CHANNEL ISLANDS. (Hansard, 31 July 1940)

§ Mr. Ammon (Camberwell, North)
I think it will be generally agreed that the matter which I am about to raise is one of vital importance. It relates to the Channel Islands. For the first time in our history, British territory has been invaded without any resistance whatever and, to a very large extent, the news of that event has been suppressed. Just before this Debate began, we were discussing the power of the Press. Very few people know exactly what has been happening in the Channel Islands. Nothing appeared in the Press except a very brief note indicating that communications with the Channel Islands had been suspended. Not until announcements appeared in the Berlin Press on 1st July was there information that German troops had occupied the Channel Islands, the first occupation by German troops of British soil.
Whatever may be our opinion on Imperialist matters, I imagine there is hardly one of us who does not feel a very strong reaction to the fact that enemies have walked into our country in this mariner and have been able to take possession of our territory without meeting with resistance of any sort. Although that is a military matter upon which I have no 1350 competence to form a judgment, two or three questions arise on that aspect of the matter which should be worthy of attention. Only a few days before the evacuation, military equipment and armaments were being poured into the Islands. These were then withdrawn. Only a week or two before the evacuation several hundred airmen were being sent there for purposes of training. Suddenly there was a very violent change, and we fled from the Islands—the Governor being the very first to move, by the by, leaving the Islands to the civil authorities and, largely, leaving the unfortunate people to their fate.
These questions are of more than passing importance and deserve a little more attention than they are likely to get by my raising the matter on the Adjournment. Some Members will recall that, during the past week or so, I have, from time to time, by means of Questions to the Home Secretary, called attention to the position in the Channel Islands. By the way, the Home Secretary should have been here to deal with an important matter like this, especially as he has been handling it. His absence is rather discourteous, because long notice was given. The right hon. Gentleman has, again and again, denied evidence that I have brought before the House. Without any hesitation I say that it is an act of discourtesy for the right hon. Gentleman to absent himself when I endeavour to justify matters on which he has from 1351 time to time contradicted me. I have acted as fairly as anybody could. I sent the Home Secretary in advance all the correspondence and all the information that I had, in order that he might be well prepared for any criticism that I raised, and to show that I had no concern in raising this question beyond the well-being of our own nationals and the prestige of this nation.
I called attention a little while ago to the fact that a certain amount of time had been taken in the evacuation and that certain notice had been given. I called attention also, giving categorical evidence, to the various dates that were involved. On 25th July I asked the Home Secretary: Whether he is aware that the Governor of the Channel Islands was withdrawn on 21st June; that the Channel Islanders who registered for evacuation on 20th June were unable to leave owing to lack of transport; that telephonic communications between the islands and this country were operating on the evening of 29th June; that invasion took place on 30th June and on the morning of 1st July the manifesto of the German command was published in the island Press; and why, with so long notice, better arrangements for evacuation were not made?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1940; col. 970, Vol. 363.] The right hon. Gentleman, both in his answer to that Question and in a written answer also, denied that there had been the amount of time that I had indicated, in which preparations could have been made for evacuation.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
What was the date of that Question?

