Lords Sitting of 15 October 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
John Victor, Lord Bishop of Guildford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Oakham:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a
LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS,) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.

CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERhad given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government in view of the probability of renewed air attacks on this country what steps have been taken in London and in the provinces (1) to improve air-raid shelters; (2) to give immediate help to those who have been rendered homeless; (3) to provide accommodation for the aged and infirm in bombed areas; and also move for Papers.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am asking the Government these questions in view of the probability of renewed attacks from the air in the coming winter. We have been warned more than once by members of the Government that we must expect these attacks, and they will probably be delivered with great
242
fierceness. I think dangerous optimism is to be found in various parts of the country. There are some who believe that the German forces are so engaged with Russia, and that our defences have been so improved, that attacks on the scale which we experienced last winter are most unlikely. But, while we are full of admiration for the magnificent stand which our Russian Allies are now making, we have to recognize that changes may come, and that it may be possible for the Germans to launch an attack from the air on this country. When the attack is made, it will be sudden, and probably it will be delivered with the utmost ferocity. Much suffering will be obviated if the Civil Defence Services are as ready for such an attack as are our military defences. We cannot help recalling that last winter there was a great deal of confusion and of unnecessary suffering due to the failure to foresee with imagination the kind of results which would follow from sustained attacks from the air.
I recognize that a great deal has been done by the Government in the months which have passed, and I want to make it clear that I am not, under the excuse of a Motion, making an attack upon the Government; for I know from my own experience, and I have heard from all parts of the country, that, as I say, a great deal has been done by the Government, and also by the local authorities, in making good the defects which were so obvious last winter. I think the time has come, however, when there should be a full and comprehensive statement by the Government about what has been done and what is being done, and such a statement would, I think, bring reassurance to many who suffered from the effects of the attack last winter.
I want to deal first of all with shelters. There are three kinds of shelter. In the first place, there are deep shelters. There will always be large numbers of people who wish to take advantage of deep shelters. We may argue against such shelters as much as we like; we may prove to our own satisfaction that they are unsatisfactory; but there will always be large numbers of people who are convinced that the only proper shelter is the deep shelter. They think that they are more secure, and certainly one cannot hear the noise of raids so plainly when taking shelter in

243
them. Large numbers of people, moreover, like the comfort which they find in these shelters. The main criticisms directed against these shelters last winter were that they were overcrowded and that in very many cases they were insanitary—and "insanitary" is a very mild word to use; their conditions were horrible and loathsome in some cases. Since then a great deal has been done, but I shall be very glad if the noble Lord who is to reply is able to tell us something about what has been done. Have more deep shelters been provided? What has been done for their sanitation? Is regular inspection arranged for? Are there wardens in charge of the larger shelters? Is medical attendance provided when great crowds arc gathered together in these shelters?
Next there is the public street shelter. We see them in the streets, looking like long lines of red brick lavatories. I know very little about these shelters, and I am not sure how far the demand for them is great. One criticism which I have heard in connexion with them, however, is that so far insufficient bunks have been provided. The Government are providing bunks for these public shelters at the public cost, but I am told that in some places the demand for bunks exceeds the supply.
By far the greater number of people, however, use the shelters provided in connection with their own homes. It is probably impossible to give exact figures, but I am told that something like 85 per cent. of the population use their own shelters in their own homes, or Government shelters which have been provided in their own homes—the brick shelter, the Anderson shelter, or the shelter which sometimes is disrespectfully called "the Morrison dog-kennel." There is general praise for the way in which the Anderson shelter has stood up to the raids. Frequently I have gone over wreckage and debris to see one of these shelters standing up on the lip of a crater almost unharmed, while everything around it has been destroyed. On one occasion I was taken to see a shelter by a man whose house, together with almost all the other houses in the street, had been destroyed. I asked him where he and his family were going to sleep that night and, almost with an expression of surpise, he replied: "Why here, of course, where I slept last night." The Anderson shelters have, as I say,
244
stood up in a remarkable way against debris and blast, although nothing, of course, will stand up against a direct hit. One serious drawback of the Anderson shelter, however, is that very often in the winter it becomes waterlogged, and sometimes—at any rate in the earlier part of the evening, before it has been used much—it is extremely cold. A good deal has been done in various places to remedy these defects, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply can tell us whether the Government are urging the local authorities to see that concrete or tarmac or something else suitable is provided for the flooring of these Anderson shelters, so as to avert as far as possible the ill-effects of damp.
Now I turn to my second set of questions about the provision which is made for the people who have been rendered homeless by bombing. Here there was a great deal of confusion last winter among people who did not know where the rest centres were. When they went to the rest centres they sometimes found they had been bombed. When they got to the rest centre frequently it was cold. There was delay in bringing food, and often the centre which was intended for use for a few hours had to be used for several days. I know from my own observation and from what I have heard in different parts of the country that very great improvements have been made in these directions. There are a few questions I should like to ask, however. What has been done to see that in all places likely to be bombed there is a second line of rest centres? Supposing that one rest centre is bombed, is there another rest centre to which the people can be sent? What has been done about feeding the people? It is very important that food should be on the spot at once, not only for use in the centres but also for the sake of the people who are actually doing the work in the streets. What arrangements are being made so as to remove as quickly as possible from the bombed areas to safer places in the vicinity the people who are rendered homeless.
And that brings me to an important rather general question. A great deal of the difficulty last winter was due to lack of co-ordination between the various local authorities. I think it is almost impossible to exaggerate the amount of time

