Lords Sitting of 16 March 1943

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

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to describe the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the food production campaign, and I will confine my remarks to the various clauses of the Bill. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable us to continue to carry out a policy which I feel has not been altogether unsatisfactory. From time to time we learn by experience that various amendments to Miscellaneous Provisions Bills are necessary, and it is for that reason that this Bill is before your Lordships and also, I am afraid, that to a certain extent the Bill can be termed legislation by reference.
If it will be for the convenience of your Lordships, I propose to deal first with the clauses on land drainage which are Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive and Clause 10. Before I deal with each individually I will give a few figures to show the activities which have been sanctioned during the war period up till the end of February, 1943. There have been sanctioned 10,830 mole drainage schemes, 19,725 tile drainage schemes, 66,011 farm ditch schemes and 5,338 drainage schemes for small areas, while 163 catchment board main river schemes have been sanctioned. The total number of schemes is over 102,000 and the amount of land which has been affected is not less than 4,500,000 acres. Some of the 163 catchment board schemes were too big to be carried out during this war, and these have therefore had to be postponed until easier times. I may add here that this Bill is in no way intended to amend the Land Drainage Act of 1930, and its provisions are introduced only
642
in order that we may continue the work which we have undertaken.
Coming to Clause 2, the purpose of the clause is to provide a further extension of the period for which grants to drainage authorities remain available under Section 15 of the Agricultural Act, 1937. This period has already been prolonged by fresh legislation, but in order that we should not feel that we cannot plan for the future the time limit has been suspended. Clause 3 is intended to remove a small minor obstacle. Previously, under the Act of 1930, drainage schemes could only be carried out with a grant provided they were on agricultural land. Owing to the war emergency, certain places such as a golf course may have been mole drained, and a golf course did not come under agricultural land for that purpose. To bring that class of land into line this clause has been introduced. Clause 4 contains a series of minor amendments to Section 14 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1940. The changes proposed provide for a variation of approved schemes whereby the Ministry may regain payment of expenses incurred by drainage authorities in preparing schemes which subsequently prove abortive, and deduction from the landowners' share of the cost of a scheme of contributions made from other sources. I should like to add that there is a provision which enables a landlord, in the case where drainage operations have caused extra expenses through neglect on the part of the tenant, to obtain repayment of sums paid by him.
Clause 5 refers to reclamation schemes carried out by and on behalf of the Minister under the Defence Regulations. Under the 1941 Act the Minister has power to recover the proportionate expenditure on such schemes either from the drainage board, if the work in question has been carried out within the board's area, or, alternatively, from the landowners whose land has increased in value for agricultural purposes. No special provision is made to deal with exceptional cases where work may be done in connexion with the catchment board's main river. It is clearly inequitable that anyone should be charged with the cost of work other than the catchment board. Clause 6 is likewise needed in connexion with reclamation schemes. This clause is only operative during the war.

643
Clause 7 is designed to remove the anomaly by which statutory drainage authorities, unlike other local authorities, are authorized to pay the expenses incurred by their members when they undertake work by travelling round the country. Under the present scheme they may only allow expenses if members attend meetings of the full board. Under war conditions it is very often necessary for many inspections to be made by subcommittees and this will allow them to have their expenses repaid. Clause 8 provides for assessment of drainage rates to be adjusted so as to take into account any increase effected in the value of rateable land by improvement works carried out wholly or partly at the public expense. This is a purely temporary measure, and the clause accordingly provides that any assessment made by a drainage board in pursuance of this new power shall lapse when there is a fresh quinquennial valuation which, owing to war conditions, was not carried out in 1940. The object of Clause 10 is to give effect to representations made by the National Farmers' Union and the Catchment Boards' Association. Amendments to this clause will be proposed at a later stage and therefore I will leave the matter until that stage is reached.
Now I will deal with some of the other clauses starting with Clause 1. This is a retrospective clause which increases from one-half to three-quarters the amount provided by the Exchequer towards the cost of acquiring and transporting lime for use on agricultural land. Clause 9 is, I think, reasonable. Where water has been supplied either by direction from the county war agricultural executive committee or under a scheme approved by them, it is right that the landlord should recover from the tenant interest in the shape of rent on his capital outlay. Clause 11 deals specifically with grazing. At this moment the only area which we can see will be involved is on the Fells in Cumberland. There is a large area where grazing has more or less become a right through many years, and it is felt that where, either by ploughing and reseeding or drainage, this grazing may be very largely improved, it is only right that the people who graze the land and therefore benefit from such improvement should pay a reasonable proportion of the outlay. Clause 12 refers to the extension
644
of time from six months to twelve months in order that no further moneys should be lost to the State owing to the previous time limit having been too short.
I come now to Clause 13. Section 23 (2) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940, enables the Minister, where he has taken possession of land under the Defence Regulations, in cases where the land was at the time possession was taken not being cultivated, or not being cultivated in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, to acquire that land. It may be that where certain land was taken over under Regulation 50 of the Defence Regulations, he is entitled to possession of that land for three years after the war but at this moment, as soon as the war ends, the Minister is not allowed to carry on any work on that land. This clause merely makes it possible for the Minister, whilst still in possession, to carry out any such work should be think it necessary.
Clause 14 extends Section 26 of the Act of 1940. This facilitated the ploughing up of grazing land previously let on 364 day tenancies and land not being used for agricultural purposes or land acquired for building which, pending development, is vacant or let for grazing, by excluding the land from the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and thus securing that it could be ploughed up in the interests of the food production campaign. If Section 26 had not been enacted it would, in fact, have been necessary for owners of such land to let it on ordinary agricultural tenancies which would have necessitated a twelve months' notice to quit being given on either side and would have rendered the landowner, if lie wished to obtain possession of the land after the war, liable to give a twelve months' notice to quit and to pay the compensation laid down under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. The period of exclusion from the Agricultural Holdings Act provisions, laid down by Section 26, was a period beginning after March 21, 1940, and extending for a period not exceeding four years. The present clause merely extends the period for a further period of four years.
Next I turn to Clause 15 about which there has been a certain amount of discussion in another place. It was very fully discussed and I think was received with satisfaction. Under subsection (1)

645
from the outset of the war the Minister has taken the line that since the power and direction given to plough up permanent grassland is derived from Section 1 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, the tenant who ploughs up grassland under direction from the war agricultural executive committee is absolved from any liability which is directly attributable to compliance with such directions. The Minister has stated that any permanent grassland which has been ploughed up during this war is now to be deemed as arable. This condition was explained in the leading professional institutions as long ago as December, 1940. Various questions have however been raised as to the position of landlord and tenant on changes of tenancy and conflicting opinions have been expressed. It was at first thought that the position of the tenant was safeguarded, and that the landlord was left in a precarious position. But I think it is safe to say that this is in no way the case. The question of limiting the section to the period of the war has received very careful attention, but it is considered that this would leave the position too uncertain, particularly in the case of a tenant who has taken a farm during the emergency.
The proviso was inserted in another place after representations by various interests. In the laws of this country, there are certain customs whereby a tenant during the last year of his tenancy under his agreement has to leave a certain proportion of that land as grassland, and he is entitled to a certain proportion of crops from that land. Since owing to the war that tenant has been compelled to plough up extra grassland, that grassland will now be deemed arable land, and therefore the tenant would not be in a position to claim an away-going crop, not only on the proportion of the arable land when he went into that farm, but also on a proportion of that land which had been ploughed up since. So far as England and Wales are concerned this was not the intention, and there do not appear to be sufficient grounds for enabling the out-going tenant to claim an away-going crop in excess of the fixed proportion of the arable land as settled at the commencement of his tenancy, especially as the result might be to throw an unjustifiable burden on the landlord or incoming tenant.
646
I think that, having regard to what occurred in another place, it would be convenient if I read to your Lordships at this juncture the statement which was read by my right honourable friend regarding the position of landowners in the matter of ploughing up grasslands. He stated that by an agreement made and published in December, 1939, the Minister of Agriculture at that time was authorized by His Majesty's Government to announce
"that where grassland was ploughed up a landowner would be entitled to claim compensation at the end of the war if the annual value of the land, or the farm of which it formed part, had been diminished as a result of being ploughed up. The compensation will be based on the cost of restoring the land, that is, reseeding, or alternatively a sum calculated by reference to the amount by which the annual value of the land is diminished. Nothing in this clause affects that agreement to the prejudice of the landowner, and the fact that we have inserted this clause for the purpose of clarifying the position as regards tenants quitting during the war or subsequently does not impinge on or alter in any way the agreement. It is true that the option as regards restoring the land rests with the Minister, but without giving a pledge as to application in any particular case, it is anticipated that the large majority of cases will be dealt with by reseeding as an essential part of our post-war policy of maintaining the fertility of our agricultural land."
Subsection (2) of Clause 15 refers to the last year of a tenancy. The county war agricultural committees have had a certain amount of difficulty in planning crops on these farms during the last year of the tenancy owing to certain agreements and customs. For instance, the agreement may provide for a certain acreage of arable land to be left as bare fallow during the last year of tenancy. Under war conditions the committees feel that they may have to issue orders for a crop to be sown during the autumn after a notice to quit on the following Lady Day. If a tenant under notice to quit at the ensuing Lady Day complied with the direction to carry out this work, he would on quitting have to leave the growing crop without compensation. Obviously this is unfair and the position constitutes a hindrance to the maximum production of food in war-time. The incoming tenant would in practice pay heavy compensation arising from the provisions of the subsection, and the position of the landlord should not be adversely affected. While this clause gives the tenant the right to claim in respect to the matters referred

647
to, it in no way adversely affects the right of the landlord to claim for what is usually known as dilapidations.
Clause 16 refers to an area of land which the Minister, through his agents, such as a county war agricultural committee, may have taken over from the point of view of further production of food, where, owing to needing only the actual arable land, he has left such matters as the farmhouse and spinneys, or small woods in the occupation of the tenant. By agreement the Minister may now purchase the land which is included in the farm but is not agricultural land. Clause 17 deals with the control of artificial insemination. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe very kindly sent me a pamphlet this morning on this very important and interesting subject. But I am afraid that I have not yet had time to read it. The purpose of this clause is purely to have powers of control as and when it may become necessary to use them. There are at this moment at Cambridge and Reading two experimental stations. While it may be said that this development may have a great future, if left uncontrolled it may also lead to great evils. It has been thought right and proper, therefore, to have a clause of this kind in the Bill. Clause 18 refers to the office of inspector of corn returns, and transfers the business of receiving returns to the Ministry of Agriculture. Clauses 19, 20 and 21 refer to Scotland. Then there are the Schedules. If in what I fear is a very insufficient explanation of the various clauses I have failed to make any point clear, I will do my best to answer any questions, with the leave of your Lordships, later in this debate. If, on the other hand, your Lordships see your way to give this Bill a Second Reading, I hope that you will do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I do not expect that many of your Lordships will have read this Bill from beginning to end, but, if you have done so, I am sure you will agree with me that it is a signal example of legislation by reference. I hope that those who have sought to understand it have had a sufficient library of other legislation available to enable them to do so. It so happens that in
648
some matters in which I was specially interested I have had some of the relevant Acts available, apart from a body of personal experience, and I should like to say that I think that this is an exceedingly useful Bill. In many respects it provides powers which it is advantageous that the Minister should have at the present time. In particular, I would refer to the clauses giving more power to the various authorities in connexion with the execution of drainage schemes, and particularly Clauses 4 and 6. I know that some noble Lords are more cognizant of these matters than I am, but I should like to ask the noble Duke whether he will give us a little more information with regard to Clause 10. I do so, quite frankly, because I myself am interested in a particular case where the drainage of a very large area of land which is still waterlogged has been held up by the inability of the authorities concerned to secure the removal of a dam which is holding up the level of water for some 500 acres of good land and effectually preventing its adequate drainage.
I see that in Clause 10 (1)—which, quite frankly, I have had to read several times in an endeavour to understand it—it is provided that compensation will not be payable "by reason of the alteration or removal of any dam by the board in the exercise of any powers …" and so on. I should like to ask the noble Duke whether that means that in a case where a dam is holding up the efficient drainage of an area of land, and the removal of it is included in a scheme, it will be possible to remove the dam and to secure the efficient drainage of the land without being prejudiced by liability to pay an unknown amount of compensation for the removal of the dam. In the particular case which I have in mind the dam is of no use to anyone, so far as I can learn. It is a great nuisance to the land, but the person particularly interested in it strongly objects to its removal. I shall be glad if the noble Duke will throw a little further light on what this interesting subsection means. If it means what I think it means, I shall be very glad.
I support very heartily the provision for the release of tenants from liabilities arising out of the ploughing up of grassland contained in Clause 15. I think that a good many of these old provisions are quite out of date and not in consonance

