Lords Sitting of 30 April 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 2a and committed.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (SUPERANNUATION FUND) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

WITHDRAWAL FROM GREECE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I venture to ask the Government whether they can make any statement about the withdrawal of His Majesty's Forces from the Greek mainland.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I think that the House will wish to hear the statement which was read in another place this morning by the Prime Minister:
"As I am most anxious to give the House, the nation and the Empire information at the earliest possible moment, and also in view of the extravagant claims made by the enemy, I think it right now to give the figures—so far as they are known to us—of the evacuation of the Empire Forces from Greece. Up to the time when evacuation was seen to be inevitable, we had landed about 60,000 men in Greece, including one New-Zealand and one Australian Division. Of these at least 45,000 have been evacuated. Considering that our Air Force was through the superiority of the enemy forced to leave the airfields from which alone it could effectively cover the retreat of the troops and that only a small portion of it could cover the points of embarkation, this must be considered remarkable. The conduct of the troops, and especially the rearguards, in fighting their way so many miles to the sea, merits the highest praise. This is the first instance where air-bombing, prolonged day after day, has failed to break the discipline and order of the marching columns, who besides being thus assailed
104
from the air were pursued by no less than three German armoured Divisions as well as the whole strength of the German mechanised forces which could be brought to bear.
"In the actual fighting, principally on Mount Olympus, around Gravena and at Thermopylae, about 3,000 casualties killed and wounded are reported to have been suffered by our troops. This was a very small part of the losses inflicted on the Germans who, on several occasions, sometimes for two days at a time, were brought to a standstill, by forces one-fifth of their number. Nor of course does it take any account of the German losses incurred in their assaults upon the Greek and Yugoslav Armies. It will, I dare say, be possible to give a fuller account in the debate next week, but I think I have said enough to show the House that, painful as are our losses, we have much to be thankful for, and the Empire forces have much to be proud of."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, for the purpose of passing the National Loans Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Moyne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1941.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, these Regulations represent the last stage in the carrying out of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister on November 6 last. The effect of the Regulations will be that the household means test will be altogether abolished, and in place of it there will be a test of personal need. The detailed proposals are set out in the White Paper Cmd. 6265, and the explanatory memorandum interprets the Regulations throughout. There is therefore no need for any kind of detailed explanation now. Perhaps it will be sufficient to say that, after long and careful examination,

105
these Regulations were, in general, sup ported by all Parties in another place. Although a minority were dissatisfied with some of the proposals made, all regard what is proposed as a considerable improvement on existing conditions. It is important, therefore, that in your Lordships' House the same measure of general approval should be given to these proposals as they received in another place. The subject with which these Regulations deal has been one of prolonged controversy in which some of us have taken a part, and I feel sure that your Lordships will rejoice that a general understanding in regard to them has been reached. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd instant, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1941.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, my noble friend has explained what happened in another place in regard to these two matters which are so much interwoven that they have been taken together in debate. There is probably nothing I can add to what my noble friend has said, and accordingly I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd instant, be approved.—(Lord Croft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON asked His Majesty's Government whether any reports regarding British prisoners of war in Germany have been received from the American Embassy at Berlin and, if so, whether they will be published. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which appears in my name on the Paper was not put down with the view of embarrassing the Government in any way, and ought to have included the case of British prisoners in Italy as well as
106
Germany. I am afraid that I cannot possibly expect any satisfactory answer to the question which is on the Paper because I understand that for some inscrutable reason these reports are to be considered as confidential. I find that that is not of enormous importance, because the reports which arrive here from those sources arrive so late that they are practically already out of date, and therefore they do not possess the same importance and significance as they would if they arrived here without delay.
But there are various other questions which I am going to take the opportunity of putting, having previously been assured by my noble friend Lord Cranborne that he has no objection to answering them. The first question I want to ask is, what is the actual position of the Red Cross relative to prisoners? Is it a fact—I can hardly believe it is a fact—that the whole matter concerning prisoners has been referred to the Red Cross? I do not wish to say anything in disparagement of the Red Cross, but I cannot conceive that the Red Cross authorities are in a position to deal with all the extremely difficult problems that arise. They cannot, for instance, be expected to deal with the question of the treatment of prisoners, and I would ask my noble friend to give me some explanation on this point. The other questions that I wish to ask him are of a general character, and I only expect a very short answer to them. The first is whether any attempt has been made to negotiate an exchange of combatant and civilian prisoners. Another is whether steps have been taken—I have no doubt they have—to endeavour to arrive at an arrangement under which, as in the former war, prisoners interned in a foreign country are repatriated when they are physically incapacitated. I do not know whether anything has been done in that line—whether it has been possible to arrange anything about repatriation or exchange or internment in a neutral country. I should be glad if the noble Viscount will give me any information he possesses on the subject.
I do not know that there is any other particular point to which I wish to refer. I had an idea—fortunately, I believe, it was ill-founded—from some correspondence I had received that retaliation was proceeding at this moment. I believe