245
that was wasted, the amount of friction and inconvenience that was caused through local jealousies between the various authorities. Very serious delay was thereby caused. One illustration I could give the House. It has been remedied now, so I need not specify the case. There was a village hall a mile or so outside the boundaries of a certain city. People poured into that hall after raids. The sanitation of the hall was quite inadequate. The authorities of the city from which the people came said: "We have no responsibility. This hall is not within our boundaries." The parish council said: "We have not the money to put this hall right." The county authorities and the Public Assistance authorities said: "This is not our responsibility . These people come from the neighbouring boroughs." And then, after the disputing had gone on for a little time, the rural district council intervened and said: "This hall has been earmarked as a mortuary; it is meant for the dead, not for the living, and therefore sanitary accommodation is quite unnecessary." That is only an illustration, rather a striking ore, of confusion which was found in all parts of the country after a severe raid.
It is impossible to think only of the actual place which is raided. You have to think of the immediate area around it if provision is to be made for those who have been rendered homeless. Steps have been taken towards greater co-operation between the authorities. That certainly has been the case in my own county. In some counties there has been very little friction, but many persons have written to me and told me how great the difficulties have been in this way. And if there is no easy and simple co-operation between the different authorities, someone ought to be placed in charge during the days of crisis who is able to cut through all red tape and give directions, knowing that he will be supported by the authorities in Whitehall.
On the matters I have mentioned so far I think the noble Lord will probably be able to give a very satisfactory reply. I am not so sure about the third question I am raising—namely, as to the provision made for the aged and infirm in these dangerous areas. In all these towns there are a number of old people quite incapable of looking after themselves. It is
246
natural that they should wish to stay in the house or the rooms they have occupied for years past. You cannot help admiring their courage. One of these old women once said to me (I am slightly expurgating the language) when I suggested she ought to remove: "The landlord and the bailiff have never succeeded in getting me out, and it will need a bigger man than Hitler to get me to move." Well, these old people are a very great anxiety; they arc a danger to themselves and a hindrance to other people. An A.R.P. worker told me how in the midst of a raid he was hindered in getting to the place because, wandering through the darkness of the streets, he found two half-blind old women groping terrified, not knowing where to go, and it was impossible for him to get on with his work until he found a place of refuge for them.
And there are still in the dangerous areas quite a considerable number of these old and infirm people. Very little has been done for them. The Ministry of Health says that people who are over 65 can have a billeting allowance and their railway fare if they find suitable lodging in a safe place, and they have made the same concession to those who are under 65, provided they produce a medical certificate. But these are exactly the kind of people whom you cannot billet in private houses. They need a great deal of attention. Some of them need skilled attention and, to be quite frank, some of them are extremely difficult. They can only be dealt with by Government hostels under proper supervision. Here and there, in South London for instance, I understand a large hostel has been provided for some of these people, the Magdalene Hospital, but there are many places where no kind of provision has been made for them. I am sure that if the noble Lord asked welfare workers in different towns which have been bombed or are in danger of bombing what they felt was the most urgent need they would probably say it was to make provision for these old and infirm people. I hope the noble Lord will press the urgency of this upon those who are responsible for making the arrangements.
I have confined myself quite strictly to the terms of my question. There is one important matter which I have made no attempt to touch on—I think it would

