Lords Sitting of 2 August 1944

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

  FOOD RELIEF FOR GREECE.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask a question of which private notice has been given—namely, whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to certain statements which have been widely circulated to the effect that the first shipments of relief foodstuffs dispatched from Turkey to Greece in the autumn of 1941 were sent entirely on Turkish initiative and in defiance of the wishes of His Majesty's Government; whether they will make a statement on the subject, also whether His Majesty's Government are able to give any information as to future prospects with regard to food relief in countries now being, or about to be, liberated.
  THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, in reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate my attention has been called to a number of statements of the kind to which he has referred. These statements are to the general effect that the first shipments of relief foodstuffs to Greece which were dispatched from Turkey were purchased and shipped on the initiative of the Turkish Government, and were sent to Greece contrary to the wishes of His Majesty's Government. In other words it has been suggested that the Turkish authorities decided to ignore the British blockade and to organize these shipments in defiance of the British Government. I wish to make it quite clear that these statements, though no doubt made in good faith, are without the slightest foundation in fact.
  In the late summer of 1941 it became clear that as a result of the ravages of war and the maladministration of the occupying Powers a condition of famine was likely to arise in Greece, especially in the cities and islands. Then, as now, it
  76
  was contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to relieve the enemy of his responsibility by permitting foodstuffs to be shipped to enemy-occupied territories from overseas. We were, however, prepared to allow and even to facilitate the purchase of relief foodstuffs from neutral countries inside the blockade area, provided that such foodstuffs were of a type which the neutral countries concerned did not import through our Controls and that no financial advantage was obtained by the enemy. Accordingly, in July, 1941, His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora was instructed to consult urgently with the Greek Ambassador and with the local representatives of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation regarding the possibility of purchasing foodstuffs in Turkey for shipment to Greece. On August 20, 1941, the Turkish Ministry of Commerce agreed, at the request of His Majesty's Commercial Attaché, to issue licences to the U.K.C.C. for 50,000 tons of various foodstuffs. On August 26, 1941, £100,000 was remitted to the U. K.C.C. representative at Istanbul for this purpose. Unfortunately, in view of the acute shortage of shipping in Turkish ports, considerable difficulty was experienced in obtaining a suitable vessel. Eventually, however, arrangements were made to charter the s.s. "Kurtulus," the necessary funds being advanced by His Majesty's Government. It was agreed that the Greek War Relief Association incorporated in the United States should reimburse the expenditure by the U.K.C.C. through the Greek Government in London.
  The s.s. "Kurtulus" made monthly voyages to Athens carrying a cargo of about 2,000 tons on each voyage. It was accompanied on each occasion by representatives of the Turkish Red Crescent. In December, 1941, the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation were authorized by His Majesty's Government to increase their expenditure up to approximately £550,000. Efforts were also made to obtain the allocation of another Turkish ship but unfortunately this proved impossible. Indeed, the shortage of shipping at this time had become so serious that in order to compensate the Turkish Government for the s.s. "Kurtulus" it was necessary for His Majesty's Government to undertake to make a ship available for the carriage of Turkish cargoes from

  77
  Egypt In January, 1942, the s.s. "Kurtulus" went aground and became a total loss. Following representations by His Majesty's Government and the Greek Government the Turkish Government agreed to replace her by the s.s. "Dulumpinar" which made six voyages between Turk and Greece. Although it did rot prove possible to continue regular shipments of Turkish foodstuffs, it was agreed by His Majesty's Government and the United States Government early in 1942 to mice a special exception in the case of Greece and to allow relief foodstuffs to be dispatched from overseas.
  The total cost to date of sending these supplies from Turkey, including the cost of chartering the ships, amounts to about £1,513,000, and in addition wheat from Palestine to the value of £488,000 has been sent. Of this sum we have been reimbursed to the extent of £307,000 by the Greek War Relief Association Incorporated, which has undertaken to pay approximately a further £40,000. The Greek Government have paid £50,000. The balance of £1,644,000 represents an advance by His Majesty's Government to the Greek Government. I regret having had to deal with this matter at such length. I wish to acknowledge the part that was played by the Greek Government, by the Creek War Relief Association Incorporated in the United States, and by the Turkish Red Crescent and the Turkish Govern Went. But for the sake of historical accuracy I wish to place it on record that these relief shipments were initiated, organized and in the first place financed by His Majesty's Government.
  In reply to the latter part of the question the right reverend Prelate asked, I assured him some months ago when he raised the question of relief here that His Majesty's Government would watch the situation closely and, as it changed, we should be prepared to modify our arrangements ant reconsider the situation in any new light. The situation is changing, and when I tell him that His Majesty's Government are prepared to modify any arrangements that changed circumstances may render possible it is no idle promise on my part. As soon as it is possible to afford relief to liberated territories in Europe or to afford any relief to the peoples of Europe without damaging the
  78
  war effort, His Majesty's Government will be only too glad to do so.

  VALIDATION OF WAR-TIME LEASES BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill (40) as printed for the House of Commons.]
Title, page 1, line 1, leave out ("create") and insert ("grant or provide for the grant of")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to inform the House that inasmuch as one of the Amendments made by the Commons is to the effect that the Bill shall bind the Crown, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to this House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, gives his consent as far as His Majesty's interests are concerned on behalf of the Crown, and that the House may do therein as it shall see fit.
Your Lordships have the Paper with the Commons Amendments before you, and I am going to move that we agree with them. The Amendments fall into four classes. The first has to do with a slight change made by the Commons in the first clause, arising out of an anxiety lest the words used in the Bill as originally drafted might not be thought to cover a particular case. The words used in the Bill as it left this House were that any agreement
"which purports to create a tenancy for the duration of the war shall take effect as an agreement for a term of…"
years. It was pointed out by those who are learned in these matters that there might be a doubt whether these words covered a contract for a tenancy which does not itself grant or create a tenancy. That is a refinement which I do not propose to explain, but your Lordships may take it from me that there is a possible