107
that the report is probably exaggerated, but if my noble friend feels inclined perhaps he may relieve my mind by saying something on the subject. There is also the question not only of repatriation but of wounded men and so forth, and the further question of repatriating men who have broken down in health from one cause or another. I should like to hear something upon those particular points which I have no doubt have been brought forward.
The only thing I have to say in conclusion is that I think it would be very advisable if my noble friend in his statement would give a clear indication of what people ought to do who are anxious to ascertain the fate of their relatives or friends who may be prisoners in Germany or Italy, as the case may be. At present it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to obtain any information. The only information I have succeeded in obtaining about prisoners myself so far is that there are approximately, or were at the time I inquired, about 40,000 in Germany. I am afraid that number has probably increased considerably since that information was given to me. I presume that these questions have all been put in another place and answered more or less fully, but I do not make any apology for asking them now because I think it is clearly obvious that the public ought to know how things stand. A definite statement made here would have considerable value in acquainting the country generally with the conditions as they now exist.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I do not wish to say very much on this question, though it is one which I think deserves your Lordships' very serious consideration. Those of us whose memories go back to the last war will remember the very many and serious questions which were raised during the progress of that contest on the condition of prisoners of war in this country, and, still more, elsewhere. I noticed in the speech which my noble friend Lord Newton has just made that he asked whether the Red Cross were the people who were really in charge of the whole thing or not. I think that was a very pertinent question, and comes, if I may say so, extremely well from Lord Newton, because, as many members of this House will remember, Lord Newton was for a
108
long time Chairman of the Inter-Departmental Committee which really dealt with the whole question. It was originally under my jurisdiction, but I was delighted to find that Lord Newton would be kind enough to undertake that part of the duties which fell upon me as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I certainly thought the most admirable arrangements were made, and those of your Lordships who were aware of the work done will agree that the system worked extremely well and produced a great improvement in the administration of the questions affecting prisoners of war.
The Committee included representatives, if I remember rightly, of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is necessarily the principal office concerned, because it is the Foreign Office that has to conduct all the negotiations through the assisting Power—in this case the United States—into the position of our prisoners in Germany or, as far as they exist, in Italy. Therefore it is right that the Foreign Office should be intimately concerned in this matter, and Lord Newton was at that time, I think, attached, as he had been earlier in his life, to the Foreign Office for the purpose of presiding over that Committee. In addition to the Foreign Office the Fighting Services were represented. I remember General Belfield represented the War Office, and there were representatives of other Departments. I am not sure on the point, but I think if your Lordships look at the records you will find there was a representative of the Red Cross on the Committee. That may or may not be a desirable thing, but the really important thing is that there should be an Inter-Departmental Committee.
It is not a matter which can be dealt with by the Red Cross, however admirable they are. You must have somebody who can speak in the name of the country, as representing the whole interest of the country, and capable of carrying on negotiations through the advisory Power in order to do whatever can be done to improve the conditions of prisoners of war in enemy countries, and, of course, correspondingly here, because you can get nothing done by the other belligerents unless you are prepared to do the same thing here. But, generally speaking, the object is to bring the administration of our enemies in the

