Lords Sitting of 30 November 1944

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  EXPORT TRADE: GOVERNMENT MACHINERY.
  2.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the proposals outlined by the Minister for Economic Warfare in the House of Lords under which the Economic Intelligence Branch of his Department will be handed over to the Foreign Office on the conclusion of the war with Germany, and of the proposals for the reform of the Foreign Service set out in White Paper Cmd. 6420/ 1943, they will make a statement regarding the post-war economic functions of the Foreign Office; and whether the arrangements will be such as will in any way curtail or affect the activities of the Overseas Trade Department; and whether their activities will be maintained on the same basis as before the war; to make certain suggestions; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in the gracious Speech from the Throne yesterday it was stated that the Government would try to create conditions favourable to the expansion of our export trade. The Motion which I have on the Paper is directed to that end and relates to the Government machinery which is so necessary to assist in creating those favourable conditions. I therefore venture to suggest to your Lordships that the Motion I am moving to-day is moved at a most appropriate moment. It is perfectly true to say that the revival of our export trade will very largely depend upon the initiative and enterprise of individual traders and also upon the modern efficiency of our manufacturers and industrialists. But it is just as true to say that our traders and manufacturers cannot expect to obtain the best results from those efforts unless in addition they
  54
  have the assistance of Government machinery with a personnel specially trained and expert in foreign trade and assisted overseas by specially trained and expert official trade representatives located in the various foreign centres.
  It is further essential that our traders, manufacturers, and industrialists when they visit foreign countries in search of trade should be able to procure on the spot from these official British trade representatives all the best advice obtainable from them with regard to local trading conditions, business firms and individuals in those centres. Of the utmost importance also is it that these official trade representatives should be on the staffs and have the full backing of our Ambassadors and Ministers and of the Foreign Office. Unless this specialized form of Government machinery, which I have briefly outlined, is perfected and made available so soon as the war is over, our traders and manufacturers will find themselves at a serious disadvantage compared with the traders and manufacturers of countries such as, for instance, the United States of America, who have already gone out with both hands—and I do not blame them—to seize all the export trade they can in every part of the world. They have, for a very long time, had a form of machinery such as I have described to assist them and this no doubt will be improved upon.
  We must have a foreign trade policy and we must have an Empire trade policy. But it is with our foreign trade policy that I am particularly concerned to-day and I wish to address your Lordships upon it. I submit that a foreign trade policy can only properly be devised and revised from time to time by an ad hoc Department of the Government which has all the foreign strings in its fingers and is in constant expert touch with foreign trade matters all over the world. It is within your Lordships' recollection that in the debates on the 9th and 17th May last we were informed that the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare was to be handed over to the Foreign Office after the war. As a matter of fact, there has been a public announcement quite recently telling us that this will happen on the 3Ist December. Seeing on the Front Bench my noble friend Lord Selborne, I wish to say that whilst I am sorry that De-

  55
  partment is being closed down so early in view of the war in the Far East—a matter which we discussed in the former debate—at the same time I do wish to congratulate him on the way that he has administered the Department during the time it has been under his care. In addition to the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, we were told in those debates that the Foreign Office is to be made responsible—and this is a very grave and tremendous responsibility—for the planning of many economic operations in connexion with Germany after the war, including the post-war economic disarmament and economic control of Germany.
  Since those debates I have carefully examined and re-examined the position both from a retrospective and from a prospective point of view, and I have come to certain conclusions which I venture to submit to your Lordships and the Government in to-day's debate. These conclusions, I admit, are not altogether along the line of thought which was indicated by me in those debates, but so far as I am concerned my only wish is to find a satisfactory solution of this very difficult problem which is so bound up with our economic future. The first result of my examination is that as the proposals for the reform of the Foreign Office have in principle received the approval and sanction of both Houses of Parliament, there is now no going back upon them. I accept that. What is also abundantly clear is that under the reform arrangements the Foreign Office are establishing a new sub-department which will contain the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and to that sub-department apparently there will also be attached commercial, diplomatic and consular services. According to the Foreign Service Reform Paper, as I understand it, their functions will be to advise the Foreign Secretary upon all questions of foreign economic and commercial intelligence. What I am anxious to know, and what others are anxious to know, is how far the functions of this new sub-department of the Foreign Office will be executive as well as advisory, and how far they will be dovetailed with the functions of the Overseas Trade Department, and what the functions of the Overseas Trade Department will be.
  These questions are questions which require very careful answering because in them is bound up the effective and efficient regulation of the future specialized form of governmental machinery for assisting our trade in foreign countries. For nearly twenty years before the war the Overseas Trade Department was a balancing Department between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. It was responsible to both those Departments. This form of dual control was established at the time the Overseas Trade Department was formed, and it has been maintained and continued ever since as the result of the recommendations of the Cave Committee, which reported in 1919. Previous to the setting up of the Cave Committee the unsatisfactory position arising out of dual control was recognized and as a solution it was proposed by the Board of Trade that it should absorb the Overseas Trade Department. On the other hand the Foreign Office proposed that in order to do away with this dual control the Department should be absorbed into the Foreign Office.
  From the report of the Cave Committee, I quote this passage:
  "— that in the business community of this country there is a strong body of opinion adverse to this proposal—"
  namely, the absorption of the Overseas Trade Department by the Board of Trade—
  "on the grounds that business men attach great importance to being able to interest directly in foreign commercial questions that Department, namely, the Foreign Office, which has power to exercise diplomatic pressure in a foreign country, and that to divorce commercial from political work will be disastrous and that traders must have direct access to the Foreign Office."
  The Committee went on to say that they were unable to find agreement on this point between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, and so finally, with one dissentient, Mr. Dudley Docker—a very great industrialist and the only business man so far as I can see who was a member of the Committee—they recommended that the system of dual control should be maintained. This system has been continued to the present day, but it is just as unsatisfactory to-day as it was when the Cave Committee was set up in order to consider it. One of the main objections recently advanced in your Lordships' House against it was that the Foreign Office has now become a mere Post Office

