Sitting of 21 July 1942

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BILSTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon the First Sitting Day after 26th July.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  ENEMY-OCCUPIED EUROPE (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  Mr. Edmund Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he will give the latest information available as regards the shortage of food and the effect of the resulting situation on the civil population of European countries now in German occupation; and whether any steps, are being taken to mitigate the grave position in Belgium?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The worst conditions in German-controlled Europe continue to prevail in Greece, in some parts of Poland, and in Occupied Russia. There can be no doubt that deaths from starvation have occurred in these territories. In the Greek cities, however, there has been a marked improvement, as a result of the shipments organised by the Allied Governments. The situation is not comparable in the other occupied countries, although it is broadly true to say that the urban populations are living at a level which is below, and in some areas substantially below, peace-time standards. Shortages of meat and fats are specially marked in the urban districts of Belgium and France. The standards of public health do not appear to have been seriously affected in most other European countries. But it is unfortunately the case that in Belgium and France there has been an increase, during the past two years, in the incidence of certain diseases, notably pneumonia and
  1378
  tuberculosis. The insufficiency of the diet is no doubt one of the principal causes of this increase.
  As regards the last part of the Question, the House is already aware that, by agreement with His Majesty's Government, purchases inside the blockade area have been and are still being made for the benefit of Allied peoples. Accordingly, over the last thirteen months, the Belgian Government have made purchases of indigenous Portuguese foodstuffs, which have been sent to Belgium. We have also made it clear that we would welcome the continuance and expansion of the scheme under which Belgian children whose health has suffered from existing conditions are sent to Switzerland, and we have always been willing to grant additional navicerts to the Swiss authorities, to help them to feed and clothe these children.
  Mr. Harvey: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether the Government have considered any suggestion by the International Red Cross for feeding these children?
  Mr. Foot: We have considered many schemes for what is called "controlled food relief" in enemy-occupied territories, but we have come to the conclusion that all these schemes must bring benefit, and in some cases substantial benefit, to the enemy.
  Mr. Rhys Davies: May we take it that it is correct to say that the food supply to the occupied territories will be sufficient to prevent actual starvation in those territories?
  Mr. Foot: I should not like to give any undertaking as to the future.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    Major-General F. C. Roberts.
    Sir Reginald Garryasked the Secretary of State for War what command Major-General F. C. Roberts, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., O.B.E., now holds in the Army; and the date on which he left his last command?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Major-General F. C. Roberts holds no command in the Army. He left his last command on 18th October, 1939.
    Sir R. Clarry: Will my right hon. Friend say why he was removed, and when he went on to retired pay?
    Sir J. Grigg: That would be rather a long story, so perhaps the hon. Member would discuss it with me afterwards.

    Officers (Promotion).
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether in any case the promotion of a captain to the rank of major when a vacancy arises is held back on the ground of the fact that the captain is substantially younger than most captains?
    Sir J. Grigg: With the exception of the second-in-command, whose appointment is a matter for the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the choice of officers for promotion within a unit is at the discretion of the commanding officer, subject to ratification by the divisional or equivalent commander. The governing consideration is to obtain the most suitable officer for a vacancy. He may or may not be substantially older or younger than other officers of the same rank.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it true to say that there are so many corporals to so many privates and so many corporals to so many sergeants?
    Sir J. Grigg: Every unit has a war establishment, but it is not a uniform ratio.

    Voluntary Aid Detachments.
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War what prompted the Army Council to suggest that all mobile Voluntary Aid Detachments, particularly the auxiliary nurses, should be transferred to the Auxiliary Territorial Service and made part of that body; whether he will give a guarantee that such steps, in view of the representations made to him, will not now be carried into effect, and that the nursing members of the Voluntary Aid Detachments will be allowed to continue with their work free from Army discipline and uniforms?
    Sir J. Grigg: Until I have received the deputation from the organisations concerned, I do not think I can usefully make any statement on the subject. Perhaps I may add that I have arranged to receive the deputation on Friday of this week.
    Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to receive the Parliamentary deputation next week?
    Sir J. Grigg: If that is thought to be necessary.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree not to issue any regulations until this matter has been discussed by the House?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think that if the hon. and gallant Member will await the statement, he may find that it may not be necessary to give any explicit assurance.

    Royal Army Medical Corps (Recalled Officers).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention that medical men who served in the last war in the rank of lieutenant or captain, Royal Army Medical Corps, should now be called up at the age of 41 to 46 years and posted to serve under youths of 25 to 30 years of age, who only received their medical degrees a few months ago?
    Sir J. Grigg: Medical men called up for service who held commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps for a year in the last war are gazetted captain from the date of joining. Few Royal Army Medical Corps officers under 30 are commanding units, and these are in all cases field force units with active duties, to which it is not intended to post the 41 to 46 year old officers.

    Educational Instruction.
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great disparity in educational facilities afforded to troops undergoing training in this country; and whether he will consider issuing instructions to all such units that a minimum of three hours educational training be carried out each week, in view of the fact that the Army Council has stated that they consider this training to be of great importance?
    Sir J. Grigg: The periods within both the training time and the spare time of soldiers which can be devoted to educational work under the Army Education Scheme must necessarily vary very much at different times and between one unit and another, according to their military employment, and I am advised that it

    1381
    would not be possible to introduce a universal rule such as the hon. Member suggests without detriment to military efficiency. But I am considering whether in the coming winter more time can be made available for this purpose in certain types of unit.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the units which are most efficient are those which give the most educational instruction?
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for some form of educational course to be made available to men confined in detention barracks similar to that provided for men not so confined?
    Sir J. Grigg: Arrangements have already been approved under which sergeants of the Army Educational Corps will be posted to military prisons and detention barracks to give instruction to men confined there.
    Mr. Dugdale: May we know when such postings will take place?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot give the hon. Member any details. Some of them have already taken place, and others are taking place.

    Civil Engineering Work.
    Sir R. Clarryasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to speed up essential and urgent war work and the better use of available manpower, he will consider the temporary drafting of soldiers to civil engineering work, such as the construction of aerodromes; and whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of suitable labour for this work, whilst in the immediate neighbourhood large numbers of soldiers are available who would be suitable and glad to have a temporary change of occupation, the national interest being adequately safeguarded by making these men available for immediate return to their military units in the event of any emergency?
    Sir J. Grigg: Arrangements already exist, whereby application may be made locally through the Ministry of Labour and National Service, for the employment of soldiers on non-military work of vital national importance for which civilian labour is not obtainable. Limited numbers of soldiers have in fact been
    1382
    employed on aerodrome construction. Owing, however, to the great and growing demands of their military training I can hold out no hope that the numbers available for such purposes can be increased.
    Sir R. Clarry: Does that mean that the arrangement in force is now cancelled or suspended?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, it means that it cannot be extended.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of publicity inspired by the Ministry of Labour which appeared in the Press last week many thousands of people have turned up at Employment Exchanges for civil engineering work but have then been told that there is nothing for them to do?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not know anything about that.

    Free Legal Aid.
    Earl Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for War why, since the welfare organisation in each command has for months past arranged for free legal aid for serving soldiers, it has been found necessary to set up a special department for this purpose; and if as a result of this new department welfare officers will, in future, be prohibited from giving free legal advice to serving soldiers?
    Sir J. Grigg: The new scheme is administered by the Director-General of Welfare and is an extension of the work which his organisation was already doing.
    Earl Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it involves an alteration of the method by which command welfare has at its disposal a number of persons to give this free advice, and why has there been substituted for that a new system of paid officers?
    Sir J. Grigg: I have put in the Library of this House a copy of the pamphlet on this scheme, and if my Noble Friend will look at it, I think that he will find he is under some misapprehension. The new scheme has two layers of assistance, one by unpaid officers and one by a small nucleus of paid officers at command headquarters.
    Major Milner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new scheme is completely unsatisfactory, and will he

    1383
    undertake not to proceed with it until those in this House who are interested have been consulted or until the matter has been debated?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

    Equipment (Cleaning).
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make it clear whether non-commissioned officers and men, when ordered by their officers to blanco their equipment or polish their brass or the soles of their boots in circumstances involving a breach of Army Council Instructions, are to disobey the Army Council Instructions or to disobey their officers; and what steps he will take to punish officers who issue such orders?
    Sir J. Grigg: A soldier must obey the orders given him by his superior officers. If an officer gives an order which is contrary to an Army Council Instruction, it is the duty of his superior commander to take such disciplinary action as the circumstances of the case require. There is no instruction which forbids the blancoing of webbing.
    Sir Robert Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Instruction about these things is not being obeyed at all?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. Pritt: Why is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of it, when I write two or three letters a week to him on the subject, setting out the details? Does he read his letters?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes; and I answer the letters. They require a good deal of investigation, and some of the hon. and learned Member's statements are not substantiated.
    Mr. Pritt: That means that most of those statements are correct.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is it not a fact that the Instruction is not being carried out, particularly, I believe, in the Household Cavalry? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make them understand that it is a waste of energy to spend so much time in blancoing?
    Major Pethcrick: Does not a smartly-turned-out regiment fight very much better than one which is not smartly turned out?
    Mr. Pritt: How many times has the right hon. Gentleman heard the words: "Britain blancoes while Russia bleeds"?

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the content of the food parcels being consigned from America to Lisbon for our prisoners of war; and whether these are properly cased to prevent deterioration owing to possible congestion and lack of storage accommodation at Lisbon?
  Sir J. Grigg: I have no knowledge of the contents or packing of food parcels from the United States for British prisoners of war. The American Red Cross send a limited number of parcels to the International Red Cross for distribution to prisoners and some of these may occasionally go to British prisoners, but they do not pass through the hands of the British Red Cross at any point. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind parcels from the Canadian Red Cross, I have every reason to believe that they are in every way as satisfactory as those despatched by the British Red Cross Society from this country. If he has any information suggesting the contrary, perhaps he will let me have it and I will make inquiries.
  Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether food parcels are sent from this country to prisoners of war?
  Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, certainly.
  Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I inquired of the Ministry of Food yesterday, and they said they were not?
  Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will write to me about that.

  SCOTLAND.

    Wood Fuel.
    Sir Samuel Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to urge local authorities in appropriate areas in Scotland to store slabwood as a reserve for winter domestic fuel and whether there are large quantities available as a reserve?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): During the discussion on the Department of Health Estimates some days ago, I drew attention to the public health risk involved in any domestic fuel shortage. I have since ascertained that, in addition to blown timber and waste from privately owned mills, for which I have no figures, there are 50,000 tons of slabwood in stock at Government-operated mills in Scotland, with a monthly rate of accumulation of 7,000 tons. A circular issued by the Mines Department to local authorities last October explained the steps they could take to make arrangements for the collection and storage of timber with a view to its distribution for fuel in emergency. I am bringing this circular afresh to the urgent attention of Scottish authorities, especially those in rural areas.
    Sir S. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply and his prompt action will be received with great satisfaction in Scotland, and will he do all he can to see that not only the large cities but the small towns and villages and isolated cottages get a good supply of wood during the coming winter?
    Mr. Johnston: The last part of my answer says that I am bringing the circular afresh to the urgent attention of Scottish authorities, especially those in rural areas.

    Bombed-out Families, Clydebank (Billeting).
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he will take prompt action to remedy the conditions under which bombed-out families from Clydebank are still billeted; whether he will work out a scheme to pool the billeting resources all over the countryside where now towns and villages work independently, and either provide for these victims of enemy action either by building new houses for them in their home town or at least make them comfortable in the evacuation areas;
    (2) whether he will endeavour urgently to improve the lot of the hundreds of families bombed out of Clydebank and billeted now for over a year in places as far away as Inverness, often in uncomfortable and unhealthy conditions; and, as many of them are no longer wanted in the receiving areas, are longing to get back to Clydebank, and are
    1386
    even coming back there themselves to try and get work and accommodation, whether he will speed up the building of new houses for them as being the only way to replace thousands of homes destroyed by bombing?
    Mr. Johnston: The number of Clydebank persons billeted outside the burgh has been reduced to about a third of what it was 12 months ago. Of that number the vast majority were billeted in neighbouring areas and a substantial proportion are with friends and relatives with whom they have made private arrangements. All complaints received from billeted persons have been immediately investigated and, where necessary, a visit is paid by a welfare officer of the Department of Health. Every effort has been made to transfer families found to be living in undesirable conditions to other accommodation either in billets or in hostels which local authorities have been encouraged to set up, and if my hon. Friend has any specific cases of hardship I shall be very glad indeed to look into them. I am doing everything in my power to secure the completion of the 314 houses now under construction in the burgh. Over 300 new houses have been completed there since the outbreak of war. I am sending privately to my hon. Friend information as to progress made with repairs to damaged houses.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Arising from that reply, in which the Secretary of State tells the House that 300 new houses have been built in Clydebank, I say that that statement is incorrect. Not a single house has been built in Clydebank since the blitz over 18 months ago, and the town council of Clydebank are absolutely at their wit's end to know what to do to shelter the people who are crowding back into Clydebank. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it?
    Mr. Johnston: I did not say that houses had been built since the blitz but since the outbreak of the war, and over 300 new houses have been completed since that date.
    Mr. Kirkwood: What is the Secretary of State going to do to relieve the strain on Clydebank at the moment? Not a single house has been built, although more than 4,000 houses were destroyed in Clydebank in the blitz. What is the Secretary of State going to do to remedy that situation?
    Mr. Johnston: I think the next Question will have some relation to new houses.

    Housing, Dumbarton and Clydebank.
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to speed up the completion of houses in Dumbarton and Clydebank; how many have yet been completed; how many will be completed this year; and what progress has been made in securing enough painters and electricians, and in helping contractors to get ahead with their contracts?
    Mr. Johnston: Priorities for labour and materials were obtained last year to enable the contractors to push ahead with the new houses at Dumbarton and Clydebank. No difficulties have arisen in getting materials, but there is a shortage of bricklayers, joiners and plumbers at the Dumbarton site and of joiners and builders' labourers at the Clydebank site. These requirements are known to the Ministry of Labour, who are trying to meet them. There are no outstanding requirements for painters or electricians. The number of houses under construction is 90 at Dumbarton and 314 at Clydebank. Of these, nearly 100 are nearing completion. Some of the new houses at Clydebank were damaged by enemy bombing, and repairs are still being carried out. It is difficult to estimate the total number of houses that will be completed this year, but 510 new houses have been completed in the two burghs since the outbreak of war. I can assure the hon. Member that I am doing everything in my power to expedite the work.
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the use of prefabricated materials, especially for hostels as well as for homes, in order to meet this difficulty?
    Mr. Johnston: That point hardly arises out of the Question.

    Milk, Glasgow (Inspection).
    Mr. Stephen (for Mr. Sloan)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the criticism of the milk supplied to Glasgow from Ayrshire in a recent report to the county council from the Department of Health; whether he is aware that one
    1388
    of the reasons given by the county sanitary inspector is the fact that a number of milk inspectors have been called up by the military authorities; and whether he will make representations that the men be returned from the Army?
    Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative. As to the third, the public health committee of the county council, on considering the report, recommended the county council to appoint three additional milk inspectors and two laboratory assistants.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend think that the release of those inspectors will be obtained?
    Mr. Johnston: I cannot say; but I hope so.

    Horticultural Cropping.
    Mr. Stephen (for Mr. Sloan)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the regulation issued by the Board of Agriculture that artificially-heated glasshouses must, between 1st November and 28th February, be devoted only to tomatoes, lettuce, and mustard and cress, applies to Scotland, in view of the fact that Scotland is unsuited for this type of culture during the months named; is he aware that the prohibition placed on the production of flowers during these months will be a hardship on the small growers; and whether he will seriously consider the matter as far as it applies to Scotland?
    Mr. Johnston: The Order to which I assume my hon. Friend refers was made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and apples only to England and Wales. No similar order has been made for Scotland, but the question of control of horticultural cropping in Scotland is at present under consideration. If it is decided to frame a general Order to deal with the subject, I will consider the particular points made by my hon. Friend.

  FUEL AND POWER.

    Paraffin (Farms and Cottages).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the difficulty experienced by the occupants of lonely farms and farm cottages in obtaining paraffin for cooking and lighting, he will arrange for the issue to such consumers of

    1389
    special permits for a month's supply at a time, in order to avoid unnecessary transport and the cost of delivery in small quantities?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The quantity of paraffin oil to be supplied at any time is dependent on the supplies available and the essential needs of the consumer. No permit is at present necessary. If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a particular case of difficulty, and will send me details of it, I will make inquiries.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible to enable the local fuel controllers to issue these allowances every month in special cases, as the matter is really important in agricultural districts?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should like to have the details.
    Sir Percy Hurd: Is not the Minister aware that many cottagers now board extra workers who are on the land, and to whom a hot meal at the end of the day is really essential?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. That is considered.

    Kettle Boiling.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has estimated which uses the least amount of coal to boil a kettle—a coal fire, a gas burner, or an electric stove?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): It is impossible to give such an estimate without regard to the circumstances in which the kettle is boiled. I am hoping in the near future to issue guidance to the public, so that they may judge how to make the best use, in any particular circumstance, of the appliances they have available.
    Sir W. Smithers: In households where there are alternative means of heating and cooking, could not the Minister of Fuel and Power give some lead to people for using their fuel in the most economical way?
    Mr. Smith: I have told the hon. Member that in the near future we hope to give some guidance, but a little thought will show that if there happens to be a fire already burning as well as a gas
    1390
    burner, it is better to boil the kettle on the fire.

    Official Buildings (Central Heating).
    Sir F. Fremantleasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can estimate the coal consumed in the central heating of all official buildings under Government or municipal control for a week; and whether he will consider steps to secure the saving of that amount by deferring such heating till later in the autumn and stopping it earlier in the spring, as compared with recent experience?
    Mr. T. Smith: So far as Government buildings are concerned, the period of heating varies in accordance with climatic conditions. Every economy in the use of fuel is already being carried out, and in view of the changing weather conditions it would be unwise to set a definite period for central heating. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am considering carefully, in consultation with my expert advisers, the whole question of economy in central heating plants, in connection with the Control of Fuel Order which I have just made. In the meantime close attention is already being given to economy in Government buildings.
    Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not important that, instead of legislating or acting simply according to climatic conditions, we should definitely suffer a certain amount of inconvenience in order to help the war effort? Will the hon. Gentleman make this suggestion generally to private householders and not only to authorities?
    Mr. Smith: The importance of the question is appreciated. We shall lose no time in getting down to deal with it.
    Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the lamps in this Chamber consume twice as much electricity as the lamps in other parts of the building because they are so old-fashioned?
    Mr. Smith: Certainly, but the question should be directed to the proper Department.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that his advisers do not shunt him on to the wrong rails?
    Mr. Smith: That will be up to me.

    Petrol Allowances.
    Captain Alan Grahamasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will instruct the divisional petroleum officers to give special petrol allowances to households where, owing to the pregnancy of the housewife, transport of food for the household can only be carried out by means of the family's car?
    Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement circulated in reply to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on 21st April. As then stated, the physical condition of the applicant is among the factors to be considered in the granting of petrol allowances.

    Gas and Electricity Undertakings (Consumption Figures).
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that gas and electricity undertakings have been asked to suply fuel overseers with the figures of consumption of their millions of consumers for the last four quarters; and for what purpose this information is required, seeing that the Annex Plan is to assess the needs of householders on the basis of number of rooms and inhabitants?
    Mr. T. Smith: Yes, Sir. This information is needed, whether or not there is to be a rationing scheme, in order to assist in the proper distribution of coal supplies among merchants.

    Factories (Waste Fuel Products).
    Mr. J. Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to secure savings in consumption of coal in industry; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken to utilise more fully waste products, such as slurry from screens and anthracite duff, in view of the success attained in their use in some industrial processes?
    Mr. T. Smith: The Fuel Efficiency Committee set up by the Secretary for Mines last September are carrying out energetically a campaign to reduce waste of coal in industry. They have started classes throughout the country to instruct engineers and operators how savings are to be made, and they have discussed with representatives of nearly every industry
    1392
    the best ways of increasing efficiency. The Ministry's staff of combustion engineers has been greatly strengthened and, with the co-operation of other experts, systematic inspections of individual factories are being made. I realise the importance of making full use of such material as slurry and anthracite duff. I am glad to be able to report that considerably larger quantities are being burnt, and that other promising trials are in progress.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the lowest cost for the generation of electricity in this country is now obtained at a plant which uses exclusively anthracite duff, which for years has been regarded as waste coal, and will he urge that this waste coal is a valuable product which can be used by industry?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend can take it from me that not merely anthracite duff but other materials which have been considered waste in the past will be taken into account.

    Rationing.
    Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power, to what use coupons and points would be put under the Annex Plan when they have been surrendered for their respective consumptions of coal, gas and electricity, regard being had to their non-utility for securing replenishment of stocks in contradistinction to food coupons and others?
    Mr. T. Smith: If fuel rationing is introduced, Local Fuel Overseers will keep a record of the fuel coupons surrendered to them by coal merchants, and this record will assist in determining the merchants' future coal supplies.
    Sir A. Gridley: Are the coupons and points yet printed?
    Mr. Smith: I should require notice of that Question.

  SILICOSIS.
  Mr. James Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can now make a statement indicating the steps he proposes to take with a view to implementing the recommendations made by the Medical Research Council Committee on silicosis among coalminers?
  Mr. T. Smith: As regards the improvement and wider application of preventive measures at the mines chiefly affected, which are in South Wales, my right hon. Friend has made proposals to the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal Owners' Association and the South Wales Miners' Federation, which they have promptly accepted, and these are now being put into effect. They involve the appointment by each association of a small committee to work and take action in collaboration with the two Divisional Inspectors of Mines along the lines of procedure which are already being followed with good results in the anthracite area. The extension of rights of workmen's compensation is a matter for the Home Secretary and his proposals, which are being planned in consultation with my right hon. Friend, will be communicated to the two sides of the industry before action is taken.
  Mr. Griffiths: While thanking my hon. Friend, may I ask him, firstly, in regard to compensation, whether I can have his assurance that the old cases will be considered when any changes in the Act are arrived at, and, secondly, in regard to the preventive measures, whether it would be possible for him to send to me and to others who are interested a statement indicating the detailed preventive measures which are being recommended by the Ministry?
  Mr. Smith: With regard to the first part of the Supplementary Question, my hon. Friend will know that this report proposes to alter the word "silicosis" to "pneumono-coniosis," and that there will therefore be some old cases. My hon. Friend can take it for granted that consideration is being given to those cases. With regard to the second part of the Supplementary Question, I shall have pleasure in sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the preventive measures; I have looked over them, and I think personally that they are capable of doing a good deal of good in allaying the cause of the disease in that particular area.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    Artist Craftsmen.
    Mr. Harveyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in applying the regulations for non-essential industries
    1394
    and the regulations for the character and design of furniture and pottery, special consideration will be given to the need for preserving the work of artist craftsmen, especially those working in small workshops, so as to permit of the continuance of at least a small number of key workshops known to be producing good work?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Yes, Sir, so far as this is consistent with making the best use of the limited resources of labour and materials which are now available to meet the essential needs of the civilian population.
    Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would involve only a very small number of master craftsmen, something like 100 in the whole country?
    Mr. Dalton: In so far as the problem is as small as that, it should not be impossible to meet it.

    Retail Trade.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of his proposal to contact certain sources of the retail trade, he proposes to confine his further contact with certain sources of the retail trade to the 47 trade contacts mentioned in the Third Report of the Retail Trade Committee?
    Mr. Dalton: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the organisations with which I shall have discussed, by to-morrow afternoon, the recommendations contained in the Third Report of the Retail Trade Committee.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend recall the remark he made recently on the Floor of this House to the effect that small shopkeepers are the backbone of the country, and will he urge on the Cabinet the necessity for bringing in protective legislation at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to safeguard that backbone?
    Mr. Dalton: As my hon. Friend knows, we are having a Debate on that subject on the 3rd Sitting Day of the present series.
    Following is the list:
    Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
    Company Chemists' Association.
    Drapers' Chamber of Trade.
    Multiple Shops Federation.
    National Chamber of Trade and affiliated organisations.
    National Joint Board representing the tobacco, newsagency and confectionery trades.
    National Pharmaceutical Union.
    National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers.
    National Union of Shop Assistants.
    Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress.
    Retail Distributors' Association.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. Daggarasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the premiums and compensation paid; the cost of commission and management expenses; the percentage
  From the returns furnished to the Board of Trade by the insurance companies in connection with employers' liability insurance in Great. Britain and Northern Ireland the following figures are available:

  Year.

  Premium income (after necessary adjustments).

  Amount expended in compensation or damages*.

  Commission and Management Expenses.

  Profit†.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1920

  …

  …

  …

  Information not available.

  1921

  …

  …

  …

  8,061,276

  2,971,275

  2,785,648

  2,304,353

  1922

  …

  …

  …

  6,490,478

  2,974,602

  2,186,123

  1,329,753

  1923

  …

  …

  …

  5,422,915

  2,911,946

  1,964,232

  546,737

  1924

  …

  …

  …

  5,373,454

  3,019,854

  1,867,004

  486,596

  1925

  …

  …

  …

  5,663,895

  3,078,813

  1,893,080

  692,002

  1926

  …

  …

  …

  5,638,321

  3,248,032

  1,886,213

  504,076

  1927

  …

  …

  …

  5,907,576

  3,319,046

  1,924,846

  663,684

  1928

  …

  …

  …

  5,622,242

  3,184,353

  1,851,705

  586,184

  1929

  …

  …

  …

  5,595,229

  3,234,533

  1,840,872

  519,824

  1930

  …

  …

  …

  5,555,240

  3,216,335

  1,860,644

  478,261

  1931

  …

  …

  …

  5,304,411

  2,973,704

  1,747,928

  582,779

  1932

  …

  …

  …

  4,853,066

  2,794,046

  1,654,991

  404,029

  1933

  …

  …

  …

  4,650,299

  2,867,407

  1,635,515

  147,377

  1934

  …

  …

  …

  4,807,645

  3,065,348

  1,695,661

  46,636

  1935

  …

  …

  …

  5,305,843

  3,413,581

  1,758,342

  133,920

  1936

  …

  …

  …

  5,508,753

  3,506,936

  1,835,070

  166,747

  1937

  …

  …

  …

  5,964,953

  3,869,220

  1,966,118

  129,615

  1938

  …

  …

  …

  6,384,706

  3,875,007

  2,065,822

  443,877

  1939

  …

  …

  …

  Information not available.

  1940

  …

  …

  …

  * The figures include not only workmen's compensation payments and reserves for outstanding claims but also damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846, the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, and common law and legal and medical expenses in connection therewith.

  † The amounts shown for profit do not include interest or dividends on reserves, for which complete figures are not available.

  Since 1923, in the case of insurance companies belonging to the Accident Offices Association (which includes most of the accident insurance companies) the proportion of income allocated to payments of compensation has been subject to the operation of an agreement concluded with the Home Office, under which where that proportion falls below a specified percentage rebates are payable. Details of the arrangement and the rebate payable are set out in the white paper headed "Employers' Liability (Limitation of Charges)" which is presented to Parliament each year. The paper in respect of the year 1940 is Cmd. 6297.
  of the latter to the premiums, and compensation paid; and the profits in connection with workmen's compensation insurance companies for each of the years 1920 to 1940, together with similar particulars of mutual indemnity associations?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures so far as available for insurance companies. The figures are derived from returns furnished to the Board of Trade under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. Mutual indemnity associations are not required to make returns under the Act, and no such particulars are available.
  Following are the figures:

  AGRICULTURE.

    Domestic Poultry Keeping.
    Sir P. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing the difficulties created for the large number of small householders by the new rationing scheme, he will consider the possibility of allowing a ration of balancer meal for at least four hens per household?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): I regret that my right hon. Friend is unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. There would not be sufficient balancer meal available for such a scheme. I would point out, however, that no household need reduce its poultry to less than four if at least four persons, not necessarily in the same household, agree to contribute kitchen and garden waste, and arrange to share the eggs among them.

    Badgers (Destruction).
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will prevent pest officers from ordering the indiscriminate destruction of badgers since these animals generally do more good than harm?
    Mr. T. Williams: I appreciate that badgers only occasionally cause damage to agricultural crops and are on balance beneficial to agriculture. My right hon. Friend will take steps to bring to the notice of the pests officers of county war agricultural executive committees the uh-desirability of the indiscriminate destruction of badgers.

  MERCHANT SHIPBUILDING (TUTIN SCHEME).
  Mr. Shinwellasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the Tutin scheme of assembly-line shipyards; why it was rejected by the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding; and whether he is aware that a similar scheme has been adopted by the United States of America Maritime Commission and has received the support of Admiral Land?
  The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pillkington): My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the Tutin scheme of assembly-line shipyards,
  1398
  and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on 2nd July, 1941. The Tutin scheme of assembly-line shipyards that was submitted to the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding was for large vessels. The assembly method in principle is adaptable to smaller units such as motor-cars, or even to small ships, but it is considered impracticable to attempt to move large vessels such as a vessel of 10,000 tons deadweight along an assembly line,
  Mr. Shinwell: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this scheme is now in operation in the Higgins assembly yard in the United States; has he seen the correspondence which passed between Dr. Tutin and the Director of Merchant Shipbuilding; were not the replies from the Admiralty very perfunctory, and have they been contrasted with the reply from Admiral Land, which was most courteous?
  Captain Pilkington: I cannot agree that the replies were in the least perfunctory. As regards the first part of the Supplementary Question, it is a fact that this scheme is being used to a certain extent in America, but it is being used for small ships and not for large vessels, and our own production of small ships is proceeding satisfactorily.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that Dr. Tutin has not the practical experience necessary for the lay-out of shipyards; is not the scheme a perfectly well-known one; is it not likely to form the basis of an exorbitant claim; and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also ascertain who is likely to get a rake-off?
  Mr. Shinwell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and in order that the correspondence may be submitted to the House, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    Public Relations Officers Standing Conference.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Information whether the Standing Conference of the Ministry of Information representatives and Departmental Public Relations and Press Officers, which was set up some time ago, is still functioning;

    1399
    how many times it has met; at what intervals; and what conclusions have been arrived at as a result of these meetings?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): The Standing Conference of Public Relations Officers met six times between 8th July, 1941, and 12th August, 1941. It was then decided to suspend further meetings of the full body and to operate through sub-committees as required. Various sub-committees have since met to co-ordinate departmental policy on current publicity questions.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that nothing at all has been achieved; can my hon. Friend tell me whether any results whatever have accrued from any of these meetings?
    Mr. Thurtle: As my answer explains, the real work is being done by the subcommittees. If it is necessary for the full conference to be called again, it will be called; our only desire is the maximum efficiency.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend call it at the earliest possible moment, particularly in view of the very unsatisfactory nature of a great deal of what has been going on recently?

    Ministry Speaker's Statement.
    Sir John Wardlaw-Milne (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Information whether the statement regarding the Members who recently tabled a Motion of "No Confidence" made by a Ministry of Information speaker at Bournemouth was made by his authority and with his knowledge and, if not, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir. This statement was not made with my authority nor with my knowledge. It is the wish of the Ministry that remarks of the kind attributed to this speaker should not be made at meetings organised by them.
    Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Will the Minister of Information make completely public the announcement he has now given and also make it perfectly clear that the statements made were not made with his consent or authority and that in fact the publication of this denial will have as
    1400
    widespread notice in the Press as the statements which have been made?
    Mr. Bracken: Already the Ministry of Information have issued a public statement on this question, but any statement made by a Minister in this House is, I think, most widely reported, and no special steps are therefore necessary.
    Mr. De la Bère: Do not the speakers of the Ministry of Information do more harm than good?
    Earl Winterton: Why has the old rule that a stipendiary magistrate should not take part in public political controversy been departed from in the case of Sir Gervais Rentoul, and will my right hon. Friend bring the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Bracken: I personally have no authority over stipendiary magistrates, but I believe that stipendiary magistrates are allowed to make what are called patriotic speeches, but neither a stipendiary magistrate nor anyone should abuse the facilities given by the Ministry of Information, because all these meetings will break up in disorder if Members or speakers get up and express violent controversial views.
    Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be better to ban the meetings altogether?
    Sir A. Southby: In view of the statement made by Sir Gervais Rentoul in yesterday's Press, will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of not again giving him the facilities of the Ministry of Information platform?
    Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the fact that hundreds of Ministry of Information speakers speak all over the country from week to week, his Department give them their briefs, and was a brief given in this particular case; and will the right hon. Gentleman put a copy of some of these briefs in the Library of the House of Commons so that Members can see them?
    Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information do not provide briefs for speakers. Like the Duke of Wellington, who said he was much at the mercy of authors, the Minister of Information is much at the mercy of speakers. I am asked to provide speakers for 500 meetings every week, and I do not rest easily in my bed with the terrible responsibility resting on my

    1401
    shoulders that at any time a Member of Parliament may get up and ask whether an indiscretion has been made by some speaker. But, taking it all in all, I think it is remarkable that so few gaffes have been made.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it not a breach of the Privileges of this House that money voted by this House to a Department of State should be used by that Department in order to cast reflections upon the free will of Members of Parliament?
    Sir A Knox: Cannot the Minister stop Ministry of Information speeches altogether, as he did in the case of Members in constituencies?
    Mr. Bracken: If it were a question of studying my own personal comfort, I should take some notice of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but there is a real demand all over the country for these meetings, and I am prepared to fulfil that demand.
    Mr. De la Bère: Are they not stirring up ill-will?

  TROLLEY-OMNIBUSES.
  Mr. William Brownasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the risk of accident to both vehicle and foot passengers by the excessive acceleration and fierce braking of trolley-omnibuses; and will he consult his technical advisers to see whether these defects can be remedied?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Experience in the operation of trolley-omnibuses has shown that their superior acceleration and braking have not, in practice, been detrimental to safety. I would, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that instructions have been given by operators to their staffs to ensure that trolley-omnibuses shall be so driven as to minimise both risk to the public and wear and tear on tyres.
  Mr. Brownasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that drivers and con ductors of trolley-omnibuses complain that trolley-omnibus schedules in the London Passenger Transport area do not permit of
  1402
  their driving with sufficient regard for public safety; and will he undertake to have those schedules reviewed with a view to more time being allowed for journeys?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The London Passenger Transport Board assure me that they have no outstanding complaint about the time allowances on trolley vehicles schedules; nor have they any evidence that the running times are insufficient. The arrangements in force provide that if any difference on this point arise between the Board and the representatives of the men checks shall be taken. I may add that the reduced number of vehicles on the streets must clearly assist drivers to conform to schedule times.
  Mr. Watkins: Has the hon. Gentleman received any representations from the men's trade union on this matter, and if he has not, may it not safely be left to that body?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I think that that is much the best plan. There have been no representations, and if there are, they can be made through the established machinery.

  NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

    Domestic Service.
    Colonel Grettonasked the Minister of Labour whether it is still the principle of the Ministry that women in domestic service essential to a household are not to be moved unless they can be replaced?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Yes, Sir; the practice remains as stated in the reply of 27th January to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), of which I am sending my right hon. and gallant Friend a copy.
    Colonel Gretton: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of Employment Exchanges to the fact that the intentions of the Government are not, in all cases, being observed?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I should not be prepared to accept that without details.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that young girls who are the only help which their widowed mothers have are being removed without any question of replacement?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but that is not a question of domestic help as intimated in this Question.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Secretary of State's own constituency there is a case where five sons have been taken away arid now the only lassie left is being taken away?
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that "essential domestic service" varies a great deal in town and country, and will he give his committees instructions to take into account country needs where a householder provides his own light, water, etc., and goods are bought in town six miles or more away?
    Mr. McEntee: Is my hon. Friend not aware that under the administration of this Order only daughters are taken away, and that the general administration of this part of the Order is very harsh indeed?
    Mr. Tomlinson: These are general questions relating to the calling-up of young people, and are not specifically in relation to this question of domestic service.
    Colonel Gretton: Will the attention of managers of Employment Exchanges he called to this question?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, willingly.
    Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Gentleman arrange that an only daughter left in a house shall be counted as the domestic servant of her mother?

    Works Councils.
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Minister of Labour whether he has issued any model rules or draft standing orders, or offered suggestions, or given instructions relating to the proceedings of, and the matters which should be discussed by, works councils; and, if so, are copies of these available in any form to Members of the House?
    Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. The advice of officers of the Department is however, always available if required.
    Sir R. Acland: Without some such assistance as suggested in the Question is there not a real danger that some of these works councils will be of no effect because the people concerned do not know how they are supposed to work?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We have not come across cases of that kind. If there is a desire to know how works councils should be run, we are quite willing to help those concerned to run them.
    Sir R. Acland: I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this matter in the Debate on the next Sitting Day.

  GENERAL ELECTION.
  Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement regarding the Government's intentions as to holding a General Election before the end of 1942?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It would be most unusual and in my view contrary to the best precedents for any statement to be made forecasting the advice which in hypothetical circumstances should be tendered to the King in respect of a Dissolution of Parliament.
  Mr. De la Bère: Is it not essential whilst perils press to reason calmly about" holding a General Election? Would the Prime Minister impress on Lord Beaverbrook the necessity for calm reasoning?
  The Prime Minister: I must embrace this opportunity of testifying my admiration for the principles of free speech and a free Press.
  Mr. Gallacher: Does that apply to the "Daily Worker"?

  NAVAL OPERATIONS (AIR FORCE, CONTROL).
  Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that it has been ruled that in operations in the Middle East the Army Commander shall specify the targets and tasks required to be performed by the Royal Air Force, a similar ruling will be given so that machines of the Royal Air Force taking part in naval operations shall, in like manner, come under the supreme control of the senior Naval officer conducting the operation?
  The Prime Minister: In the Middle East during active military operation the General, working in the closest association with the Air Commander, has the directing power. Aircraft co-operating

  1405
  with the Fleet conform strictly to naval requirements and movements. In the intervals between land or sea operations, ample opportunities for discussion and agreement between the three Commanders-in-Chief are provided by their meetings under the presidency of the Minister of State. Quite a different arrangement prevails at home where, for the purposes of the North-Western Approaches and the narrow seas, the Admiralty is the predominant authority. In this case the Coastal Command is under the operational control of the Admiralty and questions of the relative strength of the Coastal and Bomber Command are decided by the Minister of Defence, or by the Defence Committee. In other theatres of war arrangements are made to meet the particular conditions there existing, having regard principally to the predominant character of the operations.
  Sir A. Southby: Will the Prime Minister state whether the absence of the excellent ruling which he gave regarding the R.A.F. and the Army in Egypt may not have contributed to our failure to succeed in the operations against the "Scharnhorst" and the "Gneisenau"?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think there is any foundation for that.
  Sir A. Southby: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the suggestion that on one occasion during that action, our own destroyers were bombed by our own aircraft?
  The Prime Minister: Such things have happened in every Army.
  Sir A. Southby: Would it not obviate that if——
  Mr. Speaker rose——

  WOMEN'S LAND ARMY (CANTEENS).
  Mrs. Tateasked the Prime Minister whether, as the Government have in principle approved the admission of members of the Women's Land Army to all canteens open to the Armed Forces, he will have an instruction to this effect issued to all such canteens forthwith and thus avoid unnecessary delay and labour in implementation of the Government's avowed intentions?
  The Prime Minister: Women's Land Army members will not be admitted to all canteens open to the Forces but only to some of those operated by the voluntary organisations. These arrangements are now well advanced, and I therefore do not feel it is necessary to issue a special instruction.
  Mrs. Tate: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me which Department or which co-ordinating body is responsible for the admittance of these girls to canteens, which has been agreed in principle?
  The Prime Minister: I think that if there is any doubt on the matter, it would be better to address it to me or to the Deputy Prime Minister.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.
  Major C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister through what channels demands are submitted to the Ministry of Aircraft Production for aircraft for Army Cooperation Command and for the Fleet Air Arm?
  The Prime Minister: The War Office place before the Air Ministry their requirements, and after discussion the most suitable types of aircraft are chosen. Orders for such aircraft are then given by the Air Ministry to the Ministry' of Aircraft Production. Thereafter there is direct liaison between the War Office, Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production on matters of design, modification and production. Approved requirements for the Fleet Air Arm are made direct to the Ministry of Aircraft Production by the Admiralty.
  Major Taylor: In view of the healthy and natural competition between the three Services, does the Prime Minister feel that it is desirable or right for one interested Ministry, the Air Ministry, to say whether or not these questions shall be forwarded to the Ministry of Aircraft Production?
  The Prime Minister: Oh no, it does not rest with the Air Ministry at all.
  Major Taylor: In the reply which was given it was stated that the aeroplanes for the Army have to go through the Air Ministry. Therefore surely the Air Ministry can hold up these demands?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, they cannot do so at all. If any such action were

  1407
  taken, it would immediately be brought to the notice, successively, of the Defence Committee, or the War Cabinet.
  Mr. Thorne: May I ask whether, unless it is absolutely necessary, it is not better that there should be no alteration in design?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree.
  Mr. Molson: Has the Prime Minister's attention been called to the statement of Mr. Westbrook that in the case of dive-bombers the Air Ministry, in June, 1940, was not willing to order them, and that they were ordered by the Ministry of Aircraft Production in agreement with the War Office?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, this was an exceptional procedure.
  Major C. S. Taylorasked the Prime Minister what individual or Department decides the priorities for the manufacture or supply of the various types of aircraft to be used by the Royal Air Force, Army Co-operation Command and the Fleet Air Arm?
  The Prime Minister: The Minister of Defence and the Defence Committee, advised as necessary by the Chiefs of Staff, approve and from time to time review the aircraft programme, which lays down the number of aircraft of various types to be manfactured.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Since what date has there been an agreed plan between the three Service Ministers in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I know only what I have read out on this point. I do not know of any disagreement of a serious character, other than that which naturally arises when doubtful matters have to be discussed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION.
  Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Paymaster-General whether he is aware of the opposition expressed by the rural district councils to the policy of regionalisation of local government administration; and what are the Government's present and post-war intentions in this respect?
  The Paymaster-General (Sir William Jowitt): I have received copies of some such resolutions in the event of the Government wishing to put forward any proposals for altering local government administration, I have no doubt that local authorities will be given full opportunity, through their representative associations, of expressing their views. I am not aware, at present, of any Government plan for the reconstitution of local government administration on a- regional basis.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    Racehorse Sales (Income Tax).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of a racing stud sold for 17,000 guineas and racehorses sold for 5,000 guineas and 10,000 guineas, respectively, the sellers have to pay Income Tax on the amount received?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Whether liability to Income Tax would arise as a result of the transactions of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend depends upon whether the transactions constitute trading transactions, and this could only be determined by reference to the facts of actual cases.

    Enemy Action Overseas (Compensation for Loss).
    Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are made for persons, whether in the Services or in civilian life, who have lost their personal property through enemy action overseas, to obtain compensation both for their immediate and necessary requirements and for other less urgent purposes?
    Sir K. Wood: Service personnel are eligible, under long standing Regulations, for compensation in respect of the loss of essential articles of military kit; and in addition, the payment has been authorised of small cash grants to cover immediate and essential requirements as, for instance, clothing for families of Service personnel who escaped from Malaya. There are analogous arrangements for civilian employees of the British and of Colonial Governments. The payment of compensation generally for losses due to enemy action overseas is, of course, a matter for the Government of the territory concerned.
    Mr. Mander: Cannot my right hon. Friend give further information, in view of the fact that there is a considerable number of persons who want to get the compensation to which he referred? Surely it is not enough to say that it is a matter for the Government of the territory concerned?
    Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me any information he has on the matter.

    Small Savings.
    Captain Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the explanation for the fall in small savings during recent weeks; whether he is satisfied that the present average weekly savings are adequate to meet their share of war expenditure; and if not, what steps are being taken to remedy the position?
    Sir K. Wood: The recent decline in subscriptions to small savings securities is, I think, mainly due to the seasonal influence of holidays and to the fact that the National Savings Movement has concentrated recently on expanding its group organisation. It is satisfactory, however, that sales of the smaller denominations of Savings Certificates, which afford a rough guide to the level of savings out of wages, are running at a rate approximately 17 per cent. higher than during the corresponding period last year. As regards the future, the National Savings Movement's "Tanks for Attack" campaign opens this week, with the express object of increasing the level of small savings during the forthcoming months.
    Captain Gammans: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the present level of savings is adequate to meet the proportionate share of the war expenditure which should be met by savings?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; I would never take up that attitude.
    Sir H. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend give some reassurance to those who have been disturbed by the recent statements of the Minister of Labour that the rentier class is to be abolished?

    Small Coinage.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many nickel 3d. pieces were made during the past 12
    1410
    months; how many silver 3d. pieces were made; and which of the two are the more profitable to the Government; whether he intends having any more silver 3d. pieces made; and why no pennies have been made during the past 15 months?
    Sir K. Wood: During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1942, 110,000,000 nickel 3d. pieces were struck and 4,000,000 silver 3d. pieces. The nickel 3d. piece is the more profitable, and the production of silver 3d. pieces will continue to be severely restricted. The production of pennies has been suspended since 1940, with a view to saving imports of copper. This was explained in a reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on 19th June, 1940, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    National Securities (Interest).
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to attract investors who are afraid of inflation, he will offer a long-term stock, carrying a rate of interest which shall vary upwards and downwards with the official cost-of-living index published by the Ministry of Labour?
    Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I do not think that, in present circumstances, there would be any advantage in the issue of a stock such as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Sir J. Mellor: If the Minister of Labour is wrong, and inflation does not occur, would not the issue of such a stock be a very profitable transaction for the. Treasury?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes; but there are other considerations. Such investors as my hon. Friend has in mind should invest in the war issues already available, and thereby assist the Government in maintaining the measures which they have taken against the danger of inflation, and which have achieved a large measure of success.
    Sir J. Mellor: As many State payments are based on the cost-of-living index, why should not similar protection be offered in the case of interest on National Savings?
    Sir K. Wood: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the general desire for

    1411
    such stock. I do not think that there is an appreciable number of investors who desire such an issue to be made.

  REQUISITIONED HOTEL, BLACKPOOL (COMPENSATION).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning, why no compensation was paid to Mr. F. H. Blackmoor when the Florence Hotel, Blackpool, was taken over by the Ministry of Works and Planning, on 7th September, 1939; and why, when the furniture which had been removed was subsequently burnt, Was no compensation paid?
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): Settlement of all claims for compensation was made by agreement with the owner, Mrs. Blackmoor, in August, 1940, and regular payments have been made since that date. The Ministry are under no liability in respect of the furniture which was stored by the owner in a repository.

  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (CLOTHING ORDER).
  Mr. Daggar (for Mr. Mort)asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a letter of protest against the new clothing order from the Swansea and District Old Age Pensioners Association; and what are his observations upon it?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I have seen a copy of the letter referred to. As I have said, in answer to similar Questions by other hon. Members, the protest appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the action now being taken by the Assistance Board.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the Business for the 2nd and the 3rd Sitting Days?
The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business will be as follows:
1412
Second Sitting Day—After the Debate on the administration of the Factories Acts, we shall ask the House to consider the remaining stages of the Housing (Rural Workers) Bill, so that it may be sent to another place, and the Lords Amendments to the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill.
Third Sitting Day—After the Debate on the Board of Trade Estimate, we propose to ask the House to approve Motions relating to the Housing (Continuance of Contributions) (Scotland) Order, and the Housing (Review of Contributions) Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  First Report from the Committee on Public Petitions brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  First 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. 104].
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts, 1939 to, 1941, with respect to mortgages." [Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords].
  COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

  PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
  That the Committee recommend that as from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament the size of the Private Business sheet should be reduced from 11 inches by 7½ inches to 5½ inches by 7½ inches.
  That the Committee further recommend that the Private Business sheet

  1413
  should no longer be circulated to Members, but that 250 copies should be available in the Vote Office for their use.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1942.
      CLASS III.

        HOME OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £1,083,450, 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, 1943, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, subordinate offices, liquidation expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary, contributions towards the expenses of Probation and a grant' in aid of the Central Committee for Refugees."—[Note.—£400,000 has been voted on account.]

  DEFENCE REGULATION 18B.
  Commander Bower: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I should like to make it clear at the outset that this is no commando attack on His Majesty's Government, nor is it what a Ministry of Information speaker might describe as a back-biting attack upon the Home Secretary. There is nothing personal in this matter as far as I am concerned, but those who think like me want to draw attention to the administration of the Defence Regulations, and in particular Regulation 18B, because we consider that very great constitutional issues are involved. Times of stress like the present have always in the course of our history brought in their train great constitutional changes, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to see that these changes take the right form and are not in any way inimical to our great constitutional principles. To-day we have strange movements in the minds of men, such as Fascism and Communism, which, in my view, are different symptoms of the same authoritarian disease, and we have no reason whatever to assume that we in this country are immune. We have only to think of the example of France and how, in the matter of a day or two, that great democracy fell. So we, the Commons of England, should, be very much on our guard.

  1427
  We have a tendency to think that because we have locked up a lot of so-called Fascists we have scotched Fascism over here. I do not take that view myself. I think that Oswald Mosley's edition of Fascism was a peculiar, pallid edition, and from what I saw of it, it was a lot of boys and girls who liked to run round in black shirts. Anyhow we have banned that party and have put them away, and I personally have no objection to that ban, but if we are to look for Fascism, we have to look elsewhere, and the danger is always lurking. I know that a great many hon. Members opposite will disagree with me, but I want to point out to the Committee that Fascism in other countries has always come from the Left. If you take note of the three principal authoritarian leaders in Europe—Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler—had they been British and had been sitting in this House of Commons, they would not have been sitting on these benches wearing Old Etonian ties but would have been sitting on the back benches opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is Stalin a Fascist?"] There are not signs lacking that there is still Fascism abroad in this country.
  Regulation 18B was passed during what was called the "phoney" war, and even then the House took the gravest exception to the original wording of the Regulation. That wording bore an interpretation very much akin to that which was placed upon the present Regulation by the decision in what has come to be known as the Liversidge case. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that when the new Regulation was brought into force the average Member of Parliament—indeed, I think it would be fair to say every Member of Parliament—thought that it bore the interpretation which was placed upon it by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgment, which, I think, illuminates the whole matter with crystal clarity. But apart from legalistic niceties, I cannot agree that this House really would in any circumstances have deliberately given the Home Secretary, without any appeal, the unchallengeable powers which he is now held by the ultimate Court of Appeal to possess. I think all Members admit that the right to detain on suspicion in times like the present is a grave but unfortunate necessity, and I think we will all agree that subject to the misapprehension I have already referred to, this House has
  1428
  actually given the Home Secretary these powers. But I and many others hold that whatever the circumstances, however grave the situation, however grave the emergency, it is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally opposed to the traditions of British justice that any one man should hold such unchallengeable powers over the personal liberty of every one of his fellow citizens.
  What does that mean? The Home Secretary to-day has power to detain on suspicion anybody, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down to the humblest labourer in the land. These are powers which would make Himmler absolutely green with envy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, Himmler has no greater powers than that. That this should be allowed to continue, without challenge from even a few Members of Parliament, even for a short time during an emergency, might well establish a dangerous precedent which would have terrible consequences later. We have forged a deadly sharp weapon and have left it lying about for any man at some future time to pick up and exercise against our ancient traditions.
  On 18th November last the Prime Minister was asked this Question in the House:
  "on what grounds he has satisfied himself that the powers granted by Parliament, under Regulation 18B, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department have not been abused …?"
  The reply was:
  "… having regard to the provision made for the hearing of objections by Advisory Committees and the facilities afforded to persons detained to communicate with Members of Parliament. I have no doubt that if these powers had been abused, it would not have escaped the notice of Parliament or of H.M. Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1941; col. 176, Vol. 376.]
  I propose for a few moments to examine that Answer to see what those safeguards amount to and how much reliance can be placed upon them. An Advisory Committee, after seeing the evidence on which the Home Secretary acted, hears the detainee, but the detainee has no counsel, no access to any of his documents which may have been impounded, he is not told what is really alleged against him, and after the interview he has no idea what the Committee has reported on him. This Advisory Committee is in no sense a court of appeal or a judicial tribunal. It is the

  1429
  creature of the Home Secretary, and in the end he is in no way bound to implement its recommendations. Indeed, in over 100 cases he has failed to do so, and I think I am right in saying that at the present moment over 80 detainees are detained contrary to the recommendations of Advisory Committees. That is one of our cardinal objections—that these powers should be exercised at the sole discretion of a Home Secretary who is not even bound to accept the recommendations of his Advisory Committees, and that there is no further appeal. The Home Secretary has told us that the Advisory Committees have all the evidence that is at his disposal, but I want to ask him a straight question, and I hope that when he replies to the Debate he will answer it. Is this really so? Is there not at his elbow some official of the Security Department prompting him, giving him, perhaps, evidence which is not at the disposal of the Advisory Committees? If that is so, I submit to the Committee that that is pure Gestapo practice. If not, why does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the Committees so often?
  Now for the second of these alleged safeguards—the access of internees to Members of Parliament. Since I started taking an interest in Regulation 18B and asking Questions in this House, I have had letters from a large number of detainees, and, curiously enough—I am sure the Committee will find this very difficult to believe—100 per cent. of them are convinced that they are perfectly innocent and that the powers used in connection with their case have been abused. What can a Member of Parliament do? He can exercise his right of access to the Minister, or can write to him or interview him to suggest that a certain internee has made out a good case and ask for rebutting evidence. The answer is always the same—"It is not in the public interest." Therefore, according to all the evidence which a Member of Parliament can collect from any source whatsoever, the internees who write to him are innocent yet are still interned. What safeguard is there there? Access to a Member of Parliament is completely valueless. Only the Home Secretary can say whether his powers have been abused or not, and he will not come to the House in a white sheet, bearing a candle, and say, "I have interned 200 internees without any justification." The only shadow of a safeguard is the power of
  1430
  Parliament to repeal or alter the Regulations, but that safeguard in itself is vitiated by the fact that Parliament is debarred by its own action from getting access to the information which would impel it to act.
  I do not believe that the learned Law Officers, in re-drafting the wording of Rgulation 18B, deliberately misled the House. I think they were probably just as much surprised by the Liversidge judgment as we were, and if that is so, I submit to the Committee that we should all be seeking a solution of this problem. These powers in the hands of one man raise the very gravest issues. Naturally, if they are vested in any one man, people at once begin examining the fitness of that one man to exercise them. I have had many letters talking about the indecency of men who fought and bled for us in the last war being locked up by the Home Secretary, but I do not intend to pursue this line. My objection is not to this or any other Home Secretary. I do not wish to take the opportunity of making a personal attack upon the right hon. Gentleman, because in many ways I have great regard for him.
  Recently I asked the Home Secretary how many Communists were interned, in view of his own expressed opinion that the Communist party were not loyal to this country. He replied that none had been detained just because they were Communists. I then suggested that as he was not interning Communists—in my opinion quite rightly—it was only fair to release internees against whom there was even less evidence of disloyalty or of actual or potential treachery. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply made the entirely unwarrantable assumption that I was referring to Fascists. What does this mean? I, of course, acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any attempt to tar with the Fascist brush those in this House who have stood for liberty. At the same time I do take this opportunity of informing him that, as far as I am aware, I have not even one solitary acquaintance among the Fascist party. I am not interested in them as Fascists but I am interested in them, and in all other internees, as British subjects who are entitled to British justice and who have not—and this is more important than anything else—been convicted of any offence. I think the question and answer to which I have just referred reveal that the right hon. Gentleman is, politically, very far to the

  1431
  Left and—unconsciously no doubt—any smell of anything which might be regarded as Fascism is, to him, anathema, but Communists to him are merely mildly reprehensible.
  I have no objection whatever to that. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman has the right to hold these views in what is, or at any rate was, until Regulation 18B came into force, a free country, but I feel bound to point out that if, say, I—and stranger things have happened—were to become Home Secretary, I should probably release a great many people who are now interned, whereas a great many who are at present free would be in the Isle of Man within 24 hours. What does that prove? It simply proves that no one man by himself can be trusted to exercise these powers.
  In the last few days there has been a very tendentious Press propaganda, tending to discredit the internees. Coming just as this Debate was pending, I cannot help wondering whether this is entirely fortuitous. I take an example which I cull from the "Daily Herald," not because I have any particular objection to the "Daily Herald," but because it happens to give the most concise, and, in many ways, the most accurate account. The "Daily Mail" had a much longer one. This is a paragraph headed, in heavy type "18B men's Gaol Vendettas" and it proceeds to charge 18B detainees with conducting personal vendettas against prison officers by sending slanderous charges against those officers to the Home Secretary and to Members of Parliament. It suggests that many detainees have radios and typewriters in their cells and get large amounts of rationed foods in addition to their prison diet, and have other prisoners as their servants. Then, under the cross-heading "Resentment," the paragraph goes on to say that the Prison Officers' Association calls for the segregation of detainees from ordinary prisoners and suggests that all the detainees should be sent to one prison—which strikes me as a very sensible suggestion—as it is impossible under the present arrangements to maintain discipline among the ordinary prisoners, who bitterly resent the difference between their treatment and the treatment of the detainees. The ordinary prisoners, who are convicted criminals, apparently expect that the detainees should be treated as
  1432
  they are treated. I make no comment on that whatever.
  The concluding paragraph of this statement says that the Prison Officers' Association complains of the growing practice among detainees of taking out writs against prison officers for various alleged offences, when those officers are really only carrying out their ordinary duties. Surely it is a normal legal procedure—I speak subject to the correction of any hon. and learned Member who is present—that people who are taking legal action against the Home Secretary should provide an alternative defendant in case the Home Secretary should plead that the prison officers, and not himself, are responsible and thus get himself discharged from the case. In any case, is it suggested in any responsible quarter that ordinary recourse to the law, the cherished right of every citizen, should be withheld from these people just because they are interned? If so, I can only say that we are a long way on the road to Fascism.
  When this Regulation 18B was last debated in this House the party opposite held a meeting. The meeting was held on the Wednesday before the Debate and after hearing the Home Secretary but before hearing the Debate, hon. Members opposite decided to support the right hon. Gentleman, right or wrong, through thick and thin, even before the terms of the Amendment put down by some of my hon. Friends and myself had appeared on the Paper. What an indictment of the party which claims to have its roots in Tolpuddle and Peterloo! At the highest I call that the apotheosis of the old school tie and I think I can leave it at that. I only hope that, on this occasion, they will hear the arguments first, before deciding how they intend to vote on this all-important subject of British liberty.
  Arrest and detention on suspicion breed suspicion, and frankly I am suspicious of the motives of His Majesty's Government in general, and of the Home Secretary in particular, in wishing to retain these overweening powers in the hands of one man. More than once the Home Office has tried to limit or circumvent the activities of Members of Parliament who have done their duty by trying to help internees who have written to them. I myself have raised two cases in this House. One was a case in which the M.I.5 authorities in

  1433
  the Isle of Man sent for a detainee who had been in correspondence with me, and suggested that I had been smuggling letters to him by unauthorised means. Fortunately the detainee was a very methodical man and had kept the envelopes. Suppose he had not? There is, I fear, something very much like what our friends across the Atlantic would call a "frame-up" in that. In another case a detainee was prevented from sending letters to me. I raised that case in the House. I did not like that incident particularly after the Prime Minister's assurance that detainees had free right of access to Members of Parliament.
  I hope the Home Secretary will not trot out the time-worn excuse that, if he is to be responsible for the security of this great Realm, in this time of stress, he must have these powers. After all, the First Lord of the Admiralty, on the rare occasions when he favours the House with his presence, does not say "I cannot be responsible for the safety of the seas unless I can be Lord High Admiral and get rid of the Sea Lords." In that case the First Lord is prepared to be primus infer pares and to have the help of other people in the exercise of his very important duties. At the time of the period of panic in 1940—
  Captain Cobb: Was there any panic in 1940?
  Commander Bower: Undoubtedly there was a period of panic when hundreds of people were arrested and subsequently released. Why, otherwise, were they arrested? But much time has elapsed since then, and the Government have had plenty of opportunities of sifting out these internees and finding out those who are actually or potentially dangerous or those who are not. I am under a strong impression that some hundreds of people are now being illegally detained although perfectly innocent in order to retain perhaps a half-dozen who may really be of danger.
  I often wonder whether the great figures of the past are allowed to come down to watch our proceedings here and whether, to-day, we are being watched by any of those who fought for our liberties 300 years ago. I cannot help feeling that if they could speak, they might quote to us these words of John Milton:
  "Being peculiarly God's own, that is, truly free, we are consequently to be subjected to
  1434
  Him alone, and cannot, without the greatest sacrilege imaginable, be reduced into the conditions of slavery to any man."
  Miss Rathbone: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman accept that all the arguments he has used apply quite as much to friendly aliens who are detained under Regulation 12 (5A) and to aliens of enemy origin who are detained in internment camps?
  Commander Bower: The Amendment to reduce the Vote will afford an opportunity for the Committee to deal with Regulation 18B, and I cannot make a second speech on the matter which the hon. Lady has raised.
  Mr. Ernest Evans: The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) enables us to discuss the operation of Regulation 18B. There is uneasiness in the country about the operation of Regulation 18B, and that uneasiness is felt by a large number of intelligent, sensible and decent people. They are not people who wish to deny to the Government any powers that may be reasonably necessary for safeguarding the security of the Realm, but they are people who are imbued with the spirit which has made Great Britain respected throughout the world as a land in which tolerance and freedom of the subject are ensured. These people feel that something is being done which is not quite in accordance with fair play as it is generally interpreted in this country, a country in which its meaning is generally understood and its practice widely exercised. I doubt whether there is any hon. Member—and I do not except the Home Secretary—who would say that the present position in regard to the administration of this Regulation is wholly satisfactory.
  There are two or three matters to which I want to refer in particular. The first is the Advisory Committee. I do not think the Advisory Committee is fulfilling the functions which we expected it to fulfil in protecting the liberties of the subject and ensuring justice in this matter. That is not the fault of the Advisory Committee. It arises partly from the attitude of the Home Secretary towards the Advisory Committee and partly from a misunderstanding—I put it no higher than that—in regard to the powers of the Home Secretary.

  1435
  I was under an impression that, under a concession which was made to us, it would be possible to challenge the Home Secretary of the day on the interpretation of a provision under which we had reasonable cause to believe a certain thing would happen. I believed that, and I accepted the Regulations on that basis. I gathered later that I was wrong, but I must confess that it surprised me, as it did a good many other people. I want to ask a question about the Advisory Committee. We know that the Advisory Committee sits in subcommittees and in panels, and that each sub-committee or panel is presided over by a lawyer of practice and experience. What happens to the report of a sub-committee or a panel? Is it considered by the Advisory Committee or at least by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, or does it go straight from the sub-committee or panel to the Home Secretary? That is a question to which I would like to have an answer, because the answer will affect something that I want to say in a few minutes' time.
  The next thing I want to say about the Advisory Committee is that I still feel that the procedure is unsatisfactory by reason of the fact that those who appear before the Committee are not entitled to be legally represented. I do not believe that a system can be efficient in which many of the sort of people who appear before the Committee are not allowed to be legally represented. I do not believe that these people can do justice to their case in these circumstances. It is no answer to say that the Chairman of the Advisory Committee is a lawyer of experience. It is not right the Chairman of the Advisory Committee should be expected to act as advocate for the defence and also as the judge presiding over the tribunal. The question of legal representation is not a matter which affects the detainee only; it affects the tribunal itself. It would be of great assistance to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee if he knew that in the presentation of the case by any detainee the man had had legal representation. Last week a case was heard in the High Court; I do not attach any undue significance to that case, but certainly it was of great interest from the point of view of the matter we are now considering. It was a case in which a public official had been detained under Regulation 18B
  1436
  for a substantial period of time. He was released, and he then became the plaintiff in an action in the High Court of Justice. In the course of that case, the question whether he was a loyal and well-conducted citizen was in issue. It is true that it was not the particular issue upon which the learned Judge gave judgment, but the question was in issue in the case, and I do not think I am saying anything unfair if I say that the learned Judge who tried the case made it perfectly clear that, despite the accusations which had been brought against this public official, he was satisfied that the man was a loyal and well-conducted citizen. He also made it perfectly clear that in his opinion the evidence of the witnesses who were brought forward to allege disloyalty on the part of this man was evidence based on misunderstanding or prejudice.
  One cannot help wondering whether, in a case of this sort, it was the same kind of evidence which was responsible for the order for the detention of this man under Regulation 18B. I think it is not impossible for a Judge of the High Court, sitting as a chairman of the Advisory Committee under this Regulation, with the material that is put before him and bound by the procedure which governs the Advisory Committee, to come to one conclusion in regard to a particular case, and then, sitting as a High Court Judge in the same case, on evidence that is put forward, tested, probed and examined, and with all the practice and procedure which governs the operation of the High Court, to come to a different conclusion. I do not think that is an exaggeration, but even if it be a slight exaggeration, I say definitely that the result of the case which was tried in the High Court last week shows that the present position with regard to the procedure of the Advisory Committee is unsatisfactory.
  Let us examine what happens after the Advisory Committee has sat and laid a report. I am quite sure I am reflecting the opinions of most Members of this Committee when I say that it came as a great shock to us to discover these two factors: firstly, the number of cases in which the Home Secretary has found it impossible to agree with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and, secondly, that the material upon which he acted was nothing but the material upon which the Advisory Committee acted. I know enough to realise that the

  1437
  presentation of facts may impress different people in different ways. I thought it very extraordinary when I saw the figures, and with the passage of time and on further reflection I still think it extraordinary. I think the fact that there should be such a diversity of judgment between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Committee, presided over by a distinguished lawyer, is really surprising, and indeed alarming. I can only come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary, when he considers the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and in the exercise of his discretion, or as I would prefer to put it, his judgment, seems to pay more attention to the advice and guidance he receives from others than that which he receives from the Advisory Committee.
  The Home Secretary has referred to this matter on more than one occasion, and his reply to similar arguments has been, "I have released people where the Advisory Committee have advised that they should be detained." I do not think I am doing the Home Secretary any injustice in saying that he rather prided himself on that fact. Far be it from me to deprive him of any satisfaction he may derive from that, but to put that forward as an answer to these criticisms shows that the Home Secretary does not appreciate the logic of the argument and of the criticisms. It is not a question of the particular decision at which the Home Secretary arrives, as the efficacy of the Advisory Committee which he himself has established and his attitude towards that Committee. The nature of his decision is, therefore, very largely an irrelevant matter. The Home Secretary is just as likely to be wrong when he releases a man whom the Advisory Committee wish to see retained, as he is when he detains a man whom the Advisory Committee wish to release. If he would prefer me to put it the other way, he is just as likely to be right; it does not affect my argument one way or the other, although I do not think the latter is likely to approximate quite so much to the truth as the former.
  One of the cardinal features of the administration of justice in this country is that a man is entitled to be considered innocent until his guilt has been proved. I am proud to feel and to know that that assumption of innocence still obtains in the courts of this country in times of war as it did in times of peace, and that it
  1438
  applies also when the person concerned is an alien, whatever his nationality may be. I am wondering whether the same assumption of innocence is to be found in the administration of this Regulation by the Home Secretary. It may be it is right that it should not be, but, if it does not obtain, we should, at least, have better justification for it than we have had hitherto. And so, I venture to make this other suggestion to my right hon. Friend. When he feels he is likely to be unable to agree with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, will he consult the Advisory Committee again, or will he, at least, consult the Chairman of the Advisory Committee and explain the circumstances which are weighing with him, and the circumstances which are affecting him, and any facts which he knows which may carry some weight in his mind? Will he listen to the views of the Chairman of the Committee, and will he discuss his difficulties with him before he arrives at a final conclusion? If he did that, I think it would help him and help others very considerably.
  Major Petherick: Suppose the Chairman of the Advisory Committee recommended a contrary view to that of the Home Secretary, does the hon. and learned Member suggest it should go back again to the Chairman?
  Mr. Evans: We are not sure that the Chairman of the Committee has ever given a definite decision in regard to all the recommendations which reach the Home Secretary, and that is the question I asked at the beginning of my speech. I know that this suggestion will not meet the case of those who have pressed very strongly for a right of appeal. In the past I have not been able to agree to the suggestion that there should be a right of appeal, because I believe this House of Commons is the ultimate authority to whom the Home Secretary is responsible, and that appeal to this House is the best. I am bound to say, however, that I think I shall be driven to insist on urging the right of appeal, unless the Home Secretary does something to improve the present situation. Apart from that, the suggestion I have made would, I think, have these consequences. It would give the detainee a fairer chance than he has at present, and the procedure would be more respectful to the Advisory Committee than

  1439
  that which the Home Secretary adopts towards it at the present time. It would also ease the difficulties of the Home Secretary. I realise very well that his job in this matter is a very difficult one, and I believe that the acceptance of this suggestion would help to ease one of the many heavy burdens which rest upon him as Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security.
  I believe these suggestions would do something else, something very important. In the course of recent Debates in this House, Members have been pressing on the Government the necessity for having increased efficiency in production and equipment, but, in order to achieve victory and to win this war, something more is necessary than the equipment of the Forces and the gallantry of. their members, and that is a conviction on the part of the great masses of the people of this country that we are fighting to destroy something which is evil and to defend something which is good. I think it would be a great tragedy if on this, which in many respects is a minor matter, but which is still a matter of first principle, the confidence of the country and consequently its effort were reduced by the fear, by the anxiety and by the uneasiness that in this matter the procedure of the Government has more than a nodding acquaintance with the system which we are determined to destroy and tends to ignore the fact that the emblem of justice includes the scales as well as the sword.
  Sir Stanley Reed: The hon. and learned Member spoke of the possibility of an appeal. Would he enlighten the Committee as to the nature of the tribunal of appeal which he has in mind?
  Mr. Evans: I have said that I do not approve of a right of appeal.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: We have listened to an extremely persuasive speech, but one which I think was based on a fundamental fallacy. The hon. and learned Member laid great emphasis upon the importance of the Advisory Committee, but let us remember that it is an Advisory Committee, and it must surely be open to the Secretary of State to reject the advice tendered to him if he thinks fit. I cannot imagine that he would feel able
  1440
  to maintain office if he were required to do what no other Minister of State is required to do, to accept, necessarily, the advice of an Advisory Committee. There is, however, one improvement which could be made. I am making a shot in the dark, and I am quite prepared to be told that I am wrong, but I am inclined to think that when the security police bring their cases to the Advisory Committee they do not always treat that body and its distinguished chairman with the courtesy that they deserve. Therefore there may be a little feeling rankling within the Committee which may lead to the kind of disagreement of which we have heard, and it may very well happen that the Home Secretary has in fact, despite his own statement, better evidence than that which is brought before the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Stokes: The Home Secretary has made it very clear on many occasions that all the evidence that he has goes to the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Thomas: I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is convinced of that, but, as I say, I am making a shot in the dark, and I suggest that he should look into it. My contention is that the cases are not prepared for the Advisory Committee in a satisfactory manner.
  Mr. Silverman: Does my hon. Friend mean that he suspects that the security police keep the Home Secretary in ignorance of evidence which they place before the Advisory Committee?
  Mr. Thomas: No, rather the other way round, if I were forced to think along those lines. The security police, according to my shot in the dark, do not treat the Advisory Committee with the courtesy that they deserve, but I am prepared to be told that I am wrong, as I have no inside knowledge of this. I do not think that any of us can complain that this question has been brought up again. The liberty of the subject is the most important matter to which the House can direct its attention, and we certainly can have no complaint against the hon. and learned Member who spoke last. He and his party have been constant friends of liberty. I am bound, however, to welcome the mover of the Amendment as a new friend of liberty, and I trust that he will prove constant in his support of it.