79
doubt. The consequence is that the Commons have varied the words in five or six cases, all of which are stated on the first page of the print. The first one is in the Title to leave out "create" and insert "grant or provide for the grant of," and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out ("create") and insert ("grant or provide for the grant of").
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out ("take effect as an agreement for") and insert ("have effect as if it granted or provided for the grant of").
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("create") and insert ("grant or provide for the grant of").
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("create") and insert ("grant or provide for the grant of").
Page 3, line 1, leave out ("creating") and insert ("granting or providing for the grant of").
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("take effect as an agreement for") and insert ("have effect as if it granted or provided for the grant of").
page 3, line 53, leave out ("for").
page 3, line 20, at end insert:
("(6) In this section the expression 'agreement' includes an agreement in the form of a lease.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the printed Paper shows, there are a number of other changes which have really the same effect, taking the words as they were in the Bill as it left this House and expanding them so as to cover these otherwise doubtful cases. I think I might put the question in respect of these Amendments together. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 3, line 34, after ("war,") insert ("or"); line 35, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 36, and insert ("as respects those States with which His Majesty was at war at the date when the agreement was made, or, as the case may be, to the emergency occasioned thereby, unless it is shown that the parties intended").
Line 37, at end insert:
("The court by whom any such agreement is construed may admit any evidence which in the opinion of the court may throw light on the intention of the parties as to the meaning of the said expression.")
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("creating") and insert ("granting or providing for the grant of").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next matter is rather more a matter of substance and perhaps of policy which I shall explain very briefly. .The Bill, as your Lordships remember, is for the purpose of giving legal effect and suitable interpretation to leases or agreements for leases which are expressed to be "for the duration of the war" or some vague phrase of that sort. That phrase does not enable you to determine what the agreement is. We have therefore provided in the Bill that all these leases are to be treated as though they were for a certain term of years, liable to be defeated on the termination of the war. We chose ten years; I trust it may not be so long. In any case that is all subject to the termination of the war, or whatever the contract says. We thought when we drafted the Bill that the right thing to do in a case where there was really nothing to show what the parties meant by a lease "for the duration of the war" was to treat it as a lease for the duration of the Japanese War no less than the German War or the Italian War. We thought that that was the right view to take, and it would therefore, under the Bill as it left this House, have been possible to make out that the lease was for a shorter period if there was something in the lease or in the circumstances to prove the difference.
I think we have had a number of communications from the public about it. On reflection it is really quite plain that if the agreement was made quite early in the war, at a time when the only enemy was Germany, the person who made that agreement was really thinking of the war with Germany. He cannot have been thinking of anything more. Consequently we see the force of the proposal made in the Commons, which was widely supported I think in all parts of the House, that where there was no reason to think the contrary regard should be had to the date when the agreement was made and that the understanding should be that these agreements, so difficult to construe, should be

81
regarded as referring to the war as respects those States with which His Majesty was at war at the date when the agreement was made, that is unless it is shown that the parties intended something different. If that is shown (as might be the case) the Amendment which the Common; propose says that we should have regard to the date and that we should treat these agreements as really referring to such war or wars as we were involved in at the date.
I cannot help thinking that that is as near as we can get to the possible intention of the parties. It will not suit every case. The soldier who goes abroad to fight may [or some reason make an agreement to dispose of his house for the duration of the war, and there may be cases in which that may mean whatever war is coming along. On the other hand, I think in the majority of cases the other view is right and that it is really being a little pedantic to treat an agreement which is to last "for the duration of the war" as though it was an agreement that was to last until the end of all wars in which we might be engaged, though the agreement was entered into in the first week of the war with Germany. One can imagine cases where premises have been evacuated in areas that have been bombed. Those must refer to the war with Germany because up to the present Japan has not developed that form of attack with which Germany has made us familiar. The Motion I wish to make is that we agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 3, page 4, line 43, at end insert:
("(5) Nothing in thy, said Section one shall be taken as bringing any agreement within Section twenty-eight of the Finance Act, 1931 (which requires instruments granting or transferring leases for a term of seven years or more to be produced to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue).")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a technical matter to which our attention has been called ay the Revenue. The object of this really is that the changes we are making in the Bill should not so turn out as to require the making of a new
82
agreement that would have to carry a new stamp. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 43, at end insert the following clause:
Application to the Crown.
(". This Act shall apply to agreements to which the Crown is a party.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the clause to which I referred just now. It provides that the Act shall apply to agreements to which the Crown is a party. I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 4, page 5, line 5, leave out ("create") and insert ("grant or provide for the grant of").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill I should like to reply to a point raised yesterday .by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I told him I would consult with my right honourable friend the Minister of Health on the matter. I am glad to say that I am able to confirm the assurance which I gave him yesterday. It is only in very exceptional circumstances that local authorities are likely to seek power to acquire compulsorily for housing purposes any land incorporating

83
private recreational sports grounds of the kind that he mentioned. Should such an order be submitted due notice shall be given to the interested parties and my right honourable friend will give any objection raised the fullest and most sympathetic consideration whether or not he should decide to hold a public inquiry upon it.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pursuance of the Resolution of July 25, Bill read 3ª, and passed.

NATIONAL FIRE SERVICES REGULATIONS (INDEMNITY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is an interesting Bill and it deals with a very unusual situation. The Bill was carried through all its stages in the House of Commons yesterday and I shall invite your Lordships to carry it through all its stages here to-day. In 1941 the Fire Services of Great Britain were reorganized and improved. Before that, as your Lordships will know, the Fire Services were a local service and even the splendid London Brigade was a local service. There were smaller and much smaller fire brigades all over the country which up till 1941 performed the most useful and necessary services which have been universally approved. Then, instead of the Fire Services being provided by the local authorities, there came about a unification and a co-ordination so that we had a National Fire Service, with its own pay, its own pensions and its own penalties.
I pause for a moment to .remind your Lordships that it is to that united Fire Service after it was unified in the latter half of 1941 that we owe it that London has not been burned to the ground by the Germans. It was of course a tremendous piece of work to organize this service on national lines. It involved all sorts of arrangements with the local authorities as
84
well as with the personnel and also required new apparatus. But it was done and we all know it has been done most successfully. There was only one thing about it that was not done successfully and that is that the Minister of the Crown who sits in the Commons, whose business it was to lay the regulations on the tables of both Houses of Parliament, failed to do so. The explanation I believe is that two different sections of the Department each thought the other had done it, but the fact is it never was done. That raises undoubtedly a very serious constitutional situation.
Your Lordships are well aware that this practice which we follow in certain cases of making rules and regulations which constitute delegated legislation takes two forms that are different. In some cases, the provision in the Statute is that we give power to the appropriate Minister to make regulations to work out the scheme, but that these regulations shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament and then will provide that unless both Houses within so many days carry a Resolution approving the proposed Regulations they shall have no validity at all. That is called the affirmative method. It calls for an affirmative Resolution and the regulations never have any effect from the beginning until the specified period has elapsed and the appropriate affirmative Resolution has been carried which adopts them. They do not operate at all in the period of incubation when they are put on the Table; are not part of the Act of Parliament; they only get life and vigour from the fact that an affirmative Resolution is passed in both Houses. There is a second method used in many cases, which is the negative method. There the Act of Parliament gives power to the Secretary of State to draw up these regulations and it is provided that they are operative as law from the moment that he makes and signs them. They are law while still in his office. They are law when they are put on the Table of the House and they continue to be law and pass into the law of the country unless within 28 days one or other of the Houses carries a Resolution to make them invalid.
The regulations concerning the National Fire Service are a case in which the negative procedure was to be adopted. That is to say, that the Secretary of State was authorized by the Statute of 1941 to

