Lords Sitting of 21 April 1943

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

SHACKLING OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask His Majesty's Government if they have any statement to make regarding the shackling of prisoners of war in Germany?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, as the House is aware, on the 11th February last my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that a communication had been sent on that day to the Swiss Government with the request that the views of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in Canada on the question of shackling set out therein, should be conveyed to the German Government. The reply of the German Government has recently been communicated to His Majesty's Governments, through the same channel, and I think that noble Lords will wish to know the present position.
The Geneva Convention lays down generally that prisoners of war roust be humanely treated, and the point at issue between His Majesty's Governments and the German Government is what constitutes such treatment. The Geneva Convention does not attempt to define "humane treatment" and lays down no rule about the shackling or binding of prisoners during operations. The German Government assert that they will renounce the measures taken against our prisoners only on receipt of an assurance that instructions have been issued to our Forces forbidding the binding and shackling of German prisoners in any circumstances whatsoever. We informed the Swiss Government in the communication sent on the 11th February—and they in turn informed the German Government—that instructions had been issued to our Armed Forces to ensure that all ranks should be acquainted with, and observe, the terms of the Geneva Convention, and that in
306
those instructions it had been made clear that a general order to bind prisoners is illegal and that the issue of any such order is strictly forbidden. The instructions, however, went on to say that circumstances may arise in which the binding of prisoners may be necessary and may indeed be in the best interests of the prisoner himself. It is the duty of a prisoner, during operations, to try to escape and to impede his captors, who must, of course, prevent such action. In such circumstances binding, which must be carried out in a humane manner, is permissible always provided that it is discontinued as soon as immediate operational necessity allows.
These views were duly communicated by the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs to the German Government, who have now replied that our prohibition in principle of shackling is made illusory by the above reservation of circumstances, and they therefore insist on compliance with their earlier demand. His Majesty's Governments have observed, and will continue scrupulously to observe, not only the terms but also the spirit of the Geneva Convention, Article 2 of which lays down that prisoners of war shall "at all times be humanely treated and protected." I should perhaps add that that Article of the Convention, of which Germany was a signatory, also provides that "measures of reprisal against them are forbidden."
May I, in this connexion, remind the House that on December 7 last the Swiss Government suggested, both to the German Government and to the Governments of the United Kingdom and Canada that, "without prejudice to the matters in dispute" and in order to "terminate a state of things manifestly contrary to the principles of humanity," all prisoners in their hands should be freed from their shackles at an agreed hour on December 15? Your Lordships will recall that, as evidence of their desire to respond fully and promptly to the spirit of the Swiss proposal, the Governments of Canada and the United Kingdom gave orders that German prisoners in their hands who had been shackled should be freed from their bonds on December 12. The German Government continued, however, to shackle our men. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are considering, in consultation with Dominion Governments, the terms of

307
the reply to be made for the information of the German Government to the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs, to whose skilful and patient handling of this matter I take this opportunity to pay public tribute. His Majesty's Government will, of course, continue to press for the abandonment by the German Government of the shackling now in effect.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to ask whether the noble Viscount can tell us whether there has been any amelioration in the conditions of British prisoners who have been subject to shackling.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I understand that information to that effect has reached my right honourable friend, and I only hope that it will be confirmed.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2, and committed.

PERSONAL STATEMENT BY LORD ADDISON.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I crave your Lordships' permission, on a personal matter, to express my regret to a number of noble Lords who had desired to take part in the debate on the Motion—relating to certain aspects of food policy, with special reference to milk and milk products, and their cleanliness and safety—which had stood in my name for to-day, and to apologize to them for the postponement of the debate. It was postponed because it appeared that it would be convenient to the Minister concerned that a little longer time should elapse before the debate took place. I did my best to inform a number of noble Lords who had told me that they wished to take part in the debate, but I should like to express both my sincere regret at its postponement and the hope that it will not be long before it can take place.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Minister concerned will share the noble Lord's regret that it was necessary to ask for a postponement. I know that he is anxious to have this debate as soon as possible, but the noble Lord will
308
understand that circumstances may intervene to make the present juncture rather unsatisfactory.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I should like to make the comment that the noble Lord's expression of regret differs a great deal from the statement made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. Lord Beaverbrook was to have initiated a debate yesterday, and I came all the way from Scotland to attend it; and no doubt the inconvenience which I felt was also felt by other noble Lords. I regret to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, is not in his place to-day, but, to put it quite mildly, I think that he behaved in a manner which caused considerable inconvenience to your Lordships. I hope that on another occasion when he brings a Motion before your Lordships' House he will give plenty of Notice, so that we who live far away can decide to come or not to come as we think fit. The noble Lord's action yesterday occasioned considerable inconvenience to me, and no doubt to others of your Lordships.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am not here to look after the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, but on this subject I was as interested as the noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships, and I also had prepared some remarks which I wished to make. I happen to know, however, that it would have been quite impossible for the noble Lord to inform the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, in time. The noble Earl must have travelled down from Scotland the night before in order to be present, but it was only in the morning, for reasons which perfectly satisfied me, that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, felt that he had to postpone his Motion. He was able to inform me only quite late in the morning by telephone, and I know that he took what steps he could to inform other noble Lords who had intended to take part in the debate. As he is not here, I venture to give that explanation.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CATERING WAGES BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NURSES BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD KEYES: My Lords, as patron of the Central Council of the Royal Naval Staff Association, I have been much interested in this Bill, in so far as it concerns the very deserving body of naval pensioners who feel that they have never had sympathetic treatment from the National Council in their efforts to get employment in civil life. They had great hopes from this Bill. When I was in another place, I took the matter up with the Minister of Health, who promised that their case should be sympathetically considered. I understand, however, that under this Bill these men will be classified as "assistant nurses," which will prejudice their chances of employment in civil life. They feel very strongly that by their long service in the Navy, in naval hospitals and the sickbays of ships, and by the nature of their experience, the qualifications they possess and the examinations which they have passed, they are entitled to the designation of "State-registered nurses." I should be grateful if my noble friend would ask the Minister of Health to give this matter further consideration on their behalf.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I should like most strongly to support the request made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Keyes, on behalf of this most deserving branch of the Royal Navy.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I will see that the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Keyes, and of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, are conveyed to the Minister of Health.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendments reported accordingly.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved that the Bill be now read 3,—(Lord Croft.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I apologize to my noble friend Lord Croft for not having given him longer notice that I intended to raise a certain matter, but I gave him what notice I could. I should have given him longer notice if I had known that my noble friend Lord Addison was not able to move his Motion to-day; and so, with the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, we can all appreciate how sometimes the time-table gets upset. If Lord Addison had been speaking to-day on the subject of milk I should have waited for another occasion to raise this matter on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I should add that I am raising this question to-day with no feeling of hostility, but in order to clear up certain misapprehensions. The information I seek is about the right of men in uniform—or the absence of right, as the case may be—to attend political meetings. I understand that the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry discourage members of the Armed Forces of either sex from taking an active part in politics. They have done so for years, and they always will do so, I suppose, so that as long as a man or a woman is in one of the Services he or she must refrain from active politics, unless he or she becomes a candidate for Parliament. There is some difference of treatment, or difference of

