Lords Sitting of 22 July 1943

Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
The Lord Kenlis (M. Headfort)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (BANBURY WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (HARROGATE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

FOREIGN SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, at the end of March last, a two-day debate took place in this House on the subject of certain far-reaching reforms in the Foreign Service which had been proposed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, in a White Paper which had just been issued. We had an
726
extremely full and comprehensive debate, and I do not intend, to-day, to traverse again the ground that was covered then. This, I think, is indeed the more unnecessary, as that debate, with the exception of a few rather melancholy prognostications by my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Monkswell, showed almost unanimous approval, on the part of the noble Lords who took part in the debate, of the proposals in the White Paper. I think that the only regret expressed by the majority of noble Lords who spoke was that the White Paper did not go further. So far as it went, it was regarded as eminently satisfactory.
To-day, I rise to introduce a Bill to give effect to those proposals, and to enable my right honourable friend to go ahead and implement them. Your Lordships will have noticed that the Bill does not cover the whole ground of the White Paper. Indeed, it is of a comparatively limited character. It says nothing, for instance, about the provisions of the White Paper for the improvement of the recruitment for the Foreign Service, which occupied the main part of your Lordships' debate in March last. That, if I may reassure the House, is not because the Foreign Secretary has weakened on that portion of his proposals, or that he has concluded, on second thoughts, that the White Paper went too far or too fast It is for the very simple reason that for the reform of recruitment for the Foreign Service no legislation is necessary. The present Bill is concerned only with those portions of the proposals of the White Paper which involve alteration in the existing law. It is a short Bill and a simple Bill, and I think that it should not take up very much of your Lordships' time.
The main provision of the Bill is incorporated in Clause 2. That, if I may be allowed to use so unparliamentary an expression, is the guts of the measure. The purpose of Clause 2 is to give effect to the proposal in Part V of the White Paper that the Foreign Secretary should be given power to retire on pension, before the age of sixty, men who are found unsuited to the highest posts. It is, I think, generally recognized that there are such men. In the Foreign Office, as in other public services, however carefully

727
men are chosen and trained, it is impossible to guarantee that all will fulfil their earlier promise, or that all will be found to be suitable for positions of the highest responsibility such as those of Minister and Ambassador. We all know such men ourselves. It is not their fault; they are often charming, hard-working and public-spirited, but they have not the qualities of temperament and character which are necessary.
In the days before this war, faced with this dilemma, successive Foreign Secretaries used to attempt to solve it by sending men of this type to posts which were referred to as of minor importance, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that that was never a satisfactory solution. For one thing, it is clearly never right to send even to a post of minor importance a. man who is not regarded as adequate to represent His Majesty's Government. Moreover, what is a post of minor importance, and how can one be certain that it will remain of minor importance? We can all recall instances within very recent years of countries which seemed far from any possible trouble, which seemed quiet, peaceful, unaggressive nations, and then suddenly, out of a blue sky, an appalling crisis blew up and the country concerned became the storm centre of the world. We cannot afford to run the risk of being inadequately represented, even in such posts as those.
There is also the further consideration that the very existence of such men as those who are dealt with in Clause 2 in the higher posts of the Foreign Service, clogs the channels of promotion and makes it impossible for younger and more brilliant men to rise rapidly in their profession. For these two reasons, I think it will be agreed that it is essential to make it possible for the Foreign Secretary to remove from the Service men who are unsuited to the higher posts. I do not suggest that there are very many of these men. My right honourable friend is not meditating a wholesale purge in the Foreign Service; in fact, there are very few who are likely to be affected by these new proposals. It is essential, however, that even those few should be eliminated if the Service is to be what it certainly ought to be.
It may, of course, be argued that the Foreign Secretary can already get rid of
728
members of the Foreign Service if he wishes to do so. Of course he can, but only by causing quite unjustifiable hardship. If a man is guilty of gross incompetence or inefficiency, the Foreign Secretary can dismiss him without a pension, and there is nothing in this Bill which affects such cases as that; but they are extremely rare. What the Secretary of State cannot do under the existing law, except in the special case of the head of a Mission who is withdrawn in the interests of diplomatic relations, is to retire with a pension a member of the Foreign Service under the age of sixty unless he is suffering from ill-health. All that the Foreign Secretary can do in the more normal case of men who are not guilty of any gross misconduct, but who are merely unsuitable, is to put them en disponibilité, which means that they get no pay at all until they reach pensionable age, the age of sixty. I think it will be agreed that that is very unfair to men who have committed no fault meriting dismissal, and who only have the misfortune to be not quite good enough for the highest posts. As the result there is, and has been now for some time, an inevitable tendency for Foreign Secretaries to try to find some posts for these officials, even though it may not be in the best public interest to do so.
The main object of this Bill is to avoid putting the Foreign Secretary into such an intolerable position as that. The Bill does not give members of the Service the right to initiate their own retirement; it merely enables the Foreign Secretary to exercise his present powers without inflicting hardship, and this is clearly desirable in the interests of the efficiency of the Service. If it is suggested, as it has been suggested in various quarters, that it is unjustifiable to give a man a pension for life after only ten or fifteen years' service, I would reply that I do not think that such a contention can be upheld. After all, the whole principle of a pension is that it is given for work which has been done; and, if a man has given fifteen years of his life to the public service, and has been retired for no fault which he has committed, it is surely inequitable that he should be thrown penniless into the street. Moreover, looked at merely from the sordid angle of the cost of the proposals, to retain men in posts of the highest responsibility, if they are unsuitable, is