85
make these regulations. They instantly came into force and they did in fact constitute the system by which the National Fire Service was set up. Unfortunately, they were never laid on the Table of the House and nobody had the opportunity therefore of moving their nullification. Their validity depends on the fact that they were made. As soon as this mistake was discovered—and it was a very grave mistake—the Home Office laid these regulations on the table in both House; on July 26. Your Lordships may not be conscious of it but theoretically they lie upon that Table now. If your Lordships look at the third recital of the Bill you will see that that was done on July 26. The Bill says:
"… whereas by reason of inadvertence the regulations specified … were not laid before either House of Parliament until the twenty-sixth day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-four. …"
As some of the regulations were made in 1941 and some in 1942 and, I think, in 1943, obviously that is a lapse of a very serious character, and no doubt your Lordships will take that view, as it was taken in another place.
As for the Borne Secretary himself he presented himself in a very abundant white sheet. He acknowledged fully how grave was the error for which he must take full constitutional responsibility and he apologized with great sincerity. He did the only thing he could do and asked for an Act of Indemnity. If your Lordships look at the first clause of the Bill, you will see that it is accurately drawn for the purpose of giving indemnity. It says:
"The Secretary of State is hereby freed, discharged and indemnified from and against all consequences whatsoever, if any, incurred or to be incurred by him by reason of the said failure to lay before Parliament the regulations specified in the Schedule of this Act as soon as may be after they were made. …"
I stop there for a moment. I do not feel much doubt myself that if a Secretary of State fails to fulfil the duty which is laid upon him by the Statute—namely, of laying the regulations—he does commit a serious fault which I should apprehend might be the subject of proceedings as a Common Law misdemeanour. It is a breach of the duty Parliament laid upon him. The law exists among other things to punish breaches of duty unless they are forgiven. This part of the clause which I have quoted is to give Parlia-
86
mentary forgiveness and absolution to the Secretary of State for this most unfortunate error.
A second thing is also necessary and the clause goes on to say:
"and those regulations shall be deemed to have been duly laid before Parliament in accordance with the requirements of the Statute under which they were made."
The point is this. The regulations were laid on the table on July 26. By the Emergency Powers legislation passed at the beginning of the war, there is provision for 28 days Parliamentary time within which they may be objected to. The effect of the clause is that they are to be treated as though they were duly laid "as soon as may be," although in fact they were not laid until July 26, 1944. There will still be the necessary 28 days during which anyone in either House can raise objection. That period will go on until after the Parliamentary Recess because it is 28 sitting days. That, therefore, cures the error in the sense that the offence is given absolution, and opportunity is given for objection to be taken if anybody desires. I cannot think that anyone will do so because it so happens that these regulations have been the subject of several most important discussions in another place.- Nobody objected and noticed during those discussions that the regulations had not been laid. It would appear that this is a case in which no particular harm was done.
I have said that the modern practice is for Parliament to insert in a Statute provision for delegated legislation. This is not the occasion to discuss that matter at large but it may be of interest to your Lordships to be informed that research goes to show that whether the method be good or bad, it is not merely a modern method. It is a method which has been adopted by Parliament for the last four hundred years. It has been approved of as a way by which Parliament may authorize general principles and the main structure of the Bill while leaving regulations with statutory effect to be made by an indicated Department. The circumstance which caused such legislation to come under popular and Parliamentary suspicion was the continuance of what was called D.O.R.A. after the end of the last war. We all remember that there was a great deal of warm and strong feeling that this was being kept up longer than it ought to be. But I must respectfully inform

87
your Lordships that it is not true to say that this is a new method, because it has been employed without objection by Parliament for hundreds of years.
This Bill is certainly one of a most unusual character and your Lordships may feel that you have had an interesting day in taking part in its passage into law. I ask first of all, from the House of Lords, in the most sincere terms for forgiveness of the error which has been made, for the error is a breach which affects both Houses. The Ministry is one, so I as well as my colleagues on the Front Bench must join in that appeal to your mercy. Fortunately, as I pointed out, it is not the case that in this instance any harm was done, for nobody wanted to object. On the contrary, everybody was satisfied with the arrangements made. What has happened has been just an accident.
In the second place, I ask your Lordships to carry this Bill, in which we indemnify the Secretary of State, and in which we also provide that, although in fact regulations have just been laid, they are treated as laid under the terms of the original Act, "as soon as may be" and there will be 28 Parliamentary days within which anybody who objects to the Fire Service or any of the provisions in the fire regulations may move either House of Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his exposition of this Bill which, I think, creates misgivings in the minds of many of us. Some of us who at different times have been responsible for regulations have to congratulate ourselves that we ourselves did not commit a similar offence—or, perhaps, on the fact that we were not found out. There is one matter which the noble and learned Viscount, quite inadvertently, I am sure, overlooked. I refer to the "Blitz" in London in 1940 and 1941, when very great fires took place. These occurred in fact before these regulations were drawn up, and I am sure he would join with us in saying what a tremendous debt we owe to the splendid Fire Service of London before it was incorporated in the National Service. I think that our gratitude should be expressed for that, while at the same time we are fully
88
appreciative of the value of these regulations and of the National Fire Service which has been brought into existence.
As to the other comments of the noble and learned Viscount I think the question is quite properly raised whether some other departmental or Parliamentary procedure might not be devised with regard to these negative regulations—I think they are called negative because they do not require an affirmative Resolution in Parliament, and there are some thousands of them taking them all together. Ought not some kind of automatic check to be devised which will secure that oversights of this kind do not in fact occur in future? We can, of course, understand how it has occurred, and I am sure we are all ready to recognize that these regulations have conferred an immense boon on the community. We would all wish, therefore, that this Act of Indemnity should be passed. But this episode brings into light the necessity for devising, if possible, some scheme of departmental or Parliamentary procedure which will automatically prevent the recurrence of accidents of this kind. As for the rest, I can only say that we on these Benches concur in what the noble and learned Viscount said.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships will pass this Bill which is obviously a necessary measure. It is a piece of retrospective legislation, and that always needs careful scrutiny and adequate justification. It declares that these regulations which ought to have been laid upon the Tables of both Houses, but which were not so laid, shall be deemed to have been laid. That word "deemed" is very dangerous, and I have animadverted upon it on a previous occasion, but here I think its use is legitimate. As the Lord Chancellor has just said, it is highly improbable that any citizen can be damnified or that any injustice to him can have been caused by virtue of the fact that this lapse has occurred and the regulations were not laid.
The Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security has made in another place what the noble and learned Viscount has described as a very full and ample apology. Many of your Lordships whom I see sitting around me to-day in this House have served in the House of Commons, and they will agree with me that there

