Lords Sitting of 21 February 1946

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

Prayers.
The Viscount Ridley—Took the Oath.
The Lord Grenfell—Took the Oath.

RESIGNATION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I should like to acquaint your Lordships with the fact that I have received a letter this morning in the following terms:
"Dear Addison,
You will no doubt remember that when I notified to you that I thought the time had come for me to tender to the House my resignation from the post of Chairman of Committees, you requested me to carry on the duties of Chairman until the end of this month. I am now writing to intimate my resignation officially as from that date, as you will no doubt wish to put a Motion on the Paper for the appointment of my successor.
I need not say how much I regret to feel that the time has come for me to lay down these duties, the discharge of which has been made so pleasant the kindness and consideration which I have received from yourself and from all quarters of the House.
Yours very sincerely,
Stanmore."
I think it would be appropriate at the first convenient opportunity to take note of this letter from the noble Lord, Lord Stanmore. We will arrange the time in consultation with the Leaders of Parties of the House.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, so far as we are concerned, that would be a most convenient course and I am obliged to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for suggesting it.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
EARL DE LA WARRhad given Notice that he would move,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee, to which the Bill may be re-
830
ferred, that before authorizing the construction of the proposed reservoir in the Manifold Valley they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) due consideration has been given to the consequent effect upon a large area of agricultural land that is now producing up to one million gallons of milk per year, in addition to other much-needed foodstuffs; and

(b) there is no suitable alternative source of supply.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this instruction I intend to restrict myself to the agricultural aspect of the problem. I have been approached by the National Trust, the Standing Committee for National Parks, the Joint Committee for the Peak District National Park, anti many other bodies connected with amenities, but as there are other noble Lords who wish to speak on this instruction, and who will deal with that aspect of this problem, I do not intend to touch upon it.
My attention was first drawn to this question by agricultural interests. I must confess that when I heard the case my first instinct was to ask your Lordships on the Second Reading to reject the Bill. It then seemed to me that that would not be right or proper, because although there are certain general principles at stake here, there are also a number of technical questions involved and your Lordships will no doubt want to have this question first considered by one of your Committees. I looked back into the past for precedent as to what action to take, and I thought I really could not do better than follow the lead that was suggested to us a short time ago by the now Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, when addressing your Lordships on the subject of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill. In order to make quite sure of receiving his support, I drafted my instruction, as far as possible, in the same words and terminology as he used only a few months ago.
I can put the position before you very briefly. The Leicester Corporation are anxious to extend their supply of water. I need not take your Lordships into technical details, but at the present moment they receive their water supplies from three reservoirs of their own and also from the Derwent Valley Water Board. So far as I can ascertain, there is no ques-

831
tion of their suffering from any shortage at the moment, or in the near future. Not only are they large sellers of water, but they have also informed potential purchasers that they are able to continue to supply to them for some time. The reason why I felt it was necessary to bring this matter to your attention was very largely due to the nature of the lie of the land affected. It is situated in the Manifold Valley, and comprises a very large area of some of the most fertile land in this country. As your Lordships know, usually when a new dam is constructed in order to form a reservoir, it is possible to find land which slopes down steeply between hillsides, and by enclosing that land comparatively little damage is done to food production. Usually, only a small area of unfertile land is affected. That is not the case concerning the valley we are discussing.
The effect of the proposed reservoir will be totally to submerge twenty-two homesteads, including an area of not less than 2,000 acres. Twenty-three homesteads mean twenty-three farmers and their families, and that does not take into account the labour that is also employed. It means partly submerging another area affecting seventeen homesteads, or 1,000 acres. That means that in fact it is going to immobilize almost completely that number of farms, because large and important portions of the farms will be cut off. In addition, there is another area of 9,000 acres, affecting twenty-nine homesteads, which will come under control. As your Lordships know, that control is sometimes of a very capricious nature. Some time ago, when I was Chairman of the Committee on Hill Sheep Farming, I came across two areas controlled by a water board, in one of which farmers could plough and not have stock, and in another of which farmers could have stock but not plough. A total of something like just under 1,000,000 gallons of milk is going to be affected by this scheme. A total of over 400,000 gallons is going to be completely destroyed. May I say, to give your Lordships an illustration, that that amounts to something like 150,000 weekly rations at the present ration of two-and-a-half pints a head. The total agricultural production that will be affected is worth over £50,000 a year. That includes milk and other products.
832
When destruction of this character is going to be brought about, I think it is only natural that we should ask ourselves certain questions. Is this really necessary? I have already told your Lordships something about the present water supply position of Leicester, but I think it would be wrong of me to go further in that connexion, because it would seem that I was attempting to anticipate the inquiry of the Committee which your Lordships will be appointing. Are there other possibilities? Again, it is not for me to attempt to answer that question. I can only tell your Lordships what has been communicated to me by people who are distressed by the prospects of this scheme. They told me that they had attempted to get into touch with the appropriate authorities employed by the Leicester Corporation and that they had received short shrift.
Then, I think we are bound to ask ourselves another question. Last year, Parliament passed a Water Act, and the purpose of that Water Act was to ensure that the country, as a whole, should make the best use possible of its water resources, and that for that purpose there should be some sort of central consideration and planning. Why is it that, within a few months of the passing of that Act, the Leicester Corporation feel it right, or indeed respectful to Parliament, to proceed now, or to attempt to proceed now, by means of a Private Bill that avoids the machinery laid down in that Act? Therefore, I lay this instruction before your Lordships for your consideration.
Before I sit down, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one further word on a more general point than is raised by this particular Bill and the effect of this Bill. Only yesterday, in this House, we were discussing the present food position in this country and, indeed, in the world. We are all fully aware of that position. Equally, I think we are all aware that it is not such a short-term problem as some people like to think, and that when the world food supply once again increases we are not likely, in this country, ever again to be in the happy position, which we were in before, of having our food brought to our door without feeling any anxiety as to whether or not we were going to be able to pay for it.

833
In the past obtaining our food supplies was merely a matter of collecting debts on our investments and of the ships to bring the supplies here. To-day, the national food supplies are dependent to a very much larger extent than for many generations in the past on work applied to land—our work applied to our own land. Therefore, I do want to utter this warning to all intending promoters of legislation of this character. We are no longer in a position, as a country, to treat our resources in land with the prodigality, almost frivolity, with which we have treated them in the past, and there are a number of us in this House who have pledged ourselves to watch very carefully, in the future, legislation of this character, in order to see that some of the things that we have done in the past with our land shall not be repeated. I beg leave to move the instruction that stands in my name.
Moved to resolve,
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee, to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorizing the construction of the proposed reservoir in the Manifold Valley they should satisfy themselves that—

(a) due consideration has been given to the consequent effect upon a large area of agricultural land that is now producing up to one million gallons of milk per year, in addition to other much-needed foodstuffs; and

(b) there is no suitable alternative source of supply.—(Earl De La Warr.)