729
surely far more expensive from the public point of view than to pension them off.
I should now like to say a few words about the rates of pension proposed in this Bill. This Bill disturbs a man's expectation of remaining in employment until he is sixty provided that he commits no crime and enjoys good health. A condition of employment being thus materially worsened by the action of the employer, it is considered that officers who are prematurely retired should be compensated. It is therefore proposed to take power to award, men retired under the Bill pensions slightly in excess of the normal scale under the Superannuation Acts. For example, a man who, if he could be retired under the present Act, would, if he had a salary of £900 a year and a service of sixteen years, be granted a pension of £180 with a lump sum of £540, could, under the proposals of the Bill, get a pension of £300 and a lump sum of £900. Similarly, a man with a salary of £1,200 a year and twenty years' service, could be granted a pension of £400 a year and a lump sum of £1,200, against £300 and £900 respectively yielded by the normal scale.
Noble Lords will have seen that, as a result of the discussions on this Bill in another place, it is now proposed that the scope of the Bill should be extended to cover officers of the rank of Second Secretary. This means that a Second Secretary or a Vice-Consul who is not found suitable for further promotion can be retired under the Bill. The stipulation of the Act of 1859 that no man shall be retired until he has served ten years still holds; and that is clearly right, I think, because it is important that no man shall be retired until there has been adequate chance of knowing how valuable his work is. If it is suggested that the Bill should apply to all ranks of the Service, I would explain that this particular Bill is a temporary one, which aims at ensuring that the higher posts shall be adequately filled now. It will be replaced after the war by comprehensive legislation designed to meet the needs of the new Service, which should by then have been organized in a way which is obviously quite impossible in war-time. The question of further extending the scope of the proposals to cover officers of subordinate rank can then be further considered; the mind
730
of the Foreign Secretary is open as to that.
The argument was advanced in the debate in another place that there is a danger that the powers which are given to the Foreign Secretary under this Bill may tend to discourage members of the Foreign Service from giving their views frankly and fearlessly. I personally think far too well of the traditions of public life in this country to count that a very real danger; but, in any case, my right honourable friend included in the White Paper provisions to guard against this possibility. He proposes to set up a Board to advise him on cases of retirement under the Bill, and this Board will have at its disposal a complete record of the man's career and of what he has done in the past. The Foreign Secretary, therefore, can be assured before he retires a man that his case has been fully and impartially examined. And, in addition, there is I think a further protection in Parliament itself. I am quite certain that if there was a case of serious injustice it would be immediately raised, either here or in another place, and the Government would be forced to justify their action.
Such is the main provision of the Bill. Its purpose is, as I have said, to enable unsuitable men to be retired before the age of sixty. The other objects, I think, can be explained briefly. Clause I and Clause 6 and the Schedule make such amendments to existing Acts of Parliament as are necessary as a result of the creation of the new Foreign Service. Clause 3 provides that when a member of the Foreign Service is recalled from his post abroad as a result of the war, and is employed in a. lower paid office, he shall not suffer in his pension rights. Clause 4 deals with the position of members of the old China Consular Service. Under the Superannuation Act of 1935 members of that Service were given the right to retire on pension at the age of fifty-five instead of sixty, provided that they continued to serve at a place at which members of the China Service were required to serve. Clause 4 ensures that they retain that right, although they may be required to serve in new posts in the China Service area and may in war-time have had to be recalled and employed temporarily at posts outside the China Service area or, as members of the new Foreign Service, at

731
posts where they have to perform diplomatic and not consular duties.
I hope that I have made the provisions of this Bill quite clear. It is, as I say, a very simple one and it will, I feel sure, also prove quite uncontroversial. The essential importance of an efficient Foreign Service has never been greater than it is to-day, and the proposals of this Bill are intended to ensure that efficiency. I believe the Bill is in the public interest as it is in the interest of the Foreign Service itself, and I would recommend it with every confidence to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Viscount Cranborne.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the Bill to which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has asked your Lordships to give a Second Reading implements those portions of the Command Paper which require legislation before they can become effective. It is therefore a very short Bill. The Command Paper to which I have referred has already formed the subject, as the noble Viscount told us, of a two days' debate in your Lordships' House, and the result was that the reforms outlined in that Command Paper met with general, if not quite universal, approval. I therefore intend to follow the example of the noble Viscount and not to revert to the arguments then used, because it would only be wearisome by repetition, and also because I assume that, as your Lordships have already welcomed the reforms set out in the White Paper, you will also welcome the Bill which is required for their enactment. But there is one point which still causes me very considerable anxiety.
When this Bill received a Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated in a concluding speech that he had presented all the reforms originally so as to give the whole of the picture. I assume that what the Foreign Secretary had in mind was that he had presented all the reforms relating to the Foreign Service as such, but that phrase "all the reforms" might possibly lead to some ambiguity because, as you are aware, there is one reform—namely, the reform of the central organization of the Foreign Office and its co-ordination with the other Departments of His Majesty's
732
Government—which was not included in the Command Paper but which, I think, in the general view is far more important than even the reforms set out in that White Paper. I did my utmost in the speech that I made before your Lordships on March 25, to emphasize this point, and various noble Lords were good enough to support me very strongly.
The Leader of the House in a sympathetic reply promised consideration for the various proposals that had been made in the debate, and himself seemed to feel— I do not think I am misrepresenting him—that some considerable overhaul was really required. He spoke of the existence of an economic department of the Foreign Office before the war which had now been reconstituted under another name. I am of course fully aware of the value of the work performed by that Department, but it was too small and it had not sufficient authority to coordinate the work of other Government Departments when the activities of those other Departments impinged, as they often did, on the field of foreign affairs. It is therefore necessary that this Department, in order to be effective and to give really authoritative advice to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on economic and on financial matters, should be strengthened and developed.
But, apart from this, I still earnestly hope that something will be set up in the nature of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I should be quite content to see a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet on which the various Departments concerned could be represented on the Ministerial level, and of whom the Chairman should be the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But such a Committee, to work satisfactorily, ought also to have represented in some way or other the Fighting Services and also the Bank of England, but above all it should have a special Secretariat of its own. That Secretariat should be located in the Foreign Office, and should be under the control of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Your Lordships well know how extraordinarily valuable to the Committee of Imperial Defence was the Secretariat of which, for a long time, Lord Hankey was chief.
Perhaps you may think I am rather too insistent oh this point. I should not be so insistent if I did not believe that it is of vital importance for a sound and

