Lords Sitting of 29 March 1944

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

  FOREIGN POLICY: DOCUMENTS TO BE PUBLISHED.
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a question of which I have given private notice. It is to ask whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make regarding the publication of documents relating to British foreign policy in the years before the outbreak of the present war.
  THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE): My Lords, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have decided to publish the most important documents in the Foreign Office archives relating to British foreign policy between the years 1919 and 1939. The documents will be published in a series of volumes which will be issued one by one as and when they are ready. The volumes will form a chronological series, but in order to make available as soon as possible documents dealing with events most relevant to the outbreak of the present war it is proposed for purposes of publication to divide the work into two parts, the first part to begin with the year 1919 and the second to begin with the year 1930. The preparation of each part will be undertaken simultaneously.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl can tell me what method will be pursued in the selection of these documents? For instance, if there happen to be Dispatches of His Majesty's representatives abroad giving warnings which may not have been heeded or advice which may not have been followed, will these be included in the publication?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the compilation of these documents will be undertaken by the well-known historian, Professor Woodward, of All Souls
  322
  College, Oxford, and the object of the compilation is to present an accurate historical record. Therefore any document that was materially important to the giving of a picture of historical truth would be included in the compilation.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the following Resolution: That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of the Session; that the Lord Stanmore do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Stanmore do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.
  Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for the remainder of the Session; that the Lord Stanmore do take the Chair in all Committees of the Whole House, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House; that the Lord Stanmore do also take the Chair in all Committees upon Private Bills and other matters, unless where it shall have been otherwise directed by the House.—(Lord Templemore).
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I wish to express our accord with the Resolution.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I think the House is fortunate in having in Lord Stanmore a Deputy Chairman with long experience of the duties of this office. His appointment as Chairman of Committees for the remainder of the Session will be specially welcome, if I may say so, to noble Lords who sit on these Benches since he has been so long, so closely and so congenially associated with us for a period now of no less than thirty years. His appointment will also, I believe, be welcome to the House as a whole, for he commands general and cordial good will.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (CANALS) BILL. [H.L.],

    LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE): My Lords, these Bills have not been read a second time within the time limited by Standing Order No. 105 because of the lateness of the date on which the Wharncliffe Meeting of the company was held. The railway company has over £300,000,000 of capital carrying voting rights, and the calling of a special meeting of proprietors involves not only an expenditure of more than £1,000 in postage and the cost of printing and advertising, but the labour involved in the preparing and dispatching of the enormous number of notices. For that reason the company sent out the notices calling the Wharncliffe Meeting at the same time as the notices calling the annual general meeting. The notices of the Wharncliffe Meeting to consider these Bills were dispatched on or before the 24th February, and the meeting was held on the 20th March. There is no reason why the Bills should not be read a second time and therefore I move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(Lord Stanmore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
    Bills read 2a, and committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

    YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.
    BECKETT HOSPITAL AND DISPENSARY, BARNSLEY BILL.
    Read 3a, and passed.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Cranborne, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
    Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill and of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Templemore.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to Order): Committee negatived.
    Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Bill read 3a, and passed.
    House adjourned during pleasure.
    House resumed.

    ROYAL COMMISSION.
    The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

    Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

    Yorkshire Registries (West Riding) Amendment,

    Beckett Hospital and Dispensary, Barnsley.

    House adjourned during pleasure.
    House resumed.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
    LORD SOUTHWOOD LORD SOUTHWOOD rose to call attention to the problems of juvenile delinquency; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as indicated by the terms of my Motion, I desire to direct attention to the problems of juvenile delinquency and to endeavour to offer some constructive suggestions. This matter of juvenile delinquency is one which has long occupied the attention of all who are concerned with social welfare. The Government, I know, are alive to its importance. Only last week the Home Secretary, in announcing his intention to set up a Council to advise him on the problem of offenders in general, stated that special attention would be given to the subject of juvenile delinquency. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has shown a very keen desire to improve the panels

    325
    of magistrates appointed to serve in juvenile courts. It is particularly important that the whole question of juvenile delinquency should be examined—fully and thoroughly—especially now when the causes are aggravated by the abnormal conditions created by the war. In approaching the issue, it is of great importance 10 strive to get a balanced view. Many people are, I know, prone to exaggerate its extent. Let me emphasize at the outset that there is no doubt that the main body of the children of this country are thoroughly sound, well-conducted, law-abiding, and a credit to their parents. On the other hand, it is just as dangerous to underestimate as to exaggerate. With your permission, I would like to give some enlightening figures about children and young persons in England and Wales found guilty of indictable offences. But, first of all, may I say that I regard this problem not so much as a matter of statistics, but as a challenge to air social order?
    Now here are the facts. In 1939 the total number of juveniles found guilty was 30,543; in 1940, the first full year of war, it was 41,878; in 1941 the figure rose to 43,216; in 1942 it fell to 38,181, and I am informed that the total for 1943 was approximately 38,500 It is of interest to note that these figures show that just under one in every 100 of the entire juvenile population in England and Wales within the ages covered—that is between 8 and 17—were found guilty of an indictable offence. And it must not be forgotten that for every child found guilty, there are bound to be many more who commit offences and who never come before the courts. In assessing the relative seriousness of juvenile delinquency, it is worth noting that even in 1938, the last year, before the war, the figures for children and young persons found guilty were 36 per cent. of the whole total of convictions in all courts, including adults. These returns indicate the extent of the problem in England and Wales. What about Scotland? I am informed by the Secretary of State for Scotland that last year there were 19,686 cases in which charges were proved. That was well over 4,000 above the figures for the first year of the war.
    May I just for a moment speak of some of the causes of child delinquency?
    326
    These are many and complicated. One of the chief is, unquestionably, bad housing with consequent overcrowding. Parents of families who live in houses with inadequate accommodation are compelled to encourage their children to go into the streets during their leisure hours to secure peace and quiet for the grown-ups and the very young. The only playing-place is the street, and the street is, unfortunately, too often the path to temptation and to wrong-doing. As one social investigator put it, "The street-corner is as morally dangerous for children as the middle of the road is physically dangerous to their elders." A squalid, sordid overcrowded home—the type of home in which all too many of our citizens are unfortunately condemned to spend their lives—is a breeding ground for crime. Another general cause of juvenile delinquency—possibly in war-time the principal cause—is what I might term the "broken family." By this I mean a household where either parent may have died, or be absent through causes other than death, such as legal separation, the father serving with the Forces, or the mother working in industry.
    There are, of course, a great number of other causes, among them prolonged unemployment in pre-war days with the consequent deterioration of family life; low wages with the accompanying misery of debased living conditions; constant quarrelling among the parents; in some cases, deliberate cruelty or drunkenness. For these last-mentioned types, I do not think it inappropriate to suggest that it is the parents and not the young delinquents who need the corrective treatment. In war-time, apart from the absence of one or both parents and the consequent relaxation of discipline, there are of course a number of special reasons why juvenile delinquency is more prevalent. Among them there is the interruption of normal school life owing to evacuation and other causes; and there is the black-out which enables escapades to be made under cover of darkness. There is, too, the unhealthy stimulation of the period through which we are passing, and in all too many cases there are young people earning far more money than is good for them.
    Now I ask your attention for a moment to the type of offences committed by children and young persons. Undoubtedly the main offences amongst boys consist of

    327
    stealing and breaking-in and entering. A bicycle is left standing against a wall; the chance is easy, the risk seems small, and the bicycle is taken away. Perhaps a shop offers peculiar temptations—particularly the type of shop with open counters. Gas meters and automatic machines are broken into. Careless elders leave loose sums of money lying about. An untenanted furnished house may offer the prospect of easy plunder. All too often these youngsters, led by an adventurous lad, go about in gangs deliberately bent on wrong-doing. I think I am right in saying that over 5o per cent. of crimes committed by boys are done in groups of three or more. The boys who succumb most frequently to these temptations are chiefly in the twelve to fourteen age-groups. On an average, the thirteens are the worst. Think of it, my Lords, thirteen the peak age for juvenile crime!
    I am speaking of "boys" advisedly, because the number of girl offenders of these ages is substantially lower. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the girls are less adventurous, and, as far as indictable offences are concerned, the police, very naturally, are disposed to be more lenient and the parents to be more protective. Less than 10 per cent. of offenders found guilty of larceny and breaking-in are girls. Their danger age comes later. Many cannot resist the lure of shop-lifting—more especially in time of war, when the temptation is so great. There is, too, at the present time, the attraction of the companionship of men in uniform with its attendant consequences. And all social observers feel very disturbed at the increasing tendency of immature girls to visit public houses and to drink intoxicants—some even before they reach the age at which they are legally entitled to do so. One cannot always blame the publican; appearances nowadays may be very deceptive. Another important point that requires attention is the undesirable type of dance hall. I would like to make it quite clear that I am not condemning dance halls as such, if properly run. None but kill-joys would object to decent facilities for dancing but, unfortunately, there have sprung up during this war many dance halls which are nothing but a source of peril. Then in addition there are other offences, some of them of a highly unpleasant nature, better dealt with by doctors and psychologists.
    328
    There are two further types of case that come before the juvenile courts which may broadly be termed "civil"—namely, children beyond the control of their parents and children who "stand in need of care and protection."
    This brings me to the very important and vital issue of the work of the juvenile courts. I say that, viewed in wide perspective, the juvenile courts deserve the gratitude of every citizen. By the word "courts," I mean not only the magistrates, but the magistrates' clerks, the probation officers, the police and all concerned. May I be permitted to give your Lordships just one example of what I mean? Some little time ago the case of a young delinquent came to my personal notice. This youngster, who had set his heart on going to sea, had only one eye. He ran away from his home in London, reached Liverpool and roamed the docksides for several weeks trying to get a ship. How he lived during those weeks I do not know. Eventually he ran into the arms of a policeman and was put in a remand home pending inquiries. Again he ran away. He stole a seaman's wallet and came before the juvenile court. The boy, on hearing that he was to be sent to a remand home, begged that he should be sent to one where he could learn to be a sailor. Unfortunately none of the shore establishments would accept him—for he had only one eye. Instead, he was sent to a hostel, and was found a job with a furniture manufacturer. Once again he tried to run away to find a snip. Meanwhile, one of the magistrates had been doing everything in his power to help the boy to get to sea. One shipping official said it was unheard of—a seaman with only one eye! This kindly magistrate reminded him that there was once a sailor with not only one eye but with only on arm as well—and a very good sailor, too! Well, eventually the boy was found a ship. This was two years ago. Recently the boy put into Liverpool. He had been torpedoed twice, and was once for two days in an open boat. During his voyaging, somehow or other, he had managed to save nearly £100. He at once went to the hostel and offered to pay them for what they had done for him. He also called on the magistrate to thank him for his help when he had stood at the crossroads between a useful life and a life of crime.
    I have given this example to show that in many cases the human material with which the courts have to deal is good stuff and that often the crime may be caused by a temporary lapse rather than by a fundamental weakness of character. It is important also to distinguish between the crime that is the outcome of a desire for adventure and the crime that is the result of sheer wickedness or malicious mischief. I think your Lordships will agree that the spirit of adventure in our youngsters is a quality that we should encourage, not subdue. But the essential thing is to find the right outlet for high spirits and youthful exuberance. Ample facilities should be provided for organized games and pastimes for our young people to satisfy their natural desire for excitement and their instincts for companionship. Sport is essentially a British way of teaching discipline, teamwork and leadership. And here I may say that I have evidence that once boys become members of such organizations as the Boy Scouts, the Church Lads' Brigade, and boys' clubs, there is hardly an instance in which one of them comes before the juvenile court. As an illustration of this I understand that out of 2,168 cases appearing before the court in Liverpool in 1940, only 10 were members of clubs and Scouts and similar organizations.
    So it means this, my Lords: find the means to encourage young children to interest themselves still further in such movements, provide them with more and better playing fields and playgrounds, open more of the school playgrounds during school holidays, give them facilities for spare time hobbies and pastimes, especially during the winter months, and a large part of the problem is solved. Here may I say I am very glad to learn from the debate in another place that provision is to be made in the new Education Bill for adequate playgrounds and playing fields. At the present time, there is undoubtedly a chronic shortage of children's playgrounds in this country and the inequality of distribution is most disconcerting. In Huddersfield, for instance, there are 29 playgrounds while in Glasgow, which has ten times the population, there are only 16. York has one playground for every 10,000 of its population; Mildlesbrough has one for every 40,000, and so I could go on.
    It is gratifying to realize that there has been a remarkable change over the past few decades in the attitude of the courts towards juvenile delinquents. Round about the turn of the century the basic attitude of far too many magistrates towards a guilty juvenile was, "Here's a potential criminal. Let's punish him." Nowadays, certainly in the urban centres, and in many of the rural areas, the approach is, "Here is a child who has gone wrong. He has the potentialities of a good citizen. What can we do to help him to become one?" In the old days birching was regarded as the universal remedy. In England and Wales—apart from Scotland—no fewer than 3,385 birchings were ordered by the courts in 1900. But in 1938, the last pre-war year, the number was down to only 48. It is true that during the war the number has increased. For instance, in 1941 it was 546 and in 1942 it was 321. But even this is a substantial decline on the old days. Now, what is the reason for it? Experience has proved that birching is neither deterrent nor reformative. I know there are many people who say, "I got thrashings from my father and my schoolmaster when I was a boy. It did me no harm: in fact, it did me good." That may, or may not, be so; I cannot say. But a beating from a parent held in affection, or from a schoolmaster held in respect, has a vastly different moral effect from a birching given by the police.
    In the latter case, parents and relations—quite misguided, no doubt—are apt to express sympathy with and pamper the culprit; other schoolboys lionize and hero-worship the "tough guy" who has been punished. So far from frightening the boy, the tendency is that the delinquent, anxious for more popularity among his school-fellows, will repeat the offence. Very often, too, the punishment is regarded by the delinquent as the price paid to society for committing the crime. He has squared the account. He thinks it was worth it. He does it again. This has been proved to be the case over and over again. During the early part of last year the magistrate of a provincial juvenile court examined the records of last fifty cases of birchings and found that forty out of those fifty children had been re-charged in the court for a subsequent offence. As a chief probation officer in Wales remarked only the other