  57
  for the Overseas Trade Department and has no direct control over what happens. Moreover, it has been submitted that the reasons given to the Cave Committee against the absorption of the Overseas Trade Department by the Board of Trade not only still hold good but are strengthened by the fact that foreign political and economic fields will after the war be even mere interconnected than they have been in the past. It is obvious therefore that the main bone of contention is still the Overseas Trade Department and its dual control. The problem is what to do with that Department in order to make it a more useful instrument for the promotion of our foreign trade interests. That is what matters, nothing else.
  So far as I am concerned, and I believe I can truthfully speak for the business community, my only interest is to secure a good set of governmental machinery which will help to start our foreign trade going again, to keep it going and to extend it materially. With this object I am going to suggest to the Government that they should do away with the system of dual control and that the Department of Overseas Trade should be completely taken over by the Foreign Office. Looking at the matter from all angles, the Foreign Office seems to me the most appropriate Department to absorb it. I do not suggest that there are not certain officials in the Overseas Trade Department who might go to the Board of Trade—those who have been more closely associated with Empire trade—but I submit as a general principle that the .Foreign Office should be the Department which should take over the Overseas Trade Department. I further suggest that for this purpose a new branch of the Foreign Office should be formed, to be called, say, the Commercial and Economic Branch, and that this new branch should take over in addition to the Overseas Trade Department both the Enemy Branch from the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Overseas Commercial, Diplomatic and Consular Services. I would also suggest that the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation—I think that is the correct name—should be finally wound up, and that such of its staff as would be helpful in this new branch of the Foreign Office should be absorbed in the Foreign Office. A branch of the Foreign Office established in that way would, I believe, have a
  58
  force and unity of purpose behind it which has been sadly lacking in the past under the system of dual control, when these two Departments, the Overseas Trade Department and the Foreign Office, have individually and collectively attempted to carry out these duties in the way they have.
  There is no gainsaying that so constituted—and constituted as an executive Department, not as an advisory Department—it would help to promote and expand our foreign trade everywhere. Traders and manufacturers would be dependent upon it for advice and assistance here and abroad. It would also assume the very important responsibility to which I referred earlier in my remarks—namely, the post-war economic disarmament and economic control of Germany—and presumably the same would apply in regard to other enemy countries. This new branch would further have to co-operate and work very closely in policy with the Board of Trade, which presumably would still be responsible for our internal trade and our trade with the Colonies and Dominions and for formulating our Empire trade policy. It would have to co-operate very closely also with the Dominions and Colonial Offices and the Ministry of Agriculture, because the foreign trade of the Dominions and Colonies is likely to expand very rapidly after the war. It is only through co-operation between all these Departments that a satisfactory foreign trade policy, and I may add a satisfactory Empire trade policy, can be formulated and carried out.
  The activities of this new branch, therefore, would cover a very wide arena and would no doubt be subject not infrequently to public and Parliamentary criticism. This being so, I wish to make a reservation in regard to my proposals. I suggest that this new branch should not be made into just an ordinary sub-department of the Foreign Office under an Assistant Permanent Secretary. On the contrary, so as to add to it the weight it will require, it should, in my judgment, be given a very high status commensurate with its importance, and should have a Parliamentarian at the head of it of the status, at least, of a Minister of State, who should be second in command at the Foreign Office. He would be able to answer Parliamentary questions and to

  59
  formulate State policy in co-operation or in consultation with, and subject to, the Foreign Secretary. I would also suggest that that Minister of State should not only be a person of high standing in Parliamentary life but, if possible, should have commercial experience as well.
  These are the suggestions which I have to make for consideration of the Government, and, for the sake of convenience, as they may seem a little bit involved to some of your Lordships, I am just going to set out exactly what they are. Firstly, that in order to create satisfactory Government machinery for assisting and promoting our foreign export trade it is necessary to remove the existing unsatisfactory system of dual control by the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office over the Overseas Trade Department, and that, with that object, the Overseas Trade Department should be absorbed by the Foreign Office. Secondly, that a new branch of the Foreign Office, with executive functions, should be formed to be called the Commercial and Economic Branch of the Foreign Office. This branch should take over the Overseas Trade Department and also the Economic Intelligence Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare as well as the Commercial, Diplomatic and Consular Services. Thirdly, that this new branch of the Foreign Office should, subject of course to the Foreign Secretary, be directly charged with the formulation and carrying out of our foreign trade policy; that it should be assisted in all foreign countries by specially trained diplomatic, commercial trade representatives, who should be on the staffs of, and be directly responsible to, our Ambassadors and Ministers, and through them to the Foreign Office, thus ensuring local and Foreign Office expert backing in our foreign trade and its problems.
  My fourth suggestion is that a Parliamentarian of weight, high reputation and practical commercial experience, answerable to Parliament, should be placed in charge of this new branch of the Foreign Office with the standing of a Minister of State, second in command to the Foreign Secretary. Fifthly, that the Board of Trade should continue to be responsible for our internal trade and our trade with the Dominions and Colonies, and for the formulation and maintenance of our Empire trade policy. Sixthly and
  60
  finally, that in view of the expanding, foreign trade of the Dominions and Colonies, and to assist in formulating foreign trade policy—and I might also add Empire trade policy—there should, in future, be the closest co-operation in all trade matters between the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, Dominions and Colonial Offices and the Department of Agriculture.
  These then are the suggestions which I have to make to your Lordships and to the Government for the solution of this somewhat difficult problem. It is my hope that the Government will consider them in the same spirit as that in which I have submitted them, and that the War Cabinet will not allow themselves to be influenced by any Departmental differences or antagonisms, but will be governed only by consideration of the urgent need for creating the best specialized form of machinery possible for securing such Government aid for our foreign export trade as will breathe a new spirit into it and re-create it as a really vigorous entity in our economic life. I beg to move.
  2.33 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I think we must be grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised, in a speech which showed much research, the question of the post-war economic functions of the Foreign Office, and of the position of the Department of Overseas Trade. In the debates which took place in your Lordships' House in March and July last year, about the reform of the Foreign Office and of the Diplomatic and Consular Services, the interdependence of economic and political problems was emphasized by various noble Lords who spoke with great authority and with considerable experience in these matters, and the need of a strong reinforcement of the Economic Branch of the Foreign Office was specially urged. We were, therefore, very happy to learn from the Minister of Economic Warfare, in May last, that arrangements were being made for the transfer of what was known as the Enemy Branch of his Ministry, in order to form a nucleus for the constitution of an Economic Intelligence Branch of the Foreign Office. The formation of an Economic Department of the Foreign Office with sufficient authority to advise the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, to my mind, essen-