89
is nothing which that House enjoys so much as what is called a full and frank apology. Any Minister or private Member whose credit is declining has only to do something wrong, and to confess his fault and throw himself on the indulgence of the House to be raised to the highest point of popularity. I suppose it is on the principle that there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just men that need no repentance.
The Home Secretary has been busily engaged, and very effectively engaged, in protecting the houses of the nation from destruction by fire, and he has not noticed this fire smouldering in his own house. It has now burst into this Parliamentary conflagration and he emerges from what may be termed his Morrison shelter in order to make this apology and to receive the indulgence and even, apparently, the approval of the House of Commons. Both the Lord Chancellor and I have had the privilege of serving at the head of the Home Office. I for one, and I am sure he also, always regarded it as a particularly efficient Department. I have been in and about various Departments of State for a considerable number of years, and I always looked upon the Home Office, from the point of view of the technique of administration, as an exceedingly efficient Department. It is depressing to an ex-Home Secretary to find even this temporary slur cast upon its prestige. This lapse, as it has been called, is a very multitudinous one, for it occurred nineteen times over a period of three years. The Home Office would, I am sure, regard the culprit as an habitual offender if it had to deal with other people similarly guilty in other walks of life. However, the lapse will, I think, be forgiven although it ought not to be forgotten.
What is important is to devise some means to ensure that similar unhappy events may be safeguarded against in the future. The duty, of laying upon the Table of the Houses of Parliament regulations that are made, is a step which is taken not in the service of the various Departments but in restraint of those Departments. It is designed to check their actions and yet it is left to the Departments themselves to see that the prescribed course is taken. Ought it not to be for Parliament itself to keep some watch upon the Departments? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? If those who are charged with this duty do
90
not do it what remedy is there? I would suggest, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has suggested, that we should consider whether some amendment in the present machinery has not been proved by this event to be necessary. The Government, we know, have under consideration a comprehensive measure dealing with all these questions relating to statutory rules and regulations. Perhaps, in that connexion, they might take this present situation into account and it might possibly be found convenient for a register of Statutes to be kept specifying which require regulations to be made, and which procedure is to be adopted in the case of these regulations.
When regulations are made by any Government Department under any Statute, it should be the function of some Parliamentary official to collate these regulations with the register and to see that the proper procedure is being adopted. It is already the practice for all these regulations and rules to be sent to the Editor of the Revised Statutes, and it would be a simple matter to require that in each case they should be sent forward to an officer in the Bills Offices in the House of Commons and House of Lords to see that the necessary procedure has been adopted. I merely throw that out as a suggestion for consideration by those who have this matter now under review, and in the meantime I would join with others in expressing the hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friends Lord Addison and Lord Samuel for the manner in which they have approached this unfortunate event. On one point only I should like to add an observation, suggested by something just said by my noble friend Lord Samuel. I can assure him, and I can assure the House, that those of us in the Government who have been concerned in trying to put this matter right are very much alive to the necessity of considering whether there could not be some further check of an automatic kind which would prevent such an incident recurring. It is, of course, quite accidental; nobody means to do it; it only gets the Department into trouble. It is not, however, very satisfactory to have a situation in which the original Act of Parliament says that the regulations, having been made by the Secre-

91
tary of State, must be laid and be the target of attack, and to find that they are made and are law, but that there has been no opportunity of challenging them, as was intended.
It may be that the right instrument to use is not a Ministerial instrument, for the reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has given. The remedy is probably more of a Parliamentary character. I may perhaps say that in the last few days those of us who have been particularly concerned in this matter—the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, myself- and one or two others—have been considering various ways in which this particular hole might be effectively stopped. I do not think there is any doubt that as a result of this consideration the matter will come up again in a more general form, and we shall have to see what can be done. In the meantime, I thank my noble friend very much for the interesting suggestion which he has made, which will be considered along with some other suggestions already put forward.
On Question, Bill read 2a Committee negatived.
Then Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pusuance of the Resolution of July 25, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ALLOWANCES FOR OFFICERS' CHILDREN.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, when they are likely to be in a position to make a statement which will render it possible for the adjourned debate on the question of allowances granted for the children of officers who have lost their lives on Service, to be resumed; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think that the House has been very patient in waiting for this statement, because it was as long ago as May 24 that the debate on this subject was adjourned. If the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, can now make any statement, it would seem more convenient and satisfactory and would save time if I reserved any remarks I have to make until the House has been informed what concessions, if any, the Government have
92
decided to make. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE)(Lord Cecil): My Lords, the question to which the noble Earl's Motion refers is one which, as your Lordships know, has been many times the subject of discussion within recent months, but I certainly would not wish to complain that he should raise it again; indeed, I think it is very proper that he should do so. On the last occasion on which this question was before your Lordships, the noble Earl put the case with great force for an increase in the provision which is made for the widows and children of officers who have been killed in the war, especially in respect of education allowances for the children, a matter with which a good deal of the debate was concerned.
The House will recall that the moving plea which was made by the noble Earl on that occasion received very considerable support in all quarters of the House. In my reply on behalf of the Government, while I expressed deep sympathy, which, indeed, I most sincerely feel, with the arguments advanced by the noble Earl, I explained to your Lordships the serious difficulties which were felt by His Majesty's Government about altering any of the basic provisions of the Royal Warrant. I indicated—and I would still emphasize this to your Lordships—that this cannot be regarded as a limited issue, to be dealt with purely in a watertight compartment, and I pointed out that any alteration in these basic allowances for the widows and children of officers would be likely to have the widest repercussions over the whole sphere of pensions. In view, however, of the strong feeling in your Lordships' House that something ought to be done to assist a section of the community which has suffered most cruelly by the war, I promised to take the matter back to my colleagues, to inform them of the strong views expressed by your Lordships, and to ask whether anything could possibly be done to meet those views.
Following that undertaking, it was agreed that the debate should be adjourned to enable these consultations to take place. In my view, the first and most essential step was that an opportunity should be provided for those noble Lords who had principally interested