    331
    day, "You can whip vice into a child, but you can never whip it out of him." Surely healing is better than hurting.
    But the final word on the non-efficacy of birching ordered by juvenile courts was pronounced by the Report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment, published in March, 1938. This Committee consisting of experts—magistrates with outstanding qualifications, doctors, civil servants and a distinguished K.C.—came to a unanimous conclusion, unanimous, my Lords, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence, that "corporal punishment should be entirely repealed." Entirely repealed! I am glad to say that many magistrates have fully accepted and act upon this conclusion.
    This is undoubtedly true of the juvenile courts in the larger centres of population, but, unhappily, magistrates in some of the rural centres as also some chief constables, in Scotland, as well as in England and Wales, cling to the outworn idea, that birching is an effective deterrent. One reason for this is, in my view, that many magistrates serving in juvenile courts are so far advanced in age that it has been difficult, if not impossible, for them to think themselves into the mind of the child and cast about for the right method of remedial treatment for the young offenders who come before them. Let me say at once I have never been a believer in rigid age limits. I have known men, and women, who at 70 and even older are as sprightly as youngsters. On the other hand, I have known people with a complete rigidity of mind at 35. But generally speaking—and, after all, this is only human nature—the middle-aged and younger folk are more likely to have a sympathetic understanding of the failings of the young than are those whose infancy and adolescence are a very long way off. This is recognized by all who have studied the problems of juvenile delinquency; it is recognized by the Home Office; it is recognized, I believe, by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. In a word, we need on the bench more fathers and fewer grandfathers—more mothers and fewer grandmothers.
    Many of us were extremely interested in the efforts made at the end of last October to secure improvements in the age-groups of magistrates elected to the panels for juvenile courts. A few weeks
    332
    ago I put a question in your Lordships' House asking His Majesty's Government if they could supply any information about the consequent changes. Your Lordships will forgive me if I give some facts based on the reply. Of a total of 8,191 magistrates only 2,444 are aged 54 or under. No fewer than 3,022 (this is 37 per cent.) are aged from 6o to 69, while there are 368 between 75 and 89 years of age. I submit that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs and the sooner the position is remedied the better. But the age-group is not the only angle from which to approach the question of securing the most suitable types of magistrates for the juvenile courts. I strongly advocate the appointment of more magistrates with the right type of experience for this kind of work. I would stress most emphatically the desirability of appointing more working-class magistrates. I do submit very earnestly that the work of the juvenile courts would be immensely improved if those who sit in judgment on accused juveniles are reinforced by men and women who in their own lives have known the meaning of poor homes, of overcrowding, of malnutrition, of the perils of the streets, of the lack of recreational facilities.
    Next in importance to the magistrates I would place the probation officers. They are a fine body of men and women to whom the country owes a debt of gratitude which is very far from being generally realized. It is they who make the skilled and sympathetic inquiries about the character of the accused delinquent, the nature of the child's home—all the factors of environment that culminate in wrong-doing. It is they who, after the finding of the courts, have to supervise the children put on probation. They perform, too, valuable services in many homes by acting as conciliators between the parents and often assist with the after-care of young delinquents. They need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job. If there is any section of the community which deserves better conditions and better status—better pay and better prospects of promotion—it is the probation officer. And there are not nearly enough of them. In fact, there is a deplorable scarcity, especially in rural areas. But the corps of probation officers, however efficient, cannot do the whole work. There is need for far more Child Guidance Clinics. In these

    333
    centres the naughty, the wayward, the abnormal child is carefully studied by highly-trained teams of workers who search for the roots of the trouble and prescribe the remedies with, in very many cases, the most satisfactory results. Let us have more of these clinics. For they play a great part in the work of reformation, and it is reformation, not punishment which is the main principle of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. Probation is, and roust be, the main method of achieving the reformation. This is amply justified by official figures. The result of those children put on probation is as follows: Children under 14, 65·3 per cent. of successes; young persons aged 14 and under 17, 68·2 per cent. of successes. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these results are most encouraging.
    I realize that certain supplementary methods are absolutely necessary and although I know that approved schools have an excellent record of cures, the less that remand homes and approved schools are used, the better. Whether we like it, or not, there is always the stigma attached to having been at a remand home or approved school. I submit that in no circumstances should there be recourse to prison. Of course, the best treatment of all is probation in the child's own home if improvements in environment and the co-operation of the parents can be secured. Where home treatment is unsuccessful, where conditions are so bad that there is no prospect of improvement, increased use should then be made of the boarding-out principle: that is placing the young offender in the care of foster-parents or "fit persons" as they are called. These foster-parents must, of course, be most carefully selected and adequately remunerated. Conditions created by the war may prove to be of help in this way. Many people, especially in the rural areas, have now had some years of experience of caring for evacuated children of all types. When these children return to their parents' homes, as most of them presumably will, it should be possible to compile an extensive list of potential foster-parents of the right type who could be entrusted with the care and guidance of young delinquents.
    In my opening remarks I said that the present state of juvenile delinquency was a challenge to our social order. One
    334
    cannot study this problem without becoming conscious of its wider and deeper implications. Its causes are, I suggest, more attributable to training and environment than to any inherent wickedness in human nature. By all means let us hasten to apply remedial and ameliorative measures, but let us also with all possible speed—I repeat with all possible speed—set about creating those conditions in which such reproaches to our social standards as juvenile delinquency will gradually become things of the past. It is an old saying, but still a true one, that it is better to prevent than to cure. What, then, are we to do? In past speeches, in your Lordships' House, while dealing with children and adolescents, I have stressed the need for better housing, better nutrition, family allowances and better education. I have advocated the extension of youth services. With regard to housing, it is a fact that at the present time some 300,000 families are living in dwellings that have already been, or but for the war would have been, condemned as slums. As the war goes on property, owing to the shortage of labour and materials, is bound to deteriorate and the number of families who live in these sordid and almost intolerable conditions is bound to increase. The wonder to me is that, under such conditions, juvenile delinquency is not even more prevalent. The rehousing of slum dwellers should, in my opinion, be given a very high priority.
    We all welcome the new Education Bill. Let us hope that the new approach to education will be designed more and more to produce good citizens as well as good scholars. It is of the first importance that the development of the brain should go hand in hand with the development of character and physique. Let us hope, too, that everything will be done to hasten the time when it will be possible for more personal supervision to be given to each child, specially the backward child who, in a large class, is so often liable through boredom and a feeling of hopeless inferiority to find an escape in mischief. Only too often does he start as the truant and finish as the habitué of the juvenile courts. In an overcrowded class, too, it is impossible for the teacher to observe and select those children who call for special treatment. It is so important to remedy this, because it is so much easier to deal with a tendency to delinquency

    335
    in its early stages than it is later on when bad habits have been formed. Much, too, will be gained by the encouragement of closer ties between school life and home life. And in education of the younger generation I firmly believe there is nothing more vital than the spiritual side. There is a growing danger that the new world which our young people will inherit will be one in which material values may be set above spiritual ones. Although this new generation may have all the outward trappings of what we call civilization, the road we are travelling may well—without spiritual guidance—be taking us right back to the dark ages. Let us, at least, do all we can to save our children from that.
    Of social security there is no need for me to speak. The banishing of unemployment, the provision of adequate medical services, the granting of children's allowances—these alone would do much to ameliorate the social disease of juvenile delinquency. I do not say that juvenile delinquency can be entirely eliminated. This is, I know, impossible. But I am certain that it can be very substantially reduced. There will unfortunately always be delinquents of all ages. Life has, and always will have, misfits in all classes of society. But I am convinced that the community can rescue very many of the children who set their feet on the path of wrong-doing. A child guided into good behaviour is a citizen added to the State. But, my Lords—and these are my final words—above all I wish to re-affirm my conviction that in our planning for the future we can create a standard of life in which juvenile delinquency and many of the evils which beset this generation, cannot flourish. The re-shaping of our social order for those who will live in the world of to-morrow is a great challenge; but it is also a great opportunity. I beg to move.
    VISCOUNT SANKEY: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord for drawing attention to one of the most important events on the home front. I need not trouble your Lordships with statistics because the noble Lord has already given them to you, but I should like to mention one or two figures in order to illustrate my meaning. The latest available figures for juvenile delinquency in indictable cases concern the
    336
    three-year period ending August, 1942. These show a considerable increase for the first two years, but a decrease in the twelve months August, 1941, to August, 1942, and this decreasing tendency is continuing. The chief increases occur with boys under fourteen and with girls in the fourteen to sixteen age group. Taking the figures for 1939 before the war, the increased delinquency in 1940–41 among boys was as much as 56 per cent., but in the case of girls in the fourteen to sixteen age group the increase was 122 per cent. The noble Lord has given you the total figures. I propose only to give you the percentages because they are easier to remember. As compared with 1939, the last year before the war, the increase in 1940 was 33 per cent., in 1941 the increase was 52 per cent.—I am taking boys and girls in all classes—and in 1942 it had gone back to 3o per cent. and is still going back a little.
    We need not, however, rush to hasty conclusions upon this matter. In justice to the children of England, it should be said that compared with the total school population the figures are exceedingly small. What is the total school population? In 1938, the last complete year before the war, there were between the ages of five and fourteen over five million children in school and between the ages of fourteen and seventeen there were over two million. If you compare with that total population the number of juvenile delinquents in indictable offences you will find that it is not much more than one-half of one per cent. When we remember the fact that we are at war we must feel some cause for thankfulness that the figures are not worse. Still, the figures are disquieting and cannot be regarded with complacency. Will you permit me, therefore, to offer a few observations—although I recognize the importance of the debate which is shortly to be resumed—and to make some suggestions?
    There is a society called the Magistrates' Association which consists of about 4,000 magistrates. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is President of the Association. I happen to have the honour of being the Chairman and I sit frequently to preside over their council and their committees. I hear many of the causes which these magistrates allege to be the cause of juvenile delinquency and many of the suggestions which these

    337
    magistrates make for making the matter better. An inquiry by the Association in 1941—that was the peak year—shows that the main offences were larceny, breaking and entering, and wilful damage, while about one-quarter of the total number of girls coming before the courts were care or protection cases. The main causes contributing to juvenile delinquency appear to be lack of parental control, unhappy homes, social conditions, and I am afraid I must add, although I do not want to do people an injustice, the indifference of some parents to their responsibilities in regard to the children.
    In addition, there are increased opportunities for stealing owing to bombed premises and to the temptations which the noble Lord has already mentioned offered by the open-counter store and other methods of trading. Another contributory cause, although I do not grudge high wages, is the high wages being paid to young people. On some other occasion I may have to draw your Lordships' attention to the effect of that on older persons, who find quite young people getting £8 or £9 a week while they get only £2 or £3 or £4. It leads to a great deal of discontent. The war has aggravated these causes, although we must remember that even before the war juvenile delinquency was increasing, especially among boys. It has been aggravated by the war, by the calling-up of the fathers and the absence of mothers on war work, which inevitably lessens control in the home and leads to general disorganization of home life. It is probably just beyond the confines of this debate to discuss the question of immorality or to discuss the question of drunkenness—too much drinking amongst young people—but I would like to say in passing that I hope very much that some notice will be taken of the letter from Congregational ministers published in The Times a couple of days ago, urging that something should be done with regard to "treating."
    What can we do for these cases? All the available returns show that there is considerable shortage of approved schools and in addition there is need for better classification in approved schools, especially in girls' schools Naturally, I have not visited these schools. I am simply telling your Lordships of the evidence before me. New schools have been opened
    338
    during the past few years but not nearly enough to meet the present condition. What is the result? Juvenile delinquents are kept waiting for vacancies for long periods and they have to spend the time either in remand homes or in their own homes from which it is often desirable to move them without delay. As a consequence, remand homes are badly overcrowded, and it is considered undesirable that those who are on remand and those who have already been dealt with by the court should be in close contact for any length of time. In addition there is a lack of educational facilities in the remand homes and, as a consequence, those waiting for vacancies in approved schools are likely to be less amenable on reaching their school. This shortage of remand home accommodation also results in care or protection cases being housed with delinquent children, with the possibility of bad effects. Under Section 54 of the 1933 Act the remand homes can be used as places of detention for a period not exceeding four weeks. The Association feels that this provision cannot be adequately used owing to the overcrowding in the remand homes, and that special places for detention might be provided. Another method of easing the situation would be the provision of observation centres to which children and young persons could be sent for a fuller investigation than is possible when they are under remand.
    So far as the courts that deal with these cases are concerned, that is to say the juvenile courts, they are doing their work extremely well. I have on several occasions taken the opportunity afforded by an invitation, of sitting at the juvenile courts in London, and I should like to bear testimony to the admirable work that they are doing. I will not trespass upon your Lordships' time now, but had there been more time available, I would have given you one or two illustrations of the extraordinary difficulties which face not only the children and the parents but the courts themselves.
    The Magistrates' Association have been holding many conferences up and down the country. They have been well attended by magistrates from many parts. Acknowledged experts have addressed them, and I have no doubt these conferences have done much good. Some criticism has been passed upon the age of magistrates but thanks to the efforts

