Lords Sitting of 15 July 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
EMERGENCY POWERS (ISLE OF MAN DEFENCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVEL OPMENT (TEMPORARY DEVELOP MENT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INTERIM DEVELOPMENT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BUCKS WATER BOARD) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHILTERN HILLS SPRING WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
General powers and duties of the Board.
(3)The Board shall, so far as their powers and duties permit, collaborate in the carrying out of any measures for the economic development and social improvement of the North of Scotland District or any part thereof.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "so far as their powers and duties permit" and insert "as far as possible, actively." The noble Lord
530
said: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on this Bill, and you will understand how someone who sits as a Scottish representative feels on a matter of this kind. I would like to express appreciation of the time your Lordships have given to considering this Bill so that it may be made more useful in every sense for the people of Scotland without in any sense marring the beauty of her face. Clause 2 deals, as your Lordships will be aware, with the general powers and duties of the Board. Reference is made in the clause to measures being taken for "economic development and social improvement." The clause aims obviously to give the Board powers to collaborate with users in the fullest possible measure, but the words do not quite convey that meaning in the manner I think they might. We read in the clause the cold, stereotyped wording, so pregnant with possibilities of delay that we have often seen before, "so far as their powers and duties permit." Those words are not sufficiently directive, I suggest, to the purpose that the Bill has in view. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will support me in suggesting to His Majesty's Government that those words should be removed and the following words put in their place: "as far as possible, actively." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("so far as their powers and duties permit") and insert ("as far as possible, actively").—(Lord Sempill.)
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord as a friend of the Bill will not press this Amendment. The words in the Bill to which he has alluded are very wide. They are "so far as their powers and duties permit" to collaborate and so on. The effect of this Amendment would require the Board "as far as possible, actively" to collaborate. As the subsection stands the Board can only collaborate in measures of economic and social improvement by providing electricity. If the purpose of my noble friend in moving the Amendment is to suggest that the Board should collaborate in matters other than providing electricity, I am afraid that would be quite inappropriate to the operations of a commercial electrical undertaking. If, on the other hand, my noble friend does not have that in mind but simply means that in matters

531
affecting the supply of electricity the Board shall have these powers, I suggest for his consideration that the words of the Bill are ample as they stand to cover that contingency, and that the Amendment is therefore unnecessary. I hope he will not press the Amendment.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, in view of what my noble and learned friend Lord Alness has said, I will, at his suggestion, not press the matter any further, but I do still feel that it would have been better had he accepted the Amendment, as the words would have been more appropriate to the purpose in view. However, having regard to what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "and shall establish a research and development section for the study of the uses of electricity for all purposes, and shall make public the results of research initiated by the Board." The noble Lord said: My Lords, something, I think, should be said with regard to what is particularly in view of His Majesty's Government and most definitely in view of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to encourage and promote the economic development and social welfare of the Scottish people. In order that that may be done there should be provision made for engineering—electrical or other—research. Electrical engineering, as your Lordships are aware, is in no sense a static branch of development and constant change and improvement does and must take place. I want, therefore, to suggest that what is required is a research and development division continually looking into these matters, and where such research is undertaken at the instigation of the Board its results should be published forthwith. Of course, where research may be undertaken at the instance of a private individual or a private group the situation would be different. Where research is undertaken out of public funds I think that the fruits thereof should be made known as soon as possible. I therefore beg leave to suggest that those words be added after line 31, as set out on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, at end insert ("and shall establish a research and development section
532
for the study of the uses of electricity for all purposes, and shall make public the results of research initiated by the Board").—(Lord Sempill.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like very briefly to support my noble friend. I suggest that he has truly said that electricity is not a static science and that the new Board is going to have a magnificent opportunity of testing various experiments in the field as well as in the laboratory. The Board should be able to make experiments that will help in solving special problems applying to the distribution of electrical power over widely dispersed areas and in comparatively small volume. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alness, will be prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sempill is always so moderate in his proposals, that it is with all the more regret that I find myself unable to accept this Amendment. I would remind my noble friend of the contents of Clause 25 of the Bill, which gives the Board power to "conduct experiments or trials for the improvement of methods of generation, distribution or use of electricity in the special conditions and circumstances in the North of Scotland District." This power is in entirely general terms, and in exercising it the Board have a free hand to incur such expenditure as they may think fit. They can make use of that power to establish, if they think fit, research stations such as my noble friend has in mind. But I am afraid that the Board cannot be committed at this stage to any particular form of research or experiment. The Board have to run their undertaking as a commercial concern, and the funds they devote to experimental purposes must come from the profits of the sale of electricity to the grid. What these profits will be it is, of course, impossible to predict. The Board will be required, in the first place, to assist in developing supplies of electricity in isolated areas where the cost of electricity is high, and it will be for the Board to decide, in the light of their experience and the amount of the funds at their disposal, whether they can devote a certain amount to research and experiment. I venture to say to your Lordships' House that that is a reasonable point of view to take up. To tie the hands of the Board in advance to spend

533
money which they may not have would be an unwise procedure. I therefore beg to suggest that my noble friend should agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I am sorry that my brother Scot comes here to-day with this turning down idea in his mind. I am very depressed indeed that he wishes me to withdraw this Amendment about a research and development division. After all, your Lordships know well—there are two noble Lords here to-day who know very well—the value of research and development. I hope therefore that if I withdraw my Amendment, as my noble friend, Lord Alness, suggests, that he will give very careful consideration to the point which has been raised and see whether a later clause can be-strengthened in some way because no technical undertaking of this character can proceed successfully without a continuous research and development programme.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3:
Powers of the Board for Discharge of their functions.
3.The Board may—
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved to add to the clause:
"(d) with a view to encouraging the re-establishment of crofts and the modernization of weaving and kindred crafts carried out therein, and also scientific and technical development supply electricity within Scotland at special rates."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment submits for your Lordships' consideration the suggestion to insert a further paragraph in Clause 3 following the line as stated on the Paper. The clause, as your Lordships are well aware, gives the Board power to make surveys, to acquire land, to divert waterways and roads and so forth, and to do other things for the efficient discharge of their duties. But I think that some more specific direction should be given in regard to the, perhaps, smaller issues relating to the use of electrical power. The vast power development that the Bill envisages will certainly add, in effect, many millions of extra hands to those at the moment available in Scotland. But we do not want to see all Scottish people regimented into monotonous soul-destroying industries which employ large factories. There
534
will be many smaller developments. There are many technical developments of a useful character and of a comparatively small nature to which attention could be devoted. The question, for example, of encouraging small metallurgical and mineralogical enterprises and matters of that kind might well be considered. I feel that something should be done towards the re-establishment of the crofts and the modernization of weaving and other industries that have been carried on for many centuries in these crofts on a small basis. I therefore beg to move that the additional paragraph as set down on the Paper should be embodied in the Bill
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, at end insert the said paragraph (d).—(Lord Sempill.)
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I find myself in sympathy with the intention of this Amendment but, so far as its wording is concerned, it would be impossible for me to accept it. The Board, as the House will remember, have a duty laid on them in Clause 2 "to provide supplies of electricity required to meet the demands of ordinary consumers in such parts of the North of Scotland District (including isolated areas) as are outside the areas of supply of other authorized undertakers." And they have to give such consumers priority in the supply of electricity. The Board are also required by Clause 2 (3) to collaborate in carrying out any measures for the economic development and social improvement of the North of Scotland District or any part thereof. As the Bill stands, therefore, it will be the Board's duty, so far as possible, to give effect to the intention of my noble friend's Amendment.
Your Lordships will observe that the Amendment ends with the words "supply electricity within Scotland at special rates." So far as the cost of the supply is concerned, that is one of the most important aspects of this Amendment. A supply of cheap electricity in isolated areas and in remote rural areas in the Highlands is one of the principal objects of the Bill. The Board will, it is hoped, earn a profit by the sale of electricity to the Central Electricty Board, and that profit will be applied to further developments where distribution is desirable; but it seems to me impossible at this stage to

535
say precisely what will be the cost of the electricity which is to be supplied to consumers in these areas. The Bill specifically provides that the rates are to be fixed at a later stage, in accordance with regulations which will be laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. These regulations have not yet been formulated, and the rates, therefore, cannot be fixed. I see insuperable difficulty in accepting this Amendment. I regret to adopt that attitude towards an Amendment moved by my noble friend, but I have no option but to do so.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I understand from what my noble friend Lord Alness has said that the Bill itself gives power for preferential treatment to be given to small users of electric current, whether for domestic or for industrial purposes. It is very necessary to encourage in every way these small enterprises in the mineral and metallurgical fields. For example, there is the question of the recovery of potash from felspar, and the electro-end osmosis of peat for industrial purposes, and the fine grinding of felspar talc and quartz. If the Bill envisages such possibilities, as I understand from my noble friend Lord Alness that it does, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Constructional Schemes.
(5) Every order made by the Secretary of State confirming a constructional scheme shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made together with a copy of the scheme as confirmed, and if either House of Parliament within the next forty days after such an order as aforesaid is laid before it resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon be of no effect without prejudice, however, to the making of a new order.
In reckoning the said forty days no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN has given Notice of Amendments to make subsection (5) read as follows:
"Every order made by the Secretary of State confirming a constructional scheme shall be laid before each House, of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made together with a copy of the scheme as confirmed, but shall not ocme into operation unless and until it has been approved either with or without
536
modification by a Resolution passed by each such House and when so approved shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to take the two Amendments which I have put down on this clause together. I do not propose to delay the House for long, but there are one or two observations which I feel called upon to make. First of all, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have no desire whatever to prevent the passage of this Bill, and I hope that the action which I have felt impelled to take will not be considered that of an enemy of the Bill, but rather that of a friend. I think we all recognize that the Bill is an honest and sincere attempt to deal with a very difficult problem and a problem which is really of first-rate importance. A very strong case has been made out for legislation. With my personal knowledge of the Highlands of Scotland, I should be the last to wish to jeopardize the success of any serious scheme to tackle this urgent problem, and I believe that none of your Lordships would wish to do anything to prejudice the re-establishment of favourable conditions in the Highlands, a part of Scotland which is a priceless possession of this island in which we live, and one which has produced men who have shown their worth not merely in the ordinary avocations of life but also in the discharge of their duty as soldiers, both in the last war and in this war. That naturally constitutes a claim upon us all to try to improve so far as possible the conditions to which the men who come from that part of Scotland will have to return.
We all recognize the implications of this Bill in that direction, and we also appreciate, I think, the very great ability and persistence of the Secretary of State for Scotland in having, with great labour and with immense trouble, put forward this experimental effort to the final arbitrament of Parliament, after the many abortive schemes which have been put forward before. This Amendment is based on a question of principle, the principle of adequate Parliamentary control. I need not emphasize again, as I endeavoured to do in Committee, that this legislation is not war legislation but peace-time legislation. This is a measure which is of an experimental nature, wide in its scope and far-reaching in its intention. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill on the

537
previous occasion laid much emphasis on the amount of publicity which has been given and which will be given to the constructional schemes which we hope will be forthcoming under this Bill; but I think that I should remind your Lordships of- the very important Committee, which was presided over by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore in the first place, and afterwards by Lord Justice Scott, and which dealt with the powers of Ministers. The Report of: hat Committee was issued in 1932. It was the considered opinion of that Committee that no system of antecedent publicity, however effective, could relieve the two Houses of Parliament of the duty of exercising effective supervision over delegated legislation.
It is because I believe that the procedure under these Amendments is more appropriate and more likely to secure this end that I commend it to your Lordships. While I am aware that under the procedure and rules of this House the difference between an affirmative Resolution and an annulling Resolution is not very great, I understand that the conditions in another place arc very different. I am assured by those with Parliamentary experience that, as Lord Rushcliffe said on the Committee stage of this Bill, there is all the difference in the world in practice as to the effectiveness of the alternative procedure so far as securing effective Parliamentary control is concerned. As I have said, I am as anxious as anyone for this Bill to come into operation, and for its beneficent purposes to be achieved, but I venture to think that this question of principle is one in which ultimate Parliamentary control is of such importance that I trust that the House will support me in seeing that the Amendments which I have put down are inserted in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("before") insert ("each House of").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD HEMINGFORD: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend's Amendment I, too, should like to make it clear that: I claim to be a friend of the Bill, and it is a matter of considerable personal regret to me that I should feel it an urgent duty to press for this Amendment, in spite of the opposition to it of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, of whose work I have nothing but the highest opinion and for whose work I have nothing" but the
538
highest praise. This is a case, however, where we are dealing, as my noble friend said, with the question of the power reserved by Parliament over delegated legislation. It is a question which, as your Lordships will know, aroused very considerable interest some ten or more years ago, with the result that the Committee referred to by my noble friend was then set up, under the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore. I reget to say that since the very excellent Report issued by that Committee nothing whatever has been done to carry out its recommendations.
The point which weighs particularly with me in this matter is this. The reservation to Parliament as envisaged in this Bill as it at present stands involves the procedure which is commonly known as that of a negative Resolution, and is one which in the other House is illusory, insufficient and altogether unsatisfactory. In fact, I am not going too far when I say that in practice it gives no power whatever. May I explain to your Lordships what that procedure is and what are the objections to it? Under the proposals of the Bill you get first of all the legislation enacted and brought into effect. Then there is a power, that legislation being laid on the Table of the House, for the House, within the time specified, to annul that legislation. That is the procedure commonly known in another place as a Prayer, because it usually prays His Majesty to revoke an Order in Council. It is of necessity something which, to use a mild phrase, is not supported by the Government of the time, who are responsible for carrying out that delegated legislation. Consequently such a Prayer would have no opportunity of coming before the House if it depended upon the good will of the Government to give time for it. The procedure of the House, therefore, provides that such a Prayer shall be taken as "exempted business," in other words, after the time for opposed business has expired. It means that the Prayer comes on for consideration at 11 o'clock at night, when members, very often after a hard day's work, are anxious to get home. It is very difficult indeed to get people to stay, and if a reasonable House is there to begin with and the matter is one of real importance, as is the case under this Bill, there would be a good deal of talk about it, the number of members present would gradually dwindle, until the Government, keeping