649
with the advance of science. It has been proved abundantly all over the country during the war that old grassland has been immensely improved by being ploughed up. It can be reseeded with seed mixtures which will make it hereafter a very much better pasture than it was before, and it certainly is not right that where this ploughing up has been done by order of a county war agricultural committed, the tenant should be prejudiced with regard to his agreement in the case of land of that kind, which in the vast majority of cases has been improved by the ploughing up. I understand that the relief which common sense requires will be provided under this clause, but here again, when I read the page and a half which this clause takes up, I am not so sure of what is actually provided as I was when I read only subsection (1). I think that the interpretation which I have given is right, but perhaps the noble Duke will confirm it in his reply.
I am sure that we all welcome the powers which the Minister is taking over artificial insemination. Artificial insemination will be extremly useful it properly controlled and directed, but it may be exceedingly harmful unless it is so controlled. I am glad that this step is being taken at the very beginning of its development; it will be altogether to the advantage of the herds of this country that it should be subject to the kind of control which is contemplated. I have no other comments to make on the Bill except to express the sincere hope that other noble Lords have understood it better than I have.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to express hearty agreement with the last sentence of my noble friend Lord Addison's speech. I agree with him about the extreme difficulty of interpreting rapidly and accurately a Bill which contains so large a number of clauses which refer to previous legislation, and I entirely endorse what the noble Lord has said on that subject. I think, in passing, I may say that the Legal Department of the Ministry of Agriculture possesses some outstanding artists in the matter of very skilfully framing Bills containing so much legislation by reference. I welcome this Bill as a very valuable war-time measure, largely intended—and I hope in this respect it will be successful—to smooth out certain irregularities which have been
650
found to present themselves in applying the existing law to war conditions in the national interest. There are four main parts of this Bill, the first dealing with the larger grant that will now become available in respect of lime, and the second consisting of the land drainage clauses to which I should like presently to make more specific reference; while the other parts deal with artificial insemination, and compensation to farm tenants consequent on the ploughing up orders in order to increase the food supply during the war period.
I would only say in regard to the provision relating to lime that there will be a strong temptation, when only one-fourth of the value of lime will have to be found by the farmer, to use lime as a fertilizer, which it is not; and if excessive use of lime becomes prevalent, at any rate among the less well-informed farmers there will be a danger of exhausting, rather than increasing, the fertility of land, particularly where the land becomes progressively deficient in humus and becomes more and more composed of merely mineral elements—which is a real danger as the war progresses—and a larger number of white straw crops are taken off the land in succession one to the other. Of course in areas like Wales and the South-West of England, where the rainfall is heavy, and consequently the land is relatively sour, and where the soils on balance are relatively heavy and lime has, of course, a very valuable mechanical effect in disintegrating heavy soils, possibly the use of lime to a great extent may be pursued with comparative impunity. But I do rather fear that there will be a temptation to use lime when really what is wanted is a phosphatic or potassic fertilizer, both of which, as we know, under war conditions are more and more difficult to obtain.
As regards the land drainage clauses, I am bound to say that until with some expert assistance I studied these clauses in detail, I was a little bit puzzled as to what the real intention of some of them was. However, I have very carefully looked into them and, speaking as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, I myself am satisfied that all these clauses are needed. Some of them at any rate are needed very largely because the Report of the Royal Commission, for which I was myself largely

651
responsible, was not in effect carried out in the manner that that Commission adumbrated and thought probable, and for this very important reason. That Royal Commission sat in the year 1927, and before the Bill which was intended to implement its Report came before Parliament, fortunately or unfortunately—and I am not going to commit myself as to which it is—agricultural land was derated, with the curious result that a very large proportion of the fund which was considered to be obtainable for the purpose of land drainage became unavailable, or, if the scheme which was outlined by the Royal Commission had been carried out, the burden would have fallen very largely upon house and other rateable property, to the exclusion relatively of agricultural land.
But there is another unfortunate feature about our drainage law, and that is that whereas we contemplated in 1927 that the catchment boards were the most important desiderata in order to centralize the control of land drainage in authoritative hands, unfortunately as it turned out, and largely for the reason which I have already given, there is no one authority with any large comprehensive, dominant power in this country in relation to the drainage of agricultural land. We have the catchment boards, it is true, some of them doing very good work, others far less active, but we also have the continuance of the internal drainage authorities which, operated under the county councils, can only levy a rate of 2d. in the pound at the most; with the result that a very large area which ought to be drained, and which under war conditions it is vitally important should be drained, is not being drained to-day, owing to the lack of a proper contact between catchment boards on the one hand and the internal drainage boards on the other, and the lack of sufficient public money to oil the wheels of a nationally essential process.
All I can hope is that the time may come, and as soon as possible, when the whole of the drainage law, as set out in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, will be thoroughly overhauled, and a new measure of a more comprehensive character and a more workable character will be passed by Parliament. In the meantime these stopgaps are essential if we are to render our drainage system at
652
all adequate to the demands that war-time presents. I think I am right in saying that in 1927 we calculated that about one-fifth of potentially the most fertile land in this country was more or less water-logged. I doubt whether one can put the proportion very much lower, even to-day. It is perfectly true that in areas like the Trent and the Ouse, where there are very efficient catchment boards, considerable improvements have been made, but in other areas those improvements have yet to come. And when you bear in mind that owing to the lack of drainage you are losing at least 50 per cent. of the full output that is obtainable from that land, it very severely limits the food output in time of war that our land drainage system is not more effective.
As regards artificial insemination the noble Duke was good enough to refer to a little pamphlet which I sent him yesterday, but it was only as a reminder that as long ago as 1927 this policy of artificial insemination of live stock was being seriously considered, and being considered at that time in relation to the desirability of importing pedigree Landrace swine from Denmark into this country in order to improve the average standard of our bacon pigs. A paper that I read before the Farmers' Club, a copy of which I sent to the noble Duke, had, by the way, some rather impressive illustrations in it showing what were the parts of a pig that badly wanted improving amongst our breeds in this country. In that paper I stressed the desirability of instituting with all due safeguards artificial insemination as applied to the swine industry, but unfortunately—and this is always the danger in this connexion—some of the breed societies were not merely sceptical, but inclined to be hostile, and the whole matter dropped.
The crying need for artificial insemination to-day is undoubtedly in regard to the animal repopulation of the occupied countries of Europe. Over enormous areas in Central Europe to-day, there are relatively few live stock, the live stock having been taken ruthlessly by the Germans out of those countries or destroyed in loco for the feeding of their own civilian population or the feeding of their troops. After the war, if we are going rapidly to bring anything like adequate relief particularly in the matter of food to those devastated countries, it will be of the first importance to repopulate with farm animals, particularly dairy cattle and pigs,

653
those areas, as soon as possible with the help of artificial insemination. The process should be relatively easy. Without it it is difficult to see how anything can be done with the desirable amount of speed.
But there is another factor. The chief veterinary experts in this country have recently pointed out—and I believe they are quite unanimous—that a very large amount of the bovine diseases from which our cattle suffer here in England and Wales, and to some extent in Scotland, is due to the use of bulls which are more or less affected with some contagious disease that is calculated to affect the milk supply. And they go so far as to say that the average yield in this country of 500 gallons for each cow is much too low, and that it could in the course of some five to ten years be increased to 750 gallons per cow by the simple process alone of artificial insemination of dairy cattle. If that is so, the case for artificial insemination is very strong. I would like to ask the noble Duke whether it would not be possible to entrust the chief bovine breed societies with the task of carrying out this artificial insemination and controlling it under the general supervision of the Ministry without all the delay of red tape and possibly with the inefficiency which is sometimes associated with the intervention of the bureaucracy. I feel very stongly that we have, at any rate so far as our cattle are concerned, highly responsible breed societies in this country, and I believe that every one of the cattle breed societies are perfectly competent to undertake this responsible job and so to regulate the use of the semen as to render the intervention of the Government Department comparatively unimportant. At any rate if we are to get this insemination carried out rapidly and effectively, I would venture to say, let us trust the breed societies.
There finally comes this question whether or not Clause 15 does justice to the agricultural landowner in respect of old pasture land, particularly in the West of England and the South-West of England, where magnificent dairy pastures have existed in days gone by—whether that clause does really do justice in its present form to landowners in cases where there is a definite contract between the farm tenant and the landowner that if the pasture land is ploughed up, if it remains arable land in the hands of the tenant during the war, or during any other period, he should eventually have either
654
to seed it down or compensation should be paid for the loss of its fertility as pasture land. I would only say in passing that these farm tenants have to a large extent fed their crops upon the inherent fertility of their landlord's pasture. There is no question about that. I am inclined to dispute what was said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Addison) that pasture land is improved by being ploughed up. All I can answer to that is that if the war were to last some seven or eight years and several white straw crops were to be taken in succession off that land, it is perfectly certain that unless the land were generously treated either by farmyard manure, which is not now easily obtainable, or with artificial fertilizers, which are becoming more and more scarce every year, there is no doubt whatever that the land would degenerate and would certainly not be improved so far as fertility is concerned by the war-time policy of ploughing up pastures.
LORD ADDISON: What I said was that seeds of grass and clover were being sown down with the ploughing and that this improved the pasture enormously.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: All I would ask the noble Lord in response to that is, can be demonstrate that over the greater part of England and Wales to-day, what we call "seeds"—seeds that is of grass and clover—are being sown down in all cereal crops? Certainly that is what farmers are needed to do, but in fact, as we all know, in a large part of England is not being done. I venture to hope that those who sympathize with this clause as it stands in the Bill, if they want to see justice done, if they want to operate ordinary fairness to at any rate the better class of landowners, will encourage farm tenants in every case to sow down grass seeds and clover seeds in their cereal crops. If that is not done there is no doubt that a certain amount of deterioration will take place. What I want to put to your Lordships is this. We have a great reputation in this country, which is recognized in other countries, for remaining true to an agreement to which we put our hands. I dare say your Lordships know that in South America to-day every important contract is executed—I think the exact words are—" on the word and honour of an Englishman." All I want to say is that I think we have to be extremely

