Lords Sitting of 1 December 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Wellington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.
The Earl of Cottenham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the Motion standing in my name is one which has to be moved every Session. Since it was put on the Paper it has been discovered that an alteration in the wording of the second paragraph would improve the draft. The alteration which I propose is in the fourth line of the second paragraph. It is only a small verbal alteration to make the Motion read "in that case those notices shall not be so published," and then the paragraph will continue "and in lieu thereof notices of the proposed Bill shall be published" and so on. With your Lordships' permission, I will move the Motion in that amended form.
Moved, That where it is intended to make application for a Private Bill a draft of the notice relating to the Bill proposed to be published in accordance with the requirements of Standing Orders 8 and 9 shall twenty-one days at least before the 4th day of December be deposited at the office of the Ministry of Information.
That if it appears to the Minister of Information that the publication of such notices in accordance with those Orders would be contrary to the national interest he shall not later than seven days before the said date so notify the Promoters of the Bill and the Chairman of Committees and in that case those notices shall not be so published and in lieu thereof notices of the proposed Bill shall be published within such time and in such manner as the Chairman of Committees may direct.
That where the Minister does not issue any such notification the notices, as published, shall not differ from the draft deposited with him except so far as he by general or special direction may allow.
That in the case of a Bill for which the Petition is deposited or proposed to be deposited by leave of the House after the 27th day of November the provisions of this Order shall apply subject to the following modification that is to say for the reference to the 4th day of December there shall be substituted a reference to the date on which the Petition for the Bill is deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

POPULATION PROBLEMS.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to ask His Majesty's Government, by whom their inquiry into the problems of population is being conducted, what are their terms of reference, and when a Report of their conclusions is likely to be laid before Parliament; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, some time ago I ventured to raise in your Lordships' House the subject of population, its steady and rapid decline and the effect of that decline on the future of this country, the future of our Empire and indeed, in the long run, the future of the white race as a whole. The feeling of the House at that time was made so very clear that it is unnecessary to burden your Lordships with any more arguments in favour of the urgent consideration of this problem by the Government. In fact, so plain was the feeling that the Government had no alternative but to promise an inquiry. A few weeks later there was a debate in another place, when the promise of inquiry was repeated; but in response to a starred question which I put on the Paper in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Snell, gave a reply which made it only too clear that we must not hope to hear of anything being done for some considerable time. That naturally caused deep concern to many of us who are interested in the problem.
Accordingly I put down a Motion on 3rd November. That was postponed in response to the urgent plea of the Minister

75
and on his firm assurance that if the debate were postponed he would be able in a very short time to make a satisfactory statement. Now there is a new Minister of Health, but the subject is not new to his Department not new to the Government, nor anybody who has thought seriously about the future of this country. Therefore it seemed to me not unreasonable to leave the Motion on the Paper and to hope for a definite reply about the Government's intentions. It may well be that the statement of the Government in response to this Motion will give us everything we want—an inquiry with the status or standing of a Royal Commission—but until that statement is made it is only right that the Government should be aware of the very deep concern of many people in this country at what has hitherto appeared to be their delay and their unwillingness to face the problem. That sense of concern, as I ventured to say during the last debate, was certainly not lessened by the fact that the Minister of Health's chief adviser on this subject—I take it that he is the Registrar-General—last year published a very reassuring report on this subject, but a report which was only reassuring in that he stopped his consideration at the year 1971, when the figures began to destroy the complacent picture which he was building up.
Again, only a few weeks, or possibly a month or two, ago, the figures for the birth-rate of 1942 were published, and they showed an increased birth-rate. Those figures were published without any explanation whatsoever, and I suggest that without that explanation they were bound to mislead a great number of people in this country into thinking that this problem of population was going to solve itself. The figures are misleading for the simple reason that if the state of affairs existing in 1942 were to continue for ever, and every child born in 1942 were to continue living, then, at the very best, we would only raise our net reproduction rate from 75 per 100 women of child-bearing age to just under 85, which would mean that in future our decline for generations would be at the rate of 15 per cent, instead of at the rate of 25 per cent. There was no accompanying statement with these figures pointing out that they were due almost certainly to temporary war-time phenomena. All this, I think, makes it doubly important that we should have an immediate state-
76
ment from the Government as to their intention not only about the holding of an inquiry but as to the form that inquiry will take, as to its personnel, and above all as to its time table.
This is a difficult and very complex subject, and, certainly, no one wishes to cause the Minister who has to deal with it unnecessary trouble. But the Government must be made to realize that there is too much at stake in relation to the future of this country for them to be allowed to deal with it in any halfhearted manner. It forms the basis of our whole social and economic structure, and above all it forms the whole basis of any future policy, both for defence and for the peopling of this country and of the British Empire.
If the present trend is to be reversed by some action taken at the instance of the Government, not only will it be necessary for us to use great energy and courage in tackling the various problems that will have to be tackled, but we shall need a great deal more knowledge than, I believe, is possessed by any of us at the moment. That was very well demonstrated recently by a most interesting correspondence on the subject of population which was carried on in The Times newspaper. It was there made quite clear that the great danger is that every one of us tries to run his own hare. You had the housing expert writing and claiming that if only sufficient houses were provided the question of population would be solved satisfactorily. You had the nutritional expert expressing the view that if only more and better food were provided we should be able to solve the problem. Some thought that family allowances were what was required, and I think that Sir William Beveridge joined in the correspondence on the question of social security. Others came in on the subject of better and different education. Surely, the real truth of the position is that there is no one cause and no one solution. Therefore one's anxiety is that the Government should recognize this in any Commission they set up, and call in to its aid all the best brains on these different subjects. I am sure that the House would appreciate an assurance from His Majesty's Government on that particular matter.
