HC Deb 31 July 1947 vol 441 cc787-96

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

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

While it is clear that the subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House refers particularly to the future employment of those German prisoners of war who are willing to remain in this country, I think it will be not only convenient but necessary to make some passing reference to the treatment of the general body of prisoners of war. In its application, the proposal I am making would be for a limited period: that is, if German prisoners of war due for repatriation were willing to remain here in useful employ- ment, then the period of that employment might be restricted, say, to a year or to 18 months, for the simple reason that there is no desire on my part to denude Germany of any of her industrial strength in the period of her convalescence. But at the moment, in addition, to the coal shortage in that distracted country, there is unemployment in many ancillary industries, and it would surely be far better to employ prisoners of war who are willing to remain here on useful work, than to have them rotting in Germany.

At the moment the total number of prisoners, so far as I can ascertain, is in the region of 354,000, made up of 282,431 in this country and 71,988 in the Middle East, in which area, I believe, the morale of those men is very poor, according to progress report No. 28 of the prisoner of war division of the German Section of the Foreign Office. This is due to the hold-up in repatriation from that area which, instead of being speeded up from the 2,000 to the 5,000 promised per month, fell to 1,300 in May. It is encouraging to know that during June the figure rose to 5,000, but the May figure demands some official explanation. However, I will return to my main point. The total prisoner of war strength is in the region of 350,000 and so far as I can estimate, 10 per cent. of this total, as a maximum, would remain here if given the chance. This represents a potential labour force of 20,000 to 30,000 which would be no mean acquisition in view of the economic difficulties of the moment. In fact, if statements, reported and expected, reflect the truth of our economic situation as it really is—and we have heard this evening some account of that situation—then it would appear that today either we hang together or hang separately. Therefore, any pair of hands willing to work for us in this emergency should not lightly be swept aside.

In order that we may have an accurate estimate of the numbers concerned, the Minister should take a census of prisoners in this country and in the Middle East to find how many are willing and anxious to remain or to come here, and in what capacity they would stay. Secondly, there should be a linking up of this with those industries in which there is a real shortage of British labour so that, with the trade unions in agreement, we might find exactly what numbers could be recruited for our labour force in basic industries such as the coal mines, textiles, brickworks, and so on.

I admit that there is an almost tragic irony in the situation, and I do not propose to dwell on that. This inquiry, for instance, might show that prisoners in agricultural work and due for repatriation were not willing to remain in this country. They could be replaced by others not at present employed to advantage. In this connection I would mention that there is the charge that good farm workers are being used today as bad workers in other industries. We should ensure that every prisoner is in the job for which he is best fitted, and that he is not sweeping up leaves in Hyde Park when he could be more usefully employed.

Promulgations to prisoners concerning their employment and conditions are often circulated in the Press and through the radio before they are announced officially to the prisoners, and sometimes, because of that, inaccuracies creep in and confusion is created. That is a point which my right hon. Friend might look into. It is worth noting on this question of prisoners of war that France has prepared a scheme which is most comprehensive and liberal in character. In spite of the ancient feud between the two countries, the French have shown an attitude in regard to this matter which is better than we have so far shown. They have formulated this very comprehensive scheme and it is called, "Directives isssued by the French Government for German Prisoners of War." It enables German prisoners, with certain reservations, to volunteer for a wide variety of trades, so that in France today Germans are being recruited for, and employed in, coal mines, textiles, shipping, agriculture, railways, hydro-electric undertakings and also the iron and metal working industries. Also I believe they are being encouraged to acquire French citizen rights. Could not these directives be a pointer to us who who have always prided ourselves on our sense of fair play and justice?

The war is over. Let us not lose the peace in a mist of technicalities. Let us recognise and act on three obligations. The first is the moral obligation which should require us to make it possible for all these men to return to their own country before the end of the year; the second is the human obligation to treat prisoners of war in the Middle East as human beings; and the third is the obligation imposed by ordinary good sense to make the best possible use of those prisoners who are willing to remain in this country when their time for repatriation comes. In doing that we shall serve not only their interests, but the interests of our country.

