Lords Sitting of 23 July 1940

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

OVERSEAS EVACUATION OF CHILDREN.
4.7 p.m.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to secure that children from State-aided schools shall be given equal opportunities with children of the well-to-do to accept the extremely generous offers for the reception and maintenance of British children which have been made by the Dominions and by the United States of America; and move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion that I have put on the Paper is not intended in any way to be an attack on the Government. It is simply a request for information, and it is a request for information in view of the criticism in other parts of the world of the alleged policy of this country, criticism to which it is very desirable that we should have an authoritative reply, in order that we may show that we are in fact carrying out the democratic principles which we have professed. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the recent Inter-Departmental Committee which dealt with the subject of the recep-
1068
tion of children overseas had as its term of reference:
"To consider offers from overseas to house and care for children…from the European war zone residing in Great Britain.…"
In the Report of this Inter-Departmental Committee there was included a sentence which I will venture to read:
"In order, however, to ensure that shipping space in the future should be made available to the right categories of children so that a proper cross-section of the child population be sent overseas, we recommend that in future parents who are able to make their own arrangements for the evacuation of their children overseas, should be required to obtain the permission of the executive body.…"
the Children's Overseas Reception Board. While the scheme was welcomed in another place, this particular recommendation was turned down by the Government in, I think, a rather unfortunate way. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, Mr. Ede, said in reply to a question during the debate that this particular recommendation was not accepted by the Government, being regarded as "administratively impracticable."
That was the decision of the Government as regards the registration of what we may call roughly the children of the well-to-do. But the Government accepted that portion of the Report—and I want just to underline this—which recommended that they should pay the cost of sea transport for children from grant-aided schools and, above all, the Government accepted the principle of a cross-section of children going overseas, that is, children drawn from every class of the community in this country. The Under-Secretary for the Dominions gave these percentages of the children who, he suggests, should go over under the scheme:—England and Wales, 75 per cent. from State grant-aided schools and 25 per cent. from other schools: Scotland, 98 per cent. from State grant-aided schools and only 2 per cent. from other schools. That is probably due to the greater volume of poverty in Scotland, because so many wealthier people leave Scotland to live in England. But whatever the reason, those were the figures.
Therefore it will be clear that the percentages from the non-State-grant-aided schools were higher than these figures by reason of the fact that a considerable and incalculable number of children were going, outside the proposals in the scheme,

1069
solely because their parents could afford to pay their passages. In accepting those figures the Under-Secretary of State said he put them forward in order to give what he described as a balanced migration representing a cross-section of British children and, as though to make matters still more clear, he went on to say:
"If I find that the children who are outside my scheme,"
that is, the children of the well-to-do—
"impinge on the space required for the State grant-aided school children, I shall not fail to intervene."
That is the position of the Government. They want a balanced migration, and they have stated categorically that they intend to see to it that we get this balanced migration. And that was stated by the Government not only because it is democratically desirable, but because also the same attitude was taken both by the Dominions and the United States of America. The Lord Privy Seal, on July 16, speaking of the United States, said in another place that "the United States desire this," and I need not remind your Lordships perhaps that in the New York Times on the day following that, there was a full-page advertisement dealing with the subject, asking for the dispatch of American ships "for rich and poor alike," to quote the advertisement. Accordingly the Minister said this in Parliament:
"There is no ground for the constant reiteration that the benefits of the scheme are exclusively for the rich."
The present position seems to me somewhat unfortunate, because when the scheme was suspended, as it was a few days ago, what we might call for the moment the children of the less well-to-do lost their only chance of going over to America, Canada, Australia, and South Africa, and of this scheme of balanced migration there remain only the children of the well-to-do, who can afford to pay their passages. In other words, the better-off can continue to travel, and there is apparently no means by which the children of the less well-off can travel. I do hope that my noble friend who is going to answer for the Government will be able to assure us that in fact large numbers of these children are to travel, that somehow or other the Government have a secret scheme, which they have presumably kept secret through the Ministry of Information or some other
1070
means, but which it would be desirable, I think, to make public. Certainly we do know that the Lord Privy Seal was asked in Parliament on July 16 if any State grant-aided school children had gone, and he answered "No." And the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions said that the numbers of those who went in June were 1,454 to the Dominions and 298 to the United States, but that they were all children of the well-to-do, and that none of the other section had gone.
I am not concerned with the principle of whether it is right or wrong for children to go overseas. It can be argued either way. It was argued in another place that some men fight better if they feel that their children are somewhere else, safe against being bombed, whereas some men can fight better if they have got their children with them. Therefore, I do not think one can argue the principle. What I do feel is that if any children are going, poverty should not be a bar to the parents having a right to opt whether their children should go or not, because we are in a national emergency, in which we are all in the same boat. That is the only thing—that the parents should not be debarred from participation in this movement overseas, whether it is good or bad, by reason of poverty. All I want to ask the Minister is, Can anything be done or is something in fact being done? And I would venture to suggest to him that there are several possibilities which the Government might explore. For instance, we know that it has been suggested that American ships might come over here, and the Prime Minister a day or two ago said how ready we should be carefully to examine any such offer if it were made. I think it is worth noting also that there has been a very generous offer by the United States seamen to work without wages for such a passage of our children, provided, they said, no discrimination is made between poor and rich, and if the steamship companies concerned give free passages to these children. That is an offer which I think we should not let drop. I hope that there has been some sympathetic response by the Government to this generous offer, and that something may come from it.
Now let me put the points which affect the present situation. First of all, ships