Only one further point, my Lords. I would like to have an assurance that

77
those who are planning for the future policy of this country, making plans for more and higher pensions, more schools, new teachers, more houses and, above all, defence, should realize that even now we are committed, by our past neglect of this problem, to certain inescapable facts. We should have them firmly fixed in our minds. For instance, it is almost certain that in 1980 our population will be round about 36,000,000 or 37,000,000, instead of 45,000,000 as it is to-day. We should have it firmly fixed in our minds that a quarter of that population in 1980 will be aver 65 years of age, and fit for the old age pension. The other day the Ministry of Labour and National Service made it clear that as between 1937 and 1951 we were to expect a reduction of no less than 25 per cent, in our young-worker population; and that is taking no account of the raising of the school age and of other alterations which we intend to make. It is very important that we should understand that certain things are unalterable. Thus, the number of people of thirty years of age in 1972 was settled finally last year by the birth-rate of 1942. That cannot be altered; we cannot possibly go back on it.
I should like to sum up the remarks which I have ventured to make. If there is to be appointed a Committee, or, as some of us suggested in the last debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, a Royal Commission, that body would seem to have three main lines on which it must proceed. Firstly, it must elucidate the facts, figures and nature of this problem; secondly, it must make recommendations as to how to remedy the existing trend of our population to decline; and thirdly, it must report on what modifications may be necessary in our policy for the future in the light of certain facts which, by virtue of what has already happened, must be true whatever action we take with regard to the future. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I hope that I shall not stop any noble Lord who may wish to address your Lordships on this subject from doing so later, but it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I intervene at this stage, because I have a pronouncement of some importance to make. We shall all
78
agree that the noble Earl has performed a very real and definite service by his persistence in calling attention to this vital subject. The prospect of a declining and an ageing population is one which must cause grave concern not only to His Majesty's Government but to every thoughtful citizen. Your Lordships will probably remember the weighty words of the Prime Minister, when he said in a broadcast not long ago that one of the most sombre anxieties which beset those who look thirty, forty or fifty years ahead is this same question. I think that the note of sharp urgency which the noble Earl brought into his speech was valuable and timely. It is, of course, difficult to see clearly so far ahead as the periods with which we are concerned, especially in times like these; but, as the noble Earl very justly said, the numbers of people of thirty years of age thirty years ahead are settled now. But, again quoting the Prime Minister, one can see only too clearly that in thirty years, unless some radical alteration occurs, a smaller working and fighting population will have to support and protect nearly twice as many old people, and in fifty years the position will be worse still.
I do not propose to cover again the ground covered in our recent debate. I think that that debate showed very clearly that your Lordships are aware of the extraordinary complexity of this problem. I welcomed very much the words in which the noble Earl indicated its complexity, and the dangers of easy generalizations. No part of this problem is simple, not even the assembly of the bare facts. For some aspects of the problem we have to go a very long way back; for some we have to peer a very long way forward; and, in order to have proper means of considering the problem, we have to consider the records and the vital statistics of other peoples as well as of our own. We must try to make sure, if we can, by looking at the ebb and flow of population, whether the tendency which is so menacing to-day conforms to any pattern in the history of the human race, a pattern which may give us clues to the causes, to possible consequences and to possible remedies.
The search for causes is still more complicated. On the surface lie matters of personal habit and outlook in all their intimacy. Behind them may lie, and

79
almost certainly do lie, factors deep in our social and economic life, some of them enduring and some of them transitory. There are important medical factors, too, as well as nutritional factors. Still further back there may be deep-seated biological causes, and in the last resort there may be factors which we can all agree to call spiritual. As for the consequences, although some of them may be obscure, the obvious ones carry direct threats to our nation and Empire, and they make the search for remedies a direct and unavoidable duty of the Government. Your Lordships need not be told that the remedies are not likely to be simple. They will depend very largely on the results of the diagnosis, on the assembly of facts and on the assessment of causes. The whole subject—and here again I am in entire agreement with the noble Earl— demands the mobilization of expert knowledge, the common sense of the common man and the common woman, and the vision of the statesman.
Inquiry must come first. His Majesty's Government announced their intention some time ago to institute an inquiry on the broadest possible basis into the whole question of birth-rate and population. That was announced in July. Since then a great deal of work has been done, and as a result I am now in a position to inform your Lordships of the Government's decision on the form which the inquiry shall take. In the first place, it has been decided to set up a Royal Commission with the following terms of reference:
"To examine the facts relating to the present population trends in Great Britain; to investigate the causes of those trends and to consider their probable consequences; to consider what measure, if any, should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trends of population; and to make recommendations."
I hope your Lordships will agree that those terms are comprehensive enough and at the same time precise enough. I am very happy to be able to announce that the Lord Chancellor has consented to accept the Chairmanship of this Commission. I think the mere fact that the Lord Chancellor should be the Chairman is an indication of the immense importance which the Government attach to this subject. I think I am right in saying that it is only rarely that very important members of the Government have been Chairmen of Royal Commissions. There
80
was the case of Lord Haldane who when he was an important Cabinet Minister, presided over a Royal Commission on University Education. I think the fact that so important a member of the Government has been asked to preside does indicate clearly enough that the Government think this matter one of vital importance. The names of the other members of the Commission will be announced as soon as practicable.