733
effective foreign policy in the future. I am not expressing only my own views on this point. I feel I am expressing the views of practically all those who held high diplomatic rank before 1939. I told the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in March that I intended to revert to this subject either by means of a fresh Motion or by a question after a certain period had elapsed, and after the Foreign Secretary had had time to consider the various proposals which had been made. I have not done so, and I hope now that the noble Viscount will reward my abstention, and give me some assurance that progress is being made on the lines I have indicated. If so, I shall not press him any further until later in the year, when I hope matters will have advanced sufficiently for him to be able to give us a satisfactory report. The problem is a specific one, and though the Leader of the House stated that proposals to deal with the central organization of foreign affairs raise the question of the whole machinery of government, I would urge that it should not become submerged in what may be a far wider and much more disputable examination of that machinery as a whole. I trust we may receive some reassurance on this particular point. Before I sit down it is meet that I should revert to the Bill itself, if only to say that I welcome it and trust your Lordships will give it the same measure of approval as you gave to the proposals contained in the Command Paper itself.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, if I intervene for a moment in this discussion—a Philistine among the connoisseurs of foreign affairs in this House —it is merely to associate myself and my noble friends with what has been said in recommendation of the Bill and to give, quite briefly, our grounds for joining in this general welcome. I may add the extenuating circumstance that when a prima donna is absent, it is not unusual for a reluctant understudy to be put on to play the role. We welcome this Bill as a first instalment of the programme laid down in the White Paper for the modernizing of the Diplomatic Service. In a society like ours which, under the levelling influence of war, is rapidly advancing from political to economic equality, it would be intolerable if any branch of the public service could lay itself open to the criticism that it remained, as it were, a last stronghold of
734
privilege of birth or wealth. Moreover, as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has pointed out, we shall need after the war on instrument of the utmost efficiency for carrying out the foreign policy adumbrated in the Atlantic Charter. This policy, on which world peace will depend, requires the velvet glove of diplomacy and the iron hand of force, in that order. What everyone wants is for the power of persuasion to be so effective that it will absolve us from any need to resort to armed force.
The two principal changes mentioned in this Bill both point in the direction of a more democratic and a more efficient foreign service. The fusion of the Diplomatic and Consular Services into a combined Foreign Service will enhance the efficiency of our diplomatic representation abroad by giving a wider field of selection and a more varied range of experience. It should also break down the social barrier that has hitherto divided the Diplomatic and Consular Services. The nature of this barrier is vividly illustrated by recent recruitment. Between 1930 and 1939, out of 74 entrants to the Diplomatic Service, 63 had a public school education, while 24 out of the 60 entrants to the Consular Service between 1930 and 1934 were men with grammar school or secondary school background. Both these admirable results depend on the success of the proposed changes in the training and recruitment of the Foreign Service. Will they secure the best men for the Service regardless of questions of social origin or educational background? I confess I am a little doubtful about the return to selection as a supplement to the written competitive examination, but according to the White Paper this innovation will only be tried out for an experimental period. I hope this trial period will last no longer than is essential to give the experiment a fair chance.
The second important change is the provision for retirement, with appropriate pensions, of men not entirely suitable for the highest posts. A man may in any profession, or any branch of the public service, do excellent work in a subordinate position, but just lack the qualities of initiative or judgment demanded by a Minister or Ambassador. (I shall say this in parenthesis. I wish that this admirable reform could be extended to the Colonial Service. It would bring to our Colonial