  61
  tial, if he is to be adequately equipped to deal with the very numerous world problems which will confront him after the war, and, indeed, may confront him even before that time. I therefore await with great interest, tinged with a Little anxiety, the reply which will be given by the Government spokesman on this particular point of the post-war economic position of the Foreign Office. I earnestly hope that it will prove satisfactory, but if it falls short of what a number of us desire then I shall take the opportunity of reverting to the subject when I have the honour of proposing to your Lordships the Motion which stands in my name, and which is on the Order Paper for December 13.
  I would like to turn for a few minutes to the second question raised by the noble Viscount—namely, the future of the Department of Overseas Trade. I fully recognize, and would wish to pay tribute to, the excellence of the work done in the past by the officers of that Department. But in doing so, I must not be held to imply that I consider that the existing arrangements are satisfactory. The Department of Overseas Trade is, as has already been pointed out, responsible both to the Foreign Office and to the Board of Trade, and everyone who has had experience of organization will realize that that is a situation which does not conduce to efficiency. It involves a duality of control and of allegiance, and though, by the oil of good will, the machine may function comparatively smoothly, yet the fact that it has two masters is likely to involve unnecessary friction in its working. I am therefore inclined to support the suggestion made by the noble Viscount that that part of the Department of Overseas Trade which deals with trade and commerce in foreign countries should be placed under the direct authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the remainder of the Department, it seems to me that its duties might well be taken over by the Board of Trade, as the noble Viscount has also suggested.
  It is true that if that happens the Department will disappear as an entity, but I see no advantage in the continuance of a Department or of a Ministry if the work which it performs can adequately and more satisfactorily be undertaken by other Departments. I realize that such a solution may disturb vested interests, and may therefore arouse
  62
  very stiff opposition. Noble Lords on the Benches on my left have sometimes inveighed against vested interests, mainly of individuals and corporations, but I can assure them that if an attack is made on the vested interests of a Government Department the trouble is infinitely greater. Nevertheless, I would remind your Lordships that an admirable example has recently been given us by the Minister of Economic Warfare, and that example seems worthy of emulation. It is true that his Ministry is a war-time one, but that in no way invalidates the argument which I have tried to place before your Lordships.
  Before coming to a final conclusion on this point, however, I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government two definite questions The first is whether the officers of the Department stationed at home and stationed abroad are interchangeable. It is quite clear that there are great advantages if they are interchangeable. I need hardly emphasize that point, because that advantage has already been recognized when the Foreign Office, the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service all became interchangeable. I think the same advantages would be gained in this case. The second question is whether, if the officers are interchangeable, both those stationed at home and those stationed abroad are part of the Foreign Service. If they are not interchangeable, do the officers stationed abroad form part of the Foreign Service? I am inclined to suspect that the answer to the second question will be that the officers stationed in foreign countries constitute what is known as the Commercial Diplomatic Service, and that in its turn becomes part of the Foreign Service. If so, what is the position of officers stationed in countries overseas which are not foreign countries—the British possessions and so on? Are they a branch of the Foreign Service? I do not quite know what the position is.
  In any event, the Commercial Diplomatic Service is composed of a comparatively small number of officials; it is in fact almost self-contained. It is only loosely attached to, even if nominally a part of, the Foreign Service. That in itself is had, and it is especially bad because so small a body of officers has very little chance of promotion to the higher ranks of the Foreign Service. Not being direct servants of the Foreign Office, they will

  63
  have only a very slight opportunity of attaining the higher posts in the Diplomatic Service and in the Consular Service. I feel, therefore, that if the Department of Overseas Trade remains in its present position it is unlikely to attract men of first-class ability, and surely we need the services of such men in such a capacity after the war if we are, as was stated in the debate and in the most gracious Speech yesterday, to expand our export trade. I consider that to be essential. For these reasons I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to the proposals put forward by the noble Viscount, because I think that they are based on two main principles—namely, the principle of sound administration and the principle of equal opportunity to the officers concerned.
  2.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the concluding words of the speech of my noble friend Lord Perth were that he hoped that the Government would give very careful consideration to the matters brought forward by the noble Viscount. I venture to echo ,that, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Listowel—whom I congratulate, because I think that this is the first time that he has replied for the Government to a Motion in your Lordships' House—will not give a definite decision. I do not think that a definite decision on this subject can be given now; we must wait until the war is over and see how we stand then. It must be perfectly clear to everybody, however, that in comparatively recent times the whole question of our relations with foreign countries and the importance of commercial, industrial and financial affairs in regard thereto, has very greatly altered, compared with what it was when I first joined the Department. Political considerations are still of the greatest importance, but they have become so much intertwined with commercial and industrial matters that one cannot but consider the question as a whole.
  I think perhaps it may be useful to recall the various arrangements which have been made in the last forty years or more in regard to the conduct of commercial and industrial affairs where they are interlocked with our foreign policy, and how they have been dealt with by
  64
  the Foreign Office and by the Government. When I entered the Service rather more than forty-three years ago, commercial matters were dealt with by the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office; and, although that Department has disappeared, I think that both my noble friend Lord Perth and my noble friend Lord Elibank have said that they wished to see the same kind of system brought back again. The Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, when I first joined it, was under the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and I gather from the noble Viscount that that is a state of affairs which he would like to see resuscitated, or at any rate he would wish the same example to be followed.
  At first sight it might seem that the supervision of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was an attractive proposal; but, speaking only from my own very limited experience, I am a little doubtful whether there are not certain objections to having a Minister of the Crown as the superintending officer of a Department. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and even more the new Minister proposed by the noble Viscount, would stand on the threshold of the Cabinet, and it would be only natural that he should expect to be translated to higher office in due course; and that due course might, and probably would, be a short one. In addition to that, a change of Government would mean that the Minister in charge would be changed, so that there would be a more or less constant change in the superintending official who would look after the Department, and this, I think, would not really be an advantage. It would be much better to have a man who would be there for some years and who would have had long experience and knowledge from the point of view of an official rather than to have a Parliamentarian who may not always be available (although the noble Viscount has qualified the kind of person he wishes to sec placed there) and who at any rate would be fairly frequently changed. I believe that the superintending Under-Secretary, or whatever you like to call him, to the new Commercial Department should be somebody who has long experience and knowledge of what has gone before.
  As I say, when I joined the Service many years ago the control of commercial