The Government have also decided that because of the complexity of the subject and of the highly technical content of some aspects of it, it will be necessary to assist the Commission by setting on foot certain special inquiries of a technical kind. The exact scope and character of these investigations will be determined in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission. But it will be clear to your Lordships that there are at least three broad heads under which the technical issues must be examined. Later on it may turn out that there are others, but there are at least three. There is first the statistical group. This, as your Lordships will be aware, is not a matter of the simple collection of figures and calculation. It involves a high degree of expert knowledge to sift the various statistical factors, to assess their significance and to project them into the future. It will be an enormous advantage to the whole inquiry to have these factors examined and presented by an expert group.
So with the medical and biological factors. These of course are highly technical; they are also very diverse, ranging from immediate physiological conditions that may interfere with fertility to remote biological factors that may have very far-reaching and deep-seated causes. But in spite of this diversity it has been thought that on the whole it is advisable to allocate the work of technical inquiry under this head to one group which can, if necessary, divide itself up to consider the various technical details. There are also the economic factors—what part they have played in population trends, the part they may still be playing, and what may be the effects of the population trends on our economic life in the future. There are obviously many matters for technical inquiry in that field too, and there may well be other matters which call for technical inquiry; but on these three, the statistical, the medical and

81
biological, and the economic, the Commission will have the advantage of the best expert advice that can be obtained.
The result of these inquiries will be made available to the Commission as soon as possible. In the meantime it is hoped and expected that the Commission will find it possible to explore and take evidence upon the more general issues. It is proposed to proceed with the whole inquiry—the Royal Commission and the technical investigations—with all possible speed; but your Lordships will understand that with the momentous issues involved, all parts of the work will have to be done with the utmost thoroughness, and the utmost thoroughness is not compatible with quick results. But I can assure your Lordships that the Government are seised of the enormous importance of this subject and intend to tackle it with the utmost possible speed and the utmost possible earnestness.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure we should like to associate ourselves with what the noble Duke has said in paying a tribute to the perseverance— which is characteristic, I may say—of the noble Earl who has brought this subject before your Lordships more than once, and to congratulate the noble Earl upon the result so far. We welcome the appointment of this Royal Commission, and we are glad that we have had the opportunity of hearing the announcement which has just been made, the more so that the Government have recognized its immense importance by appointing one of their senior members to be the Chairman. I may be allowed to express the hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see to it not only that the results of the work of the Commission are worthy of its constitution, but that the Commission is not unduly delayed in its activities. The subject is so wide that I think I will follow the example of the noble Duke in not saying anything about the different aspects of it which he suggested. But I hope that the inquiries which will be instituted will he under the guidance and inspiration of the Commission itself. I am a little apprehensive that the procedure announced just now—the mention of three or four branches of inquiry—might take a very lone time, and might perhaps not be on the lines that the Royal Commission itself would desire unless the Commission is associated with those inquiries
82
in determining their character and objective from the very start. Otherwise it opens up a vista of delay.
At the same time, I would also express the hope that, in view of the numerous interests and far-reaching issues which may be opened up by the investigations, the Royal Commission will see that the inquiries are not too prolonged, and that they do not reach further afield into humanity's future than is necessary for the urgent work of the Royal Commission itself. It will be very tempting, I can well believe, for a body of experts with the kind of remit that the noble Duke has mentioned, to spread themselves very widely and to take up a great deal of time. I therefore hope, and I am sure we expect, that the noble and learned Viscount who is to be the Chairman will see to it that the inquiries are kept within the scope necessary to enable the Commission to get on with its work with due rapidity. There can be no subject that is of more vital national importance. That is obvious, and those of us who are members of large families—as many of us are—and have struggled through successfully in the battle of life are perhaps not so sympathetic with modern habits as some others. These personal prejudices, I have no doubt, will be kept duly in the background, but I do hope that the social habit which, I am quite sure, has a lot to do with the present limitation of births will not be excluded from the cognizance of the Commission. I refrain from making any use of the headings which I jotted down while the previous speakers were addressing us, and conclude by saying how glad we are to hear the announcement that the Government recognize the importance of this subject, as shown by the selection of the Lord Chancellor as Chairman of the Royal Commission, and to wish every success to the Commission itself.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I really rise to ask a question, but first I should wish to congratulate the noble Earl, who has raised this matter again and again, upon the success which his efforts have to-day attained. I also wish to express my felicitations to the noble Duke who spoke on behalf of the Government that he, amongst all the members of the Government who have shown the greatest interest in this ques-

83
tion, should have had the privilege of making this important and most satisfying announcement. I feel sure there is not one of your Lordships who is not grateful to the Lord Chancellor for undertaking this most responsible, most difficult, and, I am afraid he will find, most laborious task.
