Lords Sitting of 10 September 1942

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

H.R.H. THE LATE DUKE OF KENT: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have to convey to the House the following Message from the King, signed with his own hand:
"I thank you sincerely for the loyal and affectionate words in which you express your sympathy with me and my Family in the loss, on active service, of my dear brother the Duke of Kent. In the midst of this sudden grief it is a source of the greatest comfort to me to realize how fully you share our sorrow."

PARLIAMENTARY MISSION TO CHINA.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I have to inform the House (and a similar statement is, I understand, being made by Mr. Speaker to the House of Commons) that His Excellency Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek has expressed the hope that a small Mission, composed of members of both Houses, would be able to visit Chungking this autumn. Mr. Speaker and I were accordingly asked to assist in inviting members for this purpose, two from each House, and the following have accepted the proposal to be members of the Mission: Lord Ailwyn and Lord Teviot, for the House of Lords, and Captain H. J. Scrymgeour Wedderburn, M.P., and Mr. J. J. Lawson, M.P., for the House of Commons. Your Lordships, I am sure, will learn with gratification that it has thus been found possible to take advantage of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's most welcome invitation, and will wish the members of the Mission great success in the discharge of their important undertaking.

INDIA.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether
316
they have any statement to make on the subject of India.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the course of events in India has been improving and is, on the whole, reassuring. The broad principles of the declaration made by His Majesty's Government, which formed the basis for the Mission of the Lord Privy Seal to India, must be taken as representing the settled policy of the British Crown and Parliament. These principles stand in their full scope and integrity; no one can add anything to them, and no one can take anything away. The good offices of the Lord Privy Seal were rejected by the Indian Congress Party. This, however, does not end the matter.
The Indian Congress Party does not represent all India. It does not represent the majority of the people of India; it does not represent even the Hindu masses. It is a political organization built round a Party machine, and sustained by certain manufacturing and financial interests. Outside that Party, and fundamentally opposed to it, are the 90,000,000 Moslems in British India, who have their rights of self-expression; the 50,000,000 Depressed Classes, or Untouchables, as they are called, because they are supposed to defile their Hindu co-religionists by their presence or by their shadow; and the 95,000,000 subjects of the Princes of India, to whom we are bound by treaties; in all, 235,000,000 in these three large groupings alone, out of about 390,000,000 in all India. This takes no account of large elements among the Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians in British India who deplore the present policy of the Congress Party. It is necessary that these main facts should not be overlooked here or abroad, because no comprehension of the Indian problem or of the relations between Britain and India is possible without the recognition of these basic data.
The Congress Party has now abandoned, in many respects, the policy of non-violence which Mr. Gandhi has so long inculcated in theory, and has come into the open as a revolutionary movement designed to paralyze communications by rail and telegraph, and generally to promote disorder, the looting of shops, and sporadic attacks upon the Indian Police, accompanied from time to time by

317
revolting atrocities—the whole having the intention, or at any rate the effect, of hampering the defence of India against the Japanese invader, who stands on the frontiers of Assam and also upon the eastern side of the Bay of Bengal. It may well be that these activities by the Congress Party have been aided by Japanese fifth-column work on a widely-extended scale, and with special direction to strategic points. It is noteworthy, for example, that the communications of the Indian Forces defending Bengal on the Assam frontier have been specially attacked.
In these circumstances the Viceroy and the Government of India, with the unanimous support of the Viceroy's Council, the great majority of the members of which are Indians and wise and patriotic men, have felt it necessary to proclaim and suppress the central and provincial organs of this association, which has become committed to hostile and criminal courses. Mr. Gandhi and other principal leaders have been interned, under conditions of the highest comfort and consideration, and will be kept out of harm's way until the troubles subside.
It is fortunate that the Congress Party has no influence whatever with the martial races, on whom the defence of India, apart from the British Forces, largely depends. Many of these races are divided by unbridgeable religious gulfs from the Hindu Congress, and would never consent to be ruled by them; nor shall they ever be, against their will, so subjugated. There is no compulsory service in India, but upwards of a million Indians have volunteered to serve the cause of the United Nations in this world struggle. The bravery of the Indian troops has been distinguished in many theatres of war, and it is satisfactory to note that in these last two months, when the Congress has been measuring its strength against the Government of India, more than 140,000 new volunteers for the Army have come forward in loyal allegiance to the King-Emperor, thus surpassing all records, to defend their native land. So far as matters have gone up to the present, they have revealed the impotence of the Congress Party either to seduce or even to sway the Indian Army, or to withdraw from their duty the enormous body of Indian officials,
318
and still less to stir the vast Indian masses.
India is a continent almost as large as and actually more populous than Europe, and divided by racial and, above all, by religious differences far deeper than any that have separated Europeans. The whole administration of the Government of the 390,000,000 who live in India is carried on by Indians, there being under 600 British members of the Indian Civil Service. All the public services are working. In five Provinces, including two of the greatest, and comprising 110,000,000 of people, Provincial Ministries, responsible to their Legislatures, stand at their posts. In many places, both town and country, the population has rallied to the support of the civil power. The Congress conspiracy against communications is breaking down. Acts of pillage and arson are being repressed and punished with incredibly small loss of life. Fewer than 500 persons have been killed over this mighty area of territory and population, and it has only been necessary to move a few brigades of British troops in support of the civil power. In most cases the rioters have been successfully dealt with by the Indian Police. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to pay a tribute to the loyalty and steadfastness of these brave Indian Police as well as of the Indian official classes generally, whose behaviour has been deserving of the highest praise.
To sum up, the outstanding fact which has emerged from the violent action of the Congress Party has been their non-representative character and their powerlessness to throw into confusion the normal peaceful life of India. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give all necessary support to the Viceroy and his Executive in the firm but tempered measures by which they are protecting the life of the Indian community and leaving the British and Indian Armies free to defend the soil of India against the Japanese. I may add that large reinforcements have reached India and that the numbers of white soldiers now in that country, though very small compared with its size and population, are larger than at any time in the British connexion. I therefore feel entitled to report to the House that the situation in India at this moment gives no occasion for undue despondency or alarm.

RAW MATERIALS.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to the necessity for practising economy in raw materials to the fullest possible extent; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move my Motion, I must confess to a certain feeling of relief at having at last found a subject upon which I am permitted to speak in public. For some time now I have been feeling very like the dormouse in Alice in Wonderland. Whenever I have wished to speak, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has risen and in a loud voice cried "Suppress him," and I have been put into the teapot. Not, of course, that I wish to suggest that there is any affinity between the noble Viscount and the Mad Hatter. But at the same time he will understand with what relief I find myself allowed to speak in public. I believe that this Motion is the first of its kind which has dealt solely with the question of raw materials. Although of course the subject has been introduced in other debates, yet this, I believe, is the first time the debate has dealt solely with the subject, and in what I have to say I should like to acknowledge how much I owe to the pages of the Economist, which is indeed a mine of information upon this subject of raw materials, information which has the great merit of being strictly impartial and presented from no political point of view.
When I first went into the matter I began to feel that perhaps my Motion was superfluous because I found that on the 29th July, 1941, Mr. Bevin said that there was "not a manufacturer or a member of a Regional Board who will deny that the problem of raw materials has been largely solved." I do not know if the noble Lord opposite will endorse that view. I think he would be a very happy man if he were able to feel that the problem of raw materials had been largely solved. The fact is that we have to face a growing shortage of labour and of raw materials for essential purposes. Consideration of the matter is governed by the fact that the best and the most economical use of raw materials is only possible if the Fighting Forces look ahead, plan what they will want and stick to their plans. Then orders can be given well in advance, they can be given on a large scale, and they can be given with continuity; all of which
320
will make for economy in the use of the material.
I should like at once to ask if any hold-ups exist in production now, due to the absence of any raw materials. Broadly speaking, the United Nations enjoy often an overwhelming superiority in supplies, and the measures which have been taken to increase the supplies of scarce materials seem to have been very successful. I believe that transport to a certain extent hinders the massing of materials at manufacturing centres. But superiority in supplies of raw materials is not enough: the test is how you use them. To get more war equipment out of existing supplies we must use them more economically, and also improve our distribution methods. I know that coal does hot come within the province of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, but I must refer to it in a sentence or two, because all that we say or do about raw materials will be of little or no avail without coal. Coal is the one material of which we have boundless supplies at home, and which presents no difficulty about shipping, though it may present certain difficulties with regard to transport. I think that the story of coal is a very sad story indeed—the one commodity of which we have more than we need, if we could only get it. But it cannot be said that so far the industry has been pulling its weight in the desperate tug-of-war in which we are engaged. I believe it is the only industry which has not increased its production during the war. Much of what is amiss is due to lack of foresight. The needs of our rising production programme were overlooked, pits were closed and men were absorbed in the Forces. However that may be, we are not at present raising enough for our domestic requirements, and there has been an inadequate response to the call for higher production. I have seen it said of the coal-owners that the heads of no other industry have abandoned so little of their peace-time practice as have the coal-owners. However, we are faced with a serious shortage. All we can do is to wish well to the new Minister of Fuel and Power in the task which is laid upon him, and hope that the new scheme which he is to operate will produce the results that are wanted.
I would like to say one word about the position in Germany. Statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic in their speeches

321
imply that because of the superiority of Allied supplies of raw materials the Axis can therefore be out-produced. I do not think that that follows at all. Germany is very much more skilful in using her raw materials to good advantage than we are, and especially in eking out her scarce resources. To take only one instance, the United Nations have at their disposal ten tons of copper for every one ton that the Axis disposes of; and yet already America is faced with a shortage in copper. I notice that in Germany there is a decline in production of the heaviest armaments, and they are now concentrating on locomotives, on U-boats, and on lighter weapons suitable for use against this country or in the Middle East, but at the same time the salvage campaign for scrap in Germany increases in intensity. The results probably go into stock and not into immediate production, which shows that great reserves still are being accumulated in case it becomes necessary to switch again to heavy armament production. I also notice that the three boards which have hitherto existed in Germany, the boards for iron and steel, for miscellaneous articles and for technical products, have now all been combined into one board for technical products. The whole intention evidently is to make German industry even more flexible yet for meeting the requirements of any change of plan which the war may dictate.
Then, to turn for a moment to the duties and the organization of the Ministry of Production, it seems to me that the Minister enjoys wider powers than were conceded to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, when he held that office for seven days. There are three keys to production—raw materials, labour, and machine tools. Mr. Lyttelton has told us that he controls raw materials. He is charged with the import programme, with the development of raw material resources of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and with the work of the Empire Clearing House. The Minister of Production, as I understand it, has power to allocate all raw materials reaching this country, whether by production or by purchase. Some Minister ought to have had these powers three years ago. It has taken a Press and Parliamentary campaign extending over three years to secure what was surely an obvious necessity. The Raw Materials Department has not been transferred to the Minister because of the
322
difficulty in drawing a hard-and-fast line between raw materials and semi-manufactured products. On that account the organization of raw materials has not been taken from the Minister of Supply, who continues to adminster the raw materials Controls and the work concerning the turning of raw materials into semi-manufactured articles.
But the Minister of Production is responsible for planning and programme. He is responsible for what goes into the Raw Materials Department of the Ministry of Supply and for the allocation of what comes out, as well as being responsible for control of imports of raw materials. I notice also that the powers of the Minister in this respect apply fully to the Admiralty where shipbuilding is concerned. The Minister can allocate or take away from the Admiralty as he sees fit, the Admiralty of course having the right of appeal to the War Cabinet. The details of this work of allocation is done by the noble Lord, Lord Portal, as Chairman of the Materials Committee, on which he uses the experience gained in eighteen months at the Ministry of Supply on the War Materials Control.
In connexion with the powers and organization of the work of the Minister of Production, the question of America at once comes into one's mind. I understand that there is a combined Production and Resources Board and a common pool from which each nation can draw, so that, in effect, there is no such thing as a British requirement or an American requirement—there is only an Allied requirement. This organization works to one schedule of allocations and priorities. I feel it is most vital that whatever we are doing in connexion with raw materials should dovetail in with what the United States are doing. I believe at one time there was a proposal to send someone of Ministerial rank to the United States to supervise all that has to be done. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to tell us what has matured in that respect, and also what form the bodies to coordinate the joint resources of the two countries have assumed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, when he was in America, laid the keel of such an organization well and truly. I cannot refrain from saying that, to me, it is a remarkable illustration of what a galaxy of war-winners we have in this Govern-

323
ment, and of how confident we feel of winning the war, that we feel able to do without Lord Beaverbrook's services to that end. I can only remark that the end is not yet.
I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can tell us something on the subject of Controls. I have noticed much criticism of people being engaged in the administration of Controls who are also interested in the industries affected by them. I should like to know how that is working, and if it is found in actual practice that no harm is done by these gentlemen acting in this dual capacity. I take it that all allocations are operated through the Controls, and that the Controls allocate in accordance with the direction of the Minister of Production. In regard to allocations they have replaced priority. "Priority" is a very blessed word, and we arrived at a state of affairs where we had priorities, first priorities, and absolute priorities, and then perhaps another form of priority which probably meant you got what you wanted. It always seems to me that under this system of priority you could get your priority, but you might not get your allocation of raw materials and what priority calls for. I should like to ask how that works now, and how we work with the United States as regards allocation.
Consideration of this question of economy in raw materials is of course governed by the losses of sources of supply which have been incurred in the process of losing Far Eastern possessions of the British Empire and of our Allies. We have lost 60 per cent. of the world's tin, 90 per cent. of the world's rubber, and very large proportions of wolfram, lead, bauxite, and other materials. I must point out that the existing situation in the Indian Ocean certainly endangers our remaining supplies from the East. The loss of these resources must of course have stimulated a great search for new sources of supply, and in that connexion the Colonies assume a new and most vital interest. Central Africa is one of the very few areas left from which we can replace losses of raw materials such as tin, bauxite, hematite, and vegetable oils.
What steps, generally, are being taken to expand production in the Colonial Empire? Is labour available for such
324
expansion? May I ask what staff the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, took out with him to Africa from this particular point of view? It is necessary to expand Colonial production on an enormous scale. What is being done to intensify rubber production in Ceylon and East and West Africa? Is the system of cash bonuses for rubber production in Ceylon having good results? What is being done to revive abandoned or neglected plantations such as exist in the British Cameroons? What is being done as to the sources of wild rubber in Tanganyika? There are minerals in the Gold Coast, Nigeria, Northern Rhodesia, Cyprus, British Guiana, Ceylon—what is being done to investigate the possibilities and stimulate increased production there? Then, again, these questions all apply to Allied Governments who have Colonial possessions. Are our resources and efforts being pooled with theirs? I recollect that there was an Anglo-French agreement concluded in 1939 which provided for the pooling of all material resources. Could we be told how that is working?
Could we be told also something about what is being done in regard to substitution of materials? There are great possibilities of economies being effected in the alteration of existing specifications to more economical materials. I have heard of one instance where, by substitution, the cost of a very widely-used article was reduced from £2 to 2s. This question of substitution has become one of vital importance in view of the absorption of the normal supply of raw materials. It is urgent to do everything possible to find or manufacture substitutes for the materials lost to us. Substitution also may be a means of making great economies in shipping space. Apart from the question of substitution, can it be said that the profit motive is no longer allowed in any way to govern the use or choice of raw materials in any direction? Again, how far has it been found possible to relax peace-time safety factors in construction and engineering? In peace-time those safety factors were usually calculated upon a very ample and generous scale, and it seems to me that by reducing those safety factors, but still keeping well within the limit of actual safety, great economies of raw materials might be effected. Similarly, economies might be effected by relaxing unduly high peace-time tests and standards of inspection. Probably also

325
economies can be effected by the greater concentration of industries.
Any discussion of economies in the use of raw materials must of course bring us to the question of shipping. Shipping is already a bottle-neck, although I think it would be only right to pay a tribute to the work of the Minister of War Transport in this respect, work which I know, from my own sources of information, has met with very great success indeed, and has effected very considerable improvement. But how far is production held up at the moment by shortage of raw materials due to lack of shipping? How far do military requirements for shipping impede the imports of raw materials? It is no good sending Armies overseas if we by sending them prevent ourselves from importing the raw materials with which to make their weapons and to equip them. Are we able at the present moment to import sufficient raw materials to employ all the labour which is being absorbed into our factories, and if we are not are any further reductions of foodstuffs or of some necessities possible? Are we really yet down to civilian brass tacks? It is certain that we must give labour those raw materials even if we have to sacrifice yet more of our comforts. Again, can we import more raw materials by speeding up the turn-round of ships? I have seen it stated that the import of raw materials is actually on the down grade, not only because of the loss of sources of supply but because of dwindling shipping space.
If I may mention in particular one or two of the raw materials with which we are concerned. I will do so, and say a word or two about the position in regard to each of them. First on my list would be aluminium and magnesium. Those are metals which have only comparatively recently been raised to the metallic peerage. They are rather newcomers, but, as so often happens, they are already proving more important and valuable than some of the older ones. But the demand both for aluminium and magnesium is expanding, and so important are these metals to the production of ammunitions that their comparative availability to the Allies and to the Axis may very greatly affect the course of the war. Germany is very well off in regard to raw materials for the manufacture of aluminium, and so is the United States. The Axis and the Allies are equally well supplied with raw
326
materials for the manufacture of aluminium and of magnesium. It is not the supply of raw materials in this case, but it seems to be the manufacturing capacity which is the crux. I understand we have gained a lead now over the Axis; that the Axis did hold the lead in the output of both these metals up to about 1941, but that since then we have gained the lead. In that respect the position in regard to both aluminium and magnesium is satisfactory, though I am afraid that in regard to aluminium our Ally Russia has, unfortunately, lost most of her output, which will no doubt have to be made good by the United States and ourselves. It seems to me there is reason to hope that both in regard to aluminium and magnesium the Axis will continue to lose its lead, and that the lead will be enjoyed by the Allies.
Manganese is essential to steel and iron production. There again the position should be satisfactory provided events do not go badly in the Indian Ocean, but as such a very great proportion of the remaining supplies of manganese ore come to us from India, the threat to our communications in the Indian Ocean does, of course, loom very large indeed. Mercury at one time gave us cause for alarm, but now the position in that respect seems to be all right. So it is probably in regard to tin, although we have suffered very serious losses of our supplies there, and, what is almost more serious than the loss of supplies of tin, we have in the Far East lost such very great smelting capacity also, which is possibly even of more importance that the loss of the tin itself, as the Allied refining capacity does not appear to equal the supplies of ore which are available. But it does not appear that a serious shortage need be contemplated, because stocks are good and we do recover tin from waste products. The restriction of the use of tinplate and the substitution of other materials for tin are of very great importance, and possibly the noble Lord may be able to tell us something of what is being done in that respect. It would also be very interesting to know what is the position about Cornish tin. What is being done to develop and expand that production, and also the production of Nigerian tin? In view of our present situation, it is interesting to reflect that before the war Nigerian output was

327
restricted to 6,000 tons per annum. Now we have to try to expand.
I would like to ask something, too, about copper which is probably one of the most important of the munitions metals. I believe that a bomber contains no less than two miles of copper wire, and a battleship is said to contain 2,000,000 lbs. of copper. If those facts are so they illustrate the enormous importance of copper as a munitions metal. Here it is good news to know that the Axis is very short, and that she has to depend upon eking out stocks by scrap recovery and substitution, with all of which she is very clever indeed. It is also noticeable that the only large source of supply is in Russia, in the Urals and beyond, and that the best developed mines in Russia are in the Southern Caucasus, which enables one to understand certain military movements in process at this moment. Japan can draw no supplies from her conquests, but she has very large stocks and no shortage need be anticipated for her. A remarkable thing is that although the United Nations control such an overwhelming amount of the world's supply of copper, such is the vast production programme of America that she already is faced with a shortage, but of course is making characteristic efforts to expand her production and at the same time to economize in consumption. One thing which is satisfactory in regard to copper is that the Non-ferrous Metal Control has been able to keep the price down to £68 per ton as compared with the figure of £138 which we were paying for copper in the last war. The position with regard to substitutes is very difficult because substitute materials are in shorter supply than copper, and it is evident we must meet the possibility of shortage by still further reducing civilian consumption and by making an intensified drive for scrap.
I want also to ask the noble Lord if he can take into consideration the position in regard to paper. I realize the shipping position regarding paper, but I still believe that many economies are possible in the use of paper and that many ways still exist in which the consumption of paper might be reduced. At the same time things are certainly very difficult indeed for book publishers and newspaper publishers. I think it is re-
328
markable that the newspapers have been able to face up to the situation and deal with the position so as to give us such good papers as they continue to provide. There is a very great dearth, however, of certain books—children's books and light fiction by popular authors in the sixpenny type of edition. I do not think we should overlook the necessities in this respect. People do require to get away from the strain of their work. I myself felt badly in need of a thriller after preparing this speech on raw materials, and I can sympathize with airmen who like to read No Orchids for Miss Blandish when they return from their jobs. I hope it may be found possible slightly to increase the quotas, and perhaps give a slightly increased quota for the purposes of which I have spoken. It would, I think, give valuable results.
May I also ask what is happening about printing done for our Allies here? imagine that the American Army is cursed with the same rash of Army Forms from which we suffer here. Where does the paper on which they are printed come from? Does it come from our stock or not? I hope also that something can be done about paper for another reason. In large camps which are springing up where contractors are carrying out big works employing thousands of men in remote districts, the men sometimes never see newspapers at all. There are none available for them. I think that is unfortunate, and if more paper could be made available so that there could be a wider distribution of newspapers in such places I am sure it would meet a real need.
I say nothing on account of time about iron and steel or hematite, but I would like to say a word about rubber. There, it seems to me, we have the most serious situation of all in regard to raw materials. I am bound to say that our difficulties in this respect are due to failure to look ahead and envisage the possibility of war with Japan and the possible consequent loss of sources of supply. Because of that lack of foresight stocks were not accumulated and no preparations were made for synthetic rubber production. That failure to look ahead with the serious difficulties which have followed has been made the subject of an inquiry by the Senate of the United States of America. Here, of course, we have had recourse as usual to the whitewash bucket. There has been no inquiry at all. That lack of prevision has

329
had the most serious, and will have very serious, results on the conduct of the war. I wonder if at any time someone did point out the practical certainty of Japan coming into the war and the advisability of checking consumption of rubber and building up stocks of that essential material which comes from the Far East.
The United States is planning a very rapid expansion of synthetic rubber production. The plan is to produce as much as 700,000 tons per annum. That is a very ambitious programme, because the technical difficulties are very great and there is already a bottle-neck in America in regard to certain raw materials required for the production of synthetic rubber. At the same time, several firms in America have manufactured synthetic rubber on a commercial basis for some time. I understand that we do not intend to make synthetic rubber here, and that we are going to leave the matter to the United States because she has oil and we would have to use more shipping in order to get oil, or extract oil from coal of which unfortunately we are unable to get adequate supplies. It is quite evident that we have been caught short of supplies, and we ought not to have been caught short if there had been the proper foresight which average common sense should have dictated.
I hope very much that the Minister within the limits of public security—I fully realize the importance of that point—will be able to tell us something about the steps which are being taken in this matter of rubber supplies. Optimists have told me that we hold very large stocks and that a shortage is unlikely to occur before American synthetic production gets going. I wish I could believe what the optimists tell me, but I find difficulty in doing it and I would like to ask what steps are being taken to ensure adequate supplies of rubber for essential purposes, whether those steps are proving satisfactory and what steps have been taken, for instance, to increase the output of reclaimed rubber. Is it really certain that the United States will be able to meet the immediate needs of the United Nations for raw rubber? I apologize to your Lordships for having taken so long in developing what I fear is rather a dry subject, but I hope that at any rate my Motion will have provided the noble Lord with a peg upon which he will be able to hang his hat. I beg to move.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND PLANNING (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, first I would like to read the Notice of my noble friend, which is "to call attention to the necessity for practising economy in raw materials to the fullest possible extent, and to move for Papers." I would like, if I may, to congratulate my noble friend on the fulness of his remarks. He has covered a very large and wide field, and if in my remarks I do not answer all his questions it is because I do not want to keep your Lordships too long, and also because he has perhaps in some ways greater knowledge than I have of some of the subjects discussed. My experience in regard to raw materials started when I served three different Ministers of Supply, the present Home Secretary, the present Minister of Supply, on two occasions, and also my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook. It was during that period of a year and a half that I was responsible for raw materials to those three Ministers. When I moved to my present Ministry the present Minister of Production asked me to take on the allocation of raw materials which had previously been done by the present Minister of Aircraft Production.
As this subject has not been debated before in your Lordships' House, I would like to give you a picture of the difficulties of raw materials as I have seen them. I would divide those difficulties into three stages. The first stage was before France went out of the war, when, although we were cut off from a great part of Europe, we had nearly the whole world from which to draw raw materials. You had then the natural difficulties that occur with shipping during the war, but the position was comparatively easy in the stage to which I am now referring. That was stage number one. Stage number two of raw materials was when France went out of the war: Europe was overrun by the Germans and we were faced with the necessity of a much longer haul for our raw materials. And so great difficulties arose in regard to the shipping situation. The third stage, to which Lord Winster has alluded, developed when Japan came into the war and overran Malaya and Burma and the Dutch East Indies. It made our task even more difficult. The difficulties were increased for other reasons also. There are two other aspects of this question at which we must look. One relates to when the Americans brought in their Defence Bill and the other to when

331
they came into the war. Both these events occasioned increased pressure on our raw materials. We were confronted with the fact that our Allies now required raw materials at the same time as ourselves. With regard to the question of shipping it must be patent to all your Lordships that that must be the first governing factor with regard to the bringing of raw materials into this country. As my noble friend Lord Winster said, the only raw material of our own which we have in this country is coal. I am not going to discuss coal to-day, but it will be clear to your Lordships that everything else must depend on shipping.
With regard to the question of shipping I may say in passing that I am very glad that the Minister of Food is here to-day. In the beginning of 1941 those of us who served on the Import Committee asked my noble friend the Minister of War Transport to give us, if he could, his approximate estimate for shipping for 1941. The Minister of Food, I remember, used to compete with the then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Supply to see who could get the best of the argument. It was all done in a very friendly way, however, so that we were generally able to share our troubles together. As I have indicated we used to worry the present Minister of War Transport asking what he could give us. It was a difficult problem we set him when we asked him at the beginning of 1941 to tell us what we could get by the end of 1941. It must have rather taxed his imagination. At the beginning of 1941 he gave a figure of many millions of tons of goods which he said he thought we would be able to bring over to this country. At the end of 1941, as my noble friend Lord Woolton I know will agree, the whole of that programme of many millions of tons was fulfilled except for a deficiency of 200,000 tons. That I think was a great feat on the part of the Ministry of War Transport.
Now in 1942 we have to reckon with Japan being in the war against the Allies, and we have to take raw materials to Russia. Ships are wanted for all sorts of things besides the transport of raw material and food. The burden on the Ministry of Transport has become heavier, and their difficulties have increased day by day. I do not think that until you sit down and study the question you can really grasp the full extent of these diffi-
332
culties. Lord Winster has paid a tribute to the work which has been done. We thank the Minister of Food for the size of our stomachs and we should also like to thank the Minister of War Transport for the work which he has done in bringing food to these shores. If you take shipping as the principal factor governing the import of raw material, two other essential matters are those to which Lord Winster has already alluded. Economy is one of those factors, and the other, which I myself was going to bring up if he had not already done so, is substitution. Those two things go hand in hand and along with allocations they are under the charter of the Minister of Production. If you want economy of raw materials the question of salvage must be very seriously considered. We, in this country, before the war, were not, I think, salvage-minded. I think all your Lordships will agree with that. However, the need was recognized and the great salvage drive was started at the Ministry of Supply, whence it is now directed. The movement grew and the Salvage Board was instituted.
Let me refer to three important matters in connexion with the salvage campaign in this country to-day. The first matter to which I wish to refer is the recovery of iron and steel scrap. There was a certain amount being recovered in this country, and then in August, 1941, the Americans told us that they wanted scrap for themselves. We were also under the necessity of saving shipping space, and so we started a big drive for scrap. The Ministry which I now represent—I did not represent it then—was asked to take over the handling of scrap. Now we have a regular scrap collection in this country. It amounts to 80,000 tons of scrap in the week. Of that an average of 26,000 tons is collected for the iron and steel recovery campaign by the Ministry of Works and Planning and some 6,500 tons is brought in through the local authorities. That gives you a figure of approximately 4,000,000 tons of scrap a year. At the time when we were cut off from America we were importing half a million tons of scrap a year into this country. The collection of scrap has had other repercussions besides helping to offset the cutting down of imports. It saves the importation of ore, and one ton of scrap means a saving of approximately two tons of fuel, which would have been necessary

333
in conjunction with the three and a quarter tons of ore which each ton of scrap replaces. So by this collection of scrap we are saving millions of tons of fuel a year, which as my noble friend I am sure will recognize is a great thing.
From the question of scrap steel I go in the second place to waste paper. Nine months ago about 12,500 tons of waste paper were being collected a week. As you know supplies of paper are becoming less and less. It is encouraging to know that the rate of recovery has been raised to 18,000 tons a week. That has been brought about entirely through the help of the great newspapers. They started their waste paper recovery association and they pushed up the results of the recovery campaign by 33 per cent., I should like to take the opportunity of thanking them for their services. I repeat that we are now saving 18,000 tons of waste paper a week. That again saves the importation of pulp—a further economy in the use of shipping space. As I am dealing with paper, and as my noble friend Lord Winster mentioned the use of substitutes, perhaps I may take the opportunity of mentioning what is being done in connexion with the use of substitutes for the making of paper. Not only are we using waste paper, which was almost unheard of before the war except in the case of a few mills, but we are employing other substitutes. Before the war one-third of the great paper industry of this country was using esparto grass, which comes from North Africa. The supply of esparto grass has been completely cut off, and the paper-makers in this country are now using straw, which was used in countries like Italy before the war, but never in this country, to take the place of esparto grass. The only limitation to the use of straw is the boiling capacity of the various paper mills. The yield from straw is not as good as that from esparto grass, but it is a valuable substitute. Strictly speaking, that does not come under the heading of salvage, but I mention it because I have been discussing the question of paper.
Your Lordships will not expect me, I am sure, to go into every question connected with salvage, but I propose to refer later to rubber (which is my third point in connection with salvage) and to try to answer what my noble friend Lord Winster has said. Perhaps I might mention that the Ministry of Supply are now
334
collecting large amounts of waste rubber. Non-ferrous metals, bones and string are also being collected. It will help enormously if every citizen becomes "salvage-minded" and plays his part, because salvage is of the utmost importance to the country at the present time.
A point of great importance is the cutting down of the various raw materials allocated for civilian use. I do not think it is generally realized how much is being done in this direction. I shall be referring later on to timber. We are recovering an enormous amount of timber from the bombed areas, which is being put under the Timber Control and used for many purposes. Iron and steel form the basis of almost the whole war effort of ourselves, the United States of America and Russia. Almost everything that we require for war purposes needs iron and steel. During the last three weeks an American Mission representing the American iron and steel trade has been in this country. I have met the members of this Mission on four or five occasions. They have been discussing the position with the Iron and Steel Control in this country, and nothing but good can come of their visit; their difficulties have been explained to us, our difficulties have been explained to them, and they are going back with a very different picture in their minds from that which they had when they came to this country. When speaking of iron and steel, perhaps I might mention that under 7 per cent. of our iron and steel is being used for domestic and civilian purposes; the remainder is used for direct or indirect military purposes.
I now pass to the question of timber, which is in many ways all-important at the present time. We were not producing timber in any quantity in this country before the war. Most of our timber came from Scandinavia, and, when Norway was overrun, the supply stopped. We imported timber on a very large scale before the war. I wish that I could be more explicit by giving you figures, but there are certain figures which I cannot very well give here. At any rate very little timber was produced here before the war, but we have now increased the timber production in this country more than eight times. That has been possible owing to the great help given to us by our Dominions. We have military companies,

335
dealing with timber, from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and other companies from Newfoundland, while even British Honduras has sent some of its people to help us. Those who have seen these men at work in Scotland and elsewhere will realize the great work which they are doing. We are now supplying, from the resources of this country, the whole of the mining timber which we require, and the amount of timber which we import has been very considerably cut down. Only 3 per cent. of our timber is now available for civilian and domestic consumption. Timber from bombed areas was at one time more readily available for civilian consumption, but this is now also controlled.
My noble friend Lord Winster then went on to refer to rubber, which I agree is one of the raw materials which gives us more to think about than most of the others. When Japan overran Malaya, my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, who was then Minister of Supply, was in America. The actual overrunning of the country happened very quickly, and we had to do what we could to try to meet the position which was created. We have cut down our crude rubber consumption by 40 per cent., and we are working very closely with the United States of America on this question of saving rubber. Very good results can often be achieved by letting the United States know what we are doing here and by their letting us know what they are doing. If they are doing a little better than we are, we can push people here to do a little better and try to reverse the position. That is not a bad way of dealing with these questions. Crude rubber, as I say, has been cut by 40 per cent. Capacity for dealing with reclaimed rubber has been planned, and results should be forthcoming in a few months' time. We have made plans to utilize four times as much reclaimed rubber as we used before the Japanese came into the war. I can say quite definitely that our capacity for dealing with reclaimed rubber is more than sufficient to cope with the amount of reclaimed rubber which we shall be able to use in this country. I hope that that will be considered satisfactory.
LORD STRABOLGI: Does that mean that you can deal with all the scrap that you can get?
LORD PORTAL: In the case of some commodities it is possible to use 40 to 50 per cent. of reclaimed rubber, but in the case of others only 15 to 20 per cent. can be used. We try to keep our figure in line with what we find the Americans are able to use. If we are using a certain total amount of rubber, a certain fraction of that total can be in the form of reclaimed rubber.
LORD STRABOLGI: Do you mean that we are having enough plant prepared to deal with all the rubber scrap in this country?
LORD PORTAL: I am unable to give any figure for the amount of rubber scrap that there is in the country at the present time, but the best way of dealing with reclaimed rubber is to have sufficient plant to deal with all the reclaimed rubber which we can use. That is what we are doing. My noble friend Lord Winster then referred to the question of synthetic rubber. This question has been discussed by us with the United States, and it is considered that the United States of America had better supply the synthetic rubber that we want here, for the reasons given by my noble friend. The great value of the "hands across the sea" between ourselves and America is that in some cases they can produce the things that are wanted and in others we can do so. The Minister of Production has discussed in another place the question of whether it is advisable to put up a small plant here to deal with a certain amount of synthetic rubber, and that question is in course of being settled at the present time. Synthetic rubber, as a whole, is going to be supplied. One more word on rubber. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised the question of whether common sense had been shown in view of the possibility that Japan might come into the war. Looking at it perfectly fairly, I should have said that common sense was shown on the question of stocks, but perhaps one might have had more vision beyond the ordinary common sense. The stocks at the time, compared with other raw materials, were more than adequate, though in the light of what has actually happened those stocks may not appear so impressive as they would otherwise have done.
There are two or three other commodities which I will deal with quite shortly because I think they are of interest to

337
your Lordships. There is, for example, the question of textiles. The Limitation of Supplies Order and the rationing of clothing by the coupon system have cut the consumption of textiles as a whole in this country to probably not more than a quarter of the pre-war level. In the case of clothing, allowing for footwear on which economy measures cannot proceed as far as with other articles of clothing, the ration available is less than half pre-war, in fact about 45 per cent. In household textiles the present allowance is only 10 per cent. of the pre-war supplies. Some textiles such as furnishing fabrics are no longer produced at all. The details I have just given are interesting showing what reduction has been effected in the consumption of materials for civilian purposes.
I should have said when talking of rubber that besides cutting down rubber by 40 per cent., as has been done, we have stopped the making of all sorts of rubber goods in this country: for example, Wellington boots. They are practically done away with except for the Navy and for other essential war purposes. Substitutes are put into belting and into cables, and all these savings will be cumulative. All kinds of things have been thought of—even the homely hot-water bottle has been abolished. That is important to many people, though I do not suppose any of your Lordships suffer from cold feet. All these questions of substitution have been dealt with week by week. It is in many respects a question of substitution rather than economy, but the two things are so closely connected that you have to mention them together.
There is one other point before I come to allocation. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned the question of tin and the development of tin production. Before I left the Ministry of Supply that question was already being dealt with in regard to Cornwall. The maximum amount of tin is being got out of Cornwall at the present time and labour which is one of the essential factors is being provided from other parts of Cornwall. The other material I want to mention, in which there has been a development of much interest, is flax. Before the war flax was obtained mostly from the Baltic States and the Low Countries. When they were overrun we had to get flax from other places. At that time the only other sources
338
were Egypt and Canada. Flax is now being grown for us in Australia and New Zealand and we have got the cultivation of flax extended in Egypt and also in Canada. The production of flax is also being expanded four times in Northern Ireland, and in this country there are 50,000 acres of land laid down under green flax. Green flax is no doubt not of the same value as ordinary flax but the green flax that is being grown in this country is, nevertheless, a valuable contribution.
This development of the production of flax in the various countries I have mentioned has been of great help since the flax-growing countries from which we drew our supplies were overrun by the énemy. Before the war, the only place that I know of where flax was grown in this country for some years was on the Sandringham Estate. I remember it well because I was asked if I would see whether that flax was suitable for paper-making in this country. There is also the question of hemp, which has also disappeared. We are using sisal instead of hemp. I should like to pay a tribute to the help which has been given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and his Department. People have been sent out to Central Africa, and the Empire Clearing House has been very valuable as the co-ordinating centre under the Minister of Production for collecting data about each country's requirements. We have had every assistance from the Colonial Office in the development of the resources of the Colonies and in dealing with the labour question in the Colonies.
I should like to give one more example of substitution. When iron and steel ran short in this country we had to cut off the making of many Nissen huts. During the last war many of us lived in the Nissen hut, which is supposed to be still the best and most comfortable, but its manufacture unfortunately eats up an enormous amount of iron and steel. There are now seven types of hut being made, some of plywood, others of asbestos cement, others of concrete, of sawdust cement, and so on. When we started manufacturing the plywood hut and got it going, plywood ran short and we had to go on to the other materials. All these things are continually being looked into. What we have to remember from day to day is that labour and raw materials are now playing a far greater part in the direction of production than they were before. As to the noble Lord, Lord

339
Winster's question about hold-ups in our production, I should say definitely that there is no hold-up at the present time. There are the usual bottle-necks but no hold-ups due to raw materials.
I should like to allude to the question of allocations to which the noble Lord referred. These allocations in this country were started under the auspices of the present Minister of Aircraft Production and they have, I think, been functioning satisfactorily since. We have been short of supplies during the last six months, and if there is any appeal it has to go first to the Minister of Production. But during the last six months there has been no occasion for any of the Services or any of the Departments to go to him. I should like to describe the way the allocation works in this country. At the outbreak of war we had an impressive scheme of priority certificates, all worked out and ready for use, but before the flood of certification began better counsels fortunately prevailed. Instead we have from the outset developed the alternative plan of allocation. The allocation method is to share out the flow of materials such as steel and of all other resources in the right proportions over the whole range of minimum essential requirements. In that way the seven per cent. of steel found by experience to be indispensable for domestic ironware and for the repair and maintenance of essential civilian factories is as certain of being supplied as is the 93 per cent. of munitions and war factory requirements.
The scale of provision of tanks and guns and warships and aircraft and other munitions is worked out in advance, having regard to the strategic plans, and to the labour and production and shipping capacity available. The corresponding quantities of materials are re-calculated by Production Departments at least every quarter for the year ahead, so that the right supplies can be arranged. Every three months these supplies as they become available are shared out by the Materials Committee in the right proportions over the whole range of the country's requirements, taking into account the progress so far achieved and all the relevant circumstances. The decisions of the Materials Committee are carried into effect by the Departments and the raw material Controls, so that all factories can be supplied with the quan-
340
tities they need to produce whatever is required of them. The labour and machine tools are allocated in accordance with the same overall plan Priority problems are, of course, bound to arise continually as the result of unexpected emergency needs or of plant breakdowns. These are, however, usually short-period difficulties of the bottle-neck variety, and machinery is in being in the form of the Central Priority Committee in which the Departments concerned come together and work out their minimum needs so that a ruling can be given which will ensure the best use of the limited resources until such time as new arrangements can be completed. By and large, therefore, resources are shared out or allocated in accordance with the strategical plan.
There is one further word I wish to say before I sit down, with reference to what the noble Lord said about America. In America to-day we have the Combined Raw Materials Board, which was started when the Prime Minister and Lord Beaverbrook went over to America. On that Board sits a direct representative of the Minister of Production, and that representative is Sir Clive Baillieu. That Board is an overall Board—that is to say, it has the central control of pooling of all raw materials. That means that we must be in constant touch with the Board. Whatever the supplies may be, and wherever they come from—from the Empire or anywhere else—they come to that Board to be allocated to ourselves, to Russia, or to any other of the Allied Nations. We work in the closest touch with the Board. I am not going to discuss to-day the question of the Combined Production and Resources Board which was initiated on the other side by the present Minister of Production when he went to America two or three months ago. Sir Robert Sinclair represents the Minister of Production on that Board. It is obvious that these two Boards must work closely together because you must ally production with raw materials.
As to the criticism of Controls mentioned by the noble Lord, if you take iron and steel and all the various commodities concerned, non-ferrous metals and so on, I think the results have been eminently satisfactory. I am sorry for the people who run these Controls. Most of them belong to the trades concerned, and my dealings with them convince me that they are men who forget all about

341
their own particular interests, and therefore do not always remain very friendly with some of their neighbours with whom they were associated in the past. Apart from what the various Ministries do, whatever success after three years of war we have had in this matter has depended in large measure on the strength of these Controls. I say to your Lordships that, after all, these Controls have not Only been successful, but they have yielded other results—they have given us the present Minister of Production, who was formerly in charge of non-ferrous metals, and the present Minister of Supply, who was at the head of the Iron and Steel Control before he took on his present duties.
I have been rather long, but this is the first time that the question has been debated. What we have to remember is this. When I speak on behalf of the Minister of Production, I say "Use less"; when I speak on behalf of the Minister of Food, I say, "Eat less," and when I speak on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I say "Spend less" These are the three objects we keep in view, and I think that in what I have said I have answered the noble Lord as fully as I can.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, you will agree that the noble Lord has given an account of his stewardship in which he may take legitimate pride. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the great courtesy he has shown in answering so fully the far too numerous questions that I addressed to him. In regard to scrap, the figures which the noble Lord gave of what is being reclaimed were very impressive, but I may remind your Lordships that figures like these must always be related to the figure of what is possible before one can express any opinion as to whether they are satisfactory or not. These drives for scrap tend to peter out, and it might be a very good thing if there were a monthly target so that one could see whether endeavours are being kept up to the mark. I should like to ask whether a national survey has been begun as to what is possible in the matter of reclamation. Reclamation of scrap is very important, especially where steel is concerned.
In regard to timber, the position seems to be very good. I was very interested
342
a little time ago, in the Forest of Dean, to see timber which was planted in the last war being felled for use in this war. Again I wonder if there is any shortage which is accountable for the lack of development of wooden aeroplanes. I have heard that reason ascribed. I hope it is not so. In regard to rubber, I paid great attention to what the noble Lord said, but I am bound to confess he did not entirely relieve my anxieties on this point. I willingly agree that great efforts are being made to economize and to extend production, but it was very clear from the noble Lord's remarks that we are by no means round the corner yet as regards rubber, and that constant endeavour and vigilance are necessary in that respect. What he said about what is done in the Colonies to expand production sounded very satisfactory indeed, and all those concerned are to be congratulated. Also what was said about allocations and priorities was extremely satisfactory. It was clearly shown that the system of allocations has replaced that of priorities with good results. We were told that there have been no appeals against these allocations. That might be due to the persuasiveness of the noble Lord where those to whom he allocates are concerned.
If this debate has served no other purpose, it has had great value in drawing from the noble Lord the remarks he made regarding our relations with America. All that he said in that respect must have given great satisfaction to your Lordships. I remember, before America entered the war, the Prime Minister in one of his speeches said he felt that the affairs of our two nations were inevitably bound to get somewhat mixed. In regard to this matter of raw materials, I hope by now they are inextricably mixed, and will remain so until the conclusion of the war. The noble Lord also performed a good service in clearing up some of the misapprehensions in regard to the matter of Control and showing that some of the criticisms of the gentlemen concerned in working them is unfounded. Again I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy he has shown in answering my questions, and I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LIVERPOOL DOCKS: CONDITIONS OF WORK.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they propose to hold an impartial inquiry into conditions of work in the Liverpool docks.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Labour and National Service and the Minister of War Transport have appointed Sir John Forster to review the conditions obtaining under the Merseyside Dock Labour Scheme and to report to them.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I say, in view of statements in the correspondence which has recently taken place in The Times in connexion with conditions in the Mersey, I think the decision which is announced will give the very greatest satisfaction indeed? I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

SABRE AEROPLANE ENGINE.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I beg to ask the next question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the position regarding production of the Sabre aeroplane engine.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD SHERWOOD): My Lords, as the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate, it would not be in the public interest to disclose details, but I can assure him that the Sabre engine, although still capable of further development, is an extremely good one and its production is increasing.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932: CITY OF ST. ALBANS ORDER.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that the Order which stands in his name be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments
344
Act, 1932, and laid before the House on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JEWISH REFUGEES.
LORD WEDGWOOD LORD WEDGWOOD had given Notice that he would call attention to the attitude still shown towards Jewish refugees from Nazi oppression, in the services, in the Law Courts, in civil life, here, in Palestine, in the Colonies, in Canada, and Australia; to ask for full use of this man power; and also move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is time I think that we checked the Anti-Semitic poison from doing further injury to our good name and good sense, and especially should we do so when it is directed against the refugees from Nazi brutality who are helpless in our hands. For then it ceases to be merely injurious and becomes inhuman. A number of people who ought to know better actually gloat over this growing hatred of Jews and encourage it. How often have I been told by former appeasers with a sort of relish, that "people are saying there is something to be said for Hitler's treatment of Jews." Hitler's treatment of Jews is more horrible than anything that has defiled humanity in the Christian era. Yet we have Englishmen and Englishwomen who can regard it as excusable. That is why I wish to have this check put upon what is going on.
The poison is spreading, more particularly in our upper governing classes; and it is therefore especially our duty to seek it out and stamp it out wherever it is found. In civil life these refugees have met with sympathy and kindness—I am speaking of the common people—it is when they come up against officials that they find dislike instead of sympathy. Except during the panic internment in the months of 1940 the police have not been so bad. It was the internment which seemed to put a cachet of respectability on Anti-Semitism. I will give two quite recent examples of this. One occurred only last week. I read in the Evening Standard, I think on Friday of last week, an account of a sentence passed upon a German refugee woman sixty-one years of age. She had a husband who had been a wealthy citizen of Hamburg. They had been robbed of everything and the husband sent to a concentration camp. They escaped to this

345
country. The old lady had evidently gone slightly wrong in the head, and had apparently taken to pilfering articles of small value. She had stolen a 1 lb. pot of marmalade. The case came before London Quarter Sessions and she was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. In the course of the hearing the doctor said that what she probably needed was attention, and the Chairman of Quarter Sessions said she would get the attention she needed in prison.
Think of the sentences that are passed upon people, sometimes servants of the State, for committing robbery, and then compare them with this sentence of six months' imprisonment. Realize what that sentence means. It means that never will that woman be allowed to go into America, or into many other countries, because, having been sentenced to imprisonment, she loses what little human rights are left to her. Now it would have been impossible a few years ago for such a sentence as that to be passed. Yet here we have an up-to-date English Christian gentleman not only passing this sentence of six months, but adding a cruel remark like that which I have quoted. Such a thing could not have happened before, but it happens now because we have allowed this sort of talk to go on, and people have begun to think it is respectable and the natural attitude to take in regard to these people.
I have another case. There was a man called Simon Perlmann who was sentenced the other day to a fine of £5,000 and six months' imprisonment for concealing dollar investments. I know something about that man, because I got him out of Germany. He wrote to me and I said I was sorry I could not do anything to get him here, because my house was full and I could not take on any further heavy financial liabilities. Then his uncle sent me a thousand dollars to guarantee me against loss, whereupon I signed the bond and got him and his wife into this country. I paid out the money to him as was necessary to keep him going, and apparently his uncle entrusted another thousand dollars to him so that he (the uncle) might escape to America. In America, too, you have to sign a bond to say you will never allow the person who gets in to come upon the public funds, so this thousand dollars was sent to America in Simon Perlmann's name, the other man being in Germany, and it
346
was upon that being discovered that he was fined £5,000 and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He wrote and explained the circumstances to me.
I must say I was thankful he had not consulted me about it. What would any of your Lordships do in those circumstances? I should undoubtedly have told him: "If you do this you may go to prison, if you do not do it I hope you go to hell"—a natural attitude for any Christian to take up. On this I will appeal to the noble Viscount opposite and remind him of the view of his own uncle, Lord Hugh Cecil, as he then was, who stated in another place that Acts of Parliament do not make things right or wrong, that there is a higher law. You have there a clear-cut case of what ought a citizen to do. I think that man did completely right. In his position I should have done the same. I would ask your Lordships before you judge him and me, to take notice of a very similar case that came up in the French Convention in 1792. The unfortunate emigrés were trying to get out of France, and the Convention introduced a law of death to men who tried to escape, and the galleys or prison for those who helped or harboured them. Then Mirabeau, at the end of his years, feeble, got up and protested. He said: "This is contrary to the laws of humanity. You may pass this law, but I swear that I will never obey it." The French, being an emotional people, rejected the law. In exactly the same way you may make a law which a man should not obey.
I do not think such a sentence could have been passed upon such a refugee three years ago. It is because you and I have said nothing for the last three years to stop this that we get these shocking cases now. It is going on throughout the whole world. The other day I discovered 42 refugees who had managed to escape from Poland right across Russia to Japan, buying their way by bribery, of course, the whole way. They were turned out of Japan into China, from China they got into Burma and from Burma they fled to India. These pathetic refugees who had taken nearly two years on their journey were not received with any sympathy. They were interned and we were told the other day that they must be turned out. They had nowhere to go. Some had visas for Pale-