  1441
  Liberty is no harlot to be embraced for a night. She is a maiden to be wooed with constancy and fidelity, to the exclusion of all other flirtations. I trust that we may have his constant support in this matter.
  I think there was another fallacy in the able speech which we have just heard. It was rightly pointed out that English law presumes the innocency of a person until convicted, but we are not now dealing with normal English law. It is undoubtedly a fundamental principle of English law that a person is presumed innocent until convicted and also that, speaking generally, he may not be arrested on suspicion that he is about to commit a crime. It was a maxim of Roman law—Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum. It may, perhaps, be laid down as a maxim of English law, Fiat crimen, ruat cœlum; and a man is allowed to commit any action he pleases, within certain limits, provided he is prepared to pay the penalty afterwards. That is a fundamental principle of English law, but in war-time it is surely necessary to give the Government power to arrest a person on suspicion. It may be necessary for a Home Guard on sentry duty not merely to detain a person under suspicion, but to shoot him on suspicion. If he saw a person approaching an ammunition dump in a suspicious way and not responding to a challenge, he would be right to shoot him. We cannot grudge the Government power to detain a person if they have reasonable ground" for suspicion. But that is absolutely contrary to the basic principles of English law, and that makes it impossible to have a review of these powers by judicial authorities. I do not think we should ask Judges or any judicial tribunal to deal with these questions of suspicion. They are foreign to English law, but they are quite essential in time of war.
  Of course, if the Government have these powers they must be vested in the Home Secretary. There is no competitor for this unenviable task. I noticed with interest that neither the Mover nor the Seconder suggested that the Government should not possess these powers. There is no suggestion that the Regulation should be abolished, but merely that alterations should be made in it. Therefore the question comes down to this: Is the Home Secretary using his powers in an arbitrary manner, or is he using them in the, interests of the State and preserving the liberty
  1442
  of the subject so far as can safely be done in time of war? I have looked up some extremely interesting figures. My right hon. Friend took office in October, 1940, and, according to the monthly return to Parliament, when he took office there were 1,381 persons detained under Regulation 18B. According to the latest return, in May, 1942, there were only 546. So that my right hon. Friend, so far from using his great powers under the Regulation to detain the subject and to restrain his liberty, has used them to release persons detained under this Regulation. About 800 persons have been released since he took office. I therefore suggest that there is no case to be made out against him on this ground.
  Mr. Pickthorn: If I murdered the hon. Member, does he suggest that I should be acquitted upon the ground of the 614 Members whom I have not murdered?
  Mr. Thomas: I do not see the relevance of the argument, but if the hon. Member will wait, he may well see the whole 500 released if he will give the Home Secretary a little time.
  Mr. Silverman: What would that prove?
  Mr. Thomas: I think it would prove that the Home Secretary pays very great attention to all these cases, and, as the hon. Member has raised it, I should like to say that I have had a great deal to do with aliens, and on many occasions I have had to approach the Home Office about them. I am bound to say that I have found the Home Office take extreme care in all these cases, much more than some other Government Departments with which I have had to deal.
  Another fallacy has come out in this Debate. It has been suggested that persons detained under this Regulation have some stigma upon them. I do not think that is necessarily the case. They are detained on suspicion, and the suspicion, of course, may be wrong, but it must be a reasonable suspicion. If I may digress for a moment, last Friday I was witness of an extremely amusing incident in a place where the wit and learning of London are wont to assemble. I saw the Lord President of the Council sitting at dinner at the same table as a man whom he had detained under this

  1443
  Regulation. Everything seemed to be very amicable. Possibly each was ignorant of the identity of the other, but it was certainly edifying to those sitting around. This Regulation is necessary in war-time. It is admittedly contrary to the spirit of English law, and, therefore, the Judges should not be expected to interpret it. But there is a rule that overrides all law—salus populi suprema lex—and the Home Secretary can justify himself on that score. In war-time as in other times the strength of a chain is its weakest link. Let us see that our Link is kept very weak.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) through his interesting speech, but I would like to point out a fallacy in it. He referred to the Home Guard and quoted that as an instance to be compared with the action of the Government under Regulation 18B. I would point out that when a man does not halt when challenged by a Home Guard sentry he has committed an offence. The sentry is not expected to shoot the man before he challenges him. He has to challenge him first, otherwise the sentry himself would be to blame. Another point the hon. Gentleman made is that no stigma attaches to those who have been interned. Their identity cards were marked in red ink, and I have had cases brought to me where no employment could be found by men who had been interned released and had their cards marked. It is true that the card is not now marked, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that once it is known that an individual has been interned, although released with nothing against him, it is practically impossible for him to get employment.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that a person who has had smallpox is almost in the same position? If people know that he has been in a smallpox hospital, they will be afraid of him for a while, and it is possible that a person who has mental deficiency is in the same position.
  Sir A. Southby: You do not arbitrarily take a person from among people and put him in a smallpox hospital. I want
  1444
  to make this clear. If a person is found to have committed an act of treason against the State or acted as the deliberate agent of our enemies, I believe he should be shot, and I am prepared to form one of the firing party that shoots him. On 31st October, 1939, the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who is now a Minister of the Crown, urged the House to be vigilant lest it should grant to the Government powers greater than the state of emergency could possibly demand. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, then enjoying a freer life on the Front Opposition Bench, while agreeing, as we all do, that in a time of emergency such as that in which we are living it is right and proper that the Executive should be armed with exceptional powers, said that the Executive should be "subject to proper checks." He also said that as regards the Home Secretary "the House should be guarded and careful as to the powers which they give him."
  It cannot be disputed that the reason the House objected to the original Regulations was because it believed that the power given to the Home Secretary was too unfettered. To meet the views of the House the Regulations were amended, but at no time did the Law Officers of the Crown or anybody else point out that so far as the liberty of the subject was concerned the amended Regulations meant precisely what the original ones did. It was not until the judgment in the Liversidge case was given that this fact was established. The effect of Regulation 18B is to abrogate the principle of Habeas Corpus without a specific enactment to that end. It is true that the Regulation was passed by the House of Commons, but it is, I contend, equally true that the House of Commons did not intend the effect of the amended Regulation to be what the judgment in the Liversidge case has now established it to be. Yet one has looked in vain for distinguished lawyers in this House to stand up and denounce this abrogation of our original ancient liberties. Blackstone, one of our greatest lawyers, wrote 168 years ago:
  "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty, for once it were left in the power of any, the highest, -magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper (as in France it is daily practised by the Crown) there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities."

  1445
  He argued that to take away a man's life or property without accusation or trial was such an act of despotism as would sound the alarm of tyranny throughout the kingdom, but he said:
  "confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to gaol where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public and less striking and, therefore, a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
  The Committee will recall that on Sunday, 26th April, 1942, Herr Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag, proclaimed that there was no law in Germany except his own will or whim, that no one in Germany has any rights, and that besides being head of the State and supreme war lord, he was, indeed and in fact, the supreme law lord as well. He is the law. Next day our supreme law lord, the Lord Chancellor, broadcast to the people of this country. Commenting upon Hen-Hitler's speech and the endorsement of it by Marshal Goering, who said that Hitler was to have power to punish everybody "without regard to so-called duly acquired rights," the Lord Chancellor said:
  "The obsequious and servile members of the Reichstag had without dissent unanimously affirmed this monstrous claim like the slaves that they are."
  He went on to say that this was the most horrible form of slavery that could possibly be conceived and, recapitulating the four freedoms enunciated by President Roosevelt, he said that there is also a fifth freedom without which no country can truly claim to enjoy liberty. Let me quote the exact words, because they are of the utmost importance in this discussion of Regulation 18B. He said:
  "It is the freedom of every citizen, however poor, however uninfluential, however unpopular, however wrong-headed, to appeal to the law and the courts to protect him from injury and insult, even though the wrong be committed by the misuse of official power. Some people are so ill-informed as to suppose that under the pressure of war conditions the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended. That is not so at all. If a man or woman is detained a writ of Habeas Corpus will ascertain whether his detention is according to the law, and if it is not according to the law the detained person will be instantly released. Defence Regulations impose extra duties and liabilities and restrict in various ways the free choice which is part of our daily practice in times of peace, but Defence Regulations are all made under the authority of an Act of Parliament and are liable to challenge by Parliament after they are made."
  To-day my friends and I are challenging the justice of the provisions of Regulation
  1446
  18B, as they are being applied. The Lord Chancellor was comparing conditions in Nazi Germany with those obtaining in this country, and in order to reinforce his argument he went on to say:
  "Now just see what the contrast is. Under the system of Government which the Nazis and Fascists are trying to enforce upon the world, whoever heard of anybody in a German concentration camp applying for a writ of Habeas Corpus. Apart altogether from the result, the application would only get him, and probably his lawyer, into further trouble."
  Now let the Committee mark this. He went on to say:
  "Not long ago Pastor Niemoller was discharged by a German court from the accusation made against him, and in a civilised country if a man is discharged he goes free. Did Niemoller go free? Not at all. He is in a concentration camp at this moment, and what is happening to him only imagination can tell."
  He went on:
  "The Germans are living as slaves because there is no German law to protect them, and because there is no German court that would dare to interfere with the edicts of the bullies in power."
  I have the greatest possible respect for the Lord Chancellor, both as a lawyer and as a man, and I have, I hope, the very great honour of his friendship. I apologise to the Committee for having quoted him at length, but I have done so because I want to make it clear that there can be no doubt that what the Lord Chancellor was affirming to his listeners was that Habeas Corpus still exists in this country, because the apparent infringement of it by 18B was a legal infringement, since Parliament had passed the Regulation and could challenge it at any time.
  That may be what a layman would call a clever legal quibble, but I suggest that it is not an accurate picture of the present position, for this reason: The Home Secretary is judge and jury and court of appeal all rolled into one so far as Regulation 18B is concerned. It has been said that he can be challenged as regards any particular case, but how can he be challenged when he can refuse to give the House any information about the case? If I say to him, "I have investigated so far as I can the case of Mr. Jones, and as a result of the investigations which I have made I have come to the conclusion that you are detaining him unjustly," the Home Secretary need only say, "I do not agree with you, and I am not even going to tell you what are the grounds upon which Mr.

  1447
  Jones is detained. If you do not like it, you can go to the House of Commons and move a Vote of Censure against me. Even then the grounds upon which Mr. Jones is being detained, namely, the accusations against Mr. Jones, will never be made public to the House or anybody else." I contend that it is ridiculous to suggest that the House has any effective control over the Home Secretary in respect of any individual case of alleged wrongful detention.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that in his opinion it is desirable that the Home Secretary should be compelled to declare in public, either in this House or elsewhere, the grounds upon which he is detaining any individual?
  Sir A. Southby: No, I never suggested that. My argument is concerned with the suggestion that the House has effective control over an individual case. Of course, the Home Secretary cannot disclose in public the grounds in certain cases, but if he does not disclose them, how can the House judge? To say that the House has effective control when it does not know all the circumstances upon which to judge the Home Secretary seems to me the negation of common sense. Let it be remembered that the detainee has very few effective legal facilities. He is not told why he is detained. If he goes before the Committee set up to advise the Home Secretary he is not even told what are the charges against him. He is denied legal help in making his defence before the Committee. He is acting in the dark. If the Advisory Committee decide that he should be released, the Home Secretary is under no obligation to take their advice.
  Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to say that no charge is made against the detainee, or that he is not informed of any specific charge?
  Sir A. Southby: He is informed of the grounds of detention, but there is no specific charge made against him. The Home Secretary said the full facts are disclosed to the Advisory Committee. If this is so, then he, a layman, is overruling, on the same sets of facts, the decision come to by the expert lawyer whom he himself set up to preside over
  1448
  the Advisory Committee. May it not be that the Home Secretary takes into account some secret information which is not at the disposal of the Advisory Committee? I say that in cases where the Home Secretary and the Advisory Committee differ the matter should go for final decision to a Judge of the High Court. Where there is no question of differing, I say that it should be incumbent upon the Home Secretary to accept the decision of his own Advisory Committee in any case which he has submitted to it. Now what about the Lord Chancellor's suggestion that the interned person has the protection of Habeas Corpus envisaged by Blackstone. The Lord Chancellor's broadcast reference to Pastor Niemoller could have meant nothing but this, that the difference between Germany and this country was that in Germany a man who had been tried by a court and discharged could still be kept in custody in a concentration camp by what the Lord Chancellor himself referred to as "the edict of the bullies in power," whereas in this country if a person had been tried and acquitted, he would go free. Is this really so?
  Most Members of Parliament, certainly those who have taken an interest in Regulation 18B, have alas had many cases brought to their" notice. I have studiously refrained from mentioning in this House any individual case that has been brought to my notice. Allegations of all sorts are made and they are very difficult to check. It is very hard to get to know what is the truth. All one can do is to apply to the Home Secretary, and here I would like to pay my tribute to him for his unfailing courtesy and kindness in every case I have submitted to him. Whatever our views, I think we would all agree that if possible a detained person should be charged and tried. That is fundamental British justice, to obtain which men and women have died in the past. Where circumstances arise in which it is not possible to make a charge—and it may be that those circumstances do arise—then an individual may have to be kept in custody, but such cases should, in my opinion, be determined as I have said by the Advisory Committee or, in the event of disagreement between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Committee, by the decision of a judge of the High Court.

  1449
  I have said that I have not quoted individual cases, but in view of the Lord Chancellor's broadcast I am bound to bring one specific case to the notice of this Committee. It refers to a Mrs. Nicholson. Let me make it plain that I do not know this lady and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I have never even seen her. I do not know anything about her except that I believe she is a distinguished lady doctor. I do not know what offence she is charged with or what charge was brought against her when she was tried. Her husband, however, is Admiral W. S. Nicholson, who was an old friend of mine in the days when I was in the Royal Navy. He has had a distinguished career, both during the last war and before the last war. Mrs. Nicholson was originally detained on 26th May, 1940. After a few weeks she obtained the services of a lawyer. She discussed the whole circumstances with him, and her husband took the advice of counsel. Both lawyers expressed the opinion that she had committed no offence.
  Let the Committee observe how these matters were conducted. On the first occasion, Mrs. Nicholson had to discuss her case with her lawyer in the presence of the ordinary prison officials. She wished to mention certain names to her lawyer, and she wrote them down, but the paper was taken away from the lawyer on the ground that it could not be shown to him unless it was taken to the Governor. Because Mrs. Nicholson did not wish to disclose any names, her lawyer destroyed the paper. That she had behaved with propriety and discretion was borne out by the fact that, at her first interview with the Advisory Committee in October, 1940, a considerable time later and nearly five months after she had been detained, one of the members of the Committee asked her whether she had destroyed a paper during a legal interview, and when she replied that her lawyer had destroyed a paper on which she had written certain names which she did not think were suitable for a prison official to hear, the judge, Judge Cockburn said "Quite right. We never have them in here." It was after this that the authorities apparently decided to bring Mrs. Nicholson to trial. She was charged at Bow Street Police Court on 18th February, 1941, and in due course she was tried by a judge and jury sitting in
  1450
  camera. After a trial which lasted five days, and which, incidentally, cost this lady and her husband £1,026, she was, on 7th May, 1941, acquitted.
  She had suffered the disability of being detained without trial. The authorities then brought her to trial on certain charges, and she suffered the further disability of having a secret trial, after which she was acquitted. The Lord Chancellor obviously meant the public to believe that what happened to Pastor Niemoeller in Nazi Germany could not happen here. That being so, this lady should have walked out of the court a free woman. Let us apply the Lord Chancellor's broadcast to Mrs. Nicholson. He said, and I heard him say it, that "if a man is discharged he goes free"; did Mrs. Nicholson go free? Not at all. She is in prison at this minute on the same charge—[An HON. MEMBER: "What charge?"]—One moment; I will come to that. After having been acquitted, she was taken back to detention. Now a curious incident occurred. The Governor of the prison sent for her on 13th June and asked where she would go if she were released. I believe that question is asked only in cases where release is intended.
  Mr. Stokes: 13th June which year?
  Sir A. Southby: Of the same year, 1941. She gave the name of friends of unimpeachable integrity and status, but, about four week later, she was informed that she would not be released. As the result of the advice of her lawyers she asked to go again before the Advisory Committee. Let the Committee mark this. This lady's lawyer, belonging to an eminent firm, advised her not to try to get her case raised in the House of Commons, not because she objected to publicity, but because, he said, Members would want to know all about the case and the Home Office would not allow them to know any details. What about the suggestion that this House is in a position to investigate cases of alleged injustice?
  In September, 1941, the Advisory Committee wrote to Mrs. Nicholson saying that although there were, strictly speaking, no new reasons that had not been considered in her case as to why she should not be detained, yet, as they were anxious not to deny her the opportunity of putting forward any new circumstances, they would see her on 14th

  1451
  October, 1941. They said that they did not see the necessity for seeing her lawyer as they could refer to him later, if required. This lady prepared a statement; and she said it was like fighting in a fog. The Advisory Committee admitted that she was being detained on matters relating to the charges of which she had been acquitted and held, in the eyes of the law, to be guiltless, and on no other grounds. I understand that the Advisory Committee considered the case closed by the court proceedings. She pays her tribute to the Advisory Committee, and particularly to Sir Norman Birkett, for their fairness and sympathy. Two days later the Committee saw her lawyer and discussed two letters which she had written, one to her husband and one to the late Sir Reginald Poole, of Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, her lawyers. The letters had been intercepted and copied. They were not mentioned to her when she appeared before the Advisory Committee.
  It was apparently suggested that these letters, which of course I have not seen—I do not know what is in them—contained allegations against those in authority and threats as to what she would do if she were released. But there was nothing secret about those letters. Every detainee knows that letters are scrutinised before they leave the prison, or if they do not know it they must be extremely stupid. Although this lady appeared before the Committee on 14th October, 1941, and although representations had been made to the Home Secretary by Admiral Nicholson, it was not until 11th January, 1942, that she was informed that she would not be released.
  I would like to ask the Home Secretary a specific question. Will he answer it? Did the Advisory Committee recommend the release of Mrs. Nicholson, or not? I have had brought to my notice many cases of individuals who are detained for something it is alleged that they have done. One is forced to wonder whether, in this case, a woman is not being detained because of something she might say if she were free. I have no personal interest in this case whatever, and I am raising it only because it was brought to my notice. I imagine the only reason it was brought to my notice was because I have tried to take an interest in the discussions on 18B—believing as I do that the
  1452
  application of it is unjust in many cases—and because I am an acquaintance of Admiral Nicholson's. In my submission this is not an ordinary case of detention, because this lady has been tried and acquitted.
  It is not only in German detention camps that spirits are broken. The effect of detention upon an innocent person must be terrible indeed. For those who are proved to be the enemies of the State we can have no pity whatever at this time, but it is significant that, after the long months of detention, waiting to be told the decision of the Advisory Committee, after the acquittal on the very charges upon which she had been detained, in her letter to me this woman now says:
  "They can rely upon me and upon my husband, that never, under any circumstances, will I embarrass those in authority."
  It is not only in German prison camps that hearts are being broken. I wonder if hon. Members of this Committee realise what those people went through during the time of the air raids oh London? Convicted criminals have only themselves to thank for the fact that they are in prison. If people are traitors or potential traitors, I have no sympathy with them. We have to have Regulation 18B, I agree, but there should be safeguards. Let people who are potential traitors be charged and dealt with, but those people, some of them since released as innocent, endured the raids of London without lights because there was no blackout in the prison, without even the comfort of a cup of tea or a mouthful of food during those long terrible nights which most of us experienced when the blitz was at its height. It is true that as a result of representations which they made they were not compelled to endure being locked in their cells, and prisoners on upper floors were allowed to go down to lower floors. But I say that to keep an uncharged and unconvicted person in a part of London particularly exposed to air raids smacks of the Gestapo. To force a mother nursing a tiny baby to endure that torture is positively inhuman.
  A great man, a just man and a passionate believer in liberty, Abraham Lincoln, made a speech on 19th May, 1856, in which he said:
  "We must not be led by excitement and passion to do that which our sober judgments would not approve in our cooler moments."