The question I rose to ask is this: What is to be the organic connexion between the Royal Commission and the satellite inquiries, as I may call them? Is the Chairman of each of the satellites to be a member of the Royal Commission? because that seems to me to be an important way of linking the two types of inquiring body together. There will, I imagine, require to be several more satellite bodies making inquiries than those already envisaged by the noble Duke, and he himself will be aware probably that that will be the case. Another question, which is of great importance, is this: Are these satellite bodies empowered to conduct research and experiment? What is to be the exact scope of their functions? Are they merely to take evidence, or are they to go out to look for new knowledge to attempt to solve the problems and questions which will arise? These are the two questions on which I hope it may be possible for me to receive a little clarification—first, are the Chairmen of the satellite bodies to be members of the main Commission; and, second, are the satellite bodies to have powers of conducting research and inquiries to obtain new knowledge?
If they are to do that—and I think it is necessary that they should—then some form of interim report is desirable while the research work is being done. Take, for example, the matter raised in that most interesting debate which we had the other day, when Lord Teviot discussed the question of the relation between soil health, plant health, animal health, and human health. That also impinges on this whole question of reproduction and fertility, and there will be need of a great deal of experiment if the matter is to be followed up. I feel that out of this Royal Commission, over which the Lord Chancellor has graciously consented to preside, may arise an organization which I am sure is necessary for a country like this to have—namely, a permanent body steadily investigating the great problems of population and life, because it will be many generations before all the prob-
84
lems can be solved. Having asked these questions, I should like again to congratulate the noble Earl on the success which has attended his efforts.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise only to join with those who have already Spoken in congratulating the noble Earl on the success of his efforts and in expressing the pleasure that we on these Benches feel at the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with this most important matter. I would urge that in addition to the technical and other matters which have been mentioned, this Commission should take into full consideration the moral and religious aspects of the question. They are as important as the social aspects to which reference has already been made. I hope therefore that this Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of the Lord Chancellor, who, we are so glad to hear, has taken on this arduous post, will be speedily set up, will speedily get on with its work, and will give us a report which may, for a long time to come, afford the most valuable guidance to our people.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, we in this quarter of the House desire to associate ourselves with what has been said in congratulating the noble Earl on the success of his efforts in having induced the Government to take the very strong and satisfactory step of appointing a Royal Commission presided over by no less a person than the Lord Chancellor. We rejoice that this has been done, and we feel particularly proud that the Lord Chancellor should have been chosen for this arduous task and that he has agreed to give his very great talents to the work as Chairman.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, may I add one more word as to the composition of the Royal Commission? It was observed in some quarters during the various debates we have had on this subject, and at certain other meetings with which I am acquainted, that nothing was said on the subject of the views of the female sex. It has come to my knowledge that the ladies have a great deal to do with this topic, and when they hear it discussed by what they reverently describe as "a lot of old gentlemen," they are rather astonished that the views of the women are not more regarded. All I want to say is this. It seems to me

85
that on a topic of this sort, if we want really valuable results from the Royal Commission, a very generous proportion of the members of that Commission should be of the female sex. There are matters, partly social, partly of another kind, which almost entirely depend on the knowledge and experience of working women all over such a country as this. I have been told, for instance, that the mere matter of washing and mending the clothes of little children, especially boys, in working-class homes is in modern days so arduous that it has a great effect upon the limitation of offspring. However that may be, your Lordships will, I think, agree that a fair number of the members of the Royal Commission ought to be women.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, by permission of the House, I can answer very briefly the questions which were asked by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Geddes) and the noble Viscount who has just spoken. The number and need of the technical inquiries will be settled in consultation with the Chairman of the Royal Commission, and so will the terms of reference and the scope of inquiry of these various technical Committees. The Chairman of the Royal Commission is fully alive to the importance of securing proper co-ordination, and the whole idea of these technical inquiries is that they shall assist the Royal Commission. Your Lordships may have every confidence that they will be directed to that purpose by the Chairman, who is fully capable of organizing an inquiry of this kind. The noble Lord also asked whether the Chairmen of these assistant Committees will be members of the Royal Commission. I can assure him that it is proposed that they should be. I can also assure the noble Viscount who has just spoken that the importance of women on this Royal Commission has been fully recognized, and women will be very fully represented on it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in rising to withdraw this Motion I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has already said in expressing what I am sure was the pleasure of the whole House that it was the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who made this announcement. He has for years given thought and work to this problem; indeed it is right to say that the Report of the
86
Oversea Settlement Board of which he is Chairman is part of the serious literature on this subject. I would like also to emphasize what has been expressed before—namely, our gratification that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has accepted the Chairmanship of this important body. I rather think that in my speech I ventured to use the words "elucidate the facts and figures of this problem." I think we would all agree there is nobody in the country with a greater power of elucidation and greater clarity of mind than the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Finally, might I venture to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, on his startling and revolutionary statement that women have something to do with this matter, and to express what I am sure is the pleasure of the House at the answer of the noble Duke to the effect that women will be fully represented on this Royal Commission? I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GOVERNMENT IN LIBERATED COUNTRIES.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON had given Notice that he would call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the importance of ensuring the election of democratic Governments in enemy-occupied countries at the earliest possible moment after their liberation; and also move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the subject with which this Motion deals is a most complicated and thorny one, but I think all of us must recognize the great importance of the democratic theory to-day. We have found that democracy, with any disadvantages it may have, is the one effective brake on tyranny which has yet been devised. It is the only hope, I submit to your Lordships, of giving to the peoples of Europe those promises outlined in the Atlantic Charter, and I think it would not be untrue to say that wherever oppression or exploitation is found there also you will find democracy in chains. I am sure that noble Lords will agree in principle with these theories, for His Majesty's Government have repeatedly and wholeheartedly endorsed the principle that it is democracy for which we are fighting

87
and which we mean to use as the future principle for the States of Europe. But I think we must say, although these principles have been agreed, that nevertheless certain specific cases or instances arise in which His Majesty's Government, instead of being on the side of democracy, are very often against it.
One of the examples most pertinent to this argument is the case of Greece. I am sure there is no one in this House who has not paid tribute and whole-hearted tribute to the great courage and integrity of the Greek people in their struggle against the might of Germany and Italy combined, but we have yet to pay deserved tribute to the even greater struggle which has been carried on by the Greeks since the Axis victory. Far greater endurance, far greater courage are called for from the people of an occupied country to fight against the invader than are needed when the whole country exists as an armed resistance movement. In Greece, as your Lordships all know, resistance started with bands of guerrillas fighting in the mountains and destroying bridges, wrecking troop trains and disrupting the communications of the Germans in every way. So successful were their efforts and so much did the movement grow that little by little it has more or less taken in nearly the whole of Greece and has spread to the cities. Strikes and sabotage have been organized against the Quislings and German Government in spite of the most violent repressions, mass executions, and all the horrors that the Germans can inflict on a subject people. In spite of all this the struggle has been carried on and the Greeks have formed what they called a National Liberation Front, which is known under the initials E.A.M. This has been made up of people of every Party who are agreed, first, on the essential need of expelling the Nazis from Greece, and secondly, in not having any form of Fascist dictatorship in that country.
All Parties have combined in this movement, and an army has been formed which combines all these or most of these groups of guerrillas who are continually fighting the invader and continually working against any Quisling Government that may exist. Now, what is our policy towards these Greeks? We have, as your Lordships know, recognized King George
88
of the Hellenes as the official King of the Greeks and we have recognized his Premier, Monsieur Tsouderos, the ex-Director of the Bank of Greece, as the Prime Minister in the Government. But, unfortunately, we have to call to mind the fact that the Greeks are not very trustful of their King. The reason for that is that when King George first went to Greece he swore by the Constitution that all Greek liberties should be preserved, that the Parliament should be maintained, and that' the rights and freedoms of the Greeks under their Constitution should be kept; but, as we all know, in 1936 the Parliament was dissolved never to reappear again, Metaxas was installed as dictator of the country, and, what in Greek eyes was even worse, the King supported that dictatorship even though it became in the view of the people almost as extreme as any dictatorship of Hitler or Mussolini. Those who have once suffered under the terrors of that kind of dictatorship are very hesitant before they will risk suffering under such a dictatorship again.
Therefore when a deputation arrived in Cairo quite recently one of their first demands was that the Greek King should not go back to Greece until a plebiscite had been taken to see whether the Greek people wished to have that form of government or not. They said they were not satisfied that the promise of the King would be kept on his return, and I do not think that in the circumstances we would call them altogether unreasonable in that demand. Their second demand, which also seems not unreasonable, was that this National Liberation Front, which claims to combine about 75 per cent, of the people—whether it does so or not I cannot say, but it certainly has a very big following throughout Greece and has put up an effective and heroic assistance —should have some form of representation in the Greek Government in Cairo, We all know that both these demands were flatly refused. It is believed, as has been stated, that they were flatly refused on the advice of the British Government and that this policy was fully endorsed by the British Prime Minister.
What can cause us to pursue such a policy at the expense of this gallant people and such denial of all the principles of democracy? Is the Atlantic Charter to become a scrap of paper? I

89
hope not, but it is not encouraging, and when we look at the other countries, Yugoslavia for instance, we find exactly the same policy pursued. There again there is a gigantic resistance movement which, as we have all seen from the newspapers, has had spectacular results. It has freed large tracts of land from Nazi rule, and not only that but it is believed to be employing many German divisions which are kept fighting in Yugoslavia against this Yugoslav resistance movement. We must admit that the problem there is complicated. There are various racial groups, Croats and Slovenes as well as Serbs, and before the war started the Serbs had more or less established a kind of oligarchy in which they controlled the army, trade and finance to a great extent at the expense of the minorities, the Slovenes and the Croats. Hence you find in Yugoslavia very great tension between the different racial groups. In spite of that you find in the partisan armies Serbs, Croats and Slovenes all fighting together with very great gallantry and still greater success. What is our policy? As your Lordships know, we have recognized the Government of King Peter, which is composed, if not entirely, almost entirely, of Serbs, and that Government appointed as War Minister General Mihailovitch, a great Serb general who has been frequently reported as having used his troops against the liberation movement, against the partisans and on behalf of Italy. Anyway, he is regarded as a very pro-Serb and a not particularly anti-Nazi general. Yet he is the only man recognized by the Government in Cairo, the Government which we finance and support and recognize. I suggest that we should bring very strongly to the attention of the Yugoslav Government the desirability of giving representation to the very big partisan movement which has had such tremendous success.