735
administration exactly the same advantage in efficiency at the highest levels, and would have none of the possible disadvantages of fusion between the Colonial Office and the Colonial Service.) But to return to the Foreign Service: It should not be forgotten that retention beyond the normal period of retirement may be in certain cases no less important in the public interest than removal. It is to be hoped that the normal retiring age of sixty will never become the inflexible rule. There will be much clamour after the war for the promotion of younger men, but the Foreign Secretary will, I am sure, remember that years are not a true criterion of capacity, as anyone listening to debates in your Lordships' House will realize, and that men of the calibre of Lord Bryce, Lord Carnock, or Lord d'Abernon should be kept in harness so long as they arc prepared to serve the State. I commend this Bill without reserve to the approval of your Lordships' House.
LORD TYRRELL: My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes in order to reinforce the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Perth. I have very little to add to them, but I should like to associate myself with him in saying that we all owe a very great debt of gratitude—so does the nation—to the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the reform which is embodied in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. It deals largely with an improvement in the personnel of the Services and as such will undoubtedly add to the efficiency of the Service. Under that head it will, I hope, receive the unanimous approval of your Lordships' House. I should also like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Perth in saying that this is only part of the problem. Two years ago I ventured to predict—and my forecast received the approval of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack— that at the end of this war no Department of State would have such calls made upon it as the Foreign Department, and for that reason alone, if for no other, we should concentrate on trying to make it as efficient as possible.
As regards its personnel, the present reforms will show their efficiency in time to come, but they do not deal with the machinery of government at home. That is to say, the Foreign Office itself for
736
many years has suffered from the absence of any department primarily responsible for watching the economic evolution of the world and trying to combine political and economic considerations when it came to advising the Secretary of State in deciding what foreign policy should be adopted. All those who have studied our foreign policy for the last twenty years agree in thinking that that is a weak spot which ought to be set right as soon as possible. I do not see any obstacle, once the principle of this idea has been conceded, in giving effect to it, because the Secretary of State now has power to go outside the Service in recruiting members for the Foreign Service. Thus he is enabled to set up an economic department in the Foreign Office presided over by a qualified man, whether from inside or outside the Service, who would see that the information pouring in from abroad was properly assimilated and distributed and that the Foreign Office was in close touch with the other Departments of State that deal with economic questions, such as the Treasury, Board of Trade, Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Labour. He would be able to present to the Secretary of State the considered opinion of all those Departments in regard to the formulation of our foreign policy apart from purely political considerations.
In the past political considerations have played, necessarily played, a predominant part in the framing of our foreign policy. In the present generation, ever since the last war, economic considerations have, I think, been almost equally important, and I have often ventured to make this general criticism on the Treaty of Versailles, that the great men who framed it did not sufficiently realize that economics played a greater part than purely political questions in the solution of the problems with which they had to deal. In other words, people were much more concerned with daily bread than with frontiers. I think that is very much more so now, and a proof of it has been given at the Conference at Hot Springs which I think is one of the most important Conferences that have taken place since the last war. It opens up a promise of international co-operation in the framing of economic policy which may help us to solve some of the trying problems that are ahead of us. I repeat that I think the creation of an economic depart-

737
merit now in the Foreign Office, which would have the powers to which I alluded very cursorily, would go a long way towards meeting the crying need of the day and would not entail any great revolution in our general mode of government.
I apologize to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for bringing up this again, but he has only himself to blame, because on the last occasion I warned him that the reform embodied in this Bill was small and merely whetted our appetites. Once again with all deference I wish to put forward our demand for more, and in doing so associate myself with my noble friend Lord Perth. I have nothing more to say except that we cannot exaggerate the importance of having a Foreign Office at the end of this war which will be able to meet the demands made upon it, and which in future will have the closest consultations with other Departments of State with whom I include the Service members who are in this country. By that means advice can be tendered to the Secretary of State which will enable him to recommend to his colleagues and to the country a policy based on fairness and proper consideration of national interests, which will be of sufficient force to enable it to impose itself upon and be accepted by our competitors in the world.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I will trouble your Lordships with a very few words only. First, I wish to say that I thoroughly support the provisions in this Bill. I only regret that there are not more of them and that the Bill is not more comprehensive, but I gather that a more comprehensive Bill will be introduced at a later date which we shall have every opportunity of discussing. As regards the clause which enables the Secretary of State to retire a man at an early age if he is found unsuitable for the higher posts, it is important to note that the provision of a period of ten years will be allowed to enable him to prove his capacity, or rather to show his incapacity. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said on a former occasion, the new Foreign Service and the old Diplomatic Service and all Services connected therewith are highly specialized. In my time there was the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic Service, the General Consular Service, the China Service, the Levant Service, all separate organizations; and, I may add, the
738
Dragomanate at Constantinople and the Oriental Chancery at Teheran were in fact separate services from the Consular Service. Now all these will be open to everybody in the Foreign Service, and I think it will be much easier perhaps to get the round men into round holes and so avoid the necessity of retirement at an early age. We shall see how it works out.
The second question I want to ask my noble friend is whether the present system of a language allowance of £100 a year for certain Oriental and Slavonic languages is to be continued, because I think it is a most useful incentive to younger men to study the languages spoken in their posts. Furthermore, in order to encourage men to learn the languages in the post to which they are accredited, I would suggest that this system might be extended to other languages and an allowance, say, of £50 given to a man who is competent in European languages and in those languages not so difficult to learn. That would ensure that young men serving in various foreign posts would be competent in the languages of the post to which they are accredited.
The last point to which I wanted to refer has already been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Tyrrell and the Earl of Perth—that is, the question of improvement in regard to commercial and economic questions in the Foreign Office. I imagine that will come forward either in the Bill we are promised or in a further debate which may be raised in your Lordships' House, so I will not say more about it now. From the experience I have had of the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office I welcome this Bill entirely, and I hope it will prove satisfactory to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I said I hoped it would prove un-controversial, and that happily is very much the case. Through the whole of the debate the actual provisions of the Bill have hardly been mentioned once. The discussion has ranged entirely around ancillary subjects, not those included in the Bill. However, one or two points were raised with which I would like to deal briefly. There was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the principle of selection. He said he was a little

