Lords Sitting of 17 April 1947

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  WEIR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The EARL of DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name in regard to this Bill.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 99 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

  HAVANT AND WATERLOO URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  FORTH BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

  FOREIGN MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Foreign Marriage Act, 1892, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a. (Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  EMIGRATION POLICY.
  4.6 p.m.
  Lord TWEEDSMUIR Lord TWEEDSMUIR rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement of policy on the question of emigration from Great Britain to the countries of the British Commonwealth; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion that stands in my name has been on the Paper for some time past. Since I first put it down, His Majesty's Ministers in another place have made various statements of policy, to the effect that His Majesty's Government are prepared to encourage emigration from this country to the Commonwealth countries in spite of the somewhat discouraging state of affairs in which we find ourselves. That was the policy of the Coalition Government, and one with which I think the great majority of your Lordships will find yourselves in agreement. This is not a Party matter at all. It affects in the most significant way, as I believe, the future of the whole British Commonwealth. It is a matter which not only transcends Party; it is, to reverse a famous dictum, a calling in of the Old World to redress the balance of the New.
  The economic sellers' market of to-day may well be coming to an end, but there is one article which seems to be in just as steady demand as it ever has been, and that is the demand for settlers of British stock. I do not think we shall lose that sellers market so long as we stick to our historic standards, by which quality is the only measure of value and quantity is a mere measure of volume. The whole question of emigration is one of those things that can be very easily over-simplified. I have known many people who, with the help of a map and one or two theories, can leap into the grossest of over-simplifications. The other day I heard somebody say of a certain country that all it needed was a better water supply and a better type of settler. That, after all, is all they need in the infernal regions!
  It may seem a rather doubtful step at this time to encourage a great exodus

  1055
  of population from this country, when one of our chief difficulties is the shortage of trained manpower. To my mind that is to look at this whole matter in an entirely wrong light; it is to look at the matter as though it affected ourselves, and ourselves alone. In the first instance it is a matter of concern for the Commonwealth Governments, and when they have made known their wishes and the wishes of their people, as in most cases they have, it is then the responsibility of His Majesty's Government to decide whether we are. to be a willing seller to these willing buyers. It is only natural that they should want the best we have; it is only natural that they should want our skilled artisans and our skilled professional men. Of course, to let these people go is something of a sacrifice, for every child that grows up in this country represents a certain investment of the country's capital in public and social services—an investment which the child begins to repay when he reaches working age. If, when he reaches that age, he leaves this country, then he takes with him a fraction of our national wealth. There is, again, the consideration that m any country it is more or less true to say that those who are not of working age—those who have not reached it or those who have passed it—are in great measure supported by those who are producing. If, therefore, there is a great exodus of our producers, more and more people who arc not of working age will begin to be supported by fewer and fewer who are.
  Apart from our skilled artisans and our skilled professional men, I understand that the majority of the Commonwealth countries have expressed themselves in general terms as willing to take child emigrants. The state of affairs that was revealed by the Curtis Report shows how many there are in this country who have not much in life to which they can look forward in it. To sum up, if the Commonwealth do want our best, it is only natural; and it would create an exceedingly poor impression if we were to say that we were not prepared to release our best, but only our second, or perhaps our third best. It is idle to deny that such an exodus is something of a sacrifice to us, but the sacrifice is by no means one-sided. Every one of the Commonwealth countries is making sacrifices at this moment to help
  1056
  this country, either by loans or princely gifts, or by rationing themselves and making themselves short of something that they badly need in order that we may have it.
  Perhaps I may sketch very briefly the history of emigration in this century. The year before the First World War was the high-tide mark. A century of peace was just coming to an end, although many people did not realize it. The world seemed full of glittering prizes, and there were bright swords in plenty to seek them. In that year 223,000 people left this country for the Dominions. Then came the First World War. The year 1920 was the flood mark between the wars; 134,000 people left our shores. But that flow began to dwindle, and between 1925 and 1929 the flood was down to 80,000 per year. In the meantime, in 1922, the Empire Settlement Act had been passed and £3,000,000 a year was to be devoted to assisted emigration on the basis of pound for pound between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions. That Act was modified later on, and it went into abeyance in the year 1931. When the 1930's came in, the depression proceeded to fasten itself not only on this country, but on every country of the Commonwealth. An ebb tide set in. In the year 1931, 26,000 people came from Commonwealth countries to settle in Britain. The next year was the high mark of the ebb tide mark; the figure was 33,000. By 1936, when things were beginning to improve again, it had fallen to only 13,000.
  That had its effect in many ways. When the war started in 1939, more than one-quarter of the Royal Air Force was Canadian, and every Commonwealth country was represented in that same Force. During the grave period of depression the Commonwealth countries narrowed their entry to British settlers. Their own labour markets were depressed and flooded by applicants; and they did not wish to add to them. To say that between the wars emigration was a failure is not true. It is perfectly true to say that among the vast numbers who went, there were quite a number of failures; quite a number of the people failed to make good. They left this country without the slightest idea of what the country of their adoption was like, and without the slightest idea of whether or not they had the qualifications to succeed in it. There was no reason

  1057
  why that should have happened, and there is no reason for it ever happening again.
  Times have changed once more, and in a war of movement thousands of our Forces have travelled the world. They have seen that the world is a wider place than they had ever dreamed. It is not surprising that their thoughts turn to the Commonwealth, where they feel they would get that wider world, in an atmosphere of the institutions to which they are used, and among people who speak their own tongue. Commonwealth countries represent seventy-seven times the size of Britain, but have a population little more than twice that of Greater London. They have felt the effects of two wars just as bitterly as we have. The convulsions of 1914 and 1939 have shown them that vast countries with tiny populations are chilly places to be in when the world is at war.
  Then there is the economic side. In the main, their economy is keyed on the produce of the soil, in spite of the fact that they have very large urban populations. If your economy is so keyed, you are not only the sport of price fluctuations of every country, but also the prey of great cataclysms of nature. The drought of the 1930's caused havoc on the Canadian prairies; the drought of 1944 and 1945 cut the Australian wheat crop to one-third and killed no fewer than 11,000,000 sheep. It is not s surprising that they now seek to diversify their economy. For an expanding home market they must have an expanding population. They possess services of Government, as well as ports, docks and railways, capable of catering for far larger populations whose presence would have the effect of easing the burden of their maintenance and spreading taxation somewhat more thinly. When man becomes a migratory animal no artificial barriers will hold him back. An ebb-tide has set in in this country. I will not go into figures, but I think no one will disagree with me when I say that the offices of the shipping companies and the Dominion High Commissioners have been virtually besieged during the last few months by would-be emigrants. There is nothing that I know of to prevent the settler who is prepared to pay his way, and put down as security a deposit in the country of his adoption, from emigrating immediately.
  All the Commonwealth countries, I understand, have expressed themselves in general terms as being prepared to take
  1058
  emigrants of British stock. There is in force between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Australia a scheme for assisting emigration, which falls into two parts. The first part is for ex-Service men and women, and the second scheme is for those who are not ex-Service. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount who is to reply to this Motion the first of the questions of which I have given notice. Can the noble Viscount inform us as to the stage which negotiations have reached with Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia under this head, and what arrangements for assisting emigration have been reached, or are under discussion, between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of these countries? There are two further questions, which are really riders to the first. Are intending emigrants, either assisted or unassisted, to be limited in the amount of money they may take with them to the country of their adoption? Secondly, can the noble Viscount tell us whether the provisions of the National Service Bill, now before another place, will be applied to those who would normally come within its provisions, but who wish to emigrate immediately?
  There is another question of which unfortunately I did not have an opportunity of giving notice, although I would greatly appreciate an answer if the noble Viscount can give me one. Is it proposed to resume the grants-in-aid to the voluntary societies which deal with Empire settlement? I may seem to have treated the position of this country with regard to emigration rather too lightly. There is no doubt that an exodus at this moment would be extremely embarrassing to our country. After all, emigration ideally proceeds from the surplus of a prosperous country, and not from the insufficiency of a highly embarrassed one. There are those who maintain that 5f necessary we can patch up our economy for a long period by the work of Italians or Germans. I cannot see that replacing those who fought for us by those who fought against us can be any real answer. This human tide of emigration flows; it occasionally has an ebb but never a corresponding inflow, and the void which will remain in this country can be filled only from one quarter. by a policy, one might say, of circulation of peoples.
  Emigrants are not coin or chattels. No emigration or re-settlement scheme can rest alone on a cold economic basis. It must have a solid humanitarian foundation, and I believe that we must redress the balance of our population from those now in distressing circumstances in the refugee camps in the British Zone of Germany. At the end of the seventeenth century we took in the Huguenots fleeing from persecution in France. At that time they were a race more disliked and distrusted by the people of these islands than any in Europe. They eventually achieved a numerical ratio of one to seventy of our then population. We have never lost by it. Nor did we lose by bringing in the Flemish weavers. The countries of the Commonwealth have ever been a refuge for those who, through honourable reasons, ware exiles from their own countries. It is one of the distressing results of war that we find it easier to bear the sufferings of others with greater fortitude. In those refugee camps there are thousands and thousands of the most skilled, in the trades and professions, of the population of Europe. No country will help them unless we give a lead. A certain small number have already been accepted in this country. What of the rest? Are they to rot there without hope at all? I know the difficulties of bringing them in are great, 'but they are not insurmountable. France has already recruited nigh on 1,000,000 foreign labourers. Food is short and houses are short in this country, but life here for those people would be paradise compared with their present condition. We cannot absorb them all, but we can show the way.
  As a nation we are still looked to for leadership—the leadership of example and the leadership of ideas. If we face this problem boldly, and bring in people in substantial numbers on one basis of selection only—the likelihood of their becoming good citizens—I believe that one day they may be counted as a source of great strength to us. If we take that step and give that leadership and make a success of it, I am convinced that other countries will follow our example, both those outside and those within the Commonwealth. We have made great sacrifices in the last few years, in going to help free men in misfortune. It would be a great pity if we were to leave that work half done. I would like to ask the noble Viscount one
  1060
  last question under this head. What consideration have the Government given, and what plans are they now making, to give a lead to other nations of the world by receiving in substantial numbers suitable displaced persons from the British Zone of Germany to work in this country?
  So much for immigration. As it stands it is a matter for discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Commonwealth. I would like to raise one last point, and that is on the resettlement of population within the Colonial Empire. There are certain parts of our colonial dependencies where the density of population has risen to such heights that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a man and his family to reach an adequate standard of livelihood. I would like to ask His Majesty's Government the question of which I have given notice. Has consideration been given to this question of inter-colonial migration? I instance in this respect Malta, Mauritius, the islands of the West Indies and certain districts of West Africa. This is, of course, one of those cases where it is only too easy to make an over-simplification by looking at the empty parts of the map and asking: "Why don't you put them there?" This is a problem that will not cease to be a problem because we happen to turn our backs on it. It might be that the Government of Southern Rhodesia would be prepared to take a substantial number from Malta to help in the tobacco growing industries; and whereas the West Indies' two islands are grossly over-populated, there are great stretches of suitable territory which might be used in British Guiana and British Honduras.
  If I read the policy of His Majesty's Government aright and they are prepared to encourage emigration on broad Imperial grounds at what appears to be a somewhat discouraging time, I think they are absolutely right. They are taking a long and correct view which was also the view of their predecessors in office. Now is the time for greatness, and in dwelling on the question of arrangements with sovereign Governments I make no apology for bringing in this matter of overcrowding in the colonial dependencies because that is our own affair. It is a state of affairs that will not get better by being disregarded.
  I beg to move for Papers.
  4.26 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Viscount Addison): My Lords, I hope your Lordships will excuse my intervening thus early in the discussion, but I thought I might be able to acid to our deliberations same material which would be useful to subsequent speakers. I should like to say in the first place how much I appreciate the matter and temper of the noble Lord's speech. He raised this great issue in an entirely worthy fashion. I do not think he has ventured on any consideration at all which has not been present in our minds during the last few months and which has not been in fact very carefully examined. I should like to say, in the first instance, that we have had and are having discussions with representatives of the Dominions, with the utmost good will on both parts, with a view to seeing the other side of the difficulties and trying to work out a practical scheme. The noble Lord mentioned some of the considerations and I will mention two or three others which we have to bear in mind, and afterwards I will tell your Lordships what has been done so far and what we are now doing.
  As he said truly, we cannot lose sight of our own manpower position, and we know how grave that is. Nor can we afford to lose the pick of our skilled artisans in large numbers; we are bound to take into account our own grave situation. At the same time, we have to have longer views as well, and it is a matter of balance between the two as to what can be done in the immediate future. We are entirely sympathetic to the obvious necessity to increase, so far as is humanly possible, British stock in the Dominions and other parts of the Commonwealth. That, in the long view, is clearly a policy to be encouraged. Whilst we cannot turn our backs or blind ourselves to our own immediate necessities, I would like to assure the noble Lord that every Department of the Government that has participated in these discussions has been fully alive to the necessity of doing whatever can be done, within limitations to which I will refer directly, to meet this necessity of the overseas Dominions.
  I know that he is correct when he says that the High Commissioners' offices in London have on their books great numbers of applications, and some are from
  1062
  persons of very high quality indeed. It might be that if you were to examine them you would find some names on more than one list. This may have helped to swell the numbers a little more than we previously anticipated. But, when you have allowed for that, there is a long list of suitable applicants for emigration to each territory of the British Commonwealth. That is unquestionable. At the same time we are all fully aware—and when I say "we" I mean riot only ourselves but also those of the Commonwealth countries which have discussed these matters with us—of the necessity of avoiding mistakes which occurred in times past. Neither we nor they wish to precipitate overseas men and women who have little knowledge of, or in some cases, perhaps, little aptitude for, the life of the country to which they are proposing to go. Further, neither we nor they wish to encourage large-scale emigration to places which are not able, conveniently, to receive the would-be immigrants. Everywhere—for it seems that this is the case practically, all over the world—there is a housing problem to be considered, and that, of course, has to be taken into account.
  There is another limitation not to our desires but to what we can practically do; and it is a limitation of a very grave character. I refer to the shipping situation. In this connexion, we have to face the fact that something like 40 per cent., I believe, of our pre-war shipping is at the bottom of the sea, and the demands for embarkation all over the world are very urgent indeed. Moreover, we are not by any means, as yet, clear of the 'post-war resettlement movement. In fact, there are very large numbers of people all over the world still waiting to get back to their homes. In some cases they are waiting here to get back to their homes in Commonwealth countries, and in other cases they are waiting in Commonwealth countries to get back to their homes here. I am sorry to say that every High Commissioner's office, and certainly my own Department, can show large budgets of quite poignant stories relating to people who have been waiting for a long time to get passages. We have to take that seriously into account before we can give preference to others. The pressure on shipping is very great indeed.
  I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is fully aware of the necessity for dealing with emigration in a prac-