11.53. p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

I am sure we are all grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply, will treat very seriously the suggestions that have been put to him. Some aspects of the problem that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) are not, of course, the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to see that any points which are not his responsibility will be passed to the War Office or to the German Section of the Foreign Office.

What my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour has to answer tonight is the simple question: does the Ministry of Labour regard it as desirable that we should keep in this country, semi-permanently or permanently, as many of these prisoners as want to stay here? My right hon. Friend knows better than any of us that several of our great industries are severely undermanned. Presumably, he wants to increase their manpower, preferably from our own forces, by more rapid demobilisation, to which we are now looking forward, but also from this very acceptable source when it is a voluntary source of supply.

If it is desirable that as many of these German prisoners of war as wish to do so should be attracted into our industries on a semi-permanent basis, I want to put one suggestion to my right hon. Friend: it is that those who are undecided, when the time comes for their repatriation, whether they want to stay here or not, and who would be useful working citizens of this country, without any prejudice to the employment of British workers, should be given a form of home leave before they take their final decision. There are many prisoners—I know many of them myself—who have been prisoners for four, five or six years. They are in some cases despondent about going back to Germany. In many cases their homes have been destroyed and their families broken up. None the less, if they have any relatives surviving at all, they naturally want to go home and see them first. It might well be that after a month or two months in Germany, especially if they could not get any work there, they would be prepared to come back and help us in agriculture, brick-making or road-mending, or whatever it might be.

I realise there might well be transport difficulties at the moment, but would my right hon. Friend be good enough to say that he will look very carefully at this suggestion, which has been made to me personally by several prisoners of; war, that they would be glad to come back here and work for us if only they could just go home for some weeks first and see their people?

11.56 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)

I am sure that both hon. Members who have spoken have done so from motives that are quite unquestionable and I am sorry that I shall be unable to accede to the request that has been made. It is not out of a lack of a sense of humanity, but purely out of consideration of certain matters in this country. I think that the question of foreign labour must be looked at altogether. My hon. Friends will realise that there are in this country now 100,000 Poles to whom we have a prior obligation. Very largely these men were our allies. Many fought in the Battle of Britain—very many of them, in the Air Force, in Italy and in Normandy—and this House has undertaken certain obligations in respect of these men. I must not do anything which would prejudice the opportunity of placing Poles in civil employment in this country. That is the first point.

The second point is this: when we consider our moral obligations, are our moral obligations strongest to the victims of Fascism or to the instruments of Fascism? At the moment we are helping to maintain in Germany and Austria something like a million displaced persons. They are very largely the victims of Fascism, and if we could resettle these people, or many of them, in this country in our undermanned industries, we should be relieving ourselves of the obligations of maintaining them in idleness on the Continent of Europe and be doing a fine humanitarian act which I am sure would appeal to all Members of the House. Secondly, they would be able to make a very substantial contribution to our own economy.

Mr. Driberg

I do not think that either my hon. Friend or I was pleading this case on humanitarian or sentimental grounds, but on a strictly utilitarian basis. I imagine that the Ministry of Labour is primarily a utilitarian Ministry. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell me, therefore, what he proposes to do to fill the gap in agricultural manpower when these prisoners go home? Could he really fill it with Poles?

Mr. Ness Edwards

I was trying to give my hon. Friends the general background to this question. After all, it is a question of using manpower which is at present a drain upon our resources and manpower to which we have certain obligations—very firm obligations given in this House. It is our prior obligation to get into employment, in our undermanned industries, those people who, at the moment, are a drain upon our economy. Then there is a second consideration. In placing Poles and European voluntary workers, one is making a permanent addition to our labour force and not merely a temporary addition. It is in that sense that I look at this problem.