247
need a whole debate—namely, the children who still remain in these dangerous areas. I think it is generally recognized that compulsory evacuation is still impossible, but compulsory education in those areas ought to be possible. I am deliberately not raising that problem to-day. But I am hoping that the Government will be able to give us a full and satisfactory statement as to what has been done in the way of shelters, and what has been clone to make provision for the people who may be rendered homeless. They need everything that we can do for them. The morale of the bombed people is as important as the morale of the men who are in our Fighting Forces. It is impossible to speak too highly of the courage and the cheerfulness and the resolution of the people who are living in the bombed areas. Two or three months ago, in a South Coast town where there had been severe bombing, I went down the following morning some of the streets where the people were still standing by their ruined houses. Some of them were getting ready to go to work the next day. Nowhere did I hear any complaint. There was regret, there was resignation, but there was no defeatism, and there was a stolid—I can only use the word "stolid "—determination that this kind of horror should only end through peace as the result of a complete victory. These people are magnificent and all we can do for them we ought to do. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, by putting this Motion on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House the right reverend Prelate has added to the many services he has rendered to the homeless in this country and to His Majesty's Government in matters of this kind. The subject with which the Motion deals arouses in us all an immediate and acute interest. Those of us who have experienced the shock of suddenly being deprived of goods and home can measure more accurately perhaps than others who have, happily, escaped how great is the need of people who are dispossessed of them. In any case the Motion and the speech with which the right reverend Prelate has commended it to your Lordships provide an opportunity for a statement by the Government on what past experience has taught us and also on the preparations which have been made in an attempt to meet
248
future needs. The subject is of such public interest and importance, and so many people are concerned to know how-it is being dealt with, that I must ask your Lordships to endure for a few extra minutes a recital of what has been done, of the present position, and of the preparations for future needs which have been made. The right reverend Prelate rightly said that among the people most directly concerned complaints are scarcely ever made. That throws a greater responsibility upon Government authorities and local authorities to meet that heroism with proper foresight and preparation.
The right reverend Prelate has told us that he makes no attack on His Majesty's Government, and I hope, after what I shall have to say, he will be more or less satisfied with what has been done. It would be foolish to say that everything is satisfactory, because there can be no complete satisfaction until provision is made for all who are likely to suffer in present circumstances; but it may be some comfort to your Lordships to reflect that some 20,000,000 people can be sheltered under all the provisions that have at present been made. These include Anderson shelters, surface shelters, strengthened basements, covered trenches, tunnels, arches, factory and school shelters and so on, so that, taking a comprehensive view, that vast number of people can command some kind of shelter. More are being constructed, and deep shelters are being developed through the London railway tube system. Some of these wall be ready very shortly, and both the date and their location will be announced as soon as possible. The aim of the Government, however, is to provide domestic shelters for all below a certain standard of income—roughly, £350 per annum—at or as near as possible to their own homes. If you take what is known as the Morrison indoor steel table shelters, 555,000 of these have already been allocated, and there is an output of some 20,000 additional tables each week. At present these forms of protection are restricted to the more vulnerable areas, but they will be extended as the supply overtakes the demand.
One very great difficulty has been a shortage of suitable labour, and this caused the programme undertaken in the early part of the year to be revised. Now there is a quota of building employees