539
their solid body of storm troopers, if I may so call them, in the House, managed to defeat the Prayer.
Supposing by any chance the Prayer was successful, what happens, what can it do? It cannot amend the scheme, it can do nothing but annul it. That is one of the reasons why it is such an unsatisfactory procedure in this case, and, nothing having been done since the Donoughmore Committee reported on this matter, I feel that it is really a duty which is incumbent upon me to oppose, or seek to amend, any provision of this kind in any Bill in which there are delegated to the Government, or a Government Department, powers to carry out important and extensive legislation if the only Parliamentary control is this form of negative Resolution. The form of control which we ask for in this Amendment is that the proposed legislation should be laid on the Table of the House and should require an affirmative Resolution from the House before it comes into operation—an affirmative Resolution adopting that legislation, either with or without Amendment. It is on that constitutional principle that we think it the duty of Parliament in peace-time—and be it remembered that we are dealing entirely with peace-time legislation: there is no question of the present emergency or the difficulties of the war arising—to see that when extensive powers of delegated legislation of this kind are given to the Government, or to a Government Department, effective Parliamentary control is retained. I hope I have satisfied your Lordships that under this Bill it is not really an effective control by Parliament which is reserved.
Perhaps here I ought to refer to the fact that this is what can be described as a matter for the House of Commons rather than for this House, and it may be asked how it is that this Amendment was not moved and discussed in another place. I have read the report of proceedings in Committee there very carefully and, knowing as I think I do the House of Commons, I think I understand how it is that that came about, but I need not burden your Lordships with any attempt to explain how that was. I will rather put it this way, that if your Lordships, as I hope you will, feel that in this case Parliament ought to retain more effective control, and you pass this Amendment, there will then be another added to the
540
already fairly long list of cases within the last twenty-five years when members of the House of Commons of all Parties have said: "Well, after all, we have got to thank heaven for the continued existence of the House of Lords." If you will pass this Amendment I feel certain—in spite of the opinion which I expect will be expressed by my noble friend Lord Alness —that it will not do harm to the Bill.
What is it that we have to deal with here? It is the preparation of schemes— I am told a very large number of them probably—each one of which will be practically the equivalent of what in the old days and under the old system would have been a Private Bill. You are giving the Secretary of State for Scotland power to enact any number of Private Bills for this particular purpose, with no control whatever except this procedure which I have described as the Prayer against it. Let us look for a moment at what is the actual Bill, and what it is to which this applies. It is this power of enacting legislation by the equivalent of a number of Private Bills. Therefore it is extensive, and I need not tell your Lordships, after the discussion there has already been on this Bill' and on others in the past, that it is important; and, it being extensive and important, it is to my mind a matter of principle that we should insist upon the retention of really effective Parliamentary control.
As I have said, I do not think that it will ruin the Bill. It has been said that there has been, and that there will be in the future, so much opposition to any scheme that power will be needed to get these schemes through. I think I am not going too far when I say that what they want is to get these schemes through without their receiving consideration by Parliament. Apart from the political morality involved in that, I venture to think that if there is going to be so much opposition to some of these schemes then, even in spite of the unsatisfactory procedure, by Prayer, that procedure will be adopted, very likely will be successful, and in that event, the fate of the Secretary of State for Scotland's schemes will, to my mind, be far worse than if they had been discussed under the procedure of an affirmative Resolution, when modifications could have been suggested and the whole matter thrashed out. But be that as it may, the principle at stake here,

541
that Parliament must retain effective control over extensive and important legislative powers delegated to a Government, is one which your Lordships cannot afford to disregard. In these circumstances I ask most earnestly that in a matter of peace-time legislation of importance, such as this is, your Lordships will do what I regard as being a good service to the State by insisting upon this Amendment.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking which I gave on the Committee stage, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have very carefully considered this Amendment, with a view to deciding whether or not it is possible to accept it. Moreover, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and some of his friends had the advantage of consultation with my right honourable friend, at which consultation it was very clearly disclosed to them that there were grave objections, so far as the Government were concerned, in accepting the Amendment. I think I am right in saying that we are not discussing at this moment the theoretical or technical advantage of an affirmative Resolution over a negative Resolution.
LORD HEMINGFORD: YOU ought to be.
LORD ALNESS: On that I must differ from my noble friend. If he will allow me to finish my next sentence, perhaps he will understand my point. We are not discussing that question in vacuo. The problem before the House is whether the contents of the Bill, including the provisions regarding a negative Resolution, safeguard aptly and adequately the public advantage, and ensure a proper control of the situation by Parliament. I am willing to accept the criterion which was laid down by my noble friend who moved the Amendment when he asked whether the Bill provided for adequate Parliamentary control. I am quite prepared to accept that as the standard, and I shall in a moment, quite briefly, attempt to show that the Bill satisfies that criterion. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me, however, as bearing upon that question, to give you some idea of what I may call the background of this Bill. Many of your Lordships are aware that for more than
542
twenty years the Highlands of Scotland have been rent and riven by controversies relating to hydro-electricity, and regarding the development of one of the most precious assets which are to be found there— namely, water power. Your Lordships are also aware that various attempts have been made by private companies to improve the situation, and you are also aware that all these attempts failed. In fact, as I said on the Second Reading, the Parliamentary strand is strewn with the wreckage of various measures which have been intended and devised to utilize these water-power resources, but all of which failed.
In these circumstances my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland cast about him for a better way. The first thing he did—your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat what I may have said before, but the history of the subject is vital—was to appoint an authoritative Committee, of which the Chairman was Lord Cooper, the Lord Justice Clerk for Scotland, and formerly Lord Advocate, and of which another member was a respected representative of your Lordships' House, Lord Weir. That Committee sat and recommended—advancing very cogent and forcible arguments in favour of their view—that there should be one large and comprehensive development scheme submitted to Parliament for approval once and for all, and that, that scheme having been approved, the Board should be at liberty to proceed with its constructional schemes, to buy land, erect buildings, and so forth. When once Parliament had given this general charter by legislation, the Board, under the Cooper Committee's recommendations, would be left free to erect machinery and to carry through these constructional schemes, of which they envisaged some seventy. The Committee's intention, in so endeavouring to get away from slow, tedious, and costly procedure, was simply this, that the difficulties which had arisen in the past from contending sectional interests to which hydroelectric schemes had been subject, were so numerous and so menacing that they thought that the best and, at the same time, the constitutional way out was to proceed as they proposed.
That there has been in the past with regard to these hydro-electric schemes

543
most fractious and fissiparous opposition and obstruction, no one familiar with their history can possibly deny. The Cooper Committee felt that one reference to Parliament would not be so open to this fractious and fissiparous opposition, and that was their recommendation. In the light of that recommendation the Secretary of State for Scotland considered the matter, and came to the conclusion that, because the constructional schemes were important, and notwithstanding that a Public Services Board of non-profit-making character was to carry them out, nevertheless there should be full and ample safeguards inserted in the Bill during the progress of the construction schemes, and that there should be a Parliamentary veto when they had been concluded and submitted for approval to the Houses of Parliament.
That view, which my right honourable friend adopted, was shared by his Council of State, which includes all the past Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Scotland. Accordingly, detailed and careful provisions have been inserted in the Bill, setting out the procedure through which every constructional scheme must pass before it reaches Parliament. In the first place, there is to be full consultation with the Amenities Committee not only during, but before, the scheme is put into being. In addition, the approval of any scheme is required by the Electricity Commissioners, who, of course, will ensure that, technically, the scheme is a sound and desirable one. It is also provided that there shall be full advertisement in the public Press, that there shall be consultation with certain interests—I will not delay your Lordships by going into details—that there shall be, if necessary, a public inquiry, held at the instance of the Secretary of State, at which the views of all those interested can be heard, considered, and adjudicated upon, and, finally, that the constructional scheme shall be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and shall lie on the Table for forty days, during which a right of veto can be exercised.
In the light of the explanations offered by my right honourable friend in this regard, particularly as to the elaborate and anxious provisions for hearing all interests, there was no suggestion from any quarter in another place that the
544
Parliamentary safeguards were insufficient. With the knowledge which members of another place possess, and of which, of course, my noble friend Lord Hemingford is a past master, I should have thought that someone there would have been impressed with the views he has sought to impress upon your Lordships' House to-day if they are sound. But there was not one voice crying in the wilderness. All the members were satisfied. Indeed I go so far as to say that, so far from there being complaint with regard to the insufficiency of Parliamentary and other control, the criticism which came in another place was to the effect that the safeguarding proposals during the progress of the constructional scheme and at the end of it were so lengthy and tedious that they would obstruct the completion of schemes which everybody wants to see.
I think I am correct in saying that the onus of showing that an affirmative Resolution is better from the point of view of the public interest and Parliamentary interest than a negative Resolution lies upon my noble friends who have moved and supported this Amendment. In my very humble judgment that onus has not been discharged. In these circumstances the procedure of annulling the scheme by negative Resolution has commended itself to the Government as appropriate and adequate, and I do not feel that they would be entitled to incur the possibilities, which would be involved in an affirmative Resolution, of further delays by reference to a Committee, and possibly to a Select Committee, which would hear evidence on the topics that have been so fully canvassed and settled at the earlier stages of the Bill. That, it seems to me, would really be a calamity with regard to a Bill which is urgently needed and of which my noble friends who have spoken profess themselves, and rightly I am sure, to be friends.
In every case there is to be an elaborate inquiry and elaborate advertisement. That was accepted in another place as being quite satisfactory, and the Bill passed in the form in which it comes before your Lordships' House to-day. But if it will add anything to the assurances which the Government have already given, and which my right honourable friend has so often expressed, that the veto rights of Parliament shall be effective, the Govern-

545
ment are prepared to give a pledge that they will lay before Parliament with every constructional scheme an explanatory White Paper, drawing attention to the issues which are involved in the scheme. That pledge I willingly give, and, in the light of it and of the assurances which my right honourable friend has expressed in another place, and which to the best of my humble ability I have endeavoured to repeat here, I hope my noble friend may see his way to withdraw the Amendment which he has moved.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in view of the importance of the Amendment I should like quite briefly to make the position of noble Lords on these Benches perfectly clear. I think we are all agreed that it is desirable to maintain effective Parliamentary control over the operation of this Bill. It is simply a question of method. The Government say the desirable method is by a negative Resolution and the noble Lord and his supporters say by affirmative Resolution. Whatever the merits of the arguments presented by the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Hemingford, I think they suffer from one really damaging defect—namely, that they are inviting us to accept an Amendment which would bring about a very important change in the procedure of another place.
NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The Amendment refers to both Houses of Parliament. The difference between an affirmative Resolution and a negative Resolution in another place has been emphasized by the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford; and he pointed out that the difference would be even greater than between an affirmative and negative Resolution in this House. I submit that it is extremely undesirable that we should do anything that could be regarded as interfering with the domestic affairs of another place.
LORD HEMINGFORD: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? I am sure I can never have been guilty of making any suggestion of that kind. This is not in the least degree a case of interfering with the procedure of the House of Commons. I have said that in some respects the procedure of the House of Commons is at fault. That is another
546
matter altogether. What my noble friends and myself are proposing to do is what the House is perfectly entitled to do —namely, to provide what is to be the form of control for delegated legislation. It is the form of control provided by Parliament and which has to be fixed by Parliament, and it has nothing whatever to do with the procedure of cither this House or the other House.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am not representing that this House is not perfectly entitled to make an Amendment but the Amendment is to this effect. The noble Lord wants no order to come into operation "unless and until it has been approved either with or without modification by a Resolution passed by each such House." In other words it applies to the House of Commons as well as to this House. I hope your Lordships will refrain from doing anything that might possibly cause ill-feeling in another place.
LORD HEMINGFORD: That is not procedure at all.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I suggest that it would be appropriate for any change of procedure of this kind to be decided so far as the House of Commons is concerned in the House of Commons. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has pointed out that this measure has passed through another place without any suggestion of the kind contained in this Amendment. I therefore hope, especially in view of the most generous undertaking given by the noble Lord that a White Paper will be laid with every scheme, that noble Lords will withdraw their Amendment. I think that would prove the most satisfactory solution.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I endorse what has been said on behalf of the Opposition? This Amendment is open to certain objections, but the principal one is that to which expression has just been given. As the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, said, the effect so far as the procedure in this House is concerned would be very small whether there was an affirmative Resolution required or a negative one, and the main burden of his speech was that the methods of another place were so inadequate that it was an insufficient safeguard to require only an opportunity for a negative Resolution and not to require an affirmative one. That, I

547
submit, is a matter for the other House and I suggest that the Amendment should not be proceeded with.
LORD RAKKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I point out that this suggested procedure is exactly that which was followed in the case of the India Bill? The India Bill gave the Viceroy most sweeping powers to make orders of the most important character throughout India and, under pressure of this House, the affirmative Resolution was required in both Houses. Nothing was proposed which for a moment derogated from the powers of the House of Commons. If anything it rather increased its powers. No objection whatever was taken on behalf of the House of Commons to the Amendment that was made here and no attempt to alter it was made in the House of Commons. So I suggest it will be in this case. This will be an Amendment which, if carried, will go back to the House of Commons and the House of Commons, if it feels it is in any way affronted, will have a full opportunity of negativing it; but it is entirely according to precedent and certainly there is no intention of slighting the House of Commons. In fact no slight will be given.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what my noble friend has just said. If the Amendment is put into this Bill the subsection will be in a form which has been passed scores of times by Parliament. I confess I feel in some difficulty at this moment owing to the fact that, whilst we have been discussing affirmative and negative Resolutions, the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill has now introduced what is really a new form of Parliamentary procedure. We are to have negative Resolutions backed by a memorandum placed on the table by His Majesty's Government. That is an entirely new procedure. My objection to negative Resolutions has always been that nobody ever knows anything about them. I do not think they are printed. They are certainly not circulated. The theory of laying Papers on the Table is that every member of both Houses is thereby informed of what is proposed by the Government, but I wonder if any one of your Lordships has ever read one of these things. As I say, I do not think that these negative Resolutions are always
548
printed. Perhaps they are available in the Printed Paper Office. Provision for a negative Resolution may be sufficient in unimportant matters, but these are very important matters, and although I accept fully the noble and learned Lord's pledge and am certain it will be carried out by him, I wonder whether it will be carried out by his successor. I assume it is not possible to put his pledge in the Bill creating the new Parliamentary procedure outlined this afternoon. Therefore I still feel inclined to follow my noble friend if he proceeds to a Division.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I rise to make a protest against the modern tendency to quote what happens in another place. What happens in another place has nothing whatever to do with your Lordships' House, which can pursue what course it thinks best.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCAR-DINE: My Lords, I hope you will give attention to what was said by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill on the merits of the case. The whole strand is strewn with wrecks of these Bills and no progress has been possible. The noble and learned Lord has given a very full outline of the safeguards proposed under the Bill. Publicity will be given in every possible way and opportunity afforded to every possible interest to make itself heard through the procedure outlined by the Bill and emphasized by my noble friend to-day in resisting the Amendment. As he has said, not only have the Amenity and Fisheries Committees been brought forward in the Bill, but, as your Lordships may remember, in the passage of the Bill through the Committee stage the whole structure was altered by bringing into the forefront the duty of the Board to preserve amenities and to look after the natural assets of Scotland. That altered the case and altered also the position of the Amenity and Fisheries Committees by bringing them in at an earlier stage, making it possible for them to make recommendations and making it obligatory on the Board, before a constructional scheme is sanctioned, to call them into consultation.
As has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord to-day, that is not the only safeguard. An inquiry can be ordered if the report is objected to by any party. A full inquiry can be ordered by the Secretary of State and the matter argued; and