655
careful, if we are going to maintain the sanctity of contract in this country, not to allow any Government to tear up contracts by Act of Parliament. At any rate that is my strong view.
Whether or not under war conditions it is fully justifiable I will not attempt to discuss, but I venture to say, as regards the reassurance given by the noble Duke, that it is not in the Bill. It is a reassurance which I think has at least mollified if not satisfied the Central Landowners' Association, and certainly landowners will not forget that assurance given, I think, in 1939 by the then Minister of Agriculture and reiterated now in both Houses of Parliament in relation to Clause 15 of this Bill. But it is nothing more than an assurance given by a Minister It is not in the Bill. I venture to think it ought to be in the Bill. However that may be, I realize that we are passing through extremely critical conditions, I realize that we want to give farmers all the hope and confidence we can give them. They are doing a very difficult task under difficult conditions particularly as regards the supply of labour, and I would not suggest that anything should be done which would make them think that they are not going to be treated fairly both by the State and by the landowners.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe, I desire to say that we in this quarter of the House unhesitatingly support the Second Reading of this Bill. We realize there are many anomalies—we who live in the country realize that to the full—and they should be redressed, especially those in regard to land drainage and the ploughing up of grassland. I say nothing about the gloomy subject of artificial insemination except that it would seem more suitable for debate in the Committee stage or perhaps in a more private place. Generally speaking, however, I think it would be a good plan to give this Bill a Second Reading and on behalf of my noble friends I express the hope that your Lordships will accept it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the Government have introduced this Bill as a food production Bill and your Lordships will not wish to oppose it. I am
656
not going to add to the length of this debate but will confine myself to asking the noble Duke to make a little clearer the position as to Clause 4. The subsection of that clause to which I refer says in effect that if you have an old and bad tenant who for forty years and more has not cleaned out ditches, as his covenant required him to do, you may clean them. You can wipe off that debt which he continues to owe and substitute for it that he should pay interest on the cost of cleaning out the ditches. It is better than nothing, but it is nothing like so good as the old arrangement under which the tenant had to clean the ditches or be responsible if he did not clean them. It gives the poor landowner a little cash in pocket, but a very little cash, and it leaves the tenant grinning from ear to ear. It was contended in another place, I understand, that the clause as it now stands does away with the old contract between landlord and tenant and substitutes, not as an alternative but as a binding agreement, the replacement of the old section by a clause providing that the landowner should get interest on his outlay. What I want to know is whether that is an alternative or whether it is the only remedy which the landowner now has at his disposal.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I think it will only take a few minutes for me to answer questions raised by those noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, asked me a question about Clause 10. As I announced, Amendments will be put down at the Committee stage and so I rather skated over that clause. The situation is that this clause does not entail the removal of the dam. It only covers repair and maintenance of the dams or sluices.
LORD ADDISON: I called attention to it because of the words in the Bill "by reason of the alteration or removal of any dam by the board." I do not ask the noble Duke to go any further into the matter to-day, but I hope that he will look into the matter before the Committee stage.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: As regards Clause 15 I come geographically between two noble Lords and I hesitate to disagree with them. If it was a question of subsection (3), whereby the tenant shall receive compensation at the end of his tenancy for any loss he may have suffered by ploughing up during the war, it really

657
comes to the original year in which that tenancy or agreement started. If during this war certain land has been improved during the war by that tenant, he shall receive from the landlord compensation and that landlord will recover his due by the increased rent paid by the incoming tenant on the land so improved. The noble Viscount mentioned insemination, but I do not see how the control can be handed over to the breed societies because they do not come under statutory status which this control will have if it is left in the hands of the Government.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt to say that I did not advocate that the breed societies should exercise control? What I suggested was that they should act as agents of the Government in carrying out what is wanted.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I can assure the noble Viscount that they will be consulted before any arrangements are entered into. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, who raised a point on Clause 4, I would point out that the last words on page 5, lines 33 to 42, substitute the terms of the clause for the terms of the existing Act. I have had little time to look into the question, and I hope that if the noble Lord is not happy about it he will raise the point at a later stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that Lord Denman take the Chair in all Committees in the House this day, in the absence of the Lord Chairman of Committees.
Moved, That the Lord Denman be appointed to take the Chair in Committees of the Whole House this day in the absence of the Chairman of Committees.—(Viscount Cranborne).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor).
Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD DENMAN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Determinations under s. 4 (1) of 4&5 Geo. 6. c. 12 to be by reference to prices current at 31 st March, 1939]:
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Where war damage has been occasioned to leasehold property and by reason thereof the tenant has disclaimed his lease and the landlord has accepted such disclaimer the payment to be made under the principal Act shall be a value payment.
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to meet a point which I raised on the Second Reading of this Bill. When I raised the point I had hoped that the Government would have seen their way to put down an Amendment dealing with it. This was not only because they have far greater facilities for deciding what are suitable Amendments, and far greater facilities for passing them, but also, because, as I explained on the Second Reading, I am in a very invidious position in moving this Amendment seeing that I am personally interested. I am afraid the Government have not seen fit to put any Amendment down, so I have to bring it up myself.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I have to refer to certain elementary facts which are within the cognizance of all your Lordships. First of all, I should remind your Lordships that a great deal of the urban property in this country is held on ground leases, both residential and business. These ground leases have been largely acquired by their possessors by very substantial premiums. Secondly, I should remind your Lordships that by war legislation every property owner, both landlord and tenant, is compelled to insure against war damage, with the Government. That has no doubt been enacted with the very laudable intention of spreading the loss occasioned by enemy action over the whole community. I should like also to remind your Lordships that under the War Damage legislation a tenant when his property has been damaged by enemy action is given the right to serve a notice of disclaimer on his landlord, provided he acts promptly. If the landlord accepts the notice the lease is at an end. If the landlord does not want to accept he has to serve a counter-notice expressing his willingness to do the necessary repairs

659
himself. The last fact of which I should like to remind your Lordships is that by the War Damage Acts the War Damage Commission is empowered to decide whether any specific damage is to be compensated for by means of a value payment—which is normal in cases of total loss—or on a cost-of-works basis.
This Bill is primarily designed to simplify the task of the Commission in deciding, in any given case, whether to proceed by means of a value payment or by means of a cost-of-works payment. In the case of the Commission deciding to proceed by means of a value payment then no question arises. The value of the property, before and after the damage, is assessed and the difference is distributed between the various interests affected in proportion to the loss which they have sustained. But in the case of the employment of cost-of-works basis very different consequences ensue. In that case the tenant who has given up a valuable lease gets nothing. The Government repairs the property at the expense of the Commission, and the landlord is left with the property repaired by the Commission, freed from the lease, and makes a profit out of the tenant.
I do not think that that is an equitable position. I realize that it may be said that it is the tenant's own fault if he gives notice of disclaimer when he has got a valuable lease. But I think the answer to that criticism is this. Under the Act the tenant has to act promptly after the damage—I think he has got about a month in which to decide whether he is going to give a notice of disclaimer or not—and if he does not act he loses his right to disclaim. In many cases, indeed in the majority of cases I think, the tenant cannot tell what damage has been done to the property before a detailed examination has been made. Still less can be tell whether the Commission is going to decide to proceed on a value or on a cost-of-works basis. I think that reasoning must have appealed to the Government and to Parliament when they passed an Amendment Act called the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941. That Act gave to the tenant a right to give a conditional notice of disclaimer, and, in effect, gave him the right, if the Commission ultimately decided to proceed on a value payment basis, to disclaim, or if it proceeded
660
on a cost-of-works basis, to retain his lease. I can imagine your Lordships saying: "What more does a tenant want?" I quite agree; what more would he want? Unfortunately that Act was passed in 1941. It received the Royal Assent on August 7, 1941. Your Lordships will remember that the Battle of Britain and the great fire of London happened in September, 1940. The bombing of Coventry occurred in November, 1940. I think that it is no exaggeration to say that the bulk of the damage so far sustained had been incurred before August 7, 1941. Therefore the bulk of the damage is within the mischief that that Amendment Act was designed to meet, but outside the remedy which it provided.
May I give you a simple illustration of how it works? Let us assume that there are two properties—No. 1 and No. 2 Blitz Parade. Both are held on ground leases and the ground leases are worth, say,£5,000 each. These two houses, No. 1 and No. 2 Blitz Parade, are hit by enemy bombs and are largely demolished. The tenants cannot tell actually how much damage has been done, but they know that it is far beyond what it is permissible to expend under the existing Government rules, and they both give notice to disclaim. They both file their claims to the War Damage Commission and claim the £5,000 which they have lost. When the Commission ultimately comes to decide what is to be done with these two places, they decide, let us say, in the ease of No. 1 Blitz Parade, to proceed on a value basis. That is all right. The value basis is assessed, the tenant gets his £5,000 and the rest goes to the landlord. But in the case of No. 2 Blitz Parade the Commission decided to proceed on a cost-of-works basis. In that case the tenant gets nothing at all, although he has lost the £5,000. The landlord gets the shop, repaired by the Government, freed from the lease, and in fact makes a profit of £5,000 out of the tenant. I do not think it is possible to justify that.
I have read in The Times a number of letters criticizing the Government's attitude in this matter, and using very strong language. Some of the writers said that the Government were guilty of sharp practice or double dealing. I am not associating myself with that language, because I have worked in terms of too close intimacy with many members of the

661
present Government to imagine that they would be guilty of conduct justifying that description; but I am still frankly puzzled to know why the Government adopt this attitude. My suggestion is that the Bill shall provide that in all cases where a tenant has disclaimed, and the disclaimer has been accepted, the Commission shall treat it is a value payment. In other words, as the tenant has suffered a total loss, he shall be compensated as for a total loss. I am quite prepared, however, to accept any suggestion from the Government, either to limit my Amendment to cases occurring before August 7, 1941, when the Amending Act received the Royal Assent, or to accept any form of words which deal with this injury. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 25 at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My noble and learned friend mentioned this matter in the debate on the Second Reading, and he asked that those responsible should look into the point which he made, in order to see whether it would seem to them right to try to meet it. I need not assure my noble and learned friend that I have not only looked into it, but looked into it with every desire to make a proper proposal, and not solely because, as he has told us most candidly, in the case of a property in which he was interested things had worked out badly, but on the general ground that we all want, as far as may be, to frame this legislation in a way which is just. I am sorry to say, however, that I do not think it is possible to make an Amendment along these lines. The Government could not recommend the Committee to adopt this Amendment, and could not accept it. I think that what my noble and learned friend said makes it clear that he makes this proposal with a view to its being retrospective.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No. My words provide that, when the Commission come to decide in any case, this shall be done. It is when the Commission hereafter come to decide in any case between the cost-of-works basis and the value payment that I wish it to be provided that it shall decide on value payment if the lease is being disclaimed and the landlord has accepted the disclaimer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not concerned with any question of drafting or form at all; I merely want to understand what is proposed, and I certainly thought that the proposal was intended to be retrospective. If it is not to be retrospective, we shall have a sharp contrast between what has already been done in tens of thousands of cases by the War Damage Commission, and what will be clone in future, and I think it will be manifest that that would not be right. I want the Committee to realize, if they are taking an interest in this point, which is rather a complicated and technical one, that there are innumerable cases in which the tenant, after the property has been damaged by war action, has disclaimed his lease, and in which the landlord has then repaired the premises, the War Damage Commission providing the money necessary for that purpose, and in which the landlord, having the property, has dealt with it by letting it, selling it, mortgaging it, or in some other way. There is not the slightest reason why that should not happen.
Take the ordinary case of a shopkeeper who has perhaps seven years of his lease to run, and who is holding the property at a rack-rent—because that is the best case to take. If the property is being held at a rack-rent, and the property happens to be destroyed, the shopkeeper, the tenant, does not suffer, provided he has to pay no more rent at all, apart from the possible expense and inconvenience of moving to another place. The rack-rent is the full annual value of the property, and the fact that his occupation of it comes to an end does not do him any harm, because the law provides that he has not to pay any more rent if the place is rendered unfit for habitation. That has happened in tens of thousands of cases; in every one of those cases the tenant holding at a rack-rent has disclaimed, as he was perfectly entitled to do, his tenancy, and has gone away, moving somewhere else. Thereupon the landlord, out of his resources, has repaired the property. He receives from the War Damage Commission the expense of so repairing it—the cost-of-works payment—and deals with the property as his own. That has been happening for the last two and a half years.
This Amendment would provide that if it was a leasehold property (and in my