249
given to this work, numbering about 40,000 at present for all shelter work, control work in centres and other A.R.P. buildings. For this purpose the country is divided into A, B, C areas. The "A" areas represent target areas and areas of special national importance. "B" areas include large and important areas less necessary for war efficiency. "C" areas comprise the remainder of the country. Practically all the resources at present available are concentrated on "A" and "B" areas to which I have referred. As a result of the bombing experience that we have sc far had the surface shelters alluded to by the right reverend Prelate provided a satisfactory protection against splinters and blast, but they have been less successful in standing up against the dangers of air shock. Those of us who have had personal experience of bombing know that, disturbing as is the fall of masonry and broken glass about one, it is less disturbing than the tremor of the earth itself. Against that danger the surface shelter has not fully provided. It was something unforeseen; but these shelters have been strengthened in various ways, and it is expected that they will give a better account of themselves whenever they ere again put on trial. New standards of strength have been adopted, and protection is given to as high a degree as is possible with the available supply of labour and materials. The work of strengthening is going on as quickly as labour can be secured.
In regard to what I will call shelter amenities, which were dealt with by the right reverend Prelate in his opening speech, continuous efforts, based upon the experience of a year ago, have been made to improve the structure of the shelters, to make them not only structurally sound but also hygienic and more comfortable. The administrative machinery which deals with the shelters has been overhauled, and new powers have been conferred upon those responsible. Extra responsibility has been delegated to the Regional Commissioners and in London an additional Commissioner has been appointed, Alderman Key, a Member of Parliament, and in each of the other regions a regional shelter officer has been appointed for the regulation of shelters. As a result of these various attempts to meet the need, standards of sanitation, of heating, lighting, ventilation, bunking, cleansing con-
250
trol, and supervision have been laid down. That has been done on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Horder, and also on London's practical experience of what is necessary. In June last a special pamphlet was issued to all officers dealing with these standards and that is now available for use. The British Medical Journal of 27th September last said of this pamphlet that it contains some excellent advice which, if followed in spirit as well as in the letter, would ensure good shelter all over the country and eliminate the anomalies that at present exist.
A White Paper was issued last autumn giving the first set of recommendations of the Horder Committee; since then the Committee have made further recommendations about amenities in shelters, and those recommendations have been dealt with by a new Defence Regulation which gives to the Regional Commissioner power effectively to deal with these matters. Power has been taken to deal with undesirable persons in shelters, with bedding that is verminous, and many other things of that kind. In this respect London has made greater progress than has been made elsewhere. I do not say that as a criticism upon provincial local authorities, because the need, as they saw it, was not so acute as it appeared to be in London, but the provinces have been slower to realize the need for action in continuously developing and improving their arrangements for this service.
The right reverend Prelate asked about co-operation between the local authorities. That co-operation is required for billeting and rehousing the homeless, for the provision of rest centres at appropriate sites, for transport, feeding and other parts of the service. Here good progress has been made in recent months. Co-ordinating committees of authorities round the target areas have been set up or other machinery has been devised to ensure quick consultation and action. This machinery has been tested in action in only a few places, but there is no doubt at all that it represents a considerable strengthening of this branch of the Civil Defence Service. In several areas these mutual pacts between adjacent local authorities have proved of great value, and behind this increased coordination stands the Minister of Health who is in general administrative control of

251
the care of the homeless, and through whom the local authorities are reimbursed their approved expenditure.
In regard to the matter of bunks I may say that in the London area alone these have been installed in public shelters and in the eighty tube stations used as such, and that accommodation for 725,000 persons has been so provided, and that more of these bunks are on order. The shelters are regularly cleansed and inspected, special attention is given to their ventilation and to washing facilities, and twenty-nine welfare councils have been set up and more are being formed. As far as bunks in what are known as the Anderson shelters are concerned, much has been done to deal with the inconveniences of flooding. Guidance through broadcasts and pamphlets has been given. One and a half million bunks have been delivered to local authorities and 500,000 more will be available at the end of the present month. These will be increased by 100,000 a week until the 4,000,000 which it is estimated is the number required have been supplied. Bunks for more than 510,000 people have also been supplied centrally for communal domestic shelters. Powers have been taken to ensure the proper use and conduct of these shelters.
The right reverend Prelate also asked what was being done for the homeless. T can deal with this matter in broad outline only, but the need is, of course, obvious, and the special need, apart from casualties, is for immediate shelter, food, clothing, advice and recovery of belongings. To meet this need an organization has been set up consisting of rest, information and administrative centres, to provide shelter and rest, food and emergency clothing and so on. Each rest centre aims to provide advice and help on billeting and to deal with the aged and infirm, but the rest centres cannot meet all the needs of persons beset by troubles following enemy action. Let me therefore in two or three words deal with the activities of the various types of centres that are at present in operation. In order to supplement the work of the rest centres there is an administrative centre in which there are representatives of Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary agencies. The Assist-
252
ance Board uses these centres for emergency payments and the Ministry of Pensions also find them useful for its own purposes. Then information centres are established in the areas of about one thousand local authorities. These serve as outposts of the administrative centre and are established wherever they are likely to assist.
Speaking generally, it is not advisable to give details of the number and localities affected, but it is possible to say that there is a first line and a second line of rest centre provision. To give a broad idea of what has been done I may say that 11,500 first-line rest centres have been established in England and Wales with accommodation for over 1,000,000 people. There is accommodation for a further 1,000,000 people in second-line centres. These arrangements, as I have said, are not perfect, but they do contain improvements resulting from our past experience, and a powerful organization has been developed in order to deal with the problem. There has been a great deal of progress during recent months in the matter of co-operation with local authorities.
So far as feeding arrangements arc concerned, the need was of course obvious as soon as raids began. In November, 1940, an organization was founded to carry out the policy of the Ministry of Food in this respect. A central pool of equipment has been formed and in the London region local authorities were authorized to proceed with the furnishing of internal shelter canteens. By July of this year 2,167 shelters in London had canteens at which 100,000 people were served with food. Mobile canteens are used wherever possible and their number is quickly developing. They are provided by voluntary funds, let it be said, and some 1,500 canteens are available for immediate service. At the same time, it must be remembered that the mobile canteen, useful as it is, is liable to be put out of action just at the time when its services are most needed. Nevertheless, mobile canteens play a definite part in the provisions made. The Ministry of Food, through the local authorities, have emergency stocks of food available in the different localities, and the work done by the local authorities and by voluntary workers in these matters is of an essential kind.