549
surely it is enough when that has been done at the public expense and everyone has been given an opportunity of making known their opinions on the subject. When the matter comes before Parliament there will be an opportunity for Parliament to say "No." Surely we do not want to give an opportunity to Parliament to argue the whole question again from start to finish, bringing people to argue again at Westminster the case that has been argued in Scotland. I appeal, therefore, to noble Lords to consider the clause on its merits rather than as a matter between one House and the other, and to see that we give the opportunity which this Bill affords for bringing these facilities into the houses, crofts, and glens of the Highlands, and for development.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I rise at the end of this debate only to urge noble Lords who have supported this Amendment not to press it too far. The noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, in his speech pressed for an affirmative Resolution. The object, as I understood him to say, was to retain the control of Parliament over the Executive. I do not suppose any one of us would object to that, especially in this House where noble Lords have always been jealous of the rights and privileges of Parliament. I certainly as Leader of the House would not wish to weaken those rights and privileges. But if I may say so with all deference, I hope we shall not be pedantic in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, mentioned the India Bill, but I do not think that is an exact analogy. It seems to me that you must judge the necessity of extra safeguards in each particular case in accordance with the provisions of each particular Bill. In some cases the fullest safeguards are necessary, but in the case of this Bill I suggest with all deference that the greatest care has been taken to allow of the fullest inquiry into the schemes.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, said in his speech for the Government, and as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has just repeated, there is provision for
the closest consultation between the Public Service Board and the Amenities and Fisheries Committees both before and during the preparation of the schemes. There is provision for advertising each and every scheme and provision for holding public inquiry into any valid objection. That is to ensure that the views of all interests affected shall be fully taken into account before a scheme is approved by the Secretary of State. I think these provisions give the fullest opportunity for considering the objections, and I suggest that the provisions I have mentioned, in addition to the proposal for a White Paper in each case, are solid safeguards. I do not think that in the case of this Bill there is the same necessity for an affirmative Resolution as there might well be in other cases. An affirmative Resolution, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, said—and I think the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, supported him—would mean avoidable and unfortunate delay. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and those who have supported him, without any derogation from the general principles to which they rightly attach importance, will feel that in this particular case it would be wise and practicable to allow some relaxation of their principles and to accept the Government proposal.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, despite the speech to which we have just listened and other speeches in the very full debate on this Amendment, it seems to me that as this Amendment has so many precedents and has been so widely supported, this is a question of principle on which it would be unwise to give way. I come to that conclusion with great regret. I do not wish to be pedantic. I and those who hold the same opinion as I do, wish to be practical in this matter, and I am afraid, in spite of what has been said, the only practical way of securing Parliamentary control lies in the Amendment I recommend to your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS.

Poulett, E.

Maugham, V.

Brocket, L.

Hemingford, L. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lawrence, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Belstead, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Simon, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Wimborne, V.

Geddes, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Crewe, M.

Derby, L. Bp.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Keyes, L.

Abingdon, E.

Aberdare, L.

Keynes, L.

Bessborough, E.

Alness, L.

McGowan, L.

Brooke and Warwick, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Marley, L.

Dundonald, E.

Ashfield, L.

Melchett, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Barnby, L.

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

Huntingdon, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Inchcape, E.

Catto, L.

Nathan, L.

Iveagh, E.

Cecil, L. (V. Cranborne.)

Palmer, L.

Lucan, E.

Cherwell, L.

Rockley, L.

Perth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. [E. Clanwilliam.)

Sempill, L.

Plymouth, E.

Snell, L.

Croft, L.

Soulbury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Davies, L.

Southwood, L.

Camrose, V.

Denman, L.

Stanmore, L.

Dawson of Penn, V.

Desborough, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Tyrell, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Winster, L.

Samuel, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Wolverton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9:
Amenity Committee and Fisheries Committee.
9.—(1) In the exercise of their functions the Board shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the beauty of the scenery and of avoiding as far as possible injury to fisheries and to the stock of fish in any waters.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, in subsection (1), after "scenery," to insert "and any object of architectural or historic interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in response to a suggestion which was made to me during the Committee stage of the Bill by my noble friend Lord Samuel, on behalf of Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, the proposal being to include, as well as the general words relating to amenity, the specific words: "and any object of architectural or historic interest." We have looked into the matter, and, while we think that the generality of the clause as it stands would cover what my noble friends have in view, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, I propose to insert the words on the Paper, and I move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, after ("scenery") insert ("and any object of architectural or historic interest").—(Lord Alness.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, who, with regret, is unable to be here to-day, and my other noble
552
friends, I beg to express warm thanks for this Amendment which Lord Alness has moved.
Clause 22:
Control of new private generating stations.
22. After the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful, except with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, for any body or person to establish in the North of Scotland District a new private generating station operated by water power and having plant with a rating exceeding fifty kilowatts or to extend any existing private generating station so operated in the said District by the installation of plant with a rating exceeding fifty kilowatts.
LORD BROCKET LORD BROCKET moved to add to the clause:
Provided that the Electricity Commissioners shall not refuse their consent to the establishment or extension of any such station if they are satisfied that such establishment or extension would not prejudice the exercise or performance by the Board of their powers or duties regarding the development of further means of generation of electricity by water power.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that on the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment in words very similar to the words of my present Amendment. Having made my remarks at that stage, I do not intend to delay your Lordships for more than a few moments now. It was felt that the rating of 50 kilowatts was not large enough for private electricity plants to supply houses and villages, and on the Committee stage I moved an

553
Amendment to increase the figure. After consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with Lord Alness, how-ever, I have thought it better to bring forward an Amendment which in effect means that the Electricity Commissioners shall not unreasonably withhold their consent to the erection of a private generating plant of more than 50 kilowatts. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 20, at end insert the said pro-viso.—(Lord Brocket.)
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, this Amendment in substance was moved during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I then gave my noble friend the assurance that, while the wording of it did not seem to the Government to be apt, nevertheless, if it were re-worded, I might, on behalf of the Government, be able to accept it later. That has now been done. The Amendment in its present form is, in my humble judgment, apt and sufficient, and I have therefore pleasure in accepting it.

NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Rules.
(2) Rules made under this section shall contain provisions—
(c) enabling persons who, within the period of two years after the date on which the rules to be made under the provisions of this paragraph first come into operation, make an application in that behalf (in this Act referred to as "an existing assistant nurse's application"), to be admitted to the roll on producing evidence to the satisfaction of the Council that they are of good character, are of the prescribed age, are persons who were for at least the prescribed period before the sixth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three, bona fide engaged in practice as nurses under conditions which appear to the Council to be satisfactory for the purposes of this provision and have such knowledge and experience of nursing as to justify their enrolment.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to leave out "sixth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three "and insert" passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows upon a promise which I gave to my noble friend Lord Craigmyle on the Committee stage of the Bill. He then suggested that instead of the date of the Bill—May 6, 1943—the date of the passing of the Act should be inserted, as giving more "elbow-room" to the nurses concerned. I do not want to detain your Lordships by going into details. I shall simply say that, on consideration, we have seen our way to meet Lord Craigmyle's wishes. I understand from a letter which I have had from him this afternoon that the Amendment which I am proposing is entirely satisfactory to him. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, leave out ("sixth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-three") and insert ("passing of this Act").—[Lord Alness.)

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to call attention to the need for the further expansion of scientific research, particularly in relation to the utilization of coal; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in the early stages of the present war there was considerable criticism of the failure of the Government to employ adequately in the prosecution of the war the scientific talent available in this country, particularly among the younger men. That defect, however, was remedied without much undue delay, and, when I had the honour of bringing this matter of the assistance of scientists being enlisted in the war before your Lordships' House in April, 1941, we were then already able to say that considerable progress had been made in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who replied on behalf of the Government on that occasion, made a very full statement, showing that under his leadership, as Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, considerable progress had been made. On a second occasion, in July, 1942, the same matter, on a Resolution very similar in character, was brought

555
before your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and on that occasion Lord Snell replied in somewhat similar terms.
I now venture to bring the matter before your Lordships' House for the third time, looking rather to the future than to the past or to the present, and urging that a still further extension should be effected in the provision for scientific research. I do so not in a mood of criticism but rather in a mood of welcoming the steps which have already been taken and which are now being taken by the Government. This present Administration is different, I think, from any that have preceded it, in that there are four Ministers holding important posts in the Government who are themselves trained scientists. Sir John Anderson, Sir Stafford Cripps and the noble Lords, Lord Woolton and Lord Cherwell, have all been trained in science in their youth and have scientific degrees, and the last is, of course, a scientist de carrièrs. It is a great advantage that he should be in the Government with a special duty of watching these matters.
Both Houses of Parliament have been taking an increasing interest in this subject. There has been formed a Committee called the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, with the special purpose of keeping a watch on these questions and of making suggestions to both Houses and to the Government. That Committee has now enlisted the support and the membership of 112 members of the other House and 32 members of your Lordships' House, together with no fewer than 35 professional and technical associations belonging to professions and industries concerned with the application of science. This Committee is unique, I think, in the fact that it consists of members of both Houses, together with representatives of institutions of that kind; and it is because it has that dual composition that it is not able to call itself the Parliamentary Scientific Committee, as might be expected, but has the somewhat odd title of Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which may perhaps have puzzled some of your Lordships who may have noticed this. That Committee is holding frequent meetings. Several Ministers have been good enough to attend meetings and to make statements
556
on the work of their respective Departments. Special sub-committees have been formed to deal with particular questions. It is as one of the officers of that Committee that I venture to speak to your Lordships this afternoon.
This country does not occupy the foremost place in the world in this matter of scientific research. In the United States, besides the part played by the very numerous universities, with their many research departments and their one million students, and besides the work done by such foundations as the Rockefeller Foundation and others, industry itself in America has, I am informed, no fewer than 2,200 research laboratories, employing 70,000 scientists, at a cost of some £60,000,000 a year. Of course, the definition of "scientific research" is uncertain, and the line between research and development is not fixed. Possibly the definitions applied in America are not quite the same as here. It is probable, however, that the expenditure on pure and applied scientific research for the benefit of industry and agriculture is in the United States, with three times our population, ten times the expenditure here.
Nor is this all. There is reason to believe, so far as the facts are known, that before the war both Germany and Russia had considerably larger provision under this head than we had ourselves, and this country occupies, therefore, only the fourth place among the nations of the world. Of course we all know that it is not only the numbers employed in scientific research and the expenditure which is involved which are of ultimate importance, but individual aptitude and successful results are of the first importance. One scientific genius may render greater service than a score or a hundred laboratories, no matter how lavishly endowed; and genius, or even initiative, cannot be commanded or easily evoked. At the same time, the more widespread and active is the effort made by a nation in this regard, the more likelihood that genius and personal initiative will be revealed. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture, which met recently at Hot Springs, and on which we had a debate in this House a few days ago, drew attention to the inadequacy of present knowledge on the subject with which they were dealing,

557
and recommended in their resolutions that each nation should adopt a policy of progressive research in all the branches of science, including economics, which relate to food and agriculture. That highly important and authoritative body, representing forty-four nations, made that very definite pronouncement, and as His Majesty's Government have since announced that they accept the resolutions of the Conference, we may assume that steps will be taken to carry that resolution into effect.
The subjects on which research is needed are of the greatest possible variety. There is agricultural production, and there is very little doubt that science might be enlisted on a far more comprehensive scale in the productive processes of agriculture than has yet been done, either in this or any other country. There is the science of nutrition, which is still almost in its infancy; there is the whole range of preventive and curative medicine. And then, if we turn from the biological field to the material, there is research urgently needed, and to a very moderate extent so far provided, with respect to building. We are to have after the war 4,000,000 new houses built, and many other buildings will have to be erected for schools and other purposes, and the provision for research in materials, construction and equipment is extremely small in this country. There is a Building Research Station which is doing excellent work but, apart from that, little so far has been attempted; and although the architectural profession and those who are interested are taking steps now to promote research into these matters, the progress that has been made is at present wholly inadequate.
Furthermore, there is a new science that has come into being within the last few years, the science of town and country planning, on which the future amenities of this country largely depend. There again the research that is being done is at present very slight. And with respect to the social sciences generally, it is only gradually being realized that there is a great deal there needing research, as well as in the natural sciences. Nuffield College at Oxford has been founded with that object in view; the London School of Economics and Political Science for a good many years past has been labouring in that field as well as in teaching; Chatham House—the Royal Institute of International
558
Affairs—does a certain amount of research work in questions of international politics; and lately the British Association for the Advancement of Science has established a special division devoting its whole attention to this subject.
But the State in all this has hitherto taken too little share, and it is that to which I wish specially to draw your Lordships' attention and the attention of the Government, in the hope that the whole question will be viewed on a much more generous scale than has been the custom in this country hitherto. The several Departments of the Government have taken but slight action as a rule. The Town and Country Planning Ministry has a research branch which has only just started its work. When I was at the Local Government Board before the last war—as long ago as that—there was established there an Intelligence Department precisely in order to investigate these questions of planning and building, and also some questions of health to which I have referred. That section was doing useful service when war came, but it was allowed afterwards to fall into abeyance, and I believe disappeared. The Colonial Office at the present time is showing much energy in this regard. There is a Colonial Research Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of one of the members of your Lordships' House, Lord Hailey, than whom a more admirable Chairman could not be found; and there is also the Colonial Products Research Council which has lately been established. Oxford University again is founding a special department to deal with Colonial studies. I commend to your Lordships' attention this whole vast range of subjects on all of which more research is needed. It is not only a question of chemistry and physics, but of these various branches of what I may call the humane sciences, which also require attention.
In the terms of the Motion which I have brought before your Lordships' House I have made special mention of the utilization of coal, and I have done so partly because the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee to which I have referred has lately been giving very intensive attention to this particular matter. It appointed a sub-committee which held many meetings, took much advice, and issued a very elaborate report, which has received favourable attention from the