4.17 p.m.
LORD RUSHCLIFFE: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in asking that this instruction should be given to the Committee. It seems to me that your Lordships' House is doing no less than its duty if it does from time to time scrutinize and criticize these Private Bills which come before us before they go upstairs to a Committee. I hope that that practice will be largely followed. The noble Earl, I thought, in the very short but impressive statement that he made, put an absolutely unanswerable case for the instruction to this Committee. He told your Lordships of the really devastating effect that this scheme, if it goes through as presented, will have on milk production. He told us of the very large number of farmers
834
who would be displaced and of the very serious losses to agricultural production in general that would result. For these reasons, I most warmly support the action he is taking.
I would like, if I may, to add a further reason. This area, which I happen to know, is an area not only of great historical interest but of very great natural beauty, and it has been a most popular holiday resort for people who live in the Midlands. It has been used by holidaymakers, by hikers, by tourists and by visitors, and that particular district on the borders of Staffordshire and Derbyshire is so highly thought of that a very large area—I do not think it actually includes the part that it is proposed to submerge—in the immediate neighbourhood has been acquired by the National Trust. The object of the National Trust, as I understand, is to preserve in perpetuity, for the recreation and for the benefit of the public, such areas as they think ought to be devoted to those purposes. The Dove, which is a very tine river, and the Manifold river, of course, rise pretty much in the area which is under discussion.
If the Dove and the Manifold rivers are reduced to mere trickles by reason of these operations then, of course, the whole character of the scenery and of the district is changed. If that be so, then the object of the National Trust in acquiring this property so that its natural beauty should be maintained is entirely defeated. I would like to ask the noble Earl who is going to answer on behalf of the Government this quite definite question: Have the National Trust been consulted at all about this matter, and if so what are their views? Further than that, as we know certain areas of England have been designated as suitable districts and areas for national parks and that is a scheme which I understand is sponsored by the Government. This area, which is quite adjacent to the Peak, is one of those areas which has been scheduled for the purpose of a national park.
The second question I should like to ask is, has the Minister of Town and Country Planning been asked what he thinks about it? Quite clearly he should have been consulted as to what his views are if it is proposed to utilize for the purpose which is indicated this area which, as I say, has been scheduled for purposes of a national park. These, of course, are

835
reasons in addition to those reasons which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, gave when he told us of the serious effect on agricultural production. I think that the Select Committee should be asked to consider whether there are not other areas which would not have devastating effects upon agriculture and, as I believe, upon natural beauty, before they pass the Bill in anything like its present form.
4.21 p.m.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I should also like to support the instruction which Earl De La Warr has moved. He has gone so fully into the detail of the scheme that I think no one could have put the case more clearly. It is time, in my opinion, that some stand was made in this House against these activities of the great cities which seek to develop without any regard to the effect on agricultural life and production in the area concerned and without considering the immense value that a particular district is to the country. Nobody wants to obstruct the legitimate activity of this or any other city so that it will be short of water, but what we do want to make sure of is that these objects can be attained without causing great loss to agricultural production. We have one Act in regard to the water supplies of this country, and we hope to get a complete scheme for control and co-ordination in this country which is so badly needed.
Now Leicester Corporation has jumped in with this scheme, and I think that any scheme of this magnitude should be subject to that form of control which I hope will be dealt with more fully when the Government has finished with its more political activities. I speak with some feeling about this, because in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where I come from, we have experienced considerable difficulties through the need of great towns to expand. No one wants to prevent their expansion, no one wants to prevent them carrying out housing schemes and so on, but we want to make sure that before land is taken away from agricultural production there should be certainty that there is not some other suitable area which will not involve that amount of agricultural depletion. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the noble Earl and I hope very much that we shall receive a favourable reply from the Minister.
4.23 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I support this Motion of my noble friend Earl De La Warr in the main from the same point of view that he has taken, the agricultural angle. I need not go into the case he has so admirably put, in view of the figures he has already quoted, but no fewer than forty-nine farmers and farmsteads are involved in this, and the effect upon agricultural production is considerable and should receive careful consideration at this time. It is not for me to enlarge, after the debate yesterday, on the need for the greatest possible development of agriculture in this country with a view to implementing and maintaining the supply of food to the country. But there is one remark by my noble friend Lord Llewellin which I should like to quote. He said, "Let us get the land"—this is in another connexion, of course—"out of the sterile occupation of Service Departments who are not using them." It seems to me that the effect of this Bill would be to sterilize very valuable land which is urgently required for the production of foodstuffs, whether it be milk or any other commodity.
Further than that, I do not wish to do more than point out that this Bill projects this Manifold reservoir into a county outside Leicestershire, and I am informed by the President of the Agricultural Society in that county that they have passed a very strong resolution protesting against what I venture to think will probably be a misuse of the land in question. I hope, therefore, that this procedure which has been recommended to your Lordships' House will be adopted and that the Select Committee to which the Bill will be referred upstairs will pay the greatest attention to the directions which are embodied in this Motion and will satisfy itself completely that there really is no alternative source of supply. For those of us who have had opportunities of hearing what the feelings are of those directly concerned in the agriculture of this area, one cannot but be rather surprised, in view of the facts and figures, some of which have been given by my noble friend, and ask whether or not this vast amount of water is really necessary for the Corporation of Leicester. It seems to me—I speak, of course, only on information given to me—that the Leicester Cor

837
poration is looking into the very far future. However that may be, that is a matter which no doubt will be investigated by the Select Committee, and from experience of many years of Private Bill Committees I know with what care and attention these matters are looked into. On those grounds I warmly support the Motion of my noble friend Earl De La Warr.
4.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I did not expect to intervene in this debate, but I thought it might be rather useful for a representative of the county concerned to say a few words upon the question.
We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, about the agricultural aspect of the question, but there are two other aspects. There is the question of Staffordshire water, and the interference with the amenities of the district. I may tell your Lordships that there is universal condemnation of this Bill by all the authorities in our county. The County Council are against it. The Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Society, the Ramblers' Association, the Society for the Preservation of Rural England and a few others are dead against this Bill. We feel it will affect this most marvellous beauty spot in the Midlands, a beauty spot which has a worldwide reputation, and which will be injured if this Bill passes into law.
We feel that the reason why the Leicester Corporation want this particular water is simply financial. We are to be robbed of our water to enable Leicester to have a cheap supply, when water could be procured elsewhere if they chose to pay the price. I believe I am rightly informed that His Majesty's Government propose a nationalized water scheme. There is no hurry for this. Why not wait until the Government scheme appears? I hope it will be very shortly, because we are all suffering from a shortage of water. It would be much better to leave it to that body which will be appointed by the Government than have the hurried, ill-considered scheme which is before your Lordships' House at the present time.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like most cordially to support this Motion on the ground that has just been stated so emphatically and eloquently
838
by my noble friend, the Earl of Harrowby. It is only a few months ago that we had an interesting debate in this House upon pure milk, and I think we all recognized that in order to ensure both clean and safe milk one essential factor was the supply of pure water in ample quantity, not to dilute the milk, but in order that cowsheds may be supplied with sufficient water to ensure the cleanliness of those sheds and of the utensils that are used therein. As the noble Earl, Lord Harrowby, has just said, we have lately passed a Water Act, which, if I understand it aright, was passed upon the understanding that there is in this country a sufficiency of water, if it is only equitably distributed. Surely the wrong way to go to work to ensure an equitable distribution is to allow various municipal corporations to come forward with their own Bills asking—before even a survey has been taken either of the national or the local water resources—that a certain undue proportion of the available water in a district should be allocated to an urban population.
I want to say emphatically that the time is coming when in the matter of both electricity and water there must be available supplies on equitable terms and at the same cost to all users in the country, whether they be urban or whether they be rural. I remember in the old days in the House of Commons—and I see several noble Lords present, including my friends, Lord Bingley and Lord Croft, who were in that House—Corporations used to bring in what were called omnibus Bills with milk clauses, and we agrarians used to troop into the Lobby against these mill: clauses on the footing that legislation ire such matters should be of general application and not merely of local application. I remember so well what I may call the" Agrarian Whip "in another place when pointing the way to the right lobby for us to go into to vote, used to say," This way to Dung in the Milk." Well, although that direction was somewhat unsavoury, with what I may call mens conscia recti we all trooped into the-Lobby and invariably defeated he milk clauses in those omnibus Bills. That is exactly what we have got to do in this connexion. I most warmly support the noble Earl. I would ask the Government in their reply to indicate to what extent they are going to allow these local Bills with their water clauses to cut into the fair operation of the