    339
    of the Lord Chancellor these criticisms have been, to a large extent, met. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, and very naturally, that people of an advanced age could do equally as well sometimes as people who are not so old, but, speaking generally, for these juvenile courts it is better to have men who are more in touch with children and more able to appreciate the difficulties of child age. A hopeful sign, too, all over the country, is that the justices in many large centres have seen to it that magistrates of too advanced an age shall not be appointed to the juvenile courts, When these first came into being magistrates used to elect the whole bench to sit as a juvenile court, which was a most unfortunate proceeding, but in many towns now—it would be invidious to mention them, though I have a list of them—a special committee is selected by the magistrates to select those who, in their opinion, are best fitted to sit in these courts. While, therefore, criticism is useful and welcome, there is reason for suggesting that the critics should ration the use of their adjectives.
    There is one matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, referred which I should also like to mention and that is the case of the working men magistrates. Your Lordships know that many of them have sat upon the bench with credit to themselves and with advantage to the country; but permit me to mention only one point on which I desire to express no opinion, but which comes up at almost every meeting of the Magistrates' Association. That is the difficulty that working men have in attending a magistrates' court to do their work. There are two difficulties. There is the difficulty of broken time. You know what that means. It means that a man has to give up a day's wages in order to attend. Then there is the difficulty also with regard to travelling expenses, especially in rural districts. I mention these facts in order that some public notice may be taken of them. I do not desire to express any personal opinion on the matter, but I cannot help mentioning it and pointing out that these factors do sometimes make a difference, and they have to be considered by a working man before he can accept an offer to sit upon the bench.
    340
    There are two other matters to which I desire to draw your Lordships' particular attention. The first is what to do to assist those who have committed offences. The second is what to do with, and how to assist, those who are exposed to temptation but have not committed offences. In other words, I wish to address you for a few minutes only on the question of probation and the question of prevention of crime. Permit me as one who was one of His Majesty's Judges for many years and has presided, as has my noble friend Lord Roche, over Assizes in nearly every county in England and Wales, to pay my tribute to the probation system. No organization has done more for the reform of those who have offended against the law. The system is of recent growth, starting with the Probation of Offenders Act of 1907, and allow me to say that it is of vital importance to see that this system should work efficiently and smoothly. I doubt whether it can be said to be working efficiently or smoothly for the reasons which I am about to give. Possibly it is still suffering from growing pains, and it may be that the service has developed faster than experience has been acquired. Yet it is already a pronounced success, and I hope you will allow me to take this opportunity of saying that a large measure of that success is due to the devoted work of officials at the Home Office. The recent announcement by the Home Secretary that he is setting up an Advisory Committee on the treatment of offenders is a welcome step in the right direction. It is an effort in which both civil servants and outsiders can co-operate. Civil servants have recently been much criticized; but they can take it. No doubt civil servants perform their duties faithfully, and if you get one who is keen on his job he is not unnaturally anxious to see that it is properly done. It may even be that he will consider it his duty to offer tactful instruction to inexperienced enthusiasm. But after all no cause will succeed without enthusiasm.
    Now as to the efficient working of the probation system. One cardinal point must be emphasized. It is not sufficiently manned. Forgive me for giving your Lordships' a statistic or two. In 1941, which is the last year for which I have the figures available, there were just over one thousand probation officers—1,011 to

    341
    to be exact. Of these 542 were full time, 396 of them being men and 146 women. Out of that total there were too in London. There were 469 part-time probation officers. I think now that there are between 630 and 650 full-time officers. There ought to be many more. Why do I say that? The probation officer, as your Lordships well know, has to look miter a number of young people, and sometimes older people as well, and the number that he looks after is called the case load. It has been thought from experience that the proper case load which a probation officer can manage is fifty to sixty. I believe—I have been given these figures and I pass them on to your Lordships—that the number is now between eighty-five and ninety. A probation officer with a case load of that size cannot be expected to give his full attention to it.
    I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I quote one passage from an admirable book on the probation service published in 1938 by the Home Office. On page 41, it says:
    "There is abundant evidence that a great many full-time officers are seriously overworked. It is usually said that a man probation officer can supervise 60–70 cases, according to the nature of his district, and a woman rather less."
    And on page 42 there is a paragraph which reads as follows:
    "It is clear that the volume of work of many probation officers is more than they can properly undertake. The consequence is that even with a conscientious probation officer some of his work must be ineffective or neglected. The present position is fair neither to the probation officers nor to the probation system."
    I do not complain of the probation service; en the contrary, I praise it. All that I want to do is to increase the numbers of full-time officials.
    As to the smooth working of the probation service, here it is no use mincing language. I do not think that the probation service is quite happy in its present position. There is some uneasiness and unsettlement in the service. I believe that a good deal of the trouble arises from the fact that the members of the service are moved about too frequently. I have figures here, but I am not going to trouble your Lordships with them. It frequently happens that when men have been quite a short time in one place they are moved to another, and
    342
    that makes a considerable difference not only to the man himself but to the justices, who very much dislike to see a man whom they have trusted and consulted moved to another place. Moreover, the probation officers feel that they are charged with one of the most difficult of all duties, the duty of serving two masters, because they have to serve under their own justices in their locality, and to a certain degree the Home Office have to supervise their work. This is not the occasion to discuss that matter, but those who know and value the probation service would desire that anything which affects its efficiency and smooth working should be removed.
    Let me come to my last point. I ventured to tell your Lordships that I would address you first on what to do with those who had committed offences. I now want to say a word about those who are exposed to temptation but have not committed offences. If I did not know of the important debate which is to follow I should like to enlarge on that matter, but I can sum the position up in one sentence. What is to be done for those who are tempted, but have fortunately not yet fallen? I do not think that it is possible to sum up the whole of the causes, but they may nearly all be summed up in one sentence: you will cure this when you have the rightful employment of leisure. A very valuable pamphlet was published by the Home Office in June, 1941, from which I should like to quote this:
    "At the beginning of the war, many clubs and similar facilities were removed owing to premises being converted to other use and the leaders of these activities being absorbed into the Army or other work,"
    and the result was that many clubs which were started to enable these boys to have some place in which to use their leisure ceased to exist. Fortunately this matter was taken up by the Board of Education, and, as your Lordships know perfectly well, the Board of Education have now established centres and have made a great improvement in this matter. The pamphlet states that at the outbreak of the present war the Government decided that the Board of Education should undertake a direct responsibility for the social and recreational welfare of young people who have left school, and that a National Youth Committee should be set up to advise them and to see what could be clone in the matter.

    343
    We hear a great deal nowadays about State interference, but it seems to me that in this matter at any rate most will be done by voluntary effort. It has been my good fortune to meet very many young men from time to time in the last three years, and I know that most of them have a social urge to do something for their fellow creatures. It leads some of them to take Holy Orders in one of the Churches, but many of them will not do that because it binds them for life and occupies the whole of their daily life. I think that one of the most hopeful signs, however, is the help which we shall get from our young men who will devote themselves to this work, and, although at present the figures are disquieting, I feel no doubt as to what will be the result when these matters are cleared up and these young men get to work. I am obliged to your Lordships for listening to me for so long.
    THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a quarter of an hour. I too am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, put this Motion on the Paper, although I am afraid that I cannot agree with him in what he says about birching. From hard experience I know that birching is a deterrent; and while I am on this controversial and political subject, because it is a political subject I want to debunk—I think that is the word—the propaganda one hears to the effect that birching and caning are bad for people because they brutalize those who use them and also the victims. I know that nearly all your Lordships have been caned in your youth for the benefit of your souls, and, looking round your Lordships' House, I cannot see any signs of brutalized faces. I feel difficulty in addressing you on a national question such as this, because I live on the other side of the Border, and Scottish laws and methods sometimes differ from the English; but children are the same everywhere, and especially naughty children. The reasons for children being naughty and the ways of curing them are the same all over the country, so that I hope that you will bear with me if I talk largely from a Scottish point of view.
    There has been a serious increase in juvenile delinquency in Scotland since 1938, but owing to the energetic action of the Secretary of State for Scotland—and
    344
    we have not for a very long time had a better one—there has been some improvement lately. Some time ago he held a conference in Scotland which was very good for the various local authorities who had not taken much notice of this question, and now I think that I can say that throughout the whole of Scotland there has been considerable improvement, and very many fewer juvenile delinquents are being brought before the courts. I do not want to be too parochial or provincial, but the matter has been very carefully considered in the county in which I have the honour to live, and we have gone into the reasons and the remedies very thoroughly
    As has been rightly said, lack of parental control and responsibility is a very important element. Children are given too much pocket money, and allowed to stay out much too late. There have been many instances of children of eight or nine years of age committing offences at ten o'clock in the evening and sleeping out all night. The re-establishment of regular hours for children is most important. Home conditions are one of the factors which produce delinquency. It cannot help the good behaviour of children if, as mentioned by Lord Southwood, owing to overcrowded conditions children on their return from school are sent by their parents into the streets, where all sorts of temptations are to be found. Nor does it help them if both parents are working. There have been cases of children returning from school, making their own tea and then going out to a cinema, and meanwhile the parents come back and they go out also. The children come back and go to bed before their parents return, and thus parents and children only meet at breakfast. Another factor is the variability of discipline in many homes. Sometimes it is very strict, at other times very lax. Ordinary routine and consistent discipline towards each member of the family equally are very necessary. In the county of which I have the best knowledge, 40 per cent. of the delinquents come from good homes where there are orderliness, discipline and decent surroundings, so that one is bound to look for reasons other than bad housing and overcrowded conditions.
    A very important incentive to delinquency is environment. I know of a burgh where 4 per cent. of the juvenile

    345
    population are delinquents and there are five areas of delinquency. The least bad area is in the centre of the town. The majority come from the areas of new housing schemes where 9·3 per cent. of the children are delinquents. In the last three months there has been great improvement. The chief reasons for juvenile delinquency are lack of cultural and educational amenities. There are inadequate shopping facilities and long distances to go for entertainment; there is in fact nothing to interest the children in or near to their homes and, as many of them want amusement and excitement, they will go a very long way to get it. It is in the going to and coming back from school and from these entertainment centres that the temptations to delinquency occur. The long-term remedy is obvious. All larger housing schemes should have community centres; each housing scheme, or group of housing schemes, if more convenient, should have its church, its school and its community hall, its sports ground, with pavilion and baths.
    I am very much in sympathy with what has been said about the lack of sports grounds throughout the country. In Scotland it is just as bad as it is in England. If we could only have in these housing schemes football grounds, pavilions and baths for the children it would make all the difference in the world. I know it sounds very expensive and unreal and perhaps impracticable to carry out, but I cannot help thinking that this is an ideal for the Government to strive for. It may not be possible at once but in time surely they could do something on these lines. I believe that member hip of youth organizations is a strong preventive of juvenile delinquency, and youth community centres, if properly run, would tend to keep young children off the streets.
    There is another aspect of the question, and that is the administration of juvenile courts. The justices who sit there—and I am talking about Scotland—very often know little about the law, and they are advised by the clerk of the juvenile court. Nevertheless, they endeavour to the best of their ability to interpret the spirit of the Act of 1937, and many people with knowledge of juvenile courts have noted the care which the justices exercise in reaching satisfactory decisions. We all know how terribly
    346
    complicated some of these cases are. The courts in Scotland are handicapped in several ways. I do not know if it is the same in England, but in Scotland there are usually three justices in each court. The chairman is the same each time, the others attend in rotation from the juvenile panel. This is not entirely satisfactory, because in the case of those who attend by rota an interval of six months sometimes elapses before their turn comes and they are apt to get out of touch with procedure and treatment.
    I never know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland reads your Lordships' debates, but I hope he does for I am putting forward points which many people in my country feel are very important. A fine of £1 is the maximum which can be imposed on neglectful parents for delinquency in school attendance and that is far too lenient. I am on a school management committee and time after time the parents are fined £1 and that penalty makes no difference at all. It certainly ought to be increased to £5 at least. Another point is that the fine should be paid by the children themselves out of money saved for the purpose. Parents should be discouraged to pay the fines for them. One of the strongest deterrents to parents who neglect their children is the bond of caution whereby the parents guarantee their children's behaviour by paying £10 into the court. It is found in Scotland that parents very rarely forfeit the money.
    I think your Lordships will agree that the probation system has worked extremely well, but in certain areas there is no doubt that more probation officers are required; certainly more are required in my part of the world. In Ayrshire the probation officer has an amount of work greater than is justifiable and I hope that more will be appointed. The appointment of a woman probation officer has been recommended. The late Lord Hewart, formerly Lord Chief Justice, once stated:
    "Rightly used probation can be the means of saving thousands of children every year from a repetition of their crimes."
    Statistics for the year 1937–38 reveal that 50 per cent. of the younger offenders in England have been dealt with in this way and success is as high as 70 per cent. I think the number of probation officers in Scotland is quite inadequate to meet

