of pay and allowances of the Jews serving in that force.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, as regards the first part of the question I must say that I am not clear what my noble friend has in mind. There have been no recent changes in the administration or command
644
of the Palestine Police Force. The Force has been under operational, as distinguished from administrative, control of the General Officer Commanding the British Forces in Palestine since 1938. In June last, by Proclamation in the Palestine Gazette, the High Commissioner declared the Force, except such part as consists of special police constables, to be a military Force for the duration of the present war liable to be employed on military duties in the defence of Palestine within the limits of the command of the General Officer Commanding the British Forces in Palestine. This Proclamation did not involve any change in administration or command. By an order of the High Commissioner under the Police Ordinance members of the Police Force to whom the Proclamation applies have been granted military rank in addition to their police rank.
As regards the second part of the question, there have been no changes in the basic pay of Jews serving in the Force, but Palestinian ranks whether Jews or not benefit from the introduction of war compensatory allowances to meet the high cost of living for Government servants in accordance with the approved scales.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Leader of the House two questions? In the first place he is aware that there have been a number of discharges—between 300 and 400, I understand—of members of the Palestine Police Force recently. Every one of those people in order to get out of the Force has had to commit some infraction of duty involving imprisonment, and nearly all those people, I think, have served terms of imprisonment before they could get out of the Force. I had thought that that sort of thing had been changed. I had hoped that it had come to an end and that men could get out of the Force by giving notice, instead of having to commit these breaches in

645
order—for that is the purpose behind many of them—that the men can come back here and serve in our Armed Forces if they prefer to do so. In the second place I gave the noble Lord the names of four of these discharged members of the Palestine Police Force. Three of them have given me statements as to the administration of that Force. I should like to know whether he has seen these men and heard their statements, whether their statements have been considered and whether anything is going to be done in the matter.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In answer to my noble friend's two supplementary questions, I would say with regard to his first point that I really do not think that it is a valid one. I have just said that the Palestine Police Force has been declared to be a military Force and therefore a man who attempts to leave it is in exactly the same position as a man who attempts to leave any other military Force. He cannot do so; he is under military discipline and control, and if he attempts to leave he is committing a military offence. I know that there have been such cases as my noble friend Lord Wedgwood has mentioned. Most of the people to whom he has referred have wished to join the Armed Forces of the Crown in this country and therefore they have committed what they regard as technical offences. I think their action quite unjustifiable. They were members of a military Force and they had no right to take such action in order to obtain their discharges. They were in exactly the same position as a soldier in the British Army or a sailor in the British Navy.
With regard to my noble friend's second point he did send me a number of letters from members of the Palestine Police Force, making certain comments and charges against the administration of the Force. I have not seen the constables myself, but I have made arrangements for them to be seen at my office if they should wish to be seen, and a letter has already gone to them to that effect. I have no information now as to whether they have answered in the affirmative or not.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Further to that question, surely the noble Lord realizes that these people, over 300 of them, who have left the Force in order to return to this country and do their military service here, when they joined up did so on the understanding that they would be able to resign. The fact that you have automatically embodied the Force in the Army out there does not absolve you, however, from adhering to the conditions under which they were originally employed. Would the noble Viscount be so good as to let me know, as soon as convenient, whether he is seeing the people I have mentioned? Otherwise I shall have to put down another Motion to discuss their charges.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have already told the noble Lord that I do not propose to see these men myself, but I am making arrangements for them to be seen. If he wishes to put down a Motion I shall be very glad to reply to it. I am afraid that the noble Lord does not answer the point I made in reply to his original supplementary question. These men are included in a military Force, and if you are in a military Force in war-time you cannot leave of your own free will. It is a most serious offence for any man in the Forces to leave his post of duty in time of war.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Message from the Commons for leave for Air Commodore the Viscount Stansgate to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Fighting Services appointed by the Select Committee of that House on National Expenditure. Leave given for his Lordship to attend, if he think fit, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned.