Sitting of 4 July 1940

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    MAN-POWER.
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Labour whether he will use his powers to prevent the utilisation of labour on any but vital war production?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I intend to use my powers in order to secure an effective priority in the supply of labour for vital war production; but I presume my hon. Friend would not wish me to create unemployment by stopping useful work if the workers concerned are not required for more urgent or important work.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, within a few minutes of this House, there are men employed on finishing a certain building, while next door other men are employed protecting buildings already up; also, that men are employed protecting monuments that ought never to have been erected?
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour what functions he has assigned to Sir William Beveridge in connection with man-power?
    Mr. Bevin: I have appointed Sir William Beveridge as commissioner to survey the available resources of manpower of all kinds and to report thereon with suggestions as to the means by which these resources can be utilised fully for national purposes. The survey will cover man-power in all forms, that is to say, men, women and young persons now in employment or out of employment. Sir William Beveridge will not exercise any executive powers as commissioner.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that somebody does exercise executive powers to put these suggestions into practice?
    Mr. Bevin: That duty has been entrusted to me by Parliament.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say how long Sir William Beveridge will take to complete this report?
    Mr. Bevin: That, I cannot answer, but as each group of suggestions is dealt with they will be brought to me immediately, and I am in daily touch with him.

    AUTOMOBILE ASSESSORS.
    Mr. Robert Gibsonasked the Minister of Labour on what date he informed the Institute of Automobile Assessors that he would be glad to take advantage of their offer of service; and what steps he has taken in connection with the offer?
    Mr. Bevin: On 24th June, the Institute of Automobile Assessors was informed by the Central Register that inquiries had shown that the offer of assistance made by the Institute could not at present be made use of by the War Office. The Institute were informed that I should be glad to take advantage of their offer should the opportunity arise. No vacancies for automobile assessors have since been notified to the Central Register, and persons with these qualifications are not in demand under present conditions. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave last Thursday to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), indicating other directions in which such persons could usefully serve the country at the present time.
    Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the first intimation made to the Institute was on 24th of last month, the offer was made in September of last year?
    Mr. Bevin: I was not aware of that.

    CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make it clear to employers, employed and officers of Employment Exchanges that a workman employed in a factory engaged on work of national importance, is entitled to search for other employment and leave his job, provided he can satisfy the authorities concerned that his prospective employment is nearer his home and is on work of similar national importance?
    Mr. Bevin: The Undertakings (Restriction on Engagement) Order, 1940, provides that a worker seeking to be engaged for work in the engineering, the civil engineering contracting, or the building industries, shall register himself for work at a local office, and obtain his employment by means of being submitted to an employer by the local office. In such cases, therefore, workers should not search for work on their own account. There is no corresponding restriction in other cases, except that men previously employed in coal-mining or agriculture cannot take new employment outside their industries, unless such employment is obtained through an Employment Exchange or appropriate trade union approved for the purpose.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a hardship upon a man if he is compelled to work in a munition factory half time when he can find work full time at the same kind of employment, and still be doing national work?
    Mr. Bevin: That is not in the Question.

    ENGINEERS.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the allegation of engineering shop-stewards, that certain firms engaged in war contracts are retaining redundant numbers of qualified engineers who are urgently required and could be fully employed elsewhere; and whether he will review the basis of remuneration of such firms which appears to put a premium upon the retention of maximum possible staffs, whether adequately employed or otherwise?
    Mr. Bevin: I have had a number of representations made to me of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend. In each case I am having inquiries made by my inspectors of labour supply, and, to the extent to which the circumstances warrant such action, I shall not hesitate to transfer the redundant labour to meet other urgent demands. The last part of the Question should be addressed to the Minister in charge of the Supply Department concerned.
    Mr. Adams: The Minister will no doubt be aware that the views and allegations expressed in the Question are fairly generally held; ought not a statement
    978
    allaying the same be made at an early date?
    Mr. Bevin: I am aware that there has been a tremendous hold-up of skilled labour, and I have put every pressure upon the Supply Departments that they must fight less for themselves and must try to accommodate, to meet the urgent orders of priority, in conformity with the strategy of the war.

    FARM WORK (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Minister of Labour how many conscientious objectors have been registered for farm work; and how many have satisfied the requirements of the tribunals and are now at work upon farms?
    Mr. Bevin: I am obtaining the information asked for by my hon. Friend, and will communicate with him as soon as possible.

    CHAUFFEURS AND CHAUFFEUR- MECHANICS.
    Mr. Gordon Macdonaldasked the Minister of Labour whether he will endeavour to devise and put into operation a scheme whereby chauffeurs and chauffeur-mechanics in private employment could be used to better advantage for the war effort?
    Mr. Bevin: Men of the type referred to by my hon. Friend should be able to adapt themselves to work in armament factories, especially after a period of training in a Government training centre or art employer's works. I would, therefore, suggest that private employers should consider whether they could not release their chauffeurs or chauffeur-mechanics for this vital national work. The men should not, of course, be dismissed, but advised to register at their nearest Employment Exchange and indicate their willingness to take a course of training when so instructed.
    Mr. Macdonald: If the suggestion proves ineffective, will the right hon. Gentleman take other measures?
    Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

    REFUGEES.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to utilise the services of able-bodied Belgian refugees, of both sexes, many of whom are living in idleness, and would welcome an opportunity of being usefully employed?
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer to the reply given to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Joel) on 13th June.
    Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the distressing circumstances now existing in many public parks in London, where hundreds of able-bodied Belgians congregate under the trees, men and women, and are there all day long with nothing to do?
    Mr. Bevin: I realise the great difficulty, but I would ask hon. Members to appreciate that, in dealing with refugees, many other considerations have to be taken into account, and that it is not an easy problem to solve.
    Earl Winterton: Is the Minister not aware that many of these men are highly-skilled workers with unimpeachable characters, and would be only too glad to take part in war work in this country?
    Mr. Bevin: If the right hon. Gentleman will send me from any organisations the names of men for whom the Home Office can vouch, and who are skilled men, I will see that they are placed immediately.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an offer by a company in which I am personally interested to give employment to 250 skilled refugees? If they are here, why has not the Minister replied to that letter?
    Mr. Bevin: I have no knowledge of that letter at the moment.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Then I will draw the Minister's attention to it again.

    WOMEN.
    Miss Wardasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the assistance to be given to him by a committee of women Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Bevin: On 19th June I received a deputation of women Members of Parliament and discussed with them various questions relating to the employment of women in war-time. At the end it was agreed, at the suggestion of the deputation, that a small committee of women might usefully be created. I promised that, if this committee arrived at any agreed proposals—[Laughter]—I meant that quite seriously—I would put them in
    980
    touch with my Labour Supply Board in order that they might have an opportunity of putting before the Board any proposals and information which might be useful in connection with the employment of women in war-time. This would be similar to arrangements I have made in other cases to put persons and organisations in touch with the Board.
    Miss Ward: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, I would like to know whether he is aware that the committee in question has already agreed to a proposal which has been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman?

    WORKSHOP ORGANISATION.
    Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Labour what guidance and suggestions it is proposed to give to those engaged in industry with a view to the formation of suitable types of works councils for the consideration of industrial matters of mutual interest in their works; and whether he will take steps to see that the experience of his Department is made available to all those interested?
    Mr. Bevin: Whitley Councils and joint machinery generally cover a very wide field of industry, and in this way a variety of forms of workshop organisation has been established. I take the view that this matter is best handled through joint machinery of this character.
    Mr. Mander: Could not the great experience of the Ministry of Labour and all the information which it has in this matter be placed at the disposal of anybody interested in the problem?
    Mr. Bevin: I did that before I entered the House.
    Mr. Mander: Will you continue doing it?

    YOUNG PERSONS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
    Mr. Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that thousands of young persons are working excessively long hours and that in some places they are compelled to sleep in common lodging-houses; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. Bevin: I am aware that during recent weeks young persons have, in a number of cases, been working long hours; I have recently made an Order which will have the effect of bringing this

    981
    to an end. In answer to the second part of the Question. I am taking active measures, in consultation with my colleagues, to arrange that suitable lodging and hostel accommodation is provided for young persons.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that, so far a it is practicable, it would be expedient to run three shifts a day instead of running one or two shifts?
    Mr. Bevin: It depends on labour supply in the different districts. I am circulating a suggestion to industry for a practical rota of work that can be adopted, so as to secure adequate rest and yet maintain the optimum of production.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (WAR SERVICE).
    Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in reference to the desire expressed by many hon. Members as to the fuller utilisation of their services in mobilising the national will and effort for victory?
    The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the reply which I gave on Tuesday, 11th June, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson).
    Mr. Higgs: Is it to be expected that hon. Members will "go to it"?

    PRIVATE WORKS.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will consider putting a stop to the use of steel, concrete and skilled labour on private works, and transferring all three to works of national importance, such as the construction of fortifications?
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Greenwood): Arrangements have been in existence since the outbreak of war for priority to be given to direct and indirect Government works. Labour and materials are being diverted from less essential works, and additional steps are being taken to reserve steel and other materials in short supply for works of urgent national importance.
    Mr. Cocks: While I recognise the accuracy of that answer, cannot the Government go further towards stopping the unnecessary use of material for
    982
    private work and using it for more important work?
    Mr. Greenwood: The Ministry of Supply is now on the point of issuing an Order which will make it necessary to obtain a licence for the further use of steel on buildings.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CHOICE OF SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Labour whether, in registering for military service, young men are still allowed to express a preference to serve in one particular Service or whether this system has now been abolished; and whether he is aware that a number of young men who registered on 22nd June were not given such freedom of choice?
    Mr. Bevin: Men registering under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act may express a preference for Naval or Air Force service. The previous practice of asking each man separately whether he wishes to express such a preference has been suspended, but his right to do so is emphasised in the public notices and in the instructions to the Ministry's staff. I should point out that the extent to which effect can be given to preferences is determined, of course, by the number of vacancies in the Services concerned, and by the suitability of the individual applicant for the Service for which he expresses a preference.
    Sir T. Moore: May I take it that, as far as possible, such preference will be observed, since, as is no doubt within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, a soldier, sailor or airman in the Service which he prefers is more happy and more efficient?
    Mr. Bevin: That is correct, but I found that there were 175,000 waiting to be interviewed, many of whom would never be taken in. I felt that it was unjust to go on calling up men of a later age until these Services had determined whether they would take them or not.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Minister consider the possibility of asking the War Office, when it takes in young men, to take them to camps according to their occupation, in the special occupations of garage engineer and other engineers, so

    983
    that these men will not be put into the wrong places?
    Mr. Bevin: That is a separate question.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of persons registering under the Military Service Acts who have registered as conscientious objectors in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively?
    Mr. Bevin: The percentage of men who have been provisionally registered up to and including 22nd June, as conscientious objectors, is 1.39 for England, 1.46 for Scotland, and 2.56 for Wales, making a total percentage of 1.45 for Great Britain.
    Mr. Thurtle: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department knowledge of any reason why there should be such a higher percentage of conscientious objectors in Wales?
    Mr. Bevin: I can only assume that they were, until recently, a little further away from the battle.
    Mr. McGovern: Is not that higher percentage due to the teaching of the Labour Members in Wales?
    Sir H. Morris-Jonesasked the Minister of Labour how many resolutions he has received from public bodies urging the compulsory enlistment of conscientious objectors in an organisation under Government control for non-combatant duties at rates of pay and allowances identical with those made to persons of similar grades in His Majesty's Forces; and what reply he has returned?
    Mr. Bevin: I have received 24 resolutions from public bodies in the sense indicated, and have taken note of the views expressed. No reply has been sent, beyond a formal acknowledgment. I may add that I am giving further consideration to the whole question.
    Sir H. Morris-Jones: In view of the fact that conditions have changed much since the original legislation was introduced and that we are now fighting for our hearths and. homes, will the right hon. Gentleman review the whole situation and bring it more into tune with public opinion?
    Mr. Bevin: I understand that there has been a development, even in the points of view in this House.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now been able to ascertain the number of conscientious objectors placed by tribunals on the register on the condition that they undertake work of national importance; how many have found, and are now engaged in, such work; and what has happened to the balance?
    Mr. Bevin: The information which I promised to obtain in response to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question of 27th June is not yet complete, but I hope to be able to let him have it shortly.
    Sir A. Knox: Does not the difficulty in obtaining this information show that no proper check has been made of these people? If I put down the Question next week, shall I have an answer?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think that is necessarily so. It must be remembered that my Department handles a problem concerning nearly 17,000,000 people in this country.
    Major Leighton: Are there any conscientious objectors in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the large number of employés of the Fulham Borough Council who have registered as conscientious objectors; and whether he will make inquiries to see what subversive influence is at work in the district to bring about this state of affairs?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): On the information I have been able to obtain, I can find no ground for the suggestion that the number of conscientious objectors amongst the employés of this council is large, or that any such influence as my hon. Friend suggests is at work in Fulham.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    EVACUATION.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Health whether the Government will now order the compulsory evacuation of women and children from certain vulnerable areas?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Miss Cazalet) on 20th June, to which I hive nothing to add.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister give the substance of that answer, because I do not know what it was?
    Mr. MacDonald: In effect, it was that in cases of military necessity we should not hesitate to introduce the compulsory evacuation of women and children, but in the absence of such necessity we would continue to rely upon voluntary evacuation.
    Mr. Loftus: Is the Minister aware that posters have been put up in certain towns specifying that certain categories of workers must remain, and would not they resent their wives being compulsorily evacuated if they wished to remain with them?
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the great danger of being too late in this matter of evacuation? It is much better to do it now.
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Minister of Health how many children under five years of age remained in evacuation areas on 1st June last; and how many have since been evacuated?
    Mr. MacDonald: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available; about 1,500 children under five have left evacuation areas since 1st June under the Government scheme.
    Sir Ernest Graham-Littleasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the necessity of evacuating from vulnerable areas expectant mothers in the later stages of pregnancy, whose names and addresses can be readily ascertained owing to the present system of reporting such patients at hospitals, with approximate dates of expected delivery; and whether he will take immediate action to preserve from danger this vitally important element of the community?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. Detailed plans have been prepared, as they were before the operation of the evacuation scheme last September, for the evacuation of expectant mothers, and for their accommodation in reception areas. Arrange-
    986
    merits are in force in all evacuation areas, under which any expectant mothers who wish to do so may register for evacuation under the Government scheme. A number of women in the later stages of pregnancy are already being sent out at frequent intervals from London and other towns to reception areas, and facilities are ready for much larger numbers if the demand increases, or if circumstances make it desirable.

    EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
    Sir E. Graham-Littleasked the Minister of Health whether he will now revise the present official scheme for dealing with air-raid casualties, in view of the fact that this scheme was planned in peace-time before any experience was available of the nature of air-raid injuries in modern warfare, and that the most experienced surgical opinion condemns more particularly the arrangements proposed for the collection, classification and disposal of the injured persons at the time of injury when it is especially imperative to secure the most highly-skilled professional attention available?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: Although improvements are, of course, continually being effected in the emergency hospital scheme, I do not think that the experience up to date warrants any change in the main conception of the scheme, which has the approval of experienced medical and surgical opinion generally. It is designed to secure the most highly-skilled professional attention for the greatest possible number of casualties at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir Arthur Harbordasked the Minister of Health whether, owing to the evacuation scheme in operation on the East Coast, and to the serious decline in work in consequence, he will consider giving preference to doctors thrown out of work thereby to enter the services, or for appointments to war-time posts?
    Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. A number of doctors normally practising in the towns involved are being given appointments in the Emergency Medical Service. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular recently issued on the subject. In addition, the Central Medical War Committee is giving preference to other doctors in these towns in submitting names to the Service Departments for

    987
    such vacancies as exist in their medical branches.

    HOUSING (WAR DAMAGE).
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the formation of mobile building squads to repair promptly all damage from air raids in their respective districts?
    Mr. M. MacDonald: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of two circulars, issued in August and September last, in which guidance was given to local authorities on this subject. My regional officers have been in touch with local authorities on the action taken, and I am not aware of any cases in which arrangements made in compliance with those circulars have not operated satisfactorily.

    AIR RAIDS (PROTECTION).
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Home Secretary whether he has received reports on the experiences of the recent air raids, and will he make a statement that will assist to guide both those people who have some official responsibility in air raids and all others?
    Sir J. Anderson: I have communicated with my hon. Friend on this subject.

    AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
    Mr. E. Smithasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions that local authorities shall at once take steps to provide all people in the lower income grades with adequate air-raid shelter accommodation at their homes?
    Mr. R. J. Taylorasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the wide area now covered by enemy attack, he will favourably consider a review of shelter policy with the view of providing shelters in every area?
    Sir J. Anderson: So far as the specified areas are concerned, I think that local authorities are fully aware of their responsibilities. So far as concerns the areas not hitherto specified, I am taking certain further steps, but it is clear that residents in those areas must now rely in the main on measures of protection which they can provide themselves, in accordance with the advice given in recent official publications, and with assistance in certain directions from local authorities.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where Anderson shelters have been provided in the areas concerned, it has given great satisfaction to the people who have got them, but it has also created anxiety among those who have not been provided with them? In those circumstances will he be prepared to meet a deputation of Members of this House who desire to see him on this matter?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, I shall be very glad indeed.
    Mr. Taylor: In the areas that are not specified, will the local authorities have power to make provision for people, and will they be able to receive a grant from the Government for so doing?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Home Secretary whether he has yet been able to strengthen any existing air-raid shelters, more particularly in the vulnerable target areas?
    Sir J. Anderson: So far as I am aware, local authorities have not embarked upon this course, and, in present circumstances, I do not think it would be right for me to press them to do so.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter particularly in regard to aircraft factories, harbours and such like places?
    Sir J. Anderson: I think my hon. Friend knows that I have considered the matter. I addressed a letter to him a short time ago on the subject from that point of view. The matter is really one of labour and material.
    Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Home Secretary see to it that the places which have not got shelters shall receive shelters before the others, as there are thousands of places which have not shelters?
    Sir J. Anderson: I quite agree, and that is why I do not want to concentrate material unnecessarily in particular places while other places are not provided for.
    Sir Herbert Williams: If the problem is one of labour and material, is my right hon. Friend aware that in the South of England there is a vast number of people unemployed in the building industry?
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Home Secretary whether he has rescinded the limitation on the provision of public

    989
    shelters by local authorities to a certain percentage of the population in the area?
    Sir J. Anderson: There has been no arbitrary limitation by percentages, but it is possible that local authorities have tended to attach too much importance to the percentages tentatively suggested in the Department's Circular of 25th April, 1939. If my hon. Friend will inform me of any cases which he has in mind, I shall be very glad to look into them.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving a general instruction to local authorities that they should provide the shelters which they believe to be necessary irrespective of all suggestions about the percentages which have previously been made?
    Sir J. Anderson: I will consider that.
    Mr. Noel-Bakerasked the Home Secretary whether he is now using compulsory powers to induce local authorities to construct communal shelters for all sections of their respective areas for which no shelter at present exists?
    Sir J. Anderson: Wide powers have been delegated to Regional Commissioners in this matter and in some cases an intimation that they would be used in the absence of more rapid progress has been given and has had effect.
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Home Secretary whether he has now recommended the specifications of the two stage air-raid shelter to local authorities?
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. In present circumstances the local authorities should concentrate their efforts on the most urgent task of increasing the amount of shelter provided; and I do not think it would be right to do anything at present which might have the effect of preventing them from giving their undivided attention to this work.
    Mr. Roberts: In view of the credit which the Home Secretary took to himself in a recent speech on this improved idea for shelters, would it not be reasonable to circulate to local authorities his suggestion as to this method of making effective shelters, especially in the most vulnerable districts?
    Sir J. Anderson: I will certainly consider that, but the hon. Member, no
    990
    doubt, realises that many things have happened since I made that speech.

    COMPULSION.
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied with the results of appeals made by local authorities for recruits for Civil Defence; and whether he contemplates the introduction of compulsory measures without further delay?
    Sir J. Anderson: In the areas of most local authorities the results of the recruiting campaign to date are decidedly satisfactory. In some cases, however, there is still need for further recruits, and I am now considering, as a matter of urgency, how the principle of compulsion can best be applied in order to meet the needs of those areas where local authorities have not yet succeeded in completing their establishments and reserves in all the Civil Defence services.
    Sir P. Hannon: When will my right hon. Friend be able to make a definite statement on this matter? It is a pressing matter.
    Sir J. Anderson: I hope to be able to do so at a very early date.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Home Secretary aware that all defence in this country, to be efficient, must be military defence?

    SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the measures now operative for the observation of the activities of aliens and other organisations and persons prejudicial to the national interest are being rigidly and effectively carried out in rural districts in all parts of Great Britain?
    Sir J. Anderson: I have no reason to doubt that the police are as active in this matter in rural areas as in urban areas, but if my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary, I shall be glad to consider it.
    Sir P. Hannon: Has my right hon. Friend received any information from any part of the country that chief constables and other officers are being hampered because of lack of co-operation from the Home Office?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am quite certain that there is no ground for any such statement.
    Captain Alan Graham: Is that activity to include the 17 exceptions which are making work for the chief constables impossible?

    FIREARMS.
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary whether instructions have now been issued to all chief constables informing them that in the event of individuals declaring the possession of firearms and having no certificate for them, no prosecution should take place; and whether he will make it clear whether such weapons made available for national defence will remain the property of the individuals concerned, or what the position is?
    Sir J. Anderson: The police already have instructions to accept without formalities firearms surrendered by persons who have no firearm certificate authorising their possession, and I do not think there is any need for me to remind chief officers of police of this. As regards the second part of the Question, such persons have been required to sign an undertaking that they abandon all right to the firearms surrendered, and I think this practice must be maintained.
    Mr. Mander: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that there is a number of persons who possess these firearms who are reluctant to surrender them for confiscation, but would be only too glad to hand them over on loan, without any guarantee even that they would be returned?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am very reluctant to arouse any expectations which may not in practice be fulfilled, and I see a great difficulty in giving any sort of assurance that property will be returned.
    Mr. Shinwell: What do the police do with these weapons when they are surrendered? Are they to be kept until the end of the war? Cannot they be handed over to the military?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is one of the main objects we have in mind.
    Mr. Mander: Is the Home Secretary aware that I am not asking for any guarantee that they will be returned?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am quite aware of that, but I am not quite sure what I am asked to do.
    Mr. Mander: Return them if you can.

    SHOP WINDOWS (PROTECTION FROM BLAST).
    Mr. Dolandasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to mechanical devices for the protection of shop windows from the effect of blast in air raids; whether the resistance of any such devices to blast from high explosives has been tested officially or otherwise; and whether he can recommend their use, or will he advise shopkeepers of methods whereby the safety of the public from splintered plate-glass can be in any way safeguarded?
    Sir J. Anderson: The value of devices of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers has been under investigation, but the results so far obtained disclose no grounds for thinking that these devices are likely to prove as useful as the methods of protection recommended in the official publications already issued.

    ITALIAN FASCIST (SENTENCE).
    Colonel Burtonasked the Home Secretary whether Primo Bosi, a member of the Italian Fascisti, who was recently prosecuted at Edinburgh and fined 20s. for being in possession of an automatic pistol and 97 rounds of ammunition, has now been interned as an enemy alien?
    Sir J. Anderson: This man has been detained under Defence Regulation 18B as a person of hostile associations.
    Colonel Burton: How many more of these people are at large, and how long is this sort of thing going on?
    Sir J. Anderson: If my hon. and gallant Friend means by that, "how many more people who ought to be interned are at large?" my only answer is that all such persons are immediately interned when they are brought to my notice.
    Mr. Cocks: How is it that such persons can have firearms, when Members of Parliament are not allowed to have them?

    ALIEN SERVANTS.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that servants' registry offices are still sending alien, including German, servants to all parts of the country; and what control is kept over this activity?
    Sir J. Anderson: There are two forms of control. First, an alien who changes her address is required to inform the police of the change, and there is an obligation on the householder to see that this requirement is complied with. Secondly, as regards areas which are Aliens Protected Areas, an alien cannot move to an address in such an area without obtaining the special permission of the chief constable.
    Sir T. Moore: Would my right hon. Friend consider issuing instructions that instead of these servants being sent by registries throughout the country, their names should first be sent to my right hon. Friend so as to ensure that they should not be sent where they ought not to go?
    Sir J. Anderson: An alien ought not to be at large at all anywhere in the country inside a protected area.

    AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.
    Mr. Dobbieasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of his latest order in relation to the employment of Auxiliary Fire Service workers, he will consider the financial position of these workers, in comparison with wages of men in industry on the basis of a 70s. per week minimum; and will he issue such orders as will prohibit one set of workers being on continuous night duty?
    Sir J. Anderson: In consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, I have recently had under review the rates of pay of whole-time members of the Auxiliary Fire Service and of other Civil Defence services. I have also been in consultation with trade union representatives. In the result I have decided upon an immediate increase in the standard weekly rates of pay, with effect from 1st July, of 5s. for men and 3s. 6d. for women. In reply to the last part of the Question, so far as I am aware no member of the Auxiliary Fire Service is on continuous night duty under stand-by conditions.
    Mr. Dobbie: If the attention of the Minister is drawn to two of these flagrant cases of continuous night duty, will he take action?
    Sir J. Anderson: I shall be very glad to do so.

    CONVICTED PERSONS (DETENTION).
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Home Secretary whether, in the case of persons convicted of being in illegal possession of charts or maps of aerodromes or of other offences involving the security of the country's defence and thereafter sentenced to a relatively short period of imprisonment, he will consider taking steps to have such persons detained; and whether he has any statement to make on the subject?
    Sir J. Anderson: If in any case when a person is convicted of an offence against the Defence Regulations there are any grounds for thinking that the prolonged detention of the offender is necessary on security grounds, my hon. and learned Friend can be assured that appropriate action is always taken, but there are many convictions for offences against the Defence Regulations in which there are no reasons at all for thinking that the offender had any intention of assisting the enemy. In the case which my hon. Friend no doubt has in mind, I am informed that the mental condition of the offender is such that it is most improbable that he was engaged in any sinister activities. I am having him kept under medical observation while he is in prison and am making further inquiries with a view to reaching a decision before his sentence expires on the question whether it is desirable that he should continue in custody.