I cannot go through all the different problems of the countries of Europe, but to illustrate my point I should like to say that his lack of support of democracy seems to be very marked in our recognition of the Polish Government. One of the most courageous movements in Europe is the Polish underground movement. I do not want to dwell on the behaviour of the emigré Government here, but I think there is an extremely unsatisfactory relationship. There are many people who would like to see in
90
Europe Governments very much of the Right, Conservative Governments, and many other people who would like to see Governments very much of the Left, Socialist Governments, but I submit that if we are to avoid the most bitter strife between Left and Right we must proceed on the basis of allowing people in the liberated countries to choose the Governments that they wish to have. As soon as our invading armies manage to free a country, we should at once allow the people to choose their own representatives. We should as soon as possible arrange municipal, elections, and then find democrats who would find other democrats and arrange as soon as possible for elections for a constituent assembly. The danger is that under the pretext of expediency, perhaps military expediency, we should pursue in Europe a policy of establishing in those countries Governments, which one might almost call puppet Governments, which will not have the full support of the people of the countries in which they are set up.
There will be a very great temptation to do so; but if it is done not only shall we lose the support of the people of the country but we shall fail to use the resistance movements which are so vital to the success of our arms. I think a great many of the difficulties which arose in connexion with the Free French movement followed from the fact that after the resistance movement in France started, a period of two years elapsed before any direct contact was made with the resistance movement and General de Gaulle's Committee. Had that contact been made earlier, and had popular feeling in France manifested itself, I feel sure that we should not have made the mistake of appointing Darlan in North Africa with all the tragic blunders and difficulties which followed. It is only now through the Consultative Assembly that French opinion has begun to make itself felt, with, I think, very beneficial results.
As a last appeal to your Lordships I should like to say that not only does this affect the peoples of Europe but it will affect ourselves. The lives of thousands of our soldiers will depend on these great popular movements in the occupied countries. If we want the support of the French or of the people of any other nation we must recognize them. We must not fall into the trap of Goebbels and say that these movements are made up of

91
Jews and Communists. They are made up of every decent and courageous element in the country and they are for the moment the popular expression of the people. I strongly urge His Majesty's Government to consider these principles not only for the sake of the peoples of Europe but for the sake of ourselves. If we throw over the pledges of democracy the very things we are fighting for will become a sham. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I be allowed to congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward this very important question and on the very moderate way in which he has expressed the strong feeling on this matter which many people in this country undoubtedly share? When he put down the Motion he was good enough to ask me to say a few words in support of him and to deal very briefly—and I hope carefully—with the situation in Italy. Before I do that may I add this to what my noble friend has so very lucidly said about the situation in the Balkans? I understand that the British military authorities who have been in touch with the actual situation in Greece and Yugoslavia have recognized the state of affairs which the noble Earl has described, and if our own military people had had their way I think we should have avoided a good deal of trouble. Part of the trouble seems to come from a curious organization in Cairo which does not seem altogether to belong to the Foreign Office but which claims to speak and act for the War Cabinet, which in practice, I suppose, means the Prime Minister. Some of its activities seem to Have been questionable. I believe it was responsible for placing the delegates from Greece referred to by the noble Earl under house arrest. Immediately there was a great outcry from more responsible official circles in Cairo and the delegates from the Greek resistance movement were released.
With regard to Italian affairs I want to say at once to my noble friend Lord Snell, who I understand will reply on behalf of the Government, that I am not approaching this matter in any critical spirit. I do not want him to think that I impugn in any way the good faith of His Majesty's Government or our Allies in Italy, or even their good judgment. It is a most difficult and complicated situation there
92
and we all recognize that. I confess I would feel more satisfied if my noble friend Lord Snell were out there in supreme political control of the liberated provinces of Italy and Sicily. But perhaps he can use his good offices in the important position he holds here to influence affairs. In Italy there is the great difficulty that only one-third of the country, approximately, has been liberated from the Nazi tyrants and two-thirds of the country are under the direct military control of the Germans. In the south and in Sicily there seems to be, as in the north of Italy, a strong Republican movement. Your Lordships, I am quite sure, would immediately agree that this is a matter which in the long run ought to be, and must be, settled by the Italian people themselves. Our part in the affair, I imagine, is to give them the opportunity of so settling it along those lines, and indeed we had that stated clearly and I submit, satisfactorily, after the recent Conference between the three Foreign Ministers in Moscow.
An agreed policy was there laid down with regard to Italy which I am sure all your Lordships would entirely support, and it was along the lines of the Motion of my noble friend the Earl of Huntingdon. What I would like to know is whether the Allies in Italy—for we are not alone concerned—are doing their best to implement the political programme for Italy laid down by the Moscow Conference. Again the situation is complicated, as I have just suggested, by the fact that in Naples, broadly speaking, the Americans are supervising affairs, and in the area of which Bari is the administrative centre the British authorities are in control. In Sicily, I understand, Amgot is still in control. I do not on this occasion propose to make any criticism at all concerning the working and administration of Amgot. I understand that in regard to the economic side of its activities, and particularly the distribution of food, the Amgot organization has done very well indeed, while on the political side there are signs that Amgot and those who are responsible for shaping its policy have begun to mend their ways. Therefore, as I say, I am not criticizing Amgot, especially as it seems to have been superseded in the liberated provinces on the mainland of Italy by another organization. But may I draw

93
the attention of my noble friend to the feeling that strategically the Germans have moved much more quickly and resolutely in Italy since the fall of Mussolini and the Fascist regime than we have? We all know—and I am not going into it now—how they recovered from their difficulties and took advantage of their opportunities while we missed our opportunities. We were far slower than they in the strategical field and we will have to pay for it in the future. The danger now is that in the political field the Germans will move or are moving more quickly than we are doing. Let me give an instance In the north there is a puppet Italian administration. Mussolini apparently has phlebitis and is out of the picture.
