Lords Sitting of 14 October 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH.
Percy Mark, Lord Bishop of Norwich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Ashbourne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Lord Tweedsmuir—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

INDIA AND BURMA (TEMPORARY AND MISCELLANEOUS PRO VISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

SHIPPING SECRECY.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY rose to call attention to the need for the stricter enforcement of the regulations designed to preserve secrecy as to the destination of shipping sailing from British ports; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on September 29 I asked this question in your Lordships' House:
"To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they consider that every possible step is taken at the ports of the United Kingdom to keep secret the destination of ships that are loading therein."
My reason for putting the question was that I had heard at second hand of a young officer, whose ship was lost in the last convoy to Malta, who had stated that cases had been passed into the ship when she was loading clearly marked with the name "Malta". He told my informant that this had caused adverse comment among the officers. As the answer given by the noble Lord, the Minister of War Transport, did not specifically deal with the question of port marks, and believing that this should be dealt with so as to
648
reassure the officers of ships who might suffer if such a practice was continued, I informed the noble Lord of what I had heard—namely, that these cases had been passed in marked "Malta." I could not vouch for it, because I had not actually met the young officer myself.
My statement elicited the following remarks from the noble Lord:
"This very question has had the utmost consideration from the beginning of the war, and care is taken in every case to have no identification at all as to the destination of cargo or equipment, and I cannot easily accept it that this case referred to by my noble friend has really substance behind it. There is such care, and it has become so much the custom to avoid giving any indication of the destination of goods, that what the noble Earl has suggested would be the most dreadful thing to have happened. I really have no evidence of it and cannot believe that it has taken place, but I shall be happy if evidence can be given to me to follow up this very matter, because it is fundamental to the whole security system on which we rely."
If that is so, I think I shall be able to show that we rely, not on a broken reed but on one which has become rather shaky, and wants tightening up; for as a result of this statement I have received a considerable number of letters from correspondents who have themselves seen cargo to be shipped clearly marked with its destination, and they are quite ready to supply the evidence which the Minister said he would be glad to receive.
In fact, some of the letters I received were merely copies of letters which had been sent direct to the Ministry. They come from several sources, from officers in the Mercantile Marine, from firms connected with shipping and cargoes, and from casual observers. No doubt some of your Lordships will have noticed letters in the Press on the same subject in the last few days. As regards the letters copies of which I received and which had been sent to the Ministry, one writer mentioned what he thought was a vantage point from which nearly everything that happened in the docks could be seen—I do not know the geography of it myself. But three other letters which I received, addressed direct to me, also mention this, so that that place might possibly be a place to which the security police should pay attention.
In making my remarks to-day I have no desire to raise any alarm or doubt in the minds of those who go down to the sea in ships; rather I hope that this afternoon, as a result of this debate, they will

649
be reassured. Many of my correspondents deal with shipments to various parts of the world, but I intend to refer only to letters which the writers have themselves seem cargo marked to such ports as Malta and Alexandria, Murmansk and Archangel, for those voyages are exceptionally perilous at the present time, owing to the enemy's desperate desire to prevent our convoys getting through. The first letter I would quote is from the principal of a firm in Middlesbrough-on-Tees. The firm are Lloyds Agents there, and my correspondent writes that he has already represented the danger presented by the use of port marks on cargo shipped from this country. He adds for my information:
"I might add that the use of port marks here applies not only to commercial cargoes but to equipment shipped by the R.A.F."
This gentleman also forwards to me the answer he received from the Ministry, dated March I3 last, and this is an extract:
"Replying to your letter of March 9th regarding leakage of information through the use of port names on goods, various suggestions have been put forward and have been considered, but no scheme has so far been evolved which will not give possibilities of dfficulties in the handling of cargo, and of miscarriage. I have to thank you for drawing attention to the matter. Any suggestions for assisting the 'Careless Talk Campaign' in regard to shipping will always be welcome."
From that we may conclude that up to the date of that letter, March 13, the use of port names was the accepted and approved practice. That the possibility of difficulties in the handling of cargo, and miscarriage, should outweigh the risk of imparting information which might cause the loss of the ship herself and her crew and cargo, seems to show, I would submit, a lack of sense of proportion. Another letter that I have is from a Commander, R.N., holding an appointment in the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department, who writes that he had seen a lorry taking in petrol at a garage in Peterborough with two packing cases each stencilled in large letters S.N.O. or N.S.O., Archangel or Murmansk. These being naval hieroglyphics, it looks as if the Admiralty might be implicated here. As my correspondent remarks, anyone seeing that lorry entering a seaport would have known that a Russian convoy, or part of one, would shortly be sailing from that port.
The third example is from the manager of a large engineering firm in the north, who writes:
"My only son, an engineer officer in the Merchant Navy, whom I visited in Liverpool at the end of July, 1942, told me that he saw cases being loaded into his ship marked 'Malta'. He also informed me that several of his fellow engineer officers discussed the question of refusing to sail as an extreme protest against this culpable carelessness or worse."
The gentleman in question appears to have reasoned with his son and the other officers, and was informed the next evening that out of consideration for our men in Malta they were quite ready to sail, but if they returned they would demand full investigation before sailing again as the convoy was supposed to sail under "secret" orders. My correspondent goes on to say:
"My son's last words to me in Liverpool on the evening of the 28th July, 1942, were 'Well, dad, Jerry will be waiting for us in full force, and with our cargo we shall be trapped in the engine-room if we are hit, and it will be a miracle if we return in this suicide ship, so this is most probably our last farewell'."
It was. The ship did not return. She was lost with about 100 of her crew, including all the officers. The gentleman who wrote that letter also tells me:
"I have not the slghtest doubt regarding my son's statement that cases loaded on his ship in this convoy were clearly marked 'Malta'."
In a letter to the Press on this subject on October 6, signed by a Master Mariner, my contention that these markings have been used has been amply justified, for the writer says that the majority of the cases loaded into his ship containing cargo for the Forces in the Middle East were clearly marked "Alexandria, Egypt". He remarks: "Needless to say there was much comment by the officers of the ship," and he concludes:
"I may state we are not allowed to inform our wives or relations where our ship is bound to, which is in order, but it appears that if anyone wants to know where a ship is bound for, all they have to do is to use their eyes when the ship is being loaded or when cargo is en route to the ship."
It would appear that the noble Lord (Lord Leathers) was mistaken in his answer o to my original question on September 29, and that not only was my original informant perfectly right in the case he then stated, but that in many other instances port names have been used in the last few months. The noble Lord also said that it would be a most dreadful thing to happen, and that the