    FASCISTS.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Home Secretary whether steps are being taken to ensure that Sir Oswald Mosley and other potential allies of Fascism are placed beyond reach of rescue by invaders; and whether he will consider transporting such people overseas to the custody of one of the Dominions?
    Sir J. Anderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of the consideration indicated in the first part of his Question had not escaped the attention of the Government, and due note has been taken of the suggestion made in the second part.

    AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
    Mr. Silkinasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the air-raid warning in London, on 25th June, was inaudible to many people; and whether he will arrange for a more audible warning in future?
    Sir J. Anderson: The representations which I have received about the audibility of the air-raid sirens are divided, almost equally, between those suggesting that the sirens are too loud and those suggesting that they are not loud enough. It appears, therefore, that we have struck the golden mean.
    Mr. Silkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people did not hear the warning signal at all but heard only the raiders passed signal?
    Sir J. Anderson: Where the sirens are found to be inadequate, they are being supplemented by further ones.

    UNINTERNED GERMAN.
    Mr. Radfordasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an uninterned German named Fredrich Schweitzer, aged 22 years, who was arrested near the powder magazine in Hyde Park after midnight last week-end; why this man had not already been interned, and how many enemy aliens are still similarly at liberty?
    Sir J. Anderson: The German in question is believed to be suffering from some form of mental disorder and has accordingly been remanded for a medical examination. He was classified by the local tribunal as a refugee from Nazi oppression and placed in Category C. As regards the last part of the Question, some 25,000 male Germans and Austrians were placed by the tribunals in Category C, but as my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the internment of further classes of C Category males is at present in progress.
    Mr. Radford: Is not the right hon. Gentleman fully experienced in that attitude of pretending to be simple, deaf and daft, and will his experience in this case not open his eyes at long last to the risks we are running with 25,000 other men who may do potential damage?
    Sir J. Anderson: I thought it would be clear from my answer that the person has been remanded. That means remanded by a court.
    Mr. Silverman: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that nearly all the aliens who were placed in Category C were placed there because on investigation it was found that they were themselves the
    996
    victims of those who are the common enemy?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is the plain truth.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the present income limit for non-manual workers of £250 per annum is the same for both Unemployment and Health Insurance purposes; and whether, in view of the proposal to increase that limit to £420 under the Unemployment Insurance Bill now before Parliament, he will introduce legislation to amend the Health Insurance Scheme likewise?
  Mr. M. MacDonald: Under the present law, non-manual workers whose rate of remuneration exceeds £250 a year are not required to be insured either under the National Health Insurance scheme, or under the scheme of Unemployment Insurance. Under the former scheme, however, opportunities are provided for voluntary insurance which cannot be given under the latter scheme. The raising of the limit to £420 a year for Unemployment Insurance would not, therefore, necessarily involve a similar change for National Health Insurance, but the matter is receiving my consideration.
  Mr. Davies: When will the Minister be able to make a statement which will clear up this anomaly?
  Mr. MacDonald: The anomaly is not so complete as it might at first appear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with me, in case I can add anything to this answer.
  Mr. Collindridge: Is the Minister aware that under the voluntary scheme a person loses his medical benefit?
  Mr. MacDonald: As I have said, I have all those matters under consideration.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (WAR INJURIES).
  Sir Smedley Crookeasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give a full account of the arrangements made for the continued payment of wages to members of the Mercantile Marine who have received war injuries?
  The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am afraid that, in an endeavour to give a very condensed account of a complicated subject, I did not make the position regarding these arrangements sufficiently clear. When a merchant ship is lost or wrecked by enemy action, wages are continued to the survivors for a period of a month, and where their return to this country is delayed, the period may, under certain conditions, be extended. The initiative for this continued payment of wages came from the shipowners themselves, who approached the Government with an offer to share the cost equally with the State if such a scheme were approved. Moreover, in the case of an injured survivor who at the end of the first month on fall pay is still disabled by war injury, and is granted an award by my Department, the shipowners themselves supplement that award for a further month. The country is greatly indebted to the shipowners for these generous arrangements.
  Mr. Shinwell: Why did the Minister say, in the recent Debate, that when a merchant seaman loses his life as a result of enemy action his dependants continue to receive the allotment for four weeks? Is it not true that when a merchant seaman loses his life as a result of enemy action the allotment is paid only until the wages are exhausted?
  Sir W. Womersley: I am afraid the hon. Member was not present when I made the statement. I said that an arrangement had been made with the three Services, and that I hoped a similar arrangement could be made in respect of merchant seamen. I know that there has been a certain misunderstanding. Some Members thought that it applied to disability, and in the case of deaths. I can assure the House that we shall take steps to see that those who have lost their lives by enemy action will be provided for until we get the matter cleared up.
  Mr. David Adams: Does the arrangement mentioned by the Minister apply to the fishing fleets also?
  Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir; I also stated that I was trying to make a similar arrangement with the owners of fishing vessels. Although the vast majority have met me, a minority are still standing out; but I am continuing those negotiations.

  REFUGEES.
  Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Home Secretary whether he will give an indication of the numbers and nationality of alien refugees who have recently reached these shores in consequence of events on the Continent; whether he is aware that refugees are being encouraged to come here by private persons; and whether he will at once put a check on the influx and divert these liabilities on this island to their own or other countries not now at war?
  Sir J. Anderson: Approximately 22,500 aliens have arrived in this country from territory on the Continent invaded by the enemy. I have no information to support the suggestion that refugees are being encouraged by private persons to come here, but in any event the cessation of passenger traffic between the United Kingdom and territories occupied or invaded by the enemy has automatically put a stop to the flow of refugees to this country.
  Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present time, when we are making great efforts to send overseas our own rising generation, we are doing nothing to divert the influx of thoroughly undesirable people who ought to be fighting in their own country?
  Sir J. Anderson: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite wrong in saying that nothing has been done. The matter is being very carefully watched.

  HOME DEFENCE.

    ORGANISATION.
    Colonel Arthur Evansasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to the efficient co-ordination of all military and civil Departments concerned with the defence of Great Britain, he will appoint a commander-in-chief with the necessary liaison staff for this purpose, who would come under the direct orders of the Minister of Defence?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A closely knit and necessarily elaborate organisation to ensure the effective concert of the whole apparatus of Home Defence has been over a considerable period of time gradually worked out by the combined staffs of the three fighting

    999
    Services. This organisation, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, supported by their professional advisers, gives to the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, the necessary control over not only the military but the civil sphere, subject, of course, to the fact that he has direct access to the Prime Minister or Minister of Defence for the time being, and can thus receive such guidance upon questions of high policy as may from time to time be required. It would be the greatest mistake, at the moment when it may well have to be put to the proof, to liquidate and remould this organisation, which at the present time is working to the satisfaction of all the principal executive persons concerned. It must, of course, be continually tested and improved. I cannot conceive that the proposal pressed in some quarters to appoint a super Commander-in-Chief over the whole field of the three Services and the civil power would not be a serious impediment to effective action; and I have never yet heard any practical suggestion as to who that officer should be.

    INSPECTION BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the desire of hon. Members to satisfy themselves that our defence against invasion is adequate, and that our production in arms and aircraft is being speeded up, he will afford an opportunity for hon. Members to inspect defences and factories at an early date?
    Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Prime Minister whether he will allow Members of Parliament to inspect the civil and military defences of their country, will facilitate such inspection, and will welcome reports from them?
    The Prime Minister: The Government would always desire to treat Members of the House with all possible consideration and courtesy, but no general right to inspect military defences, dockyards or secret munition factories has ever been claimed by the House for its individual Members, and I cannot think that any such departure should be taken at this time.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the purport of my Question was not to claim the right
    1000
    to inspect factories where operations are conducted in secret or defences which ought not to be inspected by other than military authorities, but that hon. Members should have some opportunity, other than the assurances given by the Government, to see that our defences are in an adequate condition? Is he also aware that hon. Members did have an opportunity of seeing the defences in their own areas and occasionally were disquieted by what they saw?
    The Prime Minister: I hoped that aspect of the hon. Gentleman's Question would be covered by what I said about treating Members of this House with all possible consideration and courtesy, and I do not mean that to be an empty form. I think there are many contacts between Members of this House and the Ministers representing the different Departments, and I wish it to be clearly understood that it is desirable to facilitate the necessary work of Members of Parliament, especially in their own constituencies, so far as this may be done.
    Colonel Wedgwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that during the last war he himself gave me and other Members frequent opportunities of visiting the front in France? Are we not to be allowed to do the same here?
    Captain Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when he was not in office himself he had very adequate facilities, more than other private Members, of going overseas, seeing the defences there and interviewing British generals?
    The Prime Minister: I think that all these matters had better be decided in a spirit of the utmost good will.

    MAN-POWER.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government that every adult should have his definitely assigned place and allotted task in the defence of Britain; and whether plans are being rapidly organised with that end in view?
    Mr. Attlee: It is certainly the intention of His Majesty's Government to utilise the man-power of the nation in the best possible way and to the utmost limits practicable.
    Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people want to do something

    1001
    for their country and are ready to do anything if only they are told what to do? We are far ahead of the Government in this matter.
    Mr. Attlee: We quite recognise that everything should be done to find work for the people of this country.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from the Central Register, which has been in operation for 10 months, only one-tenth of its 100,000 have been placed? Is the rest of the job proceeding more expeditiously?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).
  Colonel A. Evansasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to expediting decisions during the present emergency, he will authorise Secretaries of State and Ministers personally to approve all Departmental recommendations for appointments and necessary additions to their staffs, whether in excess of authorised establishments or not, without reference to the Treasury?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir, I do not think any change is needed in the existing arrangements, under which there is full and speedy co-operation on staffing questions between the Departments and the Treasury.
  Colonel Evans: Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that there is a speed-up in these matters at the present time?
  Mr. Attlee: As far as I am aware, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any instances to the contrary, perhaps he will let me know.

  CONDUCT OF THE WAR.
  Colonel Wedgwoodasked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme concerning the inadequate preparation for success in Flanders?
  [That, in the opinion of this House, a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the lack of adequate defensive preparations on that part of the sub-Maginot line covered by British
  1002
  troops; whether the position was known to His Majesty's Government; why it was not remedied during the eight months' grace; what were the causes of the delay in providing equipment; and what lessons are to be learned from past experience in framing a new and forward policy?]
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I can hold out no hope of time being found for the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend.
  Colonel Wedgwood: In view of the fact that in the last war far less serious disasters in Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles resulted in an inquiry by a Royal Commission such as this, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the very serious deficiencies in Flanders are not to be inquired into and we are not to profit by the mistakes that were made?
  Mr. Attlee: I am not dealing with the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman but with the question of time being found for it. I can hold out no hope of giving time for it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will bear in mind, I am sure, the actual conditions of the present day.
  Colonel Wedgwood: Does not this refusal to give time for a discussion under our present rules deny the right of Members of this House to have an inquiry?

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Sir George Mitchesonasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes from time to time to make a statement in general terms, so far as it may be possible without prejudice to the public interest, as to the action taken as a result of the recommendations of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?
  Mr. Attlee: I have no doubt that the Ministers whose Departments are the subject of recommendations from the Select Committee will give the House information, so far as the public interest permits, on the action taken on those recommendations. I see no advantage in more general statements made from time to time.

  MINISTERS (BROADCASTS TO AMERICA).
  Mr. G. Straussasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that only those Cabinet Ministers who are known to possess the confidence of the American people should broadcast to that country in future?
  The Prime Minister: It was at my personal request that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council delivered the excellent and inspiring broadcast to which the hon. Member refers. I have no doubt that it was widely welcomed both here and in the United States, and I am sorry that in this hour of peril the hon. Member should put upon the Notice Paper a Question which does the country so little good and himself so little credit.
  Mr. Strauss: Does not the Prime Minister consider that it is in the national interest that broadcasts from Ministers to America should be made by people who are persona grata with the American public—[HON. MEMBERS: HOW do you know?"]—either by himself or other Ministers who are persona grata but not by those against whom there is strong feeling among the American public?
  The Prime Minister: I have the greatest respect and regard for the American public, but I do not consider that we have any means of determining with any precision which of us is persona grata, nor in the ultimate issue could I recognise their final right to judge.

  AGRICULTURE.

    LAND CULTIVATION.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the uncultivated state of thousands of acres of land which are visible on a railway journey from Birmingham to London; and whether he will take steps to ensure improved cultivation of this land?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The county war agricultural executive committees, in consultation with my Department, have the matter of uncultivated or under-cultivated land under constant consideration, and all possible steps will be taken, whether by directions to the owners or occupiers of
    1004
    the land, by the termination of tenancies and re-letting or holdings, or, if necessary, by taking possession of land in suitable cases, to effect an improvement. I should add that, apart from administrative action of this nature, my Department, acting through the county committees, is assisting farmers in various ways with the object of enabling them to bring their land into a better state of cultivation.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the particular matter to which I am alluding here, because anyone who makes that railway journey knows that what I have said is true?
    Mr. Craven-Ellisasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that agricultural land in the county of Northampton is cultivated to its maximum, and that there is sufficient labour employed by the farmers to manage their farms in an efficient manner?
    Mr. Hudson: I am not satisfied that in any county all the land is cultivated to its maximum capacity. It is for that reason that a farm survey is now being made in every county to ascertain how production can best be increased and what additional labour, fertilisers, etc., will be needed.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask how it is that Northampton County Education Committee has given an additional week's holiday to children to help on farms if there is adequate labour already available?
    Mr. Hudson: That does not arise out of this Question.