A NOBLE LORD: Mosley is supposed to have phlebitis.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, phlebitis is a fashionable disease amongst these people Mussolini has heard of what has happened here and has got a doctor's certificate, too. The real governing force in this Italian puppet Government is Marshal Graziani and he has already declared for a Republican Italy, Furthermore, every student of Italian affairs with whom I have been in contact assures me that the great problem in Italy is the land. Lord Addison says that it is a great problem in this country, too. But there is a land hunger in Italy which is different from the land hunger in Britain. The great need of the peasants in Italy is for more land, and these students of Italian economic affairs assure me—and I daresay your Lordships are aware of this also—that this problem can only be satisfactorily settled by the breaking up of the great landed estates. In the north of Italy, so they say, Graziani's puppet Government has already given some 18,000 acres of land to the peasantry, and we may be sure that the German and the Fascist propaganda machines will make the utmost of this fact if it is true. I hear nothing of anything of this sort having been done in the Italian provinces liberated by our armies or in Sicily. It may be going on; I do not know; but that seems to me to point to a danger of the Germans with their Fascist puppets being quicker to appreciate the real political situation in Italy than our people who are ultimately responsible.
94
There is something radically wrong in Italy. What it is I do not pretend to know. We seem to have muddled affairs rather badly; if I may descend, for a moment, to the use of the vulgar tongue, we have "botched" them. Otherwise, how can we account for the fact that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Cranborne, speaking from the Government Benches last week, gave as one of the reasons for the setback in the Ægean and in the Dodecanese islands that Italian soldiers had refused to fight? There is obviously something wrong for that to have happened. There was their legal Government and their King calling upon them to eject the Germans and defeat the Nazi menace to civilization and they were not fighting. Yet in Naples, when the Germans were in occupation, the civil population fought with great courage. Schoolboys helped to man the barricades, and even the women fought. The male civilians fought with any weapons that they could lay their hands upon, and it was because of the resistance of the Italian civil population that the Germans were unable to turn Naples into another Sebastopol.
In the north, I understand, the Italian civil population and the soldiers on several occasions have fought with great tenacity against the Germans. If that happened in certain sections of Italy—and I could quote also the episode in Sardinia when the Italian garrison turned on the Germans and forced them to evacuate the island they were holding—why is it that Italian troops in Leros and Cos apparently became non-belligerents as soon as the attack on those islands by the Germans began? There is something wrong. There is lacking some motive to fight, and this is not to be explained only on the ground of general war weariness. In the circumstances I think we are justified in asking the Government for an assurance that, without interfering with the legitimate rights of the Italian people, we are allowing full play to the working of the democratic forces in Italy, such as they are, and doing our best to permit the Italian people themselves to carry out the programme agreed upon by the three Powers at Moscow, and I understand assented to by everyone in your Lordships' House.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has raised a matter which is of great interest and, unquestionably also, of great importance. He

95
desires to see democratic Governments elected in every occupied country at the earliest possible moment after their liberation. Let me say at once that that desire is shared not only by all free peoples but also by His Majesty's Government. The policy of His Majesty's Government is at the earliest possible moment to restore sovereign rights and self-government to all those nations who have been outraged by merciless invasion. In doing so they are but following out the third Article of the Atlantic Charter, which reads:
"they respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them."
That expresses exactly the wishes and policy of His Majesty's Government. We desire to see that at the earliest possible moment these afflicted nations shall be given the opportunity of exercising the rights which will have been restored to them.
The noble Earl said that we should be running into some danger if we attempted to establish puppet Governments. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to establish any form of Government; their policy is that the people themselves, as soon as may be, shall declare by free and open election what kind of Government they desire. The first aim of His Majesty's Government is the liberation of these lands from foreign oppression and control. Until that liberation takes place, they believe that the Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces must for the time being exercise complete and supreme authority; but, as the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in another place, it is not our intention to set up a military Government of any kind in friendly countries, but rather to use to the greatest possible extent the services of officials and other nationals in the respective countries. As soon, therefore, as the military position admits, responsibility for the administration of recovered territories will be transferred to the representatives of the countries concerned—to the national Government, if such exists, or to a national authority—pending the formation of a Government freely chosen by the people themselves.
It is worth while to look for a moment at the difficulty of arranging quickly for such things to take place. It is desirable
96
as far as possible that the normal constitutional practice should be observed, and that the peoples should be given an opportunity of making their wishes known. That is desirable not only for the peoples themselves but also for the Governments. It is right that the people should exercise their recovered rights and feel that they are again a nation; it is right also that the Governments should feel that they have their peoples behind them in their effort. It should be known that the Allied Governments, who have kept the flag flying very bravely through most difficult times, are keenly aware of these facts. There is the time factor to take into account. The moment when free election can take place and when plans for a national Government can be put into operation must of necessity vary. The constitutional processes associated with an election take time to set in motion. Electoral rolls have to be compiled and machinery of registration set up. Preparatory work is already being done by the Allied Governments, but some time must inevitably elapse before they can consult their peoples.
