Lords Sitting of 17 December 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Boston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

FOOD BLACK MARKET: INCREASED PENALTIES.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice. It is to ask the Government whether they are satisfied that they have adequate powers to repress improper transactions in foodstuffs and that the penalties which may be imposed on offenders are sufficiently severe.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Southwood, directed your Lordships' attention on May 28 this year to the question of the sentences that were being imposed by the Courts on people who had broken the laws relating to the distribution of food, or to the prices at which food was sold. That intervention on his Lordship's part has had most excellent results. It will be useful, I think, if I direct attention to the fact that the power of inflicting punishment does not rest with Ministers, but with Courts. The Lord Chancellor, in the course of the debate or. May 28. said:
"It is a principle of our system of criminal justice that where the Court is given a discretion in deciding what penalties to impose, the particular tribunal which has the actual facts before it should decide what is in the particular case the appropriate measure of punishment."
It is the business of the Minister, firstly, to satisfy himself that the discretionary powers given to the Courts are sufficient to enable them not only to punish the offender, but to act as a deterrent against those who have the temptation to offend against the law. Secondly, the duty rests with the Minister to ensure that active steps are taken to ferret out those bad citizens who are breaking the law and putting their own selfish interests in opposition to the welfare of the State.
314
When I tell the noble Lord that during October of this year 3,130 prosecutions have been undertaken at the instigation of the Ministry of Food, and that 2,887 of these have been successful, I think it will satisfy your Lordships that my Ministry is pursuing offenders with considerable diligence. It is interesting to note that during this same period only 183 of these prosecutions dealt with people who had been previously prosecuted. Notwithstanding this, His Majesty's Government were not satisfied that the existing state of the law was one likely to have impressed on the Courts the very serious view that we take—and which we believe the nation takes—of these offences.
This problem is one that concerns other things than food. In order to be certain that raw materials are used in the best national interest, it has been necessary for the Ministry of Supply to issue Orders controlling their destination. Your Lordships are aware that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has instituted a widespread control over the distribution of articles, particularly articles of clothing. On this very wide front, therefore, it is important to the conduct of government at this present time, that there should be rigid adherence to the law, that punishment of a severe and deterrent nature should be meted out to those who break the law. This is not only a question that concerns the general public. We are, I think, fortunate in having in this country a high standard of commercial morality, and it is patently unjust that those who both pride themselves on their own business standards and have a patriotic desire to carry out the wishes of the Government, should find themselves placed at a commercial disadvantage with regard to their competitors whose standards are lower and below the standard of the law.
The maximum penalties prescribed by the Defence Regulations have been the same since the outbreak of war. They are to be found in Regulation 92. For some technical or minor offences, or some mistake by a shop-assistant, a maximum penalty of £100 in a court of summary jurisdiction clearly is ample. I have no doubt that some such consideration was in the minds of those who fixed the amount in the first instance. But conditions to-day are, unfortunately, different. There has been a systematic endeavour on the part of a comparatively

315
few people to drive a coach-and-four through some of these Regulations. Maximum prices have been fixed for goods at levels confessedly below those that some selfish people were prepared to pay, and the existence of such people has encouraged some traders to cater for their requirements to the detriment of law-abiding people. A fine of £100 in a court of summary jurisdiction, or even of £500 if the man is brought before Sessions or Assizes, is not likely to prove a serious deterrent if the profit out of one transaction is two, three or four times the amount of the maximum fine.
We have therefore introduced a new Regulation. This Regulation in no way interferes with the power of the Court to send a defendant who is found guilty to prison in addition to imposing the maximum fine; but it increases the maximum penalty by adding to the existing penalty three times the value of the goods or of the price at which they were offered for sale or actually sold—three times the value of the goods, not of the profits made out of selling the goods. In other words, an offender will, in future, be liable to the previous maximum penalty of £100 if he is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction, and, in addition, to three times the value of the goods which are the subject of the prosecution. Penalties for offences against Orders under Regulation 55 are now, therefore, to be on the same basis as penalties for offences against the Financial Regulations, such as failure to disclose dollar securities. This new Regulation gives to the Executive the power to arrest goods on suspicion and to dispose of them if need be; the profits realized being held for the payment of the fine if the owner is convicted, and if not, of course, returned to the owner.
Now let us see how this would work out. In the minor cases it will not make very much difference to the maximum penalty that can be imposed. If, for example, a shop-assistant sells cheese at 1s. 3d. instead of 1s. 1d., the addition to the maximum fine is not likely to affect the mind of the magistrate. But on the other hand, when magistrates find themselves dealing with people whom they have adjudged guilty of operating in the black market, I hope the position will be very different. For example, they may be dealing
316
with a case in which the maximum authorized price for a quantity of goods is £1,000, but in which these goods are being offered for, say, £1,500. Under the new Regulation, the maximum fine in that case will be £100 plus three times the amount asked for the goods, making a total of £4,600. I have no doubt that in such cases the Courts will feel that it is their duty to see that the penalty imposed on guilty people bears some close relation to the maximum fine that it is within their power to impose.
The object of the Government in making this new Regulation can be expressed in a very few words. They are determined to give the Courts of Justice both the power and the opportunity to take the profit out of crime. The existence of these black markets is a matter of deep concern to the people as well as to the Government of this country. I have no doubt that the Courts will eagerly avail themselves of the increased powers that we have now given them to eradicate from our national life, an aspect of it which, although fortunately characteristic of only a small section of the community, is one which is highly distasteful to the general sense of the nation, and which is deeply resented by the law-abiding commercial community who are anxious to serve the nation in war-time. My colleagues believe that the Judiciary of this country will welcome this firm indication of the desire of the Government quickly and effectively to stop the practices of these people, more of whom, perhaps, might be removed for a space of time to spheres in which their cunning could no longer be of avail. I know that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has been concerned lest the Courts should not recognize to the full the gravity of offences against these Regulations, and the Ministers who are concerned with this problem are deeply grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the part which he has played in procuring this important alteration in the law.
LORD SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for the very clear and cogent statement which he has made on this most important subject. I am sure that your Lordships will all share with me the hope that the drastic steps to be taken will have the effect of stamping out this evil thing known as the black market.

NORTH WEST MIDLANDS ELEC- TRICITY DISTRICT (MEAFORD GENERATING STATION) ORDER, 1941.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore I beg to move that this Special Order be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
General obligation to serve.
1. It is hereby declared that: all persons of either sex for the time being in Great Britain are liable to National Service, whether under the Crown or not, and whether in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in civil defence, in industry, or otherwise:
Provided that—

(a) the liability of any person to whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in or with a Civil Defence Force within the meaning of the National Service Act, 1941, shall be such as may be imposed upon him under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1941;

(b) the liability of any person to any-other form of National Service (including part-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown or in or with such a Civil Defence Force as aforesaid) shall be such as may be imposed upon him under Defence Regulations;

(c) nothing in this section shall relieve any person from any liability to National Service which he would be under apart from this section.

LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, at the end of proviso (a), to insert "with the exception that no person engaged in agriculture shall be removed therefrom without the previous consent of the war agricultural executive committee of the county in which such person shall be working."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring this subject up again. I do so with no other motive, I hope your Lordships will believe, than the interests of the production of food. I am sure that it is unnecessary for me to say that there is no Party element whatever in this. I intend to put the case for the Amendment as briefly as I can. The decision has been taken, so it is said, to call up ten thousand men from agriculture so that this industry "shall not escape its liability," or words to that effect. Now, nobody desires that the industry should escape any liability for service; the only question is what is the best way of using the men in it. I am sure that the industry has given abundant proof in times past, and since this war began, of its desire to serve, and has shown that it has no wish whatever to escape any liability for service.
It is fair to say that a very large number—the figure given to me was 40,000, but it may be more—of agricultural workers were in the Territorials, and joined up straight away at the beginning of the war, and in many cases people have mourned their absence, but have recognized the uselessness of approaching the War Office to get them back. This Amendment does not relate to that subject. In addition to the men who have been lost to the Territorials, and to the thousands of others who have joined as volunteers, an enormous number of people have been lost from this industry to competitive and more attractive work, such as the construction of aerodromes, where the wages were much higher. That went on until the recent Regulations gave the county war agricultural executive committees the power to prevent men being so taken away. In addition, this industry has had an enormously increased burden thrust upon it; it has been asked to produce very much more than before, and quite rightly; but it is not common sense to ask an industry to produce many more goods and at the same time deplete its labour power. You might just as well say to the electrical industry: "We want many more electrical appliances, and therefore we will ask you to supply an extra ten thousand men from your industry to go into the Army." We do not do things in that way; what we do is to train new people to reinforce the labour power of the electrical industry. The same thing applies to agriculture.
During the last year, the county war agricultural executive committees have been scrutinizing the applications for postponement of calling up, and postponements have been granted, on their recommendation, in a very large number of cases. They have weeded out men whom they still regard as essential but who might, as a paper claim exists, be called up, but they have secured their postponement also, because they are essential to the industry. The position now is that these men are all to be called up, and I am suggesting that such a step requires reconsideration, because during the last month we have been confronted with very different conditions, and every one of us who is familiar with the demands made on the agricultural industry knows that we are getting requests from the Government—and quite rightly—that there should be next year a greatly increased acreage of potatoes, of carrots, of onions and of beet. All these have been asked for during the last few weeks, I have no doubt at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and it is quite right that they should be asked for. I have no doubt that there will be many more requests for increased production in the near future, over and above the gigantic effort which has already been made, because of the changed conditions of the war and of the difficulty which will present itself of increasing, or perhaps of maintaining, the supplies already expected across the Atlantic. At ail events, this is a risk which ought to be guarded against, and which is being guarded against by the agricultural industry being asked for even greater production than it has already attained.
Every one of these crops which we are being asked to produce happens to be a crop which requires the employment of a great deal of labour, and, from the point of view of the national effort, it is absurd to suggest that, when we are asked to increase our acreage in respect of a large number of foods, each one of which requires for its production a great deal of labour, this is an appropriate time to take men away from the industry. The decision whether men can or cannot be spared should at least, I suggest, lie with people who know something about the business and, speaking with every possible respect, the regional boards of the Ministry of
320
Labour do not know anything whatever about it. Therefore I do not propose the Amendment in order to excuse anybody who could be dispensed with. The only question is who should determine whether this or that man can be spared. I am quite sure that the people to determine that are the people who have been appointed to be responsible for the increased production, and who know by the most careful scrutiny what is happening on every farm—namely, the county war agricultural committees.
For that reason I do ask the Government to be willing to let those committees scrutinize the demands for the taking away of men from the land, seeing that they are responsible under the Minister for obtaining the vastly increased output. I am sure everyone will support me in this: that there is not a member of these committees anywhere who wants to protect a shirker. All that they are interested to do is to get the increased food production which they are asked to assist in providing. That demand, I am perfectly certain, will become much more insistent during the coming spring; we all know that. Therefore I suggest that if any men at all are to be taken from the industry, this is the method of selection which in common sense and justice should be adopted. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("with the exception that no person engaged in agriculture shall be removed therefrom without the previous consent of the war agricultural executive committee of the county in which such person shall be working")—(Lord Addison).
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the decision as to what men can be spared should be left in the hands of the county war agricultural executive committees. But surely the Government must lay down the policy and the quota, and for that reason, although we want the fullest consultation with the agricultural committees we cannot possibly accept an Amendment which would give them a power of veto over the decisions of the Government, which are entrusted to the Ministry of Labour to carry out. The county agricultural committees are agents of the Minister of Agriculture, and it would be quite contrary to any precedent, and I think impracticable in working, to give the agents of one Department a power of veto over the policy

