HC Deb 27 March 1946 vol 421 cc531-40

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." [Mr. Pearson.]

11.50 p.m.

Sir. Stokes (Ipswich)

I really make no apology to the House for raising the matter which I wish to raise tonight at what now is regarded as a very late hour, but which for me is somewhat early. I make no apology, because, under the present new arrangements, one may wait for some considerable time before getting the Adjournment, and, therefore, it seems obligatory on a Member, when he gets the Adjournment, to take that opportunity at whatever time it should occur. On this occasion I find myself in a most unusual position. One of my old time co-poachers is apparently detailed to reply to the Debate. That makes it none the less pleasant for me, and I hope that when he comes to reply, he will remember the old battles we had together when we were a much more watchful and eager Opposition than are the hon. Members opposite.

The subject I wish to raise is the treatment, and particularly the continual detention, of prisoners of war captured from the enemy, whoever that enemy may have been, during the recent hostilities. It concerns a very considerable number of men. We were told recently at Question time that there are in this country some

225,000 German and about 115,000 Italian prisoners of war, of whom some 267,000 have been put to work. I do not wish to say much about the Italians, because we have already been told that they are being repatriated to their own country as fast as occasion permits. The fact of the matter is— and here I speak as an ex-fighting man— there can be nothing more dreadful, and nothing more degrading, than finding oneself as a onetime fighting soldier detained for an indefinite period, under conditions which at best cannot be agreeable, as a result of capture by the enemy. Remembering that you should endeavour in this world to do as you would be done by, this House should consider the situation into which we have got ourselves owing to the-present condition of things.

I am not concerned with urging that so-called war criminals should be released and sent back to Germany. In passing, I may say I am in some bewilderment on that matter, because I have never yet understood what is a war criminal. If I had my way and had to deal with war criminals, I should, in the first place, put in the dock those responsible for the release of the atomic bomb. I should certainly include them amongst any war criminals, but that is clearly a matter of opinion. I think that a great deal of the trial now going on at Nuremburg is completely bogus, and it becomes even more bogus when you consider some of the things which the Allied Governments are doing at the present. They are doing some of those very things for which we are trying the war criminals at Nuremburg, such as forcible detention and slave labour— because it is nothing else when German nationals are detained as they are here.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Maryle-bone)

Perhaps the hon. Member will describe what slave labour means, as it would greatly help.

Mr. Stokes

My hon. Friend ought to know me well enough now to realise that I would not leave a good point like that undeveloped. I am going into that without any doubt whatsoever, provided I have the time, and I shall have the time, because my hon. Friend does not want much time in which to reply. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 13th March whether he could give us an assurance that prisoners of war in British hands were being treated in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention. He said that the Geneva Convention did not any longer apply and that the protective power has been withdrawn. Therefore, it becomes all the more important that we should pay some regard to our obligations. It is even more important now, because, apparently, we are not decreasing the number of people we have in detention, but are increasing them. We are importing slaves from America.

I very much doubt whether that is the right thing to do. The only thing that can be said in favour of it is that it brings them nearer their homes. When the Lord President of the Council was asked, on 7th February, a question about this matter he said they would be treated in accordance with the best Socialistic principles. I do not quite know what that means. I had only just entered the Chamber when he said that; had I come in earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would have tried to catch your eye in order to ask a supplementary question. However, I very much doubt whether it is in accordance with the best Socialistic principles to treat prisoners of war virtually as slaves, and to keep them as such after the cessation of hostilities.

Be that as it may, I would like to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said when he was Prime Minister, when he referred to the whole question of unconditional surrender. It is no use burking this point. I was an opponent of unconditional surrender for reasons of which nobody took any notice. Speaking in the House on 22nd February, 1944, the right hon. Gentleman said: Here, may I point out that the term ' unconditional surrender ' does not mean that the German people will be enslaved or destroyed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1944, Vol. 397, col. 698–699.] I agree that there is no question on destruction, but the question of virtual slavery remains. One of the worst features of the present situation— and this point has been represented to me by responsible German people who are 100 per cent anti-Nazi— is the uncertainty of their future, the lack of definition as to what is to happen to them, how long they are to be detained, when they are to be sent back to their own country.

On this main issue, may I quote the Geneva Convention? Although it may be conveniently said that it has lapsed and does not apply, nevertheless, we were signatories to it, and I presume that when the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Woodford talked about treatment of enemy peoples, he meant under the then existing conditions, which, of course, included the Geneva Convention. Article 75 of that Convention says: When belligerents call for an armistice convention they shall normally cause to be presented therein provisions concerning the repatriation of prisoners-of-war. The Article goes on to say that this shall be completed as soon as possible. Of course, my hon. Friend will say that there was no armistice, but unconditional surrender. If so, that throws the onus still more on us to see that fair treatment is meted out to these people.

The second point I wish to refer to is this: What is the Government's policy? How long is it intended to detain these people in this country or elsewhere? When will some definition be given to them as to their final return to their own country? Meanwhile, they are virtually now in a worse position than they were during the war in relation to their ability to communicate with their relations at home—

Sir W. Wakefield

So they should be.