311
regulation, under different Commands, so far as I can ascertain, as to whether men and women in uniform can attend a political meeting. I should be very glad if my noble friend could tell us exactly what the situation is.
There are two cases. There is first the case of the ordinary political meeting. I must say that I have addressed a good many political meetings during the war, and at a great number of them there have been soldiers and sailors in uniform. We have never had any sort of trouble; they have behaved perfectly well, and I have no personal complaint whatsoever. I gather that in certain districts military police have warned men at political meetings that they must not listen to the speakers, and they have had to go away. In other cases, I am told, men in uniform in any of the Services can attend political meetings and no objection is taken. That is the ordinary case of the ordinary political meeting. The other case is where there is a contested by-election, and the soldier or airman is a voter on leave. Can he attend political meetings of the candidates and hear their views before he casts his vote? Furthermore, is he permitted, as a voter, to ask questions of the candidates in his constituency? My noble friend is aware that, particularly in Scotland, the heckling of candidates is a long-cherished right of the lieges, and I do not see why a man who happens to be serving his country in one of the Armed Forces should be deprived of that right when his vote is being sought by a candidate.
Those are the two cases. There is a difference between them, I admit, and I shall be glad of any information that my noble friend can give. I should like to make it clear, if I can, to my noble friend that personally I feel quite sure that the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty have no desire whatever to behave unreasonably in this matter, and that they wish to allow the men in their Services to exercise all the rights of citizens so long as there is no departure from the recognized customs of the Services.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having mentioned that he gave me short notice. It was, indeed, rather short notice, because I only received his courteous intimation that
312
he was going to raise this matter at one minute to twelve, when, I explained to him, I had a couple of deputations and a conference to attend between then and now. The answer to my noble friend, I am afraid, is therefore a brief one, and I should have liked to go very much further. I hope he will forgive me if I give him a very short answer. A soldier in uniform is not forbidden to attend a political meeting, but a soldier, whether he is in uniform or not in uniform, is forbidden to take any active part in the affairs of any political organization or Party. That Regulation is designedly drawn in general terms, and the good sense of the Army has, so far as I am aware, enabled it in practice to be interpreted reasonably and without difficulty. It must rest with the soldier himself to ensure that he is not infringing the spirit or the letter of that Regulation by his behaviour at any meeting which he attends. My information is the same as that of the noble Lord, that the general behaviour of those attending has never been open to question. What exactly constitutes an infringement of the Regulation must obviously depend on the circumstances at the time.
My noble friend asked me rather more specifically with regard to the putting of questions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was asked a somewhat similar question in another place recently, which had reference to a soldier on leave and in mufti, during an election in his own constituency, putting a question to a Parliamentary candidate at a political meeting. The Secretary of State replied:
"A soldier in the circumstances mentioned who put questions in good faith to a Parliamentary candidate in order to inform his own mind would not be taking an active part in the affairs of any political organization or Party, and would not be infringing the Regulation as it stands."
I would add that the Regulation is in broad terms and for many years we have successfully relied for the observance of it on the good sense of those concerned.
LORD STRABOLGI: Do I understand that the soldier must be in mufti?
LORD CROFT: I have explained that a soldier in uniform is not forbidden to attend a political meeting.
On Question, Bill read 3, and passed.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3
, and passed.
House adjourned.