321
which the head of that Department has discussed in the Cabinet and to which he has agreed after the fullest consideration. I have a definite massage from the Minister of Agriculture, that he has put the case of the industry for which he is responsible, that it has been very fully considered, and that he calls on the agricultural industry to accept with loyalty the decision of the Government.
I think there is really much less dividing the noble Lord from the position of the Government than appears at first sight. He told us this morning that he did not wish regional boards to decide who could be spared from agriculture because they would not know anything about the matter. I agree and for that reason the county agricultural committees have been given this task, and they have taken a great deal of trouble about it. In the case of these 10,000 men who are to be called up they have been chosen out of 80,000 cases of men under the age of twenty-five which have been individually considered by these expert committees, and I am assured by the Minister of Labour that, unless unforeseen circumstances should arise in the future, there is no thought of calling up any men from agriculture without the definite recommendation and selection of the war agricultural executive committees.
The noble Lord dealt again to-day with the question of equality of sacrifice, but I think we must in this matter ensure that all vital industries are treated according to what they can spare, and in fact agriculture has been allotted a far smaller contribution than other equally vital industries. I cannot of course give the figures in public, but I should be glad to give them to the noble Lord in private. I can only to-day give the comparison in the form of fractions. But if you take from the labour force of agriculture, as it existed on the outbreak of war, the total number of men who have gone into the Armed Forces, you will find that that fraction of the total man-power is only half, or less than half, that which you get in certain constituent industries, the fraction, for example, which represents the contribution of the engineering industry, including aircraft motors and vehicles. That is to say, half the sacrifice has been made by agriculture as compared with the group of industries which covers the production of munitions in the very widest sense. I am sure the noble Lord
322
agrees that agriculture is not really any more vital than the production of munitions, and it must, I submit, be left to the Government, acting through the Ministry of Labour, to see that the burden is fairly borne, and that no industry is called upon to make a bigger contribution than is in the national interest.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Addison, said that if he did not receive satisfaction from the Government on this point he would divide the House. I think, if I may venture respectfully to say so, that in war-time we should as a body somewhat deprecate Divisions, unless on matters that are really vital, or unless they are matters that do not directly concern the conduct of the war. Such are few, but they do sometimes arise—questions of post-war policy or reconstruction, or other matters of that kind. But where it is a question like the allocation of labour I think that probably most of your Lordships would rather deprecate trying to take the matter out of the hands of the Government of the day, in which it has expressed its confidence, and relegating it to some other body. It is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks that the Government have to perform in present circumstances to decide how the man-power and woman-power of the country can best be allocated, and indeed it is one of their prime duties. As heavy a responsibility lies on them in this matter as it does in the strategic conduct of the war overseas.
All would agree that the county agricultural executive committees should be called into consultation when it is a question of deciding whether such-and-such men within their area should be sent, but the noble Lord suggests that they should not only have the right of being consulted, but also have the right of decision. We might have, if this Amendment were carried by this House, a situation in which the Government, including the Minister of Agriculture, are agreed that 10,000 men could legitimately be supplied from the agricultural industry, and the war agricultural executive committees might arrive at a series of decisions all over the country which would only give 5,000, 1,000, or none. In other words the Government of the country—the Cabinet as a whole—might decide one thing, and the war agricultural executive committees might decide the opposite. It appears to me that

323
that is not a situation which this House would desire to establish. Consequently I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press the House to divide. For my own part, if I am called upon to vote, I shall feel I have not sufficient information before me to make me a judge as to whether there should be 10,000 or less, or whether the war agricultural executive committees would be the best bodies to decide these matters. On the whole, having expressed, as noble Lords on these Benches have expressed, general support of the Government, it would only be if the case were very clear and very urgent and definite that I should be disposed to vote against them.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sorry if I seem to be an obstinate person. I really am not unusually obstinate. I am guided by my reason. I may say, in regard to the contention of the noble Viscount below the gangway, that I am very much influenced by any judgment that he may express, but it is not a question in the least of lack of confidence in the Government. The noble Lord, the Leader of the House, knows it is not—not a bit. It has nothing whatever to do with confidence in the Government. It is simply a question of administrative machinery. We are not challenging their decision to call up more men from any particular industry. What are the actual facts? The actual facts, I am afraid, do not support the contention of my noble friend Lord Samuel. The Government have put into the hands of various committees attached to the Ministry of Labour this particular decision. I may not be right in calling them regional committees, but I think they are. If such committees say that this or that man is not to be called up, he will not be called up. The Government have put the decision into the hands of a particular body—namely, the particular committee associated with the Ministry of Labour. I contend that that body is not the appropriate body to express an opinion on these matters. That is all. It is not, I repeat, a question of confidence in the Government in the least. It is a question of what is the sensible and practical way of administering this law. I suggest that the machinery which I propose is the right and sensible machinery to use.
I am very sorry if my colleagues think I am unduly obstinate, but this is a matter
324
of first-rate importance. I would not say that agriculture is more important than other industries—they are all important—but it is in a very critical position. In the interval between the last war and this, it has been deprived of 250,000 men. It has been asked to produce an unthinkable increase in its output, and every one of us who is in touch with the realities of the case knows very well—I shall not say that it is impossible, but that it will be unthinkably difficult for it to increase the food supply it is being asked to produce if a large number of essential men are taken from it. I do hope the House will express an opinion on this matter. I am well aware that we shall not carry the Amendment, but I do hope that a number of noble Lords will be willing to support me, because I know very well that a demonstration of an effective character will be very potent in securing the proper administration of the law. I am very sorry I cannot withdraw.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I cannot hope to turn the noble Lord from his purpose, but I do want to make the matter clear beyond any misunderstanding, because he again speaks as if the selection of the men is going to be in the hands of the local man-power board. That is not so. The selection of the agricultural cases to be called up is delegated to the county war agricultural executive committees. They will review the cases and hear the representations of farmers. I only want to make it quite clear that that is the case, and that there is a very special responsibility put on the county war agricultural executive committees in this matter.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I did support the noble Lord, Lord Addison, yesterday in regard to this Amendment, but I feel I cannot do so to-day, particularly in view of the explanation given by my noble friend Lord Moyne. Also I have taken the trouble to make inquiries as to what the procedure has been in the past with regard to these very questions. I find that the selection of these men has always been submitted to the war agricultural executive committees, and in particular to their sub-committees which deal with labour questions. In view of that I do feel it is very unlikely, in connexion with any plans in this direction in future, that that procedure will be departed from.

325
Therefore, I must say I cannot support my noble friend as I did yesterday.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: My Lords, may I express the hope that my noble friend Lord Addison will not persist with his Amendment? I really think the Government have met the ease of agriculture for which he has pleaded so eloquently. The 10,000 men to which he has referred are, of course, being called up not under this Bill at all, but under the existing law, and the exact procedure which my noble friend Lord Addison is anxious to see followed has, in fact, been followed by the Government in their case. The mere fact that the administration of this Act will be in the hands of the Ministry of Labour is surely a technical matter of administration. It would be impossible to have the administration of an Act in the hands of different Government Departments. One Government Department must be responsible for the administration of the Act; but the Government provide that there is this liaison and co-operation. Advantage is taken of the knowledge of the war agricultural executive committees in this matter, and the Ministry of Labour is guided by their advice. We have an explicit assurance from the Government on that point, and it does not seem to me that agriculture can legitimately ask for more than that.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, it is difficult to resist the pleas of my noble friends. May I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if he can give me an assurance that the Ministry of Labour and National Service, or whoever it is—that is, the regional body—will consult the war agricultural executive committees with regard to these men? I understood him to say it would. If he will give me that explicit assurance, I am afraid I shall have to surrender to the many appeals which have been made.
LORD MOYNE: I feel grateful to the noble Lord for his sweet reasonableness, and I again assure him that in future as in the past the selection of men who can best be spared will be left entirely in the hands of the expert county war agricultural executive committees.
LORD ADDISON: This discussion has drawn a very explicit and definite assurance, which is really all I wanted, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, in pursuance of the Resolution of December 9:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill I desire to make a short statement on three points which were mentioned during the Committee stage. It is most important that the Bill should not leave your Lordships' House with any possible misapprehension on any one of the three points. The first was a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchison. I was asked what would be the position of a woman who becomes married after the Bill is passed. My answer, in Column 300 of yesterday's Official Report, was correct, but I feel that it calls for a little amplification, especially as my noble friend, I see, put his question in a rather wider form than I had understood. My answer was that the provisions of the Act would apply to relieve such a woman from the obligation of being called up which would attach to her only if she is unmarried, and that is so.
I notice, however, that the noble Lord's question as given in the Official Report also covered the case—and it may be the case he was principally thinking of—of a single woman who has been called up when a single woman, and who marries after that. That, of course, is a different point. If that was the situation her subsequent marriage would not automatically release her from the service she has entered. The exemption in subsection (2) of the third clause, as the noble Lord will see, is an exemption for married women from liability to be called up. If one is to be absolutely precise—and it may affect some people—I ought to add that by subsection (5) of Section 4 of the principal Act, the National Service Act, 1939, it is provided that an enlistment notice served on any person shall cease to have effect if before the date on which he is thereby required to present himself—in this case it will be "she is thereby required to present herself"—she "ceases to be liable under this Act to be called up for service." The critical moment, therefore, is the moment when the individual is called up. If at that moment the individual is a married woman the compulsion does not apply. If she enters a service as a single woman the Bill is not providing for her withdrawal, by a process which in another connexion

327
lawyers would call subsequens matri-monium, though, of course, in suitable cases, the authorities can grant relief to married women on personal grounds. I hope I have made that point clear.
The second point is one raised by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi. He asked me whether, if the domestic circumstances of a woman seriously changed after she has been directed into industry, would there still be an opportunity for release from service on compassionate grounds—would there still be, where she has already been directed into industry or called up, an opportunity of having her case in its changed circumstances considered by the hardship committee or the local appeal board? I replied to the noble Lord that that would be the case when employed in industry no less than when employed in one of the Services, if there was a change of circumstances which would justify release. The noble Lord said he would like to have a perfectly specific reassurance on the Third Reading after I had had the opportunity of making further inquiries. I have been able to make that further inquiry, and I am now glad to be able to assure the noble Lord and the House that my statement is quite correct and to give a definite assurance to that effect.
Lastly, there was the interesting point, again raised by my noble friend Lord Hutchison, about the wife of a soldier who has died. There was some difference of view expressed in the Committee stage, and I think it would be desirable that I should place before the House the considerations that must be weighed. If I may borrow a phrase used by my noble friend Lord Addison just now, which he not merely pronounced as a maxim but applied in practical action, do not let us be obstinate about this but let us be guided by reason. There are several considerations which have to be carefully thought over. First of all, in order that we may see the real dimensions of the problem, a widow with a child or children living with her is already exempt; it does not make any difference whether she is the widow of a soldier or the widow of anybody else, so the case to be considered here is the case of a childless widow of a soldier.
Then let us, secondly, bear this in mind—what is the position not merely of the soldier's widow, but of the soldier's wife?
328
She is already liable as a wife to be directed into industry compulsorily, though care is taken administratively to use this power in such a way as not to break up the home. The soldier naturally and rightly is deeply concerned about the preservation of the home that he wants to come back to. The third thing to bear in mind is this. If a woman is conscribed under the Act—perhaps I may be allowed a personal preference for using that form of the verb—her liability is what? It is to serve either with the W.R.N.S. or with the A.T.S. or with the W.A.A.F. with the further option, as has already been explained to the House, which is afforded administratively of going if she prefers instead into Civil Defence or into certain specified vacancies in industry. That is the scheme for women between the statutory ages.
Would it be possible to put into this Act of Parliament, even if it was desirable to do so, a special exception for the case of soldiers' widows? It seems to me it would be excessively difficult to do so. A man's work in the Services is infinitely various. Some of these husbands in the Forces are working in Whitehall, some of them are in the Home Guard, some of them are at headquarters, some of them are in the firing line. It seems to me it would be wholly impracticable to frame a statutory exception even if it was desirable to do so, and even though, as my noble friend so eloquently explained yesterday, he feels that it would be well to do so, in the case of those who are in the very pinch of battle and prepare to risk their lives and give their uttermost in the public cause.
Indeed, if you were to make such a statutory exception I cannot believe for one moment that the exception could stand merely for the widows of those who have been serving in the Forces. What about the husband in a munitions works or explosives factory who is appealed to to tear out his heart and soul in every sort of extra energy? Would he not also have a right to be considered if such an exception was made? I conceive that it is for these reasons, which I submit to your Lordships are very formidable reasons, that it has not been possible to make such a statutory exception. The matter, therefore, if we look at it reasonably, comes down to this. It may well be that there are special cases in which the authority which this Act of Parliament