1071
are going to Canada from here at intervals—there is no secret about it; ships are in fact going regularly. Secondly, these ships are, in fact, taking fare-paying children. The fares may be £10 or £15. In connection with that, as I have already said, poverty should not be a bar to the possibility of crossing in these ships in the emergency in which we are, and we have the extraordinarily interesting suggestion that if the shipping companies are not prepared to give free passages private organisations in this country would find the money for the fares. The Government of course have promised to find the money for the fares under the scheme, but my noble friend will tell us that, the scheme having being temporarily suspended, the Government have no need to find any money, and we did have, for example, the letter by Sir Evelyn Wrench in The Times a day or two ago, saying that private organisations would find the money. I think it probable that the shipping companies would reduce their fares in the circumstances, and we do know that oversea organisations, both in the United States and Canada as well as in the Dominions, have offered, with the utmost generosity, to take full responsibility for meeting the children and for their care and maintenance in homes of at least as high a standard as those which they would leave in this country.
Now we may be told that within the last two days a condition of affairs has developed in Canada in which a number of families going over are stranded. Those are families with mothers, and we are concerned with children. There has been no difficulty whatever, either in Canada or in the United States, in providing for the children. The responsible Canadian Minister, speaking on this subject, said they would have no difficulty in finding room for the children. It was the families who were involved in this temporary difficulty. I hope my noble friend will not use that sort of argument against this suggestion because this difficulty as regards families has arisen in Canada. It does not apply to the children at all. All we want—and this is where we are hoping for a very sympathetic response from the Government—is that the Government should give their blessing to the suggestion that a certain number of children from the State-aided
1072
schools should be allowed to travel in each of the ships which are now crossing at intervals to Canada.
The Government having given this, that will demand a sort of priority right to a certain number of children to occupy some of the space in each one of these ships. I do not care whether it is fifteen or twenty or thirty children; but the fact that we are sending the children of the less well-to-do to the Dominions and the United States would make it clear that we have adopted this principle. The Government should give their blessing to the principle of a certain number of these children going in the ships which are crossing. The parents of these children must accept in writing full responsibility for the decision to send the children, so that no responsibility will fall on the Government in this connection. I can see, if the Government say they cannot afford to escort these ships with warships, that they will not take responsibility. I do not want them to take any more responsibility regarding the children of the poor than they take regarding the children of the rich—and that is precisely none.
This will be a democratic measure proving that we intend to apply democratic planning to this problem, and it will meet the criticism that is coming increasingly from overseas. Let me remind your Lordships that the Nazis have a remarkable propaganda machine in the United States which seizes on every little thing such as this and develops it into a vast mountain of bitter criticism of this country, which has reverberations and increasing effects in those neutral countries which it is eminently desirable we should have on our side. If the Government have a plan, if they have been doing something, why do they not tell us, instead of letting this criticism pile up and by the time the criticism has become a mountain putting forward an explanation which never catches up with the criticism? The morale of our own people at home as well as opinion abroad demands that there should be complete equality in this matter. I only want to get from the Government an assurance that something positive has been done, is being done, and will continue to be done so that we can reply to these criticisms from overseas and the criticisms that come from our own people in this country. I beg to move for Papers.
4.25 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, most of my experience in your Lordships' House has been in the rôle of critic or prosecuting counsel. To-day I have to undertake the unfamiliar task of counsel for the defence. The question put upon the Order Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, is entirely proper. It deals with a matter of real concern to a great number of people in this country, and a great number of parents are anxious to know what the present situation is. Lord Marley's question divides itself naturally into two parts—first, what steps have been taken to ensure that children from State-aided schools shall be given equal opportunities with the children of the well-to-do; and, secondly, what steps are being taken to accept the extremely generous offers for the reception and maintenance of British children which have been made by the Dominions and the United States of America. I propose to deal with these specific questions a little later. It is necessary first of all to inflict upon your Lordships a few general remarks, the first of which is that the main principles and limitations of the Government scheme have been clearly and definitely stated in another place by the Lord Privy Seal by Mr. Geoffrey Shakespeare, the Undersecretary for the Dominions, and by Mr. Chuter Ede, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. Therefore these principles are well known to members of Parliament and to those who have read closely these debates; but a re-statement of the Government's principles may perhaps have some advantage at the present time.
It has been suggested, not specifically by the noble Lord in introducing this matter, but nevertheless suggested, that some kind of discrimination has been made under which the children of well-off parents can find themselves going to the Dominions or the United States, whereas the poorer class children have no such advantage provided for them. It is advisable to state with plain and blunt finality that no special provision has been made under the Government scheme for any such selected discrimination. A certain proportion of children from what might be called the better-off sections of the community has been arranged for—children attending non-State-aided schools—but the exodus of such children has not in actual fact begun. Some children,
1074
as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, have been sent away by private arrangements. The Government are not responsible for their going, nor did they make any provision for their journey. Such arrangements as were made were made by parents in most cases before this actual scheme was on foot, and they made their arrangements in the ordinary commercial way at their own risk by personal arrangement with the shipping companies. Unless therefore it is contended that the Government should have prohibited, as the noble Lord himself seemed to suggest, such private arrangements, there is no argument which can be established against the Government under this scheme.
Let me now deal with the Government scheme as I conceive it to be. It has been stated, I repeat, with clearness in another place. What is being done is not part of a considered emigration policy. That aspect does not enter into it at all. The Government, when this scheme was launched, could not foresee that it would appeal to so large a proportion of parents as actually happened. It is a part of our home defence policy. At home we send children from one area to another area which is thought to be safer, and the sending of children to the Dominions is an extension of that same principle. The Lord Privy Seal, speaking in another place on July 2, described the limitations of this scheme quite clearly. It is important to remember, he said, that what can be done under this or any scheme is necessarily limited; the scheme is strictly limited by the amount of shipping available. The question of the amount of shipping available is the governing factor in this matter, but the rate of demand has greatly exceeded what was expected.
The Prime Minister, speaking in another place on July 18, pointed out what the limitations were. He said:
"I must frankly admit that the full bearings of this question were not appreciated by His Majesty's Government at the time when it was first raised. It was not foreseen that the mild countenance given to the plan would lead to a movement of such dimensions, and that a crop of alarmist and depressing rumours would follow at its tail, detrimental to the interests of national defence."
So the situation has been altered, my Lords, first of all by the unexpected number of applicants, and secondly and