253
I should like, before I close, to deal with the question of the aged and infirm concerning whom the right reverend Prelate was rightly very much concerned. The first need of the aged and infirm is, of course, for shelter. They present a very human problem, They want to live where they always have lived. They do not like to be transported to strange localities amongst strange people. They would rather take the risk and suffer the discomfort of remaining where they are than go to greater comfort elsewhere. That is all very understandable, it is very human, but it is not war. It conflicts to some extent with the needs of the nation in this matter. Many of these aged people, with the help they can get from the Government's evacuation scheme, have been able to arrange to go to areas where they have better opportunities of quiet and rest, but large numbers of them have to be provided for in their own districts. Often it is found that the family unit clings together. Grandparents, parents, children stick together through all the hardships and dangers. That problem is being dealt with as far as circumstances make it possible.
I have only one other matter to deal with, and that is in regard to the transportation of workers, which I think was not mentioned by the right reverend Prelate but yet which is a very important matter in connection with this problem. It constitutes a difficult problem for the authorities to deal with. It is most important that the essential worker in our war effort who is bombed out should be able to get to his job without losing any time. These people are not kept in rest centres which are remote from the places where they work, but an attempt is made to billet them wherever it is possible near the work they have to do. For cases where that is not possible a scheme of transportation has been worked out by the Department concerned. Free transport is given for the first week to and from work and after that up to four weeks or so those transferred pay not more than 3s. per week towards the cost. This period is determined by local conditions.
I have tried to give a greatly compressed but I believe not a partial or disfigured account of the preparations which, in a time of urgent stress, the Government and the local authorities have made to meet such emergencies as may arise.
254
What has been achieved has necessitated the fullest use of those exceptional powers of improvisation which our people art-known to possess, and I regard what they have done as a story that is well worth the telling. I renew my thanks to the right reverend Prelate for making this statement possible. Your Lordships, I am sure, and indeed the nation also, are grateful to those who have given so generously of their time and labour in an attempt to lessen the sufferings of their fellow-citizens, and we give our admiration to those who, in face of loss and injury, have remained so steadfast in courage and in purpose. I commend what has been done to the approval of your Lordships' House.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am going to intervene only for a very few moments in this debate. I should like, in the first place, to support what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down in thanking the right reverend Prelate for bringing this question before the House. We, in London, all know how much he has done for South London, how much he is missed there, and how sorry everybody was when he went to the diocese where he now holds such a distinguished position. We also know how deeply interested he is in these questions, and what great work he has done during the raids which have occurred in his diocese. Accounts which I hear of the work he has done are simply marvellous.
We have heard a most interesting résumé by Lord Snell of the improvements which have been made in civil defence. In the course of a long Parliamentary life I have heard a good many Government statements, and I know that, while sometimes they sound very nice, they are not always quite so good as they seem. From personal knowledge, however, I can give testimony in relation to this subject because I am in very close contact with a good many of the matters which have been touched upon, and I know what has been done to carry out the improvements in London in all the things to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. The state of the shelters when the raids started was deplorable. Arrangements were, in many cases, in sanitary, and the general confusion was dreadful. Now I challenge anybody to go down to some of these shelters and find fault. These shelters have shelter