§ Mr. Ammon
The Question was put on 25th July. I have had a letter from the right hon. Gentleman since then. I will endeavour to substantiate, as I think I can, the truth of the statements that I have made. I have here a copy of the Guernsey "Evening Press" dated 20th June. I will read a sentence from it: The scenes in the town this morning will never be forgotten by any Guernseyman. Thousands thronged the narrow streets making last-minute arrangements for evacuation. Nowhere in the town could a suitcase be purchased. Many shops closed their doors as it was found that although it was easy to dispose of their goods, no money was forthcoming. I contend that there is evidence that as far back as the 20th June, as I said in 1352 my Question, preparations were being made, and people knew that this trouble was coming, and there was plenty of opportunity for steps to be taken towards evacuation. That, in any case, is the first piece of evidence. Now I will quote from the Guernsey "Star" of 21st June: Six thousand people, including nearly all the children of school age, have left Guernsey. That, surely, is evidence that the evacuation was in progress. The Guernsey "Star" of 27th June said: It is one week ago to-day since, following the removal of all troops and armaments, Guernsey became an open town and the Island was plunged into the st[...]ss and turmoil of evacuation. I submit that without going any further I have proved the case I have tried to make, that there had been this length of time in which it was well-known what was about to happen and that steps were being taken to meet the trouble that threatened. Now I will quote from the Guernsey "Evening Press" of 21st June. It is an extract from the speech by Major A. J. Sherwell, who I believe is the Procureur of the Island of Guernsey. The paper heads it: With a frankness truly Churchillian. He says: No man of military age was obliged to go. … But England needed them and were they to remain they might be subjected to slave labour. In the light of all this evidence, I submit—and this is where I allege that the Ministry of Information has been lacking—that this is an instance in which it is felt in this House and outside, that the country is not being fully informed of what is going on. It also raises in the minds of men, I regret to say, a feeling which is expressed outside not infrequently—we have even had it expressed by workmen who have come before the Committee on National Expenditure—that there is some doubt as to whether there is real earnestness in certain quarters about going on with this war. One of them said that this was a "sanguinary capitalist war," and that if it was not we would be putting more effort into it. That is the feeling with regard to this situation. The Home Secretary has denied, among many things, that the evacuation was other than voluntary. What we are up against is the fact that 1353 there has been tremendous vacillation on the part of the Government and confusion between the authorities on the Islands. First of all there was to be evacuation; then it was contradicted; and then, when people were lining up to register, as they had been asked to do, officials went along the line telling them not to be "yellow," not to be afraid, but to come out of the line. I have a letter from a man who was among the evacuees. It is dated 17th July. He said: The reply of the Home Secretary to your observations was evasive and even misleading. So far from being 'voluntary,' the evacuation was encouraged, and A.R.P. wardens went round (in my district at any rate) imploring the people to get out before they were blown out! We were told that 'The ferries would be here in 24 hours, the men would be taken to Germany as slaves in the munition factories, and as for our women—well, God help them!' Is that a prelude to voluntary evacuation? The letter goes on: The evacuation arrangements, such as they were, were deplorable. I came over on the 'Antwerp,' a troopship licensed to carry (and lifebelts provided for) 700, and there were 2,000 men, women and children aboard, to be chased by a submarine halfway across. We reached Weymouth at 5 p.m. and came alongside at 9.30 p.m., and there we were left without food or drink until to a.m. next day, when people started fainting in all directions and officialdom woke up at last. That is one of a tremendous batch of letters that I have here. I sent some to the Minister in order that he might see them in advance. There is another point that arises in this connection. That is the very grave danger of starvation which those people who are left there will undergo. The Channel Islands have no coal of their own, and 70 per cent. of their foodstuffs have to be imported. I have here an inventory of the total amount of foodstuffs, item by item, in the Islands when the evacuation took place. It is a curious thing that, as I think has been admitted, I have had more information than the Home Office on some of these points. Probably it would be well, for many reasons, if I did not read out the exact amounts involved in this inventory, but the hon. Gentleman can have it if he desires. When anybody goes short in the Islands, it will not be the Germans. We have something like 30,000 to 40,000 people there, with no means of communication with this country. They have been left behind, largely owing to a condition 1354 of muddle, and they are now in this very parlous condition. This is from another letter that I have received: I appreciate that there may still be a sufficiency of cattle in the Islands to feed the majority of the adult population. There cannot he enough flour or the means of growing it, or a reasonable subsistence to guarantee the continuance of the well-being of the people. And this is from another letter, from a doctor living in the Islands: My home is in Guernsey, and I do know that if food is not sent to the Islands, the people must starve. In the face of all these things, I suggest that I was not asking anything unreasonable when I said that a full statement ought to have been made to this House some time ago. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would make a full statement to the House concerning the evacuation. I have been treated rather like a hostile person, and there has been displayed a kind of resentment that one should have raised such a matter as this at all. The right hon. Gentleman also denied that there was any communication with the Islands after the 28th June.