739
bit anxious about the principle of selection being introduced into the arrangements for the recruitment to the Foreign Service. I understood he was anxious because he felt that this proposal was retrograde and might tend to perpetuate a privileged class. If it will reassure him, may I mention the analogy of the Colonial Service? The noble Earl will know that the principle of selection for the Colonial Service has been followed for en years, and the exact opposite to what he fears has proved to be the result. The proportion of successful candidates coming from the great public schools and the older universities is smaller in the Colonial Service now than at the time when there was a system of recruitment by examination. One may hope that the same result may be found in the case of the Foreign Service.
The noble Earl also said—I thought with great force—that he hoped sixty would not be the ultimate age at which members were allowed to remain in the Foreign Service. I think we should all absolutely agree that it would be disastrous if there was a rigid rule of that kind. In your Lordships' House we have a shining example to the contrary, if I may mention the matter in his presence, in my noble friend Lord Tyrrell, who I think remained at Paris until he was well over sixty and to whom the country owes an immense debt of gratitude for what he achieved there. I know from what the Foreign Secretary has told me that it is his strong personal view that there should be the maximum of elasticity in the interpretation of this rule. Of course there must be a standard age at which members of the Service would usually retire, but with the right man in the right place obviously any sensible Foreign Secretary would continue him for a few more years.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked whether the special allowance of £100 for Oriental and Slavonic languages is to be continued. The answer is yes, it certainly is. He made a further suggestion that this allowance should be extended for other languages. I cannot give an answer to that suggestion now, but I will certainly transmit it to my right honourable friend. That also applies to the much larger and more important proposal for an economic department in the Foreign Office, raised by my noble friend
740
and Lord Tyrrell. I will certainly pass that matter also to my right honourable friend.
Now I come to a matter which is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, but which it is no doubt legitimate in a debate of this kind to bring before your Lordships. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, reverted to the main point he made in the debate on the White Paper in March last, and he has had the very powerful support of my noble friend Lord Tyrrell. As I understand it, the noble Earl makes no complaint of the actual provisions of the Bill but holds that neither it nor the proposals in the White Paper go far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrrell, said or implied that "l' appétit vient en mangeant." I would remind him that this country is at present under a strict system of rationing. I hope therefore he will not expect too much. At the same time the point which Lord Perth and he raised is one of vital importance in the whole question of government. The noble Earl expressed the view that there is necessity for better co-ordination between Government Departments in matters relating to foreign policy, and he indicated the kind of machinery for such co-ordination which he believed would be effective in producing the result he desires —and which indeed we all of us desire. At the time of the March debate, when the noble Earl first raised this question, I gave him an undertaking that I would transmit the proposals to my right honourable friend, who was at that time, as your Lordships will remember, in Washington, on his return. I did so in virtue of my undertaking to the House.
The noble Earl asks what is the position now. He felt, I think, a certain anxiety as a result of the debate in another place, because my right honourable friend in speaking on the Bill did not touch on this particular point. I do not think he need be worried. The reason why my right honourable friend did not mention the subject was no doubt that he was speaking on the Bill and the rules of order in another place are not quite so elastic as in your Lordships' House. I know very well that my right honourable friend has studied this proposal with very great interest and sympathy. At the same time it is clear that the noble Earl's scheme of co-ordination cannot be considered in isolation. What he really is proposing, if I may so express it, is to

741
build on a new wing to the structure of government. That must involve, if it were approved, a measure of reconstruction, or at any rate of reconditioning, of the whole edifice. The present position is that the noble Earl's proposal has been submitted to a Committee which is examining it in conjunction with others that affect the machinery of government. It: will be considered by His Majesty's Government in due course, in the light of the report of that Committee. I can assure the noble Earl it will not be swamped by the consideration of any wider problems before the Committee.
I am certain my noble friend will not expect me to say any more to-day. But I should like to assure him that the Government are fully alive to the importance of the point he has raised and will examine the proposal with all the care it deserves. My noble friend made, I thought, something in the nature of a threat at the end of his speech when he said that he has shown great restraint, but he might not be able to hold himself in much longer and might have to return to the attack in the autumn. I shall be delighted if he does return to the attack, but I would not like to promise that I shall be in a position to give him definite information when he does. He must just keep on pegging away, and the Government will keep pegging away. I should like him at any rate to know that the Government are not being dilatory about this question. It does raise very serious issues, and it must be considered in conjunction with other matters relating to the structure of government which are under examination at the present time.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before we part with this Bill, may I intervene to say that if my noble friend the Earl of Perth returns to the attack, he will have the support of many people in this quarter of the House? We sympathize with his views and we propose to support them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EMERGENCY POWERS (ISLE OF MAN DEFENCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I do not think that I need delay your Lordships for more than a very few moments in asking approval for the Second Reading of the Bill which seeks to remove an existing loophole in the law applicable to the Isle of Man, and to this country. The National Service Acts of 1939 and 1940, and the first National Service Act of 1941, have all been applied to the Isle of Man by Order in Council, thus subjecting men under the age of 41, who are resident in the island, to the same liability for military service as men under the same age who happen to be resident in this country. Women and men over the age of 41 can, under a Defence Regulation now operating in the island, be directed to perform Civil Defence duties and to undertake other work of national importance. There is, however, an absence of any power to direct persons in the Isle of Man to take up work in this country, and thus a loophole exists in cases where persons who are ordinarily resident in this country, can avoid their obligations by transferring their place of residence to the Isle of Man. So far as my information goes, I do not believe that there is any large number of persons who have avoided their duties to the State, but nevertheless a loophole does exist, and it is the intention of my right honourable friend to close that gap.
Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the only clause with which I think I need trouble the House, enables regulations to be made requiring persons in the Isle of Man to take up work of national importance in this country. Persons ordinarily resident in that island on August 24, 1939, are to be exempted from service outside the island unless the local Legislature agrees that such obligation should be imposed upon them, but there will be power, under this Bill, as soon as it becomes law, for persons who were not ordinarily resident in the Isle of Man on that date, to be directed to undertake service in this country. Your Lordships will observe that we are, therefore, ensuring that no man or woman can escape his or her obligation by transferring his or her place of residence from this country to the Isle of Man. The measure is, I think,