663
instance it is), and if the tenant has disclaimed the lease because of war damage (and in my instance he has), and if the landlord has accepted the disclaimer (as in my instance he has accepted it), then the payment to be made under the principal Act shall be a value payment. No one will suggest that these two kinds of payment are to be made in respect of the same property. The War Damage Commission have to decide in each case which is the proper sort of payment to make, and no one will suggest that they should make both. The broad policy is to make a value payment only where the property is not worth making good; if the property is worth making good, a cost-of-works payment is made. Tens of thousands of such instances have already been dealt with and disposed of by the Commission during the last two and a half years, and I am at a loss to understand how it could be right to provide that the making of a value payment, which is really in the nature of compensation instead of rebuilding the property, is not to depend, as it has done from the beginning, on whether the War Damage Commission find that the property is not worth making good, but is to depend on whether the tenant chooses to disclaim or not. That is the proposition.
I am most unwilling to discuss, and I do so most diffidently, the particular kind of case which moved my noble and learned friend to consider this matter specially, although we all know very well that he has produced his suggestion now purely in the public interest. As a matter of fact, however, when my noble and learned friend's own property was damaged, there was no provision in the law by which the ground lessee could surrender his lease as of right at all; he would have had to go to the County Court and get leave to do it under the Act as it then stood. But what happened, unless I have misunderstood the position, is that my noble and learned friend was advised—it is not for me to criticize the advice, but I am surprised at it—that, although he had a valuable lease, he should offer to his landlord to surrender it, and the landlord accepted the offer. I am extremely sorry that that has worked out badly for anybody, most of all for my noble friend, but that is the real situation. The landlord in such a case accepts the offer; thereby he acquires for him-
664
self what I am afraid is a valuable leasehold. It may be that that was not a very good bargain to make, but it has nothing to do with the question whether there should be a value payment or a cost-of-works payment, because that depends not upon the judgment of the tenant as to whether he would like to surrender his lease, but upon the judgment of the War Damage Commission as to what is the proper way to treat a particular damaged property.
Some people have thought—I heard the observation made on the Second Reading—that if a house is seriously damaged it must be right from the tenant's point of view to disclaim the lease. There could not be a greater confusion. That does not follow at all. If the expense of making good the property will result in the property being worth more than what is spent to repair it, it will always be right to make a cost-of-works payment and to rebuild it. We are engaged in rebuilding a portion of England by this process and you can see it going on in various places. It is not, therefore, for the tenant to say: "I think I would like to disclaim my lease and now I insist that there must be a value payment." It is for the War Damage Commission to say whether there should be in the circumstances a value payment or a cost-of-works payment. And I am very much afraid that in the instance which my noble friend has in mind—I regret it most heartily—the matter has worked out badly.
Now my noble friend says he does not wish his proposal to be retrospective. I misunderstood him so far. Then the question is whether there is anything wrong in the law as it stands now. I do not quite agree with the way he stated it. Let me, therefore, state it as I understand it, because it seems to me to be a perfectly fair law. The present state of the law is this, that the War Damage Commission have to decide in each case, as I have said, if a property has suffered war damage, whether the payment to be made is to be a cost-of-works payment or a value payment. The broad policy is to make a value payment only where the property is not worth making good. If the property is worth making good, well then make a cost-of-works payment. There will be cases in which a cost-of-works payment will be the better course, even though the property has been substantially destroyed.

665
It depends simply on whether the value of the building will be greater than the cost of making it good. That is the whole policy of this branch of the law.
If the tenant surrenders his lease to his landlord (which is a matter of agreement) or if he chooses to disclaim his lease under the war legislation—which he could not originally do in the case of a ground lease without the leave of the Court—then he has no further interest in making good the property; and if it is decided that there should be a cost-of-works payment that of course goes to the party that makes good the property; in the ordinary case it would be the landlord. If, on the other hand there is a value payment to be made, the existing law provides that the tenant, even though he has disclaimed his lease, may in some cases have some share in it. As I pointed out, he would not in fact have a substantial share if he was holding at a rack-rent, because he does not suffer since he has not got any more rent to pay. It seems to me that is all quite right, and that is the way in which it is being worked. A value payment is really nothing more than cash compensation paid after the end of the war to the various parties interested in the property at the time when it was damaged, in proportion to the injury they have suffered. I hope I have made that plain.
It is an extremely technical matter and I apologize for keeping the Committee, but I am most anxious to show my noble and learned friend—I know he will believe it of me—that I have really looked into this thing as closely as I can. I have no prejudice in the matter and I should be delighted if we could make a change in the law which would be satisfactory to him. But there is no call for a change in the law; it is entirely just and right, as I have described. And if there was a case in which a lease was voluntarily given up, that is most regrettable if it does not turn out to be good policy. But it is not due to anything that this Statute contains. Therefore I am bound to say I do not think it possible for us to say to the War Damage Commission at this time of day, after they have dealt with tens of thousands of cases and actually paid the money for rebuilding or reconstructing property, that that was all on a wrong principle, and that the right principle is that whenever a tenant chooses to surrender his lease he must be entitled to insist that the premises shall not be built up
666
again but that there shall be instead a value payment in which he is to have a share. I cannot say how much I regret having to give this answer, but I have seen no alternative. I really have no doubt at all that the tenant should not give up a valuable lease without the most mature consideration, and now, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, that is made abundantly plain because he is able, if he likes, to give what is called a conditional notice of retention, in which case he will be able to see how it works out. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot recommend the Committee to make this Amendment
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. I did not discuss my own case at all. I was discussing the broad principle which has been not only noticed by myself but noticed by other property owners. I am a little surprised to hear my noble friend say that there were tens of thousands of cases which have been dealt with heretofore because I hold in my hand a copy of a letter written on February 15, just a month ago, to the National Federation of Property Owners, from the Treasury, signed by Mr. Usher, and there he demurs to the National Federation of Property Owners' proposal. Their proposal was that in cases where this present Bill made a difference between cost-of-works and value payments that should be dealt with by this legislation. Mr. Usher explains why he does not want to do that. He said:
"Further, it has been felt that, having regard to the fact that determinations have been taken in only a very small number of cases and of those cases only a few will be cases in which conditional notice of retention has been served, legislation of the complexity that will be required could not be justified."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not using any rhetorical expression. I took care to find out. It may be that the expression tens of thousands was not quite accurate. But there have been many thousands of cases in which a tenant has disclaimed his lease and a cost-of-works payment has been made. It would be quite impossible to rip up these thousands of settlements. I got the information direct from the War Damage Commission.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I thank my noble friend very much, but it is rather odd that the Treasury took such a

667
different view and made that an excuse for not dealing with this particular case. Of course I accept my noble friend's explanation. Then my noble friend says that lots of cases have been dealt with. Be it so. They have been dealt with, and they will not be affected by any Amendment which now empowers or directs the Commission, in cases where they have to make determinations in the future, to act according to the directions which I suggest should be put into the Bill. That does not involve that the Commission ought to alter or rip up any decisions which they have made, but it only decides that in future the Commission, when they decide questions between value and cost of works, would act on the direction of my Amendment. I only want to point that out to my noble friend. I do not think, therefore, that is a good point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minor amendments as to rentcharges]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to this clause is just a drafting Amendment. The words in the Bill are too narrow, and a wider expression is required.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 23, leave out ("the owner of") and insert ("any person entitled in respect of ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps, my Lords, without being too much out of order, I might be allowed to say, as my noble friend (Viscount Hailsham) is here, that I have ascertained about Mr. Usher's letter. His letter related to formal determinations of value payments. The Commissioners' thousands of determinations are cost-of-works payments. The whole of my observations about tens of thousands were in relation to cost of works.
The Schedule [Amendments consequential on Section One of this Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words appearing on the Paper, which I move to insert in the Schedule, are a necessary adaptation to Scotland and
668
ought to have been in the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("incumbrance") insert ("or, in the case of a hereditament in Scotland, from any ground annual or other incumbrance and any liability to pay feuduty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CHINA AND THE MIDDLE EAST.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the situation in China and the Middle East; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be very unlikely that four members chosen from both Houses would agree entirely on everything that they saw; therefore I want it to be understood that any views that I express are entirely my own, and that I am not committing any of my colleagues in anything I say. It is difficult in these very crowded times in which so much happens to give your Lordships a full picture without being far too long. First of all, I would like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and your Lordships, for doing me the great honour of selecting me as one of the Mission to China. It was a great honour and privilege, and indeed a great responsibility. I felt that it was my duty to bring before your Lordships a general account of what I saw.
We have referred already to the wonderful reception that the Chinese people accorded us. I am quite certain that that reception emanated from real friendship for the people of this country. I found not one single discordant note the whole time we were there. The Chinese people, in conversations I had with many of them, seemed fully to understand the difficulties that we have passed through and that we are in to-day. I refer in particular to that episode of the closing of the Burma Road. I found no Chinese make any adverse comment on that. They thought it was the only thing we could do in the circumstances. I do not

669
know whether the terrific burden that China is bearing owing to this war is realized here. I understand that they have had at least 5,000,000 casualties in their Army. That is, even with this great population, a tremendous tragedy. There are people who think that perhaps China could prosecute this war with greater energy, but from what I saw of the armaments of the Chinese Army I entirely agree with what I believe is the Generalissimo's policy—not to be drawn into a full-dress battle with the Japanese who are equipped with modern weapons because if he did so he would be defeated. His policy, so far as we could judge it, is to go on harassing the areas which the Japanese are occupying, and also to carry on as far as they can guerrilla warfare.
I think we were all tremendously impressed with the smartness, the discipline and the splendid bearing of the Chinese soldiers that we saw. There is no doubt they thoroughly understand the weapons they have. They are hard men and I feel absolute confidence that when they are fully equipped they will make short work of the Japanese. I saw a most remarkable thing one day. We inspected a division drawn up in line and at the double this division formed three sides of a square in front of the platform from Which we were going to speak. They did it at the double and they might have been moving as one man. It was a most remarkable piece of drill, and I do not believe that any but our very best troops here could have done the same thing. We visited one of the front line positions of the Chinese Army. I took special notice myself, being an old machine gunner in the last war, to see how they got their guns placed and to study the methods that they adopted. I must say that they think out their strategy and their tactics extremely well. I am not surprised that the Japanese are chary of attacking them.
Their Air Force of course is a small one, but I believe it to be most efficient. We met General Mao Pang Chu, who commands the Chinese Air Force, and we formed a great opinion of him. There is an administration which is first class. Then we met that great General, the American General Chennault. We were all delighted to see that he was honoured by His Majesty some time ago, and we are glad to see that he has been promoted.
670
General Chennault is a very remarkable man. He gives one the impression of being a great leader and a most efficient commander of any Air Force. Our flights through China were in Chinese military planes, piloted by Chinese, and we were all very satisfied with the happy take-offs and the happy landings we made under the pilotage of the Chinese pilots. In the matter of the supply of war weapons, the Chinese with the greatest possible ingenuity have managed to extricate and get away from the occupied areas a certain amount of machinery. They have improvised other machinery out of apparently very little material indeed and they are now producing small arms, small arm ammunition, trench mortars and, lately, shells for the artillery they have got. Some of the machinery is almost of the Heath Robinson type, but it works and they are getting the stuff out, which is the great thing. There is no doubt whatever that the Chinese intend to fight through to the end, that they intend to drive the Japanese not only from China proper, but from Manchuria. When one sees the conditions under which they have had to fight against a fully equipped, well armed, pugnacious nation, one wonders how in the world they were able to stop the Japanese from overrunning the whole of their country.
There is a calm assumption of victory throughout China which is most impressive. It is remarkable that in spite of the war there is throughout the whole of the administration of China a general idea of preparation for a democratic Constitution after the war. The Generalissimo is preparing the nation to that end. There are at present two organizations. One is called the Peoples' Political Council. That is not an executive organization, but it contains representatives of all political Parties in China. I think that the correct expression to use in regard to it is that it is an advisory body. It has its sessions and meetings. The organization which has executive authority and chooses the Government is an organization called the Kuomintang of which the Generalissimo is the head. There are about 300 odd members. I should say that all the big men, all the great men in China are in the Kuomintang. I feel sure that ultimately there should be a very up-to-date democratic Constitution. All the present systems of government all over the world