559
Press, both the national Press and the technical Press, although no doubt also some criticism. Apart from agriculture, coal is, of course, the chief material source of the country's prosperity, it is the main source for the production of mechanical power. Hydro-electric schemes such as that which we have been again discussing at very considerable length this afternoon, may provide some additional sources, and the Severn Barrage, which was discussed in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago, may do the same, but those can only provide a fraction of the energy which is required, and the day is not yet come when we can turn to sub-atomic energy as an alternative to coal. Every physicist would say that that is theoretically possible, but it is far from being practically accessible. Furthermore, coal is a raw material for the chemical industry; dyestuffs, drugs, fertilizers, plastics, silks—all kinds of things are now made from products of coal.
The Royal Commission on the Coal Industry of 1925–26, with which I was connected, came very soon to the conclusion that this question of research was the most important of all those that came before us. As a rule the problems of the coal industry were considered to be those of the relations between capital and labour, the organization of the mines, the ownership of the minerals, the transport of the coal, the export trade, and matters of that kind; but very early in our inquiry we came to the conclusion that more important than any one of these was the question of the proper utilization of this complex and precious material. For thousands of years man has been digging in the ground and getting out coal and burning it raw in furnaces or fireplaces. It is only in recent times that it has been realized that that is an exceedingly crude method of dealing with it. The Royal Commission said this in their Report:
"In view of the great importance of coal to this country, it is surprising that so little scientific attention has been paid to its nature and possibilities."
When we came in the last page to express our final summary of recommendations as the result of long and very intensive inquiry, we wrote this:
"The way to prosperity for the mining industry lies along three chief lines of advance."
We put first the greater application of science to the winning and using of coal;
560
the others were larger units of production and distribution, and fuller partnership between employers and employed. That was seventeen years ago, and much, happily, has been done since then. The State has established the National Fuel Research Board, the coal industry has its British Colliery Owners' Research Association, and there is the British Coal Utilization Research Association, which is now working on a large scale and with considerable resources. That Association includes representatives of the chemical and other consuming industries. The gas industry and the electrical industry are also conducting research into their special branches on a very large scale. The Royal Commission also recommended—what was indeed very obvious—that the heat, light and power requirements of the country should be considered as a whole. That was seventeen years ago, but only last year was that recommendation fully implemented by the establishment of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That Ministry is already engaged in superintending, coordinating, and providing for the expansion of research into all branches of the fuel and power industries. How far it has done so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who is to reply, will think fit to tell us and also indicate the plans the Government may have for the future.
Turning back to research in general, as apart from the coal industry in particular, I should like to make a few observations on the conditions of employment and the status of the research workers themselves, which is a matter of great importance. There is a Russian proverb which says: "The nightingale does not live on songs alone." Similarly, a scientist, however great may be his devotion to his profession, has to consider his remuneration and his prospects. There is reason to believe that in many cases the salaries paid to scientific workers are far from adequate, and opportunities for promotion are frequently lacking. It is said that the best years for a scientific research worker are between the ages of thirty to forty, and that after that his powers of improvization or initiative seem somewhat to wane.
On the other hand, administrative offices can well be filled by men of rather older age who are glad to accept wider responsibilities with the better salaries that accompany them. It is frequently found

561
by the scientists that once engaged in research they have very little opportunity of being allowed to transfer to the administrative branches which may give them better prospects. Of course, the most brilliant scientist is not therefore even a moderately good administrator. In fact, very often the two qualities are not to be found in the same person. On the other hand, often he can prove to be so if the opportunity is given to him. No one urges that high scientific attainments are in themselves a qualification for administrative posts but, at all events, they ought not to be regarded as a disqualification, as is sometimes now found to be the case. There is the further class of scientific assistants whose interests have not been adequately safeguarded frequently in the employment in which they arc engaged. For both classes questions of pensions arise which have received all too little attention. If a research worker transfers from the laboratory of some industrial firm to a university laboratory or to a Government or Colonial laboratory, his position with regard to his pension may be seriously prejudiced.
I should like to ask the Government if they would answer some, or all, of these questions which I now address to them, and of which I have given my noble friend Lord Cherwell some preliminary notice. First, whether there is any plan for allocating the work of scientific research between the three main agencies now engaged in it—namely, the State, the Universities, and the industries. Next, whether anything can be said at this stage with regard to the conditions of employment of those engaged in this profession, and particularly whether there is any possibility of a combined scheme for pensions which will enable accrued pension rights to be transferred if a worker passes from one institution to another such as has been done between different Colonial Governments in the case of Colonial administrators and also, in a different sphere, in the case of members of the Police Force of one area transferring to another. These combined pension schemes are of great importance to the well-being, and therefore to the efficiency, of these workers.
Next, is there any prospect of a State scientific service being established parallel to the Civil Service and under the general direction of a Commission like the Civil
562
Service Commission, but containing several, perhaps a majority, of professional scientists? Then, would such a State Service, if established, have a class in it corresponding to Class 2 of the Civil Service for those who are employed as scientific assistants? Next—a point I raised when I brought the matter before the House two years ago— have the Government considered the advisability, after the war, of appointing scientific attachés to the principal Embassies abroad in order that this country may have liaison officers who can bring to the notice of those interested at home the progress and methods which have been achieved or established in other countries?
I come now to the question of expense. Obviously very vast sums will be involved in a programme such as I have endeavoured to indicate. Many of the installations are exceedingly costly. For example, aerodynamics requires those great wind tunnels which cost a great deal, but without which our Air Force would certainly not have achieved the successes it has attained. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in building now many years ago the great wind tunnel at its laboratories at Teddington, was of immense assistance to our aircraft industry in its early days. Such an instrument as the new electron microscope is also an extremely expensive thing to manufacture. Experimental fuel research stations cost a great deal of money, and building research would no doubt be expensive. In all these directions it is certain very large sums must be engaged. I know that at present money is not the limiting factor. The Government are willing to spend all that is necessary on research needed for the conduct of the war. The limitation now is deficiency of personnel, which is due to inadequate provision for scientific and technical education in days gone by and cannot now be remedied. But when the war is over there may be somewhat greater stringency in financial matters and more reluctance to spend, and I would impress upon your Lordships that it would be a very shortsighted policy if such tendencies were to be allowed to gain the upper hand.
Whatever money is needed for research can be found in spite of the enormous claims in other directions in view of the fact, which I have previously pointed out on other occasions in this House, that the

563
national income is known to have multiplied three-fold during the present century. That allows a very great margin for additional State expenditure in this and other directions. Furthermore, there is no expenditure more remunerative than this if it is wisely directed. The nation is spending on coal alone, to revert to that example, about £360,000,000 a year on the raw mineral and as much again in processing and treatment for production of energy and for various chemical compounds. Altogether about £750,000,000 a year is spent upon coal in one way or another so that any economies that can be effected in the use of coal by its better utilization might be extremely remunerative.
In that respect a great deal has been done. In the year before the last war the amount of the potential energy in coal which was utilized in British industries was only 15 per cent. and 85 per cent. was lost. In the year before this war the effective extraction of energy from the coal was double and was raised to 30 per cent. Some industrial installations have achieved even 60 per cent. so that there is an immense margin there within which progress can be made if research were successful in carrying this process further. Of course the more that is done the more difficult it is to achieve yet more, but if research does succeed in carrying this process further the annual saving that might be effected on the total expenditure upon coal and processing of £750,000,000 a year would not be a question of one or two million pounds but of tens of millions of pounds, and conceivably even of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds. If that could be done any programme of research, even though its cost might be regarded at the outset as extravagant, would be fully justified.
Research is the seed of industry. Much of it will not germinate, but unless it is sown there will be no harvest. Any agriculturist who practised economy by lowering the quality or cutting down the quantity of his seed would obviously be a very incompetent farmer. The success of this country and indeed of the whole Commonwealth—for in this matter we serve all the Dominions as well as ourselves—in world competition is really at stake. The economic foundations of our civilization are changing with extreme rapidity. I came across a statement
564
recently quoted from Sir Thomas Holland, one of our leading mineralogists, which was to this effect. Far more metal has been taken from the earth by man since 1900 than in the whole of the previous history of mankind. It seems an astounding statement that in forty years more metals should have been required in the industries of the globe than in the previous forty centuries of recorded civilization. Those metals are of course used in all kinds of new alloys and put to all kinds of new uses.
This one fact alone is an indication of the extent to which the industries of man are now developing. Furthermore, new synthetic substances unknown to nature are being created for the first time. Already numbered in scores they may soon be numbered in hundreds. In this situation this country cannot rely on the advantages of its geographical position or on the natural resources in the competition in which it is engaging. The British people have to pit their character and brains against the character and brains of the other industrial nations of the world. On the knowledge and efficiency of our engineers and chemists and agriculturists and on the excellence of our social organization all depends. In touching these matters we touch the essence of national prosperity and strength and welfare.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the further expansion of scientific research, particularly in relation to the utilization of coal.— (Viscount Samuel.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, speaking for myself and my noble friends on these Benches I should like to support unreservedly the plea for more Government support to scientific research to which we have just listened from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I think all will agree that this is not the least of the great services he has already rendered in this field. There is no need to emphasize the supreme importance to industry of technical efficiency. It is not too much to say that full employment and better conditions of life after the war largely depend on our capacity to modernize industrial equipment and processes and to improve the quality and quantity of their output. For many years over the whole field of industry we have been failing to keep abreast of the times. Before the war

565
America was turning out two and a half times as much coal, three times as much machinery, four times as much iron and steel, four times as many motor cars and five times as many radio sets for every man employed in those industries as we were in this country. Our industrial plant, which fifty years ago was ahead of the whole world, has already lost the lead to the United States, and even to Germany. A large part of it that was operated before the war had become completety archaic and might well have been consigned to the scrap heap or to an engineering museum.
The coal-mining industry is a moving illustration of our shortcomings. The cutting of coal from the seam and the conveying of coal from the coal face to the pit shaft are only 55 per cent. mechanized in this country as compared with 80 per cent. in America and 98 per cent. in Belgium and the Ruhr. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just referred to the recommendation that his Commission made as to the vital importance of technical efficiency in the coal-mining industry for the prosperity of all those concerned in the production of coal. For various reasons, most of which obviously I cannot enter into now, we continued to carry on before the war under a heavy burden of obsolete and obsolescent machinery. One reason—the only reason I propose to discuss—was the lack of trained research workers and of adequate apparatus and equipment for research. We were spending far less from public and private sources together proportionately to our national income on the development of scientific and industrial research than several of the other great industrial nations. I do not labour that point because it has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Samuel, but that is an indication of the degree to which we have lost the lead in this respect.
The war, of course, has quickened the tempo of research and has brought about a drastic overhaul of out-of-date machinery in industry engaged in war production. Output has already risen by leaps and bounds as a result of this sudden improvement in technical efficiency. But organizing production and research for the war-time requirements of the Services sets up an industrial structure very different from what will be needed to meet the post-war demand
566
of a population long starved of consumers' goods. This does not mean that the immense progress made in the technique of war should not be maintained and as far as possible improved upon by research. We must surely never again after this war allow our Fighting Services to lack weapons as destructive and up to date as those of any other military Power, and this eventuality can only be guarded against by continuing to employ trained scientists and skilled engineers, and elaborate and expensive apparatus in the primary task of national defence.
The change-over to peace-time production will, nevertheless, involve the scrapping of much obsolete or useless plant, the adaptation of much machinery to a different type of output and the installation of a vast quantity of completely new industrial equipment. This re-tooling of considerable sections of British industry, on which its competitive power and productive capacity will depend, cannot, I suggest, be successfully carried out without a reasonably long period of careful scientific preparation. During this preparatory period it should be possible to improve design, to experiment with new materials and methods, and to refine and develop ordinary manufacturing processes. The period of incubation should begin soon, certainly before the end of the war—exactly when I do not think anyone but the Government is in a proper position to judge.
The scope of the research undertaken will, no doubt, cover the whole field of industry, but there are certain directions in which its encouragement will be specially beneficial to the public and in which therefore the Government should do all in their power to help. I am referring in particular to the aircraft industry, the building industry and the coalmining industry. If we are to hold our own with other countries in the air—this is a remark I make not for the first time —we must certainly have the latest types of civil and military machines. The Society of British Aircraft Constructors, which speaks for every important air-frame and engine-building company, wants more assistance from the Government for aeronautical research. The apparatus of research is increasingly costly, and it is unreasonable to expect the industry to shoulder the burden alone. Their appeal, I think, was handsomely