651
avoidance of any indication of the destination of goods was fundamental to the whole security system on which we rely. Yet I do not think that in the face of the evidence that I have produced—and it is only part of what I could produce—it will be doubted that this has happened. I hope your Lordships will consider that I am justified in asking the support of the House to ensure that the regulations which have been so flagrantly disregarded should be tightened up in future. I hope that when the noble Lord replies for the Government he will be able to give your Lordships an assurance that steps will be taken to prevent this ever happening again. It is obvious that information of this sort, particularly from a port like Liverpool or others in the north, can very easily get into the wrong hands. Only two days ago we had an instance of a man crossing from Holyhead to Ireland being found with a letter concealed in one of his socks. We may presume from the unusual receptacle which he selected that he did not wish the letter to be seen by the Censor on either side of the Irish Channel.
Even if it is considered that the enforcement of these regulations would not have much effect, I say that the step is eminently desirable from a psychological point of view. I can imagine nothing worse for the officers and men of a ship than to see these signs before they sail on a dangerous mission which seem to indicate that the authorities are lax about taking precautions to ensure their safety. I submit that precautions on such points ought to be exaggerated rather than minimized. A statement that in future the order against any indication of destination appearing will be rigidly enforced will do much to reassure, not only those who go down to the sea in ships, but also the friends and relations of these men, who have months of anxiety before them hoping for their safe return. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD CHATFIEL: My Lords, I should like very briefly to suppport most strongly the Motion that has been moved by the noble Earl. I feel that we all must be under the impression that he has done a great public service in raising this terrible question. The indictment which he has made is one which I am sure must fill us all with the greatest concern, and indeed alarm, because if these extreme
652
acts of carelessness happen in such places as the wharves of our ports where the ships are loaded, what is the care that is taken in the offices and in the firms and departments where the goods are loaded and addressed? It gives one the impression that there must be the greatest carelessness and laxness in the whole matter. Think what must be the mentality of a responsible man in a department who can order the packing of goods containing some important equipment, we will say for Malta, to have painted on it the destination to which it is to go.
It has been very surprising to me as a sailor to have observed how well the approach of our convoys seems to be known in advance by the Germans. After all, to attack a convoy on its way to Murmansk, which of course is a very long route, requires great concentration of enemy forces, and we have heard in the descriptions of the attacks made on the last convoy to Murmansk of the vast number of submarines and aircraft and other vessels concentrated in support of the attacks. To do all that takes time, because the aircraft and submarines and other vessels cannot be continuously ready and available to make such a great concentrated attack, lasting, as it did, for several days, all day and all night. Therefore I wondered how it was that our enemies could have this concentration of forces so opportunely ready at the right moment. Certainly, when one hears from the noble Earl of this extraordinary carelessness taking place, one really can be surprised at nothing.
The seaman has had some pretty trying experiences, and if he cannot trust those who are responsible to see that his risks are reduced to a minimum, and to do their utmost, surely he must feel dissatisfied. It is not likely that he will be so keen to sail again, or that parents will be willing to lose their sons in the way the noble Earl has described this afternoon. I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will be able not to controvert the facts which the noble Earl has given—which I am sure are incontrovertible, or he would not have given them to your Lordships' House—but to assure the House that he really is going to investigate the whole matter from top to bottom, both in the ports and wharves and at the headquarters from which this equipment is sent. I wish most strongly to support the Motion of the noble Earl that this matter shall be most completely

653
investigated, and I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will give us a satisfactory assurance.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, when I thought that this Motion would have been taken in Secret Session, I was proposing to give a somewhat detailed account of all the security measures which we do in fact take to preserve secrecy in the matter of the destination of ships leaving the ports of Great Britain. I learnt yesterday, however, that the noble Earl, Lord Cork, does not wish me to go into the details, and I am glad, therefore, that we are able to take the matter in Public Session, although my remarks must necessarily be limited by that fact. I should like first to clear a misunderstanding which may have arisen from my own remarks on the 29th September, when I was replying to a question put by the noble Earl himself on this same subject. After I had answered this question the noble Earl raised the particular case of a cargo for a special Malta convoy which he said had been marked with the word "Malta." I pointed out in reply that if the report which he had received was correct, a mistake must certainly have occurred, since the destination of goods forwarded by special convoys such as those going to Malta is only given in code. It has since been pointed out to me that my later remarks may have given rise to a more general interpretation than I had intended. I did not mean to imply that the destination of all goods in all sailings was marked in code. I was replying to the question which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, in respect of the Malta convoy. I should like to reassure your Lordships that every step, consistent with avoidance of confusion and delays, is taken to keep secret the destination of ships. I cannot detail these steps in public, but I can promise that this question is very closely watched. The particular case mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cork, on a previous occasion has not been traced, and indeed, by the nature of the evidence available, I cannot trace it.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that the young officer is perfectly willing to come and be examined? He feels very strongly about it. He told me in his letter that he is only a cadet, but feels he has a mission and would be quite willing to come out in public and give his evidence. I may add
654
that his name is one that is familiar to your Lordships as that also of a very distinguished man who died a few years ago.
LORD LEATHERS: I say this quite definitely, that we have tried very hard indeed, on the evidence which the noble Earl has supplied, to trace this particular incident, and it cannot be traced, but if there is any other evidence forthcoming do please let us have it, because it is just this kind of thing we would like to get at. The whole of these arrangements are so put together, so under the jurisdiction of the Service Departments and so concentrated in one Government Department, as to secure that there is no departure from this system in these special convoys. I cannot say that a mistake will not happen, but the whole thing is watched, so that any mistake can be seen quickly and rectified. I should be very happy indeed if the further evidence that is now referred to can be produced, so that we may see exactly what has happened. It is so important to us all, particularly in respect of these special convoys, and the operational convoys which are equally special, that we should have no identification of the destination of goods that are shipped in those sailings. I hope that further evidence will now be forthcoming. I am sorry I cannot elaborate more. I should like to do so but it would be wrong to do it unless we go into Secret Session. Nevertheless, I should like to reiterate that if indeed these circumstances did occur, it was a great mistake. We are always most careful to secure that goods for shipment in special and operational convoys are not marked with their ports of destination. I cannot state that mistakes will not happen, but I am satisfied that on the whole our security measures are both adequate and comprehensive. Beyond that I am afraid that I could not go without betraying something which I think would be a mistake to give in public.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have listened to this discussion and my sympathy with my noble and gallant friend (the Earl of Cork and Orrery) is very great. I cannot think, if the evidence which he has submitted is justified, that he has done anything but reveal what must be classed as a considerable scandal. I hope the noble Lord will realize that what it does call for is most serious investigation, and that the last phrase in his speech, when he said he was