671
are being studied most intensely and it seems to me there is no doubt that they will arrive at something probably better in democratic government than any nation at present operating the democratic idea.
I should like to say a word about schools and universities. There are one or two very interesting things about them. Discipline is very strict. I believe that to be thoroughly sound and the students seem to welcome it. They appoint leaders for their classes. Each member of a class has to be leader of the class for at least a week. That gives a sense of responsibility, and I think that perhaps here, instead of having boys who are prefects all the time, it might be well to have occasional leaders. That gives all an experience of responsibility and it seems to be a matter we might seriously think about. There are universities which are teaching the people civil administration, and they are also teaching the people—deliberately teaching them—how to be good citizens. They teach them that citizenship does not mean paying taxes and doing nothing else, but that more is expected of the really patriotic citizen. All this was on the highest plane and something one could not fail to admire.
Next I would turn to industry. The whole of the commerce and trade in China quite naturally has been thrown out of gear. But the curious thing is that whereas in the past raw materials have been taken many hundreds of miles to the factories, those establishments being now in Japanese hands, new factories are being built where the raw materials are found. I see enormous possibilities of development throughout China as a result of this taking place. We must not forget that China is isolated. There is no question about it that China is in the grip of a blockade far more than is any other nation in the world. As your Lordships are all aware, the only way in and out of China is over a very high mountain range—the end of the Himalayas. It does not seem to me to matter how much transport you may be able to take through the air over those mountains. I feel that before we can expect any great difference in the position in China we must get that Burma Road open and get the ports open, so that where now we are sending only hundreds of tons of material we can send thousands of tons.
I now wish to touch on a subject that I am afraid is a little controversial. Your Lordships are aware that the Americans have given the Chinese a loan or credit of £100,000,000 while we have given them a loan or credit of £50,000,000. The Americans have got no restrictions whatever on their loan, while we have restrictions on £40,000,000 of the loan that we have given. I am going to make a very strong appeal to the Government to remove all restrictions from that part of the loan. I ask the Government really to give serious consideration to this. What is £40,000,000? It sounds a large sum but it is not the amount of three days war expenditure at the present time. I believe that I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other day that we are spending £14,000,000 a day on the war. Therefore, as I say, a sum of £40,000,000 does not amount to our war expenditure for three days. Then we are contemplating, after this war—for we all agree with the principles of the Beveridge Report—an expenditure of £800,000,000 per annum on various social services. I feel that we want to be generous in dealing with the Chinese, our great Allies, far away, isolated, and in the grip of a terrible blockade. I beg the Government to consider this matter and, if they possibly can do so, to waive any restrictions on this loan. I am certain that the Chinese in any case will be absolutely fair, and I am absolutely certain that if we do as I suggest this money will be expended in our country and will mean trade for us.
The methods of the Japanese are identical with those of the Germans. Of the brutality that is being shown to the Chinese you find much evidence when you go to China to-day. There are 50,000,000 refugees, at least, from the occupied areas and the numbers of inhabitants of the occupied areas who have been massacred or are now starving cannot be calculated. They are undoubtedly very large. Do not let us ever forget that the Chinese were the first to suffer from the action of an aggressor. It began in 1931 when the attack on Manchuria was launched. In spite of the length of this war the Chinese are just as strong in their views now as they were before, and they are determined to fight on until victory comes. I hope that we here will do all that we can to help China to make

673
herself what she ought to have been in the past, the great predominant nation of the Far East. The Chinese have thousands of years of culture behind them. They are a people of great intellect, and they are most industrious. Above all, they are a peace-loving people. I am sure that China, after the war, will enter upon a completely new era, and we shall see there what we are seeing here to-day, that many women will come into the picture headed by that great lady Madame Chiang Kai-shek, with whom there will be, I hope, Madame Sun Yat Sen and Madame Kung. These ladies make up a very distinguished trio of sisters. We must further not forget that there are many millions of Chinese citizens who are big men in our Colonies and Dominions.
Before leaving this subject I would like to say one word about our Ambassador in Chungking, Sir Horace Seymour. I believe, and I feel sure that my colleagues will agree with me in this, that he is doing a great work there, and that he is going to be a very much beloved man in China. Under the leadership of that great General and statesman, General Chiang Kai-shek, I believe that the outlook for China after the war is a bright one. I feel that we have made many lasting friendships in that country. If we have not done so it means that I have got to begin to think again. My own mentality has certainly been very deeply impressed with the feeling that I have made friends in China who will be friends for the rest of my life.
And now just a word about Turkey. As your Lordships are aware, we got a very charming invitation from the Turkish Government to visit them. It would be difficult to say very much concerning what we saw, but I can tell your Lordships that nothing could have been more friendly and more kindly than the manner in which we were received. I feel confident that the Turkish people and our own people are real friends, and I can see no reason why we should not continue to be so. I am certain that it is the intention of the Turkish people that we shall be so. We passed into Egypt on two occasions. The Egyptian Government officials were very kind to us. We were taken in charge by Sir Miles Lampson, now Lord Lampson, and introduced by him to all the great men of the country.
Finally, I come to our visit to the battlefield. if you want to be inspired by something fine, I do not believe that anything could give you such uplift as to go to the battlefield of North Africa and see our men there—weather-beaten but hard, with a very fine spirit of loyalty to their cause and with fine discipline. When one thinks that they suffered reverse after reverse and then turned all that into victory after victory, it is a great privilege to mix with such men. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that there is nothing wrong with the British Army, and I am sure that if he had been with us he would have taken the same view.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I have said so in this House many times. I think that the noble Lord was away on his important Mission when, during the last debate on the Army, I took the opportunity of paying a very high tribute to the British Army.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. I left this country just after a debate in which the noble Lord suggested that there was something wrong with the British Army. I did not know that the noble Lord had changed his mind; I am very pleased to hear that he has done so. If he had been with us, I am sure that he would have taken the same view that we did about these magnificent soldiers of our Army. There is no doubt about their efficiency. We went amongst the men—the Generals wanted us to do that—and talked to them. Never before have I met such a grand spirit as there was amongst them.
I am sorry not to see the most reverend Primate in his place. I was here a short time ago when he made a speech in this House on the Beveridge Report. I could not believe what I heard, and so I took the trouble to read the report of his speech very carefully afterwards. I wrote to the most reverend Primate and said that I was going to mention this subject to-day, but, as he is not here, I shall mention it in his absence, because I feel that perhaps he does not want to bother with it. I am going to read a passage from his speech which to my mind is a very grievous one. I am quoting from the Official Report for February 25, 1943, column 315. The most reverend Primate said:
"I am quite certain that those who are in close touch, for example, with the troops in

675
our camps, would say that nothing could be better for the morale of the Army at this time than the clearest possible declaration from the Government with regard to what they take to be possible in the implementation of the Report."
The reference is to the Beveridge Report.
I shall read the whole passage, because it is not very long:
"Many of them no doubt live from day to day without very much thought about the future, but those who are thinking about the future are thinking, as the noble Lord just said, mainly about the question whether there is going to be after this war such a time of distress as followed the other war. Some of them experienced it as children and some of them heard about it from their parents."
This is the part of the speech which I wish that the most reverend Primate was here to deal with:
"It does occasion profound anxiety, and that anxiety does, to some extent, damage their own zeal in the cause they serve, because anxiety is always rather a weakening element in any man's make-up."
As an old soldier, I take a very serious view of the fact that it should be suggested that, because the date or the method of the implementation of the Beveridge Report should be held up, or was not exactly what it was thought that it was going to be, it should damage the zeal of our soldiers in the cause they serve.
I was hoping to see the most reverend Primate here to-day, because I feel that he must have said something that he did not mean. We are all worried about the future; there is not a member of this House or of any other house who is not; but to make the suggestion that the most reverend Primate made, that our men at the front, who have fought so gallantly, should in any way withhold their fighting powers because of the Beveridge Report, distresses me very much indeed. I am very distressed to think that anyone should make that suggestion against men who have fought so long and so splendidly, and I do not believe that even in the camps in this country the soldiers there are affected at all in the way suggested. I believe their morale to be good, and I believe that they will never be deterred from doing their duty by any political or social matter.
In conclusion, I wish to say this. From the time that we left these shores there was evidence on the sea, in the air, and on the land, of the colossal effort that this
676
little country of ours, of only 45,000,000 people, is making. We travelled right across Africa. Your Lordships know the route quite well. Everywhere we saw evidence of this stupendous effort, not only on the part of our Forces but on the part of the managements and the workers here. Believe me, there cannot be much wrong with the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, and I do not believe that there is much wrong with the general conduct of this war either by the Government or by the managements or workers of my country. Having seen all that I have seen, I am intensely proud that I belong to a race that can do such fine things. I beg to move.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend. As he has already said, the conclusions to which four people will come after a tour of that sort are not likely to be identical. But there is one thing that I know we are all at one about, and that is our intense admiration for everything we saw in China and our appreciation of the privilege it was to represent Parliament on this Mission. I very much welcome the statement of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the 4th March, when he reminded your Lordships that China is a United States strategical sphere. I think this fact may have been insufficiently realized in this country. I wish to make only one comment on that statement, and that is to express a hope that that condition will not be too rigidly applied on every possible occasion. As an example of what I mean your Lordships are well aware of the great achievements of the small American Air Force led by that gallant and great Commander, already referred to by my noble friend, General Chennault. I was very glad to read the tribute paid to General Chennault by the Leader of the House the other day, and to see that he had been awarded a British decoration. Having had the good fortune to meet General Chennault, I can confirm what my noble friend has said, that we were immensely impressed by him. We heard much independent testimony, both in China and in India, as to his prowess, and we were told that, with a small force of never more than 12 medium bombers, 80 fighters, and 2 reconnaissance machines, he had at the time we left China destroyed 296 enemy planes, confirmed, 216 probables, and as many