567
answered by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, when he replied to the debate initiated by the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, on Tuesday. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the Government's intention to establish a school of aeronautical science which may one day become the focal centre for teaching and research for the whole of the British Commonwealth. I hope there will be no delay in preparing the ground. A plan should be drawn up in time for immediate execution the moment personnel and equipment are available.
I now come to the second of the subjects into which research is specially necessary from the point of view of the public. We shall not be able to build flats and cottages after the war which the average wage-earning family can afford without extreme hardship unless we succeed irr cutting down building costs. Housing will continue to be a distressing and insoluble social problem so long as we have not learnt to build cheap homes with modern standards of comfort. Between the wars, I think it is agreed, neither private enterprise building for profit nor local authorities buttressed by subsidies, supplied this prime need. Since 1939 building costs have approximately doubled and it is common knowledge—the subject has been discussed in your Lordships' House—that at the present moment rural cottages are going up at something like £1,000 apiece. Unless prices fall considerably in the meantime —an extremely unlikely event—we shall be paying a prohibitive sum for the erection of working-class dwellings after the war.
I think the only final solution, although it may be unattainable for the time being, is for cheap houses to be produced like cheap motor cars, by mass production in factories. We shall have to invent a material which is inexpensive to produce and having the qualities of bricks and mortar and other materials used in building, which can be applied to the largescale manufacture of structural parts. These could be rapidly assembled on the site, like the separate parts of a merchant ship, in a modern shipyard. Prefabrication has not yet achieved success because the perfect material has still to be discovered. Here again we should take to heart what has been going on recently in
568
America. There they are building houses with every modern convenience at the fantastic speed of 1,000 a month and using labour to the extent of only 340 man hours per house. In this country the same speed and quality of building would require at least 2,000 man hours per house.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Did the noble Earl say that 1,000 houses per month was an extraordinary production?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: At that expenditure of labour because the cost is kept down by this tremendous economy. The Committee for the Industrial and Scientific Provision of Housing comments as follows upon the wide disparity revealed between this country and America:
"This rate and standard of construction was made possible by years of research, with which the amount and quality of research done in this country do not compare."
Again the meagre and inadequate facilities in this country for experiment and research in building was emphasized by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. The building industry cannot be expected to underwrite experiments of this kind. Progress can only be made in this field by the initiative of the Government and with the support of the Treasury. I suggest that the time has come for the Minister of Works to have his own research institute working in close collaboration with the industry and staffed by whole-time chemists and constructional engineers. I am afraid we shall never get what we want if we have to rely exclusively on the efforts of private firms and individuals.
My noble friend Lord Samuel has delved very deeply into coal and I do not think there is much I or anyone else could add. There can be no doubt that we are wasting an immense quantity of coal in smoke, grime and ashes and often as much as 70 per cent. of the raw fuel, because we are failing to get the maximum potential energy released by its combustion. We simply cannot afford to go on wasting at this rate the prime source of power for our railways, public utilities and basic industries and of heat and light for our homes. It is no less true that coal should be regarded as a raw material as well as a source of energy and that we have scarcely begun to explore its possibilities as a purveyor of chemicals and liquid fuels. I am sure we shall all look forward to hearing the maiden speech of

569
the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, and we shall listen with keen interest to anything he has to say on that subject. What counts even more in the minds of the general public is the chance science gives us of dispelling the grey pall of smoke that has enveloped our large industrial towns for the last hundred years. The medical evidence submitted to the Barlow Commission shows how a smoky atmosphere accelerates the ravages of respiratory diseases and, by intercepting the actinic lays of bright sunlight, increases the incidence of rickets among town children. More important still is the present opportunity of putting an end to the age-long tyranny of coal and coke fires over the housewife. We would give the housewife a new lease of life by releasing her from the daily drudgery of lighting them, keeping them going and constantly removing the layer of dirt they spread over everything in the house.
The bare essentials of the sort of programme I think the Government should adopt to guarantee our industrial future are three-fold. It should promote a gradual but steady increase in existing facilities for scientific research into the post-war problems of industry, an expansion that should include the research workers and the scientific equipment of universities, private firms and Government institutions. Secondly, to prevent overlapping and to secure the right priorities—that is exceedingly important—these extended facilities should be co-ordinated and developed according to a national plan for scientific research. And lastly, it should arrange for consultation and cooperation with the Dominions and Colonies, and, so far as possible, with our fellow members of the United Nations at every stage of what will be, I trust, a national drive for the enlargement of scientific knowledge and a rapid advance in technical efficiency.
LORD MCGOWAN: My Lords, your Lordships will I am sure be very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, not only for initiating this debate, a debate on a matter of supreme importance to this country, but also for calling our attention to directions in which research ought to be applied. As he truly said, coal is our great national asset. It possesses an infinite variety of potentialities which can only be discovered and their use applied by expenditure on research. We know of
570
many derivatives, and while I cannot give any details of what my company is doing in that direction, I can assure your Lordships that one of the problems most prominently before us is how best to use coal to meet the country's needs. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to a grant of £5,000,000 for research on coal to be spent over a period of years. That was a splendid gesture, but I feel; in my own mind, that, in course of time, that sum will be found to be wholly inadequate for the purpose we have in view and that further financial grants must be given. One cannot, as the noble Lord has said, visualize the possibility of the spending of more than sufficient money on research on our great national asset.
While I direct my remarks to science in its relation to industry, I mean that to be all-embracing apart from coal. The social and industrial progress, health, transport, housing, in fact the well-being of our people in every direction, are dependent upon the advancement of knowledge which alone can be obtained by what is generally known as research. "Research" is a term somewhat loosely used, and it cannot be too frequently or too strongly stressed that all the work that goes on in a laboratory cannot be described as research. The testing of raw materials and of finished products, and the testing of all that is going through a plant from day to day, cannot be described as research. It is ordinary routine work. Well, what is research? Research might be described as reaching out into the unknown, and it might be classified as follows: (1), investigations to discover new products and new processes; (2), research on existing processes with a view to finding new and simplified ways of manufacture and the discovery of better raw materials—this is to increase our competitive power—and (3), fundamental research.
Let me take these in their order. For some years before the war partly in order to satisfy national aspirations and to be more self-contained in certain things wanted for their industrial and social life, a number of countries abroad were pursuing a policy of economic nationalism. Due to the war those countries abroad that had imported manufactured goods from this country and South America or, I suppose, even from Germany before the war, have since had to do without those

571
goods. And it is, I think, a fair assumption that the Argentine, Brazil, Australia and other countries who have found themselves in that plight will say: "Never again." Then we must not overlook the fact that in Canada, Australia and India many factories have been erected to help in the prosecution of the war. Again, I suggest, it is a fair assumption that those countries will do all they can to keep these factories occupied on peace-time activities when that time comes round. That suggests a reduction, a gradual reduction, in our export trade. This will be a slow process, but while the present is not the appropriate time or occasion to give my reasons, I am not discouraged. Given a long-continued era of peace there will be, in my opinion, for years to come a great and expanding world demand for manufactured goods; and history demonstrates that there are always buyers for new products.
While we still have a great bargaining power, I feel strongly that if we want to hold and increase our export trade there must be intensive research to find new processes and new products. We shall have to find entirely new products as alternatives or substitutes for some now in use. We have a background of scientific, manufacturing and technical knowledge in this country comparing favourably with the older highly-industrialized countries and much superior to that of the newer countries, and it is for us to use that and do what we can to fill up the lag when we find in course of years those countries industrialized far more than they are to-day. It can be done but, I repeat, only by spending money on research. Research on existing processes is day-to-day work, never ending, and accumulated knowledge creates of its own accord considerable industrial advances. This kind of research is intended to produce greater efficiency, making for lower costs and thus enabling is to compete with the products of other countries.
I should like to say a word on fundamental research. This aspect of research is far more a function of the scientific side of our universities, although I do not overlook Government research stations, which do much useful work between the efforts of industry and the universities. Much has been said in recent years, as the noble Viscount has mentioned, with regard to the disproportionate effort made in this
572
country as compared with America, and, before the war, as compared with the Continent, by universities abroad, both in research and in teaching. Do not let us be led away into framing a policy which will lead to the overcrowding of our universities with scientific students of the wrong calibre, and the overburdening of professors and teachers or of the academic facilities existing at any one time. But, however fine our scientific effort may be in quality, we cannot completely disregard the size of the effort of our competitors. I think it will be agreed that there is still much to be done in extending scientific academic facilities, and, indeed, on a lower grade, technical schools. Here is a great opportunity for Government assistance, and I can think of no better investment for the nation than the constant encouragement of scientific development in our universities and technical schools.
While this is an opportunity for Government assistance, I feel strongly that industry has also a big part to play. For a few years past, industry in this country has enjoyed protection against imports of foreign manufactured goods, and it cannot, therefore, escape its responsibility to the State for taking every step to ensure that it is efficient. That is one of the reasons why industry must play its part in encouraging scientific developments in our universities and technical schools. It is all-important that, in science, industry and the universities should keep in close touch with each other to avoid a separation between the practical and the academic worlds, and to keep industry abreast of the general trend of academic thought. Much good must result from mutual discussion. It is useless having a sufficient number of scientists for the purposes which we have in view unless they possess the necessary equipment. Such equipment and apparatus must be in sufficient quantity, and be continually kept up to date. Here again I plead for industry doing its part by means of financial grants.
Research, and particularly fundamental or academic research, is ultimately dependant on the quality of the men turned out by the universities, and whether or not their careers are made attractive will depend on the way in which these men are treated after they have been to universities, and on the scope and liberty which are given to them to follow the dictates of

573
their own abilities and ambitions. It is clear to me that the ablest and best types of men will not be attracted to the study of science if a system is allowed to exist in which the highest positions, including the best administrative posts, are closed to men with a technical education. There are two types of individual; there is one type suited to make research his sole career, and the other who is highly suitable to function on the administrative side of great enterprises. Those men who make research their career are essential to advancement and development in the commercial world, and should not feel that they are being treated as in any way second-rate. They should have a status and be rewarded financially in an appropriate manner.
The Government have not been blameless in this matter, for the rewards offered by them on the technical side have been, on the whole, less than those offered by the universities and by industry—not that industry has much to be proud of. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will give us an assurance that the Government intend to make such administrative regulations as will open the highest administrative posts to those who have shown themselves fit for such work, and to provide that there will no longer be any discrimination, either in remuneration or in promotion, between the administrative and technical branches —which means, briefly, between those who have received a classical and those who have received a technical education. As long as this bar is maintained, so long will the Government fail to recruit the most able scientific brains to its service.
There is one further aspect of the organization of research on which I have not yet touched. It is the form of industrial research undertaken not by a private firm but by an association of firms, commonly known as an industrial research association. These bodies can be of the utmost value in developing the technique of their respective industries, and especially of those industries where the units are numerous and relatively small, and where no single unit is in a position to create a research installation on a suitable scale for the work to be undertaken. Many such associations are already in being, and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has done splendid work in fostering them and encouraging
574
them by every means in its power. This system of research can no doubt play a large part in future development, but it needs to go a very long way before we can be in the least degree satisfied that it is up to the standard required by modern conditions.
It is of vital interest both to the nation as a whole and to industry that in dealing with such problems, the Government research agencies should be of the highest quality, and should be endowed with the fullest possible facilities. I should like to say here that I think that a proper distinction must be drawn between research work which is properly the object of industrial effort and that which should be undertaken by the Government. I shall give two examples of the kind of research that should be done by the Government. The first is the gasification of coal underground as an alternative to extraction. One is told that some progress has been made in regard to this matter in Russia. I am not in a position to say whether, even if it is successful there, with their great thickness of seams, it could be applied here, but, if it is decided that this problem shall be studied, it is for the Government and not for industrialists to undertake the work. I cannot imagine any private firm or any association of private firms which would be prepared to do this work and see it through to the end, when the commercial advantages are so obscure. Secondly, we all know the importance of potash to the agricultural industry in this country, and the importance of indigenous supplies of potash in time of war is too obvious to need to be emphasized. In Yorkshire it is known that there are great deposits, the first to be discovered in this country on any large scale. Their only merit is that of being indigenous; apart from this, they would not appear to have any prospect of competing with the well-known Continental deposits, which are far more extensive and far richer.
In research in this country everything should be done to prevent overlapping, which results in waste of time and money, and it would be a considerable deterrent to industrial research if Government research stations are used, with all the power and influence of the Government behind them, and endowed with the taxpayers' money, to compete with industrial research institutions. There are

575
bound to be many border-line cases, but they can be straightened out with good will. Many of your Lordships have no doubt had your attention drawn to a current issue of the journal of the Royal Society of Arts, in which there is a report of a lecture on "Science in Soviet Russia" which was delivered under the chairmanship of the Minister of Aircraft Production. The lecturer, Dr. Crowther, stated that under the existing organization of science in Russia scientists who make great discoveries are rewarded with prizes amounting in some cases to as much as £10,000 and that about 100 prizes are awarded annually for science and inventions. Does not this suggest that we in this country should consider whether rewards for scientific discoveries are sufficiently generous?
I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time in discussing this vital and fascinating problem. It is a subject on which one would speak at very great length, especially if one went into the technical possibilities which we now see opening out before us; they are legion. From the privileged position from which I am able to observe this part of human activity I can see vast opportunities and great potentialities on earth, in the air and on the water for mankind to obtain the benefits of a fuller and freer life through the constant expansion of our knowledge. There may be some who will complain that the technical advance of the last century and the first part of this has brought no benefit to mankind and only further problems and grief. To people who think on these lines I have little to say. Under proper control I believe that the expansion of knowledge and the development of our technical ability bring benefits to the mass of mankind which far outweigh their disadvantages. Summed up, by scientific discoveries and their proper application we shall witness in time a gradual uplift in the standard of living throughout the world—surely a noble and desirable object. We are proud of the contribution of science to Great Britain's war effort and if we see a continued association between science and industry, and if we embrace the opportunities we see before us, we shall face the future with every confidence.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I think it was wise of the noble
576
Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he was raising this question of the lack of scientific research and development, to link it up with the coal situation, because when one looks at the vast fortunes that have been made in this country from coal and the extraordinarily little attention that has been given to the scientific side of it, it is nothing short of amazing. If you take an ordinary lump of coal to-day and give it to a scientist he is quite incapable, until he burns it, of telling you whether it is coking or non-coking coal. That is an extraordinary situation to be occurring to-day. Take the question of dirty coal. You can take the coal away from the dirt, but so far you cannot take the dirt away from the coal—an extraordinary thing. There is a lot to be done there.
But I do hope that in a debate of this type we are not going to muddle up development and technical progress with scientific research because they are two entirely separate things, as has been well said by my noble friend the great industrialist speaking from the Bishops' Benches to-day. We have had a lot of speeches deprecating the record of British science. It is the usual thing we do in this country. We praise Germany, we praise America, we praise everybody as being scientific-minded and run ourselves down. We in this country may understand it, but they do not understand it in other countries. But the record does not show that we are behindhand in fundamental research. The Cavendish Laboratory to-day stands out as a beacon of light throughout the whole world, and it is ridiculous for Lord Samuel to say that we are fourth-rate in science.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I did not say fourth-rate. I said in the provision for research in general we occupied the fourth place.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: That will very soon be interpreted in the popular Press throughout the world—not perhaps in our accurate Press, but in other countries—as being fourth-rate. No, that sort of thing will not do. And when you come to the great steps in scientific advance, was not matter in a new state discovered by Crookes—a purely fundamental discovery which was later to be turned into the great wireless development of the world? Was not the electron, its mass and charge, determined by the