  1453
  I believe that 18B, passed as it was at a time of excitement, must still remain, but that it should now have its working amended. I think I speak for those who feel strongly in this matter, as I do, when I say, in the words of Abraham Lincoln:
  "We know that great political and moral wrongs are done and outrages committed, and we denounce those wrongs and outrages, although we cannot at present do much more."
  Mr. Watkins: My first thought on listening to the closing words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that Abraham Lincoln would have been very much surprised if he had heard the use made at the present time of some of his words. The Debate was initiated by a speech from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower), and, if I may say so, I think that his speech would have been much more effective if he had not thought it wise to perorate with a lot of generalisations which had no substance at all in fact. He told us that Fascism was abroad in this country. There is no evidence of that and no justification for saying it. He told us that the Home Secretary possessed powers over the liberty of the subject similar to Hitler's powers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Himmler's."] There is no justification for either Hitler or Himmler being brought in in that connection. He then went on to charge the Home Secretary, and this is quite wrong, with administering Regulation 18B in accordance with political prejudice. He gave no evidence of that at all, but just made it as an unsupported charge.
  Commander Bower: I think the hon. Member has got me wrong. I suggested that the Home Secretary, whose political opinions are very far to the Left, would quite unconsciously administer these Regulations with a Left bias, just as in the same way any hon. Member of the Right would do the same with a Right bias. I pointed out that there would be a different set of internees according to whoever might be the individual sitting on that Bench, and, therefore, no one man was fitted to exercise those powers. I was not accusing the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Watkins: I accept what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, except that I do not think there is any justification for the suggestion that the fact that the present Home Secretary is on the Left while the previous Home Secretary was
  1454
  on the Right or the Centre is a determining factor in deciding who shall be detained and who shall be released. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to refer to the nation being in a state of panic in the summer of 1940, and said that 18B was the result of that panic. I profoundly disagree with all those statements, and I also disagree, although the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who supported him was much more attractive to me, that there is wide uneasiness throughout the country about the administration of Regulation 18B. I have come across no uneasiness. I have never heard it mentioned in my constituency, at any public meeting or, indeed, in any private conversation with my constituents. They think it is a wise and sensible thing for the State to put under lock and key people who might damage us in time of crisis, or whose liberty might be used to decrease the public morale. There is generally no uneasiness at all upon this matter.
  Behind the speeches that have been made in favour of a reduction of the Home Office Vote is the notion that among the 500 or 600 people now detained under the Regulation the majority are completely guiltless and ought not to be detained. I do not think that there is any justification for that view at all. I guarantee that if any one of us could have carried out the examination of those 500 or 600 men and women we should have reached a result, in detaining or releasing them, very similar to the result which has been reached at the present time.
  Mr. Levy: Does the hon. Member consider it unreasonable that any person who may be detained should have an opportunity of proving his innocence and justifying it before an impartial tribunal?
  Mr. Watkins: I was coming to that in a few moments. There is the notion that these people should have a normal, ordinary, legal, court trial, and that they should be released or detained in accordance with the result of that trial. I disagree. The issue at stake is not one of abstruse legal argument, but a weighing up, by competent people, of what they are likely to do if they are given their liberty. That is not a legal question, it is a human question, and in my judgment it is dealt with in very great fairness by

  1455
  the different panels of the Advisory Committee. I have got into touch with some of the people who have had experience before these Advisory Committees, and they tell me that they are completely satisfied with the fairness and impartiality, and even the friendliness, which they experience when they come before them. They can have their solicitors in the building, although not in the room; they can consult the solicitors beforehand, during the hearing, or after it; they can get all the legal assistance they want, and the purpose of the Advisory Committee is to try and look into their minds, to try and make out whether it would be safe for them to be allowed at large in the very critical and trying circumstances of to-day. That is not a legal question to be settled by lawyers. It is to be settled by decent, honest, intelligent people with ability to weigh up human character and conduct. I know that lawyers want to get in on everything. I believe that some lawyers would even go to the length of making it illegal for a young man to propose marriage to his sweetheart except through his solicitor. But this is not a legal problem, it is a human one, and according to my information and my belief it is dealt with very efficiently and effectively by the present Advisory Committees.
  Sir Ernest Graham Little: May I ask the hon. Gentleman bow he reconciles that excellent sentiment with the suggestion that the Advisory Committee's opinion should be overruled or ignored by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Watkins: There is the further point as to whether the Advisory Committee should cease to be an Advisory Committee and be a determining body, whose decision should be operated, that if they said, "Release," the person concerned should be released, and if they said, "Detain," the person should be detained. We are living in critical times. It is true at the moment that the likelihood of invasion has receded a little, but it has not receded sufficiently for any of us to be certain that it may not occur. Hitler's tactics use the factor of surprise very much indeed, and he may launch an attack upon us at any moment. Somebody has to be responsible to this House for seeing to it that any potential
  1456
  spy, that any potential informer, anybody who under critical conditions might seek to weaken the morale of the people, should not be given the power of doing it. That is not a matter for the courts; that is a matter for Government. In wartime the Government must govern, and one of the functions of government is to see to it, to the best of the Government's ability, that anyone who might harm us at a critical time shall be kept under lock and key, and kept safely away from doing the evil they would seek to do. Believe me, these people are better where they are. They are enemies of our country—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."]—they are enemies of our way of life.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why are they released?"]—They do no good to the national cause.
  I wish to recount one experience within my own observation. A young fellow who, in the interchanges of school boys that took place before the war, went from a secondary school in England, and some German boys came over here. When he was there he learned and accepted the doctrines of Fascism. He became a member of the British Union of Fascists. He was interned and detained. His parents came to see me and pleaded with me to try to do something because "This boy is a good boy." I did. I took the matter to the Home Secretary, and investigations took place. Ultimately, it was decided that he could not be released, and I wrote sending that message back to him in the Isle of Man. I got from him in reply a letter justifying the Home Secretary, because he said he was a Fascist, that he had worked for Germany, and that he would work for the overthrow of democracy until the day of his death. Until he made that admission when he found that his case had failed anybody approaching him and, more particularly, approaching his parents, would have come to the conclusion that here was a very much misused man. I think that the Home Secretary is administering Regulation 18B with great discrimination and fairness. The cases are reviewed from time to time. I do not know whether the Committee is aware that a detainee can come before the Advisory Committee as many times as he cares to if the circumstances change. If he changes his opinions, if the national situation changes, it may be possible for

  1457
  him to be set at liberty although he has been refused at a previous hearing.
  Sir A. Southby: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but he said that a detainee can come before the Advisory Committee as often as he cares. Surely that is not correct. He can come before the Committee only if they will see him.
  Mr. Watkins: I know of many cases where they have been before the Advisory Committee more than once. That is perhaps a more accurate way of describing it, that it is not limited just to one appeal. I feel that there is no cause for censuring the Home Secretary or the Home Office for the administration of this Regulation.
  Mr. Maxton: The issue before the Committee to-day is the Home Secretary's salary. I would have preferred a Debate that would have covered the whole range of the Home Office responsibilities than that it should be limited to the question of Regulation 18B, but I do not propose, except by a passing reference, to attempt to extend the Debate into the wider issue. I think this Committee wants an opportunity at some point to consider whether, in the light of our experience, it is necessary to continue the position of the Regional Commissioners, of their assistants and retinue, or whether they are not just rather decorative persons who are duplicating the work of the local authorities and other bodies [Interruption.] They vary. The status of the individuals and Commissioners varies in different regions; the amount of what they are doing and what they are not doing varies in the different regions. It sems to me that this is now an unnecessary part of our national structure, and that we would wish to discuss that. The Home Office Vote would be the appropriate occasion.
  I would like an opportunity to discuss the question of permission to people living in the West of Scotland to visit Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary has in this matter been even more of a dictator than his chief has been in the matter of 18B, because after one has seen the Under-Secretary on this matter of permits to visit Northern Ireland, there is no appeal to any Advisory Committee. What he says is the last word. This is a matter which is causing considerable disturbance in the West of Scotland because of the close association there is between Northern
  1458
  Ireland and the Glasgow area in particular. Thirdly, I think this Committee wants to consider the whole business of fire-watching arrangements, which all seem to me, as one who has not studied it very closely, to be still in a frightfully complicated mess. These things all come properly under the Home Office Vote, but the group of hon. Members who asked for the Vote have preferred that the discussion should be limited to the question of detainees under 18B, and I shall not attempt to drag the discussion away from the rather limited purpose to which they asked it should be devoted.
  I wish I could be as easily satisfied as my hon. Friend above the Gangway who says he is satisfied that all the people who are at present detained are rightly detained. I wish to say this to some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is a sort of suggestion that the present Home Secretary is responsible for this position, but remember that it was not the present Home Secretary who shoved thousands inside. The record of the present Home Secretary has been one of steady releasing. He has reduced the total number detained to a fraction of the original number, and if an hon. Gentleman says there was panic at the time when they were shoved in, it was not panic on the part of the present Home Secretary but panic on the part of his predecessor. Mark you, I could make many criticisms of his predecessor, but although I do not know him intimately, he does not strike me as being a panicky man. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord President of the Council. But if there was panic, which put these people in originally, he was responsible. The present Home Secretary, over a period of two years, has progressively come to the conclusion that a big proportion of these people were innocent. The hon. Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins) would have made the same speech when the thousands were in prison.
  Mr. Watkins: What I meant was that the idea that these hundreds of people were completely innocent was wrong. They are all guilty in varying degrees, and it rests with the Home Secretary to decide whether they are sufficiently guilty to be detained.
  Mr. Maxton: Of what are they guilty? They are guilty, and so am I, and so is the hon. Gentleman, of——
  Mr. Pickthorn: Is not this an abuse, Mr. Williams, of the Privileges of this House? These are people against whom no charge has been brought, of whom it has been repeatedly said that their detention is preventive. Is it in Order to say that they are all guilty?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The words of the hon. Gentleman were perhaps not quite fortunate, but I do not think it is worth while interrupting the Debate on this matter. I think the intention of the hon. Gentleman, as far as I could hear his speech, was to suggest that these persons are properly detained.
  Mr. Maxton: I agree that they are guilty—but the hon. Member also is guilty, and I am guilty, and the Home Secretary is guilty—of having political views. It is quite wrong for them to have political views which are out of step with those of the majority. I do not believe that an Advisory Committee, even one chosen with all the sagacity of the Home Secretary, can be good for this purpose. I have great doubts whether a Judge of the High Court would be a suitable tribunal. I think that half-a-dozen Members of this House would be a better tribunal to consider what is essentially a political consideration, than a Judge, who is used to handling criminal cases, complicated commercial disputes, and matters of that sort, or even than the half-dozen good citizens who sit on the Advisory Committee. If I were in the unfortunate position of being under suspicion because my political views were of a certain type, I would rather have a tribunal of half-a-dozen experienced Members of this House, even if they were my political opponents, if I had confidence that they had the right approach to politics in general.
  I am going to refer to a case which I have raised before: the case of Cahir Healy, who was a Member of this House. I am perfectly satisfied that Cahir Healy is most unjustly detained. He has political views that are not those of the majority in this House, but they are the political views of the majority of ordinary, orthodox, respectable people in Southern Ireland. He writes a general theoretical letter, surveying the position of Ireland in this contingency and the next contingency and the third contingency, a general appraisal of the European situation and the world
  1460
  situation, and sends it to a priest across the border. It falls into the hands of the censor, and, on the basis of certain sentences in that confidential letter to a priest, he is seized in Northern Ireland and brought over to Brixton. Healy was once a Member of this House, representing a Northern Ireland constituency. He was as inoffensive a Private Member as we had here, a nice fellow to meet in the day-to-day doings of the House, and, in my view, a competent Irish politician, holding the views of the average Southern Irelander, which are also accepted as the respectable Opposition views in the Northern Ireland Parliament. He is detained in Brixton Gaol; and, as far as I can see, under the present operation of the Regulations, he is there for ever. Again taking the view of the average Irish person, he says, "I am not going to put my views before an English Advisory Committee; I am an Irishman." So there he stays.
  I want to refer to another man. I do not know anything about him, except that my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) told an amusing story about him. This man is called Frederick Bowman. He had been all his life an orthodox member of the Conservative party until he was about 50 years of age. Then one day, because of the uncertainty of the world, he began to think about politics. That is a disastrous thing for a Conservative to do: he should continue right through life in the way he started, refusing to look at political problems, and accepting what his father taught before him. I think this man had been on a local authority, but he had not been in public life to any extent; but he had been an official of his local Conservative organisation. He read some of the things that the present Lord Tavistock had been saying. He was persuaded to take the chair at a public meeting at which my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston and some other political figure of the extreme Left were speaking. At the end of the meeting, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston had given the type of speech which one would expect him to give and the other spokesman of the Left had given a speech in a similar strain, this desperate man, who has now been in gaol for about two years, said, "We will now close the meeting by standing up and singing 'God save the King'."

  1461
  The hon. Member for Central Hackney expressed his complete satisfaction that the people who were in prison were likely to have something definite against them. From my political point of view, that man Bowman is not the type of person I want. But there is no evidence that these men want to see this nation overthrown or that they want to see chaos throughout the land. There is no justification for having them shut up for that period of time. I want the Home Secretary to consider this matter, and I hope it has been reported to him in his absence. I have already said that the putting in of the big lot of detentions under 18B was not his offence. His record has been one of liberating and ameliorating. With regard to the residue that is left, I wish that he or his Under-Secretary had spoken earlier and given us a description of the existing position and had told us how many are left out of the original lot, where they are, how many are inside prisons, how many are in the Isle of Man and how many are detained under other conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) reminds me of the very important question of asking how many of the persons who were liberated on the instructions of the Home Secretary had to be re-interned because of objectionable activities in which they had taken part.
  The other week I met a Scottish Nationalist who had been in for most of two years under a complete mistake. This man holds the view, which is not an average point of view in Scotland, of an extreme Scottish Nationalist, who thinks that no Act of Parliament passed by this House since the Union of the Parliaments of England and Scotland can have any application to a real Scotsman. He believes this because the Union of the Parliaments was not carried through in a proper way and that there have not been proper steps taken to establish a proper constitutional relationship between the two countries—a point of view in which only a small handful of our people are interested and which only a handful of people in Scotland support. This man propagates that view very urgently. He was in gaol for two years and was let out a week or two ago. I am sure that if the Home Secretary did not bring these people before the Advisory Committee but, with his very great knowledge of politics and of queer folk—because he
  1462
  has had queer associations in his time—handled them himself, I am certain that to the large proportion of them he could with complete safety say, "You can go free on parole. Give me an undertaking that you will not do this thing or the other thing, and you can walk out tomorrow." By taking that attitude he could get rid of that which is bothering the conscience of many of us. An hon. Member said that the mass of the people are not concerned. I believe that that is true. They believe that in these matters others have more tender consciences and more active minds than they have themselves, and they say, "The M.Ps. are there, and it is more their business than ours." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could place every one of those persons on parole and to that extent he would relieve our minds of the feeling of dissatisfaction that such things should be occurring in our country even under existing conditions.
  I have had a fair number of communications from persons in various places. In the very early days, when I was troubled about this business, I visited certain internees in Brixton Prison, and I was satisfied at that time that the Governor and all concerned were handling a difficult job with very great tact and consideration. The three persons whom I interviewed at that time—all responsible people—gave me their view of the situation. They did not express any satisfaction at being there and suggested ways in which their conditions could be improved, but they had no complaints against the prison authorities or the wardens, who were charged with a somewhat difficult task. I took the trouble of appearing before the Advisory Committee in the case of an individual who was appealing, and I was satisfied that the members of the Advisory Committee at that time were also conducting their investigations in a very considerate way, and in a much fairer way than would have been possible in a court of law. But I am not sure that that general, good and careful treatment of these men which was there at the beginning is still operating.
  I have had recent letters which seem to indicate considerable discontent and that certain of the prison officers are getting a little fractious. The problem of staffing prisons at the present time is a

  1463
  somewhat difficult one, and the job itself is not an easy one. The contact that I had had with prison warders over an extended period left me surprised that men could spend a lifetime in a job of that sort and in general come out of it with so much of the milk of human kindness, particularly when they were very underpaid and without any real prospects at all. It did not surprise me when an occasional one cropped up who was soured and contemptuous. One of these in a prison, particularly if he was holding a good position, could make the place miserable. That might well happen, and I hope that the Home Secretary will give some thought to seeing that he has the right people in the right places for handling this kind of job. It would be infinitely better for himself and everybody else, including this House of Commons, if he could see his way to run through the whole list and liberate every person possible still interned under Regulation 18B.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I only want to intervene in this Debate very briefly, because it seems to me time that this rambling discussion was brought back to certain essentials. It has been said in the course of this Debate that this Regulation 18B was carried in a fit of absence of mind or in a moment of panic, but I find it difficult to imagine how anybody in the House at that time can say that this Regulation was carried in a fit of absence of mind. If they do, that aberration can exist only in the mind of those who use the phrase. Those who were here at the time have a vivid recollection of what actually did occur when the Regulation was proposed. Of all the mass of special legislation and of the great number of Regulations which were then passed the maximum amount of attention was given to this particular Regulation. The idea of suspending the ordinary laws of this country—the laws on which our freedom and liberty are based—is abhorrent, but there was on all sides equally, the conviction that powers of this character were absolutely necessary for the safety of the Realm in the condition and perils which then existed.
  There must be many of us here to-day who remember how the Regulation was debated word by word and sentence by sentence, how it was sent back for further consideration and how the lawyers put
  1464
  their heads together and finally drafted it in a form which seemed to them to reduce to a minimum the possibility of any abuse. The Regulation was brought back to this House and even then was reluctantly accepted. Therefore, I say again, any suggestion that the House did not know what it was doing when it passed the Regulation is absolute nonsense and can only have emanated from those who were not here or those who are saturated by prejudice. It has been said that the Regulation was carried in a moment of panic, and to illustrate that panic we were told of the general round-up of the alien population in 1940. The only essential point is that the two occasions did not synchronise. The Regulation was carried months before that particular emergency occurred, and the fact that that round-up took place has no more to do with the Home Secretary than the man in the moon. The round-up followed the urgent representations of the military authorities, who, in the imminent peril of invasion, said they could not be responsible for the safety of certain areas unless all aliens were removed, partly because of the fear of underhand work which might go on behind the front and partly because they said they could not protect aliens, in the event of any form of reverse, from the anger of the civil population.
  To use that argument and to say that the Regulation was carried in a moment of panic has not the slightest resemblance to facts. On the contrary, when the Regulation was carried we did not know the full extent of the danger, nor how far treachery would go—and I use the word "treachery" as the right word instead of such mealy-mouthed terms as "Quislingites" and "Fifth Columnists." Treachery had permeated through such magnificent people as the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians and—French. This House was convinced of the absolute necessity of the powers being invested in the Home Secretary at a time when the dangers were less than they appeared to be later and even less than we know they are to-day.
  Shall I carry memories back to another feature when these powers were vested in the Home Secretary? What was the main demand in this House? Over and over again the Home Secretary was challenged from every side for not using his powers more drastically in dangers everybody could foresee. The plea made in all parts

  1465
  of the House was that the Home Secretary was not doing all he ought to do for the protection of the Realm. It was said, "If the Home Secretary asks for more powers to deal with every reasonable danger he shall have them." Those were the actual conditions under which the Regulation was passed, and to say that the House was not aware of what it was doing is a most extraordinary travesty of the truth. I lived for many years in India, and I have a recollection of an almost identical Regulation with this, which is almost part of the common law of the land and has been for almost a hundred years. Nobody except an evildoer ever lost a minute's sleep through thinking of it. In view of the dreadful history of Europe in the last 2½ years how dare Members ask any Government or any Home Secretary to be responsible for the protection of this Realm without powers corresponding to those which are vested in them by this Regulation? After all, if we accept the need for a Regulation of this character, what is left? There is left administration. It is solely a question, not of the powers themselves, but the way in which they are administered. I can only speak from my own personal experience.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) made great play with the procedure of the Advisory Committees. There he speaks with knowledge I do not possess, but all I can say is that I am prepared to put my confidence in the eminent men who have accepted this very difficult and unpleasant duty. May I direct the attention of the Committee to an associated point? The hon. and learned Member said that in view of his dissatisfaction with the tribunals he might be driven to a court of appeal, and I asked him what he meant by a court of appeal. He said he had no appellate jurisdiction in mind. Now you cannot have a court of appeal other than a duplication of the Advisory Committee. A judicial court of appeal would have to bring these cases before the public, to spread abroad things which should not be known and cannot be known, and to throw upon the Government the onus of proof is, in nearly all these cases, absolutely impossible by the ordinary rules of evidence.
  Regarding the administration of the Regulation by the Home Secretary, I can only give my own experience and the
  1466
  testimony of others in this House. I am not in the least concerned with the political views of the Secretary of State; they are not important. I am solely concerned with the administration of the Regulation so far as it can be tested, and all I can say is that every case I have taken to the Home Office has had early attention and careful inquiry, and that both I and the detainee have had what we considered to be fair end equitable treatment. Some of those hon. Members who are among the most severe critics of the Regulation have borne the same testimony—as a result of their own experience—that the Secretary of State has been fair and reasonable and most courteous in every matter that has been brought before him.
  There is only one other aspect to which I wish to direct attention. Great play has been made on the fact that the Home Secretary does not always accept the view of the Advisory Committee. But why did the House, in the Regulation, call this body an Advisory Committee? Was the House completely ignorant of the meaning of the word "advice"? Did it mean that the advice should be mandatory and that in all circumstances the Home Secretary should accept it? There is a famous definition of advice which was made by a Minister who used to sit on this Front Bench. He was communicating with a great officer of the Crown who was serving abroad, and he said:
  "In regard to the head of this State to which you are accredited, you will only give advice, you will never give anything but advice, but you must make him clearly understand that any advice you give must immediately be explicitly accepted."
  That definition of advice stands on record in our history of the first part of the 'eighties. But the House did not mean that sort of advice. If the House had meant that, it would have set up a mandatory tribunal, and taken from the shoulders of the Home Secretary a responsibility which he alone can bear and must bear. To challenge the Home Secretary's actions on the ground that, having this supreme responsibility, he does not always accept the advice of a non-responsible body is to strike at the very foundations of our administrative institutions and the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament.
  Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that in cases of this kind a per-

  1467
  son who has neither seen nor examined a man is more likely to arrive at a correct conclusion than a committee of competent people who have not only seen the man but have cross-examined him and heard all the evidence?
  Sir S. Reed: I am dealing with the machinery which the House set up to deal with these cases, I am dealing with the specific and deliberate acts of the House; and the House decided that the Regulation should be framed and passed in these words, and that the Advisory Committee should be used to advise and not to dictate to the Secretary of State in the administration of the Regulation. Any criticism of this procedure is a criticism of the House for not knowing what it was doing—if it did not know—and for having set up machinery which is now challenged as being ineffective, if it does so regard it. To argue that the Secretary of State should in all cases accept the advice of a non-responsible tribunal set up to assist him in the administration of this Regulation is to sap at the whole principle of Ministerial responsibility and to shed the powers and authority of the House to control and call a Minister to book if he does not use fairly powers that have been entrusted to him, but takes shelter behind an Advisory Committee which, according to some, should have mandatory powers.
  My memory goes back to an occasion when a servant of the Crown, at a time of great difficulty, instituted a criminal prosecution in one of these borderline cases. The action was successful and the offender was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment; and following this, there were riots and bloodshed for several days. He was asked, "Why did you not proceed by regulation?" His answer was, "If I proceeded by regulation, I should have no peace, because my actions would be challenged day by day as long as the powers were exercised." I cannot enter into the mind of the Home Secretary, I cannot express his point of view, but I say with some confidence that there is nothing he would rather be rid of than these powers and the responsibility for operating them, because by their very nature and by their opposition to all our ideas concerning liberty and freedom, whoever holds the Home Secretary's job—even the Archangel Gabriel, if he held
  1468
  it—can have very little peace and must be challenged time and again. I feel sure that the one thing the Home Secretary would do, if it were compatible with his responsibility, would be, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) advised, to release 99 per cent. of these internees and so save himself an immense volume of difficulty, trouble, misrepresentation, and misconstruction. But nobody has dared to challenge the necessity for the Regulation. So far as it has been attacked, it has been attacked by indirect methods. I beg the House, in view of the history of Europe during the last two years, to think not once but a thousand times before weakening the hands of the Executive in dealing with the treachery which has ruined other States and from which we cannot be entirely immune ourselves.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is much treachery in our midst at the present time? Does he not consider that the difference between the conditions now and conditions in 1940 might lead to some amelioration in the position?
  Sir S. Reed: Certainly not. I say that the danger to-day is as great as it was in 1940. If I am asked whether I think treachery is widespread, I say "No," but if there is one traitor who ought to be dealt with, then there should be this power to deal with him. I ask my hon. Friend to read again what was said by the Minister of Production a few days ago—that we have now entered upon the 80 most dangerous days of the war, that the whole history of this nation and the foundations of everything that makes life decent and worth living for all nations will be decided in the next 80 days. I think that statement is profoundly true. Is this the time to indulge in vain hopes and academic considerations? Is it not rather the time to bend our minds to the tasks which we have to perform? We ask the Home Secretary to administer this Regulation with the utmost consideration and preserve, as far as possible, the liberties of our people; also not detain for one hour or one minute any man or woman whom he thinks he can, compatible with his responsibility, let free. At the same time, in his administration of the Regulation, whole-hearted support in a task which is most difficult and unpleasant and the most repugnant that any