839
Water Act which was passed only about five months ago.
4.35 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to add my support to those who have already spoken. From the agricultural point of view, every water project is the basis of dispute. That is natural enough. Not only is a valley submerged, but a large catchment area is restricted when any waterworks are constructed. I claim there is only one approach to the subject. The onus is on the authors of the project to prove that the project is of the greatest good to the greatest number and has been planned with a view to causing the least hardship to the smallest number. This Bill is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. I submit, however, we cannot go wrong if in each case we apply this test. You have already heard from other noble Lords that Leicester Corporation seek power to carry out a considerable undertaking in the erection of waterworks. They contend the demands upon them for water have increased and are continuing to increase.
That is the situation all over England. They do not, I think, contend that the available supply is insufficient for the normal consumer, but it appears that their object is to sell increasing quantities of water to other water authorities. If their demands have increased, so also have their supplies. Their resources, among others, are three large reservoirs. They have recently become constituents in the vast undertaking of the Ladybower Reservoir, and I am informed they get daily 12,500,000 gallons from it. In 1944 a White Paper was published on national water policy. The White Paper treated the whole question of water in this country as a national need that is always increasing, and our resources as a national asset to be controlled to achieve the greatest benefit to the community as a whole. With your Lordships' permission I will quote one paragraph from it. The White Paper says:
"There is great need also for continuous survey over a period of years of the bulk demands for water, particularly for big industrial centres, and for checking the development of the policy of grab, or first-come first-served in the pursuit of new sources."
The reasons advanced by the Corporation, I claim, entitle them to no high immediate priority. Had the site chosen been
840
some stony valley with a catchment area of little use to agriculture, there would perhaps be no objection to their carrying out this project as it stands, but the site chosen for the reservoir, which the water will submerge and the catchment area comprise as valuable agricultural land as you will find in England. The milk produced from that area is close upon a million gallons a year.
Here, again, I would quote from the White Paper:
"Thirdly, everyone is interested in water and the building up of a water supply system affects and may injure many different interests, Clearly, sectional interest must be set aside if national interest requires it."
No one would question that at all. It goes without saying. The sixty-nine families who would suffer if this scheme goes through, including twenty-three families whose homesteads will be submerged, will indeed have to suffer if the House can be convinced that hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of other families will benefit. Those who listened to the food debate yesterday and heard the speech of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, will remember that he told us very frankly of the gravity of the food situation. The claim of the Leicester Corporation, as I have said before, is not higher than a medium priority, against nearly 1,000,000 gallons of milk which has the highest priority in the world today. Which then, I ask, is the sectional interest, and which the national interest? The claim of the Corporation would appear to me to be a purely sectional one and the claim of agriculture in this case to be not only the national but the international one. If this Bill, as it stands, receives the power of law, I say to you we have made a very bad start on a national water policy. I entirely support the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in his Motion for an instruction to the Committee.
4.41 p.m.
LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, whilst I assume you have heard sufficient to convince you of the wisdom of the Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I wish to mention two points in connexion with my own share in Committee work upstairs. I was on the Committee dealing with the Metropolitan Water Board's Bill when we received an instruction from the House in regard to the allocation of certain lands. In that

841
case we followed the instruction, although the area of land to be acquired for the purposes of the Metropolitan Water Board was infinitely smaller than that now being demanded by the Leicester Corporation.
There is a further point. I was Chairman of the Committee dealing with the Dement Valley Water Board Bill, and the Leicester Corporation figured as opponents of that Bill, but during the whole of the proceedings they never raised the point that they were short of water or that the Derwent Valley Water Board was not treating them properly. Since then this Ladybower Reservoir has come into operation, and I am certain the Leicester Corporation are sure of getting all the water they require. It may not perhaps be proper to raise these points which have cropped up at other Committee meetings upstairs, but I think they have a bearing on the question and may help your Lordships to appreciate fully the wisdom or otherwise of this particular Bill.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I rise to add yet a few more words to the unanimous support that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has received this afternoon. He very properly spoke largely of the agricultural side, with which he is so well equipped to deal. I would refer to the other side which has been mentioned, which, for want of a better word, is called the amenities. The two, in point of fact, invariably march hand in hand. What injures agriculture injures the beauty of the countryside, and the opposite is also true.
This countryside, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rushcliffe, mentioned, contains a considerable area which is considered by the National Trust as being of great beauty and which would be gravely injured if this measure passed. He asked the noble Earl who is going to reply what the attitude of the National Trust on this matter would be, and as I am Chairman of the National Trust perhaps this is almost the only question which I can answer more authoritatively than the noble Earl opposite.
The National Trust opposes this Bill and will present its petition against it in Committee upstairs in the usual way. It believes that this area is one of paramount importance. Much of it in the North has already been gravely damaged
842
by a series of reservoirs, including the Ladybower to which reference has been made, but these particular valleys, the Manifold and the Dove—Isaac Walton's favourite river—are unspoilt and of the greatest beauty. They are, moreover, in the area which is already designated by Government policy as being one of the first areas to be set up as a national park, not only because of its great beauty but because of its accessibility to the great industrial populations of the Midland towns. Sir Arthur Hobhouse, on behalf of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, is at present considering the exact limitations and conditions of these national parks. Surely, as that policy has been accepted, to destroy a national park—because it does mean destruction—and then to create it a national park, is a negation of good planning and the height of folly.
We will be told, no doubt, that the Leicester Corporation needs this water. Similarly we were told that it was essential in the great cathedral City of Durham that the new generating station should be placed in a position which would irreparably damage the greatest group of medieval buildings in the world. Public pressure was put on the authorities, and of course it was found that an equally good site which would not so damage the beauty of Durham could be found; and that decision has now been taken. I believe that the city of Leicester can find other sources of supply for its water which will not have the effect on agriculture and on the amenities of the Peak District which this proposal will. I therefore most cordially support the views expressed by the noble Earl and, indeed, by everyone who has spoken this afternoon.
4.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I want very briefly to support my noble friend Earl De La Warr in his Motion with one or two arguments which I think have not so far been used. As the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said, this probably will not be the last of such Bills to come forward, and I would point out, in reinforcement of that particular argument, that as we progress to a higher state of civilization, so do we me more and more water. We are reaching the very extraordinary situation that on one side of the picture we have the great centres of population desirous of impounding more and more water, to

843
the detriment of our countryside, while on the other side of the picture we have the catchment boards and the drainage boards who are desirous of getting all the water they can away to the sea as quickly as they can. I think that that curious anomaly makes it obvious that there should be some very definite and settled policy dealing with the water problem of this country. One other point that I want to make is this. I was a member of the Scott Committee which dealt with the utilization of rural land; and if there was one broad conclusion that can be drawn from the Report of that Committee above all others it is that in this country the area of land in relation to the total population is very small. It is very necessary, therefore, to scrutinize very carefully how that available land is being used. The utilization of large areas of valuable and fertile land merely for the storage of water is obviously a case which needs the most careful scrutiny.
The instruction which my noble friend Earl De La Warr has moved seems to me at least to be extremely mild. It leaves absolute freedom for the Select Committee to give to Leicester all the water they want if they can find no other method than the one proposed. We are not depriving Leicester of water by agreeing to this Motion; we are merely asking that tit most careful consideration should be given to the proper utilization of land, and we are asking, virtually, that Leicester should prove their case up to the hilt. I do hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to the Motion.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I think this debate has not only shown the high level of the debating qualities of your Lordships' House but also a striking unanimity of opinion on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. It is rather difficult, as noble Lords will appreciate, for me to say very much on this subject. The Motion put down on the paper by the noble Earl asks that the Select Committee should be instructed that in considering whether or not they should authorize the proposal to construct a reservoir in the Manifold Valley they should pay due attention to agricultural conditions and that they should satisfy
844
themselves that all possible alternative sources of supply have been fully inspected. These are matters which it is quite proper that the Select Committee should pay attention to in reaching a decision; and for myself I am sure that whether or not this House gives them a special instruction to do so, the Committee will give proper attention to these questions in the light of the evidence placed before them. The instruction may perhaps be telling the Select Committee to do something which it is already their duty to do, but if your Lordships feel that it is desirable that their attention should be specifically drawn to these matters, the Government are quite prepared to accept the noble Earl's Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDIA (CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATURE) BILL. [H.L.]
4.54 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Requisitioned Land.
3.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act, 1935, the powers of the Indian Legislature to make laws shall extend to the making of laws—