577
great J. J. Thomson at Cambridge, which upset the whole conception of atomic structure and electricity altogether? Those are great names and there will be other great names in this country because pure science, fundamental research, is not to be done by quantity but by quality. And I believe it is in this country that you will find the quality in the future as you have in the past.
I wanted to raise a question which to me is rather worrying. The great Royal Society, the venerable Royal Society, which after all is the premier scientific society in the world and to belong to which is one of the greatest honours in the world, chooses its Fellows from the many subjects which scientific specialists indulge in. Now this is one of the troubles I see in the scientific world to-day. Science is so complicated that if you are to be distinguished in any walk you have to be an ultra-specialist, you have to go right along the line to the end, whatever it may be, to be distinguished in that line of thought. Consequently, you get working throughout the country in these watertight compartments, as it were, supermen but you are unable to relate the discoveries in the various walks of life together. I want to know what machinery is going to be invented soon to get these together.
Let me quote two examples. Atomic physics and astronomy have, curiously enough, got together. You would think that there was very little relation between those two, but they have worked together in a most extraordinary way. It might not seem a great advantage to you to know what the structure of the sun or of a star is, but sure enough with the spectroscope a very close liaison between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world has taken place. With the great advance in sub-atomic physics there are new things growing up which are understood by the physicists, but are they understood by the other scientists? Lord Samuel, very rightly I think, referred to the electron microscope, a very remarkable discovery. Now does the doctor realize the possibilities of that on the diagnosis of the great viruses? It seems to me that we have got almost to breed a new type of scientist, a gentleman who can bring the knowledge of a lot of different branches together and correlate them. It is quite true that in the old days Faraday could go round to
578
the Royal Institution and, with a piece of copper wire, acid and a magnet, could make the great discovery that led to electro-magnetism. Those days arc past, and we do see, I think, in America the great advantage from huge State funds being poured out on scientific objects which can make these enormous and expensive machines like the cyclotron.
But above all, it is important for someone to understand and correlate these discoveries, how they butt in, for instance, into therapeutics—whether, for instance, radium has any influence on cancer. At present we really know very little. If I was starting life again I certainly should start with being a biochemist. There is more to be done there than in any other branch of science, but it must be related to the physical discoveries of the day. We have various people who have general knowledge. In spite of Lord Samuel's gloomy philosophy I would put him down as a man with a general knowledge of science, and I certainly would include the Lord Chancellor, who very frequently pretends to be ignorant on many subjects about which he knows a tremendous lot. The noble Lord, the late Lord Balfour, was another. I should like the Royal Society to get such men together within their portals, because at present they are getting only specialists, and if we do not look out we shall defeat what is after all the prime object of science, which is the benefit of the human race.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I speak rather unexpectedly at this particular juncture in the debate as Lord Dawson of Penn was to have spoken after my noble friend who has just sat down, but I am very glad that through the circumstances which have arisen I am able to speak immediately after Lord Brabazon because so many of the things which he has said were those which I was preparing to say. It is absolutely true that in this country we have had now for many years the best fundamental men of science. I know of no country with a record even beginning to approach that of this island. Both in the north and in the south, in Scotland and in England, we have had a most extraordinary series of great men of science. We have an enormous trade and commerce. We have great enterprises overseas, and these activities seem to have been carried on

579
very largly without any very great or close contact with science until recent years.
In the fifteen years before the war, as some of your Lordships are aware, I was engaged in taking my share in the development of the Northern Rhodesian Copper Belt. There we had every sort of problem to meet, not fundamental research, but to apply knowledge in order to get more knowledge. First of all, we had to make that portion of Rhodesia habitable by Europeans. We next had to see that the native population was healthy, fit, strong, and able to endure manual work. We had to explore the possibilities of growing food of sorts that had never been grown in that part of the world before in order to secure health both for the European and African populations. Then we had an unlimited series of scientific problems in connexion with the actual geological study of the country. In addition to that there were masses of completely new problems in regard to mining and in connexion with dealing with subterranean water. Then we had a whole series of problems dealing with the ores, which are quite peculiar, and then, finally, we had a mass of problems in connexion with the actual metallurgy, both on the copper side, to get good conductivity, and on the cobalt side in order to get a knowledge of the full use of the metal, which has proved so valuable in connexion with aircraft and munitions generally.
To cover all that research work locally, because it was local research work, although it was carried on to some extent in this country too, we required an enormous number of men with scientific training. We could get some in this country, but the majority we could not. There was no question of any inadequacy in remuneration. We were offering large pay. We just could not get the men from this country for that work in anything like sufficient numbers. We finally got our geologists very largely from Canada and partly from the United States. We got as many miners as we possibly could from the Royal School of Mines, but we could not get enough. We had to go to Canada and the United States and to a less extent to Australia. We could not get the metallurgical people here at all. We offered men working in metallurgy large sums of
580
money to go out for a year. They were fully employed here. We could get the highest advice here, but we could not get the men.
So it went on right through the whole range, including our agricultural problems. Although we could get a great deal of help from the Imperial Institute and locally, we had to get men from outside the country. In connexion with silviculture the same thing arose, and so it went on over the whole range of this vast undertaking. To-day quite a large proportion of the technical staffs of these great undertakings in Northern Rhodesia are men drawn, not from this country, but from other lands. It is a great thing in scientific work to get a mixing of the knowledge of different countries, but it is extraordinary that out of this country, at a time when there was a great deal of depression and unemployment, and people were supposed to have difficulties in finding work, we could not get the men with the qualifications. Any really healthy scientific development in this country, it seems to me, must be based on a great improvement in our scientific training, beginning in the schools and going on through the technical colleges, it may be, or through the universities.
We have not got the educational equipment in this country on a scale, so far as I know, adequate to produce all the men that may be wanted for such a great development as that which took place in Northern Rhodesia in the fifteen years before the war. I am quite certain that the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government would say that for the splendid work he has done on the scientific side of the war he too has been woefully short of men of the right type. One of the most important things which I hope the Government have got well in hand is this question of the development of scientific education, and the development of it right through from the schools into the universities or the technical colleges. Lord Cherwell said a thing on Tuesday which is profoundly true—that higher teaching is only good and sound if it is given near the advancing edge of knowledge; that is to say, that the great teachers must be doing research. The question very often comes in some sciences whether we are not trying to teach them at too many points, whether it would not be better to

581
establish perhaps one, perhaps two, perhaps more, great special institutions, not universities, but technical colleges.
During the years I was in America nothing impressed me much more than the efficiency of such places as the Boston "Tech.," giving the most marvellous training and directed towards producing men who were able to fulfil that most important function of technical development—to pick up ideas from the fundamental sciences and apply them and develop them into the processes of industry. Sometimes that requires an enormous body of research, especially in the field of chemical engineering, where there is often the greatest difficulty in turning laboratory work into the productive processes of commercial work. We have had that problem to face time and time again, and it often is only solved by good team work. These developments in education which I have suggested, if carried out, would not necessarily produce great men of science, but they would produce the men who can carry out the work which industry wants done, in the main, in its factories.
There is great confusion in industry in regard to the use of the word "research." There is a real research done by industries, as in Lord McGowan's great companies and in the Metropolitan Vickers companies. There is real research being done there, but a great part of what is done in industry is only development work, technical development. It requires quite a different type of mind and quite a different type of equipment, but it is often called research. Therefore I beg of your Lordships that when you are told that British industry is lagging hopelessly behind in research, and you are given some figures to show what other people are doing in research, try before you condemn British industry to decide whether those persons are using the word ''research'' strictly or whether they may be using the word to cover the ordinary technical development that has to go on every time with all processes. There is a great deal of misleading information, not intentionally misleading information, given in many accounts of what is happening in American industry.
The points I want to make are these. First, that we have in this country—I believe we always have had—the best type of mind that is available in the world, as good as any if not better than
582
any. But a great fundamental research effort does mean that we want to provide the facilities which the great university laboratories alone can provide, and we want to see that their work is helped forward by grants if necessary, but, anyhow, by every facility being given to them. In addition to that, we want a large increase in the number of men who are trained in scientific work and who are available for employment by industry, whether it be industry being carried on in this country or in the interests of this country, in the Dominions and Colonies or, it may be, in foreign lands. Then there was the other point that Lord Brabazon made. We have reached a stage in scientific development when it is almost impossible for any one mind to keep abreast of the whole advancing trend. We want some coordination of knowledge, some machinery for the co-ordination of knowledge, and the Royal Society Committee has proved itself a very poor servant of the State in that line.
I do not know how many of your Lordships are familiar with the strange case of Dr. Edridge-Green, one of the great men of science of this country who, now nearly fifty years ago, laid the foundations of the current views of colour-vision and of modern testings. His views were accepted by those who studied them and the Board of Trade got the Royal Society to appoint a Committee. That Committee opposed the Edridge-Green view. When I was President of the Board of Trade, nearly twenty-five years after that, the Royal Society was still blocking the Edridge-Green views and it has never ceased officially to resist them, although the Royal Society views were blown skyhigh a generation ago. Only the other day I saw Dr. Edridge-Green, whom I had not seen for twenty-five years or certainly for twenty years. He is recognized the world over as our greatest man on the science of vision, and I have special reasons to know who are the good men on vision. As I said, I saw him the other day and said, "What are you doing in connexion with the war work?" "Oh," he said, "nobody has ever asked me to do anything about it." With all our problems of night fighting, of vision at night, to be solved, Dr. Edridge-Green has not been consulted!
He is old in years but within the last few months he has introduced certain new

583
ideas that are a great advance on anything that has been known before. There we have an example of a Royal Society investigation going wrong, and going wrong for the very reason that Lord Brabazon pointed out, that the men in the Royal Society are specialists in a narrow line. The man who was Chairman, the great man who was Chairman of the Committee, was Lord Rayleigh, and twenty-five years after he had condemned the Edridge-Green view he wrote a letter saying he had been wrong. But that has never removed the ban from Edridge-Green. It is the most extraordinary story in our scientific history and it is well known. Everyone who has been at the Board of Trade knows about it. A publication was brought out by the Board of Trade to show how they had been prevented from taking appropriate steps to prevent life being lost at sea and on the railways by a Royal Society Committee composed of great men, of men highly but narrowly specialists in physics, and ignorant of physiology.
It is a most extraordinary story and it is one that is being repeated. Only the other day I was speaking to a man not of the first rank perhaps in the field of science but prominent, and I said: "Why is not Edridge-Green employed at all?" He said: "Oh, he is the man who was blown out of the water a generation ago by the Royal Society." On the contrary, he blew the Royal Society out of the water on colour vision. That is the sort of thing that happens, and it has been shown in this country time and time again, though not in that extreme form. That is the worst case I know, but we have done it so many times in this country. When some fundamental work like that of Sir William Perkin on organic chemistry has been discovered we do nothing with it. We block it.
I need not relate other instances, but there is the point to which Lord Brabazon's remarks were directed as to what can be done by the co-ordination of knowledge. It is a point I ventured to raise to your Lordships some weeks ago in connexion with health. We want some body, some class of persons with scientific knowledge to whom questions can be referred, who are not themselves engaged competitively in research but who have got the synthetizing type of mind
584
that can bring this knowledge home. I spoke of it then as a General Staff of Science. I do not know what shape it can take, but I am quite certain that it cannot be the ordinary bureaucratic type of Government institution. What we want is some body, not some individual but some group of men who would bear the relation to science that would be as comparable as may be to that, shall I say, borne by the Supreme Court of the United States to the practice of law in the United States. We have nothing quite like that here. The organization here is different. That is the sort of thing I have in mind. Unless we can develop some organ for the co-ordination of knowledge I fail to see how we can get full use made, and early use made, of great discoveries, because although, as has been pointed out, great discoveries are made they are resisted for a generation or two very often and are taken up by other people before they come into practical use here. The Perkin work is an instance. Germany ran away with the whole of organic chemistry applied to industry and in 1914 we were left very far behind, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, will agree. We do not want that to happen again.
Then there is the other point about personnel. When we wanted to develop the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia we were short of men in this country and we had to get them from elsewhere. So these are the points on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, when he replies will be able to give us some assurance. One is in regard to the great expansion of the number of scientifically trained people, so that we may have a larger class of men to draw from in industry; another is the question whether there should not be great special technical colleges established to produce the type of man I have been speaking of; and there is further the question whether the Government have any idea of setting up what I have referred to as a General Staff of Science. The term is not a good one, but it is difficult to explain what one means except by using terms which have other associations. All of us who have been associated now for many years with science realize what a great work the noble Lord has done in the Government during this war period to bring science to the practical assistance of the State.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Dawson of Penn, I beg to move that this debate be: now adjourned until the next sitting day.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

CHARGES AGAINST AMERICAN CHEMICAL COMPANIES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the charges by the United States Department of Justice against three American chemical companies who are accused of conspiring with the German I.G. Farbenindustrie, the British Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., the Italian Montecatini Company and the Japanese Kokusan Kogu Kaibushihi, to create trade monopolies; and whether, in view of the naming of a British public company, they will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in this country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question to the Government which I have put on the Order Paper is based on a Reuter dispatch of June 28 which was printed in The Times of June 29. For greater accuracy, as they say in another place, when I had read The Times account I consulted the Daily Herald and found that that paper carried a similar news story. I do not think it is necessary to read the whole of the report in The Times and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for leaving part of it out, but the important part reads as follows:
"The United States Department of Justice announced to-night that three American chemical companies have been indicted by a federal grand jury for creating a world-wide cartel in conspiracy with German, British, Italian, Japanese and other foreign interests. Mr. Tom Clark, Assistant Attorney-General in charge of the anti-trust division, said the cartel embraced titanium compounds used in the production of strategic war materials."
The dispatch, later, goes on:
"The indictment alleged that the defendants and the foreign companies divided the world into exclusive non-competitive areas, and in the United States obtained monopolistic control through the pooling of patents. Under this arrangement the British Titan Products Company, Limited, owned jointly by Imperial
586
Chemical Industries, Limited, the Titan Company, Incorporated, and other British companies, received the British Empire. At the outbreak of the European war, the indictment said, the Titan Gesselschaft, jointly owned by the I.G. Farbenindustrie and the National Lead Company, was unable to supply South American markets. So the National Lead Company agreed to supply South American customers and pay the German company profits from such sales. This arrangement terminated when the United States entered the war."
I am not quite certain what it means to be indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States—I am not familiar with American legal procedure—but I presume it is something like a true bill being returned by a grand jury in this country. That, however, is not so important. What is important here is that apparently a very responsible charge is made by law officers against these cartel companies.
Under this message from Reuter there was published in The Times a statement from the Press Association whose representative interviewed the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries. My noble friend said:
"I give you an absolutely flat denial that we are engaged in any international conspiracy. We are not in combination with any international bodies. The report is quite wrong. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on the denial."
I have had the privilege and pleasure of knowing the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, for a great many years now and with others of your Lordships I would like to congratulate him on the maiden speech he delivered earlier in to-day's proceedings. I say at once that I have accepted, and would accept at any time, any statement he made. I am not doubting his word in the slightest degree, but I do not think he has refreshed his memory of the real meaning of the word "conspiracy" as used in the United States. The word "conspiracy" in this country has a sinister meaning, but in the United States it has not the same meaning in legal language. This indictment was framed under the Sherman Act of 1890 and I would like to read the first clause. There have been some technical Amendments to the clause but they do not affect the sense. It runs as follows:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall

587
make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour."
In that sense, of course, "conspiracy" refers to something illegal in the United States which is not illegal in this country.
There is nothing illegal here in entering into a cartel or patent pooling arrangement with German, Japanese or other foreign companies. I do not suggest that there is conspiracy in the English sense, but in the American sense, if the indictment is correct, I think it will not be denied that there was conspiracy. Certainly I think it is generally understood that for many years before the war there was an arrangement between Imperial Chemical Industries, which I shall refer to with your Lordships' permission as I.C.I., the great American chemical and industrial combine of Dupont de Nemours, which I shall refer to as Dupont, and the great German chemical and dye combine, I.G. Farbenindustrie, which I shall refer to as I.G., with regard to certain markets. They kept out of each other's way in these markets. I do not think it will be denied that according to the Sherman Act, this was illegal in America. An arrangement "to divide the world into exclusive non-competitive areas" is a restraint on commerce according to the Sherman Act and therefore a conspiracy. The only evidence I intend to bring of this matter on my own knowledge is that when I was last in Sweden, a little time before the war, Swedish business men complained to me that when they tried to buy industrial chemicals or industrial explosives from England, because they did not want to trade with Germany—they had a great fear of what the Nazis intended to do —they were referred by I.C.I. to I.G. They were not allowed, they told me, to buy in England and they were forced to buy in Germany. That was apparently the condition of affairs in all Scandinavia.
Whether it is against public policy that this kind of thing should go on is a matter I am not raising to-day. That will be discussed in great detail by many other Peers and by many members in another place on many occasions in the future. It is one of the great subjects that will come up for debate and decision after the war. I am not raising the question of trusts or monopolies as such. The Home Secretary and others have indicated that it is a question which will have to be
588
solved in the future and on that matter I do not want to anticipate the great public discussions which will no doubt take place.
That is a different subject, and I want to say at once that, in my opinion, and from my own knowledge of this great combine known as I.C.I., which was founded by two former friends of mine, two great men, the late Sir John Brunner and the first Lord Melchett, this great monopoly in chemicals, explosives, fertilizers and the like has not been used harshly in this country. Domestically I.C.I. has treated the consumer fairly. I do not suggest anything different to that. And I have heard no complaints about the record of the company as an employer of labour. Also, I am aware that the research and development work carried on by I.C.I. has been of benefit to the nation and to its defence.
Now I come to the war period. I know that very large numbers of the personnel of I.C.I. have been lent to the Government. According to an answer which was given by Sir Andrew Duncan in another place no fewer than sixty-one of the holders of senior posts in the Ministry of Supply alone have been loaned to the Government for the duration of the war by I.C.I. I am sure that Lord McGowan and other directors of I.C.I. have not been behind the great masses of their fellow citizens in doing their best for the national war effort. What is it therefore that, if this information which is coming from America is well-founded, calls for inquiry? I do not suggest, as was suggested in another place, that there has been trading between I.C.I. and the enemy. I do not suggest that for one moment. That would be a matter for another court. But there are a number of indictments and accusations, and here I am going to base my statements only on what has been published in British newspapers.
Publicity has been given to remarkable statements with regard to this international cartel. The first I quote has been referred to by the Assistant Attorney-General of America. It suggests that there was a close alliance between these great chemical combines and that through subsidiary companies they formed a world-wide cartel in titanium. When the present war broke out, and the U.S.A. was still neutral, the National Lead Company, linked finan-

589
cially with Dupont, continued to supply and look after I.G.'s South American customers and to supply them and put aside a share of the profits to be transferred to I.G. after the war. That is one indictment. Incidentally, before Pearl Harbour—this is in reference to American trading with the enemy—every gallon of high octane petrol from the U.S.A., used in a British bomber over Germany, attracted royalties which it is stated were put aside for payment to I.G. after the war. Secondly, the Dow Chemical Company, an I.C.I. interest, have been found guilty of restricting magnesium production because of arrangements with the German Chemical Trusts. The Dow Company had agreed not to produce more than 8 000,000 lb. per year without the consent of the German companies.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, may I say that my company has no connexion with this American company?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am only telling your Lordships, if I may, what the charges are. I do not know if they are true or not. But they have been published in English newspapers and presumably in American newspapers too, and that is why I suggest that there should be an inquiry. I am not formulating these charges; they have been widely circulated, and I should think that the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, and those associated with him, would be glad to have them inquired into.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that it is proper—
LORD STRABOLGI: Whatever I say is proper, I can assure the noble and learned Viscount of that. I did not know that he had any concern in this matter.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am only con- corned to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it is proper that there should be an inquiry about something which, it occurs to me, is sub judice in the Courts of the United States?
LORD STRABOLGI: I will come to that matter, as I had intended doing, and will answer the noble Viscount. To continue what I was saying: the Dow Company had agreed not to produce more than 8,000,000 lb. per year without the consent of the German companies. They had also
590
agreed to limit their shipments to Britain to 300,000 lb. a year, and in pre-war years to ship 50 per cent. of their output to Germany at two-thirds of the price charged to Britain. Prior to the war—this is the charge—the Dow Chemical Company was owned jointly by I.C.I. and I.G. The German shares have been taken over by the British and United States Governments. The magnesium position, I am informed, is now very much easier, and it is being manufactured in Britain and in the United States in satisfactory quantities. Quite apart from the question of whether I.C.I. is interested in the Dow Chemical Company or not it would be interesting and, I think, important to know whether, in the early stages of the war, we and the United States were hampered in the production of light alloys, for example, by these restrictions of this international cartel.
Thirdly, the Remington Arms Company, a subsidiary of Dupont, refused to sell tetrazene to the British Purchasing Commission in the United States of America because of its arrangements with I.G. This charge was made nearly a year ago by the American Department of Justice. Seventeen months after the outbreak of war Remingtons warned the A.C. Spark Plug Company that it could not use tetrazene in ammunition sold to His Majesty's Government because of an agreement with the I.C.I. and I.G. Far-benindustrie. This agreement was defended, that is to say a defence was put forward by Remingtons, on the ground that the anti-British clause was inserted at the request of I.C.I. I understand that tetrazene has advantages as a primer for shells and torpedoes, and it is stated that its use was not exploited by the Defence Ministers of this country during, at any rate, the first period of this war, because of these restrictions.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is that of the hydrogenation cartel. A hydrogenation cartel, it is alleged, was formed of which Standard Oil was a partner and Dupont, I.G. and I.C.I. were members. In this case the Standard Oil Company was a partner. This cartel obliged the British, German and American companies to share each other's technical discoveries, and, for the benefit of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I may say that this was a finding of the Nye Committee. It is not

591
sub judice; it is chose jugée. I dare say that this pooling arrangement of trade secrets and technical discoveries afforded us some advantages by giving us access to the German discoveries, but the Germans also benefited. Standard Oil discovered how to make synthetic rubber, and dutifully handed over the secret to their German and Italian partners; but, after America's entry into the war, Standard Oil, when requested to do so by the American Government, refused to disclose its process to the American Government, because of its agreement with I.G., and it was prosecuted and fined. That is also chose jugée.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Fined for an offence according to United States law. What has that to do with us?
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not know that Lord Maugham was particularly interested in this matter; I thought that he was going to speak to us on technical research. What the noble and learned Viscount has not grasped is that these were activities, so it is stated, of an international cartel, one of the members of which was a great British public company.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My noble friend challenges me.
LORD STRABOLGI: You interrupted me.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: You turned towards me, and I thought that you were challenging me. I answer the challenge. I say that I do not understand the language of the Motion, unless my noble friend will point out to me in some way the nature of the charge. If the charge is only that something has been done by somebody against American law which is now being investigated, I should have thought that it was quite impossible for this House to go into it at all. We could not go into it if it was a charge which was sub judice here; a fortiori, if there is no charge in relation to British law, and it is merely said that something has been done contrary to American law, we cannot go into it. I could not say that until my noble friend had explained that that was his case.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry that I responded to the noble and learned Viscount's earlier interruption. I was coming to the very point he raises.
592
This arrangement for pooling patents and sharing technical secrets no doubt lapsed on the outbreak of war, as did the cartel arrangements with the Axis chemical companies; but the American Attorney-General and his assistants alleged that these arrangements have merely been put into cold storage—if I may use a slang expression—and that it is planned to revive them after the war. That is the charge against Dupont and the other American companies in the cartel. I do not know whether it is made against I.C.I. or not, but, as I.C.I. is part of this cartel, I suggest that an inquiry would be useful to clear the name of I.C.I. Above all, what I think we have a right to know is whether the war effort is still being hampered in any way by these cartel agreements, by what the Americans call the "conspiracy." It may be that the cartel agreements in certain directions are still hindering us, and in that case I think that the two Governments should take the matter up and remove all inhibitions and restrictions. Shortly after the formation of I.C.I. in 1926, it was stated in a letter from the London offices of Dupont that the British company's Chairman, Lord McGowan, had explained that the formation of I.C.I. was "only the first step in a comprehensive scheme which he had in mind to rationalize chemical manufacture in the world. The broad picture includes working arrangements between three groups—the I.G. in Germany, I.C.I. in the British Empire, and Dupont and the Allied Chemical and Dye in America. He hopes to develop some scheme involving financial ties binding the three groups together." That was in 1926, and there was no Nazi Government in Germany then, but, according to the Department of Justice, there was this working arrangement right up to the outbreak of the present war. In 1938, I.C.I. and I.G. between them, it is stated, established a company in Manchester—the Trafford Chemical Company—operating under joint British and German control.
Rationalizing chemical manufacture means restricting output and pegging prices. I am not concerned with prices here at all, but did this restriction of output—without which, of course, this rationalization scheme means nothing— contribute to the slow pace of our rearmament in the years immediately before the war, and in the early months of the war? The President of the Board of Trade has

593
been questioned in another place about these affairs, and he has called for a report by His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington.
I now come to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I am not moving for Papers as a formality; I would respectfully request His Majesty's Government that the report of the public proceedings, when it is received, should be issued as a White Paper, with such remarks of the Ambassador as can properly be published. One form of the defence used by the accused companies in America has been to attack the bona fides of the Department of Justice and of the American Law Officers. I trust that no such accusations will be made in this country against American officials. At the same time, I can imagine a grievance on the part of the directors of I.C.I. and their thousands of shareholders. I do not know whether they can be represented before the American tribunal or not, but these charges have been printed in the newspapers, and presumably have appeared in other countries. I suggest that they are very serious, and that matters cannot be left where they are. I presume that the noble Lords, Lord McGowan and Lord Melchett, will welcome an inquiry and an opportunity of answering charges which have received such wide publicity in the British newspapers, and probably in the Press of other countries. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MCGOWAN: My Lords, on the Motion raised by the noble Lord I welcome the opportunity of making a statement. Let me say at once that Imperial Chemical Industries is not indicted in the case to which the noble Lord has referred, but is merely named as one of the parties to the agreement with an American company. There is no suggestion that Imperial Chemical Industries, a British company, has in any way, directly or indirectly, done anything to be ashamed of, or in any way infringed the laws of this country. Actually the Motion raises two issues, one directly and one by implication. I will deal with both very briefly, for this is neither the time nor the place to enter into a long exposition. We have nothing to hide and-nothing for which to apologize. If I give the present brief explanation it is not to defend anything, because there is nothing
594
to defend, but merely as an act of courtesy to the noble Lord who has raised the Motion and to your Lordships' House.
The issue raised directly is the so-called cartel. This is a system of trade agreements. Some of these are of long standing, dating back as much as seventy-five years, to the very roots of the chemical industry in this country. They have, without doubt, greatly helped in the scientific development of that industry. Trade agreements of this nature, whether domestic or international, are entirely legal in this country, and have in fact been favoured by successive Governments. Indeed, in certain cases the Government have themselves intervened and used their influence to enforce cartel arrangements in oversea markets. If and when at any time Parliament enacts legislation to make cartels and trade agreements illegal such legislation would naturally be binding on all industrial concerns. If at any time the Government of the day even declared that they looked with disfavour upon such agreements, industry would naturally have to review its policy in the light of the new situation then created.
The underlying principle which Imperial Chemical Industries has striven for in cartel agreements is to retain as far as possible the British Empire Market for the British Empire. There is no secret in regard either to international or domestic trade agreements, or cartels, and full information in regard to them has always been, and still is, available to the Government. In the case which is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion this matter was discussed in correspondence and personal interviews with the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Economic Warfare in 1940.
LORD STRABOLGI: Which matter does the noble Lord refer to?
LORD MCGOWAN: The titanium matter. So far as the United States is concerned the position is entirely different. The Sherman anti-trust legislation has been in existence for a period of something like fifty years. During this period its interpretation has differed very widely. Within recent years the interpretation has been stretched and expanded to such an extent that it is frankly admitted by the Department of Justice of the United States Government that no citizen, nor