  65
  affairs was under the Commercial Department, superintended by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and that went on for a considerable number of years; but about 1912, I think, the change was made and the head of the Commercial Department, who was then a senior clerk, was promoted to be Controller of Consular and Commercial Affairs and given the same pay as an Assistant Under-Secretary. I think that was a very good change indeed, because not only did it give the Commercial Department an additional status but also it put it in much closer touch with the Consular officials, who of course in those days dealt mainly from their own point of view with trade concerns. Therefore this additional rank given to the head of the Commercial Department was, I think, a useful change.
  There is one other point to be noted about the control of commercial affairs. That is that we know now, as I have already mentioned, that commercial and economic policy is becoming more and more intertwined with political affairs than it was perhaps in the past. I think that in constituting such a new Department one must see that adequate provision is made for the consideration of the political importance of commercial matters. You do not want to see an intperium in imperio in the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office. The interrelation would have to be carefully considered, and I hope that that matter will be adequately dealt with. I have mentioned the arrangements that existed until the beginning of the war. Then a Very great change was made, the Directorship of Overseas Trade was started, and that is going on still. I am inclined to agree with both noble Lords who have spoken that it is not a satisfactory arrangement for the reasons which they stated—namely, that to have two authorities controlling the Department is bound to be unsatisfactory. I would reinforce that opinion by saying that, as your Lordships have admitted, and as indeed is admitted everywhere, the importance of our commercial and industrial relations in regard to foreign affairs has grown enormously. For that reason I think it is absolutely essential that the control of that Department should be in the hands of the Foreign Secretary. After all, the Foreign Secretary is, after the Prime Minister, the
  66
  most important Minister in the Government, because he controls our most vital affairs. Therefore anything which concerns his office must be under his responsibility.
  I entirely agree with what has been said in regard to the undesirability of dual control over the Overseas Trade Department. Perhaps I might, with great respect, offer a slight illustration of what I mean. Some years ago I had the honour of being appointed as delegate at Geneva to the Arms Traffic Conference, and I had with me various colleagues representing the Service Departments and the Board of Trade. That Conference was very largely concerned with matters appertaining to the Board of Trade, who, of course, were deeply interested. But the sole responsible official was the Foreign Office representative, and that is as it ought to be. We all worked together, but I reported to the Foreign Office, and I think that that is the right system. I do not think the Board of Trade should be responsible, and if the Foreign Office make mistakes it is they who must bear the blame. Therefore I entirely agree with my noble friend who has spoken in thinking that the Overseas Trade Department requires careful overhauling, and that the responsibility for all the matters which affect our foreign relations should be on the shoulders of the Foreign Secretary, subject of course to the Cabinet.
  2.54 P.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I must start by apologizing to the House for the fact that I was not here at the opening of the debate, so that I had not the advantage of hearing the beginning of the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. I had an official engagement, but though I made arrangements which I hoped would bring me here in time, in these matters man proposes and London traffic too often disposes. I am replying this afternoon on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who had originally, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, knows, intended to be present himself. He has, very much to his own regret, been prevented by important public business, which he could not postpone or depute to someone else, from replying in person to the noble Viscount's Motion.

  67
  The noble Viscount has based his extremely interesting and valuable suggestions on the importance of reviving our export trade at the earliest possible moment after the war. Speaking for His Majesty's Government, I fully share his view that the maintenance and improvement of standards of life in this country will depend upon our exports. Indeed, your Lordships will have observed that our Ambassador in the United States said only a few days ago that our exports will decide whether we are able to eat and work. We also agree with the noble Viscount that the machinery of Government should be so organized and adapted as to serve this vital purpose. I think there is very general agreement nowadays, which will be shared in all quarters of this House—and there are many noble Lords who have had experience of the Foreign Office or of diplomacy—that diplomatic and commercial matters cannot be kept in watertight compartments. In the White Paper, to which the noble Viscount refers in his Motion, the Foreign Secretary has clearly stated, as one of the considerations underlying his reforms, that "economics and finance have become inextricably interwoven in politics." I do not (think that anyone would contest this statement or deny that the Foreign Service of the future should be properly equipped to deal with the economic as well as the strictly political aspects of diplomacy. One of the major tasks of our diplomacy after the war will certainly be the promotion of the export trade of the United Kingdom. And one of the principal objects of Mr. Eden's reforms has been to encourage the future diplomat to fit himself for the work of commercial diplomacy.
  In the future Service the pure diplomatist, unsullied by any taint of commercial knowledge, will no longer exist. In fact, he has not existed in practice for a good long time. It is far from the case, as I think has been suggested, that the Foreign Office has become something like a Post Office for the Department of Overseas Trade. This is one good reason for the amalgamation of the Diplomatic Service in the Foreign Office with the Consular Service and the Commercial Diplomatic Service, a far reaching organizational change which since May of last year—eighteen months ago—has been an accomplished fact.
  68
  While there is no clear line of demarcation between diplomacy and events in commerce or business, there is surely a very sharp distinction between commercial intelligence, which is relevant to the work of the Department of Overseas Trade, and economic intelligence, such as was collected by the Enemy Branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare, lately transferred to the control of the Foreign Office. Commercial Intelligence is designed to collect and disseminate information which will assist our manufacturers and exporters to find a market for their goods and to help them so far as possible to expand the volume of their exports to existing markets. The Department of Overseas Trade, in order to serve exporters, must have a first-hand knowledge of the organization of our exporting industries, of their efficiency and ability to export and of the different marketing methods which they employ. By close and regular contact, such as already has existed for a number of years with trade associations, export groups and individual business firms, the Department of Overseas Trade has in fact already acquired a vast fund of information on these subjects. This Department must also—a fact that has been emphasized this afternoon—be able to obtain regular reports from markets overseas of opportunities for export, about suitable agents to handle products of particular firms, about the competitive power of local industries—the industries on the spot—and about the import duties which, in many cases (and I fear this will be one of the obstacles after the war) have to be shouldered by United Kingdom exporters.
  Now the Department collects this vital information about foreign markets through the officers of the Commercial Diplomatic and Consular Services which are now branches of the Foreign Service, and through the Trade Commissioners in the Dominions. The first duty—and your Lordships will notice this priority, which I emphasize—the first duty of the Commercial Diplomatic officers is to report direct to the Department of Overseas Trade, and they will not, as I think was stated by the noble Viscount, be attached to the Economic Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office. The Department of Overseas Trade naturally keeps in close touch with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, its parent Departments, as well as with such