347
stine, but even that could not help them. In that case certainly I got hold of the Secretary of State and he put things right, and they are to be allowed to remain for a while. But observe that it is the officials of England, the country where we kept our arms open for all the refugees, the country which received Jews, the people who are on our side in this war, who treated them in this manner.
The tragedy of it is that they expect nothing better than to have to pay bribes and to be swindled. For £100 they can get a visa for Cuba, but when they get to. Cuba they are not allowed to land. By paying another sum they can get to Liberia. By paying £1,000 they can get to Palestine, when the Government will take a third of it from them. That is what happens to people who are the so-called possessors of £1,000 capital, on which they must pay import duty. Some time later I shall raise with the noble Lord the question of the police in Palestine. There, I have been told if you pay £10 a head the police will look the other way and you can get in. I remember one official of the police force who was brought into court for taking bribes from the Jews which allowed them to go in. He came to England and had the effrontery to come to me and ask me to give him help because he helped the Jews. These unpleasant persons disgrace our name. Our education is producing these people. I cannot for the life of me put myself in the position of the man who orders a return to Hitler of those 660 men, women and children on board the "Struma". I do not know how it happens that these people acquire such an idea of what is right, what is gentlemanly, what is decent.
Then there were 800 who were not allowed to land in Palestine and who were sent to Mauritius and interned in Mauritius. Since the noble Lord has been in his present office they have been allowed to work, but it seems to me that when you are trying to develop places like Kenya you might use these people there instead of taking them in Mauritius where there is nothing to do. It is made all the worse because all these people who are interned are only anxious to help us. Their one object is to beat Germany, not in revenge but to save those who are left. But we keep on treating them as if they
348
were enemies. In Palestine you find Jewish refugees behind barbed wire in internment camps and the Germans free in Sarona, a German Colony. Then there is Jamaica. That is another case where the noble Lord has done something. Just consider what is the position in Jamaica. There you had a number of Jews (I think 34 altogether) who were interned who were no more guilty than those interned here and who of course were unable to give any assistance to Hitler, even if they wished to give it. Here I should think two-thirds of these people who were interned have been got out. They have been examined by board after board and some 4,000, I should say, have been released in this country. But in Jamaica these 34 have remained year after year in prison. After exhaustive inquiries extending over two and a half years, ten have been released and it is hoped to complete inquiries soon about the other 24.
The attitude towards the whole thing is extraordinary. It is as if these people were really our enemies. Of course, it is not Anti-Semitism. These people who do this sort of thing are not Anti-Semitic; at least we are assured they are not. It is their impression which we have allowed them to acquire, of the right thing to do to Jews.
"By the torture prolonged from age to age,
By the infamy, Israel's heritage,
By the ghetto's plague, the garb's disgrace,
By the badge of shame, by the felon's place,
By the branding tool, the bloody whip,
And the summons to Christian fellowship
We pledge our faith that at least the Jew
Would wrest Christ's name from the devil's crew."
This has gone on long enough. We compare badly with what is happening in France at the present time. The Church in France, the Catholic Church, the Church of Rome protests and resists and breaks the law in order to prevent Jews in France being torn from their homes and sent to Germany.
We see the result of this infection from Germany spreading all over the world. It is quite time we stopped it. I do not propose to argue these matters. I merely mention them as illustrations of a frame of mind among certain classes in this country. Who are our enemies? The appeasers, of course, want this war to appear as a war of Germany against this country and

349
not as a war of tyranny against freedom, for they sympathize with autocracy and dislike Parliament. That is at the root of the trouble. The Jews must obviously hate Hitler. If we fight for Democracy the Jews must be comrades. Hitler now has swept up the Jews of France, and many others in Europe to work for him. And all the time we will not allow them to come to this counry. Only last month I begged the Home Office to give a visa to a Jewish boy of sixteen or seventeen to allow him to come from France to his parents in this country. But no, they would not do it. Rather, it would seem, the view is that we would prefer to have such people working as slaves for the Germans. This is madness. We should welcome every refugee, we should use every refugee. We want them for munitions, we want them for roads, we want them all.
That is the practical side. On the side of humanity the position is, I hope, obvious. I shall be accused of attacking my countrymen and advertising mistakes which had better be forgotten. It is our finest record that, though there have been black pages in our history, there have always been Members of Parliament to denounce the crime of their own countryment and to right the wrong. That is why I seek the aid of the noble Viscount opposite, the Leader of the House. I cannot do it as effectively as he can. The House and the world will little note nor long remember what I say here, but they will remember what lie says to-day. It is his duty to be the guardian of the morals and traditions of England. The Cecils have held that responsibility for four hundred years. This, as I say, is his business; not mine. I am only sorry that it should not have been done years ago. The object of this House is to see that we retain British standards of decency and Christian standards of humanity. Your Lordships will remember that when the Roman Senate appointed a Dictator to wipe out for a time the powers of the Senate they instructed the Consuls in these words "Videant consules ne quid detrimenti capiat respublica." That is: "Let the Consuls see to it that the republic comes to no harm." My Lords, I address those same words to you but with a slight variation "Videant proceres ne quid detrimenti capiat humanitas." I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has not been able to be here to-day and he has asked me to say a very few words in support of the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved with his usual sincerity and warm-hearted pugnacity. But before I go further I should like to point out that one may very well sympathize with the terms of the Motion without by any means agreeing with all the arguments which my noble friend has adduced in its support, or even accepting, perhaps, in its entirety the account which he has given of the conditions which have impelled him to put down the Motion. I venture to suggest that the main reason for the present unsatisfactory attitude towards Jewish refugees from many countries is popular prejudice in this matter. I cannot share my noble friend's view that the fault is mainly with the officials. I am afraid that the blame must be spread more widely over the community as a whole.
This popular prejudice has arisen, I think, from widespread misconceptions about the origins and antecedents of these unfortunate people. There is, in the first place—and this is a point which my noble friend emphasized—the Anti-Semitic prejudice which is directed, I think, with special virulence against Jewish aliens, and which I fear—and I have little doubt that every one of your Lordships will agree with me in this—has spread very considerably since the outbreak of the war. The Nazi doctrine that the Jews of the present day are a separate racial type whose inherent inferiority should be acknowledged by something akin to a slave status in society has its adherents all over the world. The Anti-Semites in this country (and there are many of them) are among the spiritual cousins of the German Nazis and the Italian Fascisti. It cannot be too often said, I think, that such theories have no scientific foundation whatever, and that they are one of the most pernicious and anti-social inventions of anthropological mythology. Curiously enough—and it does not seem to have been very frequently pointed out—Anti-Semitism and Jewish nationalism have a certain amount in common. Both regard the Jews as a separate people from the Gentiles, and as strangers and aliens in whatever country they may have settled over however long a period of time. They

351
both, therefore, have the effect—though not, of course, so strongly in the case of Jewish nationalism—of encouraging that unfair discrimination between Jews and non-Jews in social life which one hopes will disappear as completely as the artificial barriers which for many centuries divided Catholics and Protestants.
When it is generally, if not universally, realized that the Jews are, in fact, a religious minority like the Catholic or Nonconformist sects and that this is the only substantial difference between them and us, they are bound to be accorded full equality of treatment and to enjoy, in practice as well as in theory, all the rights and privileges of citizenship. But the German or Austrian refugees of Jewish extraction labour under the additional handicap of being—in the eyes of the law at least—enemy aliens. It is difficult, if not impossible, in war-time, to overcome the popular prejudice against individuals of enemy origin whatever their past history and antecedents. Anger and hatred, naturally, in times like these, are far more powerful than reason and common sense. But something can be done, I most sincerely believe, by drawing attention to the common record of persecution, often including confinement in prisons or concentration camps, and the heavy sacrifices most of these refugees have made for the principles of a liberal and democratic society. In my view, the root cause of their disabilities is the ignorant and emotionally-coloured prepossessions of a considerable section of the public. Wise and temperate propaganda may do something to counteract these dangerous fallacies, but I do not believe that any Government, however enlightened their policy may be, and however enlightened their leading members may be, could entirely eradicate Anti-Semitic and Anti-German refugee prejudice.
There is, however, a more limited field in which the Government might act with real advantage. I should like to offer two practical suggestions, which have the object both to improve the lot of loyal refugees in this country and to increase their usefulness to the community. It should, I think, be made easier for men of the refugee type, serving in the Pioneer Corps, to transfer to other branches of the Service. Most of these men have excellent educational or professional qualifications, and their ability is obviously wasted
352
so long as they are limited to occupations demanding only manual labour. Such transfers are, of course, possible in theory, but even the most suitable candidates are constantly rejected in practice on security grounds. I cannot help feeling that the genuine reliability of many of these men is perhaps under-estimated by those who arrive at these decisions.
My second suggestion is this. I believe that nothing would do more to fortify the morale of aliens who are actively helping in the war effort than for the Government to offer them now British citizenship when the war is over, provided, of course, that their record remains unimpeachable throughout the whole period. If they have been good servants of this country, ready and willing to make the maximum sacrifice during the war, there is every reason to suppose that they will make useful citizens when peace returns. A promise of eventual naturalization would be at once the best incentive to maximum effort and a fitting reward for patriotic services rendered at the present time.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments only because I notice a reference to Canada in the Motion of my noble friend, and a request for the full use of man-power. In my capacity as. Vice-Chairman of the Refugee Committee of Parliament, I have in recent months visited the internment camps in Canada. When the internment policy in this country was adopted after Dunkirk, some 2,700 refugees were sent to Canada. I visited the camps there at that time. There was considerable confusion, because the Canadian Government were merely acting as agents for the United Kingdom in looking after these refugees. However, the position gradually sorted itself out, and about two months ago it was my privilege to go to one of the few remaining camps in Canada to open, on behalf of the Canadian authorities, a metal-working training school, established in the internment camp for the purpose of using the man-power of the refugees. By that time there were only between 1,000 and 1,200 refugees still interned, and the camps had been turned from barbed-wire enclosures into absolutely open camps. The interned refugees were able to walk out of the camp and come back again, and there had not been a single case of breaking bounds.
In the school which we established, largely by funds some of which I was