    347
    such a demand as that for their services. And so I do hope again that the Secretary of State for Scotland reads your Lordships' debates.
    There is another method connected with courts which has met with great success and that is to bring all first offenders charged with criminal offences to a police office where a policeman talks to them and gives them a caution. When this has been done—I am speaking about one particular burgh—82 per cent. of such offenders have given no further cause for complaint. Where this method has not been adopted minor charges are dropped by the fiscal and then it appears to the child that no action has been taken, which of course has a bad effect. But while juvenile delinquency is bad enough, the problem should not be exaggerated. I have figures which show that out of 3 per cent. of the young people of Ayrshire who appeared before juvenile courts in 1942, 70 per cent. were first offenders, very few of whom had any subsequent offences. Moreover, 40 per cent, of the offences were of a trivial nature—things that we have all done in our youth. I wonder how many of your Lordships can say you have done nothing in your youth which would have brought you before the juvenile court of to-day. I know I cannot.
    Next to the influence of the home, the most important contribution to the problem of juvenile delinquency is the school. The new Education Bill provides some contribution, but the teaching of moral character is a matter which depends a great deal on the approach of the individual teacher, whose efforts are greatly handicapped by the size of classes and the extraneous duties he has to carry out, which, in contradistinction to the three R's, are sometimes described as the three M's—Milk, Meals and Money. It is because we consider in my part of the world that this training of character is very important that a committee of teachers has been formed in Ayrshire to study the part which the school can play in the moral education of children. The Church, too, has a vital part to play and the reform of religious education is a matter of deep concern to the Scottish Church authorities. The syllabus of teaching in the Sunday schools has been closely examined and the appointment of a full time organizer approved. His duty
    348
    would be to organize training classes for Sunday schools, to visit Sunday schools and the homes of children who are lapsing. I cannot help thinking that that is a good innovation.
    To sum up, I would urge that any policy for dealing with juvenile delinquency should aim at the re-establishing of home life and the responsibility of parents, the development of the community in all housing areas, including facilities for attendance at psychological clinics, and in my opinion, the setting up of residential schools. The home, the school and church are vitally important. Again I bring to the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland that at present the approved schools, remand houses, and probation homes are all under different authorities. There should be complete integration of all forms of treatment under the general education scheme.
    LORD ROCHE: My Lords, I should like to emulate my noble friend who has last spoken in guaranteeing to your Lordships that I shall not take long. I shall try to make it five minutes, but I should be sorry not to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, for moving his Motion. The subject is of the first importance. We were, I am sure, all impressed by the obvious humanity which actuated every word he spoke. Speaking for myself, I agree with so much that he said that I am sorry I shall have to offer a note of caution as to one or two of the matters he covered. I agree entirely about probation. Probation has been a great success, and in spite of these elements of friction, at which my noble friend Lord Sankey rather darkly hinted, between the Magistrates' Association and the Home Office—as to which I know not—on the whole it is working well. If I may give an instance of its success, I was only this morning reading, for the purpose of presenting at the Quarter Session next Tuesday, the report of the Area Probationary Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman. The figures were, roughly, that 150 boy cases were under the superintendence of two probation officers, and I do not think that 75 case-load was too much. All but eleven of these terminated their periods satisfactorily. That is a high proportion. Of the girls, there were many fewer for the reasons indicated by my noble friend—some 35—but the proportion of non-

    349
    success was rather greater—four. As a rule girl cases, when they occur, are more obdurate. They are mixed up with questions of sex and matters of that kind which make them more difficult. Speaking broadly, however, probation is a success and a great contribution to humanity.
    One must not find fault with civil servants who cannot answer back, but it is legitimate, perhaps, to join with Lord Sankey in praising the Home Office and, if I may, to go so far as to say that the special thanks of the young people of this country are, in my opinion, due to Mr. S. W. Harris, of the Home Office, who has been, if not the father, at least the foster father, of the probation system in this country. I do not think we ought to leave altogether out of account the Borstal system. Considering the very obdurate material with which it has to deal, the fact that. Borstal succeeds in some 80 per cent. of its cases, roughly speaking, is a marvellous testimony to the system and to Mr. Alec Paterson and his team who have developed that system.
    Having said so much, I just want to say one word about causes of delinquency. It is a mistake to think that delinquency is all cite to the war. Of course it has increased during the war, when fathers and mothers have been otherwise occupied and the police are very much diminished; in our county they are down much below strength owing to the needs of the Forces. Of course it has increased, but it was progressing and increasing before the war, to a very grave and considerable extent. Lord Southwood, Lord Sankey, and the noble Earl who last spoke have suggested one real cause that goes far deeper than housing conditions. That is want of discipline exercised by the parents. If you go a little further back than that, it is due to a large extent to the diminished size of families. Members of big families are not spoilt so much as only children, or two children. Big families have a way of disciplining themselves. That is at all events one of the causes. The very striking fact to which the noble Earl alluded that in new housing estates, where there was no bad housing, there was very marked juvenile delinquency, shows that it is not a question of housing. I myself think it is largely due to the spoiling of children at home and to a lack of discipline. Mothers, perhaps, have snore to do with it because boys are more spoiled by
    350
    mothers than are girls. Perhaps that is a contributory reason why boy delinquency is continuing ahead of girl delinquency.
    There is only one other subject on which I desire to say a word, and that is the question of corporal punishment. I do not want to flog everybody; that would be a grave mistake. You should flog last and not first; but it would be a grave error to regard flogging as inhumane and to abolish the remedy of flogging in cases where it is really needed. There was a Bill ready to be brought before Parliament when the war broke out—the Criminal Justice Bill—on which the Home Secretary of that day did me the honour of asking my opinion because I happen to have been a Judge of first instance for seventeen years and Chairman of Quarter Sessions for ten years more, and am still. I frankly told him that in my judgment the Bill was a good Bill, taking it on the whole, but that there was one very bad clause in it which I intended to oppose to the utmost of my power, and that was the clause abolishing corporal punishment. That is my view. I shall give your Lordships reasons and explanations when, if ever, that Bill comes before this House, but the last thing I wish is to do so now. I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion.
    VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, there is nothing much that I can add to the very valuable debate that has already taken place, but I should like to call attention to one serious source of error in the statistics we have been given. In considering the figure of children convicted of indictable offences, we must remember there has been a certain improvement in the juvenile courts. Previously many children were not brought before the courts owing to a feeling that the courts were not suitable for children. The result of this has been an apparent increase in juvenile crime, whereas it is actually due, in great part, only to an increase in the number of children charged. No doubt if we reform the courts further still more unruly children will be brought before them, but let us not be persuaded, by a mere increase in the figures of children charged, to believe that the reforms are a failure or that our children are so enormously worse than they were in previous years.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, there is to follow this debate the concluding part of the very important debate which began yesterday and on which my noble friend Lord Cherwell is presenting the Government's view. I shall do my utmost, therefore, to confine what I must say, in concluding the present debate, in the shortest possible time. No one in a few minutes can make a full survey of this most important and complicated matter, and therefore I should be serving the House best if, subject to answering one or two specific points, I call attention to the real nature of the development which has taken place in our country in connexion with children who commit offences. It really is a silent revolution which has taken place, the way in which children charged with crimes are dealt with in courts of law, and it is a revolution that has taken place in our own lifetime.
    If my noble friend Lord Samuel were here—I know he is compelled to be away—I should take special satisfaction in saying that the beginnings of this matter are very closely associated with himself. I remember it well. In the year 1908, in the first House of Commons of which I was a member, there was introduced a Children Bill by the then Under-Secretary of the Home Office who was my noble friend. That was the Bill which first established juvenile courts to deal with children and it was an immense revolution as has become obvious in the course of years. The Probation Bill I think had been passed the year before and these matters have developed largely under that benign influence in the Home Office to which I was glad to hear Lord Roche refer. Then there was the Children and Young Persons Bill of 1933 with which Mr. Oliver Stanley was specially associated. I rather think Lord Samuel was again at the Home Office.
    Now what was the nature of this revolution? The broad stream of tendency had to be noticed. It is really this—the problem of what the law is to do with the child who commits crimes. That is obviously one of great practical applications. If you read our literature you can see it cropping up in a hundred ways. Everybody has I hope at some period read Water Babies and knows what a very bad boy Tom was, though he does not seem to us to have been very bad. And Dickens
    352
    is full of cases drawn from life in which society was completely puzzled and driven distracted by the fact that a crime had been committed by a child, and what were you to do about it? We recall pictures of Mrs. Fry visiting Newgate and observe how many children there are hanging about in the prison room. It was an immense revolution that began to take place when this country decided that, while it was perfectly true that children did commit what in the case of adults are called crimes, the problem of what to do with the children was a distinct problem. Instead of talking about children's crimes, we use this most unpleasant phrase "juvenile delinquency"—but perhaps basic English will have some shorter word for it. This country realized that this was a specially difficult problem because, though the thing that was done was very wrong, it was very likely done out of mischief, it was very likely done without due planning and deliberation, it was very likely associated with high spirits or with bravado or with a desire to say that though you were not old enough to be a soldier you still understood what a soldier might do in case of special provocation. Therefore the idea arose that we must have a different system to deal with juvenile crime because the object is to secure that, though undoubtedly the juvenile has committed crime, he shall be so treated as not to do it again.
    That was the central feature of it and I think that if you take the different matters which have been adopted and put together to complete this new system, you see very remarkable progress in the development of the treatment of crime for the benefit of citizens at large. The figures quoted just now by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, show how very seldom in his neighbourhood children who have come before juvenile courts come before them again. How extremely significant that is; it is all because of the methods that have been worked out and on the whole have been well devised for their purpose. Many of your Lordships, I have no doubt, have seen a juvenile court at work and some of you may be members of one. If it is wisely guided, a juvenile court is not merely a collection of soft-hearted people who want to deal with the poor little darlings without any possible severity. Not at all. It is a highly developed technique which has been most carefully worked out and is admirably applied by those who know best how

    353
    to do it for the purpose of really making the treatment served out fit the mistake or offence that has been committed.
    It proceeds on an obvious principle which would seem ridiculous to our ancestors but which everybody recognizes now—namely, that children should not, if possible, be sent to prison. That is the worst thing you can do to them if you want to prevent children from committing offences. When occasionally I hear, as I do in my present office, of a child who, because there are not enough remand homes, has been put for the time being in a general prison to await ultimate treatment, it is one of the things that make me rage, for as sure as possible when that child comes out that child is a hero to some of its worst companions. It is a little hero because it has been with criminals of an adult type, it has been probably petted and treated with the greatest possible kindness by people in the prison, and there is not a single experience which that child has suffered that is not a bad influence. Therefore, you must have a careful and elaborate system.
    You must first have this system of probation officers, and I do join heartily with those in this debate who have spoken warmly of them. It is most difficult work to do and this is a case where the results prove the method to be right. You choose a man or woman, who has had some training in the matter if possible, under the order of the court to visit the home from which the child comes, to see the child and see the child's parents from time to time, and to report to the court as to the results which are observed; and thereby without punishment and without rigid rules you do as a matter of fact exercise this benevolent influence which saving thousands of children from developing into a life of crime. The greatest possible thanks are due to probation officers all over the country. I will not deal with the points mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Sankey, except to say I will certainly have them inquired into.
    The second thing is this, there are many cases where you cannot deal with children satisfactorily simply by sending them back to their own homes. There are cases where you do really need to apply an arrangement for boarding them out with foster-parents in the country districts round about their homes. Very often a boy who has been living in a town has,
    354
    by order of the court, to live with selected foster-parents, not too far away, but in the country. He begins to discover that the country has got its own interests and its own attractions. He begins to make up his mind for a better kind of life, largely under the influence of some decent woman, probably, who is acting as his foster-mother, not excluding the real parents from visiting the child but none the less trying to put him into the new media and giving him a new start in life, putting his roots into better soil. That again requires a very careful technique which has had to be worked out, mostly by the Home Office in this last generation, and has done no end of good.
    There is yet another matter which my noble friend Lord Southwood commented upon, the approved schools. Approved schools were given that name, I think, in 1933 because of the objection which was rightly felt to the word "reformatory." Undoubtedly the reformatory boy was very often somewhat handicapped by the fact that he had been to a reformatory. If people were only logical they would realize that the trouble is not that he had gone to a reformatory but that he had done something which caused him to go to a reformatory. The reformatory may have done him all the good in the world. Still, the reformatory is not exactly an introduction to polite society. I very much doubt, however, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, whether he was quite right in saying that the same thing is true of these approved schools. These approved schools are provided for children who have done wrong and they are given their own proper names. They are not called approved school No. so and so. In fact a very good one might be called the "Southwood School." No boy would be handicapped because he had received some of his education at the Southwood School. It is quite possible, by taking suitable action, to prevent this sort of taint. Then I come to the remand home. I referred to that, incidentally, when I spoke of my sense of disturbance when I came across a case of a child who had actually been sent to an adult general prison while waiting for inquiries. He ought to have been sent to a remand home. There are not enough remand homes, and my noble friend was right when he said that more are needed.