  69
  external Departments as the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office. Many problems relating to our exports can only be solved by inter-departmental discussion, and the Departments most frequently concerned in these discussions are the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, and the Treasury. The Foreign Office will continue to confer with the Department of Overseas Trade, with the Board of Trade and with any other Department involved when our exports raise questions of trade policy as well as of political relations with foreign countries. The Department of Overseas Trade, with its intimate knowledge of day-to-day trading with foreign nations and Empire countries, should be able to contribute most usefully to discussions where politico-economic questions are at issue.
  But the Foreign Office has felt the need of having within its own organization—within its own four walls—a section that will concentrate its attention on the economic aspect of our relations with foreign Powers. It is hoped with the greater mobility of personnel rendered possible by the amalgamation of the Foreign Service, to secure throughout the whole Service, at home and abroad, wider experience and a more vivid interest in the domestic and overseas problems of our export trade. As one of the fields in Which such experience can be most easily acquired I rank high the two new Departments of the Foreign Office, the existing Economic Relations Department and the projected Economic Intelligence Department. I should like to give one simple illustration of the many different aspects of an ordinary economic event, similar to many others which might occur during the reconstruction period in Europe. The building of a new hydro-electric power station in Austria could affect British interests in a number of ways There is a financial interest if the undertaking is asking for British capital; if German capital is also competing for the business, politics and diplomacy immediately become involved. There is a commercial and exporting interest in supplying the power station with British machinery. There is a further political problem in the effort which Austria may at this future date be making to free herself from dependence on power which has hitherto been generated by German stations beyond the frontier. This is, of course, a purely hypothetical case, but it does show the
  70
  many economic and political facets of ordinary business events.
  In such a case as this, a typical case, I submit the Department of Overseas Trade has only a limited interest—to make sure that United Kingdom exporters obtain information that a specific contract is on offer and of the terms of the tender. It would naturally be anxious that a competent British firm should compete, because of the prospect of immediate sales of British machinery, of later replacements, and of the possibility of introducing simultaneously allied lines of business such as heating, cooking and lighting appliances. The Department of Overseas Trade is not interested—and this, I think, shows the dividing line between the Department of Overseas Trade and the Foreign Office—in the political issue arising between Germany and Austria or to the extent to which other countries, including Great Britain and in that case possibly also Russia, may be involved in this issue. This is a matter for the Foreign Office; and it is with such questions that the new organization of the Foreign Office is intended to deal. The Economic Relations Department will act as a liaison department inside and outside the Office—inside, to correlate economic questions arising in the different political departments of the Foreign Office, which are of course divided geographically according to the countries with which they deal; and outside it will act as a link between the Foreign Office and other Departments concerned with external economic policy, such as the Treasury, the Board of Trade or the Department of Overseas Trade.
  The Economic Relations Department—and this is another, a second, function—will also be responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the probable political consequences of any action taken in the economic field, and of the probable economic consequence of any action taken in the political field. Their estimate of the political consequences of economic events will be based on a synthesis of the views they will collect from the Foreign Office, and from other Departments of State concerned with the political aspect of economic relations, such as the Dominions Office, the Colonial Office and the India Office. Their estimate of the economic consequences of political happenings will be based on a synthesis of opinions they

  71
  will gather from the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade and from other technical, financial, or economic agencies or institutions such as the Bank of England and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. The branch of the Ministry of Economic Warfare lately under the auspices of my noble friend, which has recently been transferred to the Foreign Office, will form the nucleus of a new intelligence organization. The function of this organization will be to sift economic information received from abroad, which it will scrutinize not from a commercial but from a political and a strategic point of view. Our hypothetical power station, if I may refer to it again for a moment, has for instance considerable strategic importance and both the War Office and the Air Ministry would be keenly interested. But the Economic Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office will not collect or distribute commercial intelligence to United Kingdom exporters. This will remain after the war as it is now the responsibility of the Department of Overseas Trade.
  I think your Lordships will agree that the new lay-out of the Foreign Office is a remarkable achievement in war-time. Although, like other Departments, the main preoccupation of its members has necessarily been the conduct of the war, they have nevertheless spared time and energy to put through the most important series of reforms in this Department since the end of the last war. The Foreign Office is sometimes spoken of (not in your Lordships' House but certainly outside), as a last refuge of privilege, where minds are hidebound by tradition and impervious to new ideas, a place to which only the old school tie can gain admittance. But those who make these strictures are those living in the past. For the Foreign Office has responded with that ready adaptability so typical of our British institutions to the challenge of change, and by giving due weight to the economic factor in politics, it is adjusting itself with real youthful flexibility and resilience to the pattern of the modern world.
  I hope that what I have said will have removed some misapprehensions in the noble Viscount's mind about the extent to which His Majesty's Government are conscious of the vital importance of using
  72
  all the available resources of Government Departments for the promotion of our export trade. I hope too that I have been able to throw further light on the way in which our machinery of Government is, in one sphere at least, keeping abreast of the times, and what I have indicated rather sketchily will show the direction in which it is likely to evolve still further. This machinery is designed primarily to secure the closest possible co-ordination and co-operation between the activities of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade and of the other Government Departments dealing with economic affairs. Provided this close contact and constant co-operation can be secured there should be no danger from dual control of the Department of Overseas Trade. I think this danger is what was feared by two noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I hope they may feel that a proper co-ordination between the different Departments concerned will avert the risks inherent in dual control.
  Foreign economic policy is essentially the product of interaction between different and often diverging interests. What is needed is machinery for reconciling these varied claims and for co-ordinating them with other activities of the Government. To isolate the Department of Overseas Trade—and this is what I fear the suggestions we have listened to this afternoon would amount to—by putting it in a new Department under the Foreign Office would not, in my view, secure this object. It is true that the increase of our export trade is one of the principal aims of our foreign policy, but it also has an extremely close connexion with trade and industry in this county and with our commercial relations with the rest of the British Commonwealth. If the Board of Trade had foreign trade removed from their purview—and this is the consideration I would like to ask the noble Viscount if he would be kind enough to entertain—this would merely reduce by so much that effective co-ordination on which the success of our export policy after the war will largely depend. We greatly fear the consequences of isolating the Department of Overseas Trade from the Board of Trade and reducing its present contacts with business inside the country.
  The noble Earl, Lord Perth, was kind enough to give me verbal notice yesterday