§ Mr. Peake
When did my right hon. Friend deny that?

§ Mr. Ammon
In his answer to the Question asked by me last Thursday, when he said that the bombardment took place on the 28th June, and it was not possible to get into touch with the Islands. That is what happened then. Here is another correspondent who writes: The report in to-days 'Telegraph' that the dates of invasion were two days following the 25th June is quite inaccurate. As already mentioned in my previous letter, I spoke over the telephone to my brother in Jersey on the afternoon of 29th June. Guernsey was invaded the following day and Jersey on 1st July. I come finally to this point. I am sorry to have kept the House for so long on this matter, but I feel that it is one of vital importance to the credit and prestige of this nation. Here is a cutting from the Jersey "Evening Post" dated 19th June: Shipping facilities are being provided by His Majesty's Government for the immediate voluntary evacuation to the United Kingdom of women and children. Similar facilities will also be available for men between the ages of 20 and 33 who wish to join His Majesty's Forces and, so far as accommodation permits, for other men. 1355 When you add the other statements I have already read urging people to get out of the Islands, it tends to show the confusion that had arisen. I now read what I think is the crowning humiliation. It is the manifesto issued by the General Commanding the German Forces in Normandy: As evidence that the Island will surrender the military and other establishments without resistence and without destroying them, a large White Cross is to he shown as follows, from 7 a.m. 2nd July, 1940:

(a) In the centre of the Airport in the East of the Island.

(b) On the highest point of the fortifications of the port.

(b) On the square to the North of the inner Basin of the Harbour."

There is a good deal more that I could quote. It shows that the Germans were then in full possession. I want to ask whether the air port was left intact in order that it could be used in an offensive against our people. I received a statement from people who, just before the final invasion took place, went to the Home Office in order to get some help and make suggestions, and they told me that they were astonished to find the blind faith that the Home Office people had, that if we cleared out and acted very nicely, the Germans would act in a very proper fashion towards the people. That, after the experience of Norway, Denmark, and other countries! That has been published in the Press in a paper to which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary called my attention when he answered a Question from me a little while ago. In a letter that the Home Secretary wrote to me a day or two ago, in addition to answering questions, he stated that a number of boats left with hardly any people at all in them and that there was a difference of opinion with regard to evacuation. That is further evidence of the muddle. First, there was an evacuation which was stated to be compulsory; then it was to be voluntary, and then we had several authorities and others contradicting each other. At Guernsey there were thousands of people left on the quay, unable to get away. I have already read an extract from a letter from a man who said that he came over in a boat which was fitted out to carry 700 people but, in fact, carried 2,000. Here is a letter from another correspondent, who says: 1356 He stated"— he means the Home Secretary— that boats left Jersey not full with evacuees. Why did they not call for the many hundreds waiting at the harbour in Guernsey? Many hundreds waited all night for transportation which was not forthcoming and when a small boat did arrive, because there was no order, many people were hurt in the crush. That is the case I want to put before the House in order to show the need for organisation in our Government Departments. The same Department is responsible for all the blundering and muddle with regard to refugees. They lost refugees, and do not know where they are now, and cannot trace them. Encampments were not prepared to receive them. That is the precise sort of system we have had in regard to this evacuation. There is another important thing which I almost overlooked, and that is that none of these people was allowed to take more than £20 from the Island.

§ Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)
The money is worthless anyhow.

§ Mr. Ammon
They were not allowed to bring their money out so that they could provide for necessaries for themselves here. The Red Cross Society reports that no fewer than 2,000 applicants a day—people from the Channel Islands—have applied for relief. They have added to more people to their staff in order to deal with the applications. All this is an indictment against the Department that certainly wants answering and does show muddle, vacillation and a failure to realise the responsibilities of the position, to say nothing of the humiliation which every Britisher must feel because we walked out for the first time in history without making any stand whatsoever against the invader and let him do what he liked.