Mr. Stokes

I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of the intolerant people on the other side of the House— thank heaven there are not many in the country — but I also know he would be the first, if he was a prisoner of war, to be grateful to the people who had captured him if he was allowed to communicate with his friends and relations. He knows that quite well. I know him well enough to know that he thinks that, whatever he may say in his interjection.

As I have said, these prisoners of war are in a worse position than they were during the war when, by arrangements made by the Red Cross, they were able to communicate with their friends and relations. They have now been detained for nine months since the termination of hostilities, and there are no postal communications. We were told that postal communications with Germany are to be restored, and presumably that applies to other belligerent areas. Can my hon. Friend, when he replies, assure me that these people will be allowed the ordinary humane possibility of communicating with their own families at home, wherever they themselves may be?

Now I come to the point raised about slavery. Of course, slavery is a matter of degree. I accept that. But here we have a very large body of able-bodied people virtually treated as slaves. I had some of these people sent to me. In the firm with which f am connected we had some work that we wanted done. There was no labour available. We were offered Italian prisoners of war, and we were glad to have them. I asked if I was to pay them, and I was told "No." In view of what I had said in the House about the treatment of prisoners of war, I decided that something must be done. I made a special arrangement with them, and I am not ashamed of it. I told them that, whether the Government approved or not, I was going to credit them with the rate for the job, and that one day, when they went home, the credits would be transferred to them. The consequence was they worked like blacks. I ask my hon. Friends on this side how many of us would sit here for a moment complacently if— supposing the opposite thing had happened— our people were used as slaves by Germans or Italians? That is not what we stand for at all. We have been told by the Secretary of State for War that these fellows are paid a shilling or sixpence a day, according to their cap- abilities. I think I am right in saying that we had to pay something like 66s. a week to the Government. It is nonsense for the Government to suggest that it costs 66s. a week to keep a prisoner of war. If it does, they must be less competent than Governments usually are. Surely, if prisoners of war are employed, they should be paid wages, or credited with wages, with which, when they go home, they can start life again in their own countries. Do not let us forget that the slavery charge is one that is levelled against the so-called war criminals on trial at Nuremberg.

Away back, I think in April last year, I raised the whole question of this slave employment in a Debate in this House. I asked whether any agreement had been come to at Yalta with regard to the use of prisoners of war after the termination of hostilities. A rumour at that time was rife in the Middle East that a special arrangement had been made whereby certain of the Powers were going to employ German slaves for a period after the cessation of hostilities, and that vacancies would be filled by new supplies of labour from among the younger people in German and Italian territory. I was assured by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that that was not the case. But we have not yet seen that Yalta agreement.

Here, may I absolve the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the charge I made against him that he had made secret agreements prior to Yalta? I was wrong. He said categorically that no secret agreements had been made up to that date. But he would probably be the first to admit that secret agreements were made afterwards. I should like to know what those secret agreements were. When I asked the late Prime Minister to publish them he would not. I was very ably supported on that occasion, a year ago, by Mr. Tinker, who was then Member for Leigh, who disagreed with me on a number of other points, but who then said that no self-respecting member of the Labour Party could countenance the continued use of prisoners of war for slave purposes after the termination of hostilities.

I do not want to speak at any great length. I had hoped to get a longer Adjournment and to develop other points. There are the conditions of these people. We read terrible accounts in the papers sometimes as to how they are being underfed. I am not suggesting that we are underfeeding prisoners of war, but we should just recollect that the regulations laid down under the Geneva Convention stated that prisoners of war were to receive exactly the same rations as garrison troops. Whether we like it or not, or whether it is a good thing or not does not enter into it. Those are the regulations and that is the thing which ought to guide us. It is very disagreeable to me to read headlines like "Prisoners of war too weak to work," "German prisoners of war starving," and so on.

I would just ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when he replies, to deal shortly with five or six points. First of all, there is a rather more personal point. Some of these people, I understand, are being denied the opportunity for their proper religious observances. Will he assure the House that, whatever the conditions were hitherto, that matter will be looked into and be righted? Secondly, will he tell us what is the Government policy in regard to the date on which these people are to be sent back to their homes? I am not asking whether they want to go back. That is not the argument at all. Under the Geneva Convention arrangements for repatriation are bound to be made as soon as possible after hostilities cease. Thirdly, if it is not possible or the intention of the Government to take immediate action, will he give us some definite understanding when they are to be sent back? [Interruption.] These men have souls. Why should they be locked up indefinitely? If the House of Commons of about the only remaining free nation is reduced to a state of mind like that, then God help the world. Fourthly, will he assure me that communication between these men and their families will be restored as quickly as possible? Lastly, will he see to it that, whatever conditions prevailed hitherto, if they are not allowed full money for the rates for the job they are doing, a fair proportion of what is paid by the employers to the Government for their services shall be credited to their account, so that they can take advantage of it when they eventually get home and have to face a very deplorable situation amongst their own families?

I do hope that it will be realised in this House that in raising this matter, I have done it for one reason, and for. one reason only— that it is undesirable that people, however misguided they may have been, and who have done their job to the best of their ability, though no doubt misled by people who were as misguided as are hon. Members opposite in their economic beliefs, should be considered as having human rights. They have such rights. It is human rights for which we stand, and we should see to it that human rights must be respected.

12.8 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger)

As one who has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) in his picturesque language as a co-poacher, I hope, as one who is now a gamekeeper, to be able to give him some satisfaction in what I am about to say in answer to the points which he has raised tonight. I have considerable sympathy with a good deal of what he said tonight. I myself was very nearly in the same position when I was in Dunkirk retreat and I might very well have been a prisoner of war myself. I know quite well what my feelings would have been had I endured a long separation from my family and loved ones. I can well understand the feelings of most prisoners of war, not only those who are now retained in this country as prisoners of war, but all those, whoever they may be, who are prohibited, for one reason or another, from getting home to their own families.

In the short time I have at my disposal to answer my hon. Friend I should like to deal with the questions he has raised in two parts— one the legal aspect and the other the moral aspect. My hon. Friend has stressed the latter very considerably in his speech. First of all, I should hope very much indeed that these prisoners of war will not have to look forward to captivity for 20 years or more, as my hon. Friend suggested. I think that would be an intolerable position, and although I may not be here to answer for the Government in 20 years' time, nevertheless, I can say frankly that I should not envisage any period of captivity of that nature.

Mr. Stokes

I was not suggesting that prisoners of war would be kept for 20 years, but my belief is that a secret agreement was made at Yalta that a certain amount of German slave labour should be kept for 20 years.

Mr. Bellenger

I think I can deal with that point right away. I know of no specific agreement concluded at either Yalta or Potsdam dealing with the retention of German prisoners of war.

Article 75 of. the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war lays down that repatriation shall be effected as soon as possible after the conclusion of peace. A treaty of peace has to be concluded between Governments, and, unfortunately, there is no Government in Germany with whom we can conclude a treaty, but I imagine that at some time one will be concluded with Germany. When that time comes arrangements will doubtless be made for the repatriation of prisoners of war held by us.

Perhaps I might say a word about the prisoners of war, Germans and Austrians, we are holding. So far as the Austrians are concerned, as my hon. Friend knows, there are about 11,500 in this country, and they are segregated from the Germans. Arrangements are being considered for sending back all the non-Nazis among them— about 7,000— to Austria.

I can deal with these points only briefly, and I should like to come now to the question of communications between the prisoners of war and their relations or friends in their own countries. That is something for which the War Office is directly responsible, and I think I can give my hon. Friend considerable satisfaction. As regards mail, German prisoners of war in the United Kingdom may communicate with residents in Germany. There is no direct post between this country and Germany at the present time, but for German prisoners of war there are direct mail facilities. They can write direct to Germany or Austria and to all neutral and allied countries. The scale of letters and postcards allowed is three letters and four postcards monthly for officers, and two letters and four postcards monthly for other ranks. The mail facilities to the Russian zone of Germany and Berlin only began at the beginning of February and, therefore, sufficient time has not elapsed to see what the return journey is like.

Mr. Stokes

Does that apply to Italy as well?

Mr. Bellenger

I am not quite sure about Italy, but I think it is included. In any case, my hon. Friend will know that the Italian prisoners of war are on their way home.

Mr. Stokes

I was referring to German prisoners of war in Italy.

Mr. Bellenger

I am not quite sure about that point, but I think what I have said embraces that, subject to checking up the point tomorrow. With regard to the non-Russian zones of Germany, it is understood that between 70 and 80 per cent, of the prisoners of war who have written to residents in those zones have received replies, and I think that is sufficient indication that we have got a comparatively satisfactory system of communication between German prisoners of war in this country and their relations and friends at home. In addition to that, we have organised a system whereby German prisoners of war here who may not know where their relatives are in Germany owing to the dispersal of so many thousands of people in Germany, and inhabitants of Germany who do not know whether their friends and relations are prisoners of war here, may send cards to Hamburg. These cards are compared and, if possible, the two are linked up and communication is effected.

I well understand what my hon. Friend means about religious observance, and I have every sympathy with his point of view. Wherever prisoners of war are, they should be entitled to proper observance of their religious duties and beliefs. As far as this country is concerned, I think we have nothing to complain about in that respect, although I have reason to believe that perhaps we did not always get reciprocal treatment from certain other countries where our prisoners were held during the war.

No agreement was ever reached with the German Government regarding the rates to be paid to prisoners of war; therefore, we have had to adopt this system. Prisoners of war are paid or credited, or should be credited, with their rates of pay as soldiers by their own countries. Our prisoners of war were credited with their pay and when they came back to this country they received whatever credits were standing to their accounts. I hope that German, Austrian and Italian prisoners of war will also receive what is due to them from their own Governments when they go back to their