109
matter of prisoners of war up to the level that we have attained in this country.
What I venture very respectfully to press upon the Government is that the precedent of the last war should be followed and that this should be primarily a Foreign Office Committee. I do not mean to say that there should not be—of course there should be—representatives of the other offices concerned, but it is really a Foreign Office question and I am quite sure that, since it is important to satisfy the friends and relatives of prisoners abroad, they would be much more satisfied if the matter were in the hands of a non-military committee rather than a military committee.
I do not wish to say anything disrespectful to the War Office—quite the contrary—but I have myself a vivid recollection of an interview I had with a very distinguished soldier. He was, I think, Secretary of State at the time. I was urging some question as to the exchange of prisoners, and I was received with great indignation on the ground that anything that made the condition of our prisoners more agreeable was a bad thing because it encouraged them to surrender. To my mind, that was a most fantastic and ridiculous observation, and I doubt whether anyone nowadays would hold that view, but it does indicate a current which exists, necessarily I think, in certain sections of military opinion. It is for that reason among others that f very earnestly request that this shall be a Foreign Office Committee, presided over by someone appointed by the Foreign Office, and sitting in the Foreign Office.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD CECIL) (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, by the question which he put down on the Paper, was itself a very limited one. He asked:
"whether any reports regarding; British prisoners of war in Germany have been received from the American Embassy at Berlin and, if so, whether they will be published."
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House, if I give the answer to this specific question first of all. It is quite briefly this. There have been a large number of reports which have been received and are still being received through the medium of the United States Embassy at Berlin, and I should like to
110
take this opportunity of expressing the very warm thanks of His Majesty's Government, and I am quite certain of the country as a whole, to the United States authorities for their constant care and interest in a matter which is so very vital to us all. At the same time I would make it clear that these reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, referred are regarded by the United States Government as confidential matter communicated to His Majesty's Government. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible for us to adopt his suggestion that they should be published. He will, I am sure, appreciate that in this matter we must accept the view of the United States Government which I understand they regard as of the utmost importance.
So much for the immediate question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newton. But like many other debates this debate has somewhat expanded in scope and the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and of the noble Viscount who followed him have ranged considerably wider. They really embrace, I think, the whole question of the treatment and administration of the question of prisoners of war, both military and civilian. A good deal of the matter which has been raised is, of course, strictly speaking, beyond my province. There are, as noble Lords know, two categories of prisoners—military prisoners and civilian internees. The civilian internees are dealt with through the medium of the Foreign Office. The military prisoners are dealt with through the medium of the War Office, and as regards the latter, who I think are much larger in number, my noble friend Lord Croft can probably speak with more authority than I can. So far as civilians are concerned—and in all I say I refer to civilians in both Italy and Germany—it is the Prisoners of War Department of the Foreign Office that is in charge of their interests, their conditions, and their treatment. It is to the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, and especially to the Prisoners of War Department at the Foreign Office, that all inquiries should be addressed with regard to civilian prisoners in those two countries.
This Department keeps in close touch with the representatives of the United States, both here and in Germany. They receive constant reports, those reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has