  1469
  Minister can be asked to shoulder. The Home Secretary should have our sympathy rather than carping criticism in his attempt to discharge, as an English gentleman should discharge, onerous duties which Parliament has thrust upon him.
  Mr. William Brown: I promised to confine myself to 10 minutes, and I shall endeavour to keep within that time-limit. I have not made up my mind how I shall vote on this Amendment, and I shall not do so until I have heard the Home Secretary's reply. I raise no objection at all to the rounding-up of the 18B detainees who were finally rounded up. It was done in accordance with the law, and I would have been equally well content, had it been necessary, if it had been done without the law, for I hold with Cromwell that, if nothing ever be done in Britain which is not done except in accordance with the law, this nation may easily perish while we send for someone to make the law.
  Major Petherick: He certainly did not live up to himself.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. and gallant Member had reached his stature, which cannot conceivably be said, that interjection would have been justifiable.
  Major Pethcrick Major Pethcrick rose——
  The Temporary Chairman: Unless the hon. Member gives way, the hon. and gallant Member must not interrupt.
  Mr. Brown: Whether this was done within the law or without the law, it was, in my view, necessary, and, therefore, I do not start off with the assumption that everything which has happened is wrong, and that we have nothing to do but to attack the Home Secretary. I ask him, however, to consider two or three matters about which many of us are uneasy. Many of us do not like the imprisonment which goes on year after year without an individual being brought to trial. Many of us know individuals in prison, who, however mistaken their views may be, are not anti-British.
  Mrs. Tate: How does the hon. Member know?
  Mr. Brown: I know some of them personally, and the assumption that everyone who is in gaol is automatically anti-British involves an assumption on the
  1470
  hon. Lady's part which I would not make on my own behalf—it is the assumption, too, that the Home Secretary and the Advisory Committee are automatically right, which is also an assumption I would not make. It seems to me that there are four or five things which the Home Secretary can do. He could leave things where they are, but, if he does that, I consider that he will make a mistake. In many Members' minds there is the consideration that times are not quite so urgent as they were a year or two ago in respect of invasion. [Interruption.] Cannot individual Members hear a view with which they do not agree without barking? The hon. Member must learn a little tolerance with views he does not accept.
  I do not think the Home Secretary should leave matters where they are, and I hope he will try to find some way to meet what is the general sentiment at the present time. There are various courses open to him. One is to establish the right of appeal against his own decisions, which is not an easy thing to do, and I do not urge this on him. The second course is to discuss with the Chairman of the Advisory Committees cases where he does not agree with the findings of the Committee. For my part, I believe there might be more freedom of contact there. The third possibility is to bring the man in question to trial. In some cases I believe that would be inadvisable from the national point of view. It would be impossible, because much of the evidence is evidence which would not be admissible in a court of law. The third possibility is to allow a man to go out on his own recognisance, and, in view of the fact that nearly all those who have been released have not subsequently given trouble, I believe the Home Secretary could, without danger to the State, carry out that process further than he has done. At any rate, I ask him to consider whether there is not some step which he could take which, without relaxing either his responsibility or powers of control, would meet the feelings which many of us have that men are in prison to-day who ought not to be there.
  Miss Rathbone: They are not imprisoned; they are interned.
  Mr. Brown: How long does internment last before it becomes imprisonment? Are

  1471
  we to justify indefinite internment on the ground that it is not imprisonment? Surely that interruption is about as irrelevant as some of the others I have heard.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: Like the hon. Member's speech.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member does not have to listen to it.
  Mise Rathbone: I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but three times I have heard him use the word "gaol." I would point out that a great many of these detainees are not in gaol. Does he suggest that it is irrevelant to draw a distinction between those who are interned and those who are in gaol?
  Mr. Brown: That brings me to another matter—the conditions under which these people are interned or imprisoned, whichever the hon. Lady prefers. If these people are not convicted persons, and if they are merely internees, I want to know why they are put in the same prison with common criminals.
  Mrs. Tate: Because of the lack of space.
  Mr. Brown: There is space in the Isle of Man almost as large as in the. hon. Lady's mind.
  Mrs. Tate: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for saying I am so large-minded, which is something I could never say of him.
  Mr. Brown: I imagine that the hon. Lady could never make an admission which was not irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to this Debate to mention that people who are not convicted persons are kept in the same prison as people who are.
  Mr. Goldie: Does that not happen to every accused person who is not released on bail?
  Mr. Brown: Certainly, but it does not continue for three years. Another ignorant interruption; why is the hon. and learned Member here at all? There are three elements in this situation. There is the position of the detainee himself. He feels, and feels rightly, that he is not a convicted person, and many of them object to being detained in prison alongside convicted persons. Then there is the
  1472
  position of the convicted person, and here we get a situation of which I do not think this Committee has been made aware. Someone said it was a shame that convicted persons should complain that detainees had better conditions. It may be a shock for hon. Members to learn it, but there are criminals in gaol who think that larceny is less an offence than treason, and who regard themselves not in a lower category than detainees but in a higher category, and resent, rightly or wrongly, that the detainee should be better treated than the convicted person. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but I am saying that it creates a problem in prison administration.
  Then there is the position of the prison officer. His job is a rotten one in the ordinary way. I would go further and say that his conditions are rotten, his pay is rotten and his hours are rotten, and I may add that the Home Secretary has done very little to improve them. The prison officer's job is difficult enough, but he now has to apply in the same prison two entirely different sets of disciplinary regulations. That creates an impossible position inside a prison, and, if the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Colman) is receiving letters from detainees complaining that some officers are getting difficult, I get similar complaints from officers that same of the detainees are getting difficult. The root reason of the whole thing is that, instead of treating two different categories of people in different ways, in different premises and by different staffs, we try to treat them inside the same premises, with different sets of disciplinary regulations and all the rest of it.
  I asked the Home Secretary the other day whether he could not keep them separate, and he replied that there was only a limited number of them, I think 70 or 80, and that it would be expensive to put them into a separate establishment from ordinary prisoners. I hope he will not say that to-day, because that reply was the most arrant nonsense. It is not difficult to separate them. He already has a gaol which is empty. It would involve him in no substantial increase in establishment charges to use that gaol for detainees and to have them looked after, not by warders, because they are not convicted prisoners, but by attendants, and so relieve the warders of this double job

  1473
  of trying to accommodate two entirely different sets of people within the scope of a single building. I beg him to put that right, because it is inside his administrative capacity and competence. I hope he will not surrender his powers but try to make some approach to meet the sentiment of the Committee as I conceive it and go somewhat further to relieve the Committee of any feeling that we are keeping people in prison who ought not to be there, while at the same time we do not want—neither does he or anyone else—to do anything to weaken the country in these dangerous times.
  Mr. Pritt: I have been a little puzzled as to why Regulation 18B has been made the topic of a Debate, not because it is not of considerable importance, but because on the whole the matter has been so well discussed in the past that practically no argument has been put up—I have heard nearly every speech—whether about appeals, or about making the Advisory Committee's decision binding upon the Home Secretary or any other topical matter, which has not been put up before, answered by the Home Secretary with a very fair measure of success and left at that. Perhaps it is a good thing that it should be discussed now, but I am, nevertheless, rather puzzled as to why a number of gentlemen, none of whom have been very fond of civil liberty, should desire to say again everything that they had said before. There is a considerable measure of common ground. It is common ground with practically the whole of the Committee that you must have this type of power in war-time in someone. I think it is common ground that it must be in someone in a position substantially that of the Home Secretary, and I think there is a very large measure of agreement that the last word must rest with the Home Secretary. In those circumstances the problems, while they are anxious, are really relatively in a small field. Public confidence is important, and I think it can best be obtained and maintained if the public feel that right principles are being followed and also that mistakes are not being made or, this being an imperfect world, that every precaution is taken against mistakes and that as few as possible are made.
  With regard to the principles which are followed, it has been said that there
  1474
  is a good deal of uneasiness. Some say that there is not much, but that there ought to be, and some say that there is a good deal, and in particular the hon. and learned Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) said that what one really needs for confidence is a real public conviction that we are fighting something evil. I think for myself that the public uneasiness is mainly, not that there are too many, but, if anything, not enough people interned, and that some who are interned are being treated a great deal too well, and the suspicion is created—it is not diminished by the general orientation of the bulk of the people who are complaining of the Home Secretary—that there really is a great deal too much pro-Fascism in the country at present, and that it unfortunately synchronises with a period of time which is pretty anxious from the military point of view. The most important thing from the military point of view is the situation in which five, six or seven million available American and British troops are standing about idly and not taking part in any actual fighting, and the people who are intriguing up and down the country to try and prevent the early development of the promised second front are not wholly dissimilar from the people who are raising this agitation or from some of the people who are interned. I think public opinion would be very greatly reinforced if it were discovered that the Home Secretary was sternly putting an end to any mollycoddling of the people who are interned and seeing whether, not in any sense of panic but with the proper exercise of his own responsibilities, some more people were interned to keep them company.
  When one hears people solemnly suggesting that the Home Secretary should let all these people out, I suppose including Sir Oswald Mosley and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Southern Peebles (Captain Ramsay), if they will promise to be good, one is indeed astonished. Since when has the word of a Fascist been such a sacred thing? Whether the Home Secretary keeps people in or lets them out, everyone pays him the tribute that he gives a good deal of consideration before he does either. When it is seriously suggested that if they promise to be good, the Home Secretary should say, "Out you go; I will keep one as an exhibit," if it is only a joke, I would not mind, but there are better things to joke about. If it

  1475
  is a serious proposition, it shows where some people's minds are going, and it is calculated to excite public indignation. We want confidence in the administration of this Regulation, and, as far as I can judge, I should think the Home Secretary has it, if anything rather more than he ought to have.
  Mistakes can be made. There have been made public two or three cases where the mistakes were really grotesque, but I think that they have probably been cleared up. There have, however, been other mistakes. The best thing to do would be for the Home Secretary to make a statement—it cannot be very detailed, but a statement as specific as he can make it—about every case he interns and, if possible, about every case he holds interned. That would, I believe, greatly increase public confidence. I will give an illustration. The Home Secretary in one of the last Debates gave a case in his own favour. I am doing him the credit of assuming that he picked one of the best. He said that people were angry with him for interning a respectable married woman who was a British subject, but he asked to be allowed to state the true facts. He said that she was an English married woman because she married an Englishman, but that she was in fact a Nazi. She and her sister were in exactly the same boat and doing the same kind of work. The sister was a spinster and, as a German, was interned, but everybody was kicking up a row about this woman because she was English. If something of that sort could be said about every internee and the general public knew what was going on, it would give them a much greater feeling of confidence. In general I support the policy that has been applied by the Home Secretary, except that I hope it will be a little firmer, and if the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall vote for it.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir Roger Keyes: I wish to call attention to the case of Squadron-Leader Rutland, an officer who spent 23 years in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. While he was still on the active list of the Royal Air Force, he was sent out by the Air Ministry' to Japan as technical officer on a mission which was to teach the Japanese how to build up a naval air service. He was told to put everything
  1476
  at their disposal and he did his work very effectively. At that time Japan was our ally by Treaty. He went directly after the war in 1920 and remained for eight years. During the years he was there he helped the Japanese to build up a magnificent naval air service. In 1933 he was asked to return to Japan, and there is no getting away from the fact that for the next five years he acted in America as a Secret Service agent for Japan. I am not concerned to defend his activities during those five years. As a Secret Service agent he seems to have kept in close touch with the American Naval Intelligence, and I have been given the names of the American naval officers with whom he dealt.
  In 1941 he was very concerned about the situation and so were the American Naval Intelligence Service. They recommended that he should come home at once to Great Britain to report. He was flown across America at their expense and brought to England at the expense of the British Government, being given a priority trip in the "Clipper." He arrived on 5th October. On the 21st he attended a meeting in which he laid down a scheme of intelligence. He elaborated it carefully and placed all his wide experience of Japan and the Japanese at the disposal of the authorities. Conscious that he might be suspect, he offered if necessary to place all his information at the disposal of any other person who was appointed to do this work. He was interviewed by all our Intelligence Departments, but was turned down and told that his services were not required. On 16th December a week after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and Malaya, he was interned under Regulation 18B.
  I have said that I am not concerned in defending the activities of this officer when he seemed to be hunting with the hounds and running with the fox, but I think it a deplorable thing that his services were not used. He might have been invaluable to our naval Intelligence, which seems to have been pretty poor. He could have told them what our ships, the "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales," were likely to encounter if they went out to those waters where there was a vastly superior fleet and an enormous naval air force, both shore-based and sea-borne. It is a great misfortune that during the six weeks after he arrived in England,

  1477
  until the Japanese made their attack, his offer to place his intelligence at the disposal of the authorities was rejected. In all his activities he was in close touch with the American Naval Intelligence and he did nothing inimical to British interests. I cannot believe that an officer with his record had any idea when he came to England but to place his services at the disposal of the country which he had served so well in the last war.
  I would like to tell the Committee what he did in the last war. He was a young flying officer in the Royal Naval Air Service and he was embarked on a little cross-Channel steamer, the "Engadine," which carried three primitive seaplanes. On the day the Battle of Jutland opened he was hoisted out in the middle of the North Sea and went off into the blue. He sent back valuable reports to the Admiral by wireless. Fortunately he was picked up. That night it blew very hard and one of our ships which was badly damaged in action, the "Warrior," an armoured cruiser, was in a sinking condition and the "Engadine" went alongside and rescued nearly all the crew. One wounded man fell between the ships, which were bumping into one another, and with an utter disregard for his safety Rutland jumped overboard and saved the man's life. He is the only living man who wears the Gold Albert Medal. I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider this case, for a great opportunity has been lost.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think we are all glad that this Debate has taken place to-day. It has been a good Debate, and in general the speeches have been excellent and to the point. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who made a very able and on the whole a very fair speech, to which I shall make further reference, made a comparison between what happens in this country and what happens hi Hitlerite Germany. He suggested in that parallel, that the situation here is in one respect not very different from what it is there, but I am sure he would agree that such a Debate as we have had to-day could not take place in Germany, and that if it did take place a good many heads would be rolling afterwards. It is a good thing that this Regulation should be called in review from time to time, because it is realised by everyone
  1478
  that it embodies a principle which is contrary to the normal procedure in this country, contrary to our ideas of justice and liberty. Everyone acknowledges that fact, and therefore it is not to the point than an hon. Member should recite passages about liberty uttered under other circumstances by high-minded statesmen and contrast them with our present practice.
  This Regulation was passed because we are going through an abnormal period, and cannot adopt the same attitude towards individuals as we' do in ordinary times. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) pointed out, it was passed at the beginning of the war, and the view which Parliament took at that time has been closely reinforced by what has happened since throughout Europe. In countries like Holland and Norway, countries which are most like ours, there have been found to be Quislings and other people who have betrayed their country, many of them from intentions which they may have thought good but which other people thought exceedingly evil. Further than that, this whole system of suborning individuals in other countries is part of the Hitlerite technique, and that separates it from anything that has gone before, because it has been the Nazi system deliberately to find individuals in other countries who would work with the Nazi régime in destroying the liberties of those countries.
  The question we have to decide to-day, in the ultimate resort, is what changes have taken place since we discussed this matter in November of last year. It has been said that the danger of invasion has become slightly less imminent. It is very difficult to form any final judgment on that matter. At the moment it may look like that, but, after all, our immunity from invasion is being purchased for us by the gallant stand which is being made by our Russian comrades, and if for one moment that were to fail, if the German forces were to be relieved of the pressure they have to keep up on the Russian Front, then the old risk of invasion and attack on these islands would return to what it was before. We must remember, also, that it is not only the fear of invasion which makes it necessary for us to take action in respect of individuals. The danger we have to fear from treasonable individuals is that they may give informa-

  1479
  tion to the enemy, and I should have thought that the present time when, as we are told, plans are going forward to work out schemes for possible attack on Germany in various ways, was above all others the time when it was essential that there should be no risk of people giving away information to the enemy." Therefore, I do not think that, so far as that is concerned, the situation is in any fundamental way different from what it was before.
  I would remind the Committee that, contrary to the statements made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the reduction of this Vote, most of the persons detained at the present time were detained in the first instance, not by the present Home Secretary but by his predecessor. The hon. and gallant Member, quite unnecessarily, I thought, imparted a good deal of party prejudice into this Debate, a line which, I am very glad, has not been followed from any side of the Committee. He seemed to suggest that the kind of people who are in internment were there because the Home Secretary was a man of the extreme Left. I am not expressing that opinion myself, but that was the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member. The present Home Secretary has largely been concerned with getting people out. The person who put most of the present detainees into internment, rightly or wrongly, was not the present Home Secretary but his predecessor, who I think, even in the extravagant views of the hon. and gallant Member, is not a person of fife extreme Left.
  Commander Bower: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has completely illustrated and fortified the point I was making. The present Home Secretary has let out a lot of people who were put in by the late Home Secretary. That is exactly the point I was making. I said that any Home Secretary, whoever he might be, would intern a different lot of people from another Home Secretary, and that that was proof that no one man was fit to exercise these powers.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The hon. and gallant Member has not repeated in any shape or form the argument he made at the beginning.
  Commander Bower: I said——
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: No, I shall not give way again. I have given way once, and I am entitled to reply to the hon. and gallant Member's interruption, which is really not in accordance with the facts. The suggestion he made in his opening remarks was that the present Home Secretary had interned a good many persons who are on the Right in politics, because he himself was on the Left, whereas the hon. and gallant Member, being on the Right, would have interned a good many people on the Left. I am trying to show that that is entirely incorrect. I do not claim myself that they were people on the Right, but that was the definition of the hon. and gallant Member——
  Commander Bower: May I interrupt?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: No. I am not going to give way.
  Commander Bower: On a point of Order.
  The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): I must ask the hon. and gallant Member, if he rises to a point of Order, to see that it really is a point of Order.
  Commander Bower: Sir Dennis, I submit to you that there is a point of Order when an hon. Member's speech is misrepresented in a manner so gross as to be provocative. The right hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented my words.
  The Chairman: Quite clearly the hon. and gallant Member is trying to make use of the procedure of a point of Order upon a matter of which the Chair cannot take notice.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am in the recollection of the Committee. I think that an hon. Member who makes a speech and is not ready to stay to listen to what is said in reply, is not acting in accordance with the ordinary practice of Members of Parliament. The hon. and gallant Member cannot take his medicine when it is given to him. But I am not going to let him off. I shall finish the argument I was endeavouring to make. The right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Home Secretary has not been guided by party prejudice is dealing with this matter—and I do not believe anyone in the Committee, except the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) who has now

  1481
  gone out, thinks he has. Everyone else who has spoken to-day has taken a different view. The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for having put a large number of these people into internment. He has not put them in on party grounds, and he has let some out because, in more spacious times, he, with his officials, has been able to examine their cases with greater care and found it possible to release a number of them.
  I come to the much more creditable contribution to the Debate made by the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom. I was glad to hear his two quite specific and definite suggestions, because one of my controversies with him on the last occasion we debated this subject was on that aspect of the matter. I want to examine those suggestions. He frankly said that he did not want to get rid of Regulation 18B because he thought that it was necessary to have arrest and detention on suspicion, but he thought the way it was administered was undesirable. He thought it undesirable that one person, such as the Home Secretary, should have the power which rests with him at the present moment, and which the hon. and gallant Gentleman thought should be limited. He made two specific suggestions as to how it could be limited. I take it that they were alternatives. In the first place, he suggested that, where the Home Secretary and his own Advisory Committee had a difference of opinion, the difference should be submitted to a judge of the High Court. At first that sounds a most admirable suggestion. But it is all wrong. A judge of the High Court is a person who discusses questions of fact. That is his business all through his professional life. He has a jury to whom he submits cases, the jury makes up its mind and the judge has to pass sentence as a result of the finding of the jury. It is not the business of a judge of the High Court to deal with questions of suspicion and I think you would find that no judge would accept the role that would be imposed upon him by that suggestion or that if he did, in spite of his great legal knowledge, he would not be the person who would most wisely use it.
  Captain W. T. Shaw: Is it not a fact that Sir Norman Birkett is a judge of the High Court and is still presiding over this tribunal?
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Quite so. He sits as a member of the Advisory Committee to advise the Home Secretary, and his is a most suitable appointment, but that is an entirely different matter from giving a judge of the High Court the right to decide between the Home Secretary and his own Committee as to which of them was right in a suspicion. The alternative was that the decision of the Advisory Committee should be final. In that case it would cease to be an Advisory Committee and would become a committee with absolute power. I do not know whether those who put the suggestion forward have thought out what it means. It would be the most revolutionary proposal of which I have ever heard. The committee would be set up, I do not know by whom—it might be by the Home Secretary, by this House or by some other authority outside—and it would have absolute power. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom has just come into the House.
  Sir A. Southby: I apologise for not being in my place before.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have said a number of good things about the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I am now dealing with his two alternative proposals. I have dealt with the one about the High Court and I am now dealing with the second, that the Advisory Committee should have the final word and that the Home Secretary should not be able to interfere with that decision, either for or against. I understand that was what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested.
  Sir A. Southby: My proposal was that, in ordinary cases which the Home Secretary referred to it, the decision of the Advisory Committee should be final, but that where he differed from the Advisory Committee, the matter should be arbitrated by a judge of the High Court.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I did not understand that those two suggestions were to operate at the same time. I thought they were alternatives. I did not fully understand what the hon. and gallant Member proposed. If the Home Secretary submits a case to the Advisory Committee and he agrees with the Advisory Committee, nothing further seems to arise, but I understand the hon. and gallant

  1483
  Gentleman to say that the decision of the Advisory Committee is alternative to appointing a judge of the High Court. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head, so I am back where I was. I do not fully understand what he wants. I certainly took that to be his meaning. Other hon. Members have suggested that the decision of the Advisory Committee should be final and I was pointing out that it is a most revolutionary proposal to set up a body of people and give them enormous power to keep people in or 1er them out of prison. That body would not be responsible officials like the Home Secretary, but people with no responsibility to anyone but themselves, and if things went wrong and a man they let out did mischief afterwards, they could not be called to account in any way whatever. The question really is whether there are any additional safeguards that the Home Secretary can usefully employ. The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom cited an individual case. The Home Secretary was not present when the hon. and gallant Member was speaking, but no doubt he has had the points brought before him and he may be able, if he thinks proper, to say something about that case. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to have a very strong prima facie case and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will consider very carefully what was said.
  I wish to raise a case which has attracted a good deal of attention in the public Press, not because I want to express any opinion on that case, but because I fear a danger may arise out of it in future cases. It is the case of a man who was a servant of a municipality and was detained under 18B for some months before his case was heard by the Advisory Committee. When it was heard, the Committee recommended his release and the Home Secretary, acting on that recommendation, set him at liberty; but meanwhile the local authority had dismissed the man. The judge, who held that the dismissal could not be justified on the ground of anything that the man had done, decided that the local authority was entitled to deal with him because he could not perform his duties during his detention. I am not expressing any opinion. on the merits of the individual case, but there must be some danger that detention, even though it is afterwards proved to be
  1484
  unjustified, might give rise to great hardship. When the Home Secretary comes to reply he will no doubt tell us how he proposes to meet that difficulty in the future.
  The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) suggested that where the Home Secretary did not find himself in agreement with the decision of the Advisory Committee, he should consult with the chairman before coming to his decision. I should have supposed that that was what the Home Secretary did. If he does not do so, it can only be, because he sees some impropriety in it. I know that when dealing with cases of convicted prisoners, the Home Secretary always consults the judge before attempting to do anything in the way of reducing a sentence, but if the Home Secretary does not consult the chairman of the Advisory Committee and sees no impropriety in doing so, I hope he will be able to give his mind to the suggestion which has been put forward.
  What is wanted, of course, is that investigation should be as speedy' as possible. The great crowd of cases that were waiting for hearing have now, I imagine, been disposed of, and if there are further cases of detention, I hope the Home Secretary will Be able to assure us that they will be much more promptly dealt with than has been the case in the past and that we shall, therefore, have fewer difficulties. In conclusion I would repeat what I said at the beginning. We all, in every quarter of this Committee and of every shade of opinion, dislike these Regulations. It is only because of the dire necessity of the times and of the methods adopted by Hitler and his associates that we have been forced to put them into effect. I am sure that the Home Secretary takes the same view. I believe that he is administering them as well as they can be administered and in those circumstances, if the Mover of this Amendment forces the matter to a Division, I shall certainly vote in favour of the Government, and I shall advise my hon. Friends to take the same course.
  Mr. Stokes: With great respect, I would like to remind the Committee, and particularly call the attention of the Home Secretary to the object of this Debate. Those of us who were interested in having a discussion wished to have it independently of a general Debate