  1063
  tical fashion, both at the overseas end and at this end, and I will cite as examples machinery that has been set up between ourselves and the Commonwealth of Australia—machinery that is now, shall we say, in working order, and other arrangements that will very soon be in working order. But before I come to them I think I ought to remind the House of a rather large-scale emigration to which the noble Lord did not refer, and which has already taken place. We have, for example, sent to Canada 39,000 young British women and 19,000 children. They have already gone. That is emigration on a very large scale, for it means that no fewer than 58,000 souls in the aggregate have already gone to Canada. Again, 3,350 British wives and 1,100 children have gone to Australia. To New Zealand 2,600 British wives have gone—at the moment I have not particulars as to the number of children who accompanied them. That, too, is a very large migration and I emphasize that it has already taken place.
  Having seen something of this at first hand, notably in the case of Canada, I should like to pay tribute to the care which has been taken to look after those young women and their children both on their journey and on arrival overseas. As I say, I have first-hand knowledge with regard to Canada, but I have no doubt this applies also to the other countries concerned. The women and their children were looked after almost like babies in arms on the ships, and when they arrived on the other side they were met, individually, by one or two soldiers who were detailed specially for the purpose. I remember seeing one young woman who, with her two children, crossed the Atlantic on the "Aquitania." She was going to be taken by a couple of Tommies as far as Saskatchewan. She seemed to think that she was going to be rather bored before she got to her destination because the journey from the port is a very long one. These emigrants were all met at the ports, and taken off the ships, and all arrangements were made for their journeys to their destinations and for their reception when they got there. It was a fine piece of organization. And may I remind your Lordships that in the case of Canada that applies to 58,000 British emigrants. That is a very substantial
  1064
  contribution and it should not be over-looked.
  Now let me cite as a further example arrangements which have already been worked out and are now in operation with regard to Australia. This is the first scheme to be worked out in detail. The arrangements are that the applicants are dealt with by a combined body representing the Australian Government and the Ministry of Labour, and they are finally classified as what are described as "approved emigrants." The Australian Government, in concert with ourselves, have made arrangements to ensure continuation of the social benefits that belong to them in this country. That means that they will receive not less good benefits when they get out there than they would receive if they remained here. The whole of the arrangements have been worked out in an exceedingly practical fashion in all details relating to such matters as the destination of the emigrants, housing and chances of work in the Commonwealth countries. With regard to the chances of work, as a matter of fact, at the present time, the demand for labour is much greater than the supply.
  Then we come to the question of how many emigrants we can deal with. The noble Lord, knowing what he does, will recognize that the numbers we can deal with this year are very many fewer than the numbers of applicants. We have arranged, in concert with the Australian Government, that three troopships, the "Ranchi," the "Chitral" and the "Ormonde," will be devoted entirely to this service. These vessels require some re-equipment, but they will be made available almost immediately and will be employed—for the next whole year, at any rate—entirely on this service. I am not quite sure how many emigrants we shall be able to move in this way in the first year because a good deal of time must necessarily be taken up in refitting the ships and getting them ready. The numbers dealt with this year by this service will probably be in the neighbourhood of 6,000 to 6,900, or something like that. The numbers will, however, be more than doubled next year.
  A practical programme is being worked out, and, as the noble Lord has indicated, there is a scheme based on a two-sided agreement whereby the ex-Serviceman will have his passage paid by the United Kingdom Government. That applies to former members of the United Kingdom Forces.

  1065
  In the case of other persons, the two Governments share the cost of the passage less £10 which the emigrant himself provides. In the case of New Zealand, arrangements are not so far forward as in the case of Australia. We are, however, at the present time discussing a similar scheme with the New Zealand authorities and also with the authorities of Southern Rhodesia. They are offering somewhat similar terms, and the general basis of the Australian working arrangements has been accepted. We are going into the matter con amore with those two Governments, and already the discussions are well advanced.
  The South African Government have decided not to adopt the same method. They do not make any contribution towards the emigrants' fares, but, nevertheless, there is no lack of applications by people who wish to go to South Africa, and the South African Government, with the assistance of our Minister of Transport, are arranging to take over two ships for the South African emigrant service. They are the "Winchester' Castle" and the "Carnarvon Castle," and arrangements are already in hand. These ships were lent for the service of moving the emigrants forthwith. With regard to Canada, at the present time tile Canadian Government have not formulated any definite scheme, although we have to remember they have already taken 58,000 emigrants. We are approaching their problems with them with just the same good will and the, same point of view as we have the others, but the limitation at present is shipping accommodation, and there is no doubt that this limitation will exist for some time to come. That is the practical limiting factor. We see the necessity for safeguarding our own manpower, but, at the same time, the numbers that it will be practicable to move within the immediate or near future are small compared with our working population. We are quite prepared, as things develop, to do the best we can to meet the Imperial or Empire necessities in this matter. I may say, frankly, that in each one of these cases we have made a very practical start, and it has been limited only by the shipping that can be made available.
  I will now turn to two of the questions asked by the noble Lord. There is no limitation placed on an emigrant in
  1066
  regard to taking his capital with him, but there are one or two qualifications I ought to mention. An emigrant going to a dollar country—Canada or Newfoundland—is allowed to draw up to £5,000 from his assets, in annual instalments, during the first four years. If his total assets arc less than £2,000, he will transfer it at the rate of £500 a year. That is to dollar countries, but to non-dollar countries there is no restriction on his moving whatever capital he posseses. With regard to military service, it is agreed between us that migration must not be used as a means of avoiding military service. Therefore, the Dominions, in agreement with us, are not prepared in general to accept as emigrants men who are liable to military service under the law of this country, although special consideration may be given in exceptional circumstances. I think that is a sufficient answer on that point.
  Now may I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord in regard to the Colonies? Of course he had it in mind that we are dealing with human beings, and one cannot move them about like pawns on a chess board. They are human beings, and they have all their affinities and their homelands, and many other considerations, prominent in their minds. But it is true, as he said, that, for example, in Mauritius there is an overpopulation problem, and the same applies to Barbados and some places in the West Indies. So far as the willingness of the Dominion countries to receive migrants is concerned, they are, of course, masters in their own house. It is for them to prescribe their own policy, but so far as the West Indies are concerned (taking account of what the noble Lord mentioned, the available land, apparently of very suitable character for settlement, both in British Guiana and Honduras) my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary has already appointed a Commission to go into this matter under Sir Geoffrey Evans, and they will be leaving in the Autumn. They are to have regard to the recommendations of the West India Conference of 1944 concerning the need for a study of British Guiana and British Honduras as an aid to the solution of the problem of over-population in the West Indian territory; and further. to the need to assist in solving the problem of persons displaced as a result of the world war; and to have regard particularly to the possibilities in