    355
    These illustrations show how we really are engaged in examining a silent revolution which has taken place in our lifetime and is having most beneficial results on the future of children. I do not know that I entirely agree with the remark made by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that the statistics are fallacious. He suggested that the explanation of the fact that the number of children who have been convicted of crime had increased during the war might be that there was more resort to juvenile courts than there used to be. That is true up to a point, but the fact that there was a very sharp difference in the numbers between 1938 and 1931 requires another explanation. What is really startling is that while the figures go up in 1940 and 1941 they do not continue to go up after that. There is a very marked decline. We have not got back to figures as good as those before the war but we have certainly got back to much better figures than those of 1941. Why is that? It cannot be due to an improvement in parental influence; the relaxed influence of the parents of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, spoke very seriously just now has, I fear, continued. I think it is largely due to the fact that during the first years of the war there was so much evacuation, so many schools were closed down, and there was a general air that everything was in a distracted state. Opportunities for high spirited boys to go in recklessly for what are called crimes were very considerably increased.
    But when you got the major part of the juvenile population coming back to ordinary schools and when all the valuable influence of the schools was operating again—and I should be inclined to add when you got operating the pre-Service training corps for boys reaching the age of sixteen years: a very considerable influence, I think—you really began to get the child population back to its more natural habits. Unquestionably, however, war-time is a time which is likely to provoke all sorts of irregularities in youth. An important thing is that the juvenile courts give opportunity of distinguishing between the cases where what has been wrong is due to high spirits or emulation—there is a good deal of gang mischief nowadays—and cases where it is due to bad character and possibly bad leader-
    356
    ship. We shall see less of these irregularities at the end of the war.
    Meantime, I want to call attention to the fact that we have been living through a generation in which this silent revolution has taken place of getting rid of the old idea that the bad boy must be punished and sent to prison with the result that he was likely to remain bad, and substituting for that the idea that after all boys and girls have much less natural restraint against certain forms of temptation than sedate old people, and consequently you can devise a system which I think the Home Office has done much to promote which will turn boys and girls, notwithstanding wrongdoing, into good citizens instead of bad citizens.
    I ought to add, perhaps, one word about something which has been said by several speakers on the subject of the composition of the juvenile courts. In the case of juvenile courts in London, the selection of members is made by the Home Secretary. Undoubtedly some of the best juvenile courts are to be found in London. In the country the provision is that the members of the juvenile courts shall be selected by the magistrates themselves to serve for three years. In a great many cases that system has also worked very well. It has the advantage, of course, that a good deal of local knowledge can be applied in making a selection. But I am not in every part of the country very well satisfied with the results. Undoubtedly there is a tendency in the case of some benches to keep people on the juvenile panel year after year while (they are getting older and older. I was told the other day a story from the North Country of some children playing in the street who found great satisfaction in acting a scene in a juvenile court. There was very great competition among the children as to who should get the beard. When the beard had been duly allotted to the fortunate actor or actress the juvenile court began, in which the use of the beard combined with a number of grimaces seemed to indicate that the children thought the president of the court was rather old.
    On the other hand, I do not think you can deal with this aspect of the problem by simply defining an age as a rigid limit. It is true that some people of more advanced age are better suited to sit on the bench at juvenile courts than some

    357
    younger people, but I cannot say I am entirely satisfied that we have got in the country the best system. I hope very much that the efforts that have been made by myself and my predecessors are going to secure on the whole a better selection through the introduction of new blood, especially when the war comes to an end. In the meantime we must often be content with what older people can do. I do not desire to keep your Lordships longer, but I should like to join with those who have thanked the noble Lord for his balanced view of this matter which is very helpful. Although many things may seem of greater excitement or greater moment, it is well that your Lordships' House should review from time to time with knowledge the working and development of this vast reform connected with juvenile delinquency.
    LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, as there is another debate to follow—the debate which was adjourned yesterday—I do not propose to keep your Lordships for more than a moment. I only wish to make quite clear, and I hope that I made it clear in my speech, that I am not in any way criticizing the juvenile courts. Great improvement, as we know, has been made in them in recent years. As your Lordships are well aware, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have done much to bring about improvement, and the object of my speech was merely, if such a thing were possible, to encourage these improvements and to speed them up. I am sure we are all greatly indebted to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for his exposition of the present position. What he said was extremely encouraging, and it leaves me with nothing else to do but to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

    POST-WAR DEFENCE.
    Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, moved by Lord Chatfield yesterday, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the administration of Imperial and national defence after the war.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, before I address myself to the adjourned Motion on the Paper, I should like to adopt the formal custom which was
    358
    followed so adroitly yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Denman, and congratulate Lord Stratheden and Campbell on the maiden speech which he made yesterday. The noble Lord is unable to be present here to-day owing to his duties, but I think I am only expressing what has been indicated already when I say that it is always a pleasure to your Lordships to hear a maiden speech, and that pleasure is enhanced when the maiden speech shows such promise as did that of the noble Lord yesterday. We hope that he will often take part in our debates.
    The debate which was adjourned from yesterday will I hope prove to be the forerunner of many debates of the same kind. I should like, if I may, to congratulate my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield on having brought this very important matter to your Lordships' notice in this way. In the first part of his Motion he really puts a plain question—I have not the Paper before me so cannot give the terms of it—to which he hopes to receive an answer from the Government. It is on the second part of the Motion I should like to say a few words. I feel that what the noble Lord suggests is something that is really beyond the power of any Government. I am sure your Lordships welcome the noble Lord's desire to bring this matter to your attention at the earliest possible moment. I think we recognize that he is, to use a familiar phrase, striking while the iron is hot. He is bringing his Motion forward at an opportune moment, for while everybody's attention is primarily directed towards the war, it is also directed towards the machinery of defence, and with such earnestness that I am sure we all feel there is ground for hoping that ways will be found to obviate the recurrence in the future of the desperate situations which have faced us in the past. We all have in our minds mistakes which have been made, and the terrible penalties which have been paid in the last five years.
    The Motion covers a very wide field, and I am sure we recognize that when the noble and gallant Lord spoke yesterday he was addressing us on matters of which he has had a very long experience, and that he has special knowledge which makes him very well qualified to speak on such a subject. I think that probably I am right in saying that he was not anxious to overload his Motion, and that

    359
    he only addressed himself to that part of the subject on which he felt he was fully qualified to address your Lordships and to give us the benefit of his experience. I am ashamed to say that I have not read the noble and gallant Lord's pamphlet from which Lord Hankey quoted. I must plead the same reason that many of your Lordships have to plead in such circumstances, that in these fast-moving days we have very little time in which to read all the literature with which we are confronted. I think, however, that in the eloquent speech which the noble and gallant Lord delivered yesterday he told us very clearly and fully what was in his mind.
    In dealing with the second part of his Motion, he raised, if I may say so, a very big issue indeed. He hopes and believes that defence will be a non-Party issue in the future. I really consider that that is quite impossible. In the old days there were a great many people who claimed to belong to no Party. In many cases they even went further and said that they were not politicians, and they looked upon the term "politician" as one of opprobrium. They said that they took no interest at all in politics. But in these days when the vote is universal—in fact only your Lordships and a certain section of the community are without it—we feel that nearly everybody from their earliest years must have some regard to politics, and must take an interest in these great questions which come up on such occasions as this. Lord Chatfield and I are old friends. We have had, probably, many controversies in the past. But I am not certain that after I have said what I have to say later on he will not think it will not go far to remove many of those controversies which occurred between the Services, and which I think seem, when we look back on them now, to have been to a very large extent unprofitable.
    The machinery of which the noble Lord has spoken, I would go almost as far as to say, is quite unimpeachable. He believes in the rather elaborate machinery that he has outlined to us in the seven points which he enumerated, and he has told us how the desired machinery should take effect. He also mentioned diffidently, and so did Lord Hankey, the question of the Dominions. The noble
    360
    Earl, Lord Cork, went a great deal further and explained that he fully desired that the Dominions should be associated with us in all the important matters which will confront us in the future. While I do not feel that it would be right in this debate to embark on that particular question, I should like to say that I agree more with Lord Cork's words on that matter than I do perhaps with the manner in which other speakers dealt with it. But I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us at all on the particular point that in future development of policy we must be in close touch, in close agreement, and in close association with our Dominions, and that means must be devised for achieving that.
    The speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, was followed, as your Lordships know, by one from Lord Hankey. Now Lord Hankey has an unrivalled experience of all these matters. He has been associated with all the machinery connected with military matters and Service matters generally for a long period of time, and anything that he tells us is something which it is our duty—a duty which we shall not neglect if we are wise—to take particular note of. He told us that we are striving now, not for the devising of entirely new methods, but for the perfecting of arrangements which were formerly in force, and he pointed out how trouble came about through our extreme unpreparedness and owing to the policy of disarmament, which occupied an entirely undue place in the national mind. He went further and said that all ordinary safeguards were overridden, and he used a phrase which I think is very applicable to what did happen when he spoke of paralyzed successive Governments. He also spoke of taking defence out of Party politics, but, as I have said before, everyone in this country will have some opinion on this point, and in some cases those opinions may be divergent. There will, for instance, be the question of conscription, and it will be very important that we shall make up our minds on that issue. Another question is that of the employment of women. These are all subsidiary matters into which I cannot go now, but they are all connected with the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, has moved.
    In relation to the plans suggested by Lord Chatfield, I agree with Lord Hankey that it does appear that they strike at the

    361
    root of what we look on as our System of Cabinet government in this country. Whatever machinery we provide for regulating and developing our defensive measures, it all comes back to the responsibility of the Government, and in the end to the responsibility of the Prime Minister. We understand that the idea is that a ten-year plan would be established which would be signed by the Prime Minister with the approval of the Cabinet. This is really no innovation; the process has been in being for a considerable number of years. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hankey in preferring the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I am sure that in the Committee of Imperial Defence we have a body which is fully qualified to deal with all those matters which have come before it in the past and which are bound to come before it again.
    The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, widened the area of the discussion and made some very helpful suggestions. He went on to compare the time before this war with the time before the last war. If it was relevant to this debate, I might be prepared to join issue with him on one or two of the things which he said; but I should be out of order if I did so. While I have said all this, and while I agree with the machinery suggested, I would add that that machinery is of no use whatever unless it is handled and controlled by the authority of the Cabinet in the person of the Prime Minister; and I think that the only speech which went to the root of the matter was that delivered by my noble friend Lord Perth. Lord Perth has had a very wide experience, and I think that his career, which has now extended over a great many years, will provide an example for many young men. On more than one occasion in your Lordships' House he has raised the whole question of the Foreign Office, foreign affairs and foreign policy. Although yesterday we were dealing with the machinery of defence, very little was said, except by my noble friend Lord Perth, about the fact that the whole of this machinery and its management depend on our foreign policy.
    I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, in his diffidence, did not wish to overload his Motion, and so dealt with that part of the subject with which he is specially qualified to deal. But Lord Perth has had a very long experience in
    362
    diplomacy, and from a very close acquaintance is well versed in what we speak of as foreign affairs. It was interesting to hear him speak of the repercussions which he was able to notice from afar of all the different questions which came up in Parliament here, and the effect which they had on those people with whom he was associated at the time. All these questions are going to come up in the House of Commons in the future, and, after all, our main reason for fighting this terrible war is to have the power and the opportunity to raise these matters in Parliament and to discuss them as we wish. The Powers with whom we are battling proclaim an authority which allows no jurisdiction or freedom of action to the individual. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Chatfield can remove from his Motion the word "non-Party," because I think that that is a wholly impracticable suggestion. We must rely on the Government and on the Party in power to handle foreign policy in a way which will satisfy this country and enable us to put in motion all the machinery for dealing with matters which are really of a subsidiary character.
    It is very easy to criticize and to express recrimination, but I have no desire to do that to-day, and recriminations are always unprofitable unless they act as warnings and as guides for the future. There are, however, certain questions which we want to ask. Why are we engaged in the most terrible world-wide conflict that the world has ever seen? Why were we deficient in preparation? Why, with our vast commitments, had we no defences adequate to protect them? Why was Germany, from a state of powerlessness and impotence in 1933, able to challenge the world, although by no means ready at the time, in 1939? Why was every breach of the Treaty of Versailles by Germany condoned and practically ignored? What was the reason for our ignorance of Russia and her vast potentialities and the spirit which actuates that remarkable nation? These are all matters which are raised and should be controlled by the foreign policy of this country.
    I go so far as to say that our Foreign Office at this time is not capable of bearing the strain, and of maintaining in this country and abroad the proper position which the Foreign Office should occupy.

    363
    After all, the Foreign Office is the pivot of the Government, and the Foreign Secretary should be the most dominant personality in the Cabinet after the Prime Minister. I am not sure that the precedents of which we know in the past, when the Prime Minister has been at the same time the Foreign Secretary, have not indicated the best way of dealing with the situation which we can envisage. It may be a harsh thing to say that the Foreign Office has not existed since the days of Sir Edward Grey. Sir Edward Grey carried on a tradition handed on to him by Lord Lansdowne, Lord Salisbury, Palmerston and Castlereagh. All those men were the dominating influences in the Cabinets in which they took part. During the last twenty years, however, for reasons into which I will not enter, the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary have not been able to fulfil the obligations which rest upon them. I understand that the composition of the Foreign Office is to be the subject of certain reforms, and if the Foreign Secretary is to take a dominating part in every question which arises, I believe that my noble friend Lord Perth will agree with me that at the present time the Foreign Office has not the capability of carrying out the duties which will fall upon it.
    LORD STRABOLGI: Is the noble Marquess excluding a very successful and eminent Foreign Secretary, the late Mr. Arthur Henderson?
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not naming or excluding anyone, because I can point to the remarkable services which have been rendered by each of our Foreign Secretaries, and I would certainly include Mr. Arthur Henderson; but I do say that at the time when Mr. Arthur Henderson was Foreign Secretary there was an idea all through this country and abroad that the Foreign Secretary was not the most dominating figure in the Cabinet, which he used to be and which I hope he will be in the future. I think your Lordships will agree with me that every point of policy, whether in world affairs, home affairs, Dominion or Colonial affairs, in some form touches our foreign policy, and it is most important that when any changes are made or any policies are pursued, whether financial or other, the Foreign Secretary should have the power and the opportunity of
    364
    giving his reasons against such a policy if he thought it undesirable; and the machinery which the noble and gallant Lord has so eloquently developed, unless controlled and directed under the influence of the foreign policy enunciated by the Government, might be almost unavailing.
    This is where the point about non-Party decisions comes in. I am sure your Lordships will agree that one subject on which we should have a united nation is our foreign policy, and, unless a Government is capable of formulating a foreign policy which receives the support and consent of the nation, it is incapable of governing this country. Probably your Lordships will remember an incident some twenty years ago when an action was taken by a Conservative Government of a very violent character. On that action the whole House of Commons was sharply divided, and yet the action which was taken was one which certainly was capable of involving us in war. If we had had a definite foreign policy with regard to our commitments and what we proposed to do, I doubt if that Motion would ever have been brought forward. If an accepted foreign policy were adopted so many things would fall into their proper place and their proper perspective. The failure of the Disarmament Conference was due to the variations of opinion between the Service Ministers, the Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Office. If we had followed a concerted course based on British foreign policy there could have been no such variations of opinion. Our foreign policy, such as it was, undertook commitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations which our attenuated armed strength was quite incapable of fulfilling. If your Lordships have read Mr. Lippmann's book you will find he criticizes America for exactly the same reason. All sorts of commitments were undertaken, and yet there was no proper means of fulfilling those obligations.
    The noble Lord has suggested certain machinery and if that machinery were actuated by the Government on the basis of foreign policy, I think his ideas are unimpeachable. Take the case of France. The General Staff, for reasons quite obvious to us, were determined on a purely defensive policy. The French Foreign Office followed a foreign policy which demanded what I would call military