(a) authorizing the Governor-General in Council, until the end of the period mentioned in Section four of this Act, to retain possession of and use any land in a Province of which, when the Act of the Indian Legislature known as the Defence of India Act, 1939, expires, he is in possession by virtue of any requisition effected under rules made under that Act; and

(b) enabling him compulsorily to acquire directly and without the interposition of the Province, any land of which he is in possession under any laws made for the purposes specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection,

and any laws made by virtue of this subsection may contain provisions with respect to offences against the laws, inquiries and statistics for the purposes of the laws, jurisdiction and powers of all Courts, except the Federal Court, with respect to any of the

845
matters dealt with by the laws, and fees in respect of any of those matters, but not including fees taken in any Court.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:

"(a) providing, in relation to land in a Province which, when the Act of the Indian Legislature known as the Defence of India Act, 1939, expires, is subject to any requisition effected under the rules made under that Act, for the continuance, until not later than the end of the period mentioned in Section four of this Act, of all or any of the powers theretofore exercisable under the said Act of the Indian Legislature or the said rules; and

(b) providing, in particular, for the continuance as aforesaid of the power of the Governor-General in Council compulsorily to acquire any such land as aforesaid for any purposes directly and without the interposition of any Province."

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name appears at first reading somewhat formidable; but, in fact, it is really concerned with a comparatively small point. It has been found that Clause 3 (1), regarding the acquisition of land and buildings is drawn up just a little too tightly. As drafted in the Bill, it covers only lands and buildings requisitioned by the Government of India and still held by them under the Defence of India Act. It is desirable that it should also cover lands and buildings requisitioned by a Provincial Government as well as by the Government of India, and held when the Defence of India Act expires by a Provincial Government or held on behalf of the Government of India by any other authority, such as an industrial concern. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to add:
"; and subsections (2) to (4) of the last preceding section shall apply in relation to any such laws as they apply in relation to laws made under that section."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is necessary as a consequence of the slight widening of Clause 3 by the Amendment that your Lordships have already consented to. It is also necessary to
846
apply to Clause 3 the provisions of Clause 2 (2) and Clause 2 (4). It is not a consequential Amendment in the sense that it merely carries out the purposes in view; it is an addition that is rendered desirable and essential in view of the carrying of the previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, at end add ("; and subsections (2) to (4) of the last preceding section shall apply in relation to any such laws as they apply in relation to laws made under that section.")—(Lord Pethick-Lawrence.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
Clause 4:
Inventions and designs, made in Germany or Japan.
4.—(1) An application for a patent or for the registration of a design may be refused by the comptroller at any stage of the proceedings on the ground that the invention or design was, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, and ending with the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five invented or designed in Germany or Japan or invented or designed by a German national in any territory which was then enemy territory.
(2) The ground mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall be an additional ground for opposing under Section eleven of the principal Act an application for a patent, or for revoking a patent under Section twenty-five or Section twenty-six of the principal Act or for cancelling the registration of a design under Section fifty-eight of the principal Act or (by way of rectification of the register) under Section seventy-two of the principal Act, and shall also, on infringement proceedings, be an additional ground of defence or for a counterclaim for the revocation of a patent or the cancellation of the registration of a design.
(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply in any case where—

(a) the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of a registered design, as the case may be, proves that the invention or design was invented or designed in Germany before the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, or was invented or designed in Japan before the seventh day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and has at no time since the said third day of September or, as the case may be, the said seventh day of December, been beneficially owned in whole or in part

847
by a German or Japanese national or a German or Japanese company; or

(b) the application for the patent or for the registration of the design was made before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and the applicant, patentee, or proprietor of the design, as the case may be, proves that it was independently invented or designed outside Germany and Japan by a person, other than a German or Japanese national, through whom the applicant, patentee or proprietor claims.

LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "German" to insert "or Japanese." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first Amendment standing in my name is one of several small Amendments to Clause 4, the clause which I may remind your Lordships is intended to bar from patents inventions of an enemy character, and made during the war period. This particular Amendment bars inventions which would not otherwise be barred by the Bill and which have been made by Japanese nationals on enemy territory. It is an Amendment in deference to a suggestion from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 45, after ("German") insert ("or Japanese").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out "January" and insert "February." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment in deference to a suggestion thrown out by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He suggested that we were not, perhaps, giving sufficient time for applications to be made under Clause 4 (3) (b), which your Lordships will remember deals with British inventions which have been duplicated in Germany or Japan. We have given another month which we hope will meet the noble Viscount. I do not think we can do more, because we shall run the risk, as he appreciated last time, of inducing people to go over to Germany and Japan, obtain inventions, bring them back, and secure patents. We hope a month will go some way to meet him.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("January") and insert ("February").—(Lord Pakenham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think this is a fair compromise. There is just
848
one point. We could not extend it too far, but, having extended the time by a month, there are certain other places in the clause where I think the January date occurs. Are any further consequential Amendments required?
LORD PAKENHAM: None that I have been informed of, but perhaps, if any are necessary, I may bring them forward on Third Reading. I have not been informed of any; so I take it that none are necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("it") and insert ("the invention or design").—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, in subsection (3) (b), to leave out all words after "national" and insert:
"being either the applicant, patentee or proprietor or a person through whom he claims; or
(c) the invention or design was invented or designed by a prisoner of war in German or Japanese hands, unless it is shown that it was subsequently obtained from him by any German or Japanese national before the first day of January, nineteen hundred And forty-six."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move this Amendment and I will reserve my remarks until the noble Viscount has moved his Amendment to the one I propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert: ("being either the applicant, patentee or proprietor or a person through whom he claims; or
(c) the invention or design was invented or designed by a prisoner of war in German or Japanese hands, unless it is shown that it was subsequently obtained from him by any German or Japanese national before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six.").—(Lord Pakenham.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after "prisoner of war," "or internee." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment put down by the Government very fairly meets the case which was put forward by myself originally, and supported in all quarters of the House, that we ought to give the oppor-

849
tunity to a prisoner of war who, while a prisoner of war, had made a patent or design in enemy territory, and I think as regards prisoners of war the Amendment is completely satisfactory. But it really was my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham, who last time raised the question of the internees, and said that, to his knowledge, certain men of science had been caught in Germany and interned in Germany, and that they had suffered the same hardships and the same disqualifications and disabilities as a prisoner of war, and if a civil internee had made an invention, he ought to be put in as equally good a position as the prisoner of war. Therefore I ventured to put this Amendment on the Paper in order that it might be ventilated.
I appreciate that an internee is not the same as a prisoner of war, and, of course, this clause as drafted does not just apply to British nationals. It would apply to any British prisoner of war or any Allied prisoner; he would be entitled to come here and claim his British patents. Prisoners of war are a defined class. The Allied Governments know who they were, and where they were imprisoned, whereas I presume there must be a great many persons of different races who were interned in Germany about whom very little is known—how long they were interned, where they were interned, and so on. Therefore, I do see that it is more difficult to deal with the internee than with the prisoner of war.
On the other hand, I should like—and I think we should always like—to protect the case of a British person. I am frankly more concerned to argue the case of a British man of science. If he has been interned in Germany throughout the war and has made an invention, there ought to be some means of letting him have the same rights as a prisoner. I appreciate that the case of the internee is a little more difficult to meet.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After ("Prisoner of war") insert ("or internee").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I quite see that the word "internee" might lead to some difficulty in future, and I should obviously be quite content if the word "internee" were covered by the words "or a national of one of the
850
Allied countries." But if that will not do—like my noble friend who has just spoken, I am deeply concerned with the British internee—I would be willing to have a portion if I cannot have a little bit more. Of course, there were a number of British subjects in Germany in various occupations when war originally broke out, and the Germans have not been in the habit of doing what I think The Hague Convention suggests, of letting civilians out of a country on a declaration of war. Some were caught, but a good number of them probably escaped later because they went and hid themselves at the beginning; then may not have reached the stage of being interned. This only applies to those who were actually caught. If the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill thinks fit to insert the words, "or British internee," I am perfectly content.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that, after looking into this very carefully, from the point of view of those who would be most concerned with operating it (I have gone into it from every angle, with great sympathy at least) we must resist the Amendment put down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I need not stress the general principle involved in the Amendment put down in my name. It was ventilated by both Viscount Swinton and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and I am glad it is acceptable to them, but they wish to extend the protection, extended last time, to internees. The trouble, as I think both the noble Viscounts appreciate, is that if it were simply the expression "internees" in the same way that we have got the expression "prisoners of war", it would include vast numbers of people of different nationalities upon whom it: would be impossible to check up. It would be more or less impossible to check their nationality and their date of internment, and even harder to establish the fact that they had genuinely made this invention independently of the Germans, or it may be the Japanese. So that the case as just put by the noble Viscount has confined itself to a narrow category of British or possibly Allied or other nationals. I must say to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that it would be impossible to confine ourselves at the present time to British nationals, to make exceptions in the case of British nationals,