743
in no way whatever controversial, and I feel certain that your Lordships will approve of the action which is being taken against those people, however few in number, who have endeavoured to avoid their duties to the State in times of grave national emergency. I do not think I need say more, in view of the other Motion which is on the Paper, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH POLICY IN CONTROLLED COUNTRIES
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to a prevailing impression among Allies, neutrals, and enemies that, contrary to the Atlantic Charter, it is an object of British policy to secure the dominance of Left Wing principles in any country which the Allies may control; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on June 3 last I asked His Majesty's Government whether, in pursuance of the principles of the Atlantic Charter, it is a part of the policy of the Allies to prevent the seizure of arbitrary power by any person or party in any country of Europe pending the adoption by free choice within such country of the form of government which its inhabitants desire. The noble Leader of the House, answering me on that occasion, said that he was unable to deal fully with the substance of my question owing to the necessity of our Allies being taken into consultation, and also owing to the great differences which must exist in various countries of Europe after the war. He was unable to do more than to give me, at the end of his speech, an assurance in the following words:
"But I can assure the noble Lord—and I think that is really the assurance he wants—that the aim of the United Nations will certainly be the re-establishment of Governments representative of the wishes of the peoples concerned."
I replied to that that I was well satisfied with what he said, and that I realized fully that he could not go further. But he had enunciated and reaffirmed the principle contained in the Atlantic
744
Charter, and I will say the same to him to-day. I do not expect him, on this point, to say more than he did before, and having affirmed this principle of impartiality on the part of our Government towards future Governments in other countries which they might control, I think we must leave it at that, under assurance, at the same time, that measures will be taken to ensure—if I may so express it—that the pitch is not queered in any country that may be affected. In this connexion may I just direct the attention of those of your Lordships who have not seen it to an extremely interesting contributed article by an anonymous correspondent which appeared recently in the Sunday Times, with regard to the likelihood of the necessity arising for some such action particularly in the countries of south-eastern Europe?
There was one point which I made in the last debate upon which the noble Leader of the House did not dwell. I said, in the course of my speech, that there is an impression prevalent in the world that it is part of the British policy to abet Left elements in other countries. Now I have, since June 3, had good reason to believe that the view that there is such a prevalent impression is not generally accepted. The information I have on the point is quite explicit and comes from persons who are at once unbiased and responsible. That information is that there is such an impression. But, of course, I am in this difficulty: I cannot bring legal proof of the fact that this impression generally exists. I fully believe from all that I have heard that it does. I think—for reasons which I need not now go into—that, although it is completely erroneous, it is not unnatural that it should be held.
But I cannot go further than that. I cannot, for example, with regard to neutral countries, subpoena, shall I say, the Chancellors of the Universities of Upsala, Salamanca, Coimbra and Zurich to come and bear testimony as to what their professors and students think on these matters. Nor can I do that in the case, shall I say, of the Mayors of Kansas City, Denver or Memphis. I could not subpoena them. Yet I fully believe, from all I have heard, that this impression is at least as prevalent in America as elsewhere. I want the Government to set their intelligence to work and go into this

745
matter and see what the position is. Let them do it in the Allied countries, in neutral countries and, by no means least, among the refugees from the occupied countries whom they may be able to take into their confidence. If I am right in my impression, the position is really serious; to a greater or lesser extent we may lose at any rate the enthusiasm and perhaps the friendship of many elements in different countries. Obviously if you seem to lean to one side you will lose something of the ardour of those who are on the other. That would be equally true if it were thought that we wished to impose the principle of autocracy.
I referred on the last occasion to Hungary, but Hungary is only one instance. If it were thought that this was a real tendency of our policy, it would affect many sections of opinion in different countries; it would affect the stubborn, Calvinistic conservatives of Holland equally with the Catholics of Belgium, and almost all Parties in Hungary, who remember their experience under Bela Kun. This impression, of course, also plays into the hands of Goebbels in Germany. Goebbels has made it his trump card that there is no other choice except between Nazism and Communism, and I have no doubt that he has persuaded great multitudes of his own people that that is so. He has, as it were, compounded a sort of inflammatory drug, a kind of bhang, and made people fight under its influence, holding before them the spectacle of Communism all the time. I suggest, therefore, that something must be done in Allied, neutral and enemy countries to counteract this tendency. An occasional Ministerial utterance is not enough. What my noble friend said the other day was good, and the Prime Minister has made excellent pronouncements with reference to France and to Italy; but something more sustained and emphatic is necessary.
I look on this as a war measure. I do not look upon it from the point of view of tenderness to enemy countries in particular, but I do want to ensure that resistance is weakened even there by the assurance that we are not going to swing round in favour of any one Party in our future dealings with these countries. Let me repeat what I said the other day: this is absolutely apart from any question of security in the future. So far as Germany
746
is concerned, I believe that we must take exactly the same precautions whatever Government is set up there. It is no use supposing that if democracy is planted in Germany it will bear nothing but lilia pacifica. It will not; partly because, as we have seen in Germany, a democracy may easily turn into an autocracy, and partly because it is not possible to be sure that even a democracy will always be pacific. I was gently chided by my noble friend the other day when he told me that it was not the fact that democracy was as likely to be aggressive as autocracy. I did not say that it was as likely to be aggressive, but I do think that it might be, and I would cite again the example of the Jacobins and, if I may go back some way, I would cite the old Assembly at Athens, which was quite as willing to make war or to order a general massacre of rebels as any tyrant.
I have put at the end of my Motion a request for Papers. That is a usual suffix to any Motion of this kind, but I have one small suggestion to make. Would not it be possible to bring out a small popular edition of the Atlantic Charter, explaining its meaning and with a commentary on it? I suggest that that might be translated and circulated in all the countries where it might have an effect. Again, I am not sure that our broadcasting is sufficient to make it clear that we shall preserve an unbiased impartiality towards settlements in the future. However, that is not my business; the Government themselves, if they recognize the seriousness of this matter, will have their own means of dealing with it. All I want to be sure of is that, having in the Atlantic Charter committed themselves to the right of peoples to choose their own Government in the future, and to our impartiality in helping them to do so, that assurance will be made effective. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like heartily to support the proposal made at the end of Lord Rankeillour's very interesting speech, when he suggested that the Government might consider the issue of a popular edition of the Atlantic Charter with annotations and explanations. I think we should all like that very much indeed, especially so far as that part of it which deals with the right of self-determination is concerned. I hope that if the Govern-