  1067
  these two great countries. They are to take account of the future needs of the population of these territories, the need to provide outlets for the surplus population of the British West Indies, the needs of the surplus populations in other West Indian Islands, and the need to provide for re-settlement and rehabilitation of persons displaced from their homes in European countries so far as opportunities may be available in these places. This is a fairly comprehensive instruction, and I have no doubt that in due course some practical suggestions will emerge. We shall approach them in the same spirit as we approached the others.
  With regard to the noble Lord's remarks concerning persons from the refugee camps in Europe, that subject, I believe, will be coming up again, and will probably come up for discussion several times, in your Lordships' House. But I want to point out to the noble Lord that this dear old country has done its bit pretty well. We provided an asylum in the most distressful days of the war to large numbers of people, and we also have a large number of Poles in these Islands. I am not quite sure of the total number, but it is a very large one—I believe well over 200,000. I think we ought to see that Great Britain gets some of the credit which is due to her. I find a large number of well-meaning people all over the world are willing to give us instructions, but they do not always bear in mind what we have already done. We have made a very practical contribution to providing homes for desolate and distressed people. We would like to do more, and I am not in any way deprecating the importance of what the noble Lord said. He knows that these considerations cannot be absent from our minds because they force themselves upon us almost every day, but, after all, there are practical limits to the extent to which we can deal with these persons who are in a very distressed condition. Therefore, I must plead that the noble Lord will not expect this country to do more than is humanly and reasonably possible in this respect.
  I should mention here that our Canadian colleagues have arranged to take 4,000 Poles, and they have already taken 2,900. They have been carefully selected, and I am sure we all hope that the experiment will be a success. No doubt it will be an encouragement to do more. These things
  1068
  should be done not only carefully; they must also be done wisely, otherwise the reaction may be unfortunate. However, on that matter I can only say that we are well aware of the grim facts of the case. But there are limits to what this country can do, because we ought to remember that, unless those people are capable of earning a living for themselves, everybody we bring in is being maintained at the expense of the British taxpayer. This is a factor which, as a balanced, practical people, we have to bear in mind. So far as migration to the Dominions is concerned, we are thoroughly sympathetic with the spirit of the noble Lord's Motion. We are doing as much as is practicable in the immediate future, and if the scheme succeeds in practical working—as no doubt it will—by being a success at that end as well as this (because that is very important) it will lead to a much greater development in the near future.
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it is a very convenient arrangement that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, should have spoken at once on the Motion which my noble friend has moved. This is an important subject which it is right should be discussed, and there could be no better place to discuss it than your Lordships' House. I know that on this subject—which affects so many people—the official record is very closely scanned, and any encouragement from these pronouncements to those who are considering migration is very widely read, and carries great weight. As has been said, there is nothing partisan or controversial in this subject; therefore it is a happy subject to discuss. And I am sure that in the speech which we have just heard from the noble Viscount my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir will feel that he has received sympathetic consideration for the general theme of his reasoning.
  I should like to interject here that, while this matter was the subject of many discussions in your Lordships' House during the war, this is certainly a more timely moment to have another debate on it. I feel particularly pleased that this cause should now be championed by my noble friend, with his youth and energy. He brings to it the prestige which the first bearer of his name had, both in action and in writing, strengthened by a notable war record on his own part. While I know that he dislikes publicity, I would

  1069
  remind your Lordships that this is a matter which calls for the expression of an adventurous spirit; and no one could be a better advocate of such a subject than someone like my noble friend, the mover of the Motion, who, to prove his theme, was prepared to isolate himself for over a year in the most distant part of the territories of the Hudson Bay Company, and to live with the Esquimaux so that he might know what real adventure is. He speaks with authority.
  I associate myself with everything he said in the urgings which he made. Nothing could have been more effective than the noble Lord's review of past history, from the beginning of the century up to the present time. The urgings about the need for something to be done have been many. In practice, there is no purpose in looking backwards on what might have been done. We must examine what practically and constructively can be suggested now. As I said, I think my noble friend will feel satisfied to some degree with the reply he has received, but I should like now to raise a few points mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, because some clarification may be necessary, and it may be possible, before the end of the debate, to deal with them. The noble Viscount emphasized that the shipping problem is perhaps the main difficulty, but he suggested that in Australia some plan was in working order and he foreshadowed that others will come into effect. He mentioned that women emigrants had already gone out in large numbers, but that they had been balanced to some extent by what had come in from Canada and the United States.
  Referring to the exchange control position with regard to dollar countries, however, I would point out that it seems rather niggardly that only £2,000 of capital can be transferred over four years. I hope that the noble Viscount's representations to the Treasury will result in some modification. With regard to military service, he stated that no man liable for military service would be allowed to leave this country. I trust that that refers only to the years when he would serve, and not to all the years up to the age when he would be liable for military service. That, of course, would exclude all adolescent people and even orphans. The noble Viscount mentioned the question of Poles going to Canada, and that
  1070
  leads me to refer to the position of New Zealand, to which he made little reference. It would certainly scorn that if some persuasion were applied to the Dominion of New Zealand, it might encourage them to be more receptive of the Poles now in this country, because they would be agricultural workers, and therefore very good settlers. That brings me to the subject of Australia, to which the noble Viscount made some considerable reference. It is satisfacory to recognize that Australia has at last appreciated the fact that a 7,000,000 white population cannot for long continue to resist a perimeter with 450,000,000 Asiatics; so at last the fallacious belief of the Labour unions in the Dominion that more immegration means less employment has been finally exploded, and I am sure that the noble Viscount will be the first to subscribe to the fact—with the example of the United States in mind—that a big flow of immigrants makes for continually expanding employment.
  I pass then to Canada. I should like to refer to the energetic campaign carried on by Colonel George Drew, the Premier of Ontario, who has been outstanding in the Empire in urging action by the Dominion in which he lives to receive immigrants. And it is because of that, because of the mention made of exchange control, and the fact that the noble Viscount made no particular reference to any arrangements that had been made for Canada, that I hope His Majesty's Government will find it possible to collaborate with Canada so that she may do more herself for the transfer of emigrants—artisans rather than agriculturists—to Canada. Under the North America Act, I believe, the Provincial Governments have themselves considerable scope, so that the urgings of the Premier of Ontario have a considerable bearing on this—although it may well be said that the policy of Mr. Mackenzie King of giving bonuses for babies may still be regarded by Canadians as the best method of getting immigrants.
  The noble Viscount emphasized that we can ill spare people from this country, and my noble friend in moving his Motion referred to that fact. I hope the Government will give further encouragement to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do even more than he did yesterday in respect of children's allowances, and that in addition to bonuses on every kind of

  1071
  acreage in the country, there will be greater encouragement to increase the population here. In that way there will be available stock for that bold policy of my noble friend, for British stock to people the Dominion countries and so raise the proportion of British people in the populations of the British Commonwealth in comparison with the proportion of people from other countries.
  No reference was made to the Fair-bridge Farm Schools. No debate in your Lordships— House would be complete without reference being made to that institution. I am sure the noble Viscount will be the very first to admit the most valuable work being done in the different Dominions where they have their branches established. I was hoping that the noble Viscount would be able to give the House some indication that contributions would be made by His Majesty's Government to that institution. I do not doubt that my noble friend when he comes to speak later will ask for some further information on the grants to voluntary institutions, in regard to which he urged action. On the question of the Fairbridge Farm schools, those of your Lordships—and there are no doubt many—who have familiarized yourselves with them will know the valuable work they have done.
  It is important to know whether it is the intention of the Government to do something in the way of training schools for juvenile war orphans, and others. We have a number of training schools of all kinds, so why should we not have some training scheme for juveniles who go through the various institutions, who could be equipped by the excellent bodies who deal with the care of the young, so that the adventurous minded among them could have an opportunity of being received into training schools to qualify them for an effective life in the Dominions? I say that, having more in mind the agricultural side of the question. In New Zealand and Canada that is important. As to Australia, my own conviction, having travelled through that country during the height of the depression, is that the best settlers there are Australians, and emigrants should be of the artisan character. The emigrant from the agricultural school has great difficulty in making headway in Australia.
  The noble Viscount referred quite briefly to the social service contributions. This
  1072
  matter has been urged, but no official pronouncement has been made as to what has been done with regard to the compounding of the social service contributions and their transfer to the country of reception. That is a matter which must loom largely in the mind of an intending migrant. As to war gratuities, more could be done to give supplementary grants to intending migrants when they are ex-Servicemen. I would urge that that matter should be considered, since there has been a clear indication by the noble Viscount that the policy of His Majesty's Government is now definitely sympathetic to emigration. The principle is accepted. What is the volume which can be achieved? It is limited now by shipping, but that is only a transitory phase. There is certainly a necessity for His Majesty's Government to give a better indication of what is their long-range policy, because—to repeat the appeal which my noble friend, Lord Tweedsmuir, made in moving this Motion—the finest contribution we can make to the progress of the world is by a vigorous, expanding series of Commonwealth countries, by a redistribution of the population within the Empire and by facilitating the best as well as some of the less good to go out to the Dominions. After all, the settlers in the Dominions and the Colonies in the early days were the most adventurous and the most vigorous. Let these people go, because they can contribute most to the development of the Empire. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Viscount will, at the conclusion of this discussion, feel the conviction, which I am sure succeeding speakers will have, that the volume should be increased.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am afraid I shall not be able to speak on this subject as I had intended, as my voice has gone.
  5.08 p.m.
  THE EARL Of IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships very much regret not having the privilege of hearing the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, in this debate, and sympathize with him in his misfortune, which I hope will be only a temporary indisposition. In every other respect it would seem a most satisfactory debate, and we feel very well contented with the statement that has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. I am glad that the noble

  1073
  Viscount expressed no sympathy with the point of view that was very briefly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, that a subject of this Realm is to be regarded as a unit in whom an investment has been made and from whom a dividend of service to the State must be exacted. That view would be wholly contrary to a proper appreciation of the dignity of the human personality. If a child to whom we have given an education and upbringing chooses, in the exercise of his free discretion, to fortify by his presence the Empire rather than the Mother Country, we should, I am sure, receive that decision and congratulate him on the adventurous spirit, if it is a truly adventurous spirit, in which it is made. It is well, too, that we should turn occasionally from the subject that usually engages us, the future of the British Isles, to the even more important subject, the future of the British race. On that question we shall be able to speak with greater wisdom when the Royal Commission on the birth rate has reported. I look forward to further debates on this subject after that report has been received.
  There is another matter which may affect the amount of Government encouragement that should be given to emigration, and that is the power resources of this country. They are, alas, dwindling. There is still a vast amount of coal in this country but its availability seems continually to lessen. There is not very much hydroelectric power, although we may look forward to the development of Scottish resources, and the future of atomic power is highly uncertain. It may well be that in future years we shall be discussing the very hard necessity of permitting, and even encouraging, the emigration to the Dominions of those industries which employ an exceptionally large amount of power; and they will, I hope, emigrate then with a substantial proportion of their workpeople. That is, of course, very far in the future, but it is not too early to inform ourselves as to trends of population within the Empire, and to gain the clearest possible view of the economic facts which must guide any large-scale planning policy.
  We know there are certain countries which appear, on the face of it, to be under-populated and that there are others whose over-population as my noble friend pointed out, is exceedingly obvious. There is, however, a great need for more information than we have at present with re-
  1074
  gard to population trends in general throughout the Empire. Only recently I received certain documents from a friend in Kenya which illustrate the great uncertainty regarding the population trend among Africans in that country. It appears that there is a very considerable—and indeed a somewhat menacing—rise in the African population there. I say "menacing" with deliberation—it is not a word that I like to use in connexion with population trends—because the documents stress that the children who are being born in increasing numbers to the African population of that colony are not of a particularly healthy type, and that they may, by their very numbers and by the low condition of their health, menace the future of the race. it would be very desirable that some fact-finding Commission—perhaps a number of Commissions would be better—should be appointed to consider such matters throughout the whole of the Empire. I trust that when the next Imperial Conference meets, the possibility of establishing some such fact-finding Commission or Commissions may be considered.
  I would join with my noble friend Lord Barnby in expressing the hope that the noble Viscount, when he replies, will be able to tell us more of the Government's intentions regarding child migration. The passage on this subject in the Curtis Report is very brief, but exceedingly weighty, and I trust the House will permit me to read it. Paragraph 515 of the Curtis Report reads:
  "We understand that organizations for sending deprived children to the Dominions may resume their work in the near future. We have heard evidence as to the arrangements for selecting children for migration, and it is clear to us that their effect is that this opportunity is given only to children of fine physique and good mental equipment. These are precisely the children for whom satisfactory openings could be found in this country, and in present day conditions this particular method of providing for the deprived children is not one we specially wish to see extended. On the other hand, a fresh start in a new country may, for children with an unfortunate background, be the foundation of a happy life, and the opportunity should therefore in our view remain open to suitable children who express a desire for it. We should however strongly deprecate their setting out in life under less thorough care and supervision than they would, have at home, and we recommend that it should be a condition of consenting to the emigration of deprived children that the arrangements made by the Government of the receiving country for their welfare and aftercare should

  1075
  be comparable with those that we have proposed in this report for deprived children remaining in this country."
  The accommodation that is provided in the Fairbridge Schools is, of course, far better than anything that is given to deprived children in this country, and I very strongly welcome the remarks which have been made by my noble friends on the subject of the Fairbridge Schools. I would add, however, that they do not stand quite alone; in Australia there is a school of a similar character which bears the name of my family and which was founded by a legacy of my late aunt. I very much hope that arrangements may be made with the Dominion Governments by which the foundation of similar institutions for young people will be permitted. There are obvious dangers in encouraging the emigration of children and young persons. I recall that before the last war there was a very regrettable episode in which a number of young persons were placed as apprentices on farms in a certain Dominion under conditions that were wholly unsuitable. The result of that unhappy experiment set back the whole subject of child migration. I am confident, however, that the noble Viscount, in his present capacity, will avoid making such mistakes. I would also express the hope that he will be in a strong enough position, since he is exporting so precious a thing as British blood, to ask the Dominions to accept a fair average sample of our deprived child population and to waive any insistence that they may at present be making upon an excessively high physical standard for all the children. I am not suggesting that really unfortunate children who are in poor health, or who are in any way physically handicapped, should be encouraged to emigrate, but it appears to me to be reasonable at this present juncture to ask the Dominions to accept the average of our deprived child population.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, we on these Benches have profited so much from the knowledge of the Empire and the good sense of my noble friend Viscount Elibank that I must say how sorry I am that we have been deprived of the opportunity of listening to what he wanted to say this afternoon.
  1076
  I come from a country, as does my noble friend, Lord Tweedsmuir, which, not for generations but for centuries, has exported, and made a rule of exporting, the best of its population. I would like to say that we have never lost by it in Scotland, and that it is a very good principle on which to proceed. I very much welcomed, therefore, the friendly and sympathetic reception which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, gave to my noble friend's Motion. But there is one point into which he did not, perhaps, go sufficiently fully, and on which I should like a little further information. He said—and we probably all sympathized and agreed with him—that liability for military service would be a bar to emigration. Of course we all agree with that because there is another period, the period when a man has finished his service with the Forces and is liable for his Territorial service. I would very much like to know if the bar extends to that time as well as to time when he is liable for his service with the Forces.
  Having said that, I will now come to another point, a point on which perhaps I was not quite so much in sympathy with His Majesty's Government as I ought to be. I do want to raise my voice in a plea for the displaced persons of Europe. It is not an answer to say that we have already taken a certain number of Poles. There are a large number of people among the displaced persons in Europe who are of the highest character and of the highest racial qualities. There are those unfortunate inhabitants of Lithuania who, having been purged once, were then re-conquered. Faced with the possibility of being purged once more they receded into Germany and now inhabit the camps. They are people of whom I have had some knowledge in my time. There are other nations as well. There are Serbs who dare not venture back to their own country, who are possibly banned characters, but none the worse for that. and there may be some Ukranians or Russians. I have had some traffic with all these people, and they are much more the slow-blooded northern type, much better stocks for us to amalgamate with than almost any others in Europe.
  Further, these people are very largely people of good character and conduct. I know that there are a lot of crimes laid charged to displaced persons in Europe,

  1077
  but your Lordships must reflect that these people have been kept for years in these horrible camps. If they are guilty of crimes they have no one to shelter them, and they are almost bound to be discovered. Therefore, they tend to be held up as criminals because they are always found out. Even taking that into account, I am told that these statistics are really very low, and that the vast majority of these displaced persons are of very good character and would be useful members of any society in which they worked. There is another point on this matter to which I would like to refer. I very much hope that when the Government talk about people being of use to this country they do not exclude people of brains. I say that, because on one occasion I went to the Ministry of Labour to try and find a place for a wounded officer who had been invalided out. I thought there would be a promising career for such an intelligent person. I was told, "We have no use for brains; all we want is thews." I do suggest that we could use brains as well as thews.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Who made this extraordinary statement?
  LORD SALTOUN: It was only an official with whom I was conversing, but perhaps I should not repeat a private conversation. At any rate, there is one thing I would like to say on a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, referred, and it is this. I think it is far more important to get these people to come and live and work amongst us than it is to get our enemies to do so. I know we are commanded to forgive our enemies, and I trust I do my best to do so, but I must say it goes against the grain when I read in the papers that a number of Italians are brought into the country for industrial purposes, when we have people whom we cannot reckon as enemies in these displaced camps, who might very well come here to undertake similar tasks. I certainly think that they should have preference over members of enemy races. My noble friend Lord Gifford has given me some interesting information, showing how much has been done already. He pointed out that nearly 3,000 British sailors have stayed in Australia during the war, and over 1,000 Australian brides have been brought back to this country. That is merely a small portion of the movement upon which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House congratulated him-
  1078
  self. I only hope that the noble Viscount will give some sympathetic encouragement with regard to these good displaced persons.
  5.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I interevene for only a moment or two to congratulate my noble friend, not only on the successful speech with which he introduced this Motion, but on the success he achieved in drawing the speech from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House in reply. It was far more satisfactory and encouraging than many we have drawn from that quarter, and if I have been critical on some occasions I do not wish, to let this one pass without acknowledging to the full how much we are in accord with what he has said, and how much we appreciate what he has done. Arrangements as satisfactory as those which he announced do not take place by themselves, and I am perfectly certain that a great deal has been done by the Secretary of State for the Dominions and his staff, as by those in the High Commissioners' Offices with whom he has worked. I am very glad, too, that the Government, not always notable for taking long-term views, have taken a long-term view about migration.
  We must, of course, have a sense of balance in this matter. There is what in the jargon of to-day is called a temporary shortage of manpower"—by which we mean that workers are rather scarce for the moment. We shall do better by breeding more people now—which is supposed to be the ultimate solution, and to which again the Treasury Bench have certainly made their contribution. That is also a rather long-term view to take. The immediate short-term remedy is, if I may venture to say so, that we should all work a little harder, and that will give immediate results. But because we are a bit short at the moment it would be extraordinarily short-sighted to say, "Now we must shut down on migration altogether." It is one of those things which ought never to stop, because the flow of migration is the life-blood of the British Commonwealth—this Commonwealth knit together not only by the great things which unite us, but knit together like chain mail, with thousands of small links, and those links are the movement of people from one part of the Empire to another.