93
themselves in this subject to express their views direct to the Ministers mainly concerned, and it ,vas therefore arranged that a deputation of these noble Lords, led by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, should be received by the Ministers to whom I have referred, so that that deputation could raise the points to which they attached most importance. I think that all the noble Lords who took part in that meeting will agree that an opportunity was given for the fullest discussion of this subject.
The main part of the discussion ranged round the education allowances to be given to the children of officers, and four main points were made, to which I should like to refer. Firstly, it was felt that the qualifying age limit for an education allowance, which is at present eight years, should be lowered to an earlier age. Secondly, it was felt that there should be a varying scale in the allowances, according to tae age of the child. Thirdly, it was suggested hat the present provisions were unduly restrictive, in that a father's advancement in the Services could not be recognized. Fourthly and lastly, the point was made that an allowance should not be refused altogether when the education which was proposed by the mother was not considered suitable, but that in cases of that in an appropriate lower rate of allowance should be granted. Those, I think it will he agreed, were the four main points that were made.
Following on the meeting to which I have referred there has been further examination of this subject by His Majesty's Government in the light of what was said both in your Lordships' House and at the meeting with the deputation; and in answer to the question which the noble Earl has just put to me, I am happy to say that I ant in a position to-day to announce results of the further consideration by His Majesty's Government of these points, which should, I hope and believe, very largely meet the views expressed in the House on the last occasion. I would, however, make it clear at the outset that what I am about to say does not apply only to officers; it applies to all ranks. The governing consideration throughout is this: we must take account in these education allowances of the education which the father, whatever rank he held, would have been likely to be able to give if he had not been killed. That is the essence of the matter.
94
I would now like to go into a little more detail on the points raised by the deputation and explain the decisions which have been reached by the Government on these points. The first point was this. It was proposed that the qualifying age limit for educational allowances, which is at present eight years, should be lowered. It was pointed out, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, that education begins before the age of eight years, and he felt —and I think other noble Lords felt the same—that it constituted a hardship that the expense of the education during the earlier years should fall entirely upon the widow of the officer who had been killed. His Majesty's Government accept that view, and henceforward the position will be that grants can be made in suitable cases from the age of five upwards. The House, I am quite certain, will welcome this decision and I hope that they will agree that it will eliminate any possible cases of hardship such as the noble Earl himself had in mind on this particular point.
The second point that was made was that there should be a varying scale of allowances according to the age of the child. I understand from the inquiries I have made that, with respect to this particular point, there really is a genuine misunderstanding as to the present position. The existing method for awarding sums relating to fees and expenses within the maximum set for these allowances is in effect already a sliding scale. Generally, and very naturally, there are higher claims in respect of older children, and the age of the child can be and is taken into account in deciding whether the education asked for would be suitable. Obyiously, if the child is older the expenses of his education will be higher. We all know that is the case; we have all of us had experience of this ourselves. But this fact is already taken into consideration by the Minister of Pensions in arriving at his decision. I am very glad to have the opportunity of making that quite clear.
Now I come to the third point. The third point is that the existing provisions are unduly restrictive. It was suggested that the father's advancement in the Services cannot at present be recognized in deciding what education allowance should be given for his children. This point, too, I understand, also arises from a mis-

95
understanding of the basis on Which these grants are made. These grants are not directly connected with the rank which the father held in the Armed Forces; they are based, as I have said before, on the education which the child would have been likely to have received had his or her father survived. I think it is reasonable and right to argue that if the father had improved his position as the result of the war and if as the result of taking a Commission or for any other reason—but for the purposes of this argument as the result of taking a Commission—he had increased his income and was likely to be able to give his children a better education, this should, be recognized in the education allowance that is given by the State in the event of his death in action. We can all, I think, recall instances of distinguished services in war which have entirely altered the outlook of a family. But in fact it is already the practice of the Ministry of Pensions to take account of such considerations in assessing allowances. The allowances, the House will remember, are awardable at the absolute discretion of the Minister, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Pensions assures me that he certainly would not withhold an appropriate grant if he had evidence that the father would have committed himself to a certain measure of expense had he lived.
That brings me to the last point made by the deputation. This is the point. It was argued that where application was made for a certain standard of allowance and where it was considered by the Ministry that the standard which was asked by the applicant was excessive the application should not be entirely turned down but that an appropriately lower level should be allotted to the applicant. Were it to be the existing practice that the Minister makes no grant at all where he considers the claim excessive, that I think would clearly be unfair. But fortunately I am in a position to reassure the noble Earl and the House on this point. The system is really not so rigid as has been supposed. The grant for these allowances is entirely within the discretion of the Minister of Pensions, and he can and does make whatever grant he considers appropriate in individual cases, taking into full account the circumstances of the father, both during the pre-war and the
96
war periods. He is not bound to give all or nothing. He can make whatever allocation he thinks proper in the light of the circumstances of the case.
There is one further point which, if I remember aright, was raised in the debate but I think was not actually raised by the deputation. Your Lordships will remember that under the Royal Warrant the education allowances are limited to a maximum of £50. It was urged by noble Lords in the debate the last time the subject was discussed that this ceiling was too low and that it would not bridge the gap between the straitened financial circumstances of the widow and the expenses of a school to which the father would have sent his child had he lived. The Government feel that there is considerable force in this contention and it has therefore been decided that the maximum grant shall be increased from 513 to £80. I feel certain that this decision also will be welcomed by your Lordships. The increase of this maximum allowance from 5o to go payable to the children of deceased officers and other ranks will of course help to meet increased expenses due to rising costs, but it should I think be recognized that the position will be greatly altered in consequence of the present Education Bill and the Government's education policy.
In the first place, as the House knows, tuition fees in all county and voluntary schools will be abolished. No parent will therefore be called on to pay for tuition at such school and power is given to the local education authorities under the Act to meet extra expenses for pupils at these schools. In addition, maintenance allowances will be payable, where the financial circumstances of the parents justify them, for pupils over the statutory school-leaving age—that is, of course, after the automatic payment of children's allowances has ceased. In the second place, there will undoubtedly be a development of boarding facilities at county and voluntary schools, and provision is made in the Bill for boarding fees to be graded according to the means of the parent. Finally, any action which is taken by the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Fleming Committee, whose Report your Lordships will have read in the last few days, will undoubtedly make it easier for children to