§ Mr. Parker (Romford)
I would like to support strongly the case made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and I would like to know from the Home Office whether there was any definite Government policy at all about the question of the evacuation of the Channel Islands. I can quite understand why a certain number of farmers and people who have lived for generations on the Islands would not want to leave, but a large part of the population ought to have been evacuated. The Government should have definitely 1357 said, "We want practically the whole of the population, apart from the farmers in the country districts, to be evacuated," and should have done all they possibly could to persuade the local people in authority to get the population evacuated. It has been said that demilitarisation was not known to the German authorities until just before they raided the Islands, but I think that is quite incorrect. I have here a statement from Mr. Hyman, district organiser of the Transport Workers. He says, with reference to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the reply of the Home Secretary: I think it is of importance to comment on the Question put by Mr. Shinwell and Sir John Anderson's reply. Mr. Shinwell asked, 'How long a period elapsed after demilitarisation before the Germans were informed?' The reply was that there was an interval of some days before demilitarisation was publicly announced. The reply, as far as Jersey is concerned, is quite incorrect. Demilitarisation commenced on Wednesday, 19th June, and was announced in the Jersey States on the same afternoon by Major-General Harrison, the Lieutenant-Governor. This announcement was reported in the local Press, the "Evening Post," on the same evening and the "Jersey Morning News" on Thursday the 20th. I suggest that this was as good as broadcasting the news as far as giving information to the Germans was concerned. I have seen a copy of the paper, and it certainly has a full report of the States meeting and the announcement of the Lieutenant-Governor. The German authorities must have got possession of papers from the Islands fairly early and known that they were demilitarised and that therefore it was open to them to occupy the Islands. Demilitarisation was thus announced on 19th June; the first raid was on 28th June, and the actual occupation took place on 30th June and 1st July. That gave considerable time to arrange for the evacuation of the Islands. What seems so surprising is that you had considerable evacuation of school children and others immediately when demilitarisation was announced, and then a "Go slow" policy about evacuation. In fact, practically all the local people of importance did their best to discourage evacuation. One of the most surprising statements of all is a speech by Jurat Dorey in the States Assembly, in which he said he had been sent over to the Home Office in London, where he saw two officials, Sir Alexander Maxwell and Mr. C. G. Mackbreiter. Presumably he got 1358 advice from them as to what the British Government thought ought to be done by the Island authorities. In his speech he condemned the policy of evacuation and denounced those who were trying to go overseas as rabbits and rats. Did he speak with the backing of the Home Office? What advice did those officials give him to put before the Jersey States when he got back? That ought to be stated fully. It seems to me that the whole policy of "Business as usual" preached by important people in the islands was a thoroughly wrong policy between 19th and 28th June, when the actual invasion took place, during the period in which there was an opportunity to get a large part of the population out.
A letter that I have received from. Jersey says: It is remarkable that the self-same authorities who impressed on the islanders the necessity for business as usual stated at a meeting of licensed victuallers on the 28th that occupation by the Nazis must be expected at any time. German reconnaissance planes were in fact then flying over the town. This information was passed to my correspondent over the telephone on 29th June and therefore can be taken as being pretty accurate. If the Island authorities discouraged evacuation and then suddenly decided at the last moment that a German occupation was inevitable, why were they not informed by the British Government that an early occupation was expected and persuaded to change their minds? Many people who wanted to be evacuated were not evacuated. There are in this country a great many relatives of people who would like to have come from the Islands. There are a great many invalids left on the Islands. Apparently the people in charge of them were told that a hospital ship would be arriving to take them, because the ordinary ships which were used for the evacuation were much too crowded for invalids. No hospital ship ever arrived to collect them. Another one of my correspondents has stated that his parents stayed behind because they could not get savings bank deposits out on the day on which they wanted to leave. They stayed a day or two, and then there was no ship and they could not get away. There were a great many people who ought to have been, and could have been, removed during the period who were not. I am thinking particularly of elderly people and invalids who will 1359 suffer very much during the German occupation.
With regard to the German air raids and the question of evacuation, I can quite understand that after the serious air raid on 28th June, it would have been difficult to organise evacuation, but I think a certain amount of evacuation could have been organised even between that date and the actual occupation on 30th June and 1st July. If we were able to send ships to bring people from all points along the French coast right down to St. Jean de Luz, surely some form of guard could have been provided for ships to fetch our own people from the Islands even between 28th June and the German occupation on 30th June and 1st July. It would have been difficult to do this at that time, but during the two days following the first serious air raid and after people had woken up to the possibility of a German occupation, shoals of people wanted to be evacuated who had not been so keen earlier on because of the policy of the important people on the islands. From telephone messages that came over continuously after the first raids took place, it seemed that there were very large numbers of people who ought to have been, and could have been, evacuated earlier had the British Government given a definite lead in the matter.
I want now to deal with the question of what is to happen to the people who are left. The Islands do not produce anything like sufficient food to feed the population. Part of the population has gone, but there are still there far more people than the Islands can supply with food. The food which they produced in the past was potatoes, tomatoes, and rather exotic crops for foreign markets and not for internal consumption. A very large part of this year's production has already been sold overseas, as it consisted of early crops produced in greenhouses. The production of the Islands depends very largely on their having coal for the greenhouses. Food and coal will not go to the Islands during the winter largely because of our blockade. The islands will not be able to produce food for themselves, and I think it is very unlikely that the Germans will allow food to be taken to them from the mainland. I am afraid we shall get the blame for blockading the Islands, 1360 as part of our general blockade. I do not think it would be possible to send large supplies of food in the ordinary course of events, because undoubtedly the Germans would take those supplies, and the islanders would not get them. I suggest that something ought to be done to get certain sections of the population, particularly old people and invalids, off the Islands, if it can be arranged. Would it not be possible to exchange, them for certain German internees who want to go back to Germany, people who are known to be Nazis, German women and non-combatants of various kinds? Would it not be possible to arrange an exchange of them for certain of the islanders, or to get the American Government or some other neutral Government if we agreed to send the ship, to take up the question of evaculation of such of the islanders as now want to go? I suggest that this matter ought to be taken up if our national reputation is to recover from the blow which has been dealt to it by our neglect of this whole mater. Its whole treatment by the Home Office has been thoroughly bad, and some action now by the Government is necessary to look after our own countrymen in these Islands and see that justice is done to them.