851
in view of the discussions going on over the whole patent field between ourselves and our recent Allies. There might be some possibility of using the expression "Allies" but I am afraid that would raise another objection; we should find ourselves at once confronted by a large crowd of people of miscellaneous nationalities over whom it would be impossible to exercise any effective scrutiny.
That is the broad position. To console the noble Viscount I would say that we do not honestly believe that any such cases will arise. No claims have come forward which, as far as we can judge, are made on behalf of internees. There is no obligation at the moment to state that one was an internee, so I do not state that as a definitive fact, but so far as I can judge no such applications have yet been made, and we doubt whether such applications will ever arise. Therefore I must ask noble Lords opposite, who tend sometimes to regard us as being afflicted by too much theory and to look upon themselves as more practical men, on this occasion to forgo completely theoretical perfection in order to arrive at a workable clause. I would beg the noble Viscount, after hearing that explanation, to see whether he cannot withdraw his Amendment to my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In the interests of practical convenience and getting on with the job I am ready to forgo the expression of ideology. I hope that may be a concession on my part which will be reciprocated elsewhere.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I express our gratitude to the noble Lords who have helped us in such a constructive fashion to get this difficult Bill into a suitable order in which to send it to another place.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.
5.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Henderson.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Bill, gives His consent, as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 3 [Supplementary Provisions as to enforcement]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment to correct a drafting omission. It will be remembered that in the Committee stage of this Bill subsection (3) and subsection (4) of the clause were inserted at the suggestion of the Government in order to meet representations which had been received from the London County Council and other local government sources. It has now been suggested that subsection (4) might, in certain contingencies which were not thought of when the two subsections were drafted, have the effect of preventing action under subsection (3). The words proposed to be inserted will remove this possibility.
Amendment moved—
Clause 3, page 5, line 40, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, what I have said in support of the Amendment which you have just been good enough to accept applies also to the second Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAR RECORD OF THE FIGHTING FORCES.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM asked His Majesty's Government whether their

853
attention has been called to the urgent need in the interests of the Fighting Forces for a number of short illustrated pamphlets (on the lines of the one dealing with the British Eighth Army up to the capture of Tripoli prepared for the War Office by the Ministry of Information) containing a record of the exploits of the British Forces in the various theatres of war so that those who have fought in those theatres and their relatives may possess at small cost a permanent record of the achievements in which they took part.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I am conscious that the proposition which I have embodied in my question involves a new departure, and it may, therefore, require a few words to explain the special reasons for such publications as those I am advocating. In the first place, it must be remembered that this war (which came to a rather sudden end last year) lasted for some six years. We might usefully consider what that means to the people who have been fighting in it, because they are most of them young men. Not only as the war lasted for six years, but demobilization, as we know, has also lasted, and will last, a considerable time. Therefore for most of them it means that for six or seven of the most important years of their lives they have been fighting and undergoing all sorts of hardships away from their homes, very largely in foreign lands. They are coming home now and it is very desirable that during the years that are before them, while they are doing their best to get other jobs going, they should feel they are being remembered and that everything is being done to evidence the gratitude of the country towards them.
The second point I want to make is this. Unlike the first great war, this recent Fear has not been a static war, a trench war, but a war of movement; the people who have been fighting in it have travelled thousands of miles over great spaces, in, in some cases, remote countries. There must be some soldiers who have travelled more than 4,000 miles in actual combat, and that excludes the vast distances over which they have often been transported by sea. It has been a war of machines in many lands, with a great diversity of scene, and, as we all know, many very stiff battles.
854
Their combat experience began at a time when the forces against them were superior, not only in numbers but in all kinds of machines. It was not, as your Lordships will remember, for nearly three years after the commencement of this war that the Allies, and in particular the United States, were able to come to our assistance in actual fighting by landing on the coast of North Africa. That was on November 8, 1942. Up to that time we had not had that particular assistance, and our men were showing the most unexampled courage and fortitude in very depressing circumstances.
It so happens that in the end every single one of the operations undertaken by the Allies was successful and they ranged over almost the whole world—in Africa, in the Pacific, in Asia and finally in Europe. I imagine no one in this House would doubt for a moment that these great exploits call for a suitable record in the sort of documents which I have suggested in my question. I would mention a further reason for making an effort to produce such records. Great technical improvements in relation to printing or the making of reproductions of photographs have been made since the last war, and we know very well how successful they are by one or two of the publications for which His Majesty's Government is responsible. I mention particularly the one or the Eighth Army, with regard to which I want to make some special observations later. Those are the reasons why this is rather a special case and why there are special grounds for such documents as I want. But the great thing is to answer the question for ourselves: What does the soldier, sailor or airman want in the way of a record at the termination of hostilities? I know, of course, that a final history of the war is being written I do not know of how many volumes it will consist, but it will probably run to fifteen or twenty, and so it must cost a sum of money which the ordinary fighting man—and, in fact, I may say some of us in this House—will not be able to afford. There will no doubt be one or two shorter histories similar Lo the one volume book by Mr. Crutwell, concerning the last war. But that again must be a fairly expensive book and it is not the sort of thing that these fighting men really want. They know that they can get a history of the war, but what