677
more damaged, for the loss of only 35 American planes. In addition, considerable damage had been done to shipping and to other military objectives.
I have no wish to enter into the realm of strategy, a subject which I consider myself ill qualified to discuss, and which I in any case join with many of your Lordships in deprecating as a subject of debate in Parliament. But I would suggest one thing. It is that that small force under General Chennault is clearly not sufficient for sustained operations against the enemy, and that in view of the remarkable results that have so far been achieved by that force it is logical and reasonable to suppose that a somewhat larger force, say, 30 medium bombers instead of 12, 100 or 110 fighters instead of 80, and 6 reconnaissance machines instead of 2, with, say, 50 transport planes to supply this force with fuel, ammunition, spare parts, etc., might play such havoc with the Japanese Air Force and with their shipping as to compel the enemy to divert numbers of his fighter aircraft from areas where they can ill be spared, thus constituting a serious drain on the Japanese air strength. Failing such diversion it is probable that such a force as I have mentioned would, in a comparatively short time, so disrupt the enemy's sea lines of communication as seriously to affect his operations in the South-West Pacific.
Japanese shipping in Chinese waters is extremely vulnerable. There is little or no protection against air attack. Aerodromes are available in Free China from which Allied fighter planes can support our bombers and can operate over Formosa, and Formosa, where the warning system is bad and the anti-aircraft defence is poor, is a focal point in the Japanese supply lines to the South-West Pacific. It would certainly appear that the damage that could thus be inflicted on the transport of essential Japanese war material and on shipping which Japan cannot replace, or can only replace with great difficulty, would be of greater value to the Allied cause than anything which could be done by an equal number of planes in any other theatre of war. In particular, the laborious and costly operation of driving the enemy out island by island from the South-West Pacific might be greatly facilitated if his lines of supply were paralysed by a flank attack from China.
678
To go back to where I started, when I expressed the hope that the strategic sphere condition would not be too rigidly applied, it may well be that the United States are unable to spare the number of planes which I have tentatively suggested as a reasonable addition to the present force in China. If such be the case I would beg of His Majesty's Government not to rule out the possibility of this country providing the small numbers required. I am not asking for any reply or statement of any kind from the Government; I would, of course, have given notice if I had had any such desire. All I ask is that this matter may be most carefully considered in the light of the results which have already been achieved. It might even be, by a compromise to be arrived at, that this country could provide the extra bombers, fighters and reconnaissance planes, while the United States supplied the transport planes. In any case, I would propose that that additional force, wherever it came from, should work under the orders of the existing American Command. There are strong arguments, of course, in favour of British machines taking their place alongside those of our American Ally. Such an arrangement would certainly have the best possible effect on our relations with China.
There is only one further point in this connexion, that of replacements. It is probable that these might amount to about 15 per cent. per month, or about 4 or 5 bombers and about 15 fighters. I venture to submit that the small number of planes required—a very much more modest figure than was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the 4th March—makes it difficult to believe that the present resources of the United Nations, despite their preoccupations elsewhere, are unequal to the demand. I was extremely interested to see a small paragraph in the Press a day or two ago intimating the creation of a separate China Air Command under General Chennault. To those of us who to the best of our ability studied the situation on the spot no possible announcement could have given greater satisfaction. If the sequel to that arrangement is the increase in the strength of that force, one feels very strongly that that would be by far the most useful and practical step which could be taken at the present moment in prosecuting the war in the Far East.

679
There is a great dearth of British Press correspondents to-day in Free China. I feel that that should be mentioned. Since the return home of The Times correspondent some months ago, to the best of my knowledge he has not yet been replaced, and there is not one single British newspaper correspondent to-day in Free China. I suggest that that is a thing that wants putting right as soon as possible. My noble friend mentioned the Kuomintang. I should like to say what a great honour we felt it to be not only to be asked to attend a session of the Central Executive Committee of the Kuomintang—the first time any foreigner had been allowed inside—but that we were also asked to address them. When we arrived we found Dr. H. H. Kung, the Vice-President of the Executive Yuan, giving a general survey of the war and of the financial situation. As soon as he had finished, the Generalissimo, who was presiding in his capacity as Party leader, welcomed us in a warm little speech and we then all replied for two or three minutes each. The speeches were very well received, and afterwards we had the privilege of meeting large numbers of the members of the Kuomintang. It was interesting in that connexion to see the President of the National Government, Dr. Lin Sen, taking his place as an ordinary member sitting in the front row, while the Generalissimo as Party leader presided.
We also had the privilege of meeting, by consideration of the Generalissimo, the leaders of the minority Parties. We took a great liking to them all. First and foremost the Communist leader, General Chou En Lai, the Communist representative in Chungking. General Chou En Lai was a very frank and open chap, and it was clear from what he told us that while the war lasted he and the whole of his 500,000 Communists up north, had only one thing in mind and that was to assist the Government and the Generalissimo in driving the Japanese out of China. The leaders of the other Parties are also extremely likeable men. Of course they are not allowed much political organization, and I presume they have to do most of their work somewhat underground. One thing which perhaps we stressed more than anything else in the many speeches that we were called upon to make was the fact that the Chinese war
680
was our war too. I do not know how many times we impressed upon our audiences that whatever happened, if the European war should be finished first, our forces would be sent East to throw the whole of their weight into the defeat of Japan.
I want to say a word about entertainment. I would like to describe one scene. After a very long day up in the north-west we arrived at the railway station at midnight, three hours late on programme time. We should have been there at nine o'clock. When we arrived we found the whole of the approaches to the station packed thick with 30,000 people holding up flaming torches. They had been waiting there for three solid hours on a bitterly cold night in order to see us off. I mention that particular episode as being typical of the marvellous reception we had wherever we went in China. We had the same sort of welcomes at Paochi, Chengtu, Kunming and other places, and everywhere we went, whether it was a large town or a small village, whether we were attending a public function or a private one, whether indoors or out of doors, in almost every room we entered and every street we passed, in every arsenal, cotton mill, coal mine, every little workers' factory which we visited, in all the hospitals, orphanages, schools, wherever we went, there were flags and bunting. As we entered a door there were the crossed flags of Britain and China, there were pictures of His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister, there were slogans up on the wall in English stressing Sino-British unity, there were V's for victory on the walls.
A few days ago I was bidden to attend a Government luncheon in honour of the Chinese Military Mission and the reason I have given your Lordships that narrative about our entertainment is to call attention to the sad contrast in our method of hospitality. One walked through the sombre portals of a very excellent West End hotel—no flag, no bunting, no picture, no decoration of any sort, an atmosphere of austerity. We had a cocktail, we walked into the dining room, a cold, arid white tablecloth down the length of the table, not a piece of silver. I will not suggest that the forks were not silver, but there was not a piece of plate, not a sign of anything. To make matters even worse, when the Chair-

681
man got up to make his speech of welcome to General Hsiung, who did not speak or understand English, there was no interpreter to translate the Chairman's speech for him, and the Chinese Military Attaché, who was sitting next to him, had to keep up a running whispering commentary to our chief guest, trying to put him abreast of what was being said. When we were in China, every time we attended these entertainments, the moment the Chairman had made his speech in Chinese up came the official interpreter and read through the whole speech in English for our benefit. I do beg that if and when tile time comes, as we all hope it will, that some representative Mission comes to this country from China, we shall exercise a little more imagination in our form of entertainment and show a little warmth instead of that iceberg aridity to which I have referred. England will not lose its identity thereby.
I would like to associate myself very much with the tribute paid to Sir Horace Seymour and to tell your Lordships that on several occasions in the course of conversation spontaneous tributes were paid in my hearing by both British and Chinese alike to the great work that the British Ambassador is doing out there. I had intended saying a few words about things we saw in India, all of interest, but there is no time now and it must be put off to another occasion. My noble friend has, I think, sufficiently described our time in Egypt. We saw many interesting things. I would just like to stress one thing and that is the need, if I may venture to say so, for the British Council work out there to be increased as much as possible. I was very glad to see that the Chairman, Sir Malcom Robertson, arrived in Cairo while we were there. There are various ways in which the work of the British Council could, I think, be increased with great benefit. One thing in particular that is required is to assist the Anglo-Egyptian union which is doing remarkably good work out there. We were privileged to attend a reception which they gave for us. We all made them a little speech and the atmosphere was just too friendly and nice for words. But they are inadequately housed, and I venture to suggest that funds should be made available through the British Council for the construction of new and more suitable premises.
Nothing could have exceeded the great hospitality we received while in Cairo
682
at the British Embassy. It has been my good fortune to be a guest there on many occasions during the past three and a half years of war and my prolonged sojourn there this time has only served to intensify the admiration I have always felt as a detached observer for the work of that great servant of the Empire, Sir Miles Lampson. It was a source of great satisfaction to us that we should have been there when the announcement was published of his Peerage. It is greatly to be hoped that still higher and even more arduous duties may await this massive pillar of the State with his engaging personality and his unique experience of the Oriental mind. Such elevation could only result, I feel sure, in great benefit to the country and the Empire.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to be the first speaker from this side of the House to thank the two noble Lords for the full and fascinating report to which we have just listened. I think it is a matter of the utmost satisfaction to all of us that your Lordships' House should have been so worthily represented, and I cannot help feeling that the emphasis both noble Lords placed on the additional things we can do for China was particularly happy. I am sure it will receive the consideration of the Government. Since the two noble Lords spoke in your Lordships' House immediately after their return from China, I have happened to meet several Chinese friends who are in direct contact with Chungking and the Embassy in London. All the reports they have received confirm what we have already heard about the immense popularity and really striking success of the Parliamentary Mission. Those of us who listened to the account of their journey given by the delegation a short time ago to members of both Houses in the dining room in another place, realize that since their return they are completing the good work they have so admirably begun. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that they set out as British missionaries and came back as Chinese missionaries. Indeed I am quite relieved to find that neither of the noble Lords has in the least degree lost the power of speech in his native tongue.
I would venture to make a very short contribution to this discussion because I imagine I have had a rather exceptional

683
opportunity of studying the attitude of the British public towards China. My experience of popular sympathy to the Chinese people as victims of Japanese militarism and of the intense admiration felt for the manner in which, without Allies and practically without arms, they resisted the attack of a modern and well-equipped Army and Air Force, goes back as far as the late summer of 1937. It was then, as your Lordships will remember, just five and a half years ago, that the Japanese began their occupation of Northern China. Soon afterwards, in I think typically British fashion, a small group of men and women, holding the most varied opinions and pursuing every sort of occupation, met round a table to talk over what should be done for China. They decided to form a committee of which I still have the honour to be an officer, though not participating as a soldier in their activities, with the object of stirring up and giving expression to public opinion, in order also to raise money for medical relief for the sick and wounded, and in order further, I confess, to be a thorn in the side of our Government until they had given all the assistance in their power to China. To-day I am happy to say it is no longer necessary for the committee to exercise that function.I remember two illustrations which I venture to offer which show, I think, the deep sympathy for the Chinese cause that is rooted in our working people. In those early days public meetings on China were mainly attended by wage-earners and I remember how, after a collection had been taken for the Chinese wounded, it was pointed out that a half-crown on the tray had been given by a man who had no other means besides his unemployment benefit. Even more striking was the action of the dockers at Southampton and Middlesbrough. Those men risked their livelihoods in order not to load cargoes of scrap iron on to Japanese ships for Japanese munition industries and in order not to unload Japanese goods which were intended for sale in this country. I have no doubt at all that popular sentiment is even stronger and more widespread now than when those incidents happened, and it provides a sound basis for co-operation both during and after the war.
I certainly do not wish to raise the problem of military assistance from which both noble Lords who have just spoken
684
so carefully steered clear. Those problems were discussed exhaustively in your Lordships' House a fortnight ago. The question how much can be done in the Pacific, in view of commitments in North Africa and other parts of the world, is best left to those military and political leaders who can see the war situation as a whole. I do believe, however, that serious thought and discussion should begin now about ways and means of keeping peace in the Pacific after Japan has been defeated. I hope this subject will be taken up by Mr. Eden while he is in Washington. Reference at his first conference to the need for making it impossible for Japan to start another war, suggests that that may be the case.
It is obvious that no really satisfactory solution can be found for the problem without agreement between the British Commonwealth, Russia and the United States and, of course, China. Vice-President Wallace, in his recent remarkable speech, referred to the necessity for closer co-operation between the United States and Russia. This is surely a splendid opportunity for our Foreign Secretary to act as the honest broker between the parties. I hope we shall make it plain to all concerned that we shall not shirk our joint responsibility as one of the United Nations for keeping the peace in every part of the world. The Pact with Russia to stamp out aggression in Europe for twenty years after the war may well be regarded as a model for collective security on a large scale. If we can promote agreement between those Powers on which the security of Asia will depend, and induce them to join with us in collective action against any country that may break the peace in the Pacific, we shall have done much to ensure the stability of the post-war world.
Second only in importance to a collective guarantee of security for China in the future, is the provision of the many kinds of modern economic equipment that will be needed to raise the standard of her people and to realize the potential wealth to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has already referred. We are witnessing a gradually developing industrial revolution in China, a most useful symptom of immediate progress in an agricultural community which has been severely retarded in this case by civil and international strife. There will be a demand immediately after the war for skilled technicians, for machinery, for machine