    CREDIT FACILITIES (BANKS).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the new prices for farm produce and the provision and extension of essential credit facilities by the banks, he will confer with the bankers concerned with a view to the interest charges on these advances and overdrafts not exceeding 3 per cent., in view of the present Bank Rate of 2 per cent., and the need to obtain the maximum output from the farms?
    Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he not realise that this

    1005
    question of charges by the banks of 5 per cent. on overdrafts is one on which some concession must be made? It is quite useless to give this sort of answer, and in view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Motion for the Adjournment. It is an absolute scandal.

    LAND RECLAMATION (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
    Sir P. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture what county war agriculture committees, as in Hampshire, have organised teams of conscientious objectors for work on land reclamation, etc.; and whether steps will be taken for the more general use of the services of conscientious objectors in this kind of work?
    Mr. Hudson: The need for gang labour varies in different counties, and not many committees have as yet found it necessary to organise gangs on farms. Efforts are being made by the local offices of the Ministry of Labour and the committees to utilise, either individually or in gangs where they are used, the services of those conscientious objectors who are available and suitable for agricultural work.
    Sir P. Hurd: Can my right hon. Friend give some idea of how far this matter is under process and how far it is being done by the encouragement of his Department?
    Mr. Hudson: We encourage it in all the ways we can.
    Sir P. Hurd: How many committees have responded?

    DAMAGE BY RABBITS.
    Mr. R. Gibsonasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps his Department now proposes to take, in conjunction with other Departments, to conserve the nation's food supplies against the depredations of rabbits?
    Mr. Hudson: County war agricultural executive committees have been active in the exercise of the powers which have been delegated to them under the Defence Regulations to deal with rabbits, and I have recently again called their attention to the matter.
    Mr. Gibson: What steps are being taken? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether arrangements are being made, either by the Board alone or in
    1006
    association with other Departments, whereby, as soon as there is an "R" in the month, the rabbits will be in the pot?
    Mr. Hudson: I do not think that within the limits of a Parliamentary answer I can go into the whole question of what is being done.
    Mr. John Morgan: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to individuals who are skilled at catching rabbits, sometimes illegally, going on anybody's land to keep them down?
    Mr. Hudson: If there is anybody who thinks he is skilled at the job, he should apply to the executive committee.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS, HOLIDAYS).
  Dr. Littleasked the Home Secretary whether, as the school holiday season is now approaching in Great Britain, he will make satisfactory arrangements whereby teachers and students from Northern Ireland with the least inconvenience, and without obstacles being placed in their way, will receive passports to enable them to return home for their holidays?
  Sir J. Anderson: Persons desiring to travel from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must be in possession of an exit permit for the journey, and on grounds of national security the grant of exit permits is, in general, limited to persons who satisfy the permit authorities that it is necessary for them to travel on business of national importance. I am glad, however, to be able to inform my hon. Friend that I have decided to make an exception in the case of students who are domiciled in Northern Ireland so as to allow of their being granted exit permits for return to their homes for the holidays. Applications for exit permits should be made at least two weeks before the date on which the student wishes to travel to Northern Ireland. I regret that I have not felt justified in authorising any departure from the general rule in the case of teachers who are domiciled in Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to obviate all hardships?
  Sir J. Anderson: Some hardship is inseparable in the restriction of traffic.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (EVACUATION).
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Home Secretary whether he can now make some statement about the recent civilian evacuation from the Channel Islands?
  Sir J. Anderson: When it was decided to demilitarise the Channel Islands special facilities were made available for certain categories of the population to come to the mainland, and 22,656 persons took advantage of these facilities. In addition, a number of persons left by other means, including air transport. It is estimated that altogether 25,000 persons left the Islands.
  Mr. De la Bère: Would not the right hon. Gentleman wish to put on record his appreciation of the tireless skill and courage displayed by the pilots of Jersey Airways?
  Sir J. Anderson: I believe that observation is fully justified.
  Mr. Mander: How many people remain on the island?
  Sir J. Anderson: The total population was, I believe 92,000.
  Mr. Benjamin Smith: Would it not have been preferable compulsorily to evacuate the whole of the islands and defend them ourselves?
  Sir J. Anderson: That is another matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the Prime Minister state the Business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The Business for next week will be:
Tuesday—Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure, 1940. Afterwards the Adjournment of the House will be moved, and a Debate will take place in Secret Session on the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare.
Wednesday—Second Reading and remaining stages of the British North America Bill [Lords]; Committee and remaining stages of the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Bill; Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit; Second Reading of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and of the Confirmation of Executors (War Service) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
1008
Thursday—Supply (18th allotted day); Committee, when there will be a Debate on agriculture.
During the week it may also be necessary to make progress with a special Consolidated Fund Bill, which will be required after the House has agreed to the Supplementary Vote of Credit.
Perhaps I might say about the Business to-day that after going formally into Committee of Supply the Adjournment of the House will be moved, and I shall make a statement on the War Situation. In view of the wish expressed last week for a full and frank Debate on matters relating to the war, it is proposed after my statement to move the necessary Resolution so that the House may continue the Debate in Secret Session.
Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it was never so true as to-day that we are the one voice in Europe and that we must speak freely to Europe and not in secret?
The Prime Minister: I hope that on some days we shall speak freely and sometimes in private.
Sir H. Williams: While fully appreciating what is in the Prime Minister's mind so far as to-day's Debate is concerned, I should like to ask whether he does not realise that there are certain dangers in speeches being made by Ministers and being published in respect of which there is no subsequent discussion published. Does he realise that there are essential dangers in a procedure of that kind?
The Prime Minister: It is very difficult to please everybody, but I understood that a Secret Session was felt to be desirable so that the House could get into the most intimate relationship with the Government and all views could be expressed without their having to be read next morning by the enemy; and at the next moment, when we are indulging in that procedure at the wish of the House, my hon. Friend raises the opposite point of view and claims that the discussions should be in public. It is a matter of total indifference to the Government if hon. Members would like to have the discussion in public. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That could not be the case to-day, because we said last week that we would, if it was desired, have the discussion in secret.
Sir H. Williams: I do not think the Prime Minister quite appreciates the point I was trying to make. The point I am raising concerns the position when a statement is made by the Prime Minister and that statement alone is published, and the remainder of the Debate is not. I am entirely in favour of having Secret Sessions from time to time, but the question is whether it is desirable to have a Debate partly in public and partly in secret.
The Prime Minister: The statement which I shall make has certainly been considered from the point of view that it will be read abroad to-morrow.
Sir William Davison: Is not the whole point that in a Secret Session certain suggestions may be made to the Government for amendments in tactics and so on, and that they would be useful to our enemies if they knew of them? Is not that the whole object in having a Secret Session?
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to discourage organs of the Press giving entirely imaginary summaries of what may take place in Secret Session?
The Prime Minister: I have not seen any of that; very much to the contrary.
Resolved,
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consequential Amendment to—
Christchurch Corporation Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Gosport Water Bill [Lords],
The Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' Mutual Indemnity Society Limited Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to include unemployment insurance among the classes of subjects enumerated in section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867." [British North America Bill [Lords].]

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
BILLS REPORTED.

  SAINT MARY MAGDALENE HOSPITAL (NEW- CASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill to be read the Third time; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices) brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 147.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1940.
      CLASS I.

        TREASURY AND SUBORDINATE DEPARTMENTS.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £295,003, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and other expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, the salary of a Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, and the salary of a Minister without Portfolio."—[Note.—£147,000 has been voted on account.]
        Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
        Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  WAR SITUATION.

    FRENCH FLEET.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    3.54 p.m.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It is with sincere sorrow that I must now announce to the House the measures which we have felt bound to take in order to prevent the French Fleet from falling into German hands. When two nations are fighting together under long and solemn alliance against a common foe, one of them may be stricken down and overwhelmed, and may be forced to ask its Ally to release it from its obligations. But the least that could be expected was that the French Government, in abandoning the conflict and leaving its whole weight to fall upon Great Britain and the British Empire, would have been careful not to inflict needless injury upon their faithful comrade, in whose final victory the sole chance of French freedom lay, and lies.
    1044
    As the House will remember, we offered to give full release to the French from their Treaty obligations, although these were designed for precisely the case which arose, on one condition, namely, that the French Fleet should be sailed for British harbours before the separate armistice negotiations with the enemy were completed. This was not done, but on the contrary, in spite of every kind of private and personal promise and assurance given by Admiral Darlan to the First Lord and to his Naval colleague the First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty, an armistice was signed which was bound to place the French Fleet as effectively in the power of Germany and its Italian following as that portion of the French Fleet which was placed in our power when many of them, being unable to reach African ports, came into the harbours of Portsmouth and Plymouth about 10 days ago. Thus I must place on record that what might have been a mortal injury was done to us by the Bordeaux Government with full knowledge of the consequences and of our dangers, and after rejecting all our appeals at the moment when they were abandoning the Alliance, and breaking the engagements which fortified it.
    There was another example of this callous and perhaps even malevolent treatment which we received, not indeed from the French nation, who have never been and apparently never are to be consulted upon these transactions, but from the Bordeaux Government. This is the instance. There were over 400 German air pilots who were prisoners in France, many of them, perhaps most of them, shot down by the Royal Air Force. I obtained from M. Reynaud a personal promise that these pilots should be sent for safe keeping to England, and orders were given by him to that effect; but when M. Reynaud fell, these pilots were delivered over to Germany in order, no doubt, to win favour for the Bordeaux Government with their German masters, and to win it without regard to the injury done to us. The German Air Force already feels acutely the shortage of high grade pilots, and it seemed to me particularly odious, if I may use the word, that these 400 skilled men should be handed over with the sure knowledge that they would be used to bomb this country, and thus force our airmen to shoot them down for the second time over. Such wrongful

    1045
    deeds I am sure will not be condoned by history, and I firmly believe that a generation of Frenchmen will arise who will clear their national honour from all countenance of them.
    I said last week that we must now look with particular attention to our own salvation. I have never in my experience seen so grim and sombre a question as what we were to do about the French Fleet discussed in a Cabinet. It shows how strong were the reasons for the course which we thought it our duty to take, that every Member of the Cabinet had the same conviction about what should be done and there was not the slightest hesitation or divergence among them, and that the three Service Ministers, as well as men like the Minister of Information and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, particularly noted for their long friendship with France, when they were consulted were equally convinced that no other decision than that which we took was possible. We took that decision, and it was a decision to which, with aching hearts but with clear vision, we unitedly carne. Accordingly early yesterday morning, 3rd July, after all preparations had been made, we took the greater part of the French Fleet under our control, or else called upon them, with adequate force, to comply with our requirements. Two battleships, two light cruisers, some submarines, including a very large one, the "Surcouf," eight destroyers and approximately 200 smaller but extremely useful minesweeping and anti-submarine craft, which lay for the most part at Portsmouth and Plymouth, though there were some at Sheerness, were boarded by superior forces, after brief notice had been given wherever possible to their captains.
    This operation was successfully carried out without resistance or bloodshed except in one instance. A scuffle arose through a misunderstanding in the submarine "Surcouf," in which one British leading seaman was killed and two British officers and one rating wounded and one French officer killed and one wounded. For the rest, the French sailors in the main cheerfully accepted the end of a period of uncertainty. A considerable number, 800 or 900, have expressed an ardent desire to continue the war, and some have asked for British nationality. This we are ready to grant without prejudice to the other Frenchmen,
    1046
    numbered by thousands, who prefer to fight on with us as Frenchmen. All the rest of those crews will be immediately repatriated to French ports, if the French Government are able to make arrangements for their reception by permission of their German rulers. We are also repatriating all French troops who were in this country, excepting those who, of their own free will, have volunteered to follow General de Gaulle in the French forces of liberation of whom he is chief. Several French submarines have also joined us independently, and we have accepted their services.
    Now I turn to the Mediterranean. At Alexandria, where a strong British battle fleet is lying, there are, besides a French battleship, four French cruisers, three of them modern 8-inch gun vessels, and a number of smaller ships. These have been informed that they cannot be permitted to leave harbour and thus fall within the power of the German conquerors of France. Negotiations and discussions, with the details of which I need not trouble the House, have necessarily been taking place, and measures have now been taken to ensure that those ships, which are commanded by a very gallant Admiral, shall be sunk or otherwise made to comply with our wishes. The anguish which this process has, naturally, caused to the British and French naval officers concerned may be readily imagined, when I tell the House that only this morning, in the air raid upon Alexandria by Italian aircraft, some of the French ships fired heavily and effectively with us against the common enemy. We shall, of course, offer the fullest facilities to all French officers and men at Alexandria who wish to continue the war, and will provide for them and maintain them during the conflict. We have also promised to repatriate all the rest, and every care in our power will be taken, if they allow it, for their safety and their comfort. So much for Alexandria.
    But the most serious part of the story remains. Two of the finest vessels of the French Fleet, the "Dunkerque" and the "Strasbourg," modern battle cruisers much superior to "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau"—and built for the purpose of being superior to them—lay with two battleships, several light cruisers and a number of destroyers and submarines and other vessels at Oran and

    1047
    at its adjacent military port of Mers-El-Kebir on the Northern African shore of Morocco. Yesterday morning, a carefully chosen British officer, Captain Holland, lately Naval Attaché in Paris, was sent on in a destroyer and waited upon the French Admiral Gensoul. After being refused an interview, he presented the following document, which I will read to the House. The first two paragraphs of the document deal with the general question of the Armistice, which I have already explained in my own words. The fourth paragraph begins as follows: This is the operative paragraph:
    "It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German or Italian enemy. We are determined to fight on to the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer, we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose, we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me"—
    That is, the British Admiral—
    "to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers-El-Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives:

    (a) Sail with us and continue to fight for victory against the Germans and Italians.