  1079
  I deliberately use the word "migration" and not emigration because though the larger part will come from this country (we have the larger population in the balance, and there will be more exports than imports), there should always be a two-way traffic. Not only should we send our people out to the Dominions, but their people should come here. Someone said once—I forget who it was—" The Empire is my country, England is my home." That is the natural and right attitude for every citizen of the Commonwealth towards his own country and towards the Commonwealth of which he is a member. In that two-way traffic the best form, I agree, is marriage; and it was one of the few good results of the war—apart from our maintained freedom—that happy marriages took place. The next best form is perhaps the migration of children. It is difficult, I know, and I am not surprised that sometimes there have been failures. What surprises me more is the extraordinary success that has been achieved, and on the balance the work done by the Fairbridge Schools is the most hopeful of all forms of migration. The child or young person going out is much more likely to grow into and live in his environment than somebody who is older, unless the latter knows a good deal about the country to which he is going. That is the form of migration which I am delighted to hear is steadily to be encouraged.
  I think it is not irrelevant that the questions of displaced persons and the movement of persons within the Empire have been introduced into this debate. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that we must not be too exclusive and too eclectic in this matter of our own population. We have throughout history absorbed emigrants from other countries with great success. After all, we are something of an amalgam ourselves. Norman, Saxon and Dane are we, and a few other ingredients as well.
  A NOBLE LORD: The Celts.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: They were there to start with, right at the beginning, but, fortunately for us, they have been somewhat diluted. If we look back upon our origin and consider the fine stock which has been raised out of it, then I think we must not have too much Aryan
  1080
  exclusiveness in our outlook. Let us take up this question of Empire migration and of encouraging people of the right kind to find an asylum here. We are big enough still to absorb a great many. Also we can always benefit by what we absorb if it is of the right kind. I would much rather absorb sound stock than unsound ideologies, and I think there is a great opportunity of embracing the one and excluding the other. Upon that note I will close.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: With the permission of the House I might perhaps reply to some of the questions raised. In the first place I would like to say I was delighted to hear that charming aphorism of the noble Viscount, and I am wondering whether he invented it on the spot. I shall certainly look it up in Hansard.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: It was on the spot.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: It was very charmingly expressed. It will be worth remembering and I shall take advantage of the reporter's note to get it verbally correct. I thank him for it. I am sure that what he said about the advantage of a mixed stock is unassailable in history. We ourselves are the most conspicuous example in the world of the value of that process over the centuries. The noble Viscount is well aware of the difficulties with which this country has been confronted by the sudden emergence of a mass of people in distressed conditions. I think it can be fairly said that so far as is humanly possible we are doing our best, and I have no doubt the process will continue.
  I will say a word about another observation of the noble Viscount—the importance of two-way traffic. It does not much concern the particular Motion on the Order Paper but it has very vital ingredients. While working at the office of the appointment which I hold, I have found that the amount of ignorance in this country of some of the territories of the Commonwealth is appalling and shocking. It does not speak well for our efforts as politicians and educationalists. I therefore would surmise that it is quite likely that there is a similar lack of appreciation of us in some of the other countries. I am perfectly certain that the importance of a two-way traffic is immense, and the more we encourage it the better it is going to be for all of us.

  1081
  There were a number of set questions to which the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and others referred. I have mentioned them and I will revert to them now. With regard to assistance for the various organizations connected with emigration schemes, I must say that we have already made arrangements for giving financial assistance to some of the special bodies, although we shall not be able, of course, to find shipping space for some time to come. That applies to the Overseas Settlement of British Women and the Committee of the Fairbridge Memorial College, particularly in Southern Rhodesia. We are discussing some kind of scheme with regard to the Fairbridge School in British Columbia. There is also another organization with which we are in conference—the 1820 Memorial Settlers' Association—which is concerned with people wishing to settle in South Africa. In some cases arrangements have already been concluded; in others they are being discussed. We shall be willing to facilitate or cooperate in well-planned and properly organized schemes which assist child migration, and in other cases. But it must be thoroughly understood that they must be under responsible and good direction, and that nothing can be done until the shipping space is available.
  At the moment applications in the High Commissioners' offices are so numerous that it is not to be anticipated that in the near future there will be any room for those selected by others to find passages. However, we have concluded the arrangements to which I have referred, and we are in friendly discussion with other bodies. Now I would like to thank the noble Lord once again for having initiated so valuable a discussion.
  LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but could he answer a specific question which I put to him as to whether liability for Territorial service or liability to military service is a barrier to emigration?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid that that is a question of which I should require notice. The present agreement with the Dominions, which I quoted deliberately, is that we do not include in the scheme any men who are liable to be called up for national service unless there are special reasons for including them. Beyond that, at the moment, I
  1082
  am afraid I am unable to go. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question fully until I have been further advised.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, cannot give us a comprehensive answer now. But the whole point, as I understood it, of the provision to which reference has been made was that a man who is due to be called up in a few months— time ought not to be allowed to emigrate until he has done his military service. The point which my noble friend Lord Saltoun raised, I think (and in my view it is a sound point), is that under the Military Service Regulations he will serve eighteen months—I beg your Lordships' pardon, not eighteen months, but a year; these things change so rapidly—and that after that he is to be liable for "X" years, I had better say, of Territorial service. Everybody agrees that he should not evade doing his full time in the Forces, but it would be carrying things rather far if a man having served his year or eighteen months in one of the Regular Services should not be allowed to emigrate until he had completed the four, five or six years for which he was liable for Territorial service.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I am not in a position to give a definite reply, except with regard to the first class of young men who will be liable to be called up. As to the position of the men who have to serve a certain number of years in the Reserve I cannot now make a statement. I will, at some future time, acquaint the noble Lord with the answer but I cannot give it now off-hand.
  5.42 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think most of us will agree that to-day's debate has been well worth while. I am deeply obliged to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the rain of facts which he has released in reply to all my questions. I derive a tremendous amount of comfort from the answers which he has given me on a great number of points. I am extremely sorry, as I am sure are all your Lordships, that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, was not able to speak. We have listened, however, to some very interesting speeches by noble Lords who have studied diligently the matters about which they spoke—including Lord

  1083
  Barnby, the Earl of Iddesleigh, and Lord Saltoun. I may be wrong, but I thought I detected in the noble Viscount's reply a slight, tentative suggestion that if we bring in the refugees they may, at least temporarily, be a liability. One or two other noble Lords raised the question of the strict relevance of such a matter in a debate of this kind. I believe in the absolute relevance of this matter of the refugees. I believe that if we select these people on that one single satisfactory basis—the likelihood of their becoming good citizens of this country—they will be assets instead of liabilities, and we shall be accounted by future generations to have been right. I have received an extremely satisfactory reply to the questions I have raised, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  REPAYMENTS FROM INTERNED BRITISH CIVILIANS.
  5.44 p.m.
  Lord GIFFORD Lord GIFFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are now demanding from British civilians who were interned in France from 1940 onwards the repayment in sterling of amounts advanced to them in francs by British authorities during their period of internment. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question standing in my name refers to a comparatively small body of people, but they are people who, in my opinion, have had a very raw deal from His Majesty's Government. These persons mostly live abroad, and, in consequence, they have no Member of Parliament to represent them and to ventilate what I sincerely believe to be the very harsh treatment which they have received. I would, in fact, go so far as to say that that treatment would never have been tolerated at all, had the majority of those people been residing in this country, as their case would have been put forward before this time.
  What has happened in this connexion is, I suggest, summed up by the old proverb: "Out of sight out of mind." It is a most curious thing that when dealing in millions of pounds His Majesty's Government hand them out with the ut-
  1084
  most prodigality, as those who have listened to recent debates in this House are well aware. We have heard of fantastic prices being paid, under the system of Government bulk buying, for such commodities as linseed oil—commodities which we on this side of the House consider could have been bought much more cheaply through the proper trade channels by people with years of experience behind them. His Majesty's Treasury, having lightly handed out the millions, appear to have had sudden spasms of economy not with regard to millions—oh, dear, no!—but with respect to saving a few paltry thousands by dunning an unfortunate body of people without the voice or power to defend themselves. I am not for a moment suggesting that when the matter is put to them His Majesty's Government will not take a view equally as sympathetic as that which I take.
  Noble Lords who have heard me speak in this House before will, I think, give me credit for trying to keep my remarks as brief and to the point as possible, but I am afraid that I must take up a little of your Lordships' time in making clear exactly who it is that I am trying to help to-day. At the time of the fall of France, in 1940, there were some hundreds of British civilians in that country, and I think it will be convenient if I try to classify those people into roughly three groups. Let me first deal with what I shall call Group 1. These are people who had settled, more or less permanently, in France. Many of them are ex-Service men of World War No. 1. Some of them are men who married French girls whom they met during that war and subsequently settled down in that country. Group 2 comprises those who were employed in France in various capacities, and who had lived there for varying periods, from a number of years down to a few months, but who cannot be styled "permanent residents." I refer particularly to such people as men working on a few years' contract with a French firm or company, or people employed in a French branch of an English Bank, or something of that kind. Group 3 is made up of British subjects who happened, more or less by accident, to be in the country at the time of the fall of France, and whose income, broadly speaking, came from the United Kingdom.
  I think it is certainly true to say that it is the people in Group 1 who deserve most sympathy, and I shall deal with that class of people in a little more detail presently.
  When the fall of France appeared to be imminent, the majority of British subjects there, quite naturally, were extremely worried about the situation and most of them did the natural and right thing—they went to the nearest British Consul for advice as to what they ought to do. In nearly every case the advice they were given was to stand fast and carry on. I think it is right to say that this advice was quite justifiable at the time, since it was desired to avoid any undue alarm. Nevertheless, the advice given did prevent a very large number of these men and women from making their way in good time to the ports, and thereby escaping to England, where they were very desirous of undertaking (and doubtless would have undertaken) useful work in the prosecution of the war. For this reason, I say most definitely that the British Government are under a very considerable obligation to them. This, I think, was recognized at the time, in that allowances amounting to about 2,000 francs a month were made to the families who were free, where the husband was interned. I believe that about 300 francs a month were allowed to those actually in the internment camps. I am not certain about these figures, but they are approximately correct. It is also true that when these allowances were made—not always when they were first made, but at some time during the period of issue—the recipients were called on to give a signed undertaking that they would repay them after the war. It is, therefore, only fair to say that the British Government are within their legal rights in asking for repayment in full, but I hope to convince noble Lords that morally there is no case whatever for this. After all, when your family is starving, or threatened with starvation, one would sign almost anything.
  You may ask why this matter is of particular concern to me. The simple answer is that I paid a visit to Paris a few months ago, when I was amazed to find there were very strong feelings about the matter. The Paris Daily Mail was full of letters of complaint from ex-internees on the very uncompromising attitude taken up by the various Consuls and officials, who were
  1086
  presumably under instruction from the British Government. Having spent a week in Paris, I have particular sympathy with the men or women whose income is in francs, because it is no secret to say that the cost of living there is appalling. I took the trouble to go to some of the smallest restaurants, but wherever one went the cost of food was terrific. Had I not had a very economical wife, who was full of restraint, I might have been forced to go to one of Max Intrator's friends. What has made our men particularly bitter is that the French Government have been far more generous and have, I understand, cancelled all similar debts. I should say that the weight of that debt to the French must have been many times greater than that which the British Government have been called upon to shoulder.
  In view of the buoyant speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place the other clay, it seems to me that perhaps a small amount of the surplus might have been used in these cases. To put it crudely—but it is no less than the truth—the British Government's attitude has been to dun the lot, and to get everything they can out of them. They have followed this up with a rather grudging proviso. They are prepared to consider on their merits individual cases of hardship. I suggest that this is a very unsatisfactory and unfair way of dealing with the matter. It means that the individual who creates a fuss and makes a nuisance of himself gets concessions, where the more humble and retiring individual, who is probably equally, if not more, deserving, pays up in full. I have seen a number of letters where appeals have been made, and the replies, to my mind, have been entirely unsatisfactory. If a man was paying 100 francs per month, for instance, the reply has been in effect: "We will let you off paying any more until January next year." There is no question of forgiving them anything, but merely of saying: "You need not pay any more for a few months." That was said to an old gentleman of seventy, but what chance has a man of this age of ever paying much back? Before I close, I intend to put forward some concrete suggestions for dealing with the different types of cases falling broadly within the three groups I enumerated just now. I have given His Majesty's Government an outline of these proposals so I hope