97
have access to public schools in the widest sense of the term, including not only the great boarding schools but also some of the older grammar schools. No doubt these new conditions will have a bearing on future arrangements for education allowances.
The modifications that I have announced should in themselves be of material assistance in alleviating the hardships of those for whom the noble Earl made so powerful a plea two months ago. His Majesty's Government recognize as much as any noble Lord in this House the (ay we owe to those who have not hesitated to risk all and to give their lives for the liberties of this country. We are their debtors, and it would ill befit us not to do all in our power to see that the families of those who have given their all should not suffer through. Their sacrifice. That I know very well is the view of your Lordships, and that I can assure you is also the view of the Government. It is for that reason that I am particularly glad to be able to make this announcement this afternoon.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to what has been said by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I shall not touch on the main question of his speech, which was the education allowances. I am more concerned with the pensions of the widows of officers who have been killed and the allowances to their children before they reach the sclis of age. A case has been brought to my notice in the last few days of a friend of nine. Her husband was a Regular officer. He had been ten years in the Army. He was a Captain with, for the last two years, temporary rank tits Major. He was in the Royal Armoured Corps and was killed the other day in Normandy. There is one child aged between two and two and a half and the mother is going to have another child in the course of the next few months. I am informed by her that her pension will be £140 a year and £36 for the child, and presumably the re will be another £36 for the child that is coining—making in all £212, less Income Tax. It looks to me as if her time before she begins to get allowances with regard to education, which I am de ighted to hear about, will be pretty thin.
There is more in this than merely stating a case We are asking now that people should nary and have children.
98
We have shown a great effort on behalf of the country, among all classes, during this war. I must say that the compensation that is given by the Government to those families who lose their mainstay in life is very meagre, and many families, who perhaps at the beginning of the war were fairly comfortably off, are now very badly off indeed and likely to continue so. I hope that this is not the last word of the Government with regard to the basis on which all pensions of the nature I have mentioned are to be allocated. I hope the Government will do more than is being done at present. In these days, when we are voting almost weekly millions upon millions of pounds to do various things, I should like to see this particular question put as priority No. I. I feel it is of the utmost importance in the future that the dependants of those who have gone forth to war on our behalf, and have lost their lives, should receive more generous treatment than they do at the present time. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my noble friend.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I feel that the House will have heard with great satisfaction the concessions which have been made by His Majesty's Government as a result of your Lordships' interest in this matter. I wish to thank the Government on behalf of those who will benefit by what has been done, and I should like to thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his help and sympathy in the deliberations which have taken place. He told you of the deputation which visited Ministers on this subject. I agree that we had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter, but it would be hypocrisy on my part to pretend that I am altogether satisfied. I regret, with Lord Teviot, that it has not been found possible to make some increase in the £36 maintenance allowance to each child. That that is not enough is really admitted by the fact that when a child has to be boarded out, having no mother, the allowance is £60, which is presumably the estimated cost of bringing the child up. Therefore, in an ordinary case, the widow has to find £24 out of her own small pension for the benefit of the child. I am not going on with that point, which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Teviot.
I consider that the increase in the education allowance is generous and will

99
benefit a great Many, but there is one shortcoming. I am very much afraid that the Government are going to spoil a good ship by trying to save a ha porth of tar. Who is going to benefit by this increase in the education allowance depends too much on how the regulations are interpreted by those who administer them. I would remind your Lordships of the regulations which govern the grant of education allowances. These allowances may, at the discretion of the Minister, be granted to each child of eight years and over—now five years, I am happy to say —provided the pecuniary circumstances of the family require it, that the Minister is satisfied as to the type of education in view or received, and that the child would have been likely to have received an education of the same type had the father survived. The amount of the education allowance shall be determined by the Minister, and in any case will not exceed £50—now £80. I have said that this education allowance cannot be counted upon. Its granting or withholding depends entirely on the circumstances of the case.
It has been said, and it has been practically said this afternoon, that in practice it will be granted. But not a bit of it. I have in my possession copies of letters which have passed between a widow and the Ministry. The widow, on her son attaining the age of eight, sent him in all good faith to a small school and applied for an allowance. The answer was a blank refusal to give him anything. No reason was given. On my advice the widow wrote and asked what the reason was, and the answer was one that I will read to your Lordships. I will read it from a photographic copy I had taken of that letter which I intended to inflict upon your Lordships during the Recess but you will escape that now. The letters reads:
"I am directed by the Minister of Pensions to refer to your letter of the 1st June in which you ask for the reason your application for an education allowance was refused. I am to inform you that under 'the provisions of the Royal Warrant an educational allowance cannot be awarded unless, among other conditions, the Minister is satisfied that having regard to the circumstances of a family a child is prevented from receiving the education it would otherwise have received had the father not been killed in the present war.
In view of the information furnished by you regar ling the pre-war and present income
100
of your family, which shows that your present income exceeds that of the pre-war income, the Minister is unable to regard the necessary conditions as fulfilled and it is regretted that it is not possible to authorize a grant in your case."
If I may detain your Lordships I should like to go into the details of that case. My information comes from the widow, and I see no reason to question what she told me because it can be so easily verified. In the first place she has only received two letters. The first one gave a blank refusal of an allowance and the second one likewise gave a refusal and also the reason for it which I have read out. According to her own statement her husband was earning approximately £220 per annum in the General Post Office. Until June of this year her pension was £130 per annum. That has now been increased to £150. She receives £36 a year for each of two boys, so I am told her income altogether amounts to £222. I do not think there is any dispute that the income she now receives is £222, which is within a very few pounds of what her income was in pre-war times, even if we do suppose that she has slightly exaggerated. Her income was £200 a year before the war started. Is that difference of £20 really sufficient to justify denying her any help to educate her son? To most people it would appear that the smaller her income the 'more the need of financial assistance, particularly as she has a second boy approaching school age. The same argument can be advanced again by the Minister of Pensions in the case of that boy.
This particularly bears out what I have said on three previous occasions, that it is upon the ranker officer, the man who has made his own way by the qualities he has shown himself to possess, that this sort of rule bears with the greatest hardship. If this rule is always applied obviously scores of young men whose start in their professions was delayed by the outbreak of war would not qualify. To me this seems grossly unfair. It ignores all that might have been, that the father had he lived might have earned better wages, or might by his war experience have got a better position, or if the war continued might have got further promotion. I am not arguing that an allowance should be paid regardless of how it is expended to all now that the upper limit has been extended, or that the whole of it

101
should necessarily be given. But I do ask that a substantial part of it should be given as a right, provided that the type of education is interpreted as meaning an ordinary British education of the sort teat the son of the dead man's brother officers might be expected to receive. In the particular case which I Mention the school to which this boy is sent, and which is considered too expensive for the son of an officer killed in the Service, is a small school on the outskirts of Lone on. It is an ordinary type of day school and the fees including extras come to about £14 a term. I have seen the prospectus of that school and the boy's school report for the first term which was quite satisfactory.
In the Sunday Times of last Sunday there appeared an article on the public schools and in it the writer advocated that every decoration earned in war should carry with it the right to send a son or daughter up for a bursary. That I suggest is entirely the right principle to apply in the case of a man, no matter what walk of life Le was in, who has shown enough intelligence and energy and other qualities to enable him to rise to commissioned rank. Surely it is worth while in the national interest to give the children of men who have proved their ability a chance to develop any of the same qualities which may be dormant in them. There is an advantage at present in the private schools of the type I have mentioned because there are more teachers in proportion to the number of boys than in larger schools, and that will continue to be the case for many years until we have recruited and trained the schoolmasters we hear so much about and built all those modern schools that are to be put up all over the country so that the classes can be reduced to sensible numbers. It is far better hr a little chap to go to a school where he gets individual attention. I suggest that such an advantage might well be allowed to those who have fallen in the service of their country after having proved their worth in the field. It is not too much to ask that the children of such men should be enabled to have these extra advantages.
I have expressed myself as feeling satisfaction at what has been said and I do not propose to press this matter at the present time. Presumably there will be an inquiry after the war, as there was in
102
1919, into this whole question, and I think I may have to return to this matter and ask for your Lordships' support again. I wish however to thank the Government for what they have done and, if I may presume to do so, to congratulate your Lordships on another case in which your interest has enabled people to get something which otherwise they would not have got. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to answer a point which the noble Earl has made because he has not given all the facts, and I should not wish your Lordships to be under any misapprehension. As the noble Earl was kind enough to give me notice that he was going to raise this particular case, I have obtained full details. He referred to the case of a lady who applied for an educational allowance of ,£49 in respect of her elder child—she had two children—and he said she had written a letter showing quite clearly that she had not received the whole sum for which she asked but that she is receiving nothing at all. He suggested that was an extremely unfair position. As I have indicated, I have taken pains to obtain the full details of this particular case. I think it will be clear when I have given your Lordships the figures that no real hardship was involved, and that the decision was taken in entire accordance with the basic principles of the education allowance.
The House will recall the nature of this education allowance. It is not a right; it is not like a maintenance allowance. It is granted in particular cases where it is needed in order to enable the child to receive the education he would have had had his father lived. If the income of the widow already ensures that he shall have the same education as he would have had if his father had lived there can be of course no grounds for an additional grant. In the particular case which was mentioned by the noble Earl, the father before the war, so I am informed, received an income of £148 a year. In 1939 he joined the Army. In 194o he received a Commission. At the time of his death he held the rank of Temporary Captain with the pensionable rank of Lieutenant. Were he alive to-day with all due increments and his war bonus he would be receiving £225 a year. The widow is now receiving a pension of £150 a year and