    365
    assertiveness. They made alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland. But while their General Staff determined to follow a defensive policy, the commitments which France had undertaken demanded forces capable of a military offensive against Germany. The result was that France has fallen. The General Staff went in one direction and the Foreign Office in another. I think, looking back on our own history, we can see that the divergencies between what was looked on as our foreign policy and the opinions recorded by the Service Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff were the main reason why we found ourselves in the position which we did. The Foreign Office had every opportunity. The failure arose through not recognizing that the commitments with the Object of maintaining peace were not stir ported by adequate military strength. While Lord Chatfield's proposal to provide the machinery for defence is excellent, the country must decide the foreign policy which it proposes to adopt, and for this it requires and demands a Foreign Secretary and a Foreign Office capable of fulfilling all our obligations.
    LORD GEDDES: My Lords, the hour is getting late and this debate, so far as it has gone, has produced some of the most interesting and informative speeches that it has been my lot to listen to in your Lordships' House. But running through the speeches of yesterday there seemed to me to be what I can perhaps best describe as something of a fallacy—namely, that our defence organization could, or should, include within our own bit of machinery cogs derived from the Dominions; because the Dominions now have the right, as free and independent nations, to take their own decisions at any time on any matter of policy, whether it be in connexion with war or peace. So it seemed to me that what we have to discuss here first of all is what our own machine should be, how it should be shaped and fashioned, and then after it had been created the relation with the Dominions could be established. That was a point which I felt had some importance attaching to it, because one knows low easily feelings in the Dominions are aroused to the belief that somebody here is trying in some way to take decisions for them.
    As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, yesterday I felt that much of the historical review with
    366
    which he opened was hardly complete or in accordance with my knowledge of that portion of it of which I have really intimate knowledge. After all, at the end of the last war I was one of the Ministers who had to take my share of the responsibility in the decisions as to what was to happen in connexion with our defence forces. But whatever may have happened after I went to America, certainly there was no disordered decision simply to throw away our arms at the end of the last war. The decisions of the Cabinet, which are all on record and which Lord Hankey will remember very well, were based on recommendations from the Naval, Military and Air Staffs. It is true that later there was further cutting down, but the essential fact with regard to the first diminution in our armaments after the last war is that these measures were taken by the Government on the advice and with the assent and consent of the Service Staffs, and the whole matter, unless I am very much mistaken, was reviewed very carefully by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    LORD CHATFIELD: May I ask up to what year would the noble Lord allow that to be the case?
    LORD GEDDES: That was the case until 1920, when I went over to America. Then the next stage of the proceedings, as Lord Chatfield will remember as well as I do, because we were both in Washington at the time, was the limitation of naval armaments. He will remember that that was a definite international scheme in which there were two motives at work. One was to meet the point of view of the United States of America—it was our own point of view too, I think—that it was undesirable that there should be a great disparity between the Fleets of the United States and of the British Empire for reasons of stability in international affairs. At that time the American Fleet, in ships built or building, was actually tending to be greater than the British Fleet. But there was another motive too. That was to make the ending of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance a well-ordered occasion and so prevent the shock which it might cause to the Japanese having undesirable results.
    Several noble Lords in the House took part in those discussions. That limitation of armaments was followed by various

    367
    other treaties, but we must remember that we were living in a world which was subject to very great stresses and strains. The people of this country were exhausted by the war which had lasted from 1914 to 1918. They were tired of slaughter. The country itself was in considerable financial difficulty. We owed very large sums of money to the United States as the result of the way in which the war supplies had been handled, and altogether there was a stress and a strain on this country which was quite without precedent, certainly in our time. That stress and strain was aggravated by a great deal of mental unrest among the wage-earners. You will recall how popular many of the things that had happened in Russia were in parts of this country at that time, and there were certain people—a small number—who thought it would be a good thing to follow on the same path.
    It was necessary for the Government at that time to pay attention to these stresses and strains and to meet, so far as they could, the financial stress and the social strain. All that had the effect of distorting our defence arrangements. Then, later on, there came the full drive of the pacifist movement which received an enormous amount of support throughout the country, partly through a feeling that we, as a nation, ought really to set a good example and that if we did the world would be better. Certainly, we as a nation—not all of us as individuals—shut our eyes to the evil forces that existed in the world. We became idealistic. As I understood Lord Chatfield yesterday, he ascribed our military weakness to the fact that we were supporting the League of Nations. I agree with Lord Perth that it was the pacifist wave that had the effect of making us limit our military power and preparations, much more than the existence of the League of Nations.
    LORD CHATFIELD: I do not want the noble Lord to have a wrong impression on this matter. When I brought in the League of Nations in my speech it was not so much to suggest that it had the effect of weakening our own strength as that the principles on which it was started weakened the world's strength in support of peace.
    LORD GEDDES: I accept that, but if the noble Lord will look at the Official
    368
    Report he will see that the interpretation I was putting on what he said is at least a possible interpretation.
    LORD CHATFIELD: I am glad that I have corrected that impression now.
    LORD GEDDES: So I do not think we can say that Party strife was responsible for our military weakness, our naval weakness, and our relative air weakness. There was a definite movement which affected all Parties—some more than others—making for a disinclination to arm and be strong. After the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, had given his view of the historical aspect, he came to the problem. The problem he posed was a very limited one, and he explained why he purposely limited it to the type of machinery which should exist within this country to deal with military problems under Foreign Office guidance. That aspect, he indicated, he left out specially, and it was brought in very clearly and definitely by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I must say, on the argument so far as it has been presented to us, Lord Hankey's suggestion that the Committee of Imperial Defence should continue to be the central consultative and advisory body appeals to me most strongly. I do not for one moment believe it is possible to get a Council, whatever name you apply to it, formed partly of members of the Government, partly of leaders of I do not know how many Parties—there might be two or three others, perhaps more in years to come—and non-political persons who could take decisions on matters of military policy, using the word "military" in its widest sense. That is entirely out of the question because of the way the Government of this country is worked and must, I believe, continue to be worked.
    But I can see no reason, with the Committee of Imperial Defence functioning as it functions, and composed very much as it is composed from time to time, why there should not be added to it, if they are willing to attend, the leaders of the principal Parties who are not concerned with the government of the country. That is a matter of precedent which has been followed time and time again, and it seemed to me at the time a good precedent and one which could be followed in future. But no Opposition leader, it seems to me, could be expected to commit himself and his Party if there were some

    369
    grave difference of opinion such as existed in this country, for example, during the Spanish Civil War, where you had a great many people supporting one side in ti—.at war and a great many sympathetically supporting the other side. It might be that such a division of sympathy would follow Party lines, and if policy was to be based on some decision taken in connexion with it, I cannot see how it would be possible to get any leader of an Opposition to agree to pledge himself and his Party to support a line of policy with which his whole Party might have instinctive disagreement.
    LORD CHATFIELD: That is a foreign policy.
    LORD GEDDES: But the two cannot be separated. If you come to the forces required to support a Party policy, the foreign policy at once comes into the military policy. I do not see that there is any possibility of maintaining a line of demarcation between them. Therefore it would appear to me that Lord Hankey's view is he correct one, the view he expressed yesterday that it should, be the Committee of Imperial Defence with co-opted members from the Opposition, as there have been on many occasions in the past. But it seems to me that the problem may take completely new forms in future. It is by no means outside the bounds of possibility that within a very short time it might be possible for one nation to deliver from afar a devastating and destructive attack upon another without moving many men at all. It might be done by machines moving through the air, and in the hard and stern times that lie ahead of and with the terrific advances that are taking place almost hourly in the application of science to the development of military power, it may well be that the problems with which the Governments of this country in the future will be faced will not only be different in kind but different in degree in every way, and there may well have to be some complete reorganization of the seat of control of our military affairs so that we are not liable to be destroyed in one swift, devastating, unexpected blow. The Pearl Harbour technique must warn us that in future there may be other attempts at Pearl Harbours and they might be even more serious and more disastrous. The solution
    370
    of the problem on the military side, so it would appear to me, can be looked for through a development of the Committee of Imperial Defence and we must be prepared for sharp and swift events in future in connexion with possible forms of attack which are not yet quite practical politics, or may not yet be quite practical politics.
    But there is a point which was raised by the noble Marquess who spoke before me to-day, Lord Londonderry, to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of the control of our foreign policy by an efficient Foreign Office working under the direction of a powerful Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who will have a grip upon the machine of government, either through his own personality or through his close association with the Prime Minister, that seemed to me at all events in the years before the war to be seriously lacking from time to time. There we pass outside the field of the Motion that is, strictly speaking, before us to-day, for that deals purely with the control of the military machinery. But as I sit down I want to say how strongly I agree with what Lord Londonderry said to-day, and what Lord Perth said yesterday, in connexion with the control of foreign policy and the relation of that policy to the size, weight and scope of our defence preparations.
    VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I would not venture to speak at this late hour were it not for the fact that I have one deep and abiding concern and that is the maintenance of the integrity of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The debate to which we have listened has been dealing with matters affecting the future of this Kingdom. The future of this Kingdom as well as of the British Commonwealth of Nations depends not upon the action of this Kingdom or of this Parliament alone, but upon the five separate nations for, rightly or wrongly, this country has renounced its jurisdiction legislatively over every part of the British Empire except that part called Great Britain and its Colonial possessions. You did it in language so clear as to leave no doubt and you created by so doing a new entity called the British Commonwealth of Nations. The very Preamble of the Statute itself says:
    "And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free

    371
    association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown—"
    What has happened is that this Kingdom is now the equal of New Zealand and Canada and Australia and South Africa and on no higher level. They all stand on an equality of status. That has been settled. This Kingdom, as I have said, has renounced its jurisdiction over every part of this world Comonwealth except this particular part of it.
    Now that being so, what we are concerned with is not the question of the defence of this particular community, but the broad question of the defence of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That is what we are concerned with, whether we like it or not and with nothing else. And this Parliament cannot, nor can this House, deal with the question as to how those other communities are going to deal with it. How Canada is to deal with it is the business of Canada. How Australia is to deal with it is Australia's business and so with other members of the Commonwealth. But there must be unity or there will be disaster. What I am concerned with is the maintenance of the integrity of that Comonwealth.
    I submit that a new international entity came into being with the passing of the Statute of Westminster because the Preamble states that it was done at the prayer of the countries therein named, including Southern Ireland and Newfoundland and the four great Dominions I have mentioned. That brought into being what is described as the British Commonwealth of Nations. I believe that is the first time these words were used in a Statute, though there is some reference in the Irish Treaty to a Commonwealth. Observe that it contemplates that there shall be unity, and that the States in the Commonwealth are united by a common allegiance to the Crown. There is a tendency in some parts of this Commonwealth to deal with them as though they were separate and not one unity. My point is that there is unity contemplated and that the various nations that comprise the British Commonwealth of Nations must speak with unity or disaster will follow. There must be unity in defence and in foreign policy.
    In 1907 Sir Edward Grey, speaking at the Imperial Conference, said in words
    372
    that were perfectly clear that unless there was a common policy it would be the end of all things. He put it very clearly. He said the first point he wanted to make was that the foreign policy of the Empire should be a common policy. Now there must be unity with respect to foreign policy and defence or, as I say, disaster overtakes us. In the Conference of 1937, the last Imperial Conference we had, this matter was discussed at very considerable length and there were three or four words used which I suggest are important. The delegates spoke of co-operation. They all agreed that we must co-operate and "co-operation" was the magic word, as my noble friend Lord Hankey will tell us, in the minds of all the Prime Ministers when they discussed defence. Then they discussed foreign policy. There was a sharp conflict of opinion because, while some members representing the Dominions said they would have their own foreign policy, others said you could not have separate foreign policies and that there must be one policy. The Prime Minister of Canada made a broadcast in which he referred to the fact that at the Conference the delegates had arrived at certain definite conclusions, and among other things he mentioned was that the delegations at the Conference were unanimous in declaring the complete freedom of action of each Government in foreign affairs and defence. I think that is hardly the fact. My noble friend Lord Hankey was secretary and he took down the observations that were made and that were published—although most of them were not published—dealing with defence and foreign affairs.
    When Sir Edward Grey, in 1907, made the statement to which I alluded, Sir Wilfred Laurier, who then represented Canada, made it clear on many occasions—it must occur to every one of us here, as it does to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has had so much to do with these matters at Geneva—that there must be a common foreign policy or you would have a situation such as Sir Edward Grey outlined. How can you keep together the Commonwealth of Nations if Australia has one policy and Canada another? The first matter we must deal with is the question how to bring that unity about and the noble Viscount who leads your Lordships' House will have to deal to some extent with that matter at the very near meeting of the Prime Ministers of