§ Mr. Leslie (Sedgefield)
No doubt there has been a considerable amount of chaos existing in the islands, and an old friend of mine, a resident in Guernsey, gave me a considerable amount of information, most of which has been already given to the House by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). My friend came over to this country a fortnight before any evacuation took place, and he was very concerned as to what was likely to happen. I tried to obtain information of what the Government intended to do, but there was a considerable amount of mystery about the whole affair, and he went back unable to know exactly what he should do. He left with the last boat which came from Guernsey, and there was no denying the fact that the number of boats was insufficient to evacuate the people. The day before the last boat left Guernsey there was a mile of trucks laden with potatoes and tomatoes, and people were not allowed to go on these boats, apparently because more consideration was given to the loading of the potatoes and tomatoes than to the evacuation of the 1361 people. On that day a German plane came over and had a look round, and the following day five German planes came over and dropped bombs on the quay, destroying a number of the trucks and killing quite a number of people who were waiting and trying to get on the boats, which they were unable to do. I have seen an inventory of the food and fuel in Guernsey. A considerable amount was left there; the hon. Member for North Camberwell has the list, and no doubt a similar list is already in German hands. But it would be interesting to know whether anything was done to see that the people resident in Guernsey who could not get away were provided with that food. I certainly think that an inquiry ought to be held into the whole matter, because, according to reports I have received, there undoubtedly was chaos, and people were at a loss to know what to do. On the one hand they were shouted at and told they were yellow when they tried to get on to the boat, and on the other hand they were told to get on to the boats as quickly as possible because the Germans were expected every minute.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has, I think, rendered a service in raising this matter in the House this evening, because there has been a good deal of misunderstanding apparent in many of the Questions put to the Home Secretary since the evacuation at the end of June. The hon. Member for North Camberwell suggested there was some discourtesy on the part of my right hon. Friend in not being present to deal with this matter himself. I confess it seems to me a very novel doctrine that it is an act of discourtesy by a Minister to put up an Under-Secretary to reply on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Certainly it is a very usual practice, and I must confess that I do not know why the hon. Member thinks he has been selected for specially discourteous treatment.