  1087
  they may be in a position to give me some concrete answer in the matter.
  I would like to turn for a few moments to another very important factor; and that is the rate of exchange between the franc and sterling. When the allowances were made during the war the franc stood at approximately 200 to the £, so that if we take the case of a man for whom the British Government set aside the sterling amount of £10 a month for the maintenance of his family, the wife and family received only 2,000 francs a month. As your Lordships know, the franc now stands at 480 to the £. In consequence, the ex-internee now living in France has to find 4,800 francs in order to buy sufficient sterling to liquidate one month's war-time maintenance allowance. For the man living and working in France, whose salary is paid in francs, who budgets in francs, who thinks in francs, and who has thought in francs for a number of years, this is a monstrous demand, and any refund called for should be entirely on a franc basis; that is to say, he should not be asked to give back more francs than he or his family received.
  I now propose, in support of my remarks, to give one or two extracts from letters and reports which will show that I am not exaggerating and that real hardship is being inflicted. The first letter is from an ex-Service man of World War 1:
  "I was brought up in France, and volunteered in the last war when a very young man. Seriously wounded at Mont Kemmal in 1918, I lost my left eye. Demobilized in 1919, I was granted a pension of 50 per cent. I returned to France, married a French girl, and definitely settled in France. Seeing in May, 1940, the lightning advance of the German Army, like many other British people, I became anxious and went to the Consulate asking for advice as to the wisdom of my remaining in Paris. I was advised to stay. On June to I returned to the Consulate, insisting that the situation was very dark; would it not be advisable to try and get away to England? I was once more answered that there seemed to be no real risk for the British: I remained in Paris …"
  He says that soon afterwards he was captured, when the Germans entered the French capital. Then he goes on:
  "I have received from the Consulate Relief Department a letter stating that they had written to the Foreign Office department concerned in order to fix up how my pension, which had not been paid since May, 1940, …"
  that is, a pension for the loss of an eye:
  1088
  "… can be used to repay my debt. I am now overwhelmed with a sense of injustice. I had been planning to refund something every month from the day I should receive my pension again."
  But apparently this is to be withheld altogether. It is a most astonishing state of affairs that the pension for the loss of an eye should be withheld for the repayment of these debts.
  There is another letter from a man who was a jockey riding in Germany, and who was interned in Ruhleben Camp in Germany. He states:
  "On coming back here to France I continued to draw my pension for several months. Then I was told that I must go before a Board that consisted only of a French civilian doctor…."
  Then he says that shortly afterwards he was informed that his pension had been stopped, and he remarks:
  "so you see, Sir, … I have lost all that back money…"
  There is yet another report:
  "The British Government, after a campaign which began about twenty months ago, continues to dun hundreds of ex-internees on the Continent for repayment of allowances made to dependants while the men were behind barbed wire. When France fell—to say nothing of other European countries—hundreds of Britons who wanted to get away were left stranded …"
  Then the writer goes on (it is another similar story) to say that advice was received from the Consul to stay, and he asks:
  "Are the Government now justified in claiming 480 francs for every 200 francs advanced?"
  There is a passage in this report from an ex-internee:
  "The sum of 100,000 francs was advanced to my family. I will never recognize a claim for 240,000 francs."
  The question is asked: Are the Government aware that France gave maintenance allowances to internees' dependants and that they are now making no claim? I will detain your Lordships with only one more report:
  "In one case … the man had a pension, which was awarded to him for the loss of his two sons killed in the 1914–18 war, stopped, and the money put towards the repayment of his debt."
  This man is now 72 The correspondent comments that owing to the efforts of the British Legion he is pleased to say this is no longer happening, but adds:
  "it does show the cruel and callous way in which the authorities have acted."
  The man whose case I mention is receiving a wage of 4,900 francs—barely £10—a month and even out of that he is managing to pay ion francs a month.
  I have quoted mostly the cases of ex-Servicemen, because they seem to be the hardest. But here is another case of a young Scottish girl, who writes that she is in very straitened circumstances with an elderly mother and an invalid sister. Her only capital is £150 of War Loan. When she was interned she was appointed Block Chief to 350 women who were also interned, and in every way she seems to be a very fine type. She has to go almost without the necessities of life in order to try to pay back the debt. The report I have states:
  "There is a good deal of bitterness amongst the British Colony who are affected by this question. After all, the amount is not a big one, and the authorities, through no fault of their own possibly, failed firstly to give the necessary protection to their own citizens, and, secondly, when this was no longer possible, to arrange for their evacuation. In the circumstances, it is very normal these British people should feel that this burden should not be placed on their shoulders."
  I hope that I have made the position clear. The total sums involved are not large. Of course, I have not the necessary information to give any accurate estimate, but I should say that, at the very outside, the sum would not be more than £200,000. I do not, for one moment, suggest that the debt should be completely remitted in every case.
  I would like now to suggest a scheme which I think is fair to all concerned. Your Lordships will remember that earlier in my speech I divided those people roughly into three groups, and I would like to make suggestions on that basis. Taking first of all Group I—that is the group which I think is hardest hit—the permanent residents in France, my suggestion is that, unless those people had any sterling income, other than a pension, which continued during their internment—that is to say, if their income in sterling ceased during their internment—the maximum which they ought to be asked to return is the amount in francs which they actually received in allowances. I further consider that those people earning less than a certain wage—which would have to be worked out—should have their debt remitted altogether; and that there should be graduated payments according to the rate of salary or income. Unquestionably, the
  1090
  majority of people in this class can afford little more than a token figure. Some people who were quite well off before the war have now lost everything as a result of being interned. Many had their homes destroyed, and lost nearly everything; in many cases their business has gone, and nearly all their assets.
  Group 2 would be rather more difficult to assess, but, again, I do not think that they should be called upon to repay more than their total debt in francs, unless they had a private sterling income during the war. I mean if, for instance, they were sent over by a British firm, and the British firm paid their wages throughout the war, obviously it is fair that they should pay their dobt. But except for those cases I think the people in this group should be treated almost as generously as those in Group 1. So far as Group 3 is concerned, people whose private sterling income or wages continued during the war should be called upon to repay, unless there are special circumstances in which hardship would be caused. But I think the pensions, particularly disability pensions, of the people in all three groups should not be touched; they should be inviolate—except, possibly, during the time when they were actually interned. To stop their pensions now to repay these debts is absolutely indefensible.
  I consider that some scheme such as the one I have outlined would not be very difficult to work out. It would be quite easy for a questionnaire to be prepared and distributed to ex-internees through Consular offices and other channels. This questionnaire should be accompanied by an explanatory note, setting out the conditions of repayment in various circumstances, and there should be a kindly-worded covering letter recognizing the great difficulties and the hardships that these men suffered during the war, and showing definitely that the Government were very sympathetic towards them, and were going to do their level best to let them down as lightly as possible. I want these people, for the good name of England, to get the impression that the British Government ate really trying to help them and will deal sympathetically with each case. At present there is no doubt that the large majority of them view the British Government in the guise of Shylock demanding the last pound of flesh.
  5.11 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I think the whole House has been very much impressed by the disinterested zeal and constructive ingenuity that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has devoted to the interests of these people, many of whom are certainly placed in an unfortunate position. I have come rather late in the day into this controversy, and I am not quite sure whether all the points which he has made to-day have been placed before my right honourable friends. Therefore, although it is my duty to give him to-day what he may regard as a negative answer, I shall certainly see that everything that he has said is very carefully studied by those responsible for forming the policy on this matter. If the noble Lord is not satisfied by the decision after that study has been concluded, no doubt he will see fit to raise the matter again.
  There is one possible misunderstanding. If it is not in the mind of the noble Lord, it is, at any rate, a misunderstanding which would occur to those who read his question. On a strict interpretation of the noble Lord's question, the answer is in the negative, because he asks whether His Majesty's Government are now demanding from certain people the repayment in sterling of amounts advanced to them in France by British authorities during their period of internment. His Majesty's Government are not now demanding from British civilians who were interned in France from 1940 onwards the repayment in sterling of amounts advanced to them in francs by British authorities during their period of internment. This follows on a recent decision by His Majesty's Government, of which I am glad to inform the House.
  I do not wish, however, to convey the impression that that is a sufficient reply to the noble Lord's contentions, because there is a distinction between these advances and what has been called "pocket money" to persons actually interned, and other advances which were made in the shape of relief to persons not in internment, including the dependants of interned persons. It is really this latter category that is in issue to-day. Here relatively larger sums were involved, and in order to safeguard the interests of the British taxpayer recovery is made so far as possible of the actual cost to public funds.
  1092
  It is not, however, our practice to press for repayment where it is shown that this would cause hardship. The noble Lord has raised the question of whether or not we are interpreting that phrase fairly. I would like to have an opportunity of looking into the particular cases he has raised and others which he may care to put forward, and again I will bring those to the notice of my right honourable friends. That is, at any rate, the principle: that where hardship is involved so far as possible we do not press for repayment.
  So much for the question as to whether there is to be repayment. There then arises the still more intricate question of the rate at which repayment is to be made. As regards the suggestion that repayment should be accepted in francs, repayment can be made in francs if the recipient of relief so desires, but His Majesty's Government expect in that case to receive a sum sufficient to cover the original outlay from public funds; otherwise the loss would fall on the hard-pressed British taxpayer. The advances were, in fact, made to British subjects against their signed undertaking to repay in sterling. The noble Lord concedes that legally the Government case is watertight.
  LORD GIFFORD: Yes.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The question is, whether the Government are being sufficiently generous.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: If I may intervene, there is, of course, such a thing as a contract under duress. Supposing you get a wretched man in internment, his dependants penniless in an enemy occupied land, and say to him: "Unless you sign this you will not get any allowance"; that may be a legally binding document, but there are such things as contracts made under duress.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I think that also is a point that should be looked into. I have no doubt that it has been looked into in a general way, but I agree that in each particular case it is a most relevant factor. The francs paid to the recipients of relief had to be obtained by His Majesty's Government in exchange for sterling at the rates current at the time when the relief was in course of issue—namely, 175 to 200 to the £. The cost to public funds remains outstanding at those rates. The rate being now 480 francs to