329
confers to conscribe would for special reasons not in fact be employed. But that is an administrative matter, and these cases I venture to think—and I feel quite sure that the majority of your Lordships will agree; with me—must be dealt with, if at all, by administrative discretion and not by statutory exceptions.
I must say in one concluding word that, while I speak with very great reserve and humility on such a point, where naturally those with great military experience have a far better right to express an opinion, I should have thought that if we regard National Service as a form of citizen duty, not as some punishment or penalty which is inflicted upon people, and that it is applied by this machinery for purposes of completeness and for purposes of organization, it would be very difficult to visualize a situation in which it would be thought to be unfair or ungenerous or unjust to include these wives, though they be bereaved, in the general national effort for the sake of which their husbands died. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks on the two points I raised yesterday, I am indeed sorry that he has not given me more assurance about the childless widows of our men who fall in battle. I am afraid of the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I would have liked the Government to give instructions through the Ministry of Labour that no widow who has had the dreadful misfortune to lose her husband in battle shall be approached in the way of compulsion for at least a year. That would give her opportunity to volunteer, as I am sure ninety per cent. of these women would volunteer to give their services in whatever direction they can to the country. I am afraid of a situation being created in which our Service men will feel that they are not being fairly treated. I have had expressions of opinion from experienced officers and men on this subject, and I have had experience myself of the administrative pressure which is put on women in regard to service. The noble and learned Viscount says they have an option to serve either in the W.R.N.S., or the W.A.A.F. or the
330
A.T.S., or in munitions production, or in one of the Civil Defence Services. That may be true as regards the letter of the law, but it is not true in my experience when it comes to administration.
Great pressure, continued pressure is put on these girls to join a particular corps. Although they say they do not want to join a particular corps, repeated pressure is put on them. Further; arising out of the administration of the Act as it stands to-day, there are many cases where women are taken from their occupations and instructed to go to certain places where it is said employment awaits them, but no employment does in fact await them. I have had such a case in my own household. I asked the representative of the Labour Office not to move one of the girls in my household until there was an opening for her. She had no objection to going, but she had an objection to going and then doing nothing. This girl was then instructed by the Ministry of Labour to go to her home near Durham where a job in munitions production was awaiting her. She has been there for weeks and she writes to say she cannot get a job. That sort of administration is what we have to fear. That is why I think the Government ought to take care that the childless widows of our serving men are protected in some way against maladministration. If all the widows came before the noble and learned Viscount I should have no word of complaint—I am sure he would administer the Act in the most sympathetic and nice way—but we have to deal with human frailty in administration all over the country. That is why I raised the question, and I hope the Government will yet do something to look after these unfortunate people.
As to the second question which I raised, about the position of the woman who marries after the passing of the Act, I appreciate the correction which is now being made and it will be of value to the country generally. The noble and learned Viscount said yesterday:
"After all, when a woman marries she necessarily assumes new responsibilities: responsibility for her home, possibly responsibilities for children in the future, which place her on an equal footing with women who were married before the passing of the Act."
That makes the position more clear. I cannot help thinking that this question will have a detrimental effect with regard to our young women marrying. They

331
ought to do so, otherwise succeeding generations in this country will suffer. We may then suffer from a lack of children at a time when, perhaps, the country will need them very much indeed.
And now just a word on the Bill in general. I will not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes. This Bill, which is purely an Amending Bill, has been brought in largely to get women for the A.T.S. Two hundred thousand are wanted, and the Government could not get them before owing to the Corps being thoroughly unpopular. This was no fault of the women in the Corps. They are a grand lot of women. I have seen them at work, and I say that the Corps is a splendid Corps in every respect. The members suffer from having started with bad organization and thoroughly bad administration. Why did not the Government, or rather the War Office, copy the administration and the organization which we laid down so carefully in the last war in regard to the W.A.A.C.? For the last year and a half of the war, as Director of Organization, I was responsible for the administration of those people, and one ran the Whole Corps by women, with the addition of two experienced male staff officers to assist at headquarters. First under Mrs. Chalmers Watson and then under Dame Florence Leach, they were a happy Corps.
I think it is necessary for the happiness and comfort of these girls, and also to induce mothers to send their daughters into this Corps, that some sort of inquiry should be carried out by three responsible people, one of whom should be a woman. This board of inquiry should look into all matters connected with the Corps and see whether any alteration in the organization, with a view to adding to the happiness of those serving in it, can be carried out. When my noble friend Lord Trenchard raised this question a fortnight ago, he made some telling points, but these points were, I am sorry to say, avoided by the noble Lord who speaks for the War Office. The feeling is that there is not full effective use of the male staff connected with this Corps, that there is duplication of staff; that there is a waste of man-power, and that the more this Corps can be run by the
332
women themselves, the better and happier the Corps will be.
Another reflection which I have to make is this. If you are going to con-scribe the women of this country and compel them to go where you want them to go—the option will not last long, the Ministry of Labour will soon see to that—you have got to have a woman in the Cabinet responsible for the proper administration and everything else; a woman who can speak in the councils of the mighty, and who can see that these women are properly looked after.
And now, a last reflection which I would make concerns the waste of manpower that is going on in this country today, owing to excessive control. This control of all kinds of industry, of food and of everything else, has been built up on a peace system on the structure of the Civil Service. It is too heavy for this country to carry in war-time, and there ought to be a great simplification of the method in which control and other matters are operated by the Civil Service. Only to-day, in The Times, one reads the remarks of Mr. Horton about reform of the Income Tax administration. He says that thousands and thousands of forms could be saved, and that man-power could also be saved in respect of the machinery for the collection of Income Tax. He is a man who ought to know for he is Secretary of the Income Tax Workers Federation. Further, the whole of our system of control in Departments by the Civil Service is built up on a peace system of grades, and whole grades in that Civil Service could, with great advantage, and with great speeding up of the administration, be cut out. During the last war I tried to cut out complete grades of the Civil Service so that there was not this continual post office and minute-writing business before a decision was taken. It is a most difficult thing to reduce staff in war-time. I had it said to me in the last war: "Oh, for goodness sake do not try to reduce staff; but if you want any additional staff you can have it."
I think it is up to the Government to see that man-power is utilized where it is of best service to the country, rather than that it should be left in the peace-time construction of the Civil Service as it is to-day. This Amending Bill is one of the turning points in the national history. We have had, unfortunately, owing to stress

333
of events, to conscribe our women. Well, it is for the Government to see that if we conscribe our women there is not going to be, at the same time, a waste of manpower in places from which it could be taken and used elsewhere. I hope the Government will exercise their powers in connection with this matter very actively in dealing with this very serious problem.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I wish to make only a few observations before this Bill passes. I think that we all must very much regret the necessity for the Bill, but it is only the Government that can know the reason for it. I feel that we must do everything we can to make it a success. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the very fine example—which I see referred to in the Press this morning—of the Ministry of Labour, in that they have said that they will dispense with up to 50 per cent. of the women in the Department. I only hope that that example will be followed by many other of the Government Departments.
Last night I was listening to a broadcast by, I think, Mr. Ince, who made a remark which gave me some encouragement and hope, to the effect that, in regard to this Bill, special consideration would be given to agriculture. I hope that this will not be forgotten by the Ministry of Labour in their administration. I am wondering what position home-grown food occupies among munitions, and where its importance comes. It is in fact of vital importance. The question is sometimes asked whether shells, guns or tanks should come first. Where does homegrown food come? We must not forget that to bring food to this country to-day involves risking the lives of our men of the sea and our men of the air, and I feel that we have to bear this very much in mind when considering how many more men can be taken from agriculture. Moreover, we must bear in mind that these fine peasants of ours are to-day not peasants only, but peasant-soldiers; most of them are in the Home Guard. From that point of view, I think that the Ministry of Labour should be very careful before taking many more men away from the farms. I should like to make this appeal to the Ministry of Labour. I am not so distressed about the taking away of men from the big farms, the farms which have been very well cultivated, as about taking them from farms where the fertility is not
334
good, farms which owing to their bad condition have been taken over. If those farms are to be brought to a state of maximum fertility, their labour cannot be taken away without harmful results. I hope that the Ministry of Labour will bear that in mind.
There is one other appeal which I should like to make to the Ministry of Labour. Your Lordships know of the very fine work which is being done at the present time throughout the country by the Young Women's Christian Association. In the district where I live, many girls have had to leave their homes in the villages to go to work in factories in the neighbouring towns, where the conditions of work are not always satisfactory. The Young Women's Christian Association are running hostels and clubs in the towns, and they have told me that they are anxious lest, under this Bill, their staff may be taken away from them. It is obvious to all of us, I am sure, that girls who have to go to work in the blackout, and who leave their work in the black-out, and who work for long hours, cannot do much for themselves; there must be an adequate staff left at these hostels and clubs to look after the girls and give them rest, quiet and refreshment. I hope that the points which I have raised, and which I think are of real importance, will be borne in mind by the Ministry of Labour. If they are, I am sure that it will be very much appreciated by all concerned.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, there is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the Ministry of Labour when they come to operate this Bill. I refer to the position of part-time members of the Home Guard and of the A.R.P. and fire-fighting services. In my own service, a very high percentage—more than seventy-five per cent.—of the personnel are part-time. I hope that when the time comes when, owing to dereservation or the raising of the age limit, the position of these men is reconsidered, what they do in their spare time will carry weight with the Ministry of Labour. We have now no other reservoir from which we can draw personnel, and it is certainly not desirable, even if it were possible, to replace the part-time personnel by whole-time personnel. It seems to me of supreme importance, therefore

335
that, when a man's work is being considered, what he does outside his working hours should carry some weight with the Ministry of Labour.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has been obliged to leave the House, and he has asked me to put a question to the Government on a matter which is causing him some anxiety. He would like to know whether, under this Bill, there will be a further large-scale call-up of schoolteachers.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, in the case of women teachers there is no intention of calling up any at all. In the case of men, they will be called up only after consultation with the President of the Board of Education. It is impossible to forecast at this stage what the future developments may be, but there is no intention of making any call on the teaching profession at the moment, and, if a call were made, cases would naturally be considered individually; men would be dereserved according to age, and each individual case would be considered on its merits.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Hutchison of Montrose, that if a man does fall in action he should at any rate have known that his widow would be exempt for a certain time from being directed into industry or conscribed in any way. I would not suggest so long a time as one year, but I should like to suggest a period of three or four months, so that she may have an opportunity of putting her affairs in order. I confess that I do not think very much of the comparison which has been made between the man who is killed at the front and the man who is killed when working in an explosives factory, if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will excuse me for differing from him. The man who is killed at the front has been receiving a very low wage, and he may not have had the opportunity of seeing his wife and family for a very long time, while the factory worker has certain advantages in those respects. I am not decrying the factory worker, but I do not think it is fair to compare his position with that of the man at the front.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I should like to say that my observation was not addressed to establishing an equality between the two men for that purpose, but I understood that the proposal was that the Bill before us should be amended, and I was merely pointing out that, if the Bill was to be amended, it would be very difficult to draw the line.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I quite see the difficulty. There is only one other matter I would like to mention. I differ from my noble friend Lord Hutchison in his view as to what the men of the Services would think. This has been brought up yesterday and again today by noble Lords, speaking as if old officers would be naturally in sympathy with it. I personally claim to be as old an officer as anybody sitting in this House, and I do not agree. I do not think that the man who is going to do the deed is the sort of man who will reckon ahead what is going to happen after his death, and I am perfectly sure that the man in the Services is not going to be stopped from doing his duty, whether in peace or in war, by those thoughts. I would appeal to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, if he were here, to support me in this. You continually see men who in peace-time on the spur of the moment jump down and do something dangerous. The same men would be just like that in action, and would not wonder before doing their deeds whether something is going to happen in their homes. They are the last men who would wish to be treated more leniently when it comes to serving.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