§ Mr. Ammon
It surely depends very much on the circumstances. Up to now the controversy has been between the right hon. Gentleman and me. He has specifically challenged my statements, 1362 and he ought to be here either to substantiate his statements or to apologise.

§ Mr. Peake
I am not prepared to accept the view that because a Member of the House puts Questions to the Home Secretary and the Home Secretary answers, it gives him a prescriptive right to have the presence of the Home Secretary in the House on a Motion for the Adjournment. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I must confess that I was in some state of mental confusion at the end of his speech to know precisely what his complaints were. In one part of his speech there were complaints that the boats carrying evacuees were too full, and in another part there were complaints that the boats were too empty. There were complaints that too many people had come and complaints that too few people had come; complaints that the Government acted too precipitately and complaints that they acted too slowly. I was in some difficulty at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech to know precisely what he was complaining about.

§ Mr. Ammon
The hon. Gentleman is trying to be a little too clever, because he must know that in each of those parts of my speech I was answering specific statements of the Home Secretary, who had said that boats had come away empty. I said that that was so in some ports, but that in others they were overcrowded. The hon. Gentleman might do me the courtesy of answering me instead of indulging in these debating points.

§ Mr. Peake
I am the last Member to attempt to score cheap points in debate, and I hope the hon. Member will treat me with the courtesy with which I treated him. It seemed to me that a great part of his speech was a challenge to the decision to demilitarise the Channel Islands. I share his regret that that decision had to be taken. It was taken, not by the Home Office, but by the responsible military authorities, upon purely military grounds. It is regrettable that any part of the British Isles should be abandoned to the enemy, but that is a decision which was taken on the advice of the military authorities, and it was advice which the Government could not disregard. The question of strategy involved can be discussed at some later date, but, looking at the matter from the point of view of a layman, in the matter 1363 of strategy, I should have thought that the decision arrived at was one which would not be difficult to justify. France had collapsed. The enemy were in possession of ports and aerodromes within a very few miles of the Channel Islands. Moreover, those Islands were not, and never have been, heavily fortified.
The decision to demilitarise the Islands was taken on 19th June. At the same meeting of the War Cabinet at which that decision was arrived at it was decided that every possible facility must be provided for the evacuation of such of the civilian population as desired to come to the mainland. There, again, I have not the slightest doubt that the decision taken was the right one. It was obvious that the decision to demilitarise the Islands and the decision to provide for the evacuation of as many of the civilian population as desired to leave must be taken quickly and must be put into operation with very great secrecy. To have announced the demilitarisation at that stage publicly in this country, or over the wireless, would have been to invite the Germans to take immediate possession of the Islands, and for that reason no announcement was made in this country of the decision to demilitarise the Islands. Inquiries show that the Island authorities estimated that somewhere about 30,000 persons would desire to avail themselves of the facilities for evacuation, and boats were immediately provided by the British Government and arrived in the islands on the following morning. Evacuation began on the morning of the 20th and continued for three or four days. It is obvious that there must have been very great searchings of heart among the people in the islands before coming to a decision whether to stay or whether to leave, but I do not think anybody would suggest that it would have been a wise thing to endeavour to enforce compulsory evacuation.

§ Mr. Parker
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether steps were taken to persuade the people to leave or whether the island authorities were asked to try to persuade them?

§ Mr. Peake
As I have said, every possible facility was provided for them to leave, and an announcement, to which 1364 the hon. Member for North Camberwell referred, was made in the "Jersey Evening Post" of 19th June. This is one of the documents which he sent to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It said: Shipping facilities are being provided by His Majesty's Government for the immediate voluntary evacuation to the United Kingdom of women and children. Similar facilities will also be available for men between the ages of 20 and 35 who wish to join His Majesty's Forces and, so far as accommodation permits, for other men. It goes on to set out the detailed arrangements.