353
able to help to get from the United States of America, We are training 140 refugees at a time in a four-months course. The Canadian Government have established, alongside the internment camp, a special camp, which is called a machine repair depot. Every refugee who has completed his four months' training is moved to the machine repair depot, where he becomes a free man. He is no longer an interned refugee; he is a free man. He is paid the usual wages for the repair of the machines for the war effort which is undertaken in this camp. The Canadian Government have already been able to use a considerable number of the refugees in the camp, and have guaranteed to take every refugee who goes through the training course, so as to secure a full use of the man-power available in repairing the machines required la the various industrial plants in Canada. One of the most interesting results of this is that, although the British Government offer to the refugees a, certain number of places in ships going to England, where their cases may be reviewed, the number of refugees taking advantage of this offer is only about one-third of the number of places open to them. The others prefer to stay in Canada, where, by this system devised by the Canadian Government, they get this training and become free men and are able to make that contribution to the war effort which they all desire to make.
I do not know exactly what the position is here, because I have been away for a considerable time, but, in so far as that method might be applied, or still further applied, in the United Kingdom, I venture to suggest that it should be borne in mind that it has been amazingly successful in Canada in solving the very problems to which my noble friend Lord Wedgwood referred—the anxiety in the minds of these people because they are not being used, and their desire to help in the war effort. It is extraordinary to see these people before and after their training, and to note the difference in outlook, the desire to help, and the realization that they are being enabled to give the help which they want to give. I hope very much that the system may be extended in this country if it already exists, or introduced if it is not already being used.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, replies, I should like to say a few
354
words in support of my noble friend. My noble friend was good enough to ask me to speak in support of him—not that he needs any support—and I am very glad to add my voice to those of my noble friends on these Benches. I should like in particular to plead with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to take this opportunity of following, in a rather wider sense, the example of the Prime Minister. I refer to those sentences in the Prime Minister's speech in another place two days ago in which he denounced the abominable treatment of the Jewish refugees in France by the Laval régime. No doubt my noble friend the Leader of the House will have marked those passages in the Prime Minister's speech. I am sure that those sentences were spoken by the Prime Minister with serious intention, and I would plead with the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to add his denunciation, which I know he will be able to do with equal sincerity, and if possible to widen the appeal.
I do so because Anti-Semitism is a most remarkable and dangerous movement, which can spring up in any country. Ten years ago there was no Anti-Semitism in Italy. Italians of Jewish faith, living in Italy, suffered from no friction whatever. One reason for this was that most Italians can be mistaken for Jews in appearance; they have the same appearance as the dark-skinned Jew, and inter-marriage and social intercourse were common in Italy. Many Jews in Italy did very good service to the Italian State. But then, as part of this miserable policy of Axis alliance, the Mussolini Government were persuaded by the Nazi fanatics to institute an Anti-Jewish persecution in Italy, and unfortunately they found support among certain sections of the Italian governing class, with the result that the lot of the unfortunate Jews in Italy was made extremely miserable. That was an artificial movement.
We have to-day the same artificial movement in France, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has pointed out, it has fortunately brought forward a noble protest from many eminent Frenchmen, both lay and clerical. My noble friend and I have always been somewhat suspicious of what we used to call the Black International—the Catholic International—only suspicious, of course. Well, apparently the Black International has

355
really got into action now, and on a good cause, and who can wonder after these abominable cruelties which are being perpetrated by this rascally régime under Laval? And not only the clergy have made this noble protest—and I am sure our own clergy of all denominations will not be long in following the example—but I notice that, a French general, M. de St. Vincent, Military Governor of Lyons, refused to allow his troops to hunt down these unfortunate Jews for deportation to Germany. He has been dismissed from his post by the Vichy régime, but he has once more proved that the heart of France is sound.
This Anti-Semitism could also be fostered in this country, and we saw the beginnings of it before the war. Where-ever there is a concentration of Jewish inhabitants, whether they are refugees or native-born—as my noble friend Lord Snell knows from his long experience in the East End of London—wherever you have concentration of Jewish citizens, whether it is in the East End of London or in Leeds or in certain parts of Manchester or Glasgow, there are opportunities to arouse Anti-Semitism if you appeal to certain base instincts. The only places really where the so-called British Fascist movement made any sort of progress was among certain hooligan elements in the East End of London, in Leeds and in Manchester, and one or two other centres where there was a considerable concentration of Jewish artisans, traders and merchants. That hooligan element can usually be stimulated into Anti-Jewish excesses and you also have an underlying Anti-Semitism in certain sections of the governing class, the so-called upper class in every country. You have a little of that in France, you had it latent in Italy, and you have it in this country.
This is where I particularly wish to appeal to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. He occupies a very great position in the public life of this country, politically and socially. He is a member of a family with very great political traditions. A word of protest from him may stop this movement at its source, this incipient Anti-Semitism which I fear exists in this country and has begun to manifest itself in several directions, some of which were cited by my noble friend Lord Wedgwood. It is a very dangerous and obnoxious sentiment but it can be checked
356
and stopped. You find the beginnings of it in certain sections of the Civil Service, in certain sections of the Army, and in certain business quarters in this country. It comes from the same movement that has produced these abominable excesses and cruelties in Germany. It is the indirect result of the same Nazi racial propaganda, and it should be stopped where-ever it manifests itself. I say this because I believe that members of your Lordships' House have a particular responsibility in this matter and I am very proud to add my voice to the appeal that has been made by my noble friend. I appeal to the Leader of the House to treat this matter very seriously indeed and to let it go forth that, speaking for His Majesty's Government, for all Parties of the State and all decent-minded British citizens, we will not tolerate this thing starting in this country, and we intend to deal very seriously where there are any examples by officials or anyone else of prejudice or bias because of the religion or racial origin of refugees or anyone else.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, has put upon the Paper is very widely drawn, so that it might include almost any subject connected with the Jews. I should like to thank him for his great courtesy in indicating to me the specific points, or, at least, some of the specific points, which he intended to raise, for, in this way, he put me in the position to make some answer to him. I hope, however, that the House will forgive me if on the present occasion I do not make a very full reply, for during recent months we have had a great many debates on the Jewish question, all of them initiated by Lord Wedgwood. Those debates have covered many of the points which have been referred to in the discussion this afternoon. For instance, I do not propose to say anything to-day about the "Struma," nor do I propose to say anything about Mauritius: those are subjects upon which there have already been Government statements. But I hope I shall not be taken as accepting the views which were expressed by Lord Wedgwood on these subjects this afternoon.
I would like to say at once that I deeply sympathize with the main purpose of the noble Lord in reprobating to the

357
utmost degree the wickedness of Anti-Semitism. In that he is, if he would only believe it, entirely at one with His Majesty's Government. But I must confess that I was a little bewildered by the nature of the arguments with which he recommended his case. If I had been intending, or any of your Lordships had been intending, to raise a debate on the subject of the ill-treatment of the Jews—and Heaven only knows that that treatment is horrible enough—I should have expected that your Lordships' attention would have been devoted to the really terrible events which are at present occurring in Germany, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and now even in France. In France, as Lord Strabolgi has said, recent events have occurred which have appalled and disgusted us all. That is indeed a very horrible story. There in those occupied countries unhappy people are being starved, tortured and done to death; husbands are being tom from their wives; mothers are being torn from their children. These unfortunate people are being subjected to every form of horror and humiliation which a perverted imagination could devise, and all this merely on account of their race and their religion. I think it is probably the most shocking exhibition of sadistic cruelty and depravity which the world has ever known, and it makes one's blood boil even to think of it.
But it was not against those fearful deeds that the noble Lord poured out the vials of his wrath this afternoon, except in a mere parenthesis; it was not with the Germans that he showed his great indignation; it was with the people of this country, or certain sections of the people of this country and of the Dominions. Now, frankly, I do not understand that. I thought it was universally recognized that there is no country in the world where there is less justification for the charge of discrimination against Jews than in this country at the present time. In Britain, and we may very well be proud of it, there is entire equality between Jews and other members of the community. Jews can become members of the great professions. The medical profession, the legal profession, politics: every walk of life is open to them. Some of the most famous doctors and lawyers and statesmen of air country of recent years have been Jews. The noble Lord referred to some unspecified members of
358
what he called the "governing classes" who were, in his opinion, sympathizing with Hitler's treatment of the Jews. I can only say that if he has heard these unspecified people saying these things, he must keep very odd company indeed.
Frankly, I do not know what he means by "governing classes." Presumably he means those who govern the country. He was a good many years in the House of Commons. I suppose he found, as did, that its members are drawn from every section of the community. But he is now a member here, and so by the "governing classes" he may possibly mean your Lordships' House. But our powers are now so limited that we can hardly come into that category. I suppose that I, myself, may be regarded as being a member of the "governing classes," in the sense that I am a member of the Government. In that sense I may be a member of the "governing classes," but I have never heard any of the other members of that class give vent to any of the sentiments to which the noble Lord drew attention. I do not believe that his suggestion has any foundation in fact at all. I was a little bit shocked, I must confess, to hear these monstrous accusations bandied about as coming from unspecified sections of the community without the supporting weight of any evidence behind them. I agree with the noble Lord's main thesis, but he invariably spoils his case by the arguments he uses in support of it, arguments which, I am sorry to say, often make far more foes for him than they do friends.
In spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, the extent of Anti-Semitic feeling here is very much exaggerated, and has been very greatly exaggerated in debate this afternoon. There are, of course, moments of tension in a war when suspicions may very naturally arise, and amongst them, in some people, suspicion against the Jews, especially foreign Jews who are refugees in this country. But British toleration is very great. I do not believe that these feelings really go very deep, and, moreover, I am convinced that, when the emergency is over, they will disappear again as they have always done in the past. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that we should discourage such feelings in any way we can, and I hope that the debate this afternoon will have that effect. Lord Wedgwood seemed, if I may use so disrespectful an