REFUGEES.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the present position and prospects, of the refugees from Nazi oppression sent out to Canada and Australia in 1940 and to the visits paid on behalf of the Home Office in 1941 by Mr. Paterson and Major Layton respectively; and to ask whether further information is to be made available arising out of the voyage of S.S. "Dunera," and

337
particularly with regard to the compensation to be paid to the internees travelling on that vessel for their losses; and to move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, over a year has passed since the last debate in your Lordships' House on refugees from Nazi oppression and during that time much has happened. In Germany itself Nazi hatred and persecution have steadily increased, and we have learnt of the deportations in terrible circumstances to Poland, and of a new order deporting all between fifty and sixty years of age. In France and in French North Africa there are 90,000 refugees of Jewish origin, nearly half of them in internment camps and suffering conditions of hunger and disease, and mortality as well, to a most piteous extent. I have read reports of camps in the Pyrenees and I know relatives of many of those who are there interned. I mention these facts only to emphasize the general severity of the lot of these refugees, for such facts should increase our desire to do anything possible for those who before the war came to this country as the home and citadel of freedom.
I wish indeed that we could give the refugees from Nazi oppression—refugees, I mean, who are considered by the Government to be genuine refugees—the protection and legal status of friendly aliens. This country has always had the tradition of hospitality and humanity. It is true that in war-time the security question is of paramount importance, but the tradition survives. In the United Kingdom we received before the war, one way or another, very large numbers of refugees, and there was a great increase after the pogroms of 1938. And I should like to say how deeply the refugees themselves appreciate our hospitality, and how profoundy grateful they are. I should also like to pay a tribute to the humanity and generosity of the Home Office administration at that time, and to express the recognition which all the refugees have felt since the difficult days at the outbreak of war, for the most generous action adopted by the Government on the financial side, as a result of the consultations between the Home Office and the Treasury and the refugee organizations.
It was the security issue after the lamentable events in Belgium, Holland and France in the spring and summer of
338
1940 that led to the substitution of a policy of general internment for a policy of dealing with special cases. I have always regretted its wholesale character, but I do not want to go into that now. I hope that I appreciate the difficulties of the Government and the administration in a time of grave national peril. I realize the care and sympathy which the commandants and the officers of the internment camps exercise, and have continuously exercised, and the high sense of responsibility with which the various tribunals have discharged and are discharging their tasks. The position to-day in the internment camps of the United Kingdom is that under 600 male refugees, German and Austrian, remain interned, and the releases still continue. But there is a body of German and Austrian male refugees, interned at the same time as the rest, now no longer in the United Kingdom, whose circumstances seem to demand special attention, and it is of this particular body that I desire to speak.
New steps were taken in June and July, 1940, for the deportation of about 5,000 of the total number of German and Austrian refugees to Australia and Canada. All of these were men of a similar character to those who were left interned in the Isle of Man and at Huyton. No blame or stigma of any kind was attached to them, and the Government have publicly acknowledged this. But, in spite of this absence of any stigma, the circumstances of the deportation and the landing were most unhappy. I do not want to dwell on the past now, except to mention first that before they went to Canada or to Australia these refugees received many promises from those who were responsible administratively for sending them and choosing them. Many of them were told that their wives were to follow them to Australia, that they would have more comfort and freedom in the Dominions, that their prospects of re-emigration were immensely enhanced, and that their prospects for the future were much brighter. These assurances were made to me actually in Huyton Camp, when I was on a visit there, by the highest military authority, who was on a visit at that time, and I know full well that, if made to me, they were also made to people intimately affected, like the refugees themselves.
I also wish to mention, but only to mention, the circumstances of the voyage. Those who went to Canada on one of the transports, S.S. "Ettrick," had a hard and painful voyage in many ways, and on landing they were deprived of their property in many cases by the Canadian soldiers. The voyage of the "Dunera" has had a great deal of public attention called to it. All the 2,500 refugees who were sent to Australia were sent in that single ship. I have read the report furnished by some of those who sailed on that boat, and I have conversed with not a few of the passengers. The report and the tales make very painful reading as to the cruelties inflicted or condoned by our own soldiers and the robbery of property.
I wish to say no more about that, except incidentally to ask the Government, first, whether compensation for loss of property has been completely met by those who suffered loss on the "Dunera"; secondly, whether the Government have any information about the compensation given or promised by the Canadian Government in respect of property lost by the refugees who landed in Canada, from the "Ettrick." Thirdly, it is a fact that the "Arandora Star," containing 350 German refugees, mostly of the A class, and therefore not coming under my general topic, was torpedoed by enemy action on July 2, 1940. I should like to ask the Government whether they are willing to accept the principle that those who lost life or property on board through enemy action will receive compensation on the same basis as will be due to civilians who lose relatives or property through enemy action in the United Kingdom. To add to the difficulties which these refugees deported to Canada and Australia were to suffer, and are suffering, the impression which both the Canadian and Australian Governments received, somehow or other, when negotiations for deportation were being made, was that those whom they were asked to receive were very dangerous prisoners of war. So, through an unfortunate misunderstanding which it has taken a very long time to correct, the refugees—I am speaking of the genuine refugees who are our friends and, in spirit, our allies—were regarded as the enemies of this country instead of enemies of the Nazis of the deepest dye.
I submit that in these very circumstances of the deportation and the voyage, these refugees had a very hard deal, but I remember it is war-time, and the refugees themselves thoroughly appreciate this fact. It does them—it does not surprise me—great credit when they repeatedly affirm their willingness to bear almost anything if only Britain can win the war and the Nazis be defeated. I had an illustration of this in a conversation with a friend who had returned from Canada. He said to me the other day, "No country except Britain would have done so much to rectify its mistakes." Still, I personally maintain that justice is justice, and that Britons must be jealous of the honour of the British cause. I have also seen a refugee—one amongst a few who have recently returned from Australia—and he said to me, "We want to forget all about the 'Dunera' if only we can get justice for ourselves and our friends."
As was the case in Huyton and other internment camps in the United Kingdom, there were, to start with, difficulties in the conditions of the camp—difficulties with regard to communications, correspondence, visits, etc. These conditions proved, as they hoped, of a temporary character, and the conditions in the camp in both the Dominion and the Commonwealth have been greatly improved. But, as was the case with regard to the refugees interned in the Isle of Man, it is not the conditions on which emphasis is laid by the refugees: it is always the question of release. These men deported to the Dominions see the steady release of their brothers, their fathers, their friends, men just like themselves, and as the months pass by—it was July, 1940; it is now December, 1941—they have a feeling of impotence and of isolation and neglect, a feeling that they have been forgotten by their friends. They suffer especially from the feeling of inability to give the contribution they want to give to the British cause.
In November, 1940, the Home Office sent Mr. Alexander Paterson to Canada, and there is universal testimony to the infinite pains which Mr. Paterson took, universal appreciation of the consideration he showed, his accessibility to everyone, whatever his age or whatever his importance. It would be impossible to exaggerate the amount of good that he did, or the skill and success with which

341
he smoothed away the prejudices which he found. He was able, among other things, to alter the status of the refugees from prisoners of war to acknowledged refugees. He returned to England last July, and I should like to ask the Government whether there is any hope of any report of his activities being published. In April, 1941, the Home Office sent another representative, Major Layton, to Australia. He was a man who had already experience of work among refugees in this country, and he knew conditions in Australia. He went with great good will. His task is still incomplete. He has had many difficulties with which to contend—difficulties of distance from the Home Office and from means of contact with other people, and, of course, still greater difficulties with regard to shipping. But those who serve the refugees in Australia—and I think particularly of Bishop Pilcher, Bishop Coadjutor of Sydney, who has taken a very active part during the whole time—say that all the help and encouragement in our power should be given to him. I should like to ask the Government whether they have any information they can give about the present position of Major Layton's Mission.
I know a number of these refugees in Canada and Australia. I have seen several since their return. In Canada it is plain that the food is excellent, though there are some slightly disquieting signs. There is a delay in forwarding applications for release, there is a desire for more facilities for exercise, and in particular there is a desire for a stricter separation of the Nazis from the anti-Nazis. I have had attention rather specially called to a recent incident in which seven refugees who were transferred from refugee Camp A, consisting of Jews and non-Aryan Christians, to Camp S, which is a camp for prisoners of war and Fascists, the reason given being that they were hindering the war programme, but the real reason, according to the statement I have received, is that they demanded the removal of the Nazi sympathizers of aggressive character from the camp, because they were in too close touch with the files and too repressive of those who desired to volunteer for the Pioneer Corps. When these seven refugees were dispatched to this other Fascist Camp the whole of the camp had a hunger strike in sympathy for two days. I fear there is still an inability in some important official circles to recognize
342
the difference between refugees who are our friends and the Nazis who are our foes.
In Australia the situation again, with regard to the food, is excellent. The conditions in the Camp at Tatura are very much better than they were in the camp at Hay. The officers of the staff, it is generally agreed, are kindly and humane, but in certain quarters there is still the imperfect discrimination between friend and foe to which I have referred. But it is the prospects of release which are all important and which cause the chief anxiety, and also the peculiar hardship which is the direct result of the deportation from England in July, 1940. Many of the deportees were chosen because they were due to emigrate to the United States of America or elsewhere, but, such was their bad luck, extraordinary and unexpected difficulties appeared, disappointment after disappointment occurred, and it seems that in all but a trifling number of instances America has refused to receive refugees because they are interned or were interned. F2xcept that a few have found their way from Australia, none of the large number of men who have gone to Canada, hoping it was an easier way to the United States, have even found their way to the United States, and they are still waiting.
As to the release question generally, I should like your Lordships to compare the circumstances of those who remained interned in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man with those of the refugees deported. About ninety-two per cent. of all the German and Austrian refugees who remained interned in the United Kingdom have been released. About fifty-four per cent. of those who were deported to Australia and to Canada have been released. In England the releases began in July, 1940. Outside England, except for the few whose release was authorized actually on the voyage, the first transport to reach the United Kingdom from Canada arrived in January, 1941. The first transport to reach the United Kingdom from Australia arrived in August, 1941. Now out of 21,000 to 22,000 interned refugees in the Isle of Man 600 men alone remain un-released (and there releases are still being granted) and about a thousand women, but in Canada there are 1,400 men un-released and in Australia there are 1,500 men unreleased.
I appreciate—I should like to say it again—the fact that there is a war on. I also appreciate the fact that in these last few days the war has greatly extended. I appreciate also the difficulties of shipment. In these very difficult times no one would underrate the difficulties, but if in July, 1940, it was possible to ship 2,500 men in one ship to Australia, it should be possible in the present difficulties to ship a less number back in perhaps two or three ships. I should also like to state that I am informed by refugees who were on the "Stirling Castle" itself, which returned from Australia the other day, that shipping space on these transports is not always used to the full. In that vessel there were, I am informed, at least 150 cabins empty which might have taken another 150 refugees to this country last month. I also appreciate the fact that it may be said that many of these refugees, owing to the new circumstances of the war, will not want to cross the ocean. That may be so, but I should like the onus of decision to be put upon them. I also fully recognize the necessity for security in special cases. I am only asking for consideration to those who are friendly to the Allied cause, and against whom no slur or suspicion on security grounds can be alleged. Many of them feel the slur on their character which deportation seems to imply, and they desire rehabilitation. It would be well for the Government to emphasize again that no stigma of any kind is attached to those who were deported.
I do not ask for anything that is impossible, but I call attention to the contrast in chances of those deported to Australia and Canada with the chances of those who were left in the Isle of Man. The war may be a long one, and the position of those in the Dominions will be accordingly worsened; yet they are the some type of men. At a distance from this country it must be recognized that it is far more difficult to frame the application for release. Correspondence with many delays, to clear up points, is necessary, and I cannot help thinking also that the difficulty of communication with friends and advisers at home is an extra handicap. It is impossible to get in touch with employers, and, even if all categories are formally applicable to
344
grants of release, the machinery is very difficult in some cases, and especially where employment is concerned. I would like to ask the noble Duke to take note of this. I would like to see a standard questionnaire or form of application for these deportees in addition to a personal letter stating their case, so that at any rate the Home Office can know the facts and circumstances which it must regard.
My questions with regard to release are these. There are not a few whose release has already been authorized by the Home Office under various categories, but they still remain unreleased in Australia or Canada. Can anything be done to give these men the benefit of their release, or freedom from the general restrictions while they remain in Canada or Australia? As to the rest, there is the A Class. It is very likely that the majority in this class are dangerous persons, but mistakes have been made in the A classification not infrequently. Is there any chance of a review of A cases on appeal? With regard to the B and C classes, I should like to ask whether it would not be possible that all in these two classes who so desire should be returned to this country with a view to their cases being examined for release in England. There are much greater facilities and possibilities here. This step alone as an act of justice would make an immense difference.
So far I have been dealing almost entirely with matters in which the Government of the United Kingdom are concerned, but in view of the extension of the war further considerations present themselves with renewed force with regard to possibilities in the Dominions. I realize that these are matters as to which the sole authority rests with the Dominion or the Commonwealth Government. I realize that the Dominion and the Commonwealth Governments have the same need of security as the Government of the United Kingdom, but experience in the United Kingdom shows how minute a fraction of the refugees have been permanently interned on security grounds. I suggest that the names of any definitely black-listed refugees might well be made available by the Home Office to the Governments of the Dominion and the Commonwealth.
There is another consideration which is derived from experience in this country,