  1093
  the £, repayment simply of the actual sum issued in francs would produce less than half the original outlay in sterling, and it is not considered equitable that the taxpayer should meet the resulting loss in cases where repayment can be made without hardship. As I say, the noble Lord has put his case very forcefully, and I will take special care to make sure that the matter is looked at again.
  6.18 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I intervene for a moment to say that I think the noble Lord was putting forward the special pleading of a Government Department. It is not a very satisfactory state of affairs if we leave the matter where it is. We take comfort, however, from the promise of the noble Lord to look into the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. As my noble friend Viscount Swinton has said, there is such a thing as a contract signed under duress; and one ought to remember that there was really no alternative in 19.10, or whenever it was, for these men and women, other than to give the undertaking asked for, if they were to obtain the money which was an absolute necessity at the time. The noble Lord's justification, of special care for the British taxpayer—which we only wish we saw in all directions in Government administration—was not really very convincing in regard to demanding repayment at 480 francs to the £ in respect of a loan made when only 200 francs were given to the £. Would the noble Lord consider this as a broad principle? In all cases where repayment is demanded, if a person or his dependants in respect of whom the allowances were given was not in receipt of a sterling income during the time when such allowances were being paid, then repayment should be demanded only of the total number or francs which the recipient obtained; that is to say, supposing he had obtained 2,000 francs which had been given' at 200 to the £ then the Treasury would have to face a certain loss: nevertheless if the recipient had not been in receipt of a sterling income it would not be an unfair loss as compared with many of our war losses in other directions. I admit that if the recipient had been in receipt of a sterling income it is only fair and reasonable that the different exchange rate should be taken into account.
  Then, as regards the other suggestion of my noble friend Lord Gifford, I hope
  1094
  the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will give consideration to classifying these cases into those from whom repayment should justly be asked and properly made, and those from whom repayment cannot really be expected unless they probably deny themselves the necessities of life. They may now be living on meagre incomes, with their own property in France depreciated, and probably they have no other resources; or, alternatively, they may have some job and have to turn the daily tread mill, not for themselves and their families but in order that the Treasury shall get back approximately twice the number of francs they received. That last class of person really deserves better treatment than is shown in the departmental reply which I know the noble Lord had to give to-day, and I hope he will allow humanity to creep into the administration of this particular problem.
  We would have liked to know how many of these cases there are and what is the total sum involved. I think that is information which the House is entitled to have. When my noble friend Lord Gifford, as I hope will be the case, returns to this charge and gives the Minister another opportunity (which I know he will welcome) of explaining more fully the governmental attitude to this particular question, let us hope the Minister will tell us, first, how many cases there are; secondly, what is the total amount involved; thirdly, what are the broad classifications of these cases (making it quite clear that someone must not, as it were, be reduced to a state comparable to applying for Poor Law relief before he is given any relief from this debt); and, finally, that where no sterling income has been accumulated during the war the Treasury are not going to make the recipient pay twice as many francs as he originally received. I hope the Minister and those at the Treasury and other 'Ministers also will take note of the very strong feeling which I believe exists in this House and which can be animated in a wider sphere outside the House, unless the Government act humanely in this matter.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, there is one point which my noble friend! made and which was not mentioned by the noble Lord in his reply: that is the question of the stoppage of disability pensions for ex-Service men because the Treasury has a debt against them. I hope he will

  1095
  go into that matter, because I am sure his feelings are entirely in accordance with mine on that particular point.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is inquiring into the whole matter, may I suggest that he should also inquire whether these francs really did cost r per zoo? I think they did, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, knows very well, there were a number of very peculiar rates for currencies prevailing on the Continent during the war. Though I think it is possible that the amounts were paid out through agencies such as the Red Cross, which presumably charged His Majesty's Government some proper rate and which possibly made a substantial profit themselves, it may well be that an agency of His Majesty's Government secured the francs.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I take it that I have the permission of the House to say two more sentences. I will gladly look into the further points that have been made since I spoke. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, that I shall not be influenced—and I doubt if my noble friends will be—one way or the other by this animation outside the House. We shall, however, pay great attention to the formidable arguments that have been laid before the House this afternoon.

  POSITION OF POLISH TROOPS.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE THE EARL OF SELBORNE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can state—

  (1) Why the Polish troops, who had fought in 1939 and 1940 campaigns and in the Warsaw Rising and were liberated from the German prisoners of war camps in the British zone have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland?

  (2) Whether it is true that their food rations have been reduced to the ordinary German level and that upon the departure of the Polish Armoured Divisions from Germany they will lose their PWX status and become civilian refugees?

  (3) Whether an assurance can be given that the Polish and Yugoslav PWX when employed in Germany in
  1096
  accordance with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement of February 19 will in no circumstances be subject to German supervision and that in the scheme now being worked out of recruiting the refugees for employment in this country, they will be given priority over others as recognition of their war services?

  (4) Whether the Association of Polish ex-combatants, formed by the PWX will be allowed to function freely within the limits specified in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's statement and consulted in all matters concerning their employment and resettlement, in order that their willingness to cooperate may be fully used to the benefit of the British Administration and of those for whom it cares?