1075
definitely by the number of ships that are available. It might interest your Lordships to know what the range of applications from parents has been. The numbers of "A" application forms—that is State-aided school forms—that have been received up to yesterday amount to no fewer than 103,000 and the number of children concerned in those forms is estimated at 175,000. The "B" application forms, relating to those who are outside State-aided schools, numbered 11,055, and the estimated number of children was 16,580. There have been medical certificates provided for the "B" class, numbering 3,210. As to the number of acceptances in England and Wales the approximate number of those under "A," so far as State-aided schools are concerned, amounts already to 3,962. The acceptances in the "B" Class amount to 44. So far as Scotland is concerned, the number of acceptances under "A" is 1,424 and under "B" 24.
If we look at this in the matter of proportions we can probably get an idea as to how this cross-section that is desired is actually working out. At an earlier period it was thought that the proportions would work out at three for "A" as against one for "B" in England, five as against one in Wales, and fifty as against one in Scotland. That was a hurried estimate made during a great rush of business, and when it was looked into with more care it was necessary to revise that estimate of proportions, so that the proportions to-day are on the new calculation that in England there would be ten under the "A" Class to one under the "B" Class; in Wales sixteen under the "A" Class to one under the "B," while in Scotland the figures remain the same, fifty under "A" and one under "B." Whatever those figures may mean they do, I think, at least prove how little substance there is in the suggestion that the Government scheme have attached to it some kind of social discrimination.
The postponement of the scheme referred to by the noble Lord is a matter of the deepest disappointment to everybody connected with the project. I should like to say with some knowledge of what has been going on that the staff who have had charge of this work have devoted the
1076
utmost enthusiasm day and night seven days a week to make this scheme a quick and a real success. They have shown enthusiasm and capacity, and, if your Lordships had watched them at work, whatever your views as to the Civil Service might have been you would have been encouraged by what you saw happening. I should like also to say that the General Council, consisting of experts in child emigration problems, have shown a zeal, a quick attitude and a capacity for informed decision which have not only avoided delay but have given assurance that these decisions were on right lines. The Under-Secretary for the Dominions, Mr. Geoffrey Shakespeare, has given to this matter all that a man could give, and he has won the respect of all of us who have been associated with him. It might have been that this work would have been done better if it had been entrusted to the hands of the critics, but I am personally convinced that it has been well done. There has been no delay and nothing to recant in the way of decisions made. The disappointment has been great. Disappointed parents are now searching with vigour for scapegoats—which always happens on these occasions—and one resentful mother has written to say that it would be better if the whole scheme was dropped, that the children who are useful should be kept at home and that the useless people, like the members of the General Council of this body, should be exported and kept out of the way. I do not know how my colleagues on the General Council would take that but if it were so decided the Chairman at least would arrange to go quietly under those conditions.
What is the present situation? It is just this, that convoyed ships are not at present possible. What it amounts to in plain language is that the Government cannot spare naval vessels for these ships and they have determined that they cannot take the risk of sending children without such convoys. That is the immediate situation. It is a vast disappointment, but it does not mean that the scheme is abandoned. It means that the situation may change from day to day, that the Council and the Board will watch over every opportunity for a quick expansion just as soon as it is possible to secure safety for the children going. We know the generous hearts of the American people and how they would have loved to