345
and that is the value of the contribution to the war effort made by refugees. I can speak of this with some experience, for I know many who are serving this country with all their ability at this time and making a powerful contribution to the national effort. I would like, if I may, to quote what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said in another place on November 27, together with an interjection by Mr. Sorensen and a reply. The Join: Parliamentary Secretary said:
"The result up to the present is that in addition to service in Armed Forces, many thousands of foreign men and women are making a most useful contribution to our war effort in many fields It is remarkable how smoothly this process of absorption has taken place in-spite of differences of language and custom and my right honourable friend looks forward to the continued co-operation of British employers and workpeople in the Government's effort to develop this contribution to the utmost possible extent.
MR. SORENSEN: May we lake it that most of those foreigners are Austrians or Germans?
MR. ASSHETON: I am afraid I have not the figures with me, but, of course, a large number of them are."
These men now in Australia and Canada are, in the majority of cases—and these are the only people with whom I am concerned—men of proved character who want to help, who have very various occupations, abilities and qualities, some as engineers, some as technicians, some in agriculture, some ready to train for work on munitions.
Would it, I ask—it is only a personal question which I ask, with much deference to the Dominion and Commonwealth Governments—would it be possible, in view of the need of man-power and the experience of this country with regard to the use of the employment of foreigners, to use the services in Canada and Australia of men whom the Home Office in the United Kingdom has approved, or would approve, for release as men of good character, friendly to our cause and entirely reliable from the security point of view? The Pioneers in England have proved a most valuable asset to the Army. Tributes have been paid to the Pioneers in Parliament and by the War Office itself. Perhaps it would be possible to have a Pioneer Corps in Australia and in Canada. We are all in this tremendous war for freedom, each ready to serve where he can be of most use. I have seen a letter written in October by the Secretary of that valuable refugee organization, the
346
Victorian International Refugee Emergency Council, which states:
"The Commonwealth Government is now prepared to consider the release on Australian soil of men whose security records are satisfactory, and who possess some special knowledge or skill of use to the war effort."
Is it possible in the case of men of ability and good character, friendly to our cause and desiring to serve, that they might be used in Canada and Australia as well?
Further, the proportion of young men, particularly in Australia, amongst the refugees is very large. I have been told that half of those now remaining interned in Australia are under twenty-five—that is, over 700 young men. Of these, eighty students are under eighteen years of age and amongst those students young boys taken from their schools in England on reaching the age of sixteen who now have no occupation and no means of study It is gratifying to see that in Canada a sponsor system has been started for boys and students enabling them to study in Canadian colleges or universities under certain conditions. Is it possible—it is again only a personal question and asked with all deference—in Australia to receive such boys, such students, for the war period only, as visitors only, with the pledge that they would return to the United Kingdom when the war was over? A similar pledge could surely be given and accepted with regard to all other refugees who might be released for the war effort in the Dominion or Commonwealth. I mention these as possibilities, realizing of course to the full that they are matters solely for the Commonwealth and Dominion Governments.
In conclusion, my main point is to appeal to the British Government. I wish again to make it clear that my only concern—and when I say mine, with me are the refugee organizations and friends of the refugees in this country who do such magnificent work to-day—is with men of integrity against whom nothing is found wanting on the security side, who are ardent anti-Nazis and who desire to help our cause. Here are men who have had a very rough deal. They were sent across the ocean with a series of misunderstandings, they have been there nearly one and a half years and they have all these extra handicaps to suffer. It is war-time, but they are suffering for errors not their own. Could not the British Government give all of them, the B and

347
C men in particular, who desire it, and against whom nothing is alleged on security grounds, the means of return to this country with a view to the urgent consideration of their release, and, if the Government are satisfied, the granting of their release? They are of the same type and character as those who were sifted and released in such large numbers in the Isle of Man. Many of them are young, and clamouring to help. Will you not enable them to serve this country and the cause, some as Pioneers, but not only as Pioneers but according to their different gifts, experience and qualifications. I ask it not only, or mainly, on utilitarian grounds, but on the ground of justice and in the name of the great cause of freedom and justice in defence of which we, with Russia and the United States of America and the Dominions and the Colonies, are resolved, with our other Allies, to give all our strength. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of what the right reverend Prelate has put before your Lordships, because I happen to know from personal information of the very wide interest which is felt in Australia in the direction suggested by the right reverend Prelate. It does seem to me that it would be not at all inappropriate if the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs were to discuss with the Government of Australia this problem which affects both of His Majesty's Governments. The right reverend Prelate has given very clearly an account of the circumstances which have led up to the present situation. It is true that our own Government only asked the Australian Government to keep certain refugees, and to return them at the end of the war, but it would surely be fitting that the two Governments should discuss the application of a broad view to the problem which has arisen. There are various points which it does seem that our own Government should bring out. The Australian Government know their own business very well, but it may be that they would welcome discussion and suggestions from this side of the water as a fitting prelude to any action by themselves, as they were only asked to keep the refugees in custody.
There are various considerations and, if I may, I would add one or two to those
348
which have been laid before us. There are considerations which, as I say, would appear to affect both Governments. There is the question if anything can be done on the lines suggested for the employment of suitable refugees in Australia. It is obvious that that is very appropriate to the shipping situation. We know how Australia has been depleted of craftsmen, and what good work Australian craftsmen are doing in various theatres of war. It is a fact that among the refugees in Australia is an extraordinarily high proportion of skilled men—men skilled in very various mechanical trades. I spoke of the interest felt in Australia. It is, perhaps, natural that we should feel that our responsibility was the prime one, and that we were more in touch with information which created sympathy with these anti-Nazi refugees before the war and which has remained since. But that feeling was very widely spread in Australia. The Australians, in great numbers, realize that the problem affects them, and they have sympathy with the victims who suffered from Nazi cruelty—suffered in their own bodies what we only know of by reading. These people, perhaps excited sympathy in Australia in a peculiar degree because of the passion for liberty which prevails there. May I add one other suggestion which might be discussed? A year of very fine work has been done by the Committee which has arranged posts for distinguished German scientists and other academic men at British universities. Is it not possible that the Australian Government might give leave for such men, who are to be found in camps in Australia, to be employed over there if Australian universities wish to find places for them?
Then there is another problem. I have heard very frequently of the generous and humane attitude of the Australian officials in charge of the camps, but the camps are extremely small and they are very crowded compared with those provided by our own Government. Work in the camps is wanted. Much more, it might be suggested, could be done in that way. It is admitted that gross mistakes were made in the emergency moment of the spring of last year in connexion with the sudden arrest of great numbers of men, arrests which in many cases were never reported to their relatives, so that in some instances the relatives did not know of them until they heard of the sinking of the "Arandora

349
Star" and the loss of life consequent upon it. These unhappy things we wish to forget, and it is to the credit of the refugees that they wish to forget them too. But it cannot be denied that there are masses of people who feel that it was a humiliating episode which we would not have thought could occur under Departments of our own. The circumstances were peculiar, and the painful scenes to which the right reverend Prelate has alluded prompt us, all the same, to the feeling that greater activity is desirable. If there is anything further to be done we want to do it. It is suggested that still greater effort by our own Government is called for in promoting action which, in itself, quite apart from any motive of humanity or restitution, is based on reason and the efficient conduct of the war.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, if any excuse were needed for taking part in this debate, my own excuse would be that for some five or six months in the year 1939 I was Chairman of a Committee which attempted to co-ordinate all the work of the many voluntary organizations working for refugees. That was my first experience of work in Great Britain. It met with many disappointments and was accompanied by many harassments. We were dealing with vast numbers of people who had arrived in this country in most distressing circumstances. The memory of that period, however, is lightened by the recollection of association with many voluntary workers who were devoted and self-sacrificing in the cause of the refugees, and also by a recollection of the great charity and humanity displayed by so many people in different parts of England. One does not forget an interest of that nature, acquired in those circumstances. I can no longer speak for any of the organizations in which the right reverend Prelate has taken so prominent and so sympathetic a part; but my interest still survives, and I should like to say a few words in partial support of what has fallen from him.
I think that all who are interested in refugees will agree, and I think that the great mass of refugees themselves will have agreed, that no complaint whatever can be brought against the policy of the Government up to the time when France collapsed in the spring of 1940. Inquiries were necessary, and had to be made; they were unequal in their results, but, on the
350
whole, every effort was made to give the greatest consideration possible to the refugees. It was after the collapse of France, when we were in fear of invasion, when, indeed, there was imminent risk of invasion, and when there was a real threat of Fifth Column action here, that it was decided to intern all the refugees. Looking back, I do not myself feel that it can be said that that policy was unjustifiable in any way, in view of the circumstances in which the collapse of France and the imminent danger of the invasion of this country placed us. It was, of course, unfortunate that it was accompanied by a number of administrative failures, and that occasionally the action taken showed the results of inexperience, with the consequence that a great deal of real inconvenience—I will not say of real hardship—was imposed on the refugees. On the other hand, I think that they themselves recognized, as many of us. do, that, when the Home Office resumed control of the situation, everything possible was done to rectify those initial mistakes, and subsequently a policy of the greatest liberality was pursued in regard to the release of the B and C classes of refugee. The right reverend Prelate has paid tribute to that, and it is a liberality which I am sure that the refugees appreciate.
I think it may truly be said that the Home Office then went to the extreme limit of safety in the releases that it made. I know that there is in some parts of the country the feeling that it may have gone beyond the limit of safety, but I think that there is a sufficient answer to that in the fact that the Home Office had, through the services of the camp intelligence service, a very full means of information about the internees which it was possible to utilize. I believe that most of us feel that, if risks were run, those risks were justified, and perhaps unavoidable. But, of course, the question which the right reverend Prelate has raised refers to the treatment of those refugees who were not retained in this country, but who were sent to Canada and Australia. I am sure that some of the refugees themselves welcomed that, because it seemed to bring them nearer to the possibility of emigration to the United States of America; but it is unfortunate that there were administrative failures here also, and that promises were held out and impressions given to the