  1485
  on the Regulations in order that we might endeavour to extract from the Home Secretary some promise of modification of the Regulation under discussion. I for my part shall not make up my mind how I shall vote until I have heard what he has to say, and I sincerely hope he will find some means of satisfying the sincere feeling of a great number of hon. Members, quite regardless of what may be referred to as "the general feeling of the public outside." May I also say, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that it does not seem to me, because all the alternatives that have so far been put forward are considered by him or by others to be unworkable, that the necessity for finding some tribunal which is workable has been removed, and it would therefore be at least a reasonable thing to expect the Home Secretary to say that he will have this issue investigated with a view to finding whether some more satisfactory methods can be discovered, by appointing a committee to go into it.
  I want to refer to two general points which I brought out when I first raised the issue in December, 1940. The impression is still about that detained persons are given sufficient information as to the reason for their detention before they go before the Advisory Committee. I want to say that that is not so. I have a case now in front of me—I shall not mention names, but the Home Secretary can have the particulars—of a man detained in November, 1940, and alleged to have committed acts prejudicial to the safety of the Realm. Twice, in May, 1941, and June, 1942, he wrote and asked the Home Secretary to provide him with some information as to what those acts were, but he has received nothing, despite the ruling of Mr. Justice Humphreys of 27th May, 1941, when he said that "a person detained under Regulation 18B is entitled to know at the outset the precise grounds for his detention." Those of us who have gone into this matter still find that the information provided to persons before they go before the Advisory Committee is inadequate.
  Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat the question, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary heard?
  Mr. Stokes: I feel sure that the Home Secretary knows my views on this subject,
  1486
  that people are not given sufficient information before they go before the Advisory Committee, and if he did not hear, what I said, he will have the opportunity of reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. It is still maintained by a great number of people that the reasons for detention are often inadequate. I was extremely perturbed regarding many individual cases which I investigated, particularly one, in which a man was kept in prison for two years and could not get particulars of the information laid against him or of the source of the information. Finally, his solicitors got hold of the minutes of the evidence before the Advisory Committee. It was found that there was only one person who gave evidence against him, and that he was a German refugee who, when he came to be cross-examined in the matter, admitted that every single thing he had said before the Advisory Committee was untrue. In that case, the man's immediate release was recommended, after nearly two years' detention, and so far as I can gather, that particular German seems to have been used as an agent provocateur by the Home Office.
  The only other thing to which I wish to refer in a general way is the question of the conditions of detention. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) seemed to indicate that he thought that these people should be badly treated because they deserve it, chiefly, I suppose, because they do not agree with his political views. I think that that is outrageous. I have no sympathy with the political views of the people who are in gaol, but I do not think that more than about 25 per cent. of the people still detained are Fascists; there are all sorts of odds and ends. But be that as it may, the whole position laid down and understood by Parliament when these people were detained was that the conditions of detention were to be preventive and not punitive. It seems to me to be outrageous that we should find Members of this Committee recommending that their conditions should be made more onerous. I would also like to raise the question of the removal of three women from Holloway Gaol. They were given only three hours' notice, although they had been there for nearly two years, to pack up and go to another gaol. Surely that is most unreasonable—there were two

  1487
  old ladies, over 60, and a younger woman, under 30, who was ill. They were suddenly plucked up from their surroundings and carted off to another gaol. I propose to raise that matter on the Adjournment some other day.
  I would like to remind the Committee that there are three main points before it at the moment. First, the supporters of this reduction in the Home Office Vote say that the Regulations are not being administered in the way that Parliament meant and that Members of Parliament were evidently deceived when they agreed to the amendment in the Regulations made some time ago. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) made a statement to-day that this legislation was not passed in time of panic, and that Parliament knew perfectly well what it was doing. I wish he had listened a little more attentively to the hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans), who, I believe, was one of the small number of people in this House who went before the late Home Secretary to endeavour to get the alteration made. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Wales made it quite clear in his speech that he was under the impression that the alteration was made, and that his view was the same as the view of the minority finding of the High Court Judges, namely, that the Home Secretary would have to show cause, had been adopted. It seems to me that we should not lose sight of what Lord Justice Atkin said on that occasion:
  "Reasonable cause for an action or a belief is just as much a positive fact capable of determination by a third party as is a broken ankle or a legal right."
  He went on, when criticising the majority finding:
  "I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction, namely, 'Alice through the Looking Glass'; ' "When I use a word," Humpty-Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things." "The question is," said Humpty-Dumpty, "which is to be master, that's all." ' "
  After all the long discussion in that House, the question was whether the words "If a man has "could mean "If a man thinks he has." He was of opinion that they could not, and that the case
  1488
  should be decided accordingly. I think that the Committee should not lose sight of that minority judgment, but here we are, the High Court have decided that whatever that small committee thought they had done, they had not done, and the question before the Committee is whether we here are prepared to leave it at that or whether we are to insist that there should be some alteration.
  In regard to the overruling of the Advisory Committee, I have listened again and again to the arguments put forward by Members on both sides, and so far as I have understood them they have said that it would be an intolerable thing if the Home Secretary deputed his final responsibility to a committee of his own appointment. I fail to understand that. It is what is done in every Department of State on all sorts of very highly important matters. Generals in the field do not refer to the Secretary of State for War before they take a decision, but he is responsible for them. As for saying that a detained person can communicate with a Member of Parliament and that that is some security, I do not think it gives any assurance of any kind whatever. I probably get as many letters as any Member of Parliament, and I may write to the Home Secretary or to the Under-Secretary, who are always very courteous, but I am told nothing. Did Parliament ever really mean that people should be locked up without trial for an indefinite period, possibly, if this war goes on, for 20 years?
  What is the Home Secretary going to tell us to-day? Supposing the war goes on until 1950, does he propose that all the people now detained shall continue in detention without trial? It seems to me that that was not the intention of Parliament and that what Parliament intended was that when things settled down again people who had been put in, often on rumour, nothing more, should have their cases reviewed and put before an independent tribunal. I wish to refer to what the present Lord Chancellor once said when discussing the question of detention. This was on 15th June, 1940, speaking in Yorkshire. The hon. Member for Aylesbury declaimed upon the fact that these Regulations, etc., were put into force after the treason in Norway and after the invasion of the Low Countries. That is perfectly true, but the then, I believe, Chancellor

  1489
  of the Exchequer, was perfectly well aware of these happenings in Norway, etc., at that time when he said:
  "We lived in a country where, if a policeman or any other official maltreated us or rushed us into a camp, it would be no answer for him to say that he was part of the Gestapo and that those were the authorised methods of the secret police. Such a person could be brought before a court and made to answer whether what he had done was within the law or not. How many people in Germany had ever brought an action against the Gestapo for damages? "
  Of course, there is an easy answer to that one, but clearly what was in the mind of the then Chancellor was that it would be an intolerable injustice, contrary to all our principles of freedom, that people should be locked up for an indefinite period without having their case investigated by an independent tribunal. Finally, I would repeat that if Parliament did not mean what we are now told by the High Court the words in the Regulation mean, what is Parliament going to do about it? I for one do not think that the intention of Parliament at the time was that people should be treated in the way they are treated now, and I would remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of what I think the Leader of the House emphasised in one of his great utterances, words to this effect, that where liberty is concerned it is the right and proper duty of the Executive to demand the minimum safeguards for security, not the maximum. I submit that the present position does not ensure a fair trial and that justice is meted out to many of the people who are detained.
  Major Pethcrick: I do not think that the Home Secretary can possibly take exception to the manner or method in which those who have been responsible for putting down this Amendment have stated their case, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown), who spoke in a peculiarly arrogant and didactic fashion, so that I 'felt that his spiritual home was Berchtesgarten. I am sorry he is not here now. I would like to make one comment on a sentence in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). He was speaking in a manner with which I generally agreed when he made one comment which I thought savoured of a possibility of a very dangerous practice. He was saying that he thought that, far from the Home
  1490
  Secretary letting some people loose, he ought to shut up a lot more and suggested that some people who would be worth the Home Secretary's attention were those who were opposing the so-called second front. There are many who take a view about a second front one way or other, often on insufficient evidence. Some think it should be started at once, others that it should not be started and that it would be a disaster. If that is the sort of view he wishes to animate the Home Secretary in deciding whom he has to shut up—whether one set of people who take a certain strategic view should be shut up and another set of people who take an opposite strategic view should not—all I can say is that if it were done, the administration of Regulation 18B would fall into the most dire disrepute.
  If we had had a Debate on this kind before the war, I should have been one of those who would have been violently opposed to any such method as is carried out by 18B. I was one of the handful of Members of this House who strongly and strenuously opposed the Public Order Bill on the general grounds that an Englishman has an inalienable right to make a fool of himself if he wants to. The whole point at the moment is that we are at war and that we have therefore to give the Executive incomparably greater powers than we should ever dream of giving them in peace-time. In peace-time it is repugnant to the ordinary Englishman or British subject that anyone should be flung into gaol or detained unless immediately brought to trial and convicted of some malpractice. Under 18B we have practice of lettres de cachet under which Louis XIV of France used to shut up those who did not agree with his somewhat authoritarian views. That that practice was very much exaggerated was shown when the Bastille was stormed in 1793. Very few people were found shut up, about half-a-dozen, two of whom were lunatics and two of whom had been detained at the request of their friends. The point against the system of lettres de cachet applies now in peace-time.
  In time of war we have undoubtedly to give to the Home Secretary great powers which we should not dream of doing in ordinary peace-time days. We are in fact detaining under 18B a number of persons, some of whom may be innocent, on grounds of suspicion. This is rather simi-

  1491
  lar to the procedure on grounds of loitering with intent, with the essential difference that intent has to be proved under the ordinary law of the land, while under 18B persons are detained on suspicion of what they are likely to do, and it is impossible to be absolutely sure in detaining any individual case that a person is not being detained who is, to all intents and purposes, innocent. You are, to use a sporting phrase, going on the book of form, you are taking up certain people who, it may be, have had undesirable associates, who may have given utterance to pro-German sentiments in public, and people who in the ordinary way are committing no offence at all. I think in these circumstances it will be almost impossible to avoid a number of hard cases. Some have been brought up in Committee to-day.
  Many of my hon. Friends, who ordinarily have my complete sympathy, have made a fairly strong case for a further, safeguard. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has stated distinctly that he is not against 18B as a whole, and that he only wants to make quite sure that the Regulation is not abused. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower)—to whom I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick Lawrence) was rather unfair—has, I think, put forward similar views. His fear was—I hope I am not misconstruing him—that any Home Secretary may put people into internment not because they are a danger to the public but on political grounds. He said that the present Home Secretary might put one set of people into internment and that he himself might put another set into internment. But I do not think that that is likely to happen. I do not think any strong evidence can be brought to show that anything of that kind is happening, or has happened. The furthest that my hon. and gallant Friend can go is to point to a number of hard cases.
  We come to the question of safeguards. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh that to appoint a High Court Judge as a tribunal would be unsound. The whole of the training of a High Court Judge is on points of law. The Judge would lay too much weight on
  1492
  actual evidence. Most of these cases have to be decided not on court of law evidence, but on hearsay, which the legal profession look on with extreme dismay, and on a number of other factors which I might call "the book of form," connected with the man's previous career. I do not think it would be right to set up any tribunal which would have the final say. If I were the Home Secretary in time of war, I would insist on having the final word on any case. I do not think there is any evidence that the present Home Secretary or the previous Home Secretary has abused his powers. Although a number of cases of hardship have been brought forward, some of them arise from the fact that the hon. Members to whose notice they were brought were not in full possession of the facts. On the one side, some Members think that the Home Secretary has been far too weak in dealing with internees of enemy alien origin; other Members think he has been too fierce in dealing with his own countrymen. If we are not satisfied with the way his powers are being carried out, we can, in accordance with constitutional practice, attack the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. But, personally, I would rather, in this present year, with all the forces that we are up against, that 100 innocent men or women were detained under 18B than that a single person who might engage in a serious act of sabotage or give military information to the enemy, went free. For those reasons, I feel that the Home Secretary should be strongly supported, and I hope that he will not give way but will adhere to the powers he has already got.
  Earl Winterton: I rise not to make a speech, but merely to ask a question. Quite rightly, the House resents the habit of some Members, including myself, of putting questions to Ministers while they are speaking. It is considered, quite properly, that while they are reading their manuscripts, they should not be interrupted. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reads manuscripts—he never does so, it is to some other Ministers that I am referring; my right hon. Friend is a competent Minister, if he will allow me to say so. I agree that very little further can be said on this subject; but I hope that hon. Members on all sides will agree with me

  1493
  that it is essential that, if these extraordinary powers are to continue in operation, there should be no suspicion that they are exercised unfairly against one set of persons. I agree that there are no Fascists in this House; the only crypto-Fascists are those who believe that "the leader is always right." I should like an answer to this question. The Minister may say that it is not in the public interest to answer it; and if he does so, I shall accept that. In what way can you differentiate between the behaviour of the Fascists and the behaviour of a body which describes itself as "Socialist Appeal"? This body has been denounced by the leaders of the miners' movement in this country, including some of the most Leftist members, men for whom I have a great esteem. This body is a well-known Trotskyist organisation. Its members are employed in trying to attack, not only the war organisation, but the Conservative party, the Labour party, the Liberal party, and the Communist party—every recognised party in this country. Their sole object is to sabotage our war effort. What is the difference between these people, who sympathise with the enemies of our friends—with the enemies of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics—who are in touch with Trotskyists outside this country, and the Fascists? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give most serious heed to what is being said on this subject by the accredited leaders of the miners' movement, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), and by many others. It is most important that there should be no differentiation between one set of dangerous people and another.
  Sir Irving Albery: Reference has been made to the fact that we have had many Debates on this subject. That is true, but none of those Debates has terminated in a way which would enable Members to express their views on this legislation in the Division Lobby. Even now, nothing would give greater satisfaction to my hon. Friends and myself than that there should be no necessity to take the matter to a Division, but I want to make it clear that, on the major principles involved in this legislation, the safeguarding of the liberty of the British subject, nothing can satisfy us which does not provide some greater safeguard than exists at present. On the other hand, I want to make it clear beyond all possible
  1494
  doubt—because we have from time to time been misrepresented in this matter—that my hon. Friends and I and those who think as we do, do not question for one moment the necessity for Regulations such as 18B in this time of war. Furthermore, if a Division were taken on the question whether Regulation 18B should be completely abolished or not, we would go into the Division Lobby in favour of maintaining Regulation 18B. We realise the need for it. The matter about which we are mainly concerned is the way in which it has been administered, and above all, the fact that in our view the present situation has been reached through the House of Commons being, to a very large extent, misled.
  I do not want to repeat more than can be helped arguments which have already been before the Committee, but I would ask hon. Members to permit me very briefly to go over the past history of this Regulation. The Committee will remember that when it was introduced in a time of crisis, or, at any rate, at a time when all the thoughts and activities of this House were very much occupied, there were certain diligent Members, chiefly on the Liberal benches, who expressed anxiety. I believe they were assisted by some Members on the Labour benches and a few on this side of the Committee, and they put down a Prayer against this Regulation. They were not alone in their anxieties and nobody expressed greater anxiety than the present Home Secretary. I need not repeat what he said. It has already been quoted in previous Debates. I believe the Lord Privy Seal himself took part in that Debate and was not completely satisfied and several other Members were deeply concerned about this Regulation. As a result of what happened the Government saw that the House of Commons was anxious and dissatisfied with the Regulation as then drawn. There was a conference and certain alterations took place.
  Some of those alterations were, perhaps, of a quantitative kind. They defined more nearly the exact type and kinds of persons whom the Home Secretary should be authorised to arrest under the Regulation, but the more important alteration, the one which touches upon the main principle involved, was the changing of certain words, which subsequently were raised in the now well-known case in which Lord Atkin differed

  1495
  from the majority decision. It seems impossible, looking back to-day, to believe that the Members of the House of Commons, who came to an agreement with the Government on the alteration of those words, did not at the time believe that they conveyed some greater safeguard, but the effect of the decision which has now been given makes it clear that such was not the case and that is now the law, no matter what Lord Atkin's view may happen to be. Although the views then expressed by hon. Members must still carry great influence, the fact remains that now the position has been made clear in the law. The change in words, in so far as they concern the major principle involved, has effected no change whatever in the powers of the Home Secretary and has given no greater safeguard whatever to the persons interned under Regulation 18B, and to that extent the House of Commons was misled.
  It may well be asked, why, if the House were misled, hon. Members did nothing about it? I think I can give the answer to that question. There was another safeguard, and it was constantly referred to as a safeguard, particularly by the Lord President of the Council, formerly Home Secretary. That was the Advisory Committee. The House of Commons has been assured that the Advisory Committee was, in itself, a great safeguard. After the Regulations had been amended and for the time being accepted by the House of Commons, coupled with the safeguard of the Advisory Committee, nothing happened for several months. No anxiety was expressed in this House. The reason clearly was that the House of Commons believed that an adequate safeguard had been obtained. At a later period, some months afterwards, it suddenly became apparent that the present Home Secretary had differed from his Advisory Committee and had taken action contrary to their advice in some hundred or more cases. Not unnaturally, anxiety became apparent and the case was again brought up in the House of Commons. It became clear to hon. Members that the safeguards which they thought they had received did not, in fact, exist.
  Hon. Members have to decide to-day one of two things. They have to decide whether they conscientiously believe and are willing to go into the Lobby to affirm
  1496
  —for that is what it comes to—that under existing conditions it is not possible, and possibly not desirable, to give British subjects any adequate safeguard which will protect them from the kind of action which was taken in the days of the Bastille. Or, if they take the same view as I do, they have to decide not only that such protective action must be given, but that it is not beyond the wit of the Government or of this House of Commons to find some adequate means of providing it. I do not for a moment suggest that we have been deliberately misled, but we have definitely been misled and that is the reason why we have got into the present position. We believed that we had a safeguard which it is now clear does not exist.
  The Home Secretary, as is his right, is winding up this Debate and we do not know whether he can make any concessions or whether he will maintain the attitude which he has taken up in former Debates. I am obliged, therefore, to consider the arguments which he himself put forward in those earlier Debates. He emphasised the point that the House of Commons had thrown upon him this unpleasant burden, that he is personally responsible and he also appears to me to have read into the Regulation—If any alteration can be read into the later Regulation—a special instruction to himself that he shall be, more than ever, personally responsible for decisions taken with regard to those under detention, as to their release or otherwise.
  I cannot understand—and possibly the right hon. Gentleman may be able to explain it—how he got himself into this position. He sets up an Advisory Committee, which he himself appoints. It has always seemed to me that any Minister in exercising his powers must continually rely upon the advice of various bodies and even upon the action of various persons whom he has appointed. But I cannot understand why, having chosen his Advisory Committee, he was not content to abide by their decision—at any rate, with a very limited number of exceptions. Even then I think he should have taken the opportunity to give some explanation to the House of why he made exceptions. One is driven to the conclusion that either that the right hon. Gentleman must have set up an inadequate Advisory Committee—although We have no reason to believe that as he

  1497
  himself has highly praised them—or that there must be some fundamental difference in the facts which are presented to the Advisory Committee and those which he himself considers. He has assured us quite definitely that that is not the case, that all the evidence which comes to him goes to the Advisory Committee, and that if he receives any further evidence it also goes to the Committee. He has told us in former Debates that when he differs from the Advisory Committee it is solely on a different interpretation of the same facts. The only argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, which I can remember, to account for the present position was that he, as a Cabinet Minister, had a more intimate knowledge of the conditions arising from the war than the Advisory Committee would have.
  If we go back to the time when the Defence Regulations were first Tabled it will be remembered that the country was then in a state, not of panic, but of considerable anxiety. We never knew what might happen from one day to another, and I think there would have been good grounds for saying at that time that a Minister of the Crown might well be in a position to obtain information which would make him take a different view from others with less information at their disposal. But I do not think there is any justification for that statement today. The war has developed until it is world-wide; we are at war with nearly all the nations with whom we can be at war at present, and I think most of the things that the Minister would have to take into account could and should be taken into account by the Advisory Committee. Unfortunately, a great many of us cannot help having some suspicion that, apart from the Advisory Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has at his elbow other advisers to whose advice he pays more attention than to that of his own Advisory Committee and who appear to be more or less the same persons as those who have perhaps originated the internment of the internee whose case is being considered. If that be so, I think it would be best that the right hon. Gentleman should take the Committee into his confidence and tell us that that is so. It has a considerable bearing on the matters we are discussing to-day and will have a considerable bearing upon many Members when examining the necessity or otherwise of the present Regulation.
  1498
  It was said at the beginning of the Debate, and I want to repeat it, that this Debate has not been raised in any petty way. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman as the result of these Regulations has been pestered by Questions in this House and by goodness knows how much correspondence. But there is really nothing personal in this matter. An earlier speaker referred to the fact that it was not the present Home Secretary who was responsible for the start of all this business and I should like to assure him that if the Lord President of the Council were now sitting in the right hon. Gentleman's place, as Home Secretary, our attitude on these Regulations would be precisely the same as it is with reference to himself to-day. I think it is a credit to this House of Commons that at a time like this, when major anxieties are besetting us, Members should attend so well and take so great an interest in a matter which concerns the liberty of British subjects, even in time of war.
  There is another thing to which I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, and which I think should also be taken into account by the Committee. The last time the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject he gave internment figures in three categories. The majority, I always understood him to say, were members of the Fascist Union. Then he lumps the figures together into categories representing persons of hostile origin and persons of hostile association. I want to suggest that these two categories should not be lumped together and I hope they are not lumped together in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. When you take the case of persons of hostile origin many hardships may be involved, although one can easily understand that it may be necessary to intern them. A man born in Germany of German parents may be a British subject but obviously his hostile origin is of such a nature that there may be little difference between his case and that of an absolute alien enemy. I think the same kind of thing might apply to a person naturalised a year or two before the war. I can easily conceive that such a person might be more dangerous than an ord inary enemy alien. But when it comes to a person of hostile association, that appears to be an entirely different category and it is dangerous to couple it with the others.