111
referred in his question. They make inquiries, and where necessary, where conditions appear to be unsatisfactory, they make representations. I am glad to say, as the result of very careful inquiries I have made, that recent reports as to the conditions do not give rise to anxiety. On the whole they are satisfactory. There was in one civilian camp in Germany at first overcrowding, but we made representations through the United States and now the conditions are tolerable and not too bad. In one particular camp which is devoted to women and children, I understand that the conditions are good and that the people interned are comfortable and quite happy. We get constant reports of the conditions there, and I think I can say that, for the moment at any rate, all is going well. The same applies to Italy. There is no evidence in any quarter that there are intolerable or really bad conditions at the present time.
As an instance of how this machinery of the Foreign Office works, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to give in some detail an account of the case of the camp at Besancon in occupied France. I have been asked by a noble Lord to deal with this particular point about which there was, as your Lordships know, some considerable anxiety. In view of Press reports that have appeared on this subject, the anxiety of relatives is very understandable. Reports began to reach this country last December of the internment of large numbers of British subjects in occupied France. It was understood that men of military age were interned at St. Denis, near Paris, while women and men over military age or invalids had been taken to Besancon. The Government asked for full information through the protecting Power, the United States, whose representatives in France asked for permission to visit the camps. In spite, however, of repeated requests, permission was not given until this month by the German authorities for a visit to Besancon. For this reason it is only now possible for the Foreign Office to supply information in response to the numerous inquiries which have been received from anxious relatives in this country.
It can now be stated that present conditions at this camp are, generally speaking, satisfactory. This applies both to the
112
amenities of the living quarters, recreational facilities, and the hospital. Clothing, however, is urgently needed, and upon receipt of the requirements from the Internees Committee supplies will be forwarded to the camp. A telegram has just been received giving details of the requirements, and the Government are taking up the matter immediately through the Red Cross. It is much to be regretted that adequate preparations had not been made beforehand by the German authorities for the reception of the internees, with the result that during the first few weeks conditions were most unsatisfactory. A strong protest has been forwarded to the German Government. It is understood that the internees will shortly be transferred to another camp at Vittel, where their quarters will be more agreeable. It should be added that a proportion of the persons who were interned in this camp have since been released in France. Fuller information, including a list of those in the camp, is now being awaited. I think that the information which I have given with regard to Besancon camp will indicate to noble Lords the sort of manner in which the machinery is worked.
The procedure which I have quite briefly explained with regard to these civilian prisoners is similar to that with regard to military prisoners, but in their case the competent Department is not the Foreign Office, but the War Office. It is to the War Office that all inquiries with regard to military prisoners of war should be addressed—to the Under-Secretary of State at the War Office. That is the answer to one of the questions which I have been asked. The War Office are concerned, first of all, with the rights of prisoners of war under the Prisoners of War Convention; secondly, with regard to the whereabouts of individual prisoners; and thirdly, with regard to conditions in the camps and the treatment of the prisoners themselves.
The main channel of communication between the War Office and the enemy countries is the protecting Power, the United States of America, and the United States have a liaison officer here and a special section, and I believe exchange special sections in Berlin and Rome. In addition, there is a second channel, the International Red Cross, with which the War Office has direct contact. This body, under Article 79 of the Prisoners of War

113
Convention, is empowered to concern itself with humanitarian aspects of the prisoner of war problem. As many of your Lordships know, it has done most valuable work, not only in the past, but also in this war, with regard to tracing prisoners and in getting information concerning then. This information shows that the condition of prisoners is not bad at the present time. I understand that the food is monotonous and rather scanty according to our standards, but the general atmosphere of the camps is good, and from what I have been told the commandants are responsible persons—not wild young men full of ideological ideas but genuinely experienced persons on the whole. Their administration of the camps has been good. I hope that this information may relieve the minds of relatives who are, not unnaturally, exceedingly anxious about soldiers who are prisoners of war at the present time.
I have also been asked to explain the part played by the British Red Cross as distinct from the International Red Cross. The British Red Cross Society is at present entirely concerned with one aspect of this problem: the dispatch of parcels of food and clothing to prisoners, civil and military, in enemy countries. It is a non-governmental body but it works in close collaboration with the Foreign Office and the War Office. The comforts and parcels which are sent through it and by it are transmitted to the Geneva Committee of the International Red Cross and passed on through their representatives to the various camps in enemy countries. At first, as noble Lords know, there was considerable anxiety about this machinery. There were, apparently, considerable delays before prisoners received the parcels, and perhaps this was inevitable in the early days of the war, but the information which I have been able to obtain recently is that the machinery is now working smoothly and parcels are arriving.
One other point was raised by Lord Newton. He asked what, if any, progress had been made with regard to the question of the exchange of prisoners. I have been making inquiries about this, and this is the position at the present time. The policy of His Majesty's Government has been to release for departure from British territory, enemy aliens, women, children and males under eighteen and
114
over sixty years of age, subject to reciprocity and conditions of national security. They are not prepared to release men of military age. This was communicated in February, 1940, to the German Government who, in their reply, demanded that the category of persons to be repatriated should be extended to include on a reciprocal basis males of military age, subject to an undertaking not to bear arms for the duration of the war. At the same time, it was stated that British women who desired to leave would be allowed to do so, as before.
In a further communication from the German Government, however, the persons to be repatriated were to be limited to the original category, no mention being made of men of military age. The German proposal in this case was that the exchange should take place in the North Sea. Other suggestions, as to means of transport, have been received and have been given careful consideration, but all have been found, on examination, to present insuperable, practical difficulties. In particular, the refusal of the German Government to agree to granting a safe conduct for any ship carrying civilians to or from the United Kingdom has made it necessary to abandon any scheme of exchange for the time being. Noble Lords will see that the failure of the German Government to grant a safe conduct would mean that any voyage undertaken by these people would be extremely hazardous and dangerous. The same consideration applies to the civilian prisoners in Italy.
I think I have answered the many questions which noble Lords have asked. I have tried to give the House quite briefly an account of the machinery which has been set up to ensure as satisfactory conditions as possible for our men who are prisoners at the present time. I can assure the House that His Majesty's Government have their interests very much at heart and it is, and will continue to be, their aim to do all in their power to help them. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, asked about the Inter-Departmental Committee. This Committee has already been set up to deal with all questions of policy relating to prisoners of war. The Chairman is the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and in the Committee there are repre-