  73
  afternoon that he intended to ask two questions in the course of the debate. The first of these is whether the personnel of the Department of Overseas Trade will serve abroad as well as at home and whether appointments in Whitehall and appointments at Legations and Embassies will be interchangeable, as they are in the case of the Foreign Office. The answer to that question is in the affirmative. That will be the case, and there is no reason why a commercial secretary should not rise to the rank of Minister or Ambassador. They have exactly the same opportunities as members of the Foreign Service and of anyone who is working at the Foreign Office. The second question is whether the personnel of the Department of Overseas Trade will form part of the Foreign Service. The answer to that question is also in the affirmative. It would extend, of course, to the lower grade. The whole of the personnel of that Department will link up with the new Foreign Service.
  3.15 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, first of all I would add my congratulations to those of the noble Earl who has congratulated Lord Listowel on making his first appearance as Deputy Leader of the House answering in a debate which I regard as of some importance. I feel, however, that on this occasion he has entered into the shoes of his predecessor Lord Snell, who always said that he was put up to reply to unpopular cases and that he was one of the best counsel for the defence in the country. I felt that this afternoon, as I listened to the speech of the noble Earl. I admit that he has made, apparently, a good case in his reply. At the same time I suggest to him, from the point of view of the business man for whom I was speaking, that he made such a complicated case that I feel sure not one of your Lordships who listened to his speech would be able to say clearly and definitely what it meant. I reel that he evaded the principal issue, the question of dual control. I had sent notes of my remarks to the noble Earl and so he knew I was going to raise that question in a serious form, but all through his speech until the very last moment he evaded that issue altogether. I suggest that the question of dual control is still
  74
  as important after the speech he has made as it was before he made it. Twenty years ago it was a subject of controversy and difficulty, for twenty years it has remained the same and for another twenty years it will go on causing dissatisfaction unless something is done to remove it. Twenty odd years ago a Committee was appointed to consider this question and reported. Personally I do not think it was a very satisfactory report; I think the minority opinion was the best part of it.
  The machinery which has been outlined this afternoon by the noble Earl is so complicated that to whatever extent it may be understood in the Department there is no one outside who would be able to grasp all its implications. I feel that once more this subject has fallen between two stools—the differences of opinion between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. That is why in the concluding passages of my speech I ventured to suggest that the War Cabinet should take this question into consideration and not be influenced in any way by Departmental antagonisms or differences or by the vested interests to which my noble friend the Earl of Perth referred. It is a very curious thing that all of us who have had experience of foreign trade and its administration, both outside and inside this country, are of opinion that it should be administered and dealt with as one entity from the Foreign Office. We are only the consumers, if I may put it in that way, but as consumers we know what we like and what we believe we ought to get. I urge the Government not to continue along the lines outlined this afternoon without further investigation. I should like to see another Committee appointed to consider the whole question and see whether we cannot really get a practical solution. As the noble Earl admitted in his speech, and as we have urged, a great deal depends upon our export trade. The revival of our export trade means everything to us—our prosperity, our whole national life. If we are to be dependent on the complicated machinery outlined this afternoon for the revival and expansion of our export trade I feel very despondent about it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  L.C.C. REMAND HOMES INQUIRY.
  3.23 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the fact that the inquiry into the provision and administration of remand homes by the London County Council is to be held in private, and to suggest the desirability of the attendance of the Press in order that the evidence may be reported, subject to safeguards to prevent identification of children concerned such as are required in the juvenile courts under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933; and further to call attention to the fact that the Secretary of the Committee of Inquiry is shown in the Civil Service List for 1943 as one of the Children's Branch Inspectors of the Home Office, the Department responsible for inspecting and approving the remand homes which are the subject of criticism, and to ask whether this is considered a desirable arrangement.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question standing on the Paper in my name has regard to an inquiry which has been ordered by the Home Secretary and which I believe is likely to open within the course of the next day or two. The matter has therefore a certain urgency. I think most of your Lordships will be aware of what a remand home is, but I would like quite briefly to point out that a remand home has, I think I am right in saying, three classes of inmates. There are, firstly, children alleged to have been guilty of some offence who have been sent there pending inquiry by the magistrate. Secondly, there is a different class of children concerned in what are called "care and protection" cases—children, for instance, who may have been sent there pending some prosecution of the parents. Thirdly, there are children who have been guilty of offences, who perhaps have had more than one chance, who are to be committed by the magistrate to an approved home, and who are sent to a remand home pending arrangements for their transfer to the approved home. The remand homes therefore have as inmates innocent children, children not so innocent, children who are novices in crime, and children who may be called veterans and who are to be sent on to approved schools. Therefore it is very important that careful rules should be observed to
  76
  keep separate innocent children from novices and veterans in crime, and to keep separate novices and veterans. The homes in the County of London are, of course, provided by the London County Council, and they are inspected and approved by the Home Office.
  I mention that in order to sketch the background of this matter. My first question relates to the fact that the inquiry which has been ordered by the Home Secretary is to be held in private, and I raise that point because prima facie it seems undesirable that an inquiry of this sort should be held in private. One strong reason for observing privacy is the danger that there should be any identification of the children concerned. But I would point out that there is a provision in the Act of Parliament to which I refer in the Notice of my question that the public should not be admitted to juvenile courts but that representatives of the Press should be admitted so that the evidence can be suitably reported subject to safeguards to prevent identification. If it is thought that in this particular case, where one particular home has been referred to and one or more children have been referred to, there would be difficulty in preventing identification, I would suggest that there is no real difficulty. I understand that there have been thousands of children through half a dozen of these remand homes in the last ten years. Quite obviously if the homes were referred to as A, B, C, D, E and F, and the children were referred to by numbers, it would be impossible to identify child 53 from home F or child 175 from home A. Consequently I cannot really believe that there is any need to have the inquiry in private for the protection of the children.
  Having disposed, as I submit, of that objection, I would say that I think a public inquiry in a case of this kind is of the very essence of our democratic system in order that the public may be able to judge the evidence and in order that public anxiety may be allayed by the result of the inquiry. I believe that public anxiety would be better allayed by an inquiry at which evidence was given in public than by an inquiry held behind closed doors, only the report being published. My second question relates to the gentleman who has been appointed secretary of the Committee. Of course I need not tell your Lordships that nothing I say