351
refugees which should not have been held out and given.
The incidents on board the "Dunera" and those which followed the arrival of "Ettrick" were inexcusable. I say no more than that because, like the right reverend Prelate, I do not wish to press the point. There is another reason for not wishing to press it here—namely, that there is a small section of the refugees, it must be admitted, who have desired to make use of publicity in regard to these incidents which is directed against the whole of our refugee policy, and which cannot fail to bring discredit on the Government. I am well aware that that desire for publicity about these incidents is not shared by the great majority of refugees, and I know that it is discountenanced by the principal voluntary organizations who are dealing with this matter. I should be very unwilling to do anything to encourage that small section of refugees to whom I have referred to make use of publicity in that manner. Those who are most deeply interested in the refugees, however, will probably be much more concerned with the reparation which has been given to the refugees who suffered from the incidents in question than with the punishment which may have been awarded to those responsible for them. I have had no official information yet on the subject, but some of us have heard that His Majesty's Government have agreed to a generous scale of compensation. No doubt the noble Duke who is to reply will give us further information on that point. I feel that generosity—or, shall I say, a full measure of justice?—in the matter of compensation would go far to wipe out in the minds of the refugees and their friends any feeling connected with those incidents.
As to the further questions that the right reverend Prelate has raised, with regard to the future position of the five or six thousand refugees who were sent to Canada and to Australia, leaving aside for the moment any question of the incidents which attended their voyage there or the impressions that were given to them by error or by carelessness before they went, what is to be their future? Undoubtedly they and their friends in England feel a strong sense of injustice when their situation is compared with that of the refugees who remain here, the
352
refugees, that is to say, of the B and C classes. It is a situation that has been partly produced by the liberality of our own action. As we understand it, they were sent to Australia and to Canada on the undertaking that they should be treated as internees and should not be released in the Dominions, and the two Governments have maintained that position. We believe also that, in spite of some encouraging signs of a change of opinion in the two Dominions, there is a large public which feels that their Governments should still maintain that attitude. After all, we have, I am afraid, to face the position that they are masters of their own policy. Whatever sympathy we may have with the refugees we have to be realistic. We can ask for nothing more than that our Government should take every possible step to put the facts before the Dominion Governments, and that opportunities should be given to the volunteer organizations here to give what publicity is possible in the two Dominions to the facts as they exist here, and as we see them here. We should be able to give to them the fullest possible information as to the measures we have taken to ensure the maintenance of the full conditions of security, and the assurance we ourselves have felt on the subject.
But is it possible to go beyond that? Many of us would like to think that it is possible to influence the two Dominion Governments. We would welcome any change that we saw in public opinion there, but the matter must apparently be left at that stage. It is for them to balance the advantages of obtaining a large quantity of skilled labour at a difficult time against the risks that they feel may attend the release of the B and C refugees. But in spite of our present inability to move the two Dominion Governments, and acknowledging that inability, all of us feel that it is incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to come to their own decisions—namely, that they will bring back to this country as and when they can, and when transport becomes possible, the remaining refugees in Canada and Australia. Some, we know, have already been brought back. It may be difficult at this stage to bring back the rest, but all we can ask—and we do ask it—is that His Majesty's Government will accept in principle their obligation to bring them back to this country.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, the able and extensive survey by the right reverend Prelate of this important subject and the speeches of other noble Lords have left little ground to be covered. I would, however, like to press upon His Majesty's Government one point which arises out of the right reverend Prelate's speech. As he has pointed out, these refugees, so far from being a particularly desperate crew, were in all probability the pick of the refugees. An entirely false impression of their political position was given in the Dominions to which they went. This, particularly in Australia, appears to have been due principally to misapprehensions on the part of the Press. I believe that many persons at the Home Office and persons interested in the whole refugee problem have made attempts to reverse this opinion. I wonder whether it would not be possible for His Majesty's Government to make some representations to the Australian Government in order that they should facilitate the appearance in the Australian Press of the many and repeated denials in this House and in another place of this false character which has been given to the refugees in Australia. I am certain that a more tolerant, a more appreciative, and a more humane attitude on the part of the people of Australia to the refugees would influence the Australian Government and would make an alteration in the action of the Australian Government towards the refugees, which they themselves probably desire, far more easy.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKK OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, in the course of this debate frequent reference has been made to the refugees of the A, B and C classes, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I refresh your memories as to the exact significance of those classes. Class A aliens are those who were apprehended at the beginning of the war, who were not refugees here but Germans who, for one reason or another, happened to be here, and in many cases were German seamen on ships intercepted at sea, in whose case there is every reason to presume that they were, from the Nazi point of view, good Germans, who would desire the victory of Germany, and who are potential enemies of this country. Class A
354
Germans were therefore interned. Class B Germans were those in whose case it was reasonable to presume that they were well disposed to this country. They were refugees from one form or another of tyranny or oppression, and they were allowed to remain at liberty, subject to certain restrictions and regulations. Class C aliens are those whose residence here had been of such long standing and whose services to this country had been so distinguished as to cause us reasonably to believe that they were well-wishers of this country. They were allowed therefore to remain, subject to no police regulations or restrictions. They had to all intents and purposes the same liberty that we British-born subjects ourselves enjoy.
The situation altered, and I think it was inevitable that it should alter, when the Low Countries were overrun and when France collapsed. We had every reason to apprehend an early invasion of this country. We had vividly before our eyes the formidable effects of Fifth Column activities, and, although I think many people regretted the necessity, it was recognized as a necessity that these Class B and C aliens should be interned. No doubt great injustice or great hardship was inflicted in very many cases. No doubt very many of these people who were locked up were sincere enemies of Nazism and sincere well-wishers of this country. But it must be remembered that the Germans—they are very stupid I think in the long run—are formidably thorough and efficient in matters of detail, and there can be no doubt that among the ranks of these unhappy refugees, who won a great deal of sympathy and support in this country, were people who had been very astutely planted here by the German Intelligence Service, and who in case of invasion might have been a very formidable threat to the security of this country.
We are very proud of our British principle that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty, but, as anyone knows who has had occasion to employ spies, the spy is very apt to lie completely "doggo" until he finds that the country on whose behalf he is operating is winning and he can operate with reasonable safety. The Fifth Columnist is innocent until the crisis—the purpose for which he has been planted—has arisen, and it is not possible for the police or anyone else to secure evidence against

355
him. It was therefore almost inevitable that these arrests should take place and, if great danger to the country was to be avoided, the net must be spread very wide and many innocent persons should be included, together with those whose imprisonment was necessary in the interests of security. Of these internees, considerable numbers were sent to the Isle of Man, a very large proportion of whom have now been released. Others were sent to Australia or Canada, and in this connexion I must take the very strongest exception to the term "deportation" which was constantly used by the right reverend Prelate.
At the same time, in these same weeks, we sent to Australia and to Canada very large numbers of children from this country. We did not deport these children. We sent them to places where they could enjoy security from airraids, where they could enjoy a healthy climate, better food, and more safety than at that time seemed probable in this country. We sent these interned aliens away in precisely the same way. We sent them partly, it is true, because we thought it desirable that they should be out of the way in case of invasion, but we sent them also because they would be more secure, and it seemed reasonable to suppose that it would be possible in the two Dominions to afford them a larger measure of liberty in better conditions than would be possible in a small island which at that time lay under the threat of immediate invasion. I say, therefore, I cannot accept the term "deportation." These people were sent abroad—and in many cases it was their own wish they should be sent abroad—because many of them were only here as birds of passage, and their ultimate anxiety was to reach either the United States of America or some country in South America. They thought—as it turns out, I am afraid, in the vast majority of cases they have been disappointed—that by reaching Australia or Canada they would not only be further away from the Nazis, but also closer to the country which it was their intention ultimately to make their home.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Hailey and Lord Faringdon, referred to the case of the "Dunera." That was a case which I
356
have no wish to defend, a case which it is hardly possible to mention without feelings of shame, disgust, and anger, but I can assure noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate that the principle has been recognized that the British Government do owe compensation to those who were victimized, and in the case of those who have returned to England compensation has already, in a very large majority of cases, been paid. There are some few cases in which the War Office, for one reason or another, has not been able to get in touch with the internees, but of the 200 who have returned the vast majority of claims have been met. A further 400 internees have recently arrived in this country, and their cases will be dealt with immediately. There have been hitches in dealing with those internees who remain in Australia. Instructions as to the method of dealing with their claims for compensation were very long and had to be dealt with individually. They were too long to be sent by telegram, and they were sent simultaneously by air mail and sea. Both sets of instructions seem to have been lost in transit, and delays therefore occurred. But we have heard in the course of the last few days that the instructions have now been received and these claims for compensation are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I should like to assure noble Lords who raised the question that the principle that compensation is due has been accepted, and compensation is being paid as rapidly as circumstances permit.
Then the right reverend Prelate asked a question about the "Arandora Star" and compensation to the relatives of those who lost their lives. There, I am afraid, my answer must be very definitely in the negative. The "Arandora Star" was not sunk by us but by the Germans, pursuing their customary despicable methods of sea warfare, and the responsibility rests entirely with the German Government which uses these extremely barbarous and inhuman methods of carrying on warfare. The Government cannot admit liability for the loss of life on that very unhappy occasion, but there are certain rights to compensation for loss of life caused by enemy action under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme for which the Ministry of Pensions is responsible. These rights apply even where the persons murdered

357
are compatriots of the murderers. Application may therefore be made under that scheme by the widows or dependants in this country of Germans or Italians who lost their lives in the "Arandora Star." It is understood that some applications have, in fact, already been made and in some cases allowances have been granted by the Ministry of Pensions.
The right reverend Prelate also asked about the visits to Canada of Mr. Paterson and to Australia of Major Layton. I should like to pay a tribute to the work these gentlemen have done. They went, originally, partly at the invitation of the Governments concerned, and they have done most valuable work which has done much to improve the lot of the refugees interned there. The right reverend Prelate asks whether their reports can be published. Their reports deal not to a very large extent with matters of general policy, but much more with the cases of individual internees. They are of a confidential nature intended for the guidance and assistance of the Secretary of State, and my right honourable friend sees no useful purpose which can be served by publishing them. Their information and advice have been of great value to him, but he does not think their reports are of a type which would be of value as published reports.
Then the right reverend Prelate dealt with the case of seven Germans who were transferred from one camp to another in Canada. I am not very fully informed about this particular case, but I understand these internees have, to some extent, been rather "telling the tale." They were found to be men who were making great difficulties in the carrying on of the ordinary discipline of the camp, and they were removed from the camp in which they were. It is not true to say the camp to which they were removed was entirely a Nazi or Fascist Camp. I am told that not more than 25 to 30 per cent. of the prisoners in the S camp, to which they were transferred, were, in fact, Nazis or Fascists by sympathy. Two of these men have subsequently been released, and I am afraid they have to some extent romanced about their alleged sufferings. The story they told was simply not true. Disciplinary action was taken when they were put in prison, and, like many other prisoners, they told a very exaggerated story when released about their sufferings.
358
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the numbers in Canada and Australia and drew a distinction—this in fact was the main gist of his observations—between the numbers of those who had been released in this country and the relatively much smaller numbers who had been released in Canada and in Australia. The numbers sent to Canada were, in round figures, about 2,250 and of those 1,000 have been released. The number sent to Australia were about 1,950 and of those 700 have been released. In addition, the release of 700 more in these two categories has been authorized, and they will be sent home when shipping facilities permit. A large number of those have been accepted for the Pioneer Corps and will be coming home whenever passages are available. The release of 600 more has been authorized when they can make arrangements to emigrate to the countries, whether the United States or South America, to which it was their original intention to proceed. The right reverend Prelate showed by his words towards the conclusion of his speech that he appreciated the fact that the situation has altered radically in the course of the last few days. The provision of passages on ships seems likely to become very much more difficult instead of becoming easier, and America has, to an even greater extent, closed her shores to the entrance of persons of enemy origin. I am afraid, therefore, that the release of these internees may take longer than was originally contemplated.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Duke on that point, are the cases of these internees examined so as to make sure they are pure in their beliefs so far as this country and the war are concerned, and have His Majesty's Government any direct action with regard to their release?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was going to deal with that point a little later when I came to make special reference to the speech of Lord Hailey. His Majesty's Government here does retain control of these internees both in Canada and in Australia. The Governments of Canada and of Australia are helping us by having come very generously to our rescue and undertaken to house these internees for us, but the responsibility for their release rests with the Home Secretary, and these men cannot be released without the direct authority of my right honourable friend. Your Lordships will be aware that there