    (b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews will be repatriated at the earliest moment.

    If either of these courses is adopted by you, we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation, if they are damaged meanwhile.
    (c) Alternatively, if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans or Italians unless these break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews, to some French port in the West Indies, Martinique, for instance, where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction or he perhaps entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.
    If you refuse these fair offers, I must, with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within six hours.
    Finally, failing the above, I have the orders of His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German or Italian hands."
    We had hoped that one or other of the alternatives which we presented would have been accepted, without the necessity of using the terrible force of a British battle squadron. Such a squadron arrived
    1048
    before Oran two hours after Captain Holland and his destroyer. This battle squadron was commanded by Vice-Admiral Somerville, an officer who distinguished himself lately in the bringing-off of over 100,000 Frenchmen during the evacuation from Dunkirk. Admiral Somerville was further provided, besides his battleships, with a cruiser force and strong flotillas. All day the parleys continued, and we hoped until the afternoon that our terms would be accepted without bloodshed. However, no doubt in obedience to the orders dictated by the Germans from Wiesbaden, where the Franco-German Armistice Commission is in session, Admiral Gensoul refused to comply and announced his intention of fighting. Admiral Somerville was therefore ordered to complete his mission before darkness fell, and at 5.53 p.m. he opened fire upon this powerful French Fleet, which was also protected by its shore batteries. At 6 p.m. he reported that he was heavily engaged. The action lasted for some 10 minutes and was followed by heavy attacks from our naval aircraft, carried in the "Ark Royal." At 7.20 p.m. Admiral Somerville forwarded a further report, which stated that a battle cruiser of the "Strasbourg" class was damaged and ashore; that a battleship of the "Bretagne" class had been sunk, that another of the same class had been heavily damaged, and that two French destroyers and a seaplane carrier, "Commandant Teste," were also sunk or burned.
    While this melancholy action was being fought, either the battle cruiser "Strasbourg" or the "Dunkerque," one or the other, managed to slip out of harbour in a gallant effort to reach Toulon or a North African port and place herself under German control, in accordance with the Armistice terms of the Bordeaux Government—though all this her crew and captain may not have realised. She was pursued by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and hit by at least one torpedo. She may have been joined by other French vessels from Algiers, which were well placed to do so and to reach Toulon before we could overtake them. She will, at any rate, be out of action for many months to come.
    I need hardly say that the French ships were fought, albeit in this unnatural cause, with the characteristic courage of the French Navy, and every

    1049
    allowance must be made for Admiral Gensoul and his officers who felt themselves obliged to obey the orders they received from their Government and could not look behind that Government to see the German dictation. I fear the loss of life among the French and in the harbour must have been heavy, as we were compelled to use a severe measure of force and several immense explosions were heard. None of the British ships taking part in the action was in any way affected in gun-power or mobility by the heavy fire directed upon them. I have not yet received any reports of our casualties, but Admiral Somerville's Fleet is, in all military respects, intact and ready for further action. The Italian Navy, for whose reception we had also made arrangements and which is, of course, considerably stronger numerically than the Fleet we used at Oran, kept prudently out of the way. However, we trust that their turn will come during the operations which we shall pursue to secure the effectual command of the Mediterranean.
    A large proportion of the French Fleet has, therefore, passed into our hands or has been put out of action or otherwise withheld from Germany by yesterday's events. The House will not expect me to say anything about other French ships which are at large except that it is our inflexible resolve to do everything that is possible in order to prevent them falling into the German grip.
    I leave the judgment of our action, with confidence, to Parliament. I leave it to the nation, and I leave it to the United States. I leave it to the world and to history.
    Now I turn to the immediate future. We must, of course, expect to be attacked, or even invaded, if that proves to be possible—it has not been proved yet—in our own island before very long. We are making every preparation in our power to repel the assaults of the enemy, whether they be directed upon Great Britain, or upon Ireland, which all Irishmen, without distinction of creed or party, should realise is in imminent danger. These again are matters upon which we have clear views. These preparations are constantly occupying our toil from morn till night, and far into the night. But, although we have clear views, it would not, I think, be profitable for us to discuss
    1050
    them in public, or even, so far as the Government are concerned, except under very considerable reserve, in a private session. I call upon all subjects of His Majesty, and upon our Allies, and well-wishers—and they are not a few—all over the world, on both sides of the Atlantic, to give us their utmost aid. In the fullest harmony with our Dominions, we are moving through a period of extreme danger and of splendid hope, when every virtue of our race will be tested, and all that we have and are will be freely staked. This is no time for doubt or weakness. It is the supreme hour to which we have been called.
    I will venture to read to the House a message which I have caused to be sent to all who are serving in positions of importance under the Crown, and if the House should view it with sympathy, I should be very glad to send a copy of it to every Member for his own use, not that such exhortations are needed. This is the message:
    "On what may be the eve of an attempted invasion or battle for our native land, the Prime Minister desires to impress upon all persons holding responsible positions in the Government, in the Fighting Services, or in the Civil Departments, their duty to maintain a spirit of alert and confident energy. While every precaution must be taken that time and means afford, there are no grounds for supposing that more German troops can be landed in this country, either from the air or across the sea, than can be destroyed or captured by the strong forces at present under arms The Royal Air Force is in excellent order and at the highest strength it has yet attained. The German Navy was never so weak, nor the British Army at home so strong as now. The Prime Minister expects all His Majesty's servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution. They should check and rebuke expressions of loose and ill-digested opinion in their circles, or by their subordinates. They should not hesitate to report, or if necessary remove, any officers or officials who are found to be consciously exercising a disturbing or depressing influence, and whose talk is calculated to spread alarm and despondency. Thus alone will they be worthy of the fighting men, who, in the air, on the sea, and on land, have already met the enemy without any sense of being outmatched in martial qualities."
    In conclusion, I feel that we are entitled to the confidence of the House and that we shall not fail in our duty, however painful. The action we have already taken should be, in itself, sufficient to dispose once and for all of the lies and rumours which have been so industriously

    1051
    spread by German propaganda and Fifth Column activities that we have the slightest intention of entering into negotiations in any form and through any channel with the German and Italian Governments. We shall, on the contrary, prosecute the war with the utmost vigour by all the means that are open to us until the righteous purposes for which we entered upon it have been fulfilled.

  SECRET SESSION.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that strangers are present.
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Strangers withdrew accordingly.
  [The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]

CIVIL DEFENCE.
  MOTOR CARS (IMMOBILISATION).
  MOTOR CARS (IMMOBILISATION).
  TREACHERY ACT (DEATH PENALTY).
  TREACHERY ACT (DEATH PENALTY).
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (DETENTIONS).
  DEFENCE REGULATIONS (DETENTIONS).
  NOISE (HARLEY STREET AREA).
  NOISE (HARLEY STREET AREA).
  AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
  AIR-RAID WARNINGS.
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.
  PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES.
  SCHOOL SHELTERS.
  SCHOOL SHELTERS.
  PETROL.
  PETROL.
  ENEMY PARACHUTISTS (WARNINGS).
  ENEMY PARACHUTISTS (WARNINGS).
  EVACUATED AREAS (ASSISTANCE).
  EVACUATED AREAS (ASSISTANCE).
  DEFENCE AREAS (EVACUEES).
  DEFENCE AREAS (EVACUEES).
  ROADS (CIVILIAN TRAFFIC).
  ROADS (CIVILIAN TRAFFIC).
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  ENEMY ALIENS.
  WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION).
  WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION).
  SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
  SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
  COMPULSION.
  COMPULSION.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICE.
  WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICE.
  COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO.
  COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO.
  LINK PUBLISHING COMPANY.
  LINK PUBLISHING COMPANY.
  SPANISH REFUGEES.
  SPANISH REFUGEES.
  FOREIGNERS (NATURALISATION).
  FOREIGNERS (NATURALISATION).
EDUCATION.
  NURSERY CENTRES.
  NURSERY CENTRES.
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT).
  SCHOOL CHILDREN (AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT).
  LADY MOSLEY.
  LADY MOSLEY.
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  FACTORY CONSTRUCTION (FEES).
  FACTORY CONSTRUCTION (FEES).
  NORTHERN IRELAND.
  NORTHERN IRELAND.
  WOODWORKING FIRMS.
  WOODWORKING FIRMS.
  GRENADES.
  GRENADES.
  PAPER (EXPORTS TO EIRE.
  PAPER (EXPORTS TO EIRE.
  IRON RAILINGS.
  IRON RAILINGS.
  SCRAP METALS.
  SCRAP METALS.
  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION.
  BRITISH OVERSEAS AIRWAYS CORPORATION.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EMPIRE DONATIONS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EMPIRE DONATIONS).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (APPOINTMENT).
  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (APPOINTMENT).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  RETAILERS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  RETAILERS (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  MILK.
  MILK.
  ROYAL PARKS (CULTIVATION).
  ROYAL PARKS (CULTIVATION).
  RAILWAY WORKS, STRATFORD
  RAILWAY WORKS, STRATFORD
  FRANCE (GOVERNMENT).
  FRANCE (GOVERNMENT).
  GREAT BRITAIN, CHINA AND JAPAN.
  GREAT BRITAIN, CHINA AND JAPAN.
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (NATIONALS).
  GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY (NATIONALS).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE CONTRACTS).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE CONTRACTS).
  MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL BOARDS).
  MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL BOARDS).
  ENEMY PROPERTY.
  ENEMY PROPERTY.
  MOTOR LICENCES (SERVICE DRIVERS).
  MOTOR LICENCES (SERVICE DRIVERS).
AGRICULTURE.
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.
  LABOUR (REFUGEES).
  LABOUR (REFUGEES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.
  LORRIES (DISPOSITIONS).
  LORRIES (DISPOSITIONS).
  AUXILIARY MILITARY PIONEER CORPS.
  AUXILIARY MILITARY PIONEER CORPS.
  DUNKIRK (SPANISH EVACUEES).
  DUNKIRK (SPANISH EVACUEES).
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  MACHINE TOOLS (IMPORT DUTIES).
  MACHINE TOOLS (IMPORT DUTIES).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  DEATH DUTIES (YIELD).
  DEATH DUTIES (YIELD).
  GOVERNMENT BORROWING (BANK DEPOSITS).
  GOVERNMENT BORROWING (BANK DEPOSITS).
  PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS.
  PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS.
  COINAGE.
  COINAGE.
  TAXATION STATISTICS.
  TAXATION STATISTICS.
  PRECIOUS STONES (EXPORT).
  PRECIOUS STONES (EXPORT).
  ARMED FORCES (DUTY FREE TOBACCO).
  ARMED FORCES (DUTY FREE TOBACCO).
  DAY NURSERIES.
  DAY NURSERIES.
  ANIMAL CARCASES (DISPOSAL).
  ANIMAL CARCASES (DISPOSAL).
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.
  LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYÉS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYÉS.
  ALIENS (SCIENTISTS AND TECHNICIANS).
  ALIENS (SCIENTISTS AND TECHNICIANS).
  GRAVESEND TECHNICAL INSTITUTE.
  GRAVESEND TECHNICAL INSTITUTE.
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS).
  NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL PERMITS).
  REFUGEES.
  REFUGEES.
  PAPER (IMPORTATION).
  PAPER (IMPORTATION).
  SHIPS (REQUISITIONING).
  SHIPS (REQUISITIONING).
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (EMPLOYES' WAGES).
  SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (EMPLOYES' WAGES).
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.
  NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE WAR: THE FRENCH FLEET.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether His Majesty's Government are in a position to make any statement on the war situation with especial reference to the French warships?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I have no doubt that it is a principal desire of your Lordships, as it is implicit in the question that the noble Lord has just put to me, that I should give information as full as possible with regard to the action which His Majesty's Government have found it necessary to take in regard to certain units of the French Navy, and I would apologise for the necessity under which I am of making a statement perhaps rather longer than your Lordships might naturally demand. As soon as the French Government informed us that they might be unable to continue the war, your Lordships will appreciate that the future of the French Fleet at once became a matter of direct and vital concern to His Majesty's Government. On June 15, your Lordships will remember, the French Government formally asked from His Majesty's Government authorisation to inquire what Armistice terms would be offered to France by the German and Italian Governments, and if such authorisation was obtained the French Government declared among other things that the surrender of the French Fleet to Germany would be considered an unacceptable condition. His Majesty's Government replied to the effect that although the Anglo-French Agreement forbidding separate peace negotiations, whether for armistice or peace, involved the honour of France, His Majesty's Government nevertheless gave their full consent to an inquiry by the French Government to ascertain the terms of an Armistice for France, provided, but only provided, that the French