    373
    the oversea Dominions. I submit that the solution is continuous consultation, as pointed out by Sir Robert Borden in 1917. The question of how there should be created a new tribunal to maintain continuity of consultation brought the suggestion that we should have meetings every year. Nothing, however, came of that suggestion. "Continuous consultation" had been the magic words used by Prime Ministers for the purpose of ensuring that the foreign policy of the Commonwealth was a foreign policy approved by everyone of a e constituent parts of the Commonwealth.
    It has been asked in Canada, what interest have Canadians in maintaining the integrity of Poland, for instance? What interest had they at the time to induce them to enter this war? It was because they believed a world war was inevitable and a high principle was at stake. But among a very considerable part of the population of Canada there was an idea that Canada should not engage in a European war at all. You will find that reflected in the daily newspapers—in three of them, at least—and at least thirty per cent. of the population think Canada should not be engaged in a European war. There is no conscription in Canada and people from one part of Canada are not coming over in force to join the Army, for the reason that they say Canada has no interest in European quarrels and troubles. If that was the position, then Canada could no longer speak as one of the makers of the foreign policy of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the sooner that gets into the minds of our people the better it will be for the British Commonwealth of Nations.
    I am sorry to say I have found among a great many people a completely improper conception of what happened when the Statute of Westminster was passed. When the Statute of Westminster was agreed to the people of this country dispossessed themselves of any power to make foreign policy for the Commonwealth of Nations. You cannot make in The complaint of Sir Robert Borden until his dying day was that there was an endeavour on the part of this Kingdom to make a foreign policy and then give the people in the Dominions an odd opportunity to say "Yes" or "No" quickly by cable. They said "Yes."
    374
    They never said "No" because of their realization that more was known here than in other parts of the Commonwealth, and that made it difficult for them to do otherwise than agree. If we get into our minds here that we are first among equals, if we believe ourselves to be on an absolute equality of status with all the four Dominions I have mentioned, we shall realize that large issues of defence and foreign policy must be agreed upon by the British Commonwealth and not by the Parties in the United Kingdom. What the Liberal Party or Labour Party may think, or what the Conservative Party may think, is no longer an issue so far as the larger interests of the Commonwealth are concerned. It is not a question of what the Parties think. It is what these overseas nations, now speaking with a voice that is equal to that of this country, think of in foreign policy that really matters.
    That in my view is one of the most sobering thoughts that ever entered the mind of any British subject. We have said that questions of foreign policy in the British Commonwealth shall be determined by the Governments of seven countries, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland and Southern Ireland. Those were the names given in the Preamble of the Statute of Westminster. There is, as Lord Balfour pointed out, a difference in function, but the problem is how continuous consultation can be maintained on foreign policy and defence to ensure the continuance of the Commonwealth. Having created a Commonwealth we must defend it. No one knows better than Lord Hankey what took place in connextion with the appeals which were made from time to time for the creation of this Commonwealth. When Sir Robert Borden and General Smuts spent the time they did here working out the details of it in 1917, they had it in mind that we would have a conference, a constitutional conference, with respect to the whole Commonwealth. But when at the Peace Conference, and later at the League of Nations, the views they put forward were agreed to, it no longer was necessary to have a conference.
    But there has been going on in some parts of the Commonwealth a steady demand that we shall be regarded as separate nations rather than as units in a Com-

    375
    monwealth. There has been circulated to the troops a pamphlet in winch it is stated that Canadians did not owe allegiance to the King of the United Kingdom but to the King of Canada, and in which reference was made to the fact that the King had personally assented to legislation in Canada. If giving a Power of Attorney to a Governor-General—which is what his Commission is—means anything at all it is that the principal, the King, can do what he has authorized his Attorney, the Governor-General, to do. That was all that happened. The King personally gave assent in Canada to legislation passed in his name by the Parliament of Canada. But he is not described as King of Canada, or King of Australia or King of any of the Dominions specifically. At the Coronation, the different countries are mentioned by name, but the correct description of the Sovereign—we have heard it read here to-day—ends with the words "and of the British Dominions beyond the seas." When I pointed that out and expressed the alarm that I felt that the theory suggested in the pamphlet could be accepted, I believe that the pamphlet was withdrawn. But it is a terrible thing to have that idea get abroad, and if we are going to maintain our lives we must see to it that our foreign policy is the policy of all these Dominions as well as of this country which is a Dominion. Sir Robert Borden's complaint regarding the Foreign Office may be recalled in this connexion. He said how difficult it was for a Foreign Office in this kingdom to accommodate itself to the thought that somebody else had a finger in the pie of making the foreign policy of this vast Commonwealth.
    I have ventured to express my views as rapidly as possible. There is much that I should still like to say to relate the story in detail, but I shall not do so. I shall content myself by thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, for having brought this matter up and so affording an opportunity for discussion of it in its larger and wider aspects, and by expressing my gratitude for what was said by Lord Hankey, who knows perfectly well that the Committee of Imperial Defence does not touch the overseas Dominions unless they are willing to agree to its doing so. Furthermore, he knows, and could tell your Lordships if
    376
    he desired so to inform you, that in some parts of the King's Dominions they did not believe in having a representative even attend the meetings of the Imperial Defence Committee, so strong was their feeling for autonomy and against the idea of our being united in what was described in those days, with a sneer, as "Imperial matters."
    I think at times that there is a lack of appreciation and understanding in this country of the extent to which you have shorn yourselves of any jurisdiction with respect to these matters. In passing, I would point out to my noble friend that it was not Delilah who cut off the hair of Samson, she did not do the cutting herself. If the noble Lord will look up his Bible he will see that that is so. But you at any rate have shorn yourselves of jurisdiction and have left to these Dominions the rights and powers of independent nations. Their future relations to this country and to one another depend upon a common defence policy and a common foreign policy with respect to the defence policy. The war has done a great deal to co-relate their activities and bring about that measure of co-ordination and co-operation necessary to ensure a common defence policy. But you see evidence to the contrary if you desire to examine the question closely in more places than one, and it is to that difficulty that I shall never cease to direct attention, as long as I may have voice, until such time as we find a way by which to bring about a measure of consultation that will ensure the certainty of our policy being the policy of the united Commonwealth, as was contemplated by the Conference of 1937, in which there is a recognition of these facts. If you look at the report of the proceedings you will find that there is an appreciation of the fact that aviation would play a large part in making possible that continuous consultation which is so essential to the maintenance of the life of this Commonwealth.
    LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have not ventured to address your Lordships' House since May, 1940, at which time I used to answer here for the Ministry of Agriculture. If I may have three or four minutes of your Lordships' time in which to put forward a completely separate point of view, I shall be very grateful. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chat-

    377
    field, in his speech yesterday made use of a most striking sentence. He said:
    "How few in Parliament, or outside it, can look back on those peace years, as regards the matter of defence, with anything but humility"
    "Humility" indeed! I have the melancholy record of having been in another place from December, 1918, until I joined your Lordships' House in 1937. That is to say, I was in another place during practically the whole of the years between the wars. It is a melancholy record, and if anybody is guilty for what may, or may not, have been done in another place, l am certainly one of those concerned and I see two noble Lords sitting in this Chamber who have very much the same record as I have, having entered the House of Commons at about that same time. Most of your Lordships have dealt with this great matter of defence and foreign policy from an "outside Parliament" point of view, but what I want to draw your Lordships' attention to is the appalling ignorance, the abysmal ignorance, especially among members of another place, as to what is happening from tine to time in matters of defence and foreign policy.
    I was eighteen and a half years in the House of Commons, and I spent over ten years in the Whips' Office which gave one a sufficient chance of knowing what was going on in the House. Whereas the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, talked about the necessity of having political unity on matters of defence, I would stress the necessity of having more political knowledge. I wonder if I could emphasize what I am trying to bring home by telling your Lordships of something that happened in another place, it must have been at the end of 1936 or at the beginning of 1937. The present Prime Minister sat in his place below the gangway, the then Secretary of Stale for Air was on the Front Bench, and Mr. Churchill challenged the Front Bench to deny that the Air Force of Germany was stronger in that year than the combined Air Forces of France and Britain.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Then he was incorrect.
    LORD DENHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue with my story. The Front Bench was silent. Twenty minutes afterwards I happened to go along the passage to the Smoking Room with the
    378
    present Prime Minister and we met the Secretary of State for Air. Mr. Churchill said to him, "Why did not you answer my question?" The Secretary of State for Air replied: "I could not; what you said was true." All I am saying is that there ought to be more knowledge amongst members of both Houses—and especially in the House of Commons, of which I can speak with more knowledge than I can of your Lordships' House—of what is going on and what the true state of affairs is from time to time, so that anybody after this war who will be in the House of Commons for the next twenty years shall not feel himself, if another war takes place, as guilty as I felt when this war broke out.
    How is that to be done? In the House of Commons there are Party Committees such as the Army Committee, the Navy Committee and the Air Committee, but these are Party Committees. If there could be an All-Party Committee called the Defence Committee, to which from time to time knowledge could be brought by the Prime Minister or by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—but the lead ought to be given by the Prime Minister—then I think there would be no doubt that the members of another place would be themselves seised of the necessary information from time to time and would, through their constituencies, see that the country possessed the right information. That would enable the Government to bring in unpopular votes for more armaments, and so avoid the mistakes of the past.
    There is only one other remark that I want to make. During those years I used to comfort myself from time to time by saying: "If things go wrong, surely the Service Chiefs of the three Fighting Services will resign; surely they will resign if they do not get what they want for their Services." Probably there were good reasons why the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the First Sea Lord did not resign; but, whatever may have been the efficiency of a resignation of that kind in the period between the wars, after this war, when combined operations will be essential for true defence, it will be no good only one Service Chief resigning. But, be the panacea what it may, it is most important that the members of another place, and indeed the members of your Lordships' House also, should from

    379
    time to time be given far more knowledge of what is going on than ever they have had in the past.
    THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD CHERWELL): My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, has brought forward a Motion which raises a number of very important questions. Lord Hankey said that they do not involve serious changes in our constitutional procedure, but I do not really think that this can be maintained. The noble Lord has already ventilated his views, and indeed propounded a cure, in a Sunday newspaper, and we shall, I am sure, all agree that it has been useful for him to bring those views forward here, so that the pros and cons can be examined. Nobody will dispute Lord Chatfield's knowledge of these questions. From 1933 to 1938 he was First Sea Lord, and from January, 1939, until March, 1940, he was Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Indeed, I think it would be fair to say that he probably knows as much as any single man about the condition of our armaments at the outbreak of war, and indeed bears a certain responsibility for them.
    The noble and gallant Lord enumerated a series of difficulties which had arisen in the inter-war years in maintaining our Defence Services at a level consistent with our safety. Many of these difficulties are real, and we are bound to sympathize with much that has been said; but, when he says that our rearmament proceeded only in a half-hearted manner when he was First Sea Lord, he, as I understand it, suggests that this was owing to fear of Party complications. I really do not think that it is very plausible to suggest that the reason which prevented a Government, which had a majority of over 400 until 1935 and nearly 30o thereafter, from assenting to the defence requirements necessary, was merely fear of Party disagreement.
    I could not help feeling, as I listened to the noble Lord's speech and to some of the speeches which followed, that there was a hint of what the psychologists call "rationalization" about some of the arguments. Rationalization, in psychological jargon, does not mean quite the same as it does in ordinary economic language; it is the process by which an individual with some past action on his mind, which he heartily deplores, finds
    380
    what seems to him an adequate rational explanation or excuse which relieves him of the responsibility. It is very natural for anyone who has failed to make the machine give the right result to take the view that it is the fault of the machine and not of the people working it.
    LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord more clearly explain that point? It seems to be one where he wishes to reflect on my own conduct, and I should like him to be more definite in what he says.
    LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I do not wish to reflect on the noble Lord's conduct in any sense. I am only trying to explain why he takes the very strong view he does about the impossibility of obtaining the right results with the existing machine. After all, he was one of the leading members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, he was First Sea Lord, and he was thereafter Minister for the Coordination of Defence and had every opportunity of bringing pressure to bear. We all know that there has been no occasion—at least, I cannot recollect one—when the Admiralty put forward a strong view and were refused by the Government the requirements for which they had asked. I cannot help thinking that it is a natural psychological reaction on the part of the noble Lord to think that the machine must have been at fault rather than, perhaps, some of the people who were working it.
    The noble Lord's Motion falls into two parts. In the first he asks whether His Majesty's Government are planning to improve the administration of Imperial and national defence after the war. Obviously every Government hopes and intends to do all it can to improve the administration of Imperial and national defence, but the words of the Motion clearly mean more than that—namely, to ask whether we are actually making plans. Most if not all noble Lords will realize that it would be premature to answer such a question publicly at this moment, and the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, showed why. It is hoped to hold a meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Mother Country and of the Dominions in the early summer, and I am sure that we should do well to await the result of their discussions.
    The noble Lord's more particular proposal, that we should consider the prac-