  77
  can possibly cast any reflection upon this official or any other. The secretary has been appointed, no doubt, because he is familiar with the work, and, quite clearly, the Committee must have the guidance of some official who knows the ropes. But I do not think it is desirable that the official chosen should be actually a member of the branch of inspectors whose duty it is to inspect these homes. This is clearly a case in which, I submit, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. In this instance, Caesar's wife is the Home Office, and, here again, it is very important to reassure public opinion, and to ensure that the public should be quite certain that the Home Office is not the accused and the judge and the jury, or has too great an influence, because, after all, the Committee is to be a Committee of inquiry. It is very important that the public should feel quite certain that the inquiry is impartial in every possible way.
  There is a third point, and as I only came across it this morning I was not able to put it on the Paper. But I did my best to give the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack notice by telephoning him immediately to notify him that I was going to raise this question. Reflecting on this matter I recollected what was known as the Hereford case which also concerned a children's court, and in which an inquiry was set up. I had the curiosity to look up what was done in that particular case, for it was also a case where there was a great deal of public anxiety concerning the issues involved. I found that, as required by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, there was a Resolution by both Houses of Parliament, and as a result the body which was set up had the power to summon witnesses, call for the production of documents and take evidence. In this case, there has been, so far as I know, no Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, but a mere appointment by the Home Secretary. That raises the question in my mind whether the Committee which has been appointed will have power to do these things, summon witnesses, take evidence and so on. It is quite clear that, if they do not have the power, that is another grave defect in the constitution of the Committee, and it will I think give rise to a great deal of public anxiety.
  I cannot help feeling that, in the interests of everybody concerned, in the interests of the official who has been appointed as secretary, of the Department of the Home Office and of the L.C.C., the Government would be well advised to think again, and to make other and better arrangements. Above all, the people who are really concerned, and the people we are thinking about, are the children, the unhappy waifs in these homes, who are only in them—be they innocent or be they not so innocent—because they have not had good homes of their own. I do not think that you often find children who have had good homes finding their way into a remand home, whether it is a home which comes under the L.C.C. or one which comes under some other authority. It is in the service of the children that the whole of this apparatus is set up. And I am quite sure that I shall carry all your Lordships with me when I say that it is the interests of the children which we regard as of paramount importance. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Viscount will be able to answer my question in a way which will relieve some of the public anxiety which I believe has been created.
  3.33 P.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, in the absence of any representative of the Home Office in the House, I will give to my noble friend and to your Lordships the reply which the Government would make to the questions which he has put. Let me first of all say—on my own behalf and, I feel sure, on behalf of everybody in the Government—that in any Court of Justice, or in any tribunal which is analogous to a Court of Justice, there can be no question whatever, under our Constitution and practice, that the proceedings should take place in public. No other method is even tolerable in our Courts of Justice. The only conceivable exception arises when the strongest public interest calls for privacy; as when, for example, the danger of disclosing important details in the course of the trial of a spy in time of war, or something of that sort, makes it absolutely necessary to depart from the rule. But if, of course, you classify this inquiry correctly, it is really an administrative inquiry, of which there are great numbers taking place almost every year in connexion with one Department or another.

  79
  My noble friend did not happen to mention it, but it is not irrelevant to remind the House that the inquiry is being conducted by Mr. Russell Vick, K.C., and by Miss Curtis. Mr. Vick, if I may be allowed to say so, is known to me and a great many other people as not only a distinguished lawyer but as a very firm-minded and determined personality. With my knowledge of him, I can assure the House that there could hardly be selected anybody in whom one could put more complete confidence that he will, whatever be the trouble, try to get to the bottom of the whole business, and will make an absolutely candid and impartial report. Miss Curtis is a lady who has vast experience connected with children, and is a most admirable second member of such a body of inquiry.
  It constantly happens in connexion with the setting up of an inquiry of this sort—and, as I have said there are a great many of them—that the question has to be decided as a preliminary by the Minister concerned whether the inquiry is going to be given a certain character and authority under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, or not. I happen to have had in my official life quite a considerable experience in having to decide which course should be taken. My noble friend is quite right when he says that the Hereford Inquiry, which some of us well remember, was given the status and authority which that Act offers. You have to have a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament—a much more elaborate proceeding, therefore, authorizing the inquiry—I think authorizing the inquiry being conducted by the person intended. In the Hereford case it was Lord Justice Goddard, now Lord Goddard, who conducted the inquiry. That being done, the Act gives to the tribunal certain special qualifications. In particular, it authorizes the administration of an oath to any witness whom it calls before it, and leaves to those conducting the inquiry the decision whether it should be in public or in private. That is the method that is followed occasionally, but I should doubt if we have an example of it more than once a year, or even as much as that, on the average. But it was done in the Hereford case and there are one or two earlier cases that I remember.
  But the more usual course which is adopted—and it is a course which in very
  80
  many cases has been recognized to produce excellent results—is the simpler course of the Department concerned appointing a person or persons to conduct the inquiry. The names are usually announced in advance. Those persons undertake that duty and make a report which in most cases—it will certainly be so in this case—is a published report. That report does not give merely the conclusions of those who inquire into the matter, but makes proper reference to the evidence, and sometimes even reproduces it. That is beyond all question the course which is usually followed. His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion in this instance that on the whole this second and more usual course was to be preferred.
  I warmly agreed with my noble friend when he asserted that the interests of the girls—some quite young, and some older, and almost young women; some of them, I am afraid, with not at all a good record, but others, I hope and believe, quite innocent—are the first consideration. Of course they are. It would be possible, although it is most unusual in the case of these Departmental inquiries, to have the inquiry in public. I have here a list, kindly provided for me by the Home Office, giving details of inquiry after inquiry in that Department alone in which I think almost without exception the inquiry has been in private. No doubt it could be provided that this inquiry should be held in public. I rather doubt whether it would be possible in the case of an inquiry of this sort to say that the Press shall be admitted but not the rest of the public. That was specially provided for by Statute in the case of the sitting of the juvenile courts; Parliament enacted in express terms that in that case the Press should be admitted, and it went on to provide that the Press shall not make any reference to the names of the children. I question whether it would be possible, by a mere edict from the Chairman or from the Home Office, to say "The doors are open in this Departmental inquiry, and the Press may come in, but nobody else." I have no doubt that if the Press gave an undertaking not to publish names they would not publish them, but there would be the greatest objection—would there not?—as I think my noble friend on reflection will agree, to letting the public generally into an inquiry of this sort.