103
an allowance of £72 in respect of her two children. Therefore, her total income is £222, only £3 less than the income had the father lived. The income is far higher than that which the family were in receipt of before the war and almost, as I say, exactly equal to the income received before the father was killed. When the father was alive, the child was in fact going to the ordinary State school. That is, when the full income was coming in from Army pay. It was only after the death of the father that the child was transferred to a private school. I really do not think it can be maintained that in this particular case—although I have the utmost sympathy with the lady—a higher standard of education would have been available to the child if the father had not been killed. I thought it right to explain that because otherwise a wrong impression might be created.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I ask whether these wages in 1939, some months before the war, would be the same to-day?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I do not think it possible to say what they would have been. You cannot say that. All you can do in a particular case is to take the full pay which the man was receiving in the Army, which in this case was considerably more than that received in civil life. Upon that basis the widow is at present receiving exactly the same income. I do not think you can take any other basis.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: But there has been a rise in all wages.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

REDUNDANT MILITARY CAMPS.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they have considered the use of surplus or temporarily redundant military camps for families and children evacuated from, or to be evacuated from, danger areas in Southern England.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, consideration has been given to the use
104
of surplus or temporarily redundant military camps for evacuated persons. In the majority of cases however such camps are still required for military use. Moreover, it is only in exceptional instances that military camps provide the kind of suitable accommodation which it is possible to secure elsewhere for women and children; but where camps are available and suitable they will of course be used. The military authorities are offering substantial assistance to the Ministry of Health by releasing to them a large amount of requisitioned property varying from small houses to large residential premises, and this accommodation is being put to use in connexion with the Government evacuation scheme.

TRANSFERRED NAVAL AND R.A.F. PERSONNEL.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is intended that personnel transferred from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to His Majesty's Army will he formed into their own units under their own officers, and wearing their own distinctive uniform and badges; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologize to my noble friend Lord Croft for giving him rather short notice of this question, but I thought it was rather urgent and that this would be the last opportunity of raising the matter with His Majesty's Government before your Lordships dispersed. I have found some complaint and criticism amongst the serving personnel of the Royal Navy—and I hear from the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, that the same thing applies in the Royal Air Force—on account of the impression among sailors and airmen that they are going to he transferred to the Army and lose their identity. If that is the case, I suggest that a mistake is being made and that a very valuable quality of esprit de corps and tradition will be lost. I was talking at the week-end to a very distinguished young officer from the submarine service—who joined for hostilities only—who said he and his colleagues would rather be shot than be drafted into the Army, but if they were invited to volunteer or were detailed to a Naval Brigade or Naval Division they would do their duty with alacrity and willingness.
That is the whole crux of the matter. If you take sailors and keep them together-I cannot speak for the Royal Air Force, although I feel sure the same thing would apply—and let them serve under their own officers, they will do remarkably well as soldiers, but they must be a group with their own officers. My noble friend Lord Croft knows perfectly well the great tradition of the Naval Brigade which served in the Boxer Rebellion in China and in the South African War and of the Royal Naval Division in the last war. But they were called Naval Brigades or Royal Naval Divisions and you could tell on sight that thy belonged to those distinctive corps.
It is not oily in our own country that this experience has resulted. In the last war the French used naval units in the line in France with excellent results. They gained a great reputation for themselves. In this war the Russian Marine Divisions and Brigades have done excellent service. But they are called Naval Brigades and Divisions. They keep their uniforms and their badges and so on. Take the ease of the Germans. They found apparently that there was a redundancy of ground personnel in the Luftwaffe, and my information is that hey formed no fewer than twenty divisions—I have heard the figure put as high as thirty—from ground personnel taken from the Luftwaffe. I am told that some of these divisions serving in Italy gave us a good deal of trouble. But they again retained their identity as Luftwaffe Divisions. That is the point I am endeavouring to make. I am surprised that there should be a surplus of men in the Loyal Navy—I should have thought that with the Pacific War the Navy would need all fully-trained seamen—but if there is a redundancy it is right use i hem on land provided you keep them together under their own officers and preserve the magnificent tradition of naval forces in many wars. I would be proud to serve in the Army, but if as a sailor I were compelled to go into the Army, I think I should feel a grievance and I believe that these men will feel aggrieved unless the matter is put right.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I need hardly say that I have listened with great sympathy to the remarks of the noble Lord,
106
a sympathy enhanced by the fact that, having a family tradition with the sea, I know how very strong are the feelings of those who serve in the Royal Navy and how strong is their love of the Service. I must point out, however, that transfers, even within a Service, are always avoided if they possibly can be, and the transfers which are now being carried out from the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force would not have been carried out unless all the factors involved had been most carefully considered and unless it had become clear that no other measure was open to meet the particular need which has arisen in the Army at this moment. This need is for men who, after a relatively short period of training, can fill gaps torn by battle in a number of existing Army units and sustain them for the battles which still lie ahead. These men, which the other Services have been good enough to transfer to the Army, are already partially trained and are therefore considerably more suitable on this score alone than completely untrained civilians would be.
One may certainly sympathize with the noble Lord's suggestion that the men should be formed into separate units with their own officers and distinctive badges and uniforms. In view of what I have just said the noble Lord will, however, appreciate that such a project would not meet the purpose for which these transfers are being carried out. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted, the fighting units and formations which are now in existence fully trained and tried in battle might have to be broken up for lack of reinforcements to make good their battle casualties. It is this process which these transfers are designed to prevent. Moreover, if we suppose that the Naval and Air Force units had been formed and had gone into battle they, in their turn, would suffer casualties, and, in due course, they would be faced with precisely the same difficulties. They might then have to be broken up with all the losses, moral and physical, which such a process inevitably entails.
The noble Lord specifically referred to the Royal Naval Division—a very gallant Division which I had the honour of lying next to. I would remind him that the process I have been describing was what happened to that Division. They did not have enough naval battalions to make up