685
tools, and also, of course, for the means of building a vast network of roads and railways that will open up the immense territories of China. These demands can only be satisfied if Britain and the United States are prepared to participate in the framing of plans for the economic future of China. Nothing could be more advantageous in the long run to manufacturing and export countries like our own than an increase in the purchasing power of the inhabitants of these densely populated Asiatic areas. They form the greatest potential market in the world. Here we have a possible factor in the maintenance of employment in the older industrial nations. It is clear to everyone since the abrogation of our last concession on Chinese soil that we do intend henceforth to respect, in the letter as well as in the spirit, the independence and integrity of China, and a degree of public control over foreign trade and investment should be able to prevent private economic interests from exerting the unfair pressure that has too often marred, in the past, the development of backward territories.
I should like to conclude—I hope that if have kept my promise of being, perhaps, the briefest of ill the speakers today—by making two practical suggestions for a better understanding, an even better understanding, between ourselves and the Chinese. The first suggestion is that the two-way traffic of visitors from China to Britain and from Britain to China should be steadily increased. We have been delighted to receive recently the Military Mission to which my noble friend Lord Ailwyn has referred, one of whose members I also had the honour to meet. But we should welcome other Chinese visitors, and most of all, I think, the brave and beautiful and accomplished wife of the Generalissimo, Madame Chiang Kai-shek. No ambassador from China would be more welcome than this gracious lady, and our disappointment would indeed be biter if her doctors should not allow her to cross the Atlantic. I wish we could also arrange for an exchange of representatives of a number of leading professions. The success of the recent visit of a group of Turkish journalists to this country encourages the hope that we may give some Chinese journalists a similar opportunity to study our war effort at first hand. The remarks of the noble Lord who has just spoken have made it plain that there is an urgent need
686
for a batch of British journalists to be dispatched to China. We might also introduce Chinese teachers to some of our educational institutions and give them an insight into our educational methods. The more frequently this interchange between unofficial representatives of the two countries can take place, the more intimate and lasting will be their mutual understanding.
My second and last suggestion is that the Government, in conjunction with the British Council, should give more help—even more help than at the present time—to the Oxford Committee for Sino-British Co-operation, which is presided over by the Warden of All Souls. The excellent work done by this Committee has already earned the gratitude of the Generalissimo himself, that great man whose brilliant leadership has unified the Chinese nation by focusing on his person the patriotic loyalty of his fellow countrymen. One knows, indeed it is common knowledge, that the Chinese have a deep respect and reverence for learning, and to-day they treasure particularly text books that go out to them bearing on their fly leaves the magic name of Oxford. They, no doubt, have no desire to draw any invidious comparison, but they do need a greater number of English books for their universities, and other centres of higher education. And they require above all any of the most practical laboratory equipment for research in chemistry and physics that we can send. We could not more certainly earn the lasting gratitude of China than by helping to keep alive, in spite of the wanton destructiveness of the Japanese, that love of knowledge and proud tradition of learning which are among the salient and most delightful characteristics of the Chinese people.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Earl who has just spoken in paying a very sincere tribute to the gallant people of China; a people who have always had Great Britain's good will, and whose courage and endurance to-day evoke the admiration of the world. Sentiments of good will have ever been present in your Lordships' minds since before even the days of Lord MacArtney, who was the first Ambassador to that country in 1792, and no two more suitable representatives of your Lordships' House could have been chosen to make such sentiments known to these

687
brave people and to their leader, the famous Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. The two noble Lords, with very distinguished records in the Navy and Army and wide experience in public life, have created a deep impression in the minds of those they met in China, and having spent some years in the Far East myself, I know how much good can be done by two well chosen ambassadors such as the representatives of your Lordships' House most certainly were.
The occasion of this debate gives an opportunity that your Lordships will welcome of learning more about the present conditions that our Ally is facing both internationally and nationally, and also of hearing something of the future plans for post-war co-operation as between her, ourselves and the other members of the United Nations. That high ideals are afoot is clear from the pronouncements of leading figures both in the United States of America and in Great Britain. Mr. Wendell Willkie, to quote one, following his recent visit to China as the President's special envoy, has stated definitely that "racial exclusiveness is a thing of the past." His Majesty's Government, as your Lordships will remember, have, by their recent action, signified their agreement. It is not sufficient, however, to desire an end unless one both wills and plans the means of achieving it. Might I remind your Lordships that in 1868 the United States of America, by the Burlingame Treaty, granted the Chinese rights of free immigration and of citizenship, but between 1880 and 1894, Congress hastily framed laws that abrogated such rights? So your Lordships will appreciate the difficulties that must be faced in achieving those high standards of idealism adumbrated within the folds of the Atlantic Charter. But it is only by facing up to these problems now that we can hope to gain that measure of understanding that alone can enable us to reach an effective solution of these problems.
Propaganda has already been referred to by previous speakers in the debate. Propaganda, both Oriental and Occidental, has conjured up the vision of a new China, and the Generalissimo, without any question the greatest leader in China since the Revolution, said in 1929 that only the abolition of "unequal treaties," which granted ex-territorial
688
rights to foreign nations, was then needed to ensure national prosperity. These rights, as your Lordships know, by the United States of America, by Great Britain and by other countries have been surrendered. The Press of this country has, with one or two exceptions, refrained from informative discussion, and the B.B.C., by its well-known policy of exclusion, has prevented a thorough-going investigation of the Kuomintang's picture of the new China. I think your Lordships will agree that for the past ten years the voice of British traders, formerly made known through Consulates, chambers of commerce and local associations, has been mute. For the same period, a very heavy censorship has been exercised over all sections of the Press in China. No information, therefore, has been supplied as of old through the China Year Book concerning those things which are of importance and the full understanding of which can alone lead to our being able to help forward the welfare of the people of China to the fullest extent, as we would wish.
During all this time, public opinion has been reassured in the belief that, as the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said in 1927, "the old China is dead, and the new China is destined to play a leading role in world affairs as a modern democracy of free institutions." It is more than ever necessary that your Lordships should be fully informed, so that the real China may be seen, appreciated and understood, and not a China of the mind, proceeding from the propagandist brain. Perhaps the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in his reply will give your Lordships some information on the following points. First of all, what relations now exist and are likely to exist after the expulsion of the enemy between the politicians of the present régime and their opponents, and notably the Cantonese Party, the Northern War Lords and the so-called Communist faction? Secondly, perhaps he will tell us something of the nature and scope of the revised codes of Civil and Criminal Law, and of the methods by which justice will be administered to the foreigners in China who are now answerable thereto. Thirdly, perhaps he will deal with the status and organization of the opium traffic; and lastly, with the plans that the Government of China have in view for dealing after

689
the war with the millions of armed men now engaged in guerrilla warfare.
We have a very deep admiration for the Chinese who are waging war, and who are beset with manifold difficulties, of which we have learnt from the two noble Lords who formed part of the important Mission which has just returned from China; but, if we look deeper, we must consider, I suggest, in addition, and pay tribute to, the way of life and the moral philosophy underlying it, and the nature of the political economy based on that philosophy. We see here something that has stood the test of time more successfully than that of any other type of civilization, and the admiration so engendered will surely make us the more anxious to help them with our far greater knowledge of the application of science and engineering to war, and make available the fruits thereof. When the noble Lord replies, I hope that he may see fit to inform your Lordships very fully on these matters, as only with a complete understanding can we hope to play our part in developing the great possibilities for the good of mankind in general that lie ahead. The noble Viscount, I feel sure, will speak with especial feeling on the Far East, in view of the very active and distinguished part played by his grandfather at the commencement of this century.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, this, I think, is one of those happy occasions, all too rare in your Lordships' House, when the Government are not required to make a reply in the ordinary sense of the word. This Motion, as I understand it, has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in order to give himself and his companion, Lord Ailwyn, the opportunity of making a report to this House, which sent them on a Parliamentary Mission to China, on what they have seen there and what the Mission was enabled to accomplish in strengthening the relations between the two countries. I think that they have given an exceedingly satisfactory report. They have told us to-day a stimulating story, and even an inspiring story. It is always difficult for us here in this country, with the best will in the world, to visualize exactly how things lock at the other side of the world, just as, no doubt, it is very difficult for the Chinese to visualize exactly how things look here.
690
The two noble Lords who, with their companions from another place, have bridged space physically, have enabled us to-day, by their vivid accounts, to bridge space mentally, and I think that they have increased very greatly our knowledge of the unremitting efforts which are being made by all sections of the Chinese population in Unoccupied China in aid of the cause for which they, as we, are fighting. They have also, if I may be allowed a small digression, increased our admiration, if it could be increased, not only for the Chinese people and for their leader the Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, but also for General Chennault, for the really magnificent fight which is being put up by him and his small band of fighters.
The Japanese have been accustomed—most impertinently, I have always thought—to describe this great and terrible war against a peaceful neighbour as "the Chinese incident." I suggest that it might far more truly be described by the people of China as "the Japanese incident." No people have had a greater or more ancient history than the Chinese. Wars and invasions have happened to the Chinese people again and again during the last two thousand years. But none for long has been able to interrupt the even tenor of Chinese civilization. We may be confident that the present troubles will be no exception to that rule, and that in the long, stately pageant of China's history the Japanese aggression will count merely as an episode. This episode may, indeed, well have one good result; it has already tended, and it will tend more in the future, to unite China to a greater extent, perhaps, than she has been united for many years in the recent past. The furnace through which she is passing will tend to weld her into a still greater unity under the inspiring leadership of her Generalissimo.
Moreover, there is another event which I think has had advantages for the Chinese people, and indeed for the world as a whole. The recent treaties which have been signed between China and His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America will be exceedingly valuable in defining the relationships between the countries concerned and in removing anomalies, and will give an opportunity for putting the relations between us and the Chinese people on a status of absolute equality.