§ Mr. Leslie
Does that apply equally to Guernsey, because that is where many of the complaints come from?

§ Mr. Peake
Most certainly. Exactly the same provision was made in respect of Guernsey as in the case of Jersey.

§ Sir Henry Fildes (Dumfries)
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there was a limit of £20 put upon the money that these people were allowed to take away with them?

§ Mr. Peake
Frankly, I do not know the answer to that question. It was, in any case, a question for the Island authorities. Of course, since the evacuation, arrangements have been made whereby Channel Islands residents who have left the Islands can draw upon British banks in this country in respect of balances which they had in the Channel Islands.

§ Mr. Lunn (Rothwell)
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether evacuees from the Channel Islands who came to this country—we have 500 in my village—can receive money from their husbands or fathers who are in the Channels Islands?

§ Mr. Peake
No, I should not think that is the case, but it is a very technical question, and I should like to communicate with the hon. Member about it. I would like to pursue the sequence of my speech. The question at issue on 19th June was whether it would or would not be wise to make evacuation compulsory. All the advice we had from the Island authorities tended to show that compulsory evacuation would by extremely unpopular and would, in fact, be unenforceable; that a great many of the Islanders were determined at all costs to remain upon the land which they had tilled for generations and in the homes which their 1365 families had occupied for hundreds of years. Compulsory evacuation was really quite out of the question. What we did, in fact, was to give a lead by providing all the shipping accommodation we could.
It was obvious, and the Island authorities were clear on the point, that they could not encourage, at the outset, people to go from the Channel Islands who occupied responsible positions in public undertakings and public services of all kinds If they had been encouraged to leave the Islands, the normal services which are necessary to the public in war time could not have been provided for the people who remained upon the Islands. As I was saying, there must have been great searchings of heart among the people of the Islands as to whether they should leave their homes. Very different views were taken on this question in Guernsey and in Jersey. For instance, in jersey, with a population of 50,000, only 6,600 people decided to leave. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out, in answer to a Question, that the last boats to leave Jersey were by no means full. On the other hand, in Guernsey, rather more people wished to come out than had been anticipated. Out of a population of 42,000 in Guernsey, a smaller population than that of Jersey, 17,000 came. Those two figures, coupled with 1,000, I think, from Alderney, made up a total of about 25,000 people who were evacuated from the Islands, as against an estimate of 30,000 by the Island authorities when the policy was decided upon.

§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)
Did everybody who desired to come from Guernsey get away?

§ Mr. Peake
That is the point to which I was coming. For the first three or four days—

§ Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)
My hon. Friend has expressed some surprise that the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) should complain that some of the vessels left too empty and some too full. Is it not a fact that some did leave much too full and others very empty, and were not the over-fullness and the emptiness related to the varying advice given to the people of the Islands by the Island authorities?

§ Mr. Peake
No, I do not think that that is so. Of course, on a question of 1366 evacuation of this kind, people are apt to take different views. Men who occupied prominent positions in the Islands issued a statement which was no doubt intended to reassure people and prevent panic and alarm. Personally, I cannot see any reason for blaming them for issuing a statement of that kind. There is no doubt that, faced with the necessity for an immediate decision on the question of leaving their homes, people had in their minds a certain amount of confusion which was, in the circumstances, inevitable. In regard to shipping facilities, no doubt some boats were overfilled, or filled to their utmost capacity, but, as I have said, other boats, coming from Jersey, were not so full. The remarkable thing is that 25,000 volunteers should have been got out of the Islands between the decision to demilitarise, on the morning of the 19th, and the evening of the 23rd. That, I think, is a very remarkable achievement in the circumstances.

§ Sir J. Mellor
But was not varying advice given by the Island authorities? Was not the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty right when he said that sometimes they were told that they should hasten to get out and that at other times they were told that they would be yellow if they did?

§ Mr. Peake
I am prepared to concede that point to the hon. Gentleman, and I daresay that at different times different advice was in fact required by the exifencies of the situation. After all, the Island authorities were the people on the spot. They saw what was happening. They saw whether there was any tendency to confusion among the people, and I have not the slightest doubt that they gave bona fide advice to the best of their ability.