107
their losses after they had suffered casualties, and other British units, of one of which my own brother was in command, had to be sent to fill up the gaps. That sort of thing would inevitably happen if my noble friend's proposal were deemed possible of adoption. I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that the case against his suggestion is conclusive on these grounds. There would, of course, be other difficulties to all of which I need not refer now. I however, just mention one of them. No officers are being transferred, and no men with N.C.O. or equivalent ranks are being transferred unless they volunteer and are prepared to forgo their ranks. It is hoped, however, that it will be possible—and this was the point which I think the noble Lord really had most at heart—in most cases to transfer the men in groups, at any rate in small groups, rather than as individuals. They are being asked to express their preferences for arms and regiments, and, as far as practicable, these preferences will be followed. The deficiencies in men which these transfers are to make good are naturally much greater in some arms than in others, and in some units than in others, and I am afraid that some of the men are hound to be disappointed. Men who have family connexions with certain Army units will, as far as possible, be given special consideration.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will they wear their own badges?
LORD CROFT: I did not have notice of that question. As the noble Lord very kindly mentioned, I only received notice of this question last night, and I wish that it had been possible to give him a fuller answer. My belief is that, generally speaking, when these men are absorbed into Army units they will wear the badges of the units into which they are absorbed. We have had this question raised in other cases, and I expect that that is a practice which will be followed in this case. I would not, however, like my words to be taken as binding. The fact remains, though, that wherever men have been transferred within the Service they have assumed the badges of the units to which they have been transferred.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, with reference to the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Croft, has
108
given, may I be allowed to say that he has only touched on one part of the matter? I should like to refer to another factor connected with this question and to make one point. I am concerned for the pre-entry boys at the present time. They have had the whole of their outlook altered, and we are now having to tell them something quite different from what we told them before. As your Lordships know, I am professionally associated with the Air Training Corps. The whole presentation of the case to the boys of that Corps has had to be completely altered. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, that he might make representation upon this matter to those in higher places. This is a question of man-power, and such questions have been considered from the very beginning of the war. Accurate computations can be made, and have been made, and I contend that these changes in the attitude of the Government and the plans they told us they were making ought to be notified to those who will be affected at the earliest possible opportunity. I think the noble Lord is aware of the difficulty with which we are faced in the Air Training Corps. We have recently had to go to these boys and explain to them that the situation with regard to their future is radically altered from that which we outlined to them when the Corps was originally recruited a few years ago.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I would like to support what the noble Marquess has just said. I am President of our local Air Training Corps and only last week this very point arose. It really was rather a difficult question with which to deal. Without rhyme or reason that the boys could understand, they had to be told by us that everything that we had told them before was now changed. They had to be told that in the future they would be drafted to wherever it was decided they were needed and not to the particular branch of the Air or the Naval Service, or wherever else it might be, to which they might wish to go and for which they were trained. Naturally, this has created a good deal of feeling among tile boys. I can only speak from the point of view of the Air Training Corps in my own part of the country, but the feeling there on the part of the boys is definitely that they have not received the treatment they deserve in view of what

109
they have done. They have tried to carry out the Government's wishes by joining that Corps and they have done all they can to make themselves efficient and to take full advantage of its training.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, if the House will permit me I will reply very briefly to the point raised by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount. This aspect of the matter had not been put to me before, and I did not know any question of this kind was going to be raised. I will certainly see that the views which have been expressed by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount are brought to notice in the proper quarters. I think that your Lordships will appreciate that this problem with which we are dealing is a very immediate problem. We are, we all hope, out to force as early a decision as possible. To maintain the supply of trained men is absolutely vital, but I cannot conceive that in the very near future the lads to whom the noble Viscount in particular was referring will be immediately called up. However, I will as I say look into this and will see that these expressions of opinion are passed on. We have all of us in every part of the country, owing to the man-power situation, to make great sacrifices in order to achieve speedy victory. Exactly the same sort of argument which we have heard now applies to the Army Cadet force in which I am very deeply interested. The members of that force have been told that a great number of them must regard it as likely that they will be directed into the mines. These sacrifices are general, and we must all be prepared to make our share of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I point out that surely this faulty appreciation of the man-power situation has existed all through the war, and that it is not something that is entirely new?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Croft, will not take it amiss or regard me as making any personal reflection upon him when I say that I consider his reply astonishing and very disappointing indeed. Our casualties in the Army happily have not been heavy in this war. They have been on nothing like the scale which came within the experience of the noble Lord himself during the last war. I cannot
110
understand why it is necessary to transfer personnel from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as groups or as individuals into the Army and absorb them into line regiments, or wherever it is that they may be taken. By doing this you may get a few semi-trained men, but generally speaking they will have to learn soldiering all over again. And in the process you lose something you cannot replace—the tradition of the old Naval Brigades, the tradition of the gallant Naval Division of the last war. I think a terrible mistake has been made. I cannot speak too strongly about it. I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his expression of sympathy. But I do hope that this matter will be reconsidered. It is a fact that you have surplus officers in the Royal Navy who hake been trained in combined operations—I make you a present of that point—and they will be able to take charge of brigades or battalions of naval personnel who, I assure the noble Lord, would give a tremendously good account of themselves. I hope that this matter will be open for reconsideration; otherwise immense harm will be done and a terrible mistake made. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY VISCOUNT CRANBORNE.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, before I move the adjournment of the House I should like to make a very brief explanation. A few moments ago I gave your Lordships certain figures relating to a lady who had applied for an education allowance for her children and had not received one, and I told your Lordships, with regard to the income of her husband, that before the war he was receiving £148 a year. I went on to say that if he had not died his income to-day, with increments and war bonus, would be £225 a year; but in some subsequent remarks which I made I am afraid I gave the impression that that would have been his Service pay. That is not the case; what I should have said was that £225 a year would be the civilian pay which he would be receiving at the present time, with increments and war bonus. That is precisely the figure for which the noble

111
Earl asked at an earlier stage. I feel that I misled the House, and I have therefore thought it right to make this immediate explanation.

DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
ANGLESEY COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, ETC.) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CHESTERFIELD & BOLSOVER WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from the Journal Committee that the one hundred and seventy-fifth Volume of the Journals (6th and 7th George VI, 1942–43), with an Index, was ready for delivery.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table, and the said Volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding Volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
House adjourned.