595
the Government itself, can define the meaning of existing legislation, and that each case must be dealt with on its merits.
The present case deals with certain American manufacturing companies who are producers of titanium oxide. This is a pigment derived from the titanium ore, ilmenite, the value of which lies in its non-poisonous character to the worker. Its production was developed many years ago by Norwegian and American interests, which in time came to control a range of patents and to sell their product on a small scale throughout the world. In 1933 the British firms, the I.C.I., the Imperial Smelting Corporation and Goodlass Wall & Lead Industries, approached these United States' interests for a share for Great Britain, the result being the formation of British Titan Products, Ltd., which erected works at Billingham and whose shareholders are the National Lead Corporation of America, 44 per cent.; Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., Imperial Smelting Corporation and Good-lass Wall and Lead Industries, 17 per cent. each; R. W. Greef & Co., also a British firm, 5 per cent. The effect of this arrangement was to ensure that the British Empire had its own supplies, being independent of foreign sources. There is no monopoly in this country, as another firm produce similar products by a different process.
Now the United States firms concerned are indicted for making this and previous arrangements on the ground that these are breaches of United States anti-trust laws. As I am informed, I.C.I. is not a defendant and is not indicted by the United States Department of Justice for any breach of the laws of the United States. It is named with half a dozen British and Canadian companies as one of the parties associated with the scheme. The innuendo contained in these newspaper references that British firms, including ourselves, were trading with the enemy is sheer nonsense. We are satisfied that if any such allegations were pursued in a Court of Law in this country or in the United States they would be shown not only to be entirely unfounded but utterly false. The British company in question put its problems to the Government more than three years ago. From
596
then on it has formulated its policy on the guidance then given it by the Government. This is only in accordance with the policy which Imperial Chemical Industries has itself pursued since the outbreak of war. Wherever, in our dealings with firms in neutral countries, we have felt that any question of enemy interests might be involved, we have placed the facts before the Trading with the Enemy Department in order that we might receive from them directions as to the proper course we should take in the national interest. Apart from procedure at law, if there is any information which any Government Department requires in regard to any of our commercial transactions, either foreign or domestic, I would like to repeat here what I have already stated to the President of the Board of Trade, that I.C.I. is entirely at the Government's disposal to answer any questions that they may care to ask, or to inspect any documents that they may desire to call for.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, the House will have been glad to have heard Lord McGowan's statement, and I now have briefly to state the view which the Government take of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi's Motion. In the view of the Government the noble Lord's suggestion is entirely misconceived. It is really necessary to state what the situation is in simple terms, and not clouded with too many details. The situation is this, that in the United States, under the law of the United States, certain United States companies are being indicted for breach of a United States Act, the Sherman Act. Of course, as my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham pointed out, that is entirely for the United States; I make no comment on it at all. I would not in any case do so, as the matter is sub judice. But in order that your Lordships may appreciate what is involved by raising this question in this way I would add two observations. First of all, the Imperial Chemical Industries—the I.C.I.— is not indicted for any breach of American law at all. Of course, no question of British law is involved. So far as I know, the I.C.I. is only mentioned in these American proceedings because it is alleged that the American companies have broken American law in connexion with agreements that they may have with non-

597
American companies. That does not involve the I.C.I., of course, in any charge or suspicion of crime at all. That is the first point.
The second point—and this will readily appeal to the common sense of the House without any elaboration—is that there could be no ground on which the British Government and British authorities should make inquiry whether there has or has not been a breach of the Sherman Act, which is an American law and not our law at all. Really, the suggestion of an inquiry is quite misconceived. And the suggestion has a serious disadvantage. The noble Lord who has put it forward explains that his motive, or one of his motives, is to assist in "clearing the I.C.I.'s name." Well, the suggestion has this disadvantage, especially when it is introduced with such language as that, that some thoughtless or careless people in this island may suppose that what is implied is that the I.C.I. have done something improper, or that there is some ground, known to the Government, or that ought to be known to the Government, for inquiry whether this company has not done something improper.
The noble Lord who introduced this matter assured us that he was not raising any question of trading with the enemy, but he referred to the questions which were put in another place to the President of the Board of Trade. I notice that among those questions was one raising this very issue, and that the President of the Board of Trade spoke in particular of the serious allegation that there had been trading with the enemy, and therefore the President was pressed and asked, in view of that very serious allegation, whether there should not be an inquiry. I am sure the House will be glad to note—I dare say that Lord McGowan and Lord Melchett will also observe—that although this question is put down, it is not intended to make any such suggestion; but if the matter to be inquired into included the suggestion that I.C.I. has, during the war, had commercial relations with a German company, an Italian company, or a Japanese company, all of which are mentioned in the noble Lord's question, let us be quite plain about it— that would be a suggestion that the I.C.I. had been trading with the enemy. Of course, such a suggestion should not be made, or even be given an opportunity
598
to be misunderstood, unless there is some adequate ground for making it.
Let me take the other side. If what is being referred to is the situation before the war broke out, then if agreements of this sort described by Lord Strabolgi existed before the war—I know nothing about it myself—they would, as far as I know, be legal. They would not be contrary to any British law; but, as indeed the noble Lord pointed out, they would be automatically terminated at the outbreak of war because, of course, as everyone acquainted with business or law knows, a current commercial agreement with a foreigner is frustrated and illegal when the foreigner becomes an enemy.
In view of the very grave matters which might be inferred from this question, I thought it right to make inquiries from the Government Departments which are specially charged with the matter of watching for any possibility of trading with the enemy. I made inquiries of the Trading with the Enemy Department. An opinion, I believe, was obtained from the Attorney-General in order that the highest legal advice should be secured. I made inquiries of other Departments concerned with such matters, and I am now in a position to state—and it is only just that I should state it—that there is nothing known to the Departments to suggest that I.C.I. has been guilty of practices contrary to the law. The company is under no suspicion for that or any other reason. On the contrary, the company has been completely co-operative in economic warfare, and appears to have done its utmost to assist this country against the enemy. Your Lordships will appreciate the full importance of that statement which I make as a result of close inquiry.
I must remind you in two or three sentences of what our existing machinery is. Lord Strabolgi proposes, in view of what he has heard or read, that there should be an inquiry set up. The Trading with the Enemy Department is a Department responsible to the Board of Trade and to the Treasury jointly. It is adequately staffed by skilled personnel. It is constantly engaged in examining transactions and in dealing with those that are suspect or might be open to any objection. It is assisted, mark you, by a postal, telegraphic, and cable censorship of commercial messages going abroad. No messages in a secret code are accepted.

599
There is no question whatever of a firm in this country sending in secret code any sort of communication abroad; it has all to go through the censorship. The whole system is designed to keep close watch and check over anything that might suggest a breach of the law.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to put the noble and learned Viscount to the trouble of going right through the defence against a case I have not made. I began by emphasizing that there is no suggestion of trading with the enemy in my indictment at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With the same materials which the noble Lord thought fit to bring before the House, it has been suggested in the House of Commons that it does imply that there has been trading with the enemy. I propose to take the opportunity of making the matter entirely plain—I am sure with the noble Lord's concurrence—to anybody who reads this debate. The Trading with the Enemy Code is a detailed code passed by Parliament for the purpose, which gives power to appoint an inspector of the books of any company, and even a supervisor of its business. Therefore the House will see, and I hope the noble Lord will see, that there is no need at all to invent a special inquiry, for the machine of inquiry already exists and is used by the authorities in every proper case, wherever necessary, even to the length of putting in an inspector to see what is going on inside, or even to the extent of putting in a supervisor in order to control each transaction as it takes place.
Let us realize, too, that if by any chance what has been published in this country, which is what we are discussing now, were to be understood by any body of people here as a hint of trading with the enemy, the punishment for such wicked crime is about as severe as you could imagine. The punishment for trading with the enemy may be as much as seven years' penal servitude, and in the case of a limited company (because you cannot send a limited company to gaol), the punishment may be applied to any director or official of the company who has consented or connived at the offence. Your Lordships will see, therefore, how serious a matter would be involved if that were the question. But, as I have said, the authorities have no ground whatever
600
for adopting the course suggested by the noble Lord. I will add this: if there were grounds which justified special action, I can assure your Lordships that what was being dealt with would be dealt with by a method of treatment quite different from the setting up of a mere general inquiry. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel that either his desire to help in clearing the name of the I.C.I., or his solicitude for those standards of rectitude in business transactions which he so rightly desires to uphold, calls for the adoption of his suggestion.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I rise only to explain why I asked a question of the noble Lord who moved the Motion. I have nothing to do with the I.C.I., I regret to say, nor with any other company named in the Motion. I have a training as a lawyer. When I had the honour to become a member of this House I was given to understand that there was a very clear distinction between the legislative powers of this House and its powers as a judicial body. There is no Court so high as the House of Lords when it sits judicially, but I am not aware that this House, sitting in its legislative capacity, ever interferes with legal matters at all while they are under the supervision either of a Court of Justice here or a Court of Justice abroad.
I confess that when I read this Motion I thought some charge was made, or was about to be made, against the I.C.I., the British public company mentioned, in reference to something which is contrary to British law. If it had been so it would have been perfectly wrong and contrary to the practice of this House to deal with it in this way at all if they had committed a breach of British law. You might apply in the proper quarter and have a prosecution launched, but it would not be right for this House to express any opinion whatever in the matter, and it would be quite contrary to the practice, or Constitution, of this country for His Majesty's Government to interfere, by directing an inquiry as to whether some breach of the law had taken place or not. But it turned out, and the noble Lord made it perfectly plain, that he is not charging any breach of any British law against the company. Then what is it? He has had the opportunity of reading out some statements from newspapers against American companies, and one or

601
two suggestions which may be against the I.C.I. That is not evidence. Then the whole question would be whether His Majesty's Government would take the step of directing an inquiry as to the propriety of the actions of the I.C.I. in reference to something in the United States of America or contrary to the laws which are in force in the United States. There again I should have thought it was an absolutely wild proposal to think that His Majesty's Government could properly direct an inquiry on that matter which for all I know will be inquired into in due course by the appropriate court to decide such a question. For that reason and none other I have intervened.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered unusual if I thank Lord McGowan for his speech in answer to mine. It contained information and was a serious attempt to deal with what he admits, and I am sure are, very weighty accusations being made not by me but in public.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Against whom are these accusations being made in public?
LORD STRABOLGI: Against, among other companies, the Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. The explanation he made seemed to me perfectly reasonable so far as he went, if my opinion is of any value. I did not expect him to reply because I did not give him notice, though I presume he knows about these charges. He did not deal with one of the most serious accusations, with the question of tetrazene which. I described. I think that should be dealt with as soon as possible, if I might suggest that in the most friendly way. It is a very serious accusation. It has received already some circulation and the sooner a statement is made, I suggest, the better. I sympathize with the Lord Chancellor if he will allow me to do so. He had to make his speech and he made it in answer to a case which I had not myself put forward. I never suggested for a moment that there was an accusation of trading with the enemy after war broke out. I made that, I thought, clear. It is quite a new experience to me to find a Lord Chancellor of the House of Lords answering suggestions made in another place. I dare say the Lord Chancellor has created one more precedent in your Lordships' House.
602
Now once more may I, with great respect to the noble and learned Lords in this House, with great legal knowledge, explain in two sentences the case for an inquiry? There are indictments in America against this great international cartel and some of the statements made which I have referred to are very extraordinary indeed. I should have thought it was necessary, and I still think, that there should be an inquiry, a corresponding parallel inquiry in this country, into the workings of this cartel to see, not whether there was a breach of the British law; that is not the case. I was pointing out that we should inquire and see whether the public interest, whether the trade, commerce and prosperity of our people, were affected, and whether our defence was hindered by this international cartel. That is the charge that has to be answered and it will have to be answered. I ask for Papers. I ask for an assurance —perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could inform me now or later—can we have a White Paper with the report of the Ambassador at Washington when it is received? That is the important thing. We cannot get these documents here. We only get truncated extracts from the Press and we have to make the best of them. Can we have the full statement from the Ambassador with, of course, anything confidential left out?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think I can say at once—the Lord Chancellor has made it absolutely clear—that there is no case of any kind in the view of the Government to inquire into, and obviously there is no need for the production of any Papers.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think the noble Viscount has followed what has happened. The President of the Board of Trade said in another place that he has called for a full report by the Ambassador, which I presume would include a full account of the case before the American Courts. That is what we need. Those are the type of Papers I ask for, and I think we are entitled to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What the President of the Board of Trade said in another place was that he had sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington and asked for particulars of the charges made. I do not find in his answer anything of the sort suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: Perhaps we can have that. I presume it would include a full account of what was happening before the American Courts. I hope we can have some assurance that these Papers will be laid.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have already answered the noble Lord and can say no more. The Lord Chancellor has made the position perfectly clear. In the view of the Government, as I have said before, there is nothing so far as the Imperial Chemical Industries are concerned to inquire into; therefore there is no need for the production of any Papers.
On Question, Motion negatived.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Munster, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name. The purpose of the Motion is adequately expressed in the words of the Motion itself.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of subsection (1) of Section eleven of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, praying that the said Act as amended by any subsequent enactment be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the twenty-fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-three. —(Lord Snell.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, this of course is a formal matter. I intervene only to raise a point because there is no other opportunity of doing so, and it is one which, if the noble Lord opposite is not able to deal with it, perhaps the Lord Chancellor would be kind enough to give it some consideration. It is this. Under the Emergency Powers Act a very large number of regulations and orders have come into existence amounting in all to a very great bulk indeed. I have not had an opportunity of verifying the numbers, but I have it in my mind that the
604
number is about a thousand. I know from my own experience and observation that the physical bulk is very great; in fact I have a set of them myself extending—I do not think I exaggerate—to a height of several feet. From time to time His Majesty's Government publishes a consolidated index to the regulations, but from the point of view of the commercial community and the practitioner that, while useful, is scarcely adequate. In order to meet the difficulties of the situation the suggestion which I would ask the noble Lord opposite to consider and perhaps be good enough to convey to the proper quarter is this, that periodically His Majesty's Government, in addition to issuing a consolidated index, should issue consolidated regulations. The present practice of having new regulations referring by numbers to existing regulations, some of which cover a long period of time and a variety of subjects, is extremely inconvenient in practice, and I think that His Majesty's Government will be conferring a real public benefit if it were found possible to issue, say, every three months or whatever interval of time may be necessary, sets of consolidated regulations. It is my recollection that that was done in the course of the last war, with very great public convenience.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a decision on that matter at this point, but I will undertake to convey the suggestion he has made to the proper quarter.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHELTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Cheltenham and District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for Affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.