777
Fleet was sailed forthwith for British harbours pending negotiations. His Majesty's Government also stated that they expected to be consulted as soon as the Armistice terms were received.
In returning this reply His Majesty's Government felt that, the military situation being what it was, it was impossible for them to return a blank negative to an appeal put forward by their Ally at a moment of the greatest difficulty and stress. On June 17, however, Marshal Pétain formed a new French Government and immediately asked for terms of Armistice. The French Fleet was not sailed for British ports, but the new French Minister for Foreign Affairs gave a formal assurance that the most dishonouring condition of an Armistice would be the surrender of the Fleet and that that would in no circumstances be accepted. I will not here recapitulate formal and explicit assurances which were received in the ensuing days that on no conditions and in no circumstances would any unit of the French Fleet be handed over to the enemy. These assurances were received not only from the French Government as a whole but also individually from Marshal Pétain, from Admiral Darlan, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and from other Ministers and leading personalities at Bordeaux.
But, my Lords, the Armistice terms, when conveyed to us and made public, finally contained a provision concerning the French Fleet which was in direct conflict with these assurances. The Armistice provided for the demilitarisation of the Fleet under German and Italian control and, except for a part of the Fleet destined for the protection of Colonial interests, all French ships were to be recalled to France. And, with the important exception of "units necessary for coast surveillance and mine-sweeping"—an exception that in our view was capable of expansion under German interpretation—there was only an assurance from the German Government that they would not during the war use the French Fleet stationed in ports under German control. After the Armistice was signed His Majesty's Government continued to rely upon the solemn promises, both collective and individual, which they had received from the French Government and its members, but it was all too plain that by accepting the Armistice terms the
778
French Government had put themselves in an equivocal position and they had become wholly dependent on the good faith of the German Government for their own ability to carry out the promises made to His Majesty's Government. Moreover, the Armistice terms provided that they could be denounced at any moment, with the consequence that the German Government would be absolved from any undertaking given if the French Government, in the view of the German Government, did not fulfil all their obligations under the terms.
As the period for the completion of the Armistice conditions drew near all the dangers implicit in them became immediate. It was clear that the units of the French Fleet were preparing to submit to demilitarisation under German and Italian control, and a formal request was made to His Majesty's Government to allow units of the French Fleet in British ports to put to sea. His Majesty's Government thus found themselves in a hideous dilemma. It was impossible for them to rely on the unsupported word of the German Government that the French Fleet would not be used against us, and thus acquiesce in the handing over of this formidable naval force into German hands. But if on the other hand they were unwilling to accept that situation, they were faced with the grim alternative of preventing the handing over of the French ships, and therefore in the last resort of using force against their former comrades in arms. In the event His Majesty's Government decided that, determined as they were to prosecute the war to a victorious conclusion, they had no option but to do what they could to ensure that the best ships of the French Navy should not be used against this country and Empire by their enemy.
The Vice-Admiral commanding British Forces in the Western Mediterranean was accordingly ordered to approach the French Admiral commanding at Oran and to demand that the French Fleet under his orders should act in accordance with one of the following alternatives:—Firstly, to sail with the British Fleet and to continue to fight for victory against the Germans and Italians; secondly, to sail with reduced crews to a British port, the crews to be repatriated at the earliest moment. If either of these courses were adopted His Majesty's Government under-

779
took to restore the ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they were damaged meanwhile. Alternatively, if the French Admiral felt bound to stipulate that his ships should not be used against the Germans and Italians unless they broke the Armistice, the French ships should be sailed with reduced crews to a French port in the West Indies or, if the United States Government agreed, be entrusted to the United States in order that they might be demilitarised and remain safe until the end of the war; the crews being repatriated. If these offers were refused, the French Admiral was required to sink his ships within six hours. Finally, if the French Admiral refused to agree to any of these conditions he was informed that whatever force might be necessary would be used to prevent his ships from falling into German or Italian hands.
We had hoped that one or other of the alternatives which we presented would have been accepted without the necessity of using the terrible force of a British battle squadron which arrived before Oran in the course of yesterday. This battle squadron was commanded by Vice-Admiral Somerville, who distinguished himself only a short time ago in bringing off 100,000 Frenchmen during the evacuation of Dunkirk, and who was further provided with a cruiser force and strong flotillas. All day the parleys continued and we hoped, until the afternoon, that our terms would be accepted without bloodshed. However, probably under orders dictated by the Germans from Wiesbaden, where the Franco-German Armistice Commission is in session, the French Admiral Gensoul refused 10 comply and announced his intention of fighting. Admiral Somerville was therefore ordered to complete his mission before darkness fell, and at 5.53 p.m. he opened fire upon this powerful French Fleet, which was also protected by its shore batteries. At 6 p.m. he reported that he was heavily engaged. The action lasted some twenty minutes and was followed by heavy attacks from our naval aircraft carried in the "Ark Royal." At 7.20 p.m. Admiral Somerville forwarded a further report, which stated that a battle cruiser of the "Strasbourg" class was damaged and ashore, that a battleship of the "Bretagne" class had been sunk, and that another of the same class
780
had been heavily damaged. Two French destroyers and the seaplane carrier "Commandant Teste" were also sunk or burned.
While this melancholy action was being fought, the other battle cruiser of the "Strasbourg" class managed to slip out of harbour in a gallant effort to reach Toulon or a North African port and place herself under German control. She was pursued by the aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and hit by at least one torpedo. She may, however, have been joined by some other French vessels from Algiers, as she was well placed for the purpose, and may even have reached Toulon before we were able to overtake her. She will, at any rate, be out of action for a considerable time. I fear that the loss of life among the French and in the harbour must have been heavy, as His Majesty's ships were compelled to use a very severe measure of force. None of the British ships taking part in the action was in any way affected in gunpower or mobility by the heavy fire directed upon them. We have not yet received any reports of our casualties, but I am advised that Admiral Somerville's Fleet is, in all military respects, intact and ready for action.
At Alexandria, where a strong British battle fleet is lying, there are four French cruisers, of which two are modern, and a number of smaller vessels. These have been informed that they cannot be permitted to leave harbour and thus fall within the power of the Germans. Protracted negotiations, with the details of which I shall not trouble the House, have been going on for several days and measures have now been taken to ensure that these ships, which are commanded by a very gallant Admiral, shall be sunk or otherwise made to comply with our wishes. We shall, of course, offer the fullest facilities to all French officers and men at Alexandria who wish to continue the war and will provide for them and maintain them during the conflict. We have also promised to repatriate all the rest and every care in our power will be taken, if they allow it, for their safety and comfort.
In home ports, two battleships, two light cruisers, some submarines, including a very large one the "Surcouf," eight destroyers and approximately 200 smaller but extremely useful mine-sweeping and anti-submarine craft, which lay, for the most part, in Portsmouth and

781
Plymouth, were boarded by superior forces after brief notice had been given wherever possible to their Captains. This operation, I am glad to say, was successfully carried out without resistance or bloodshed, except in one instance. Through a misunderstanding a scuffle arose in the submarine "Surcouf" in which one British leading seaman was killed and two British officers and one rating wounded; and one French officer was also killed and one wounded.
For the rest, the French sailors accepted the end of a period of uncertainty. A considerable number—800 or 900—expressed a desire to continue the war and some have asked for British nationality. This we are ready to grant without prejudice to other Frenchmen, numbered by thousands, who prefer to fight with us as Frenchmen. All the rest of the crews will be immediately repatriated to French ports, if the French Government are able to make arrangements for their reception. We are also repatriating all the French troops who were in this country, with the exception of those who, of their own free will, have volunteered to follow General de Gaulle and enlist in the French Forces of liberation of which he is chief. Several French submarines have also joined us independently and we have accepted their services. A large proportion of the French Fleet has therefore passed into our hands, been put out of action or otherwise withheld from Germany by yesterday's events. The House will not expect me to say anything about other French ships which are still at large, except that it is the inflexible resolve of His Majesty's Government to do everything that is possible in order to prevent them falling into the German grip.
That is the plain narrative of the action which His Majesty's Government, after full consideration, thought it right to take; but while we have thought it right, as it was in my view also inevitable, there will be no one I think in this House, or indeed in any quarter in this country, who will not share the distress and sorrow of His Majesty's Government for these events. It is melancholy to reflect that the magnificent ships of the French Navy should have been prevented by their Government from continuing the struggle with their comrades in arms against the common foe, but should rather have been ordered to resist their former comrades
782
in order that they might place themselves under enemy control. The officers and men of the French Navy were placed in a position which must have seemed to them well-nigh intolerable. As regards the Government of Marshal Pétain, I am bound to observe that they placed the redemption of a promise to the enemy before the fulfilment of a solemn pledge to an Ally and this, your Lordships will appreciate, brought to a point the cruel dilemma in which, as I said just now, His Majesty's Government were placed by the acceptance by the French Government of the Armistice terms.
But, my Lords, it is not on reproaches or on recriminations that His Majesty's Government would rest their case. It is, I suppose, inevitable that what has passed, distorted as it will be by enemy propaganda, must create sharp resentment in France, where already the distress of war and the harsh conditions of the Armistice have strained public feeling almost to breaking point, and it is not difficult to realise what is likely to be the feeling among the officers and men of the French Navy, among the members of the French Government, and among the French people. Nor is it necessary to translate into words the feelings which are uppermost in the minds of all those here who have felt that on a close union of the United Kingdom and France depended the victory of our common cause, and who still feel that the relations of our two countries must, for good or for ill, be powerful upon the future of the world. But it is also true, and it is on this fact that His Majesty's Government have based their action, that it is only through a victory of British arms that the liberation of France herself can be achieved, and therefore we in this country, who are determined to resist to the end and at whatever cost the German attempt to dominate Europe, must rely upon the power of the French nation sooner or later to appreciate the final purpose of the British people and to judge fairly of the cruel choice which the French Government, under German pressure, had so unhappily forced upon us.
4.25 p.m.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure it will not be our wish to discuss now that dramatic and terrible statement of the Foreign Secretary. I believe that every-one of us in his heart believes that no other course in the circumstances was

783
possible, terrible as it is, and one cannot help feeling that there must be many French sailors who were alongside us in rescuing their comrades from death at Dunkirk who will feel the same. It was unthinkable, not only to us, but, I cannot help feeling, to every Frenchman, that their Navy, having been alongside us in battle and in rescue so recently, should become an instrument of our common enemy. The noble Viscount said that he had in mind other French ships, and I think that in that he included many of the merchant ships which would be capable of conversion into cruisers. I think everyone of us in his heart believes that this courageous action, forced upon His Majesty's Government by the cruel circumstances of the time, was indispensable to the achievement of victory and for the preservation of our liberty.
4.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have very little to add to what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Addison. Your Lordships will understand that my own experiences make this grievous event more painful to me even than it will be to all of your Lordships in some degree. I feel that the course which His Majesty's Government have taken was the only possible one in the circumstances. It is almost incredible that any French Government should have thought it possible to accept the German engagement to make no use of the French ships when they had fallen into German hands. No child would accept their statement as being of the faintest value. Therefore, the course which His Majesty's Government had to take was the only course; but it is a bitter disappointment that it had to be carried out in the necessarily extreme form of which the noble Viscount has given us an account. One would have hoped that the Chiefs of the French Navy, almost to a man, would have refused to accept the decision of the present French Government to allow France to become something not very far removed from a German Protectorate. I cannot help believing that in the hearts of the great majority of French sailors that feeling is predominant.
It is, of course, true as the noble Viscount said, that the French seamen were placed in a terrible dilemma. It is the first instinct of every sailor to obey orders, and when those orders came from
784
the French Government they were faced with the terrible alternative of disobeying Government orders or of deserting their Allies. As this special commander chose to take the line of senseless obedience rather than of patriotic duty, he and his men have had to pay the penalty. I am sure that, however much the whole tale may be distorted, as it will be, all over the world it will be recognised that His Majesty's Government could take no other course. One is irresistibly reminded of what happened more than a hundred years ago when the Danish Fleet was seized when Napoleon was endeavouring to fix the Continental System on Europe and to starve us out. But this is a harder case than that. England had not then the same sentiment for the Danes which we have so long been feeling for France. We cannot forget that in these recent months the French Navy has played a splendid part in assisting convoys, in working with submarines, and only the other day in helping in the escape from Dunkirk. We bear these matters in mind and certainly we feel no resentment towards the French Navy whatever we may feel towards the present French Government, on which I should prefer not to speak. I therefore merely once more register what I am sure is the feeling of all your Lordships, that His Majesty's Government had no choice in undertaking a most painful duty.
4.34 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, as one who had a considerable amount to do with bringing about the comradeship between the British and French Navies I should like to augment what the noble Marquess has just said, in that, despite this most unpleasant and unfortunate affair, I do not think that any British sailor will be hasty to criticise or to condemn the unfortunate French Admiral and his officers who were driven—by force possibly beyond their control—to refuse the reasonable and very proper alternatives which were offered him by the British Government. We have not heard of course a great deal from the noble Viscount as to the conditions under which this action was fought—no doubt that will appear in due course in the newspapers—whether the French Fleet was at anchor and whether the loss of even one ship from Oran was due to skilful handling or in some other way. I am sure that Admiral Somerville must

785
have greatly regretted that he did not bag every ship that was in Oran harbour. We are also unaware of the proportion of the French Fleet that still remains to be utilised by the Germans, especially her submarines and destroyers, but I understand that we have got a very considerable number of those vessels in our possession. I should like to say how I sympathise with the British Navy in having had to carry out this painful operation, and at the same time most heartily to congratulate the Government on their determined action, which I am sure has the support not only of your Lordships' House but of everyone in this country.