Now I come to the question of prisoners of war. One of the great problems we are up against in this connection is that of accommodation. I do not think the House has been informed that the Ministry of Labour had to stop recruiting male European voluntary workers because of shortage of accommodation in this country. Therefore, we have limited the right to remain in this country on the part of prisoners of war to agricultural employment where accommodation is available on the farms on which they are to be employed. We cannot allow them to stay on under any other conditions, otherwise they would be taking accommodation which should be available either for British workers or members of the Polish Resettlement Corps. Our prior obligations are firstly to the British worker and secondly to the resettlement of the Poles. I am afraid I must stand at that point.

If we were able to solve the problem of accommodation, we would be faced with another problem, that of trade union agreements on the employment of prisoners of war. I have been dealing with this problem for some considerable time. The state of our undermanned industries and the shortages arising from that condition are mainly responsible for the very serious economic situation which we are now facing in this country. I have had the greatest difficulty in getting an open door through which to put Poles and European voluntary workers into the undermanned industries of this country. To throw into that pool of agitation—to add to that source of contention—the further problem of employment of German prisoners of war, is to make the last position much worse than the first. If our trade unions and employers resist the employment of Poles who have been our allies, will they readily agree to the employment of ex-enemies? [Interruption.] The Government must have regard to certain moral obligations in this matter, and it may well be that before they solve the crisis we are now facing in our economy, the country will have to decide whether or not we have direction of labour or an absolutely open door for the employment of Poles and European voluntary workers.

It is no use putting either prisoners of war or ex-prisoners of war into employment which is merely going to mean we carry other people on our backs. It is of the utmost importance that these 100,000 Poles shall be put into employment as quickly as possible in the interests of the economic well-being of this country. Secondly we want all the accommodation available for the contribution we have to make in solving the resettlement of displaced persons on the Continent of Europe. In making that contribution we are also saving dollars. For instead of maintaining them, we are bringing them here, if accommodation is available, and putting them into our industries.

I could not agree to start a new policy of opening negotiations with trade unions and employers in this country on what I regard as the more tendentious matter of prisoners of war until this question of the open door for the Poles and European voluntary workers has been settled. If it were just a case of looking at the manpower needs of the country, I should not shut my eyes to the needs of ex-prisoners of war who wanted to come into our economy; but I would warn hon. Members that that would be an extremely difficult matter to negotiate. The difficulties in the way would be stupendous, and I would hold out little hope of being able to get agreement on the part of any general body of trade unions on the policy advocated by the hon. Member.

I am aware of the tremendous efforts which the French are making to get manpower. They are coming over here to the Polish Resettlement Corps to try to recruit men for the French economy. Our position is different. We have 100,000 people here—Poles to whom we have obligations. We must put them into employment before putting Germans in on any scale. Secondly, we have that agree- ment regarding voluntary workers, and we are making our contribution by getting men and women from the Continent to put into our undermanned industries. Therefore, the French position is entirely different.

In my view, we can get a quarter of a million, including the Poles and foreign workers—the majority of whom were our allies—into our undermanned industries. If we can do that, the question of German prisoners of war does not arise. The great obstacle is a lack of accommodation, which is now taken up by German prisoners of war. There is the difficulty of how to meet our manpower difficulties in this country, and to phase repatriation of German prisoners of war with bringing in voluntary European labour. I can assure hon. Members that that, in itself, is a very difficult proposition.

I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War what has been said about the Middle East. I am sure the time has come when prisoners of war should flow back in greater numbers. That is what I want. The needs of the German economy are such that we ought not to attempt to induce prisoners of war to stay in this country. That is my view. Unless Germany is rehabilitated, the burden will always tend to pull this country back. It is time these men went home and started to rehabilitate their country. The more we induce them to stay here, the more difficult we make it for the Control Commission to rehabilitate devastated areas. I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming about this whole question. I hope I have said enough to indicate it is a very difficult problem involving the question of the use of foreign labour, and I assure my hon. Friends that it is not out of disregard for the needs of human decency that I have to reject the proposal that has been put forward.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.