855
they are anxious to have is some record of the activities of their own regiment, their own unit, their own squadron or their own fleet, in the war.
I have received one or two letters upon this, and I have talked to numbers of soldiers, all of whom support me, from three or four Field-Marshals down to ordinary fighting men—sometimes not accurately described as "common soldiers." They all want something of the sort that I have indicated. I had a letter yesterday from a member of this House, Lord Polwarth, who is a captain in the Lothian and Border Regiment. He writes that he is very sorry not to be able to be here to support strongly what is suggested in the letter I wrote to him. What he tells me, in forceful language, is that the soldiers do not want a history of the war—what they do want is an account of the activities of the ordinary Tommy, or persons of corresponding status in the other forces. The soldier wants a record of the exploits of his own battalion, regiment, division, or unit, whatever it may be. That would be of great interest—not only to the servicemen but to their relations. To a serviceman, in time to come, it will afford the means of answering a question which became a stock phrase during the last war. It was supposed to be put by a child and it ran: "What did you do in the Great War, Daddy?" There should be some work which will provide an adequate answer to questions of that kind.
The admirable pamphlet with regard to the Eighth Army, which does great credit to those concerned, is defective, from my point of view, in two respects. In the first place, published as it was during the war, it begins with El Alamein, and ends up with the Army gloriously taking Tripoli. And there it stops. Of course, as we know, that is only half the record of the Eighth Army. We also know that—again because this work was published during the war—it was thought desirable not to give details of the regiments and other units which were concerned. And these people of whom I have been speaking, this vast crowd of fighting men, want records which contain the names of their regiments, the names of the Commanding Officers and tells them something about them, something to remind them of the people under whom and with whom they served.
In a reprint of this pamphlet relating to the history of the Eighth Army, it would be very easy to add those matters, taking in such parts of this document—for there is no question of copyright involved—as might be thought proper. I do not think that the whole document need, even then, be much longer, for the purpose of a soldier. I feel, however, that in addition to those published with plain paper covers there should be a certain number of these little histories bound with boards, so that they would be of a permanent character. I do not like to mention the names of people with whom I have discussed this matter, but I think I may say that Field Marshal Alexander is very much in favour of this project being carried out. I have spoken so far without attempting to dictate to people who know much more about it than I do—though some noble Lords may perhaps support me in my question—what different units should be the subject of separate pamphlets. Different people, as I say, will have different views on this subject. It is a matter which will require discussion and consideration. The Eighth Army stands by itself in a way. Its exploits form an obvious subject for a story. The same applies to the Second Army and the Twelfth Army.
There are other units that fought in the closing stages of the war which might be separately dealt with. There is the Burma Campaign, and the gallant island of Malta and her people who certainly deserve a separate book. Further there are Australia and New Zealand. I suppose that Australia and New Zealand are looking after this matter for themselves and are bringing out their own publication, but if that is not so, there should certainly be some book published about the marvellous performances of men of those two Dominions in terrain—probably the most difficult in the world in which to carry on warfare—where they encountered all sorts of dangers from disease, as well as from the Japanese methods of fighting. However, all this is a matter, I think, for the discretion of the authorities of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, for I am not forgetting that both the Navy and the Air Force may put in a word asking for the publication of stories of their exploits too.
I am perfectly convinced that those who are living, whether injured in body

857
or in health or perfectly sound, will value beyond anything else a record of the achievements of the people with whom they were engaged in this struggle. And so will their children and their close relations, and, I should imagine, so also will their grandchildren. It will be something to show that they have not fought in vain. Many, unhappily, are no longer with us, and are not able to read any record of what they did. Of them, I may be allowed to quote some lines from Laurence Binyon's beautiful poem:
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them."
I think that there is no better evidence of our remembering them in the future than the records which I am so desirous of having published now that the war is over—tlie last great war, perhaps, although we never can tell, in which this country will ever be engaged. If it had not been for the courage and tenacity and fortitude of those men who are no longer here, together with those who were supporting us—our Allies and our Dominions—it is very probable that this country would no longer be what it is now. Although sadly impoverished and injured by the war it is one of the great nations of the world. It is in that belief that I urge His Majesty's Government to give a favourable answer to this question.
5.31 p.m.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, just in a few words I should like to support what the noble Viscount has said so well. I can reinforce him in his request to the Government and to the War Office to take this step. Over and over again from the various friends I have in the units which have taken part in this wonderful war I have had requests for illustrated records of their doings. At the present moment, General Edwards in the hills of Wales is still writing the records of the last war. Who is going to read them after this war, God alone knows! It is quite certain that the official history of this war, if it is ever written, will certainly take a longer period than that, and therefore I think it is fair to those who have fought so splendidly, in this war that they should have some record of what they did to show to their
858
families and to their friends. Especially is it necessary to reproduce those wonderful photographs which one saw in the illustrated Press from time to time and it should not require a very great effort to add the necessary letterpress.
Various larger units from D-Day onwards were involved, in Italy, Burma, and in the present actions going on in Java and elsewhere. I think it is necessary from an educational point of view for the next generation which is coming along. Through the eye they pick it up much more quickly than they do through the brain by reading. So I plead for good illustrated pamphlets to be sent out, carefully docketed with the various photographs which I know to be in the possession of the War Office. I trust that they will do this. It is wanted and I think from the point of view of the youth of the nation which is growing up, that it is a very admirable thing that it should be done. I am only too grateful, in the name of my colleagues in the Army, to Viscount Maugham for bringing this matter forward and I am sure that it will meet with sympathy from noble Lords opposite.
5.33 p.m.
LORD CHETWODE: My Lords, may I crave your indulgence for a few moments as a very new member of this House but as a very old soldier indeed with over 57 years' service? In reference to this idea which the noble and learned Viscount has brought forward, I can assure you that it is one which is wanted. Even as an old soldier, in all the campaigns I have taken part in, I have never seen the deeds of the Army, Navy and Air Force published until it was too late for people to take an interest in them. I do not speak only as a soldier. I do not profess to say that it is only the deeds of the Army which should be recorded, because if this war has taught us anything, it has emphasized the interdependence of the three Services.
But I claim that such pamphlets might bring to the public of this country some possible reasons why they should be ready for war, because there is not the slightest doubt that we are the most unmilitary nation in the world. We are the best fighters when we have to fight, but we have to have our backs to the wall before we produce sufficient forces to give us any chance whatever of winning a war.

859
These pamphlets might help there, and it might possibly result in our not being let down the next time, because we cannot possibly expect a third chance. We have been saved by the gallantry of our Army, Navy and Air Force on two occasions; we cannot possibly expect it a third time. It might induce people to insist on the Government of the day having their Forces ready for war.
You started this war unprepared—obviously the greatest war the world has ever seen—but we on the General Staff did our best to impress on the world that it was coming. You started this war with over 800 officers and 20,000 men short of the number required in our ridiculously small Army. You started with four divisions which went to France, two of which were not completely equipped, while the Germans at that time counted their divisions by the hundred. You have such wonderful men, too. Your Army, Navy and Air Force are really wonderful. Is it not worth while, before it is too late, to publish these illustrated pamphlets and let your own people know how wonderful those men are?
May I conclude my few remarks by quoting what Sir John Fortescue said in his History of the British Army?
"It matters not. Were the Army to be swept to-morrow into nothingness, it has already done enough to give it rank with the legions of ancient Rome. And it will be remembered best not for its surpassing valour and endurance, not for its countless deeds of daring, and its invincible stubbornness in battle, but for its lenience in conquest and its gentleness in domination."
The historian of the future, summing up the story, may quote some such words as these:
"The builders of this Empire despised and derided the stone which became the headstone of the corner. They were not worthy of such an Army. Two centuries of persecution could not wear out its patience: two centuries of thankless toil could not abate its ardour: two centuries of conquest could not awake it to insolence. Dutiful to its masters, merciful to its enemies, it clung stedfastly to its old simple ideals, obedience, service, sacrifice."
Surely it is worth while bringing that kind of thing to the notice of the people of this country? You have the most wonderful Army, Navy and Air Force in the world. Is it not worth while bringing to the notice of every man and woman in this country the possession they have got?
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble and gallant Field-Marshal Lord Chetwode on his maiden speech, in which he stated so movingly why it is necessary to support the Motion of Viscount Maugham. I should like to support the Motion, but I should like to go a little bit further. Reference has been made to the history of the last war. I know about that—I have had correspondence about this matter—and it is not yet published. In fact, it is 25 years late. If you are going to wait for the official history of this war, a lot of the people who fought in it will not be here to see it. Therefore, it is not only a question of the cost of the official history. I should like to go a good deal further and suggest that besides the pamphlets which the noble Viscount has advocated the War Office should give every assistance to regiments (I happen to have the honour to be Colonel of a Regiment) in writing their own regimental histories. We do not get that assistance very much. I know that they want to give us that assistance, but there are difficulties. Paper, for instance, is in very short supply. There is also the question of secrecy, but now secrecy has been withdrawn. I have read a wonderful book called "Coastal Forces" produced by the Admiralty, which is full of details of secret matters. I have not seen any official history by a regiment, and it is the regiment which can produce these histories. My own regiment can, and I am trying to get it going, but I want to see that every facility is given, especially in providing the paper. It is a vital question of time to get this out so that the parents can see what their sons have done all over the world. I beg to support the Motion.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, I rise only for one moment to add my support to this Motion. I make the further suggestion that if, as I hope, the Government will deal kindly with the idea, and will make preparations for these pamphlets to be forthcoming, there should be a very generous allocation of them to all public libraries throughout the country, to all school libraries and libraries where the public have access.
5.41 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, having listened to what the noble