TRUCK BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MIDDLESEX DEEDS BILL, [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CALDECOTE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the British North America Bill [H.L.] through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Caldecote.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
4.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It involves a great change from the atmosphere of war in which we have been living for the last half hour, and it has been a matter of some consideration whether it was desirable to proceed with this Bill at this crisis of affairs. The Bill is intended to effect two very important and, I imagine everyone will agree, most beneficial changes in the position of solicitors. The object of these proposals is to reduce the chance of defalcations by dishonest solicitors. Solicitors as a body are people of the very highest honour but every now and then—perhaps one in a thousand cases—dishonesty occurs and the result is serious loss, serious suffering to innocent people and a great discredit to a profession which ranks its reputation for honour and honesty very high.
The two most important proposals in this Bill are, first, that there should be established a Compensation Fund obtained by a compulsory levy on solicitors, and, secondly, that every practising solicitor should be required once in every twelve months to produce a certificate from an accountant to say that his books and accounts have been kept in proper order, and have fulfilled the provisions which the Law Society have laid down for the keeping of accounts, and in particular for the keeping apart of clients' moneys and their own personal moneys. I ought to say at once that one of these provisions—the provision for compulsory accounts—was proposed and recommended by a Special Joint Select Committee of both Houses which sat last year. The other provision, for a compulsory levy and a compulsory Compensation Fund, was also discussed by the same Committee; and, though they did not make any definite proposals, they did indicate that in their view it was a desirable course to adopt. I ought to say that at the end of last year, when the matter was considered by a general meeting of the Law Society, it was felt at first that nothing should be done until the end of the war, but it appeared from the number of questions put to the Attorney-General in the House of Commons that there was a strong feeling that the matter should be proceeded with at once. The Council of the Law Society also thought that if the matter were proceeded with and the Bill became law, its operation should be suspended until the

787
end of the war. That again was objected to at the general meeting, and the proposals were carried by a practically unanimous vote.
These are the two main provisions of the Bill. I may point out at once that the fund which it is intended to provide is purely a solicitors' fund. They provide the money, and it is therefore proper that, if Parliament approves of the general purpose of the scheme, its working-out should be left to the Law Society; and the Bill so provides. The Bill, in Clause 1, contains on this point quite a number of definite provisions which determine the main features of the scheme, and in a Schedule there are still further definite provisions dealing with the administration of the Fund; but the working out of the whole system is left to the Law Society, who are authorised and empowered to make rules. In connection with the Fund I ought to say that there is in the Bill as it now stands a clause—Clause 2—the object of which was to secure a reduction in the Stamp Duties to ease the situation for the solicitors who will now, if this Bill becomes law, have to provide the fund by annual contributions. It was hoped that the Treasury might see their way to reduce the Stamp Duties which they charge on practising certificates, but the Treasury do not feel themselves able, in this state of things, to grant that concession. The Law Society are therefore prepared to drop Clause 2, and they or someone else will move an Amendment accordingly. Clause 3 deals with the accountant's certificate, which again is to be governed by rules made by the Law Society. Ever since 1931 there has been an agitation for something of this sort. In 1933 an Act was passed enabling the Law Society to make rules for the keeping of accounts by solicitors and for inspection in certain circumstances. Those provisions have worked very well, but they have been found insufficient, and therefore a strong feeling has grown up for many years that nothing will do but a compulsory annual certificate.
In addition to the two main features of the Bill, there is, in Clause 19, a provision for the making of rules for the keeping of accounts by solicitors who act as trustees, in respect of their trust funds. That would not come under the com-
788
pulsory accountant's certificate; it is a separate matter. It is not a matter of compulsion, because there are already in the Trustee Acts provisions which require trustees to keep their accounts in a certain way and to render them available for inspection by beneficiaries. These are three provisions which dovetail together and to which I think I must particularly refer. The other provisions of the Bill, which are somewhat voluminous, deal almost entirely with mere matters of administrative detail. As your Lordships know, the solicitor's profession is governed at almost every point by Parliamentary regulation, by Acts of Parliament, by the provisions of the various Solicitors Acts, and the result is that when the profession want to change their administration or amend what they are doing, it is in almost every case necessary to come to Parliament to get some alteration of the existing provisions. It is for that reason that so many of these minor administrative details, very important in the conduct of the affairs and duties of the Law Society, have to be put into Bills and brought before the House. I do not think it necessary to go in detail through these various provisions. The real matter of principle depends on the two provisions for a compulsory levy and a compulsory audit with a view to compensating sufferers from defalcation. They are the vital provisions of the Bill. With the remainder, which is more or less a matter of detail, I shall not think it necessary—at least at this stage—to trouble your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wright.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope, and indeed I think, that your Lordships will give a sympathetic welcome to this Bill. My noble and learned friend Lord Wright has explained the object of this Bill; it is an effort on the part of a body of honourable and upright men, who have suffered very unjustly a slur upon their good name owing to some deplorable acts by a small number of members of their profession, to remove that slur. At the same time by this Bill the Law Society seek, with public spirit, to protect the public against loss at the hands of dishonest solicitors. I will say at once, as my noble and learned friend has just said,

789
that we all recognise that solicitors are devoted to the interests of their clients who entrust their private affairs to them, and we wish to help them to disperse a locus of mischief which has done their good name so much harm.
As far back as 1929, when I was in the other House, I remember a good deal of feeling being shown about the continual defalcations by, and convictions of, solicitors, with the result that public opinion moved members of that House to take action. Consequently a Bill called the Agents' Bill was introduced by Mr. Annesley Somerville, now Sir Annesley Somerville, That Bill was introduced in 1929 to deal with the problem, and the present Bill is the latest of many efforts to deal with it. I do not say that it is the last, because I do not think that it can be the last; I do not think that it will do all that it sets out to do. I support its principles, but not some of its methods. There have been various Bills and there have been various Acts during the past eleven years, but none of them has succeeded in finding the remedy. A Bill, upon which f ventured to address your Lordships, was brought in as recently as fourteen or fifteen months ago. It passed its Second Reading here and then went to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. But the implications drawn by the Law Society from the Report of the Joint Committee were of such a kind that the Law Society withdrew the Bill; and now we have this, the latest, Bill. All the other Bills or Acts have failed.
This Bill is recommended to your Lordships by my noble and learned friend Lord Wright, who is also one of His Majesty's Judges. That, of course, carries great weight with me, and I feel a little diffidence—I feel that I may be wanting in pietas—in venturing to offer critical observations upon the clauses which he has now recommended. As he says, the majority of the clauses, except Clauses 1, 2 and 3, and perhaps 14 and 19, deal with the internal machinery of the profession, and therefore I do not intend to touch upon them at all. In fact, I intend to speak only on Clauses 1, 2 and 3. But in passing I would say this about Clause 4 and Clause 19: I think Clause 4 is an admirable clause, and I congratulate the Law Society on trying to obtain legislative sanction for bringing every solicitor under the Law Society.
790
Clause 19 deals with cases where a solicitor may also be a trustee for his client. I think that the aim of that clause is also very much to be supported.
Clause 2 deals with a request that the Treasury should find the money to help solicitors to set up a Compensation Fund. I think that whoever drafted that clause must have done so with his tongue in his cheek. Why should the public be asked to pay, out of the Treasury, money to help to provide solicitors with a fund to compensate clients who have been robbed? Why should the general taxpayer be called upon to find this money out of the Treasury, even in piping times of peace? The great majority of taxpayers never use a solicitor; they are not concerned with the defalcations of solicitors and why should they, out of the taxes, find for solicitors any portion of the compensation money that is required? The inclusion of Clause 2 in this Bill, indeed, brings into question their judgment of public opinion by those who control the Law Society. It is a clause to attract ridicule.
With regard to Clause 1, which deals with what is called the Compensation Fund, I do not like the idea of the fund in the form of a Compensation Fund. I do not like the word "Compensation." It is not a guarantee fund; it is merely a Samaritan Fund. I wish that the Law Society had not included this clause to set up a fund in the form in which it now appears in the Bill. It is a fund to be administered at the discretion of the Law Society. If there is going to be a fund, I think that it should be a guarantee fund, with a cash deposit or a fidelity bond put in by every solicitor. A skeleton idea is to be found in Lloyd's Underwriters' Fund, which is not designed—and I want to make this particularly clear—to meet fraud. The fund which Lloyd's underwriters have to put up is intended not to meet fraud but to meet unforeseen misfortunes, so that every obligation can be fulfilled—as it is—should an unforeseen risk turn out to be larger than the underwriter can bear. If we are going to have a protecting fund, then I think that this clause ought to provide a regular guarantee fund. Whether there will be any discussion in the other House, or whether Amendments will be put down here to deal with that point of view about the Compensation Fund, I do not know. I do not like the

791
word "Compensation" at all, for reasons which I will give, and I think that the operation of that clause in its present form ought to be dropped.
The clause does nothing less than warn the public that if they step into a solicitor's office they run the risk of being robbed, because a Compensation Fund is provided to compensate them when they are robbed. It simply tells the public that the Law Society expect that there may be some thieves among their members. You do not go into a stable yard when you see a board put up: "Be careful of the dog, it may bite you." You do not go to a solicitor if you are warned that there is some risk of your being defrauded. It is a foolish thing on the part of the Law Society, I think, to put this down as a Compensation Fund and thereby announce that they expect that there may be some dishonest men among their members. That is inviting the public to take its business elsewhere. The public will say: "Well, we are warned by the Law Society that we may be defrauded; we have seen a good many prosecutions of late years. Let us go to the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee deals with millions of money without losing a penny of our property. There are also the banks, who act as trustees and never let us down, and the insurance companies, who will look after us honestly. The Public Trustee, the banks and the insurance companies have their own solicitors, they can do the whole legal work for us and we run no risk of losing any money. There is no need for us to employ our own solicitor to act with these other institutions."
I think that the question of the Compensation Fund was given considerable thought by the Joint Committee, for they said in 1939 that they felt themselves unable to draft Amendments for the creation of a Compensation Fund. They themselves looked into the matter and found great difficulties—the same difficulties, I suppose, that I found when I considered Clause 1 of this Bill, and saw that this clause, in the form now proposed, warns the public to expect fraud. Again, it has another effect, a psychological effect upon a small solicitor who may not be in a very prosperous way. It may affect the mind of such a solicitor as an invitation to commit fraud. It may in fact be an inducement for
792
him to do what he ought not to do, because he may say to himself: "My client is a simple old lady, and if I do muddle her business so as to rob her of two or three hundred pounds she will not suffer, because there is always the Compensation Fund for her to fall back upon." I think this is a bad clause, psychologically, for that reason.
And what is the Fund going to be used for? Is it going to be used—and only at the discretion of the Law Society—merely to compensate for frauds which have been proved, as they stand in the indictment on the conviction of the solicitor? it does not follow, because a solicitor unfortunately lands himself in the dock and has been convicted of robbing one person of so many hundred pounds, that there are not additional cases of alleged fraud by him which have not been disclosed to the Court. Are the Law Society going to look into the whole of his practice, and have it proved, not by a jury, but to their own satisfaction, that there are not other clients' cases which ought to be compensated? Is the Act going to leave it to the discretion, the kind-heartedness, of the Law Society to say what and whose losses shall be compensated in a convicted solicitor's case, or do you only expect the Law Society to compensate in cases where the specific defalcations have been proved in Court?
And is the Compensation Fund which—I want to make that point quite clear—is entirely at the discretion of the Law Society, going to be used in the following way? Suppose a small solicitor finds himself in deep water. He goes to the Law Society and says: "I am in difficulty. I cannot make my accounts square, I am so much behind. I have been using as my trading capital to run my business funds which have come in to me for or from my clients and now I find I cannot repay. My wife is ill and I am so many hundred pounds behind." Short of compounding a felony are the Law Society going to subsidise this man to get him over his defalcations? That is a question which will have to be answered. The Law Society are the sole judges of the use of their discretion.
Then again the Law Society, acting only at their discretion, might say to a business man who had been robbed: "You ought to have known the risks you