    381
    ticability of obtaining the agreement of all Parties that national defence policy should in future be a non-Party matter, was put forward with his accustomed eloquence and force. If I may say so, it is the sort of proposal which is more apt to attract officials than politicians. One man's fundamental convictions often seem to another mere party bias. I may perhaps recall to the noble Lord the pregnant saying from Burke which he himself quoted in one of his articles: "All virtue that is impracticable is spurious." Naturally nobody wants defence to be a Party matter. Nor do we want the treatment of industry, or the social amelioration of the population or, for that matter, foreign policy to be a Party matter. The trouble is that once you go beyond some general statement of aim—such as that you want the thing done well—and come down to the measures required to implement that aim, differences of view as to how it should be done are bound to emerge and do emerge in any educated democracy. Some think that tariffs are the best way to help industry; others, free trade. Some people believe in collective security; others, in the balance of power. So it must be with defence. Everybody wants to protect the country against aggression; it is when we try to settle what is required for this and how best to do it that differences, of view are bound to arise.
    These divergencies not only arise between Parties. They are quite as likely to occur between the Services. Everybody remembers the controversy as to whether the battleship could beat the aircraft or vice versa. Even within one Service I seem to recall instances of falling away from complete unanimity of opinion. Was there not an Admiral some years ago who was so much impressed by the submarine that he used to ask in season and out of season "What is the use of a battleship?" and answer it with the succinct, if inelegant, phrase "No damn use at all"? As Lord Perth and Lord Strabolgi emphasized, the view we take of national defence policy must depend entirely upon our view of what is likely to happen abroad. It would be splendid if everybody agreed about this. But is it ever likely to happen? The 11,000,000 people who voted for the Peace Ballot in 1936 were not members of any particular Party. But they were united in the belief that we could trust in collective security.
    THE EARL OF PERTH: I think the question was "Are you prepared to go to war on behalf of the League of Nations?"—not for a national policy.
    LORD CHERWELL: I have no doubt that was the question, but I think most of the people who answered it did believe in collective security. Others felt violently that we were running into fatal danger and that at all costs we must improve and extend our defences. They were usually pilloried as war-mongers. I do not know how Lord Chatfield proposes to reconcile such differences of opinion or even to collect and analyse them. We cannot merely brush aside these people as "wrong-headed groups" and confine ourselves to the official Parties represented in Parliament. How are they to be dealt with? We cannot take away their votes. And if they persist in being "wrong-headed" what does the noble Lord propose to do about it?
    At first sight Lord Chatfield's proposal for a Defence Council sounds very attractive but the matter is not quite so simple as it seems. Take the personnel. The most influential members are to be the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Service Ministers. But Governments do not endure for ever, and the holders of particular offices change even during the lifetime of a Government. I am sure it is not in the noble Lord's mind to give permanent seats to the men who happen to hold these offices to-day.
    LORD CHATFIELD: I never made any such suggestion.
    LORD CHERWELL: I said I was sure it was not in the noble Lord's mind. What then is to happen when a new set of men who may well hold diametrically opposite views replace them? No doubt he will say that the Opposition Leaders who have been invited to join will tend to be the men occupying these key posts in the new Government. To a certain extent this may be so but we should be rash to rely upon it. But even so could we expect them to maintain without modification a policy which might very likely have been pushed through the Defence Council against their most cherished views and convictions? His plan surely can only work if everybody agrees. Well of course we all agree that unity in these great matters is desirable. But I have

    383
    noticed that most people's ideas of securing unity imply that the other people should accept their view. And on that basis what hope is there of getting agreement? Is the noble Lord not falling into the logical error, well known, I believe to lawyers, that "one cannot agree to agree?" It is much easier "to agree to disagree" as I believe a Government did once.
    I will not dwell upon the pertinent question whether he expects each Party, however small, whether Communist or Common Wealth, to be called into Council or only the largest Opposition Party.
    LORD CHATFIELD: The principal Parties.
    LORD CHERWELL: Then we shall again have disagreement and the small Parties will stump the country and raise opposition to the policy. Nor do I wish to labour the point that agreement concerning defence must pre-suppose agreement concerning foreign policy. In all our history, so far as I recollect, this has only been reached in the throes of actual struggle when we were fighting Philip II or Louis XIV, or Napoleon, or William II, or even Hitler. And right up to the last moment there have been the most contrary views taken by the best informed people. On October 5, 1938, the present Prime Minister, in another place, said:
    "Never will you have friendship with the German Government. You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy. … We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination."
    Only the previous day in his maiden speech in this House the noble and gallant Admiral had said:
    "I suggest that we should accept with both hands the new spirit which the German people and their leader have offered us. We should not cast doubt upon their good word. To do so is the best way to justify a departure from that good word. Let us rather proclaim from the housetops that we believe in it, that we trust the German people, and that we believe that the new spirit engendered at the present time is one on which much can be built in Europe for peace in future."
    384
    Here we have two distinguished men holding views fundamentally contradictory on the proper policy to pursue. Yet how can we form a defence policy until we have made up our minds? In matters of defence technical and political considerations are inevitably intermingled. Consider a concrete example—the cession of the Irish ports. Their value as bases against U-boats operating in the North Atlantic is indisputable. Many hundreds of lives might have been saved if we could have used them. It seems clear therefore that other than military reasons—political arguments—must have influenced the decision to hand them over to Eire. But how are we to draw a line between political reasons and Party reasons. A man tends to join a Party because he holds certain views. It is rare nowadays for anyone to adopt particular views because they belong to the Party dogma. If he comes to a certain conclusion anent political matters, how can anyone say whether his judgment was warped by the fact that he belonged to a particular Party? And if this is so what meaning is there in demanding that national defence policy should be a non-Party matter when all agree that its formulation must have regard to political considerations?
    So far as I have understood him, Lord Chatfield wishes to work out a ten-year plan for Imperial Defence, which, once it is agreed, cannot be altered by Parliament and to do it now. But how can anyone predict ten years ahead what pattern will be displayed in the kaleidoscope of external affairs?
    LORD CHATFIELD: I really must interrupt the noble Lord, but I never said that.
    LORD CHERWELL: The noble and gallant Lord published it in his pamphlet, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, supported the view that it should be done now.
    LORD CHATFIELD: I never said so.
    LORD CHERWELL: What?—that it should be done now?
    LORD CHATFIELD: That it can only be altered by Parliament.
    LORD CHERWELL: The noble and gallant Lord said it can only be altered if

    385
    all the various Parties agreed. He said Parliament was not to interfere with it once the plan was laid down.
    LORD CHATFIELD: No !
    LORD CHERWELL: I must refer the noble Lord to his own pamphlet.
    LORD HANKEY: Has not the noble Lord overlooked that there is to be an annual report which could alter it?
    LORD CHERWELL: If the plan is to be altered, there is no difference between the plan and our present annual Estimates and annual Votes for the Defence Services? What do we know to-day about the position in the next ten years? We do not know whether there will be any organization intended to secure international peace and justice, nor who will be a member of it, nor to what degree the members will consent to be bound. We do not know how many States there will be in Europe, nor what their frontiers will be, still less how they will align themselves, least of all what their military ambitions and resources will be. Yet we are to form now a tea-year plan for Imperial defence.
    We cannot possibly predict, as was pointed out by Lord Geddes, what changes in weapons and armament will be brought about by the accelerating rate of scientific invention. Anyone who had said forty years ago that aircraft might endanger battleships, would have been laughted out of court. Thirty years ago a most distinguished general, who had just been shown the latest aircraft, was reported to have declared that they would never be a serious weapon of war. Right up to 1939 the view was widely held, even in Service circles, as the noble Lord knows, that the battleship had nothing to fear from the airplane and for that matter that the U-boat was obsolete. Is there any reason to suppose scientific invention has come to an end? If not, how can we make a ten-year plan for Imperial defence? Surely we must deprecate anything tending to stereotype our methods. Flexibility is essential in all these matters. We do not want to face the future with large armaments all out of date, as happened to the French in 1939. Yet how can the complicated machinery described by the noble Lord cope with all the shifting aspects imposed by changes of policy abroad or new inventions at home?
    386
    The plan would have to be agreed as the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, pointed out, by the Legislatures of this country and the Dominions. Each time it has to be varied—and as Lord Hankey agreed it will have to be varied in the light of events—all of them must be persuaded to agree the changes however their compositions may have altered or their Parties been realigned. Much as we all sympathize with the noble Lord's desire to make national defence policy a non-Party matter, I have grave doubts as to whether his proposals are practicable. We shall, of course, study the possibilities of improving the organization of Imperial defence in peace, in the intervals of trying our best to conduct it in war. Everybody is anxious to secure a fair, just, impartial evaluation of needs and methods on what 41, might call scientific lines. Anything that can be done will be done to avoid bias on Party or any other grounds and to ensure that continuity on which Lord Stratheden, in his admirable maiden speech, laid so much stress.
    As has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, it has often been found convenient to inform and consult Opposition leaders on matters of moment in the past, and the Government will consider whether this practice could usefully be extended and perhaps even systematized. But whatever is done at any time, whatever measures have to be taken, the final word must be with the Government of the day. No Government can unload its responsibility in the vital matter of defence on to a body unknown to the Constitution. The essence of democracy is that the people have the right, and must be trusted, to elect the kind of Parliament they wish to govern them. Until it is dissolved Parliament is supreme. And the Government is responsible to Parliament. The Government in power must be responsible for its acts, and we must continue to trust the good sense of the British people to see that they get a Government they can trust to govern them.
    LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I must not keep you long at this hour. I am much obliged to those members of your Lordships' House who supported the principle of unity in defence for which I am fighting. They came yesterday from all sides of your Lordships' House, and those who could not be here to-day because of the change of plan, which was very un-

    387
    fortunate, would also, I know, have supported my principle. The noble Lord who replied for the Government is apparently unable to understand that my Motion is put forward not to cover up my tracks, but in honest endeavour to improve the safety of the country. I have nothing to look back on which I regret, and I know of nothing I have done which I should not do exactly the same if I were in similar circumstances. I think that was an unnecessary suggestion. The noble Lord has a strong case in answer to mine. He should stick to it, and not try to weaken my arguments by suggestions that I made them from unworthy motives.
    LORD CHERWELL: I made no such suggestion.
    LORD CHATFIELD: Unfortunately, in all the arguments which have been used by those who have not been able to support my plan, the speakers have ignored one vital fact. They want to stick to the present machinery, but they ignore the fact that it is the present machinery that nearly brought us to ruin. How then can you stand up here and say it is impossible to improve it—let us stick to the good old weapon that we have wielded for so long, but wielded, unfortunately, so completely ineffectively that we were very nearly destroyed as a race? Can you ignore this fact? You cannot do so. You have got to improve your machinery, and, if you do not, posterity will condemn you and condemn this Government.
    There are only two points I have to meet in the debate we have had. One is the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Hankey, who most kindly supported my Motion, that it would be much better to stick to the machinery of Imperial Defence and to use that machinery to implement the principles of unity which he approved of. I do not mind what machinery is used. Parliament can invent its own machinery so long as the principle is accepted which I know, from my experience, is vital. There was method in my plan that you will never get the big decisions on defence policy made by a body which consists both of Ministers and experts. If you put in your leaders of the other Parties, if they come into the Committee of Imperial Defence, then you will find exactly the same thing—namely, that when difficulties arise, the Ministers will withdraw to make their own decisions
    388
    on big policy. That is why I suggested it would be better, straight away, to set up a Defence Council which will be Ministerial in basis.
    The other point I would like to mention is that in relation to foreign policy which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised. He asked me if I would include the words "foreign policy" in the Motion. May I say that I did not do so because I think it would lead us off the line which I am anxious to steer—namely, that of defence? It is quite true to say that foreign policy and defence go hand in hand. They must do so but they are governed by quite different administrative rules. Foreign policy may involve you in immediate decisions. For instance, a revolution breaks out in some country and you have to decide whether you will recognize the revolutionaries or not. It is a matter perhaps of your own ideologies and it may be very difficult to get national agreement upon it. But if you have to make an immediate decision I think it is very difficult to do that if it has to be an All-Party decision. But in defence it is different. Your defence must be long range. You cannot arm yourself in a moment. Your decisions on defence have got to be made in good time and have to cover a period of years. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, says that you cannot have a ten years policy in defence. That statement in my opinion is absolutely without foundation. It is only raising bogies and difficulties against a policy which you do not like. You must have a long-range policy. Why did we in 1922 agree at the Washington Conference to have a fifteen-year programme of naval defence with America and Japan? We could see fifteen years ahead then. Ministers who are now in the Government were responsible for that policy. Why does the noble Lord now suggest that you cannot have a ten-year plan for defence?
    LORD CHERWELL: Can the noble Lord see ten years ahead to-day?
    LORD CHATFIELD: I am not talking about to-day but of the end of the war. You must see as far ahead as you can. Ten years is merely a figure put out at a venture. You can make it five years if you like. What I want to have myself is a plan by means of which you will look far ahead, as far ahead as you can. If you cannot see everything about your

    389
    defence for ten years ahead my plan is so arranged that you could reconsider it every year, that the Defence Council should consider the plan annually and put before Parliament each year before the Estimates their summary of the situation with such alterations as they wish to make. I submit it is quite possible to do that, but I cannot press the Government to do what they do not want to do. I am glad the noble Lord is even willing to say that he is prepared to consider whether it is possible to do anything at all to improve the existing machinery. I shall not of course press the matter to-day but ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion. But I shall return to the matter because I know that it is vital.
    I do not think that anything will save this country from final destruction except to change the present machinery and the political way in which it is handled. That is my honest conviction. The arguments which I have put forward and the seven
    390
    proposals which I made yesterday the noble Lord has not answered. He has only answered the one about the Defence Council. Nevertheless those seven proposals in my view are proposals of sound judgment and I believe that your Lordships, if you reflect on them, as I know you will, will in time come to think that they are correct. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    WOLVERHAMPTON GAS ORDER, 1944.
    Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Wolverhampton Gas Company:
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
    House adjourned.