861
Viscount and Lord Chetwode have said, may I suggest that the men who took the soldiers and the ground staff of the Royal Air Force overseas, the men of His Majesty's incomparable Mercantile Marine, might also be included? I would mention the convoys. I shall never forget those slow-moving squadrons of tramps; looking out from my bridge on a clear night, if ever we had one, and seeing the phosphorescent bow waves and the wisp of smoke from their funnels; and, what is more important, at the end of the watches, at eight o'clock, at midnight and at four in the morning, hearing the metallic clang of an iron door which told us that on deck were coming the engineers, the firemen and the greasers of the long heated watches down below, men who had run the gauntlet far four or five years of torpedo, of mine and in this last war of bombing, right out in the ocean highway. Those men never struck. They had most uncomfortable lives and their casualties were terrific. I think those who took the soldiers overseas should be included in such works. Their story should be written by men like Joseph Conrad and John Masefield, men who knew the language of the sea.
5.43 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, it must have been a matter of profound satisfaction to the noble and gallant Field - Marshal that his first speech in your Lordships' House, upon which I would respectfully congratulate him, should have been made upon this subject, in praise of the superb exploits of the men of the Forces, with one of which he has served for a lifetime with such great distinction in so many quarters of the globe. There is not one of your Lordships who will not have been touched by the moving speech made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, who submits this Motion to your Lordships. The Government of the day were not insensitive to those considerations to which the noble and learned Viscount directed attention.
Throughout the war the Government were keenly sensible of the desirability of keeping the relatives of fighting men informed of their exploits and conditions of service and arranged for the issue of popular booklets at a price within the reach of all. To one of those booklets the
862
noble and learned Viscount has directed attention. There were some thirty in number issued by the Ministry of Information at the request of the Service Departments. Up to the beginning of this year thirty-two booklets about the fighting Forces had been issued, and, with regard to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Mountevans, two about the Merchant Navy, at prices ranging from 6d to 2s., all of them published by His Majesty's Stationery Office. These have gone in very large numbers to members of the Forces and their relatives, and the combined sales in this country and the Empire overseas exceed the astounding figure of 24,000,000 copies.
I will content myself with mentioning only those dealing with the Army. The early part of the war, before the fall of France, was dealt with in "The Defence of Calais" and "The Highland Division"—two pamphlets. The long drawn-out campaigns in Africa were dealt with first in "The Destruction of an Army" which described the first campaign in Libya from September, 1940, to February, 1941. The Abyssinian campaigns had a booklet to themselves, and then the later campaigns in North Africa were covered by "They Sought Out Rommel," "The Eighth Army," the particular pamphlet to which the noble and learned Viscount has drawn attention, and another called "Tunisia." The Northern Garrisons, including Iceland, were dealt with in one booklet, and the campaign in Greece and Crete in another, while at home the story of Britain's antiaircraft defences from 1939 to 1943 was given in a pamphlet called" Roof Over Britain."
A further booklet covering the campaign in Burma has already been prepared and will be issued before long. There were several other pamphlets covering the work of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as well as one on combined operations. I am proposing to circulate a list of these booklets with the Official Report. It is of some thirty names. Perhaps it is more convenient that I should circulate it. Your Lordships can see, therefore, that the ground has been pretty well covered. The books referred to were, written and published during the war, at a time when censorship imposed some restrictions on the amount of detail that could be given. The end of

863
the war removed all, or at least most, of the censorship restrictions that had previously been in force, and opened the way for the publication of Commanders' dispatches, a large number of which are being prepared for publication and many of which will be published before long. At the same time, the new situation has meant a much greater measure of freedom for war correspondents and those in a position to write books, about the war of their own accord.
Here I think it is only right to point out that even during the war the official series of pamphlets I have mentioned was supplemented by a wide range of books written by war correspondents about the fighting on the various fronts. Then again, the end of hostilities has been followed by a rapid diminution of the staffs which had previously been engaged on the writing and publication of the pamphlets in the official series. There has been a dispersal.
The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, referred to regimental histories. I believe there is great scope for regimental histories and that it is, for many and obvious reasons, eminently desirable that such histories, preserving the regimental tradition and telling the story of the regiment, should be issued by the regiment. I did not know that the noble and gallant Viscount would raise this question—there was no reason why I should have known beforehand—but I will say this at once: that in so far as photographs are available (and there are large numbers of photographs available in the War Office Library of Photographs), I am sure I can give the noble Viscount the assurance that they shall be placed readily at the disposal of those interested in the production of regimental histories.
5.53 p.m.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will permit me, I would ask your Lordships' permission to say one word on the statement which has fallen from the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War. I think there was one glaring omission in the list of books and pamphlets published about the record of the Army in this war. We heard that there was one in the early stages about the Defence of Calais. I do not believe anything has ever been published about the fighting of the British Army
864
between Brussels and Dunkirk. Really, that is one of the greatest achievements in history, and why it has never been recorded I have never been able to understand. There was perhaps a feeling at the time that we were going through such straits that to call attention to what our troops had already been through might not be stimulating to morale. At any rate, that has passed, and if ever an army, if ever divisions, if ever regiments, deserved to have their endurance, their fortitude, their magnificent courage recorded, it is the army, the divisions and the regiments which fought under Lord Gort then. Lord Gort's dispatch was published—
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Only one.
LORD ALTRINCHAM: Only one. While the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory in some respects, I hope that profound injustice will now be redressed.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, Lord Gort's dispatch did cover those glorious incidents in the history of the Army, and, indeed, not the Army alone, because the other Services played a magnificent part. Dispatches relating to later campaigns are in course of publication, as I have said. There are difficulties, which I have indicated, in the way of dispersal of staffs and the like, in publishing a booklet of this type with regard to that campaign. Of course, there is now a great deal of material which observers, as well as those who were participants, can use and are at liberty to use, within the limits of security, for the purpose of producing books on their own responsibility. But I am moved by what the noble Lord has said. He will recognise that I am the spokesman of another Department in this matter, and I will certainly bring it to the notice of the Minister.
5.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I wish only to add this: that I am not quite sure that the pamphlets that have been published in great measure are not outside the scope of what is suggested in my question. Such books as the book on the Royal Armoured Corps, and a number of the other books of which he mentioned the name of a dozen or more—I have seen most of them—I am

865
assured are not precisely what the soldier wants. He wants, if he can get it and can pay for it, a regimental history, or something equivalent to it; but if he cannot have that, he wants a smaller regimental history which will, if he was fighting in a regular Corps or, for instance, in the Eighth Army, contain a complete history of what he did when he was in the fighting Forces. He wants something about his exploits which he can show; and something which goes over the whole account of many armies or many different corps does not quite satisfy what I am told is his great requirement.
[The following is the list of booklets to which Lord Nathan referred:

(a) Royal Navy:

East of Malta, West of Suez.

The Mediterranean Fleet—Greece to Tripoli.

Ark Royal.

H.M. Minesweepers.

H.M. Submarines.

The Royal Marines.

Fleet Air Arm.

(b) Army:

Roof Over Britain (The Official Story of the A.A. Defences 1939–42).

The Highland Division.

The Defence of Calais.

The Campaign in Greece and Crete.

The Northern Garrisons.

They Sought Out Rommel (A Diary of the Libyan Campaign).

Combined Operations, 1940–1942.