691
That is an important and invaluable advance, and I believe it should be the beginning of a new and happy chapter of close collaboration between the two countries.
Noble Lords have mentioned the importance of Allied assistance to China. As the House knows, I dealt with that less than a fortnight ago in answer to a Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I do not propose, if the House will allow me, to go over the same ground again. There is, however, one aspect of assistance to China which was not directly covered by the noble Lord's Motion, and that is the financial aspect, and perhaps the House will allow me to say a very few words about that. As the House knows, it has throughout been the policy of His Majesty's Government to give all the assistance in their power to enable China to carry on her war against Japan.
In addition to support which His Majesty's Government have given by way of the Chinese Currency Stabilization Fund and the Stabilization Board of China to the external value of the Chinese currency, we agreed in December, 1941, to make arrangements that would ensure that no financial difficulties should prevent the Chinese Government from obtaining any of their requirements for war purposes in the sterling area. These were to take the form of Lend-Lease; that is to say, of terms involving no payment by the Chinese for munitions and equipment obtainable in the sterling area, and a loan of £50,000,000 for other requirements for war purposes at such times and on such terms as might be agreed between the two Governments. Owing to the difficulties of transport since the Burma Road ceased to be available, it has not been possible for the Chinese Government to import anything but the most urgent military requirements, and such of these as we have been able to supply have been under the Lend-Lease agreement and against the unexpended balance of two previous credits. My noble friend Lord Teviot raised the question of the other form of assistance, a loan to China, on which, as he knows and the House knows, negotiations are still proceeding. For a number of reasons, some of which I think he indicated in his speech, negotiations are not yet concluded on that loan. I think the House will therefore not expect me at this stage to make any public statement on the
692
matter, but I can assure Lord Teviot that I will convey what he has said to-day to the proper quarter.
China has played an immense part in the past and, as I think we all believe, has an even greater part to play in the future. In this vital struggle for liberty and justice we are all of us proud to be associated with that wise, patient and heroic people. We are brothers in arms, and it is the privilege of brothers in arms to aid each other. It is a mutual privilege, and it is a mutual duty. It was, I think, Lord Ailwyn who said that the Chinese war is our war and that they had impressed that fact upon the Chinese people. It is equally true that our war is China's war. It is a mutual obligation, not a unilateral obligation; it is only on that basis that this war can be won. Lord Ailwyn also referred to the fact that China is a United States strategic sphere, and I think he said that he hoped that that did not mean that we should dissociate ourselves too rigidly from her affairs. If I remember aright, I have already given that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in the debate a fortnight ago; but I am very ready to repeat it to-day. We recognize to the full an obligation to assist China, and that obligation, so far as lies in our power, we are determined to fulfil. Our sense of obligation and our determination to help China has evidently, from what we have been told this afternoon, been transmitted by the two noble Lords to the Chinese people. It is quite evident that, so far as lay in their power, they have made the position clear, and I think all of us in this House owe them a most sincere debt of gratitude for the part they have played in improving relations between the two peoples.
Equally important, I think, is the service they have performed by their visit to Turkey. There is, I think, no question about the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to Anglo-Turkish friendship. As noble Lords know, relations between our two countries are based on a Treaty of Mutual Assistance signed on October 9, 1939, which is valid for fifteen years. The intimate and cordial relationship that exists between Great Britain and Turkey is vividly illustrated by the Prime Minister's visit to Adana last January. The communiqué issued after that visit shows the identity of interest between the two countries and the determination on our part to see that Turkey is supplied with those things which are

693
requisite for the defence of her national integrity.
I think that community of interest was illustrated also by the visit of the British Parliamentary Mission to Turkey. It was in the closing days of last year that the Parliamentary Mission reached Ankara, and it is evident from what we have been told this afternoon that there too they played a very considerable part in making clear to their Turkish hosts the views and the outlook of the British people in this struggle. By these means they have, I have no doubt, done a signal service to our relations. The fact that this Mission was the first of its kind to be sent abroad by the Mother of Parliaments, and that it went out of its way to visit Turkey was certainly not lost upon our Turkish hosts. In spite of the handicap of communications in war-time we have been able to welcome in this country also guests from Turkey. A party of leading Turkish journalists visited this country last summer, and only recently a Mission of Turkish production experts have been able to inspect the manner in which we have organized our war effort. I am sure that the fruits of our experience will prove of immense value to them. Another party of leading Turkish publicists has recently visited India, and there is also at present in Egypt a party of high Turkish officials who have gone to survey the manner in which we have dealt with intruders in Africa.
I mention these visits because I am sure that the only way we really improve relations between countries is by mutual intercourse. In war-time mutual intercourse is a most difficult thing, unfortunately, to attain, and there is always a danger that, unless positive steps are taken, the nations, instead of getting to know each other better, may tend to be pushed apart. That would be deplorable, and therefore I hope and believe that this system of exchanges of visits which have begun in so happy a manner may be continued until, at the end of the war, the normal intercourse of civilization revives again. Great Britain and Turkey are Allies, each having the fullest confidence and trust in the other. We are also friends inspired with the same ideals, and we may look forward to a future in which the community of interests and the similarity of outlook which inspire us both will draw us ever closer together.
694
In the course of his speech this afternoon, Lord Teviot spoke very impressively about what he had seen of the Desert Army. It is not for me to deal with that subject to-day. It goes rather outside the scope of the Motion. But I would say this. I do not suppose that there is any one of us who is not deeply moved every time we think of the achievements of that magnificent force; of the things they have done, the things they are doing and the things that we expect them to do in the near future. I welcome very warmly what the noble Lord said on that subject this afternoon. We have been a little apt in the past to depreciate the feats of our own Armed Forces. It is rather a national failing. I hope that the time is coming now when that failing will be eradicated from our national character.
In conclusion I would say this to your Lordships. Those two noble Lords who have addressed us this afternoon have acted as our ambassadors of good will to these two great countries which they have visited. I am quite certain that they will feel that that long and arduous journey has not been in vain. We have learnt much to-day on many detailed matters. We have even had a slight rebuke from Lord Ailwyn on a matter of such detail as Government hospitality. I hope we shall all take to heart what he said to us. There is one other thing I would say before I sit down. Lord Sempill asked me a number of questions in his closing words with which he said he hoped I would deal. Most of his questions were of a very technical nature, and he had given me no notice that he was going to raise them. I should like to thank him for the tribute he has paid to my omniscience. I appreciate it very greatly. But I hope he will forgive me if I do not enter into such subjects as the opium traffic and the future of Chinese Parties. At the present moment I should guess that it would be as impossible for anyone to prophesy the future of Parties in China as it would be to prophesy accurately the future of Parties in this country.
It only remains for me on behalf of your Lordships once more to thank most sincerely noble Lords who have spoken for their efforts on behalf of our country; we are grateful for the account of their stewardship which they have given in the House this afternoon. They have done a good work and however long they live—

695
and I hope it may be a very long time—they will always be able to remember that at one of the great crises of our history they did something which was of value not only to their own people but to the world.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, in just a very few words I must thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for his very sympathetic speech in regard to China and I hope his not too flattering remarks in regard to what we have done. The whole Mission, I am sure, will welcome very much what the noble Viscount has said and we thank him very much indeed. I know I am voicing the opinion of my colleagues when I say that and again thank the House for listening so readily to our speeches this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MAILS TO NORTH AFRICA.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the excessive delay in the delivery of mail to the Forces in North Africa, they are taking any steps to expedite the carriage and delivery of letters to the troops and in particular whether arrangements have been made for an early introduction of an airgraph service to these parts.]
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I have been asked to answer the noble Lord's question. The difficulty hitherto has been that owing to operational requirements, aircraft capacity could not be made available for the transport of mails to His Majesty's Forces in North Africa, and consequently the whole of the mails had to be forwarded by sea. Arrangements have now been made, however, to provide sufficient aircraft capacity to permit the extension of the sixpenny air letter service experimentally to His Majesty's Forces in North Africa, and both this service and the airgraph service are now in operation. Airgraph letters and air letters are carried all the way by air to North Africa.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I rather gather that the reply is from the Postmaster-General, but I fancy the distribution of letters in Africa lies with the military authorities, and I had hoped that we might perhaps have some encouraging word said about the actual delivery of letters to the troops, which has I know in very many cases been lamentably lacking. I do not know if anything further could be said on this matter. Incidentally, perhaps it would be possible to say whether this delivery of letters is in fact in the hands of the British military authorities or the American.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: The noble Lord is right in thinking that the distribution is the responsibility of our Army Post Office authorities. There is no doubt the Postmaster-General would make inquiries if the noble Lord would give him particulars of any individual complaints.

ENEMY NAVAL LOSSES.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if they will state the known losses since the beginning of the present war of enemy warships in their various categories other than submarines, and differentiating between German, Italian and Japanese.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, the total of Axis warships, excluding submarines, whose loss has been published, is as follows: 3 battleships, 1 pocket battleship, 6 aircraft carriers, 31 cruisers, 157 destroyers and torpedo boats, 4 raiders, 104 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft. The enemy rarely admits losses, and no doubt he has suffered others. For instance, no account has been taken in these figures of ships known to have been severely damaged, many of which have probably been actual losses. I propose, with the noble Lord's permission, to publish a further table in the Official Report differentiating between German, Italian and Japanese losses.
[The table is as follows:
The ships lost by Germany, Italy and Japan respectively are:
GERMANY.

1 battleship,

1 pocket battleship,

4 cruisers,

39 destroyers and torpedo boats,

4 raiders,

69 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft.

ITALY.

10 cruisers,

48 destroyers and torpedo boats,

35 other miscellaneous warships, minesweepers and small craft.

JAPAN.

2 battleships,

6 aircraft carriers,

17 cruisers,

70 destroyers.

No figures available for miscellaneous small craft.]

ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE ATLANTIC.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the machinery in existence for co-ordinating or combining the operations of the British and American Commands engaged in anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic.]
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: My Lords, the British and United States Commands are responsible by agreement for operations in certain defined areas, irrespective of the nationality of the ships and aircraft actually operating in those areas from time to time. The closest contact is maintained between tile British and United States authorities in allotting forces to the different areas and in all matters concerning operations against U-boats in the Atlantic.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. May I ask what happens in between those two areas—who is in command there?
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: The areas are contiguous. There is no water in between.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely there is some better arrangement than mere geographical division between these two Commands?
LORD BRUNTISFIELD: There is to be an opportunity at an early date to discuss this question. I think that would be a better method than by question and answer across the floor of the House.
LORD STRABOLGI: I agree; I will refer to this matter at a future sitting.

BOMBERS IN THE PACIFIC
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether information is available to say what percentage of dive bombers to other bombers were used in the recent annihilation of the Japanese warships and convoy in the Pacific.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, from the reports received it appears that no dive bombers were used in this action.

GERMAN-JEWISH PIONEERS
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I desire to ask the question appearing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether those Pioneers who are German Jews are being sent abroad unnaturalized, and, if so, what will be their position should they be surrendered.]
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, the position of members of His Majesty's Forces who are taken prisoner by the enemy is determined by the Prisoners of War Convention, under which it is not necessary that members of the Forces should be nationals of the Power in whose Forces they serve, order to benefit by its provisions. Nearly all German Jews in this country lost German nationality before German law under the Eleventh

699
Ordinance of the Reich Citizenship Law of November 25, 1941, which provides that a Jew who has his ordinary abode abroad may not be a German national. The vast majority of German Jews in this country are therefore Stateless. Any Jews of the Pioneer Corps who still possess German nationality might legally be prosecuted by the Germans for treason if they were captured as the Prisoners of War Convention does not prevent this. However, as British nationality would not have caused them to lose their German nationality under the Decree I have already mentioned their position would not be improved, in the event of their being taken prisoners, by British naturalization.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of that answer? I am not happy and I do not think the noble Lord is, as to how the Germans would actually treat these people who have been deprived of citizenship if they are not nationals of any country. Who would protect them? So far as individual surrenders are concerned it would be their own funeral, but if they should happen to be surrendered by a British officer as part of a larger surrender we could never hold up our heads again if they were shot. I would like to ask the noble Viscount to consider the American system whereby, after ninety days in the Forces, aliens are allowed to opt for American citizenship. Would he consider that precedent and bring the matter up again with the Government to see whether something can be done?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: If we did adopt the American system to which the noble Lord refers and Germans did opt for British nationality, they would not be any better off if captured, because the Germans would not recognize it. They would be treated in exactly the same way as German citizens. If they are Stateless, they already come under the Prisoners of War Convention and would be treated in the same way as British soldiers.
LORD WEDGWOOD: If they are Stateless, there is no one to speak for them. If they are British subjects they have the whole power of the British Empire behind them.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I would like to have notice of this matter. But, as I understand the position, if they are British soldiers serving in the Forces of the Crown they obviously would receive the same protection as other British soldiers under the Convention, and any action taken by the German authorities would be a contravention of the Prisoners of War Convention just as much as if taken against British soldiers.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS.
Ordered, That for the remainder of the present Session (1) Notice of Amendments to be moved to a Bill in Committee may be handed in, printed and circulated before the Bill has been read a second time; (2) Amendments handed in to Bills brought from the Commons, and not reprinted for this House, to be printed.

LEICESTER GAS ORDER, 1943.
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Corporation of the City of Leicester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lords following be proposed to the House as members of the Panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act; namely:
The Viscount Elibank,
The Lord Saltoun.
Agreed to, and the said Lords appointed accordingly.