747
ment adopt that suggestion, which I strongly advocate, they will deal particularly with how the Atlantic Charter applies to Eastern countries. Before the noble Viscount replies, I should like to make an observation or two on what has fallen from the noble Lord. I think that the Foreign Office are in a happy position in answering this question, because on the one hand the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, suggests that they favour what he describes as Left Wing movements—
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I correct the noble Lord? I did not say that they favoured them; far from it. I said that there was a prevalent impression that they did.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, that there was a prevalent impression that they did, whereas there are very loud complaints in this country of an exactly opposite nature. There have been strong criticisms in this country to the effect that the Foreign Office and the Government generally favour movements of the other kind, and the Government are therefore in the happy position of being able to say, "We must be right, because we are taking the middle course." Lord Rankeillour mentioned the United States. Far be it from me to say anything about the policy of the State Department, but Americans themselves, and especially those usually described in that country as liberals ("liberals" with a small "1"), heavily assail and criticize their State Department for, as they say, appearing to support reactionary elements, and even in some cases Quisling Governments, in Europe. I myself would not bring that charge against the State Department, but responsible Americans in large numbers do so. Lord Rankeillour's speech, which will certainly be taken notice of in Washington, will therefore give the harrassed State Department some comfort.
If I may respectfully make the suggestion to the noble Lord, I think that the terms "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" are both obsolete in Europe, especially in countries which have been under German occupation. Hungary is in a different category, but certainly in Belgium, Holland, Norway and France the division is quite different. I heard my-self quite recently M. André Philip, a very
748
distinguished French statesman who holds an important post in the Committee of National Liberation; he was newly come from France, where he had suffered with his compatriots the agonies and humiliations of the occupation of these barbarians, and he told us that there was no longer any talk of Right Wing or Left Wing in France; the old Party boundaries had been obliterated. The division in France and in the other countries of Western Europe which have been occupied by the enemy is between those who have collaborated with the invaders and those who have resisted—that is the division.
I presume that His Majesty's Government are in no doubt as to what their attitude will be, and that they can on no account have any dealings whatsoever with those who have collaborated with and assisted these enemies of civilization. The noble Lord did not mention Poland. In Poland, I gather, there is not even that division. The Germans have been unable, to the great credit of the Poles, to find a single Quisling of any account whatever; and in other countries I believe they are not finding Quislings of any substance. But in France there has been the most important collaborationist movement of all. I am bound to say this also —I think it is right it should be said: the Darlan episode, as it has been called, did a great deal of harm in France. I am assured of that by Frenchmen whose patriotism and value in the common cause is beyond question. It was there greatly misunderstood. I do not want to go into it now, because the situation in North Africa is rectifying itself, and all reports seem to show that North Africa is settling down. But I do hope that His Majesty's Government have learnt a very sharp lesson from that episode, and that there will be no more welcoming or embracing of Darlans in Italy or in any other country. I am delighted to see that in Libya the British occupying Army has appointed suitable officers who are rooting out and destroying all traces of Fascism there, and I gather that the same thing is being done as far as possible in Sicily. That at any rate shows that the Army are well aware of the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
My noble friend Lord Rankeillour was very interesting in his reference to Hungary. I do not know why we should have any tenderness for the susceptibili-

749
ties of the present ruling clique in Hungary. I understand they have been putting out peace feelers lately, which have had the proper reply that they must surrender unconditionally. We tried to help the Hungarians. They also for years expressed tremendous friendship for us, and if the present reactionary régime is overthrown by a popular movement I think it will be a very good thing for that country and tor our whole cause. We should have no tenderness for these people it is a curious thing that in Europe the Quislings, where they have been found—in Hungary, Holland, Belgium and France—have come from those who before this great division have been described as belonging to the Right Wing or Conservative Party. It has been the propertied classes in Europe, where the Party divisions are unfortunately horizontal, instead of being, as they are in this country, more or less vertical, among whom the Quislings, fortunately few in number, have been found. They have not come from the working classes, they have not come from the Left Wingers, and if there is any doubt in the mind of those who have the great settlement to make afterwards they will be quite safe with the Left Wing and those who have done their best to hamper and hinder this great tyranny in their country.
VISCOUNT GRANBORNE: My Lords, there is to be a Royal Commission, and I think it would be better if we adjourned this debate now until after the Commission. I do not intend to keep your Lordships for long, but I think perhaps my speech will lake rather more than the five minutes which are still available.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bilk received the Royal Assent:

Finance,

Town and Country Planning (Interim Development),

British North America,

Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation,

Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bucks Water Board),

750

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chiltern Hills Spring Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Banbury Water),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Harrogate),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wetherby District Water),

London County Council (Money).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BRITISH POLICY IN CONTROLLED COUNTRIES.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I do not intend to follow Lord Strabolgi on to the rather controversial ground on which his speech ended, as to the most fruitful breeding ground for Quislings. That no doubt is an extremely interesting topic, but I do not think it really comes within the terms of the Motion which your Lordships are discussing this afternoon. I therefore propose to confine myself to the specific point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour. On the earlier occasion when this subject was debated, he was good enough to say at the end of the debate that he was satisfied with the reply that I then made, and he has repeated that to-day. I am most grateful to him.
In raising this matter a second time he is actuated, so I understand from his speech, not by a desire that I should elaborate my earlier statement but by somewhat different motives. He considers, at least if I understand him aright, that his earlier speech and my reply have not received sufficient publicity in the quarters for which he intended them. If that is indeed so, I am of course delighted to repeat the assurance which I then gave to the noble Lord. Whether it will produce the desired result I am, I confess, a little doubtful. We are, my Lords, in this country fortunate in that we enjoy the blessings and benefits of a free Press. But what does that in fact mean? It means that, subject to security considerations and to suggestions which I believe

751
my right honourable friend the Minister of Information occasionally ventures to offer, newspapers use their own judgment in deciding what to publicize. News print at the present time, as your Lordships know, is very strictly controlled and the selection of items for reproduction in news print is a subject of anxious scrutiny by those concerned with these matters on the staffs of newspapers every day. The noble Lord said himself in the previous debate that the impression which he says has gained currency as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government—namely, that they are abetting certain sectional elements in occupied countries—is both untrue and absurd. I am afraid that newspapers may well have come to a similar conclusion and therefore have decided to omit all reference to the debate as lacking the necessary news value. One can only hope, for my noble friend's sake, that on this second occasion they will revise their opinion.
The noble Lord also, I gather, is not altogether happy about the steps which have been taken by our foreign propaganda to dispel this illusion which he has described. He says, and I do not question it, that this erroneous impression is widely entertained and should be refuted. He put forward two propositions, as I understood, for this purpose. The first is that a booklet should be produced giving a reprint of the Atlantic Charter and an interpretation of the various clauses of the document. There are very real difficulties about that. If the noble Lord will look at the speech of the Prime Minister when he came back from his visit to President Roosevelt, he will find that my right honourable friend made it perfectly clear that he could not undertake unilaterally to interpret the meaning of a bilateral document. That document has now become not only bilateral but multilateral, and I think if every Government concerned were to begin to produce booklets giving their own interpretations of the various clauses, it might possibly lead ultimately to some considerable confusion. The second proposition which Lord Rankeillour put forward was, as I understood it, that greater publicity should be given to today's debate and to the reply which is given on behalf of the Government.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I do not think I said that. I said that broadcasting as to the meaning of this clause of the Atlantic Charter should be insisted upon more by the B.B.C. in foreign propaganda.
LORD CRANBORNE: I accept the noble Lord's correction: that there should be more constant broadcasting as to the meaning of this particular clause in the Atlantic Charter to which Lord Rankeillour has referred. I will certainly put that suggestion forward to the authorities concerned. But I would remind the House that in too frequent repetition there are also dangers which one must not forget. In no field of life is the old truism Qui s'excuse s'accuse more true than in the field of propaganda. By constantly reiterating in broadcasts all over the world that some accusation is a lie, that accusation tends to be given a much wider circulation than it would otherwise have had. It is heard by countless people who would not otherwise have heard it and who may end by believing that it has some, perhaps not very great, but some substratum of truth. Propaganda to be successful must, I believe, be predominantly positive. The main purpose of our propaganda must be not to reiterate what our policy is not, but to concentrate on saying what our policy is.
Last month when we had our former debate on this question I tried to define what the policy of His Majesty's Government is in relation to the subject which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour. I am sure he would not wish me to repeat in full all that I said on that occasion. I therefore would like to state quite briefly, but I hope unequivocally, that the immediate desire of His Majesty's Government is to bring encouragement and hope of liberation to the enslaved peoples of Europe, to support those elements who are prepared to act at the right moment against our enemies and to encourage them to unite for that purpose. That is our immediate aim, and I would add—it is really a repetition of what I said to your Lordships last time—that when the Allied countries are liberated it will be the aim of the United Nations, and in particular of His Majesty's Government for whom alone I can speak with authority, to apply the principles enshrined in the Atlantic Charter and to re-establish Governments

753
representative of the wishes of the peoples concerned. I hope that this statement which I have repeated makes the position abundantly clear, and that the noble Lord will now feel that it is possible for him to withdraw his Motion for Papers.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for what he has said. There is only one point I would make. I did not suggest that the B.B.C. should go on saying "We want to deny a mendacious report," but merely that they should when occasion offered enlarge on the principles of the Atlantic Charter positively. They might not even mention that there was such a mendacious propaganda about at all. As to the rest,
754
I have nothing more to say except that I think there was very considerable justification for bringing this matter before the House in the latter part of Lord Strabolgi's speech. I certainly do not wish to be kind to Hungary, but I want more people in Hungary to lay aside their fears that they will not have a free choice when the time comes. That was my sole purpose and it applies to all other countries. I again thank the noble Viscount for the reiterated declaration at the end of his speech, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.