Destruction of An Army (The First Campaign in Libya, September 1940–February 1941).

The Abyssinian Campaigns.

The Eighth Army.

The Army at War: Tunisia.

(c) Royal Air Force:

The Air Battle of Malta.

Air-Sea Rescue.

Atlantic Bridge (Transport Command).

The Battle of. Britain.

Bomber Command.

Bomber Command Continues.

By Air to Battle.

Coastal Command.

Combined Operations.

R.A.F. Middle East.

Roof over Britain.

There's Freedom in the Air.]

5.58 p.m.

CONSCRIPTION PERIOD.
LORD CROFThad the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether in order to remove the grave uncertainty as to future careers and anxiety, as to the duration of service, they can make an early statement as to the period for which men are being conscripted into the Forces; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to assure the noble Lord that in submitting this Motion I hive done so only in the hope of obtaining elucidation in regard to the one specific point mentioned, and I should like also to assure him that I am in no way critical. Of course I would not be critical of the call-up of various men to the Services at the present moment, because we all realize that that call-up is absolutely vital if we are to continue to occupy the enemy territories, guard communications, preserve peace in the areas, replace those men who have been serving for five or six years in the Services and who are ripe for demobilization, release the Regular Army for police and garrison duties in the Empire overseas, and, above all—which I am sure will appeal to the noble Lord himself—fulfil the obligations which we are called upon to fulfil in connexion with the United Nations Organization. Therefore, I have no criticism whatever to offer of the call-up. My only fear would be, or my only wonder would be, as to whether in fact we have sufficient, because I know the extreme pressure upon all Commanders to find enough men at the present moment to fulfil their duties; especially, I think, is that true of the Army.
It is simply on this one point, the length of time that men are to be retained in the Services, that I ask for clarification. I know, and very likely the noble Lord will say, that this is all tied up with the need for men in every respect. In that connexion I would say that I, personally, was glad, although it was at a very late hour, that at last we got the conditions of the Code for Service allowances in the Army, because I believe that we have lost an enormous number of very valuable trained men, who, had they known the conditions a little earlier, when they were doubtful as to whether they were going into civil life or not, would have

867
stayed on. We do need these trained, skilled young leaders at the present time, just the same as we did during the war.
With regard to officers, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the noble Lord did not think me guilty of any discourtesy when I last raised that question, because the feeling was that during this month we were going to hear what are the conditions of officers, and I was most anxious not to detain your Lordships with any second speech. I regret I did not acknowledge the fact, as the noble Lord told us, that although we missed many buses with regard to this matter, he is going to catch the last bus, anyhow, this month, in giving us the conditions with regard to officers.
These questions all hang together, and the last thing in the world I intend to do now is to deal with the wider subject. I believe that at this very, moment—in fact I have already seen a copy, although I have not had time to read it—there is a wider statement out with regard to policy, and it would be improper for me, I think, at this juncture, to deal, or to attempt to deal, even if I had made a study of it, with this matter. But can we have some assurance from the noble Lord that these men who have been conscripted into the three Fighting Services may have some indication as to how long they have got to serve? Is it for two years, three years, four years, five years, or is it for the duration of the peace, because it is a matter which is exercising the mind of every young man, certainly of every ambitious young man, who wants to get on in life.
Take the case of those who are preparing for the law, for architecture or accountancy, for forestry or agriculture, or wanting to take degrees, going up to the universities, or young working lads who are determined to get on and who want to know when their apprenticeship is going to begin, or how they are going to work out the scheme of their lives. I do feel they are entitled to know how long the State will have need of their services, and it is for that reason that I tabled this Motion to-day. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance on that subject now, if possible, but, if not, at the very earliest possible date, because I hope he will believe me when
868
I say there is the very gravest anxiety in the very widest circles on that particular subject. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I have only one word to say in support of the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I get a great deal of correspondence on this subject, and I do earnestly ask the Government, even if they cannot act for a long time—I am not going into the question of having or not having conscription—that boys joining to-day should be told that it will not be more than two years or something like that, so that they and their parents can make some sort of preparation. Whether they are working or whether they are men who are going up to the university, it is of vital importance to the family, to the boy himself, to his brothers, and so on, to know whether there is a limit to his service, subject, of course, to an emergency.
6.5 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it is obvious that there is, and must be, in a matter of this kind, anxiety amongst all sections of the population to know, at the earliest moment, how their young men and boys are going to stand in relation to military service. I can say at once that His Majesty's Government entirely share the desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, in his Motion, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that as soon as possible all uncertainties should be removed about the period of service of then called into the Forces. The Government have set before themselves the object of bringing about a situation in which all men who are serving will be serving for a definite term of years.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Who are serving to-day or in the future?
LORD NATHAN: All men who are serving.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: To-day?
LORD NATHAN: Who are serving, and all men who will be serving.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: And those who join afterwards?
LORD NATHAN: Who will be serving for a definite term of years; but with the best will in the world it is not yet possible to announce—and I am not in a position to do so—a definite decision. Through

869
out 1946 a very large programme of demobilization will be in progress, during which over 2,000,000 men will be released. The size of the Forces is to be brought down to the lowest figure compatible with the fulfilment of our various commitments as set out in the White Paper, in the statement regarding defence, which has been issued this afternoon. Even so, there will be serving in the Forces at the end of 1946 a considerable number of men with over three years' service. The reason for this is that the number of men on Regular engagements has fallen very severely during the war, so that a large proportion of the men in the Forces at the end of 1946 will be conscript.
While demobilization on a large scale is still in progress, it is naturally essential that young men should be called up, so as to facilitate the release of those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. It is not yet possible, however, to say how long men now being called up will have to serve. It depends upon two things: first, upon the satisfactory liquidation of many commitments arising out of the war—this will permit the total size of the Forces to be steadily reduced—and, secondly, the extent of the response to the new terms for Regular Service. The faster the Regular strength of the Forces can be built up, the shorter can be the period which conscripts must serve. Various measures are under examination for increasing the number of men on volunteer engagements. His Majesty's Government, therefore, hope that before very long it will be possible to announce a date after which all new entrants to the Services under the National Service Act will be called up for a definite period, and to say what that period will be. Assuming that all goes well it should be possible progressively to reduce that period.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible for the Government to say now what the maximum time is in the case of these boys who are being called up to-morrow?
LORD NATHAN: No. I was anxious to make it clear that, whilst I cannot say that today, and whilst that is the position, His Majesty's Government are conscious of the necessity of making such a statement at the earliest moment, and it shall
870
be made at the earliest moment. I should perhaps refer the noble Viscount to a statement on this matter in the White Paper.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: I think perhaps there is a misunderstanding between us. What I am asking is this: is it not possible for the Government to say what will be the maximum period? You said "the period," and there is a great deal of difference. If you could say to a boy that he will not be called up now for the duration of the peace, as somebody said, but that you can give a period of two years or three years and that that shall be the maximum, you could easily work out the numbers that would bring in, and then give a period as soon as they come in.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I am fully conscious of the force of the arguments which the noble Viscount has in mind, and I was hopeful that I had made it clear that, as soon as they are in a position to do so, the Government will state the period far which young men will be called into the Forces; but I am not in a position to state any such period to-day.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the answer he has given to my question. It is something for us to know that at a fairly early date a decision will be arrived at on this matter. I should like to emphasize what the noble and gallant Marshal of the Air Force Viscount Trenchard has said, that it is impossible very speedily to make up the mind of the Government. I can quite understand it, because there are many complications throughout the world as to the exact date, but will he consider whether a maximum date could not be given, something which would at least be the most they would have to fear? I am not pressing for the answer now, but I would like to know the maximum period of service; it would be a great comfort to the men. I know that it would be very difficult to work these details out, but if he could give an assurance that the maximum will not be more than "x" number of years, that would be a great comfort to them. I hope he will give every consideration to it. I beg to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.