1077
have these British children as their guests, but they must at the same time realise that no British Government could risk sending these helpless and innocent children without a satisfactory amount of security being provided for them. The noble Lord thinks that children in the "A" Class might go over in ships just as children have gone under private arrangements. That is so, but the Government cannot accept the responsibility for their going—not at present. The situation may change from day to day and what is undesirable to-day may be possible, or perhaps even desirable, a week or a fortnight hence. That is the situation as I think it exists to-day.
I personally am greatly disappointed. I like to think of these gentle and engaging ambassadors of good will going to our Dominions and to the United States forging new links of friendship between those countries and our own. They could not fail to have found their way to the hearts of those who received them. British children were never more beautiful and engaging than at the present time. I like to feel that they would return at the proper time with a widened experience and enriched personality. I can say this in conclusion, that, so far as I know the purpose of the Board, and so far as I know the views of the General Council, there will be no kind of social discrimination made. If there were I could not sit upon any such body and that would be true of others of my colleagues. But, on the other hand, the Government have to determine what they consider to be safe and those of us who have been, privileged to work in this scheme will have to accept the decision that the Government have come to for the time being. Let me repeat that it is not abandoned. The machinery is ready for immediate expansion, the arrangements have already had a try-out and everybody is reassured by the smooth working and the efficiency of what has really happened. Therefore at present we can only promise to go on with a modified scheme, which has nothing rigid about it but which may expand quite quickly, in the direction that the noble Lord so properly and ardently wishes.
4.47 p.m.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, it is a pleasure to hear the noble Lord speak from the other side of the House and
1078
with the same facility which we heard when he was on this side, but I am bound to say I think he was rather better in attack than in defence. I hope he will be a strong support to the Government when the time comes to develop our attack on Hitler after the defensive moment through which we are going at the present time. What of course he did with that facility which we expect from him was to defend and explain the scheme. But I was not concerned with the scheme. My question did not mention the scheme. I never said that I had any criticism of the scheme. Moreover, I expressly avoided attacking the dropping of the scheme. I had no wish to attack that decision of the Government because I knew the circumstances. I might very well have said that it was a pity that the Government did not foresee what has happened, but I did not say that because I had no wish to attack the Government.
The noble Lord explained and defended the scheme, but I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the principle which I tried to lay before your Lordships. The noble Lord says the Government are not responsible for the rich going and that they have to determine what is safe. But the children of the rich are just as innocent and just as helpless as are the children of the poor and they are entitled to a measure of safety which should be accorded to all. If it is safe for ships to go—as it is, because of our command of the sea—is there any reason why the children of the less well-to-do should not go in these ships as well as the children of the well-to-do? The noble Lord did not say one word about my scheme. He did not even mention the proposal I put forward that some at least of the children in what he calls Category "A" should be allowed to go in these ships. He merely said the Government cannot accept responsibility—the very thing I said I did not want the Government to accept. I said I wanted the parents to accept this responsibility and the Government to make it possible, by giving at least a right to priority in a few cabins in the ships which are going over, for some at least of the Category "A" children, so that the democratic principle to which both he and I subscribe might have been proved to exist to the critical rest of the world.

1079
The noble Lord was mistaken in saying that I said the Government should have prohibited the children of the well-to-do from crossing by private arrangements. I did not say that, I did not think that. I took precisely the opposite point of view: I think the Government should have encouraged that principle and should have extended it to the children of the less well-to-do. It is difficult to extract from what the noble Lord has said any reply to the criticism to which I drew attention. It would appear that no Class "A" children have gone at all—at least, he did not tell us that a single Category "A" child had left this country. He did not tell us how many of the better-off children had gone; he probably does not know. That information could only be obtained from an analysis of the cabin
1080
accommodation of the shipping companies, which has not been made and which it is not his job to make. I am bound to say that his reply does not give me much ammunition with which to support the work of the Government, as I would so desire to do, against this criticism in the United States and in Canada. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before we adjourn might I remind your Lordships that the House will meet to-morrow at three o'clock?
House adjourned at eight minutes before five o'clock.