359
are tribunals which go into the rights and wrongs of these cases, and that there are a number of categories under which internees may be released. That is a subject which has been very carefully gone into and which in this country has resulted in the release of a very large portion of the internees.
The numbers released in Canada and Australia are substantially less in comparison with the numbers here, and that is due to two reasons. It is due partly to the fact that owing to the distances and consequent delays it is much harder for my right honourable friend to review these cases than it is in the case of people interned in the Isle of Man, but there is another reason, which is that in quite a substantial number of cases the internees are not particularly anxious to be released and return here. In the case of the Italians, especially, many of-them are unwilling to face the voyage home, and, although they are not very fond of being interned, they would sooner remain in internment than face the perils of the sea. Others again—and this applies particularly to the cases in Australia—intended to migrate to Australia, and are prepared to suffer such hardships as they have in internment in the hope that when the war is over, having got to Australia, they will be allowed to stay there. I will not deny, however, that there are some who are passionately anxious to be released. I would point out that the figures in relation to Australia and Canada are not strictly comparable with those in this country, because a substantial proportion of those in internment camps in those two countries do not wish for one reason or another to be released.
Then the right reverend Prelate raised the question of man-power, and of more use being made of these internees. The very large majority of those who were interned in this country have already been released, and are playing a part, in many cases a very valuable part, in the war effort, contributing towards the man-power of the country. The process of release is necessarily slower in the case of the Dominions, but, as I have indicated, very substantial numbers have been released, and that process, although it may now be slowed up to some extent, is going on. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that internment has no kind of resemblance to the process of being thrown
360
into prison to moulder away for the rest of your life. All these cases are under constant review, and my right honourable friend has a real desire to release as many of these people as he possibly can, subject to the reservation that he must take it as a fact that many of them are people whose release would be a real danger, having regard to the evidence of their past history and actions in this country. There are, however, many ways by which my right honourable friend can continue the process of weeding out and releasing those whose freedom would not be a danger to this country. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that the process is continually going on, and that no man, having been interned, is condemned to remain in internment in perpetuity.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the question of students. In Canada arrangements have been made whereby a certain number of these internees have been released to carry on studies. I have no information of any similar arrangement having been made in Australia, but the right reverend Prelate, by calling attention to this subject, will have brought it to the notice of the Australian Government. It is a matter with which that Government is concerned, and I have no doubt his observations will reach the Australian Government. Another matter referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his speech was the question whether all the overseas prisoners may not be brought back and released. I think I have to some extent answered that question already by indicating that, when all passages have been found that are wanted, hardly thirty per cent. will remain overseas, but it would be scarcely possible to bring all back, because there must be a residue of people about whose real intentions we can have no security, and there are also those who do not want to return at the present time. I hope I have made the Government's position clear on the majority of points that were made by the right reverend Prelate.
I appreciate very greatly the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailey and I hope I have made it plain to him that we do retain control. He asked in whose hands is there control over prisoners. It does remain in the hands of the Home Secretary. There have been, as the noble Lord said, administrative errors. Hardship has been suffered by innocent people,

361
but I think I can fairly say that speaking generally this very difficult question has been administered by my right honourable friend sympathetically, mercifully, and humanely. He is continuing the review with the object I have described of inflicting no unnecessary hardship, subject to conditions of national security.
If I may speak for a moment as an individual and not as spokesman for the Home Office, I would say that as my former constituency has now no representative in the House of Commons—the member is now serving overseas—not unnaturally many of my former constituents have turned to me with different problems. One of them is the question of internees. I have been asked whether I could do anything in particular cases. I have always found the Home Office most sympathetic, most helpful and most understanding in these matters. They could not always release a man—there may be good reasons why a man should not be released—but I have found them invariably helpful and sympathetic, and I believe that is the general experience. This difficult matter has been handled with sympathy, and I think I can fairly say that, although there have been cases where hardships have been suffered by innocent persons, in no other country in the world have people, who after all are of enemy origin, been treated more kindly, more justly and more sympathetically than here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few minutes only to say that from the reply to which we have just listened and speeches which I heard earlier, I think the point of view expressed this afternoon has been entirely on the side of the internee and not from the side of the people of this country. We are fighting one of the most dangerous and terrible struggles in which we have ever been concerned. I confess that I was one of those who a year and a half ago ventured to address your Lordships on several occasions on this subject, urging that foreigners in this country who were suspected of being concerned with enemy views or enemy doctrines should be shut up, and kept in a place where they would not be a danger to the country and to our effort. At that time quite a number of refugees and people of enemy origin were put under lock and key in
362
order to clear up the situation which really had become very serious indeed, but since then there have been constant propaganda and a constant endeavour to let out all the people, almost irrespective of what their views were, or what they were known to represent, merely because they were refugees and had escaped from Germany, or whatever country it might be under Nazi persecution.
This afternoon we have been told by the noble Duke that the cases of these people are constantly being reviewed and that no internee need expect to remain in perpetuity under restraint. I should have liked to hear from the noble Duke what form of inquiry leads to their release, because after all they were interned originally, for good reasons in many cases, as being a danger to this country. How is it that, as time progresses, by a constant review, these people become of less serious danger to the State? I view with very great suspicion this constant effort to release these people, irrespective of what they have done, or what they have represented. The noble Duke went so far as to say in his reply that the right reverend Prelate need not have any anxiety because so many hundreds were being released from one place and so many hundreds from another place, and that everything possible was being done to get as many as possible released. I venture to suggest that that is not the standpoint from which we as a nation, in one of the most terrible struggles in which we have ever been engaged, should regard this subject. I am not by nature a cruel man, but we are at war and therefore we have got to regard these things from the point of view of the safety and security of this country, and of the lives and liberties of the people of this country.
I suggest to the Government that the question should be, not how many of these people can we release, but how many ought we to release. If the subject were approached from that point of view, I am sure that it would be much fairer to ourselves, to all those who are fighting across the seas, risking their lives, and to those who are risking their lives in this country under bombing attacks and so on, than is the attitude of sentimental sympathy with people belonging to two races at least who have cast all these dangers and troubles upon them. I rose only to say those few words of caution.

363
I do not take exception to much of what was said by the noble Duke in his reply. We are bound to be fair, we are bound to do all we can not to imitate the acts of our enemies, but at the same time I think we can be a little too sentimental on this subject, especially when it is presented as it has been this afternoon, and as it has been several times presented in your Lordships' House during the past year. I hope that the Home Office—they are mainly concerned—will see that there is another side of the question, that those noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships' House on several occasions on this matter do not represent the whole feeling in the country, and that there are a great many others who feel that we ought to be extremely careful in what we do in releasing any of these internees if we have any suspicion whatever about them.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Duke for the very courteous and sympathetic reply which he has given to my questions, and for the attitude which he represents. I should also like to express to your Lordships my appreciation of the great value of this debate. I am sure it will be received with much appreciation outside your Lordships' House. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was not present when I made my remarks. I think that if he had been present, though he would not have agreed with a great deal of what I said, he could not have complained that I under-did the security side. I have no wish whatever that any internees whom we ought not to release should be released. To my mind—and I believe this represents the attitude of His Majesty's Government—" can "and" ought "in these circumstances amount to the same thing. I am glad Lord Elibank said that he wished the Government to act fairly; that is the desire of all.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I did hear part of the right reverend Prelate's speech. I was here for the first part of it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: The noble Viscount tired, I am afraid, before my points got home. It is fairness for which the noble Viscount asks, it is fairness for which the refugees ask, and it is fairness which, I know, the Govern-
364
ment desire to show and have hitherto shown. I am sorry that the noble Duke deprecated my use of the word "deportation." I did not use that word in any especially inimical sense. I might have used the word "transportation," which would have a worse colour. I do not wish to press the use of the word in any invidious sense. At the same time, the noble Duke, I think, gave himself away a little when, in one part of his early remarks, he said that the internees had been sent to Canada and Australia in precisely the same way as the children. Shortly afterwards, he expressed his disgust, hatred and indignation, his feeling of shame and anger, on reading the account of the transport of the refugees on the "Ettrick" and the "Dunera" to Canada and Australia. But I do not wish to press the word "deportation" if it is a word to which exception is taken.
I am very grateful for the assurance which has been given with regard to the compensation of those who suffered losses on the "Dunera," and I am also very grateful for the positive assurance which has been given with regard to losses incurred owing to enemy action against the "Arandora Star." What the noble Duke has now promised is exactly that for which I ventured to ask. I quite agree that the German Government is the responsible authority in connexion with that and with other forms of enemy action, and what the noble Duke has said will be a great relief to those who have suffered loss of relatives or of property by reason of the sinking of the "Arandora Star." With regard to the numbers left in Australia and Canada, as I understand it, there are 1,000 persons left who are unreleased out of the total number, and there are 1,300 persons whose release has been authorized with a view to its being made effective when emigration facilities or other shipping opportunities arise. I very much appreciate what the noble Duke said as to the possibilities—I know that he did not commit himself in any definite way—of dealing in a hopeful manner with the B and C cases, when shipping possibilities exist, with a view to their return, if possible, to this country. I am also very glad to have the reaffirmation of the intention of the Home Secretary to release those who ought to be released, and therefore can be released, whether in the Isle of Man or in the Dominions.