655
satisfied that every step had been taken or was being taken which could be justified in the circumstances, was a little discouraging. Prima facie in what my noble and gallant friend Lord Cork has revealed, there is a grave matter, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will pay the closest attention to what he has said.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure the public will be profoundly disturbed by the revelations made by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, and by the reply given on behalf of the Government. Every means of publicity has been resorted to to impress upon every member of the public the extra-ordinary need of secrecy in these matters and the phrase "Careless talk costs lives" has been instilled into the whole of our population. The people in general will be very gravely concerned to learn that "careless talking" about the formation of convoys in the form of identification directions on the cases that are loaded on to our ships, has been the work of Government Departments themselves—the Ministry Of Shipping apparently and the Departments which supply the goods—and I think the noble Lord will be well advised, if I may respectfully say so, not only to go into this matter with care, but to publish if he can some reassuring statement about the facts so that the mind of the public may be calmed.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, some time ago I took into my service a man very recently discharged from the Merchant Navy, a former naval man, employed as a gunner. He was recalled at the beginning of the war, though he was over fifty years of age. He was employed on the run to North Russia and I suppose in about a year's time he had seven ships sunk under him. On one occasion he was in the water for eighteen hours. I do not propose to relate all that he told me, but what he said was sufficient to convince me that far too much information circulates about convoys and that there must be some tightening up of the regulations unless more valuable cargoes for our Allies are to be lost and, still more important, the lives of thousands of men in the Merchant Navy as well as in the Royal Navy are to be endangered.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I purposely did not ask for any
656
details. I do not wish, nor I suppose do other noble Lords wish, to be burdened with Service secrets. What I did hope for was a statement of reassurance to be given to the public generally. I hoped for an assurance that close investigation would be made, and that those responsible would be punished, for I feel not the least doubt that responsibility could be brought home if the proper steps were taken. If the noble Lord would promise to investigate and bring it home to those responsible, then the public and the men in the Merchant Service would be reassured. I ask for nothing more and I hope the noble Lord will give that assurance.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, if I may have permission to say another word, I do most sincerely give an assurance that this matter will be investigated, and by that I mean a special investigation arising out of what has been said in your Lordships' House to-day. I would, however, emphasize that these security arrangements have to be kept under constant review. So many changes have to be made—because codes are compromised in a matter of three weeks—that never is this question out of our minds. There are people in my own Department dealing with this subject continually, and they are joined by all the security officers concerned in particular shipments from every Department. I can assure your Lordships that no one takes this matter indifferently or approaches it with other than entire enthusiasm. I promise that there will be a special investigation because of what has transpired in your Lordships' House to-day.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE DISCIPLINE: APPEALS MACHINERY.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had the following question on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government if they are aware, that while in English borough police forces an appeal can be made to the watch committee against disciplinary punishments inflicted by a Chief Constable upon his subordinates, no such appeal is possible to members of an English county force, or to those of any Scottish force, burgh or county, against any punishment less than actual dismissal; and if they

657
will take steps to set up the necessary machinery to make appeals possible by members of all police forces throughout the country.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the police forces of this country, and not merely those of the London area, have earned the quite justifiable admiration of the whole world, but policemen are, after all, only human beings and on occasions make mistakes like other people and have to be called to book by their superiors. It may surprise your Lordships to learn that, unlike most if not all other branches of tae public service, there is in the great majority of the police forces of this country no opportunity for any appeal to be made against a sentence passed upon a policeman for disciplinary reasons if that sentence is less than dismissal from the force. The only exception to this, as far as I am aware, is in the case of English borough police forces, where there is an appeal to the watch committee of the borough. I believe that in the case of English county forces, and I know that in the case of police forces in Scotland, both burgh and county, there is no appeal to anyone against a penalty inflicted by a Chief Constable if that penalty is a fine, suspension or reduction in rank. This would appear to be a definite blot on the police administration and I should like therefore to ask His Majesty's Government if they will take steps in the near future to set up the necessary machinery to ensure that any policeman who wishes to appeal against such sentence should have power to do so.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire is unable to be here to-day and. I have been asked to reply to the noble Earl. The noble Earl's question seems to imply that in borough forces in England the watch committee has only an appellate jurisdiction in disciplinary cases but this is not strictly correct. In law the watch committee is itself the disciplinary authority: any disciplinary award by the Chief Constable is subject to confirmation by the watch committee and any member of the force who is aggrieved by an award of the Chief Constable has a right to appear before the watch committee on giving proper notice.
If, as I understand it, the suggestion is that this arrangement should be extended to police forces in counties and in Scottish burghs, His Majesty's Government
658
are not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for making such a fundamental change in the disciplinary control of these forces. My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland are, however, considering the possibility of an extension of the existing right of appeal provided by the Police Appeals Act, 1927, which is at present limited to cases of dismissal or compulsory resignation, so as to cover the serious punishments of reduction in rank and reduction in pay. Such a general extension of the right of appeal would of course require legislation, which His Majesty's Government would not be prepared to promote in war-time unless they were satisfied that it would not be controversial.
THE EARL. OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, arising out of that reply, which is satisfactory only in the same way as the well-known curate's egg, I should like to point out that in the case of the Scottish police forces, there is no appeal against any sentence imposed by a Chief Constable unless that sentence is dismissal from the force, when an appeal does lie to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not suggest to His Majesty's Government what would he the most appropriate form in which appeal should be made, but I think it is essential that something should be done to remove what would appear to be a definite injustice. I hope, therefore, that not only will the position be investigated but that the Government will find it possible, even during the war, to introduce legislation which surely would hardly be controversial, as no one would be likely to wish that policemen, of all men, should remain unable to make any representation against sentences which appear to be unjust or excessive.

SECRET SESSION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now sit in secret.
Moved, That the House do now sit in Secret Session.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.
House adjourned.