  81
  Some of these girls, many of whom are quite young, have unhappily fallen into grave trouble in the past. They have been—to use a convenient periphrasis—"no better than they should be." An honest attempt is being made to give them a new start in life. I cannot think that it would be a good thing to let in members of the public, some of them perhaps prurient and inquisitive and uncontrolled, immoral people who, if one of these young girls who in the past has got into trouble is called, might say "I recognize that girl; that is the girl who used to be hanging about outside such-arid-such a public building." I cannot think that that would be a good thing, and; if I may express a personal opinion, it seems to me that the Home Office was right in saying that it would be better for this inquiry not to be in public.
  The inquiry is not likely to be very prolonged, because if Mr. Russell Vick and his colleague set to work they will get through this business very quickly, and I am sure that, having considered the matter, they will make their report with promptitude. The report will be published. I think that that statement has already been made, but I am so sure that I am right in saying that that I give the undertaking that the report shall be published, and published in extenso, so that the public shall know what it contains. But is it really right to say that while ex parte statements are being made day by day, and while, it may be, witnesses are called to whom very unpleasant questions have to be put—girls; it may be bad girls, but none the less girls—the principles of good government require that this inquiry should be in public? I must say that I do not agree.
  That was the conclusion to which the Home Secretary came, and I hope that my noble friend, whose desire for the public good in this matter I most warmly recognize, will weigh those considerations, which I believe are some of the considerations which led to this decision. It would have taken a little longer, no doubt, to get a Resolution through both Houses for an inquiry, although I do not suppose for a moment that it would have been opposed; but the cases in which there have been inquiries on some specific point, especially by the Home Office, the inside of which I know something about, which have been dealt with by appointing a
  82
  thoroughly responsible person and announcing the name in public, and following that in due course by the publication of the report, have been very numerous.
  My noble friend takes a further point, and it is a point which, when one hears it stated, impresses one, on the general principles of good government, as a point well worth thinking over. The civil servant who has been appointed to be the secretary of this inquiry is, I understand, one of the Children's Branch Inspectors of the Home Office. My noble friend will be the very last to seek to make a merely captious point, and I quite see the force of the suggestion, which is that this is a remand home which the Home Office inspects, and the secretary of the inquiry is to be a civil servant who comes not only from the Home Office but from that branch of the Home Office which is concerned. That is a perfectly fair point to raise.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: He may have inspected that very home.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, he has not. Whatever you may think of the Government, they do not do that! The real answer is this. It does not matter how well chosen the Chairman is; he must have, if he is going to do his work thoroughly, the services of a secretary who is under his direction and is completely subordinate to him, but who not only has a general knowledge of what the inquiry is about, but who really knows the machinery and where to get information about this point, and what is the class of inquiry to be made about that one. When the, Home Office arranged for an inquiry, as it did quite recently, about a particular incident in the Police Force, the person appointed as the secretary came from that branch of the Home Office which has to do with the police. It is a fallacy to suppose that everybody in the Civil Service knows everything; it is even a fallacy to suppose that everybody in a particular Department of State knows everything in that Department. And if I were to choose any Department which is so diversified and broken up into different sections of administration, it would be the Home Office. It would obviously be of no advantage at all if the secretary were not a person who was able to tell the President, "Those are the people whom you are seeking for, and that is the section of such-and-such a public administration

  83
  in which you will find the sort of person for whom you are asking."
  The secretary has nothing to do with choosing witnesses. The direction in that matter is given by the President of the tribunal, and the evidence may be offered from all suitable and authoritative sources so far as is possible. The secretary is a completely subordinate official and, if I may be allowed to say so, I never conceived him to be anything else. I am sure that, as my noble friend himself said, nobody has the slightest suspicion that this particular gentleman, whoever he is, is not going to discharge his duty with most complete candour and honesty. But, as a practical matter, if you want to get a thing investigated, well, there would be something to be said after all, even if you were inquiring into the morals of Cleopatra, for getting the help of a member of the household who knows how and when Cleopatra carries on. I have given an answer, and those are the considerations, as I understand them, which actuated the Home Secretary in coming to his conclusion; and while I recognize that my noble friend has raised points of administration of public interest, to which he is well entitled to ask for an answer, I hope he will feel that the answer has not been entirely eristic, but that it does contain some solid substance.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I do so because I want to make a suggestion. I recognize that my noble and learned friend has given an answer which deserves very serious consideration, but I want to put this point to my noble and learned friend. He has made it quite clear that this decision is a matter of weighing advantages and disadvantages. I accept that entirely; I also accept entirely, of course, his description of the strong and impartial nature of the tribunal, and I notice that he described Mr. Russell Vick as a learned and determined personality who no doubt would be an experienced chairman. Would my noble friend not consider whether the Home Secretary could not give discretion to the chairman to let this inquiry be held to some extent in public or entirely in public, if he in his discretion, weighing the advantages and disadvantages, comes to the conclusion that that might be a good course? Would he consider that as a possibility?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will very gladly communicate that suggestion to my colleague the Home Secretary.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before four o'clock.