255
committees, and we in the part to which I myself most closely belong, that is to say Westminster, have even had arrangements made to enable people to store their bedding so that they do not have to take it home every day. These storage places are outside the shelters and they are adjacent and quite adequate for their purpose. As the bunks are numbered people can put their bedding in the bunks allocated to them and confusion is avoided. All the great shelters have medical supervision and the water-borne drainage system which is so essential to the maintenance of healthy conditions. The people who use these places have ready access to canteens. Of course, some shelters are not dormitory shelters. From some of them—those in the parks, for instance—it is impossible to keep out water. They arc simply shelters in which people can wait while an air raid is in progress. It is those shelters which have been fitted up with bunks and other conveniences to which I have referred.
Another point with winch I should like to deal is the provision of information centres for the benefit of people who are bombed. Unfortunately, in Westminster our centre was bombed out, but now we have another, and we have a subsidiary one in case the first information centre has that unhappy experience. I think it was a very important point that the right reverend Prelate made when he suggested that secondary places should be kept in reserve in case of accident, such as that which, as I say, occurred in Westminster, so that alternative accommodation should be available. With regard to the rest shelters for the aged people in London, they are the care of the London County Council, and, again, I think the work is being done extremely well. In Westminster, I know, they have provided a couple of places and we have one place to which any one, even those who are not infirm, can go. The County Council have done this not only in London but in outer London also by arrangement, so that, as far as possible, that question has been dealt with. I do really think that the way things have been improved is beyond all praise. It has taken a great deal of hard work. One of the earlier troubles encountered has been the difficulty of convincing the authorities, the Government authorities, of the need for
256
these things. A proposal is put up; and it is almost immediately turned down. Then one has to go on fighting until one achieves one's object. The noble Lord laughs. I believe he represents the Treasury in this House.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: NO, no.
LORD JESSEL: Well he used to do so, and, at any rate, he knows from long experience the ways of Government Departments. When you have hammered away for a certain time the Department concerned begins to take the view that you are more or less right in what you ask for, and eventually you get it. Finally, there is one grievance that I should like to mention. In London those authorities which were the first to make provision in these respects and who did their best, got only 75 per cent. of the money which they had paid, whereas, after a certain date, the more laggard authorities—those who had delayed taking action—got grants of 100 per cent. I think the speech of Lord Snell on behalf of the Government will give great heart and reassurance to those who have regard to what may happen in the future, and, at the same time, his words of praise for those who are working at this matter will be very greatly appreciated.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for the very satisfactory and comprehensive reply which he has given. It was, if I may say so, very suitable that he should reply on behalf of the Government for he, himself, has had experience of the loss and want consequent upon raids. I am sure that all he has said will give great satisfaction to those who read the account of this debate, and it will show that the Government are taking very active steps in encouraging the local authorities to do their utmost also. There is one sentence in my opening speech which it has been pointed out to me might be misunderstood. When I was talking of the large number of people who use shelters at their own homes instead of seeking refuge in outside shelters, I said they represented "something like 85 per cent. of the population." I did not of course mean to imply that 85 per cent. of the population live in shelters. Most of them, of course, sleep in their beds, but they rely on their shelters if there is a raid or an alert. Again thanking the

257
noble Lord for his statement, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of. the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The references are to Bill No. 34 as printed for the Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 18 after ("examination") insert ("to be made by an accountant.").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, in Clause 1 there are several Amendments, but they arc all of a drafting character, with one exception. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this first Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 1, line 19, leave out ("to be made by an accountant") and insert ("and of any other relevant documents").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Page 2, line 5, leave out ("and accounts") and insert ("accounts and documents").
  Page 2, line 9, leave out ("and accounts") and insert ("accounts and documents").
  Page 3, line 14, leave out ("or accounts") and insert ("accounts or documents").
  Page 3, line 16, leave out ("and accounts") and insert ("accounts or documents").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 3, page 7, line 18, at end insert:
  ("(11) The provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section shall come into operation on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order appoint after he is satisfied on a poll taken by the Council of all solicitors for the time being holding practising certificates that not less than two-thirds of those voting are in favour of the provisions coming into operation.")
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, this Amendment provides for particular provisions not coming into operation until a poll has been taken by the Council of all solicitors for the time being holding practising certificates, and that not less than two-thirds of those voting must be in favour of the provisions coming into operation. The Council of the Law Society are fully in agreement with that provision. This matter was not covered by the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, and, although there has been a heavy majority in favour of the provisions, it is considered better that it should be the subject of a special motion and vote on the part of the practising solicitors. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 9, page 9, line 13, leave out ("1940") and insert ("1941").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment, and is rendered necessary by the time which the Bill has taken in its passage through both Houses. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Clause 10, page 10, line 12, leave out ("of") and insert ("or")
  Clause 10, page 10, line 12, leave out ("or") and insert ("of").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, these Amendments merely correct two misprints which had been overlooked. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 18, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
  ("(3) Rules made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to—

  (a) a solicitor acting in the course of his employment as a public officer as defined by Section four of the Solicitors Act, 1933; or

  (b) a solicitor acting in the course of his employment in an office to which Section five of that Act applies; or

  (c) a solicitor in whole-time employment as an officer of a local authority as defined by Section six of that Act acting as such officer.")