115
sentatives of the Dominion Governments, the Foreign Office and the Dominions Office. There is also an Inter-Departmental Committee for dealing with questions of administration. This was set up a year ago. I think the selection of Mr. Law, the Financial Secretary to the War Office, for the position of Chairman is an admirable one. His wide sympathies are very well known, and I, personally, can imagine no more ideal Chairman for a Committee of this type. I am quite certain that he will do all in his power to improve the machinery to alleviate the lot of those to whom we in this country owe so much, and it is the aim of His Majesty's Government to bend all their efforts to that end.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, as I was lieutenant to my noble friend Lord Newton in his work in the last war, I would like to say one word about the Inter-Departmental Committee. On the whole it worked admirably, but there were certain difficulties on account of the fact that its decisions could not bind the individual Departments, and sometimes you had a situation where one Department stood out and would not conform to the general opinion of the representatives of the others. This led to considerable difficulties, until, at last, the Government appointed Lord Curzon to whom reference could be made when the Committee disagreed. Lord Curzon was given full powers to override a dissentient Department and force it to come into line with the general view. From that time the work of the Committee went on very much better. I suggest that it is necessary to have some such machinery in the present instance, otherwise very great delays between the Departments may ensue.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Bill which comes from another place and has been certified as a Money Bill, and the House will not, I think, wish for more than a word or two of explanation from me. The first clause is a clause which confers on the Treasury borrowing powers for the present financial year, without which there would be no authority to raise
116
money by, say, National War Bonds or Savings Bonds or Defence Bonds. The second clause is a clause of a technical character and arises from the necessity of changing earlier and traditional methods of transferring Government stock. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state in two sentences what the difference is.
You will be aware that Government stocks before the war, unless held in bearer form, were transferred either by personally visiting the Bank of England, or by one's attorney, in order to make a transfer in the books, when the stock is called "inscribed stock" or by transfer by deed, in which case the stock is called "registered stock." In existing conditions the method of visiting the Bank of England in order to transfer your security is not guaranteed to be convenient, and at no time is it generally easy for some people, and the method of transfer by deed covers, I should think, quite three-quarters of the cases. We have now got a further provision by an Emergency Act of last year by which Government stock may be transferred, not merely by deed, but by any instrument in writing in the usual or common form. That is for the period of the emergency. The present provision in the Bill is to relieve the Government of the obligation, which still rests on them, of issuing loans in the inscribed form, although, as I have said, we have really no machinery by which it can be transferred in that form. It is a sensible provision and I cannot doubt that your Lordships will be willing to accept the Bill as it stands and approve it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

National Loans,

Chartered and other Bodies (Temporary Provisions).

House adjourned.