§ Mr. Parker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but surely the point at issue is this: Did the Home Office of this country bring pressure of any kind upon the Island authorities to persuade them to encourage evacuation or not?

§ Mr. Peake
No, Sir. What the authorities of this country did was to say, "We must give the people in the Channel Islands opportunities and facilities for evacuation, and leave it to them to decide whether they desire to come to this country or not." I have already quoted the 1367 statement in the Jersey Press of 19th June, and the hon. Gentleman referred to a reassuring proclamation which was issued in Guernsey on the 20th, in which some of the leading citizens, the Bailiff, the Crown Officers and others say: We wish the people of this Island to know for their guidance and assistance in the decision which each must take for himself that we are remaining at our posts to carry on our respective duties. I do not think that that is a public statement about which anybody can make any criticism whatsoever. The leading citizens decided, in order to reassure the people and to give confidence, that for their part they would stay in the Islands and stick to their jobs. What in fact happened? It is perfectly true that there were people who desired to leave Guernsey for whom facilities were not available, but that was after the aerial bombardment on the morning of 28th June, and it is not in the least surprising that people who thought that things were going to be quiet and that it would be safer to stay in the Islands, after the aerial bombardment on the morning of 28th June should have changed their minds and decided that they would in fact prefer to be evacuated.

§ Mr. Leslie
Was it not the case that the quay was crowded with people on the day the Germans dropped their bombs on the quay and killed people, while the boats were packed with potatoes and tomatoes?

§ Mr. Peake
It may be true that on the morning of 28th June potatoes and tomatoes were being shipped. If it was the morning when the Germans came over and dropped bombs on the harbour, it was exceedingly fortunate that the ships were not being loaded at that time with human beings, because had there been evacuation in progress, either voluntarily or compulsorily, a disaster of a very serious kind would have taken place.

§ Mr. Ammon
I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is unintentionally giving a misleading statement. As a matter of fact, this was on the 27th, before the bombardment took place.

§ Mr. Peake
The 27th?

§ Mr. Ammon
The day before the raid. Posters were put round the Island saying, "Do not be yellow and evacuate." What is more, individuals went along the queues of people telling them to go back.

§ Mr. Peake
I have not seen these posters saying, "Do not be yellow," but it is possible that the Island authorities did give advice of that sort. I must confess that I should be horrified if a poster of that kind were put up in this country, but it is not a matter on which the Home Office can take any responsibility whatever. This is the first time I have heard of these posters.

§ Mr. Ammon
No, I raised the question in the House a fortnight ago.

§ Mr. Peake
There is not the slightest evidence that anybody who wished to be evacuated before the bombardment—which, I now recollect, took place on the evening of the 28th—was prevented from coming to this country by lack of accommodation. It was only after the bombardment that a considerable number of people who either had decided in the first place not to go or had registered for evacuation on the first day and then had changed their minds, decided to go, and that large numbers of people who wished to come to this country were unable to do so.
There are two other small points with which I want to deal. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) asked whether any proper military precautions were taken to make the airport unusable, My information is that instructions for making it unusable for a considerable time were given, and there is no reason to suppose that they were not carried out. The other point is that of food supplies for the islanders. The hon. Member for North Camberwell has apparently a longer list of food stocks in the Islands than I have myself, and I shall be very pleased to see his list. But our information is that there are reasonably good stocks of most of the principal foodstuffs in the Islands. We are, of course, trying our very best to get in touch with the islanders, through the International Red Cross. The hon. Member can be fully assured that whatever can be done for the relief of the island population we shall do. But in regard to this question of the evacuation of the Islands, the Government have 1369 nothing whatever with which to reproach themselves. I wish that on all matters the Government and the Home Office had as perfectly clear a conscience as they have on this question of the Channel Islands. Regrettable as was the decision to demilitarise the Islands, it is, I think, a matter of some satisfaction that so many people were successfully brought away, 1370 and that the islanders, however hard their lot, may have been spared the cruel horrors of bombardment and of modern warfare.