359
expression, to "scratch about" to find some examples to support his main contention, but he discovered far too few upon which to found any case at all. Even there, most of the things he said were inaccurate and were not, in my view, relevant to any charge of Anti-Semitism, because they were not concerned with action taken against Jews as Jews.
I will give an example of what I mean. The noble Lord referred to the treatment of refugees in this country. He suggested that these Jewish refugees—because he only referred to Jewish refugees—were refused employment here, were neglected, and were given no encouragement to take part in the war effort. If he will forgive me, that is not true. While I can make no differentiation between Jewish refugees and other refugees, because they are all treated exactly alike, it is not true that they have not been encouraged to take part in the war effort. They are, in fact, at present being very widely employed. I should like to quote to the noble Lord the answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service in another place on this particular point. Speaking on November 27, 1941, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
"The Government recognize that in the foreign population of this country we have a valuable addition to our man-and woman-power, of which the most effective use should be made…The international Labour Branch of the Ministry of Labour was set up for the purpose of finding employment for foreign workers…The Government training schemes for munition work are open to them. … The result up to the present is that, in addition to service in the 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."
So really there is no substance in the suggestion which the noble Lord made with regard to that matter.
Then he referred to another matter which particularly affects me—namely, to 34 German Jewish internees at Jamaica. First of all, I would point out that he said that they were interned because they were Jews. Again, with all respect, that is not true. They were interned originally because they were German Jews. If they had been English Jews, Scottish Jews, Irish Jews, or Australian Jews they would
360
not have been interned. It was not a case of Anti-Semitism. With this war on, they, as German nationals, were in the ordinary course interned. He said none of them had been examined. Once more, my Lords, that is not the truth. They have been examined again and again, and, out of 34, 10 have already been released.
LORD WEDGWOOD: How long ago?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: These ten were released two years ago.
LORD WEDGWOOD: None since then?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish. The reason why the remainder were not released was that the security officials in Jamaica reported against releasing these particular people. The noble Lord approached me about this matter not long ago, and I told him at that time that, long before he took up this business, before he approached me, I had looked into the matter and had recommended a re-examination of their case. That re-examination is to take place shortly. The story told by the noble Lord this afternoon is a compete travesty of the facts. Then he drew attention to two cases which had recently taken place in the British Courts. He referred to an old lady who had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for pilfering a pot of marmalade. Certainly that seems, on the face of it, a very formidable sentence. But what are the facts about this lady? She was a woman who had already been convicted four times for shop-lifting. She was a notorious shop-lifter.
LORD WEDGWOOD: Is it not the case that every time the articles involved were below the value of a shilling?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It is not really a question of the value of what was taken. The point is that at the present time there is a great shortage of goods, and there is a danger to the community in this practice of shop-lifting. Knowing that, and knowing that the woman had already been convicted four times, the court naturally felt it had to make an example in her case, with the object of deterring others. These facts, which are all relevant to the case, were not divulged to the House by the noble Lord this afternoon, as they should have been. It was disingenuous on his part not to give the full facts of the case. I must say that

361
I deplore, and hope the House also deplores, these reckless charges against the impartiality of British justice which, as your Lordships know very well, has been above reproach for many centuries. The impression the noble Lord gave here was that British justice is corrupt, and that it is corrupt in the sense that it is affected by political considerations. That, my Lords, is untrue and he knows it is untrue. It is no good saying that sort of thing. I cannot understand a man in the responsible position of the noble Lord making irresponsible comments and remarks of that kind.
Then he raised another case, the case of a gentleman called Mr. Simon Perlmann, of whom he had personal knowledge; and he made a very sad story of it indeed. I am quite prepared to accept that; but the fact remains that Mr. Perlmann was found guilty of a very serious offence. He had concealed—and this is not in dispute—dollar investments at a moment when this country was in desperate need of dollars. If he was a refugee it seems to me the position becomes really rather worse, because he was then taking advantage of a country which had given him asylum from his enemies. He was fined, as the noble Lord said, £5,000 or six months imprisonment. But what the noble Lord did not say, and perhaps did not know, was that on appeal this was reduced to a fine of £2,000 or three months' imprisonment. Mr. Perlmann, I understand, either found himself unable to pay, or refused to pay, and therefore he had to go to prison. But so far as I can see, he had committed this offence, and it cannot justly he said that he was not properly sentenced. It was a very serious offence at the time. I remember a good many cases, and other noble Lords I am sure do also, of Gentiles who committed similar offences and who received equally heavy sentences, and I am quite certain you cannot build up a case for Anti-Semitic administration of justice on cases of that kind.
Finally, the noble Lord made, I thought, rather a severe attack upon the Australian and Canadian Governments. I cannot reply for both Governments because I am only responsible for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. But I must confess that I think it was exceedingly unfortunate that the noble Lord attacked those other Govern-
362
ments who, out of pure generosity and with no obligation at all upon them, accepted those refugees from here, not only Jews, but other refugees from Nazi oppression, removed them from the danger and gave them hospitality. I must say that the very interesting and useful contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, at the end of this debate, did show how false the impression was that was given early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, and how sympathetic the interest of the Canadian Government has been in these people for whom they had made themselves responsible. Indeed, he said they were so satisfied there that the great majority of them refused to come back to this country.
I was therefore driven to the conclusion, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, that consciously or unconsciously he seemed to want, not that Jews should be discriminated against, but that they should occupy a privileged position. To that of course the British people would never agree, and what is more, the Jews themselves would not want it, because they know perfectly well that would be the quickest and surest way of promoting Anti-Semitism. But if the noble Lord's Motion has been put down merely to obtain an assurance that His Majesty's Government are not Anti-Semitic, that is what I may call a very easy ball for one to hit a six off, and I am very ready to give him that assurance absolutely and in the most unqualified manner. I would also add with regard to the suggestions made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we appreciate immensely the spirit in which they were offered and I will certainly transmit them to the proper quarter.
I have come to the end of what I have to say, but in conclusion I would just appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, most earnestly to stop these senseless and baseless attacks which he makes that have really no foundation in fact. They do not do him any good; they do not do the Jews any good. They only distress those of us who are his friends. I do beg of him, that, in this battle for the rights and liberties of the Jews as of everybody else, in which we, no less than he, are engaged, he should henceforth divert his broadsides to the enemy, and not keep them exclusively for those who are fighting by his side.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, I suppose my memory is going but I do not think I said a word about Canada or Australia in my speech.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: It was in the Motion.
LORD WEDGWOOD: There is no censure of either of those countries in that Motion.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is there not? The noble Lord uses these words in the Motion: "To call attention to the attitude shown towards Jewish refugees in Canada and Australia." In the sense in which he meant it that is certainly not a compliment to those countries.
LORD WEDGWOOD: It certainly was not necessarily criticizing their attitude towards the refugees. I had not said a word about it in my speech which the noble Viscount seems not to have listened to. But the first complaint about me is that I did not attack the French Government for their abominable treatment of the Jews. We do not rule France, but we do rule this country, and it is our business to look after our conduct here. Until we carry out our functions here we had much better not lecture people abroad. The whole strength of our position in the world is that we have every time called attention to the crimes of our own Government and with great advantage to our reputation. The noble Viscount has said that my grounds were not adequate. I do not know what society he mixes in, but three times in the last two days, and from two members of this House, I have heard the same thing, that really there is something to be said for Hitler in his treatment of the Jews. It is common conversation throughout this country to-day. It is the natural excuse of the appeasers which they never forget to make. And what are the facts on that case which I read out? The facts were simply those as given in the Evening Standard.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: But the Evening Standard quoted the four previous convictions. Those the noble Lord did not give to the House.
LORD WEDGWOOD: I think she had several tins of marmalade at different times, but it was always the same thing—one tin of marmalade. I mentioned that in my speech; at least I am almost certain
364
I did. I stated exactly what I gathered from the Evening Standard and I called the noble Viscount's attention to that article in the Evening Standard when I wrote to him; it was the only thing I had to give him on the subject. As to whether the attitude of this country to Jewish aliens is friendly or not, I should have said it was perfectly obvious that up to the time of the internment it was friendly. I know perfectly well those people who came here. I had over 200 through my hands in Staffordshire and they were received extremely well by the Staffordshire people. There was no Anti-Semitism there. The refugees went to meetings and addressed gatherings in chapels to raise funds for the refugees, and the attitude of the miners and miners' wives and all the working-class was one of charity and sympathy towards these unfortunate people.
The attitude of the Crypto-Fascists towards these people was definitely hostile and that attitude always has been the mainstay of the Fascist policy. What I complain of is that that policy is shown very largely by the official class of this country. Can you imagine anything more humiliating than to be told "You are coming into the British Army as a labourer, but you are not to be allowed to fight," when we know that all they want to do is to fight. In the last war we had these labour companies. They were largely Chinese. We put in charge of them people who sympathized with Chinese people, who could speak Chinese and liked the Chinese, and the companies were very well conducted. In charge of the navvy battalions we put people like my friend Mr. John Ward, a Member of Parliament who looked after them, and they did their work well. When they were torpedoed off the coast, I remember hearing about John Ward getting up on the bridge and addressing the men like this: "It was just here, where we are sailing now, that the 'Birkenhead' went down without the men breaking ranks. You can do the same. I ask you to behave now as if your whole life up to now had been a preparation for this moment." That was a magnificent piece of oratory, spoilt, I am afraid, by the way in which I rendered it, but those men did behave with perfect courage.
In the last war, you had labour companies working amicably, but this time you put these unfortunate Germans, these refugees, into labour battalions and you

365
do not take the same trouble to see that the people who command them are people in sympathy with them. They complain to me that they are spoken to as "German bastards" and that they are told that all aliens ought to be interned. That is not comradeship, it is not the spirit that we had in the last war. These people should be treated as English people, but they will never be so treated until they are allowed to fight side by side with Englishmen as comrades. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMITTEE ON COMPENSATION AND BETTERMENT.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government when the second Report of the Uthwatt Committee will be published; and whether an indication can be given as to the date when the legislation to carry into effect such recommendations of the Committee as may be accepted by the Government, and to deal with other matters relating to town and country planning, will be presented to Parliament. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the second Report of the Uthwatt Committee having been published, I do not ask the first part of the question standing in my name, but only the second part.
LORD PORTAL: My Lords, in view of the complexity of the matters dealt with, the Government must carefully study both the Report of the Uthwatt Committee and the Report of Lord Justice Scott's Committee before announcing any decision upon them. In these circum-
366
stances it is quite impossible to state the date when legislation will be introduced.

MINISTRY OF PRODUCTION: SCIENTIFIC ADVISERS.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing on the paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Committee of Scientists, lately appointed by the Minister of Production, will supersede the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, of which the President of the Board of Education is Chairman: and if not, what will be its relationship to that Committee.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it would not be correct to describe the recent additions to the staff of the Minister of Production as the setting up of a new Committee. As has been stated in the public announcement, the Minister of Production has appointed three distinguished men to his staff in the capacity of full-time scientific advisers. Their field is co-extensive with the responsibility of the Minister. These appointments do not affect in any way the function of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet who will continue to advise the Government on matters coming within their terms of reference. In appropriate cases the Committee will, no doubt, consult with the scientific advisers of the Ministry of Production as they have been accustomed to consult with the scientific advisers of other Ministers before submitting recommendations on matters connected with their Departments.
House adjourned.