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the 'point of the questions that stand in my name can be very simply stated. When the Allied armies entered Germany we liberated, or thought we were liberating, a very large number of Polish soldiers and airmen whom the Germans had taken prisoner during the course of the war. These Allies of ours who were in German prisoner of war camps belong to three categories. First, there were the Polish troops who were taken prisoner in the campaign of September, 1939, and that category constituted by far the greater number of them. Then there were a certain number of Polish troops who were fighting in France in 1940 and who were then taken prisoner. We liberated those also in 1945. Thirdly, there were a large number of Polish troops of the Polish Home Army who were carrying on that wonderful resistance movement which never ceased from the beginning of the war to the end and which played an important part in aggravating the difficulties which the Germans had in maintaining their communications through Poland during the war. There can be no doubt that the troops in every one of those three categories were Allied combatant troops and that they stood m exactly the same category as Polish troops who fought under British command. I do not think His Majesty's Government or anybody else would dispute that the Polish troops who were captured in the campaign of September, 1939, were Allied combatants, or indeed those who were captured in France in 1940.
  In regard to the Polish Home Army— the underground movement in Poland—I would remind your Lordships that on August 30, 1944, His Majesty's Government—that is to say, the Coalition Government—issued the following declaration:
  "The Polish Army which is mobilized constitutes a combatant force which forms an integral part of the Polish Armed Forces."
  Therefore, there can be no dispute that these very gallant Allies of ours (who were our first Allies in this war and who never ceased fighting until the end) stood in exactly the same position as any other Allied troops who were taken prisoner of war by the Germans. But they have not been so treated, and I for one—and I am sure many of your Lordships will agree with me—feel that the honour of this country is very much at stake in the matter. These Polish troops have been treated by His Majesty's Government as displaced persons. They have been refused the opportunity of joining the Polish Resettlement Corps, and the only alternative they have to remaining in Germany as displaced persons is to return to Poland. There are a great many of them who do not wish to go back to Poland. You may agree or disagree with their decision, but it has been asserted by the United Nations that none of these men is to be forced to go back. Therefore, we cannot question their right to decide whether they wish to live under a Communist government or not.
  The question I want to ask is why these Allied troops have not been treated in exactly the same way as those Polish troops who fought under British command, and allowed to join the Resettlement Corps. I know of no reason that can be given, or which has been given, except that their numbers are very much greater, but I would suggest that in a matter of this sort (which is really a matter of national honour) numbers are not a relevant argument. If we have a debt to honour, then we ought to honour it. I also submit that numbers do not constitute an insuperable difficulty. I do not believe that the whole problem of displaced persons is at all insuperable if it is tackled energetically. There are about one million displaced persons altogether in Europe, of whom the Poles I am speaking about form only a small fraction.
  Some months ago I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that it would be quite possible for the Allies to agree among
  1098
  themselves that each should take a quota of displaced persons. I should have thought it possible to arrange some agreed formula by which the density of the population in fertile land—I do not wish to count Australian or other deserts—should be regarded as the criterion. I think it would be found that if you increased that density of population by only a minute fraction, you could accommodate all the displaced persons. It is very regrettable that that principle has not already been agreed, because the problem of displaced persons is going to become a festering sore in Europe.
  But that is a different issue from that which I am now raising. I am raising the right of our Polish Allies to be treated as Allies; to be treated on exactly the same plane as those who fought under British command. I cannot believe that my noble friend who is to reply can challenge that principle. I know how much he admires the gallantry of the Polish Army, whether it fought under British command or under Polish command, in Poland or elsewhere. No forces in the Allied armies fought with greater gallantry or consistency than they did. Therefore, my first question is to demand that these men should be treated on a parity with those who fought under British command, and I do not think it would present His Majesty's Government with any insoluble problem if that principle were admitted.
  The second, third and fourth questions I have on the Paper are subsidiary to the first one. The second question raises a point of extreme injustice. As I understand the policy of His Majesty's Government, these unfortunate men have not only been treated, not as soldiers but as displaced persons, but they are now about to be reduced in their food rations to the level on which the German population at present subsists. To my mind that is not a worthy way in which to treat our Allies. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster recently said:
  "The standards of living of displaced persons which in some respects have been higher than those of the German population since the beginning of the occupation over a year ago will in future be brought generally into line. with the latter."
  That appears to me to be a very gentle and diplomatic way of saying what I have put more bluntly. It seems to me, if it is true, to be a terrible disgrace on us that our Allies should be treated in the same way as the Germans.
  My third and fourth questions are to seek information from His Majesty's Government. I would like the assurances I have asked for there, but those assurances would be unnecessary if I could only persuade the noble Lord and his colleagues to do what I believe they must, in their heart of hearts, concede to be an elementary act of justice, as well as chivalry; that is, to adopt the course suggested in the first question I have asked on the Paper.
  6.34 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to answer the questions raised by the noble Earl at some considerable length. His four questions on the Paper, involving in my calculation at least six points of substance, deal with the Polish troops who fought in the campaigns of 1939 and 1940 or the Warsaw Rising, who were subsequently taken prisoner by the Germans and who are now in the British Zone. The number of men concerned is not enormous—it is about 26,000. I do not know whether that helps the noble Earl or hinders his argument, but it is not a question of this being a larger number than the number of Poles already in this country. The problem of their treatment may not be familiar to all members of your Lordships' House, but I certainly agree with the noble Earl that delicate moral issues and balance of equity are presented, and in fairness to the Poles and, I may say, to the Government, I welcome the opportunity of explaining at some length the policy which has been worked out.
  In the first place the noble Earl asked whether the Polish troops in question have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland. I do not wish in any way to be pettifogging, but if the noble Earl looks at the question on the Paper he will see that it does not quite represent his intention, because he asks whether they have been refused the alternative either to join the Polish Resettlement Corps or to return to Poland. As the noble Earl brought out in his speech, they can, of course, return to Poland, and there is no question of their not having the right to return. May I say straight away that His Majesty's Government are fully conscious of the notable services that they have rendered, and of their sufferings; and may I express the sympathy of the Govern-
  1100
  ment and add my own very deep personal sympathy with them and for them?
  It would give me nothing but pleasure if I were able to meet the noble Earl on the first point he raises, but I am afraid that after careful consideration the Government are quite clear in their minds that these Poles cannot be given the same degree of preferential treatment as the Poles who fought under British command. We owe to the latter a very special obligation, because of the very fact that they did fight under our command. They came over here and fought for us specifically. For this reason we have offered them enlistment in the Polish Resettlement Corps, to enable such of them as do not wish to return to Poland to settle in this country. If we were to further extend these advantages to Poles who fought in Poland, or subsequently under the French, or in the Warsaw Rising, it would be impossible to deny similar advantages to nationals of other countries who, by their efforts against the enemy, could claim that we were equally indebted to them. The effect of such a policy as the noble Earl suggests would be to impose an intolerable burden upon this country, the full effect of which could not be gauged, and to invite a large number of claims for aid of which we could not check the validity. This is the very solid and practical reason why we cannot admit their claim to be placed on the same footing as those who fought under our command.
  Now, with regard to the second question, their rations and their status in the future, for the benefit of those of your Lordships' House who are not so familiar with this question as the noble Earl I would mention that these ex-prisoners of war have been receiving preferential treatment in our Zone in Germany. They have been receiving rations at an appreciably higher rate than the displaced person or the normal German consumer. They are paid monthly, their paymasters being men selected from among their own number, appointed and approved by the Control Commission. They receive a free issue of cigarettes, irrespective of whether they are working or not. They also receive preferential treatment in respect of clothing. That is the position which has prevailed hitherto.
  Judging by a previous debate, the noble Earl may be under some misapprehension on this point. There are no

  1101
  restrictions on their movement other than those made necessary by our obligation to supply them with accommodation and rations. They are free to leave their camps, and to travel where they will, but they must, of course, return to draw their rations. We feel, however, that the time has now come to reconsider their position. It is now nearly two years since the end of the war in Europe and there are still in the British Zone these 26,000 men, classed as prisoners of war, who are living a semi-military life. We can no longer justify allowing them to retain their status. Moreover, it is apparent that their present mode of existence is harmful to them, for it makes their eventual absorption Into civilian life the more difficult the longer it continues. We feel, too, that their status as prisoners of war has acted to a certain extent as a deterrent to repatriation, which it has been His Majesty's Government consistent policy to encourage.
  It was for these reasons that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in reply to a question in another place, on December 4 last, announced that those who were not eligible for the Polish Resettlement Corps because they had not served under British command, and who were unwilling to return to Poland, should in due course be given civilian status in the British Zone. We propose, therefore, that they shall, in the near future, be converted to displaced persons status. They will not become what the noble Earl describes as "civilian refugees." As displaced persons their position will still retain certain privileges. They will be under the care and protection of His Majesty's Government, as well as any international organization set up to care for displaced persons. They will receive guaranteed rations at the displaced persons' rate, and accommodation, and they will be eligible for any opportunities for resettlement that may arise. I may say that I myself am most interested in the whole question of resettlement. Obviously that is by far the most happy solution—or would he if it could be brought about—but I would be misleading the House if I suggested that I was sanguine as to what could be achieved in that direction in the near future.
  Now I come to the third question, which deals with their employment. It is clearly equitable in the interests both of His
  1102
  Majesty's Government and the men themselves that they should be placed in profitable employment. In this connexion I would refer the noble Earl to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place on February 19. He said: "We have undertaken to give Polish and Yugoslav ex-prisoners of war priority over other displaced persons"—and over Germans of course—" for employment by the Control Commission and the Services in Germany." That is perhaps small consolation to the noble Earl, but I hope it will represent some comfort. A civil mixed watchman's service has been organized for guarding and other duties, and recruiting for this service has begun, and it is expected that it will absorb a considerable number of prisoners of war. Recruiting has also begun for the civil mixed Labour Organization which is likely to employ a considerable number on civilian duties for the Services arid Control Commission; others will be employed in the administration of their own camps. Very few, if any, employable men are likely to remain in Germany not employed by the British. In regard to any such men it is not possible to give an assurance that they will not be directed to employment under German supervision, because that would make their employment practically impossible. I can assure the noble Earl, however, that they will be safeguarded against victimization by German employers, and that they will be kept as far as possible in groups under their own supervisors.
  Coming to the second part of the third question which the noble Earl raised—the question of the scheme for bringing displaced persons for employment in this country—I may say that the first arrivals under this scheme should be here very soon. Of course, it is a general scheme, and not confined to Poles. The prime consideration in the choice of recruits is the need of industry for workers in particular trades. Even if the practical difficulties could be easily overcome it would be an invidious and thankless task to draw up a list of nationalities in order of priority to govern the selection of displaced persons for employment here. We have decided, therefore, that the governing factors shall be the suitability of the individual for the work he is to perform, having regard to his skill and experience, and also such other personal

  1103
  characteristics as age, health, number of dependants and so forth. As to the fourth question, the Association of Polish Ex-Combatants is allowed to function freely in the British Zone of Germany, though it has not been granted official status. I am glad to assure the noble Earl that the Association are consulted by the Control Commission in regard to matters relating to employment or resettlement whenever their advice can be of advantage.
  I am sure I shall not have been able to satisfy the noble Earl, but I hope I have said enough to convince him that we are genuinely concerned about the future of these men, that we have taken such steps as lie in our power to help them, and that while their present position and prospects are not such as to give cause to anyone for boasting, we at least have a clear conscience and nothing whatever of which to feel ashamed.
  6.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the sympathy which he expressed on behalf of the Polish troops, which was I am sure perfectly genuine, and for the full and detailed reply he has given me. I should further like to plead with him to examine a little more closely what I understood to be the Government's reason why these Polish soldiers cannot be treated in the same way as men who fought under British command. He agrees numbers are no obstacle.
  LORD PAKENHAM: No major obstacle.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very glad to hear that. I confess I did not realize that the numbers were so small. I thought them considerably larger, but they appear to have dwindled. The noble Lord says he is advised that if the claim were admitted it would be impossible to distinguish between the case of a Pole and the case of another displaced person. Is that really the case? I think there is a very great difference between a Polish soldier and ….
  LORD AMMON: As there is no Motion on the Order Paper you really have no right to reply.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am asking a supplementary question. I am
  1104
  asking if the noble Lord will look into the point I have raised, because there is a great difference between Poles and others. We have had their officers in this country and have got to know them; we have records of their names. No other country is in that position.
  LORD PAKENHAM: If I may be permitted, I will make a supplementary reply. I will certainly look into the point, but I am bound to add that it is not quite so easy as the noble Earl imagines. I am sure he is likely to find himself mistaken if he believes we have records of 26,000 men. While their numbers are not very great, those who might put in a claim would be very considerable.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Could you reply to one more point? A statement was made with regard to the qualifications of persons to be admitted to this country. One of the matters to be taken into consideration was the number of dependants. Does that mean that a man with numerous dependants will receive priority?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I will answer that in detail if the noble Lord will put down a question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  6.49 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: Before the House adjourns, I wish to inform noble Lords that we shall probably receive the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Bill from another place to-morrow, and in that event we shall hold a purely formal meeting of the House to give the Bill a first reading.

  CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL (WATER, ETC.).
  Petition of the County Council of the Administrative County of Cumberland under their Common Seal, praying for leave to bring in a Bill to constitute a Joint Board consisting of representatives of the County Council of the Administrative County of Cumberland, the Urban District Councils of Cockermouth, Mary-port and Penrith and the Rural District Councils of Border Cockermouth and Penrith; to authorize the Board to execute works and to acquire lands and easements and to supply water; to make further provision in relation to the health, local

  1105
  government and finance of the County of Cumberland; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: read, and referred to the Examiners.

  STEVENSON MARRIAGE.
  Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill (certified by the Chair-man of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Standing Order 3) annexed thereto: read, and referred to the Personal Bills Committee.