  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, this Amendment provides for certain exceptions to the principal obligation under Clause 18. That obligation requires solicitors who are trustees to keep certain accounts, and this Amendment provides that that shall not apply to solicitors who act in certain public employment or in certain employments of a public nature, such as officers of a local authority, clerks of the peace, clerks to the justices, and so on. It will bring the provision in Clause 18 into line with the provisions made in the principal Solicitors Act of 1893, which provides for rules being made as to the keeping of accounts. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Clause 30, page 19, line 33, leave out ("or any").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 19, line 33, after ("sections") insert ("Provided that Section one shall not come into operation until after the termination of the period during which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, is in force.").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  Page 19, line 35, after the first ("Act") insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Page 19, line 36, leave out ("August") and insert ("January").
  line 36, leave out ("forty-one") and insert ("forty-two").
  LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Wright.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to make any further statement regarding the recent failure of negotiations with the German Government in connection with the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners of war, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I do not propose to detain you for more than a few minutes, because everybody is already familiar with the circumstances; but I cannot forbear from remarking that the failure of these negotiations is, perhaps, one of the most discreditable incidents which have occurred in international affairs for a good many years. It implies the refusal of a Government to fulfil its engagements, and it also involves the fate of a number of helpless men who deserved better of their respective countries. I do not think that the Government will be likely to resent my asking for this infor-

261
because I am sure that they will be glad of any opportunity of proving to the world, if they have not already done so, that they are in no way responsible for what has happened.
In the former war it fell to my lot, with other representatives, to have direct meetings with representatives of the German Government. At those meetings, which were conducted in a neutral country—in Holland, as a matter of fact—we had prolonged discussions, which were frequently, as may well he supposed, of a very difficult and complicated nature; but on the whole we were successful in coming to agreements, and those agreements proved to he of enormous advantage to the combatants and non-combatants on both sides who happened to be prisoners of war or internees. I will take the opportunity of saying openly that the agreements which we arrived at were honestly adhered to by the German Government. I do not wish to draw comparisons between the Germans with whom we have to deal to-day and those whom we had to face in 1917, because I do not wish to be accused of doing anything to make future negotiations, should they he entered into, more difficult; but I remember that in those negotiations in 1917 we were extremely careful to avoid anything in the nature of publicity. Publicity is in great demand nowadays for all purposes, but occasionally it can be an extreme danger. We were extremely careful, as I say, to avoid anything of the kind and were much hampered in our work by the activities of the sensational journals over here, which were perpetually hounding the Government on to deal severely with the Germans settled or interned in this country.
I said that our negotiations on the whole were satisfactory and that the result was beneficial. I attribute that partly to the fact that we worked, so to speak, modestly and avoided drawing attention to what we were doing as much as possible. Now I am very much afraid it is quite possible that, in the desire for publicity, publicity has unconsciously been partly the cause of the deadlock which has arisen. So far as I can ascertain, these negotiations started a long time ago, and started under very quiet and peaceful auspices. We heard next to nothing about them, and apparently they were conducted as much as possible in an amicable spirit, so much so
262
that certain requests made by the Germans, which had no connection with the actual matter which was being discussed, were at once acceded to by our Government without making any difficulties. As time went on other requests were made by the Germans, which were met in as amicable a spirit by our representatives. But later on, for some reason which I am unable to ascertain, these negotiations, which had formerly been in the control of neutral Powers, seem to have passed imperceptibly into more or less direct negotiations between British representatives and German representatives, and at a later stage the relations between the two Governments evidently became much more difficult.
It was about this period that the B.B.C. intervened, and the intervention of the B.B.C., who probably acted with the best intentions in the world, was misinterpreted and falsified by the Germans into an endeavour to persuade the German public that the negotiations were really being used for the purpose of making a propaganda attack upon the German Government. Unfortunately this attempt was successful, and, as everybody knows, the negotiations culminated in a completely unexpected demand from the Germans that no attention should be paid to the pledges that they had already given with regard to the repatriation of incapacitated prisoners, but that the exchange should take the form of a numerical exchange. That clearly was a demand with which it was impossible for our Government to comply. Anybody who knows anything about the history of the Prisoners of War Conventions and so forth knows perfectly well that this particular Convention was not based upon numbers; it expressly excluded numbers and excluded ranks; it was based solely upon incapacity to fight. And it was not a question of exchange at all, it was a question of returning to their respective countries those combatants who had been incapacitated by wounds or by disease—a natural and humane project, which ought to have commended itself to everybody.
No doubt many people are wondering why the German Government insisted upon declining to carry out an arrangement which was just as beneficial to them as to us, and the question is somewhat difficult to answer. After all, what advantage is derived from keeping an in-