It should also be noted that before all else, before elections and before the choice of this or that Government, the physical life of these peoples must be attended to. It is first of all necessary, as I think Aristotle would have said, that they should live, and then, after life has been provided for them, that their public virtues should be asserted. It would be difficult for elections to take place and for the controversies of an election to go on with starving people all around. Therefore, in my judgment at least, the first thing to do is to see that the peoples are able to live, and then the rest will very quickly follow. These considerations must be taken into account, but at the same time they are not intended to be used as arguments for postponing elections; and so far as His Majesty's Government are con-concerned they will do their best to promote the free expression of a people's will as early as possible. They hope that these liberated peoples may be able to express their wishes with the minimum possible delay.
There are two other considerations to be taken into account; there are the underground movements to which the noble Earl so sympathetically referred, and there is the question of what we mean by democratic Governments. The noble

97
Earl expressed what we all feel—gratitude and reverence for the valour of the Greek population. Once more Greece has risen to heights of human achievement which thrill all who love liberty. At the same time, this subject is not a suitable one at the moment for declarations and debate on the floor of the House. The noble Earl devoted a portion of his speech to these resistance movements, especially in Greece, Yugoslavia and Poland. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that it is impossible for me to say what has been done and will be done by way of establishing contact with these movements and supplying them with arms. Such matters have an operational significance, so that any information I gave would be of value to the enemy, and would prejudice the future success of these movements and imperil the lives of their members.
I can only repeat that we are doing our best to support those loyal elements on the Continent who are resisting their Nazi oppressors, and we are encouraging them to unite together in their struggle against the common foe in order that effective action can be taken at the appropriate time. I assure your Lordships that the Government are not blind to the contribution which these resistance movements are making to the common cause, and regard as valued allies all those who are willing to co-operate with us. Lord Strabolgi spoke of the difficulties in regard to Italy, and used words which confirm the principles that I am trying to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government— namely, that the difficulties must be settled by the Italian people themselves mainly. There is no country for which public men of my generation have a greater affection than that of Italy, and we shall all hope that these difficulties will pass; but in the meantime we have to remember that it is a changing scene from day to cay, and it is almost inconceivable that you could set up a particular form of Government there at the present time. All the same, may I say that his criticisms and suggestions will be studied by the Government in the proper Department?
Then I would like to say a word about what we mean by the democratic election of Governments. The desire of His Majesty's Government is that Governments should be established which are truly representative of the people's wishes, but His Majesty's Government have no inten-
98
tion of dictating the actual form which those Governments should take. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, made the criticism that it has not been the democracies which we have supported. Not long ago my noble friend Lord Rankeillour started a debate in which he expressed the fear that we had given the impression abroad that we favoured the establishment of Left Wing Governments. If Lord Rankeillour had been present to-day I should have left the matter to be fought out between Lord Huntingdon and himself, but, as he is not, I again repeat what the Leader of the House said on that occasion, that our attitude was strictly impartial, and that we favoured the policy of an unfettered choice as to the form of Government to be established. That, after all, is what we are fighting for—the right of every people to run their own lives in their own way.
We may hope that the choice they will make may be the choice of democracy, but the choice must be left to them. Some countries may prefer a more or less completely democratic Government, such as our own; others may wish for modifications or extensions. The choice is for them, and not for us. Our business is to secure as early as may be their opportunity to express their own wishes. We must also remember that there are difficulties in defining with exactitude what democracy means, and also the precise degree of public control which entitles a country to be called democratic. For example, one country might assent to certain checks and vetoes and a system of control which other nations might reject. The essential thing is that the people should have the free choice, and that in the main constitutes democracy. Any system of Government which gives the people ultimate control is in my belief democracy. That and nothing else is democracy, and this control by the people may be secured through different machinery in different countries. The noble Earl has with moderation and usefulness drawn our attention to this important matter, and I hope that what I have said may have given him a reasonable measure of satisfaction.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I listened with great appreciation to the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, and I was very glad to note that in his concluding sentences he said that democracy means that the people

99
must have the ultimate control. I was very happy to note that, because in some previous parts of his speech I was not quite sure whether he was not going rather far. He quoted the third point of the Atlantic Charter, which states that the signatories "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live"; but I think he omitted to make mention of a very important point. Point 6 of the Atlantic Charter states that Nazi tyranny must be destroyed. Therefore, while the Atlantic Charter respects the rights of all people to choose their form of government, there is one reservation—namely, that they must not choose a Government based on Fascist or Nazi principles. I think we can derive that assumption quite well from the sixth point of the Charter and if the noble Lord agrees with me what I have said is superfluous. I hope he does.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate—and I think noble Lords on these Benches will bear me out—the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, to this Motion, and I wonder if we can assume also the implications which lie behind his statement. If it is really the Government's intention—which I profoundly welcome—that the peoples shall have the choice of their Governments, and that ultimate control shall be vested in the people themselves, in that case all the
100
Governments in exile—whether Yugoslav, or Greek, or any other—are, as it were, trustees, and when we liberate those countries these Governments will have to wait as trustees until popular choice has decided whether they want them back or not. If that implication of Lord Snell's speech is correct I think we have moved a great step forward to-day and we can realize that the Government really do mean to see established popular control in Europe. I should also like to associate myself with the noble Earl who has just spoken in that we obviously do not wish to see Fascist Governments, but I personally think that any country that has been under Fascist control will certainly never choose to have a Fascist or Nazi Government again. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Draft Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, under Section 52 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.