793
ran. You knew there was our Compensation Fund; consequently you knew there was danger—the red flag was up. Why did you not go to your solicitor at intervals and see that he had all his accounts properly arranged—not only respecting your money, but your deeds of property, bonds to bearer, securities of all kinds? You are a prudent business man; you must have known it was your duty to take your own precautions. And that being so, we shall not give you any benefit out of our Compensation Fund. You went into this risk with your eyes open; you were warned and you took the risk. We act upon our discretion in administering the fund." The answer to that is quite plain. Many of us, myself included, are trustees for dead friends. We do not go and badger the solicitor to know what he has done with securities and title deeds which have been handed over to him to deal with, or to see whether the moneys are properly accounted for in his books and duly certified under Clause 3. That is; an insulting thing to do to a solicitor. You cannot expect people to go to a solicitor and say by implication, "I do not trust you." If you do ask for all these precautions you cannot blame the solicitor if he throws the papers in your face and says, "Take your business elsewhere."
I therefore think that you put a prudent business man into a very difficult place if you expect Mm under this clause, which is operative at the discretion only of the Law Society, to take crude precautions to see that he is not taken advantage of. It is difficult for a busy man to watch that Clause 3 is complied with in relation to his affairs. Very often family trusts, or executorships, run over long periods: I myself have been a trustee for thirty-five years. You leave the thing to run on with the trust's solicitor. You do not bother very much about it. You cannot go to him every year and say "I want to see the trust's books and the Law Society's certification." It cannot be done.
The fact of the matter is that this clause operates in the wrong way. It deals with the difficulty upside down. It deals with cases of defalcations after they have happened. The clause ought to deal with these cases in such a way as to prevent frauds before they occur, not to
794
give compensation afterwards. I do not know why the Law Society do not realise that a preventive method is the proper approach to the problem, instead of approaching it after the frauds have occurred. When the last Bill was before your Lordships' House in the summer of 1939 I suggested two methods, which I thought were precautions to prevent or reduce frauds. I saw the difficulty in one method; I will repeat it if I may. I said that single partnership firms, sole partnerships, should not be allowed, for reasons which I gave. I will now say this. If as a matter of justice, as a matter of not inflicting hardships upon professional men, it is decided that single partnership firms should be allowed, then I say there should be in this Bill some clause to insist upon single partnership firms being subjected to extra and more severe audits. Such firms have unfortunately come under suspicion, and the suspicions have unfortunately turned out to be correct. Therefore the precautions against them should be more severe. Of course, I exclude single solicitors who act for banks or municipal authorities or insurance companies—I mean those who take private business.
The other remedy, I think, was that the clause requiring an accountant's certificate should be made more rigorous. I took down some words which my noble and learned friend used—"books and accounts kept in proper order." Well, I would like to deal with those words. Clause 3 does not specify what books should be required. Why not? Various trades need special forms of books. There are dozens of different trades which need dozens of different types of books. There is no difficulty in designing a suitable type of book for solicitors handling the property of clients. And I noticed that my noble and learned friend Lord Wright did not mention securities, instruments of value, deeds, documents, bonds; he seemed to confine himself only to money in relation to the solicitor's accounts. We have in dealing with this problem to realise that solicitors hold not only money on behalf of clients, but also hold for long or short periods documents of value which are negotiable, sometimes negotiable easily or by bearer action, and sometimes made negotiable by fraud. Still, they do hold documents, and these do not seem to be referred to in any

795
precaution covered by the words "books and accounts."
I think that certification under Clause 3 is useless; for not only should the money be checked, but these instruments which I have mentioned should be recorded and checked. They should be confirmed and verified. The certificate should not merely fall back on the terms "as shown by the books." There should be a visual proof, a checking, a physical handling and a confirming that what the books show is evidence of proved facts, and existence. Only a few days ago I saw a certificate of an auditor or accountant for one of the great insurance companies, and therein it was stated that the securities held by this insurance company had been checked. In fact, I insist in my own small way where I am a trustee that from time to time my solicitors and the accountants go to our bank and check the securities by sight and handling. My solicitors send me a certificate by their accountants who have checked the securities at the trustee bank to see that they are there. There is no provision in this Bill for checking the existence of securities. Clause 3 therefore has shirked the issue, and manipulations will be possible unless what is "shown by the books," as it is called, has had previous audit, personal visual audit, and has been proved to be in accord with facts. My noble and learned friend, as he showed in the famous case in which he gave judgment, knows better than anyone else in Britain the meaning and usefulness of an auditor's certificate. I therefore draw my noble friend's attention to the efficacy of Clause 3.
A fruitful cause of defalcations is that there are too many solicitors. Especially as some of them—I do not want to be unkind—are incompetent. You go to a small solicitor, or even sometimes to a big solicitor, and ask him a question. He looks wise, rings a bell and asks the managing clerk or office boy to come in and tell you the answer. Or he will say, "I must send the matter to counsel." I am given to understand that there is a beggar-my-neighbour result in the search for business among small solicitors. I am told that the average income of the 17,000 solicitors who are practising with solicitors' certificates is not more than £1 a day, or less than £400 a year. That is less than some artisans' wages. It
796
shows there is not work enough for so many solicitors. It does not give the profession a chance to set up good organisation for individual practices. Of the 100 solicitors who have been convicted in the criminal courts during the past ten years, a large number were sole partnership firms, and I understand that these cases involved losses disclosed in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. I do not think that figure has been confirmed.
If one is in commerce, one sees time after time a trading firm becoming bankrupt because it has not sufficient capital to trade with. A solicitor can no more run his business without capital than a cabinetmaker can carry on his craft without tools. Lack of capital among solicitors is the frequent cause of bankruptcy and of temptation to fraud at the expense of their clients. Such a solicitor wants money because he has not enough of his own to run his business; he runs it on the money of his clients and so falls into crime. If there are so many solicitors and they are so impecunious that they cannot find the few pounds for subscription towards this Fund, whether it comes out of the Treasury or out of their own pocket, they are hardly the men to embark on a profession where capital is needed to serve as their working tools. These men without capital have often to handle wealth without any control by trustee or executor. Solicitors ought not to be men of straw. In trade it is a well-known axiom that if you pay your cashier badly you have no one else to blame but yourself if he is tempted to pocket money that passes through his hands. There should be some effort on the part of the Law Society, before admitting men to practise, to see that they are financially so placed that there is no likelihood of their being unable to carry on for lack of working capital.
In my view, this Bill is not likely to prevent fraud—it may compensate for fraud. It is too timid; it does not grasp the problem. I would sum the whole thing up in this way. It deals with fraud after fraud has been committed instead of preventing it. Unless the Law Society are prepared to see a large amount of the family will and trust business go to the Public Trustee in cases where money and securities are dealt with, they will have to move on different lines. First, they have at least to exercise greater control

797
over, if not to abolish, single partnership firms. Secondly, any accountant's certificates must be proved by visual observation of all securities and instruments of value held by solicitors for clients before the entries are made in solicitors' books and certified by the accountant. "As shown by the books" is not sufficient. Nor is certification of money sufficient. The existence and disposal of securities must have been verified.
The third thing I would say is that no solicitor should be allowed to practise unless it is shown that he has sufficient capital to render him unlikely to use clients' money for running his business. A Lloyd's Underwriters' Fund scheme should replace the discretionary fund mentioned in Clause I. Books should be specially designed to record the receipt, custody and disposal of securities as well as money. It may be said that it is difficult to design such books. I do not believe it. There is no difficulty. Books have been constructed by accountants to deal with the business of a man who buys at auctions mixed bundles of secondhand books, some of which he later sells for a penny, threepence or a shilling, and some for pounds, and these books show what the result of these transactions has been. Books have been constructed by accountants to deal with very difficult, technically-involved accounts relating to the hire-purchase transactions in household furniture. I do not think, therefore, there can be any doubt that effective books can be constructed for solicitors. Moreover, if you go to any branch bank in any town or in any branch bank in the streets of London, you will find, from time to time, travelling inspectors confirming the accounts there. When securities, bonds, documents, title deeds, and the like are handed to a bank, they are entered in the books, and the receipt, custody and disposal of them, and if necessary their sale, are recorded in the books and checked by the inspectors. If the banks are able to do that, there is no difficulty in getting a suitable type of book produced for the use of solicitors as a safeguard for preventing the mishandling of money and securities entrusted to them.
I do not propose to obstruct the quick passage of this Bill. I hope it will pass, and therefore I shall put down no Amendments. As I noted what my noble and learned friend said about Amendments so
798
my observations may possibly be taken into consideration in the later stages of the Bill. I must remind him of this, that Clause 30 of the Bill adheres to the Solicitors' Accounts Rules, 1935, under the Act of 1933. These Rules have failed, quite evidently, otherwise there would be no need for this Bill. It is now eleven years since the attention of the Law Society was drawn by the House of Commons to defalcations by solicitors, and it was intimated to the Law Society, by the attention given to the matter in the House of Commons at that time, that they should put their house in order. Eleven years is too long for this problem to have drifted unsolved. If the Bill which is now introduced by the Law Society does not provide the remedy, public opinion, will eventually compel Parliament to remove certain classes of monetary work from the solicitors, such as business connected with wills and trusts where money and securities are concerned, and make it compulsory for executors and trustees to hand over this particular type of work to the Public Trustee. If the Law Society are not prepared to take means strong enough for the purpose, then they must blame themselves if they see much more of their work pass from them. I wish to support the principles of the Bill and I hope I have given no offence to my noble and learned friend in the observations I have made.
5.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I should be very unwilling to detain your Lordships more than a moment or two or to prolong this debate, but in view of the special relations that exist between the office I hold and the Law Society and the solicitors' profession, I feel it my duty to inform your Lordships that, in my view and in the view of the Government, it would be well to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is, of course, a Bill prepared by the Council of the Law Society for which the Government take no responsibility, and it appears from the speech which has just been made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, that there may be matters of structure and detail which at a later stage may call for consideration. But on the.Second Reading of the Bill I do not doubt that the House would do well to allow the Bill to go forward.
It comes before us under very distinguished auspices. My noble and

799
learned friend who introduced it did not tell your Lordships but it is the fact that he was himself the Chairman of the Select Committee of both Houses which considered this subject, I think last year, and upon the Report of which the present Bill is largely framed. Moreover, my noble and learned friend was for some time Master of the Rolls, and the Master of the Rolls has special duties and special jurisdiction in connection with solicitors. May I take this opportunity of saying how entirely I agree in the proposal mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, and also by the noble Lord who has just spoken, that Clause 2 should not be left in the Bill? There is no justification for seeking to reduce the public revenue and to diminish the fees which are paid by a solicitor to the Crown as the condition of his practising, in order to contribute to a fund to protect those who suffer from the defalcations of a black sheep. But the main object of the Bill—I leave its precise method to be considered later—is one which every honest man must support. Here is a great and honourable profession, containing many men of the highest integrity and skill, but none the less from time to time it is found to contain in its ranks some despicable creature who cheats his clients of their money. This is an effort by the Law Society to bring about a better state of things.
I imagine that special importance is attached by the society to the clause in the Bill which will require that there is to be an annual certificate by a qualified accountant that he has examined the solicitor's books of account and bank books. Whether the provisions are adequate or need to be more stringent will be considered hereafter, but this is a proposal of very great importance, and I think the public will widely appreciate and welcome its passage into law. The other proposal which creates a Fund out of which those who suffer from defalcations may get relief raises, as the noble Lord has just said, difficult questions as to the best form that proposal should take, but the general principle that a numerous and honourable body of men practising a useful and highly-trained profession should endeavour to secure the public against the lapse of some black sheep is surely a principle which we ought to welcome. It is a principle which is contained in this
800
Bill, and is one which the Law Society are anxious to develop in this legislation in the best possible way. Subject, therefore, to an inquiry upon the points raised by the noble Lord (Lord Mancroft), and provided that Clause 2 is removed from the Bill, I hope we may see the principle of the Bill generally approved in order that its precise form may be settled hereafter.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, this Bill arises out of a judgment which was given in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council*in 1937, holding that the Employment and Social Insurance Act, 1935, passed by the Dominion Parliament, was ultra vires that legislative body. The Canadian Government and Parliament thereupon desired that the decision should be reversed, and they have taken steps to secure that this should be done. There is no power in the British North America Act to amend that Act in the Dominion Parliament. Consideration has been given to the question as to the best method of amending that Act, but no decision has been reached, and when the Statute of Westminster was passed a clause was inserted to Section 7 (1) of the Act providing that the amendment of the British North America Act should be excepted from the general powers conferred by the Statute of Westminster upon the Dominion Parliament. The Bill has been framed upon the basis of an Address to the King, and its provisions are generally in accordance with similar legislation which has been passed from time to time amending the British North America Act. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Caldecote)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Addison, I should like to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, whether he can make any statement about business next week.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, on Tuesday the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill will be taken in Committee. It is also proposed to take the Second Reading of the Truck Bill, and the consideration of Commons Amendments to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Bill. My noble friend Lord Munster is asking a question about the charge to the Exchequer for the maintenance of evacuated children, and is moving for
802
Papers. On Wednesday the remaining stages of the Truck Bill will be taken and the Report stage of the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill, and there will be a Royal Commission that day. On Thursday there will be the Third Reading of the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill and my noble friend Lord Denman has a question relating to the Local Defence Volunteer Force. It is expected also that the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Salvage) Bill will be received from another place that day. I have also been informed that my noble friend Lord Barnby will raise a question concerning the British Purchasing Commission in America and Canada and will move for Papers.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.