263
enemy a prisoner? Does it not stand to reason that it is naturally to one's advantage to get rid of such a prisoner at once in order not to be liable for his care and keep? What possible objection can there be to it? I can only suppose that in Germany there must have been two classes of opinion. It is quite evident that there must have been many people in Germany, perhaps including members of the German Government itself, who were anxious for an exchange—anxious from humanitarian motives. On the other hand, there must have been another class which was resolved to prevent the successful termination of these negotiations, and I can only surmise—for I have no information on the subject—that the class which was definitely determined to ruin the negotiations was the Gestapo, who probably not only had their own reason for doing nothing which seemed in the nature of a favour to us but were very reluctant to see their own countrymen return from captivity to Germany. That is only a surmise of my own, but I believe it will turn out that it is the right explanation. Anyhow, these people, whether the Gestapo or not, got their way, and the negotiations broke down when the impossible demand was made that they should proceed on a numerical basis and that prisoners should be exchanged singly. The result would probably have been that many of our men would never have got out at all until the end of the war.
In spite of the humiliating results of these negotiations I hope that the Government will not be disposed to abandon the attempt. I sincerely hope, and I gather from what was said in another place yesterday, that there is an intention to renew negotiations as soon as an opportunity permits, and I presume that these negotiations will be conducted under the auspices of some neutral Power. It would be contrary to common sense and to feelings of humanity if this attempt were not made, and I hope I shall receive some further assurance with regard to it. I would merely like to say that I have added to this question a demand for Papers and I have done so, not with the purpose of making another speech, but because I feel that it is very desirable that it should be made plain that the attitude of His Majesty's Government and their
264
conduct of the negotiations have not been responsible for the unfortunate breakdown which has taken place. It seems to me that it is in the strong interests of the Government that Papers should be produced, and I therefore beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I regret that there is nothing fresh which I can add to the statement that my right honourable friend made in another place. I would, however, emphasize that throughout the negotiations His Majesty's Government were, at all times, anxious to secure the repatriation of sick and wounded prisoners and of the protected personnel also entitled to repatriation. They conceded to the German Government agreement in principle on questions not directly relevant to the repatriation of prisoners—that is, the repatriation of combatants in third countries and the repatriation of civilian internees; but their paramount concern to bring home all the repatriable made it impossible to accept the final demand of the Germans for an exchange on a numerical basis, an action which would have postponed indefinitely the repatriation of the vast majority of the sick and wounded and which was contrary to International Law and to humanitarian practice.
My noble friend asked for a further assurance that if the opportunity occurs His Majesty's Government will be ready to look into this matter again. I think the answer was given very emphatically by my right honourable friend in the House of Commons yesterday. I do not expect my noble friend would want me to read what he said, although I have it here if he desires me to do so. My right honourable friend made it very clear that we were only too ready, on all the grounds which have been stated, to look into this matter whenever the occasion offers.
With regard to publicity, my noble friend may have learnt—I think it has been mentioned—that the claim was made in a certain German newspaper that one of the reasons for the breakdown of these negotiations was the propaganda which was used. I want to assure my noble friend that, as far as any activities of that kind in this country were concerned, we were blameless. In fact, at no period

265
during the negotiations prior to October 6, when negotiations broke down, did the German Government suggest that any publicity given in this country to the proposed repatriation scheme affected the negotiations then proceeding. On the evening of September 28 date-line telegrams emanating from several neutral countries gave the news of the proposed repatriation scheme. This news was held up in this country until the afternoon of September 29, when it came through on the tape. It was in consequence of that that the Financial Secretary to the War Office made his broadcast that evening. Your Lordships may rest assured that, until it was clear that this matter was being discussed in neutral countries, no statement was made until the negotiations had actual y broken down. No statement was made in the Press of this country which could have been criticized. It con-not be too strongly emphasized that the objections which the Germans made to the publicity given in this country were only raised after the negotiations had broken down, and the broadcast statements pointing out that the numerical exchange of sick and wounded proposed by the Germans was contrary to Inter-
266
national Law and humanitarian practice were only made when the whole repatriation scheme had been called off.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise only to ask my noble friend whether he proposes to publish any Papers or not.
LORD CROFT: In view of what my right honourable friend said in another place yesterday, no good purpose would be served by issuing Papers at the present time.
LORD NEWTON: I do not mean at the present time—I mean at any time.
LORD CROFT: I shall convey my noble friend's request to the Secretary of State that he desires that Papers should be published with reference to this matter. My noble friend probably agrees that the moment is not opportune.
LORD NEWTON: I do not wish to press for the immediate publication of Papers, which I gather from my noble friend may take place at a later date, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.