365
I should like to say that I personally have always found the Home Office very sympathetic and considerate with regard to individual applications with which I have troubled them from time to time. In conclusion, I wholly agree with the noble Duke, and refugees themselves are, I feel, of this opinion, also, that no other country would have behaved with such consider-ateness and such sense of fairness and desire to do the proper thing as our own country. With these remarks, my Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the inadequacy of the present provision for widows' pensions; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a section of a community in England, a small community, with which, from the nature of its circumstances, I think we must all have sympathy and understanding. That section comprises the widows; the widows both of working men and the widows, also, of men in the Armed Forces—the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. To-day the plight of many of these widows is truly pitiable. I have known of cases, and I have seen letters concerning many more, which show only too clearly how difficult it is for the widow to-day to buy the bare necessities for her livelihood. The cost of living has risen considerably; prices have gone up and cheap goods have, in many cases, disappeared, or else have been strictly limited by rationing. But the widows' pension, the pension of 1os. a week—a low figure in any case—has remained the same, and until the widow attains the age of 60 years she is ineligible for, and she has no means of obtaining, a supplementary pension.
I should like your Lordships to consider for a moment the position of a widow living on 1os. a week and, it may be, perhaps, paying 3s. or 4s. a week for rent, so that she has 6s. or 7s. remaining. With that remaining 6s. or 7s. a week she has to buy food and pay for light and fuel and such things as soap and matches—the necessities for living—and repairs to clothing. A shilling a day must cover all these. It is not very much when we consider the difficulties, the scarcity of
366
so many commodities and the steep rise in prices which there has definitely been. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read one or two extracts from letters which I have received and which, I think, show the position and the problems of the widow more simply and clearly than anything I can say. I would emphasize here that I am not dealing with, perhaps, the most unfortunate case of all, that is the case of widows who, for some reason or other, are debarred from getting the pension. There are many such cases. Some of them arise because a husband has not paid full contributions under the national health insurance scheme. The other day I heard of the case of a man who had paid 103 contributions and died before paying the 104th, so that his widow was denied the pension. One understands that the line must be drawn somewhere, but there is a considerable number of cases of terrible hardship in respect of widows who for some reason or other cannot obtain any pension at all.
I am dealing here, however, with the case of the widow under the national health insurance scheme where contributions have been fully paid. This is one extract:
"I am fifty-six, and not able to go out to work owing to heart and chest troubles. I wish I could work; it is terrible to have to worry how to pay your way in these days. Surely the widows' pensions could be raised, as the cost of living is so high."
Another widow writes:
"I am a widow on 10s. a week. I am unable to do any kind of work because my legs are bad. My age is fifty-six. I do not know how to exist on such a small allowance."
And another writes:
"I am a widow for fourteen years and am forty-three years of age. I receive 10s. a week, and have been trying to get work both in the factories and even land work. I keep going to the employment office every week and can get no work. I am hard of hearing."
Such cases can, unfortunately, be multiplied almost indefinitely. I have a case here of a widow who has to pay a rent of 6s. a week and who has a pension of only 1os. a week. That, of course, is outside the scope of this, but I think it illustrates the tremendous difficulties which widows have to face in these days.
It must be remembered that there is an allowance for the widow who has children—5s., I think, for the first child, and 3s. for each of the other children. This

367
allowance, however, stops when a child leaves school at fourteen, or at the most sixteen, years of age, and the widow may even have to support that child as long as the child is looking for employment. Thereafter until the age of sixty she will have to support herself on 1os. a week. It will have been noticed from the extracts which I have read that the tendency—and I think that it is a general tendency—is for the widow to try to get work if she can, but often she cannot do so, and in some cases she is too old or too ill or too feeble even to go to look for work. There is, however, no chance of her receiving a supplementary pension. I feel that your Lordships cannot be totally unmoved by these circumstances, and the question is what can be done. I heartily hope that His Majesty's Government will do something to alleviate this suffering and distress. I should like to learn that there would be a general increase in all widows' pensions; but, even if His Majesty's Government will not undertake to do this, could not widows under sixty years of age be brought under the supplementary pensions scheme?
It has been argued, I know, that, if an increase were made in the pensions for widows, the widows would not be so inclined to look for work, and that in these days everyone who can work must do so. I should like to remind your Lordships, however, that in the supplementary pensions scheme there is a very rigid means test, which is always, I understand, very thoroughly applied. The circumstances are investigated, and I do not think there would be any danger of a widow being granted an extra pension if there was work that she could obtain. On the other hand, there are many cases of definite hardship which could be eased and helped by this supplementary pension. Another argument brought forward against increasing the pension is that in these days neither the employer nor the employee can afford an increased contribution; but could not this point be met by a greater contribution from the State? Compared with the almost astronomical figures which our national expenditure has now reached, it seems to me that the relatively small amount required to cover widows' pensions under the supplementary scheme could not be grudged, in view of the amount of suffering which is now being
368
caused, and which could be relieved, and in view of the apprehensions which are now felt and which could be taken away from thousands who might any day, through no fault of their own, find themselves in these tragic circumstances.
There is one other class that I should like to mention. That comprises the widows of men who served in the Armed Forces and who have died or been killed, but whose death is not directly attributable to enemy action, nor accepted by the Ministry of Pensions as due to their service. Here I think it is very hard to draw the line between deaths due to Service conditions and those which would have happened in any case. Where death is due to illness, for example, there is the question of whether Service conditions have caused this illness or whether the man would have developed it in any case. There is the question of whether the hardship of his conditions added the extra strain which brought on his illness. It is an extremely difficult line to draw when so important a question is concerned as that of whether the widow is eligible for a pension or not. For instance, a man returning on leave may be killed at the entrance to the barracks by a lorry. Presumably his widow would not be eligible for a pension, as his death was not due to Service causes. I have an actual case here of a man in the Merchant Navy who served during the whole of the last war, who was torpedoed and commended for gallantry, and who fell over the quayside in Dunkirk in the autumn of 1939 during the black-out and was drowned. I understand it was assumed that his death was not due to Service causes. This seems to be extremely unfair on the widow.
I should like to see it laid down that in the case of men who have been called up or conscribed and who are serving in His Majesty's Forces, should they die while in the Forces their widows would be eligible for a Service pension. It must be remembered that these men are taken com-pulsorily from every class and from every occupation—small business men, tradesmen, professional men and so on. By being taken into the Forces they often lose a great deal financially; their business suffers, or they lose their employment. In some cases they cannot go on saving money, as they may have been doing before, and sometimes they are not even able to continue paying their national

369
health insurance contribution. But these men whose widows would be victimized are, after all, serving their country; they are doing their duty, and are prepared to risk death and disablement. I submit that the very least we can do is to allow the widows of men who have been killed to have an ordinary Service pension.
I should like to remind your Lordships once again that the widows whose cause I have been pleading are a very helpless class of people. Suddenly, through no fault of their own, they lose their husbands, who have died or been killed. They have been used ail their lives to looking after their homes, probably doing it very well. They may have no reserve resources, and yet they have suddenly to turn round, possibly at an advanced age, with no experience of obtaining work or fitting themselves for a different kind of employment, and build up a new life and a new home of their own. People are not always too anxious to employ perhaps rather feeble older women in the fifties, and these women find it exceedingly hard to make both ends meet. They are of a class who cannot bargain, nor can they demonstrete. They have very little chance of pleading their cause, and I submit that this gives me even greater reason to look for active sympathy and help in endeavouring to remedy their position. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I desire only to add a few words in support of my noble friend's Motion. I know that it is generally objected, to any request for an increase in the size of widows' pensions, that, since these are contributory pensions, it would be necessary to raise the amount of contribution; and, though it would be possible to increase the Government's contribution without increasing that of the employer or of the husband of the eventual beneficiary, that, I understand, would be quite unprecedented. It has always been the rule that the Government's contribution should be exactly equivalent to the contribution of the employer and the employed. But this is an objection that does not apply to supplementary pensions, and I cannot believe that the granting of a supplementary pension to this class, which is, I think, the only section of the socially insured who have not benefited under the supplementary pension scheme, would present the same difficulty, for the supple-
370
mentary pensions are non-contributory. Moreover, should these widows obtain employment their wages, of course, would be taken into consideration when the pensions were being granted. I hope that the Government may see fit to give a favourable reply.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the question which the noble Earl has raised is of some importance, and it quite naturally arouses the sympathy not only of the House but of the nation generally. I have no intention of under-estimating its importance, nor the way in which the noble Earl has introduced it to the House. In my judgment he presented his case with restraint and cogency, and in a speech full of argument. I regret, however, that, owing to the conditions of your Lordships' House at the present time, I shall have to appear discourteous to the noble Earl by compressing into the very smallest space the reply I would otherwise desire to make. So far as I can gather what the noble Earl asks for is, first of all, that the position of widows, who are now paid 1os. a week, should be reconsidered with a view to increase; secondly, that those under sixty should be brought into the supplementary pensions scheme, the increased cost to be borne by the State; and thirdly, that the case of the widow whose husband dies whilst on leave or in the other circumstances that he mentioned should also be considered.
The noble Earl did something to answer his own questions. He supplied two of the reasons at least why these increased demands could not be met by an increased contribution unless the State decided to make up its own quota. The noble Lord also asked that the cases of those who died on service, or were injured and afterwards died, should be brought under the pensions scheme. That view generally was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon. Perhaps it would be quickest if I very shortly reminded your Lordships of what the present conditions are. First of all, 1os. per week is given to widows of insured men under the Contributory Pensions Act, plus an allowance for children of fourteen or, if a child is at school, up to the age of sixteen, of 5s. per week to the eldest child and 3s. for each other child. The pension ceases if

371
the widow re-marries, but the allowance for the child goes on; otherwise, if the woman does not re-marry, it is continued until seventy years of age, when it is automatically replaced by an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act of 1936. These sums are payable without regard to means.
Thus it appears that the widow pensioner under sixty has a basic pension of 1os., with allowances for children; whilst at sixty or over she is also eligible for a supplementary pension. The supplementary pension, if it is asked for as a question of need, has to go through the Assistance Board. If the appeal is successful the award is on a scale which accords with the relevant regulations, which have been approved by Parliament and which govern these matters. The effect of it would be to bring the widow's income up to 19s. 6d. per week, subject to an adjustment for rent if the widow is living alone, and rather less if she is living in someone else's house. There may also be additions to children's allowances under special circumstances. In regard to the circumstances of war pensions, provision has been made to meet these needs based upon established principles. For instance, the woman must have been married to the deceased man before the receipt of the disability. Death must have been due to, or hastened by, wounds, injuries, or disease attributable to war service. All material considerations are taken into account. Current rates are better than those which followed the Great War, as it is called, although somewhat lower than those fixed for Great War cases in 1919, which were based upon the abnormally high cost of living at that time.
The noble Earl pleaded the case of men who might be killed or injured when home on leave, or in circumstances of that kind. The suggestion there made is that the pension should be paid to every man who is disabled or to the widow of every man who dies during service in the Forces. It would not be possible, according to my instructions, to enlarge the State's liability to this extent, which would, of course, involve a very heavy financial burden, and there can surely be no justification for awarding a pension in respect of some incident which is in no
372
way due to the man's service. So far as injuries and accidents are concerned, however, the Minister takes a very broad view of the circumstances, and does not hesitate to admit a connexion with service in many types of case in which it is really somewhat remote. Moreover, he is at the present time giving further consideration to this subject, as has already been announced in reply to questions in another place.
With regard to disablement or death from disease, while it cannot be denied that there is a small number of borderline cases, it is not a fact that there is any general difficulty in determining the question of connexion with service. The medical officers of the Ministry of Pensions have had years of experience in dealing with this question, and, apart from that, the Minister is always willing to submit the matter to an independent specialist nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons when any medical doubt or difficulty is found. In regard to the points put by the noble Earl, if in the case of illness it is found that that illness is due to, or has been materially aggravated by, service, then the pension scheme will operate; but if the man is killed or injured while returning from leave, by a lorry, as has been suggested, it would have to be a case of what is known as "long leave" for the matter to be considered. If he were on what is called "short pass," the present rule is that his widow would not be eligible for pension.
I have tried in the shortest possible way to give an answer to the main points that the noble Earl put before the House. I would only say in conclusion that there have been vast extensions recently of the principle of benefits, and all recent extensions have, of necessity, had to be considered in regard to the contributory position. It may be some satisfaction to the noble Earl to know that the whole question of social insurance is, at the present time, under the consideration of a Committee appointed by the Minister without Portfolio with a view to making, after the war, such modifications and improvements as may appear to be necessary.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble

373
Lord for his attention and for his very thorough answer to my questions. I was glad to hear that the matter is generally under consideration. At the same time I should like to stress the point of the extreme rise in the cost of living in relation to the widow's pension, which has not risen at all. I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the fact and try to see if some means cannot be found
374
to relieve these widows and give them a chance—the more deserving cases under sixty—of receiving some supplementary pension. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.