HC Deb 02 August 1916 vol 85 cc279-81
8. Mr. MALCOLM

asked what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to individual exchanges of prisoners of war between Great Britain and the Central Powers; whether Lord Newton's statement on the 25th May, 1916, regarding the inadvisability of such exchanges has precluded the Foreign Office from negotiating them with Germany and from proposing them to Austria; how many such exchanges have in fact been effected since Lord Newton's statement; and will similar proposals for individual exchanges be considered in future?

Lord R. CECIL

We have decided, after careful consideration, that, except when definite public advantage is to be anticipated, no steps shall be taken to effect individual exchanges of prisoners of war, whether combatant or civilian. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. Since Lord Newton's statement was made five British subjects have been exchanged for five German Consular officers, in accordance with an agreement arrived at early in the War for the exchange of British and German Consular officers. It was provided in the agreement that, as the number of German Consular officers held by us exceeded that of the British Consular officers held in Germany, the balance should be made up by British civilians.

Mr. MALCOLM

Does the Noble Lord agree to the suggestion that all the individual exchanges which have been recently made have been, to use the words of Lord Newton, matters of definite public advantage?

Lord R. CECIL

We selected those whom we thought we might, ask for with most advantage.

Mr. KING

Does that mean that personal or individual influences had been brought to bear in connection with these particular exchanges?

Lord R. CECIL

I do not know quite what my hon. Friend suggests. We have got somehow or other to select British prisoners to be exchanged for German prisoners, and I do not see how that can be done except by selecting individuals for the purpose.

Mr. KING

I have a definite case in my mind. May I bring it to the attention of the Noble Lord privately?

Lord R. CECIL

I shall always be pleased to hear anything privately or publicly from my hon. Friend.

Mr. FLAVIN

Is the selection made according to the position occupied in the Army?

Lord R. CECIL

They are all civilians. The object is to select those who would be most useful in this country.

4. Mr. MALCOLM

asked what is the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the exchange of British and Austrian civilian prisoners; whether the age limit proposed by the Foreign Office was to be over fifty in October, 1914, was altered to fifty-one early in 1915, then to fifty-five, sixty, and back to fifty-five in the same year; whether the age limit for exchange is now fifty-one; if so, why it is higher than that recently proposed to Germany; and whether it could be reduced to over fifty, as originally proposed in 1914?

Lord R. CECIL

We have proposed to the Austro-Hungarian Government that British and Austro-Hungarian civilians who have attained the age of fifty-one years should be repatriated, provided that there are no military reasons for their detention. We have also proposed that those who have attained the age of forty-five years should be repatriated if they are unfit for service in the field, and provided that there are no military reasons for their detention. The Austro-Hungarian Government have replied with a request for a definition of military reasons. This is under consideration. The age limit was originally over fifty. In June, 1915, we were obliged to raise it to fifty-one years, and in August, 1916, to sixty years, which is the present age limit. The age limit was raised because the Austro-Hungarian Government raised the age for military service on two occasions subsequent to the conclusion of the original arrangement. We consider that the age limit could now be reduced without any serious military disadvantage.

Mr. MALCOLM

To the age of fifty?

Lord R. CECIL

I think so. I will inquire.

Mr. MALCOLM

Could it be made identical with Germany? The age there, is fifty, I think?

Lord R. CECIL

Yes, it is.