  1499
  There are many young persons with somewhat adventurous ideas who are usually seeking novelty of various kinds. I believe there are now interned young persons who have had some association with people interned by the Home Secretary as dangerous to the State, but whose association with such internees has been, in fact, of quite a harmless nature. Of course, one cannot say that definitely; one can only go by such evidence as has been available; but when one hears that a young woman, for instance, whose father and mother—who, after all, have known her all her life—are ready to vouch for her, was interned merely because she had some association, mainly of a social kind, with some other person who has been taken up as a danger to the State, one gets anxious about some of the internments that have been made on account of hostile associations. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be unable to divorce himself from an acute sense of personal responsibility, and I hope that when he replies he will try to give some greater justification for the attitude which he takes up in that respect than he has been able to give to us in the past.
  I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) intends, if the Home Secretary is unable to relieve our anxieties, to press his Amendment in the Division Lobby. If he does so, it is my intention to go with him. In ordinary peace-time, I suppose that a Division on an Amendment to reduce a Vote would be considered equivalent to a vote of censure of the Government and certainly of the Minister concerned. But this is not ordinary peace-time, and we have done many things that are quite exceptional, including the use of this Regulation, and therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that we shall not be going into the Division Lobby with the idea of expressing a vote of no confidence in the Government or a vote of censure, and that even as regards the right hon. Gentleman himself, we shall not be seeking to express a vote of no confidence in the general conduct of his office. We shall go into the Division Lobby because we desire the opportunity of making our protest in the House against the existence of Regulation 18B in its present unmodified form. I suggest to the Committee that this is a matter
  1500
  which vitally concerns every hon. Member in his duty to his constituency. I hope that hon. Members may see their way to express their conscientious view on this matter in the action which they take at the close of this Debate.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) and the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower), the latter of whom moved the Amendment to reduce the Vote, have been good enough to say that there is nothing personal about this Amendment, but that it registers a point of view on a matter of public policy. I very much appreciate their saying that, although, of course, the Amendment does propose a reduction of my salary, which, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member, I can ill-afford; and if it were carried, it would, of course, have certain obvious constitutional consequences. Nevertheless, I fully appreciate the assurances that have been given that this matter is not personal to me but registers an opinion on a point of public policy. Certainly, I cannot complain if there is a Division on this matter. I have been thought before to have been perhaps needlessly reckless and almost asking for trouble in the way of Divisions. If at the end of what I have to say it is thought that that course ought to be taken, while I shall ask the Committee to support me and the Government in the Division Lobby, I shall not be able to complain in the circumstances, because if there is strong opinion, it is desirable for it to have opportunities of expression. In the remarks that I make, I hope not to be provocative or unreasonable and not to conduct myself in such a way as to precipitate the hon. Member for Gravesend and others into the Division Lobby against the Government. They must, in accordance with their Parliamentary responsibilities, decide what they think is right.
  I propose to deal first with certain specific points that have been raised in various speeches, and then to pass to a more general review of the operation of this important and, as I entirely agree, exceptional Defence Regulation. The hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland thought that the Fascism of Sir Oswald Mosley was a somewhat weak and pallid affair compared with the European variety. That is a matter of opinion. Some of us who witnessed the activities

  1501
  of Fascist mobs in the East End of London are not quite so sure about it, and many Members of the House were very apprehensive as to the threat to public order and good government if that movement went on. I am not so sure that there would have been anything soft or gentle if Sir Oswald Mosley had become the Hitler of Great Britain. The hon. and gallant Member also referred, as did the hon. Member for Gravesend and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), to the judgment in the House of Lords in the Liversidge case. Lord Atkin has been frequently quoted, as is entitled to be the case, although I am entitled to recall to the memory of hon. Members that his was a minority judgment. I can only say that the judgment of the House of Lords did not surprise the Home Office. We had rather expected it might go that way, because that had been our own continuous interpretation of what the Regulation meant, although what people think the law is is no certainty as to how the courts will interpret it and decide what it is. At the Home Office, we had always assumed that that was the interpretation, and therefore, we did not take ourselves out for an entertainment that night in pleasant surprise at having got a judgment we did not expect. We had rather meant the Regulation to go that way, and I am assured that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council had intended to make the Regulation go that way.
  All that has been said on the other side, by some hon. Members who were parties to the behind-the-Chair Parliamentary discussions—and it is sometimes said by hon. Members who were not parties to the discussions—is that there was a clear understanding in those discussions that there would be a reasonably easy means of appeal to the courts against the decision of the Home Secretary in these cases. I was not a party to those discussions. I can only recall to the Committee the fact that other hon. Members who were parties to the discussions very distinctly take the view that they were led to believe no such thing, and the Lord President of the Council has himself said that if he had believed that he could constantly be taken into court concerning his decisions on these Regulation 18B cases, he would certainly not have brought in that Regulation or agreed to it. This argument has
  1502
  taken place in previous Debates. Hon. Members who were parties to the discussions have put forward these sharply conflicting views, and I can only leave the matter there. I can only say that, for my own part, I would not, with the responsibilities I carry, be happy if on each one of these cases I could be taken to the High Court and my decision reversed. I should feel that in those circumstances the task was an impossible one.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cleveland said also that the powers I have under this Defence Regulation were enough to make Himmler green with envy. That is a wild statement to make. It is one of those sweeping, extreme generalisations which are so characteristic of my hon. and gallant Friend in this kind of Debate, and I am bound to add, to be perfectly fair between the parties, a sweeping generalisation which is characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in Debates of this kind.
  Mr. Stokes: Most unnecessarily offensive.
  Mr. Morrison: It really cannot have been said seriously that this Defence Regulation power would make Himmler green with envy. When we know what Himmler has been doing in Czechoslovakia in the last few weeks, and what the Germans have done with their own citizens, surely no patriotic Member of this House is going to liken a Defence Regulation of this kind with the procedure, inhumanities and abominations of that régime. In any case, I am bound to reject "the soft impeachment" with indignation. My hon. and gallant Friend also had two complaints about certain things which had happened in the Isle of Man. One was in reference to a letter which he sent to a detainee. I do not remember the particulars of that case, and perhaps he will forgive me if I do not make a reply to it in detail. I recall the circumstances of the other case, because that is the case which my hon. and gallant Friend queried with me, quite rightly and properly, in which the authorities had held up a letter from a detainee who, I think, was detained under this Regulation and was a person of foreign origin. He complained very strongly about it, and I can only say on that point that I think it would have been

  1503
  wiser for him to have made private inquiries from me at the Home Office, where we could have followed the matter up and have given all particulars, rather than precipitately to have put down a Question on the Order Paper. I say that for reasons which I will indicate. As a matter of fact, the letter was temporarily held up; and directly the matter came to my notice I gave instructions that the letter should be forwarded to my hon. and gallant Friend in accordance with the undertakings which had been given to this House. Sometimes the communications which these people send out are of a character or of a number—and I understand from some hon. Members that they are being pretty heavily circularised—that they raise queries among camp officers or prison officers as to whether they are doing right in sending them out, and sometimes they refer them to a higher authority.
  I have given instructions that letters to Members of Parliament must be forwarded. I will quote one or two passages from this letter which the camp officer had queried and about which he was doubtful whether to send it, even to a Member of Parliament. I think the Committee will appreciate that he had some reason to be doubtful. In the course of this letter the writter referred to
  "Britain's dishonest ways in warfare and politics, fighting her battles by proxy on land, never less than 10 to I at sea,"
  classified our conduct as
  "three degrees lower than the stink of an Icelandic stockfish,"
  stated
  "Parliament must be proud of this pockmarked papoose of its own breeding the image and likeness of the foreigners' concepts of Englishman or Britisher of today."
  At the end of the communication he says:
  "Hitler makes Governments pay their debts in gold and it would hurt you immeasurably to have to do so, for the English god is gold, the foul droppings of the golden calf."
  I venture to say it is not surprising that an innocent camp officer, finding that letter addressed to an hon. Member of this House, should have queried with the Home Office whether the letter ought to go, possibly, in the interests of security and, for all I know, possibly in the interests of the moral purity of my hon. and gallant Friend. I decided that it should go.
  Commander Bower: This is a matter of importance. Surely, when the Prime Minister, on 18th November last, gave an assurance to the House and to the country that internees should have free right to communicate with Members of Parliament, these instructions were communicated to the camp authorities? Surely the contents of a letter are quite irrelevant?
  Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. These general instructions have been issued. One must remember that at times exceptional cases do arise in which, so to speak, the officer scratches his head as to what he ought to do, and it is not improper for the officer in case of doubt to seek for higher direction. Incidentally, by sidelight, hon. Members can see some of the sort of opinions which are expressed in correspondence which takes place. He also suggested that I was holding in detention hundreds of detainees in order to detain half-a-dozen whom it might be essential to detain. I do not agree that it would be legitimate or proper to reduce the number of detainees to half-a-dozen, and I think any Home Secretary who had the task of choosing this surviving half-dozen would have an exceedingly difficult and objectionable task.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans), who made a persuasive, quiet and thoughtful speech, raised a number of points, some of which I will deal with in the course of my more general observations. Among other things he referred to the allegation, which has since been repeated, that the Home Secretary pays more attention to other people's advice than to that of the Advisory Committee. The same suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Gravesend. I have been in public administration and in Government for a good many years. I always listen with great care to what people advise, including the advice of my political opponents, and at the end of the day I try to settle the thing for myself. Those who have worked closely with me will know that I decide things for myself, and I can only assure my hon. Friends that I take everybody's advice on these cases, get all the angles, the advice of the Advisory Committee, the advice of the friends and defenders of the detained person, and the advice of the security service, the police officers and the Home Office—

  1505
  read and consider all they have said and then come to my own decision.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the Home Secretary see any of the persons concerned?
  Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I will come to that suggestion. Sometimes I disagree with a large proportion of the various people who have contributed advice, but I can assure the Committee that the decision at the end is my own independent, consciencious decision in the light of the facts and deductions which have to be drawn from the facts, because in these cases the deductions from the facts are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) put the same point in the form of a query in his very useful speech. That is all I can say. I can only give the Committee that assurance. I would add that I disagree with the views, or do not act upon the advice, of the security services quite as often—and that is putting it mildly—as I disagree with the advice of the Advisory Committee. The work of the security service is on the whole very good, and it is useful to have their angle and knowledge of the facts. But the judgment at the end of the day is my own independent, conscientious judgment as to what it is right to do in the interests of the State and its security.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton (Mr. Maxton), in a charming and competent speech, said that so far as he was concerned he thought it was a political decision as to who should be in and who should be out, and therefore he would not be disposed to rely upon the Advisory Committee or upon a court of justice but would be happier, as he was good enough to say in view of his knowledge of myself, if I saw these detainees, talked to them and then came to my own decision. There is something to be said for that suggestion. It has its advantages. I do not see them now, because I cannot very well do so, since the Advisory Committee sees them and all the other parties. My trouble would be that I could not very well see the detainees without seeing the other parties to the argument, and it would be physically impossible, in view of the number of cases that have to be dealt with, and probably the House would not like it. The House attaches importance to the Advisory Committee, rightly, and the House and the public would make a great mistake if they did not think that
  1506
  the Advisory Committee performs a very definite and important function in the sorting-out of these cases for the consideration of the Secretary of State.
  A point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Welsh University and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), for whose contribution I am grateful, as to whether in these disputed cases I could, before reaching a decision, see the Committee or, as a matter of more expeditious convenience, see the Chairman of the Advisory Committee. That suggestion was made in earlier Debates and, in the past, it had in certain cases been acted upon. I have developed that practice very much. Two things happen. These so-called panels of the Advisory Committee are not really panels. They are really committees each presided over by a competent lawyer. The main Chairman, however, is Mr. Justice Birkett, who keeps a general oversight and watch on the work of this series of committees and frequently presides over the Committee himself, so at the Committee end you have that liaison and collective view and supervision which I agree are desirable. That does not whittle away from the responsibility of the separate committees, or subcommittees as they might be called, in making their reports, which reports, subject to Sir Norman Birkett seeing them on the way if he thinks they are cases that he ought to see, come straight to me. They report direct to the Secretary of State in order to help him in reaching his decision.
  The other point is that I have in the more difficult cases of disagreement developed the practice of asking the Chairman of the Committee who took the case, or Sir Norman Birkett, or both, to come to the Home Office and have a talk about it. I do not want to mislead the Committee. That is not so in a considerable number of the disagreement cases, because in those cases it is quite clear that I could not help the Chairman of the Advisory Committee and he could not further help me. But where I feel that there is a case in which we may be able to help each other, and particularly they may help me, because they have seen the detainees and conducted the consideration of the case, I ask them to come along. They are always very willing to do so, and we talk about the case in the most free and easy way, it being understood,

  1507
  of course, that in the end the decision has to he my own. So that I think in principle that point is really met in practice.
  The identity-card point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has now been put right. At the beginning there was not an entry in every case, but there was an entry in more cases than I thought later on was really necessary. What we do now is to enter on the card where there is a restriction of movement, which is necessary for police supervision, and in all other cases if persons formerly detained want to get rid of the marked identity-card, we will arrange to give them a clean card.
  Mr. Pickthorn: What has been done in pursuance of the promise made on the last occasion that there should be some organised system for minimising the hardship suffered by detainees upon release?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not think that arises out of what I have just said, and I have not come ready to deal with the point, except to say that there was no firm promise. All I said was that I will give consideration to it. The Society of Friends has a committee taking an interest in the welfare of these cases when they come out.
  It has been suggested that in the case of Mrs. Nicholson my decision is very much open to question, because there was a case in the court in which she was involved. I cannot go into individual cases in detail, and this is certainly one of that variety in which it would be quite wrong to attempt it. But as a matter of fact this illustrates the difficulty of this class of business being dealt with by a court of law. She was before the court on certain specific issues of law, and the court, after legal argument and evidence, gave a legal decision which amounted, I think, to a verdict in her favour. It is not for me in any way to question the decision of any court of law. There could not be any argument against a court of law's decision in a particular case. It may be unquestionable that the court of law's decision was right; nevertheless it is proper that the Home Secretary, exercising these powers having regard to security, bringing in the element of public policy, and not being concerned specifically with something that
  1508
  someone has said and punishing him for it but considering what someone might do in certain circumstances, should come to a decision within his sphere different from the decision come to in the legal sphere. That really is the whole of the argument, that this kind of administration—because it is administration rather than judgment of a legal character—must be dealt with ministerially, because it does not fit in with the practice, the traditions or the habits of courts of law.
  Sir A. Southby: What, then, becomes of the Lord Chancellor's statement that what happened to Pastor Niemoller in Germany could not. happen in this country, and is it not a fact that this lady is still interned on the same charge upon which she was tried and acquitted?
  Mr. Morrison: I should not wish to get into a discussion on something that the Lord Chancellor has said. It is most unwise for one Minister to attempt to explain the remarks of another without knowing all the facts. I have dealt with my own decision. It is true that this lady is still detained. I have given it very careful consideration, and I am satisfied that she is rightly detained, and she will continue to be detained as long as I am so satisfied. If in the future new circumstances arise, I shall be happy to give them consideration, but I assure the Committee, having given the case the most meticulous consideration, I am satisfied that she is where she ought to be.
  Sir A. Southby: I asked the Under-Secretary a specific question and hoped for a reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether in this case the Advisory Committee did or did not advise that she should be released?
  Mr. Morrison: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, we never say what the Advisory Committee recommended, and I do not think it is desirable that I should start to do so. The constitutional position is that I am alone responsible for the administration of the matter, and the House must deal with me. If we get into the field of the relations between the Advisory Committee and the Minister, the House will be dealing with the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee will be placed in very great difficulties.
  Sir I. Albery: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said brings out the major

  1509
  part of our grievance. How can we deal with him when we have no knowledge of the evidence on which he acts or of what evidence is available?
  Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that there is a difficulty. This House is not a specific court of appeal against the Home Secretary in individual cases. It cannot be, and if the House tried to be, it would find itself in difficulties. A Debate in this considerable assembly as to whether Mr. X or Mrs. Y or Miss A should be released would be impossible as an operative decision. What the House must do is to keep a watch on the Home Secretary, to have a Debate, to look out for cases where in their judgment he has gone wrong, if they can get evidence that he has—[Interruption], I know the limitations of the House. I agree that it is not altogether cricket, but I cannot help it. Having watched the Home Secretary's actions and had a Debate, the House can come to a broad decision whether or not he is on the whole fairly and prudently administering the Regulations. That is what the House can do. I do not want to deceive the Committee. These are exceptional powers which are confined to an individual. That individual has a terrible responsibility and a heavy task. It is not a job I would want to run after or a job that has great pleasure in it, but I discharge it with great interest and conscientiousness, knowing all the time that this exceptional authority has been given to me by Parliament and that I must be careful and restrained in its use. I do not want to boggle the issue. The only thing the House can do is to watch the general administration and pounce on the Home Secretary if it becomes convinced that he has not discharged this responsibility. Then the House must either reduce his powers or in a perfectly clean and understandable fashion place the responsibility for decision somewhere else.
  Sir A. Southby Sir A. Southby rose——
  Mr. Morrison: I am sorry I cannot give way again.
  Sir A. Southby: But this is important.
  Mr. Morrison: It is also important that I should conclude my statement by the time fixed. I did not interrupt anybody else, and I have given way several times. I say what I have said about the House
  1510
  and the courts without the smallest disrespect, for I have the highest admiration and respect for both. I am hot going to deceive the Committee or the country into believing that this task can be done in any other way materially different from the way in which it is being done at present. I face the Committee and the country, realising that upon my predecessor and myself was put an exceptional responsibility. Upon us were conferred exceptional powers which neither the House nor the country would tolerate in time of peace, but which I say they must tolerate in time of war, because I do not think they can do anything else. The powers having been conferred, I do not think that there is any compromise by which we could do otherwise than we are doing.
  Let us look at one or two alternatives. We always have these alternatives offered, and quite rightly, because hon. Members have a duty to be constructive as well as critical, although often at the end of a Debate it comes to the point when someone says that all the suggestions that have been made are wrong, but that what the Home Secretary is doing is also wrong. It has been suggested that this Regulation being an exceptional thing the Home Secretary would surely think of some limitation on his own powers. I have thought about that and considered it, and if I could see a practical way in which the wishes of even a minority of the House could be met I would consider it not unsympathetically. Only two or three other suggestions have been made. One is that the Advisory Committee should become executive, that is to say, its decisions should be operative. That can be done. It is a clean, clear-cut policy, but it would remove the administration from effective discussion in such a Debate as we have had to-day. If the Advisory Committee were executive and its decisions operative, how could I answer this Debate to-day? I could not. I should have to say, "The Committee is functioning. It has been charged by the House with the responsibility for this work. I have no power to intervene, and I can only say I will convey to the Committee what the House has said."
  Sir I. Albery: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Debate to-day.
  Mr. Morrison: I have answered it much better than I could have done otherwise. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend is not always reasonable in these Debates. He is a little more persistent than perhaps he ought to be. If the Committee were executive, the Home Secretary could not be held responsible for the internal security of the country. I do not see how there could be a Division, such as there easily could be to-day, except to express displeasure with the executive committee. It would not fit in with Parliamentary institutions, because the more exceptional power you give to a Minister in time of war, the more it is essential that Parliament should be the master of that Minister, and that he should feel himself accountable to it for his administration.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridge-ton raised the point that these people—I will not say in all cases, but he implied in many cases—are detained for their opinions. That is not the case. Mr. Cahir Healy, who was mentioned as a case in point, is not detained for his opinions. I am not interested in opinions qua opinions, from the point of view of detention. I am interested in them in all sorts of other ways, but, broadly speaking, from the point of view of detention, I am not, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the opinions of Mr. Cahir Healy, his Irish Republican principles and so on, were not matters with which I was concerned or which worried me. It was something which happened which caused me to believe that it was necessary to exercise control over him.
  Mr. Maxton: For the expression of an opinion.
  Mr. Morrison: I must not be drawn into the details of the case. I cannot accept the view that it was merely for the expression of opinions. It was not so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. Watkins), in a speech in which he supported the Government with ability, said that he did not think there was a great deal of real uneasiness in the country. I do not think there is. I think there is some uneasiness among some Members in the House and certain people outside, but as regards the country as a whole I think that the country's common-sense view is, "These powers are exceptional. In peace we would not stand
  1512
  them, but we have seen Norway, Belgium, Holland, Czecho-Slovakia and France, and there will be none of that Fifth Column nonsense in this country." The country also says, "Therefore, we must swallow the principle of the Minister having exceptional powers." I believe that the country as a whole, and also the Committee as a whole, believe that these powers have been exercised with restraint and care and with judicial fairness. Any suggestion that I am actuated in these cases by political opinion or sub-conscious political bias, or by political prejudice because I am a politician of the Left—which I am, and I make no apology about it—is not the case. That does not concern me in dealing with these cases. I forget my political opinions. Moreover, our governmental machine is such that there would be terrible difficulties put in the way of any of His Majesty's Ministers who tried to administer a Regulation of this kind for partisan purposes. Heaven forbid that I should bring the Civil Service into any Debate, but the Civil Service at the Home Office—many people do not know it—is one of the best guarantees of British liberty that we have ever had, and I pay it that tribute of respect and admiration.
  I will give the figures of persons detained. It has been suggested that most of them could be permitted to go out on parole. There was a curious letter in "The Times" this morning from the gentleman who acts as solicitor in a large proportion of these cases. It was a most extraordinary letter, suggesting that they might all be allowed to go out on parole, if they gave financial sureties. It is an utterly impracticable and ridiculous suggestion, and I will not examine it in detail because I do not think it is worth while. But, as a matter of fact, I have, in effect, let a number out on parole. The classes of release are various. In some cases it is a clean release—a revocation of the order. We are finished with them, unless we ever should rind it necessary to detain them again. There are others who are released subject to very simple restrictions, subject merely to reporting to the police when they move from one place to another; others must report periodically to the police; others must not go to certain areas—there are all sorts of restrictions. Therefore, we have in fact already adopted the principle of release by parole.
  Mr. Maxton: How many of those who have been put on parole or liberated have had to be pulled back again?
  Mr. Morrison: In all—these were all originally detained by my right hon. Friend the Lord President—19 persons have been redetained after having been released. Two of them were redetained by my predecessor and 17 by myself, but I must add that 14 of those 19 were cases that came out of the judgment in the Captain Budd case. The Committee will remember that I released them out of respect for the decision of the court, quite properly because there had been a slight irregularity in their detention, though nothing material. They were very soon redetained. Really the number is five. That figure can be argued both ways. It may be argued that it shows how safe it is to leave them out on parole, but also it can be said, as I would prefer to argue it, how careful we have been in selecting the persons to be released.
  I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), whose speech I very much appreciated, and I can only say that I agree with him. He was apprehensive of one or two points connected with aliens, but I think I can say that in dealing with a difficult problem—more difficult in some ways, less difficult in others—we have been careful in that field of administration. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) raised one or two points in connection with prisons and particularly urged that we should transfer all these 18B people from prisons where they are in the same building as ordinary criminals and put them in Reading gaol. I began to think of a new "Ballad of Reading Gaol." The answer to that suggestion is that Reading gaol is now kept as a reserve against the possible blitzing of prisons, when there has to be quick movement of prisoners if damage has been done. At present there are very few prisoners there. Moreover, there is this additional difficulty, that not all the detainees are in prison because I prefer to keep them there. Some are in prison because they prefer to be there rather than in the Isle of Man. Their main reason for that in most cases is, I think, that they are in London, near their solicitors, legal advisers, friends and so on, and for reasons of personal convenience they prefer to be there. I am afraid that if I took them to Reading I should probably be accused
  1514
  of victimising them because I was taking them out of London. As the Committee know, I had a spot of bother the other day with the ladies in Holloway, but the hon. Member for Ipswich is raising that on the Adjournment, and I will not bother to deal with that now.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), to my delight and pleasure, made a speech in my support and justified the moderation of my character and the integrity of my administration—but I think I had better pass on quickly before I cause any embarrassment either on his part or my own. I have dealt with a number of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend.
  I will deal now with the point or suggestion, from which I am afraid I got drawn away, that we should use a High Court Judge to arbitrate in the case of disagreement between me and the Advisory Committee. The suggestion was made in more than one quarter of the Committee. I understand that this is a praiseworthy effort on the part of some Members to get out of a difficulty in which they are placed. One has to see what will happen. The Advisory Committee, with great care, make their report, taking into account all the circumstances, including reports of the security services. Their report comes to me. There are also minutes and observations by all competent quarters on the report of the Committee. They do not all agree. They are expected to say what they think. Even the civil servants must say on each minute what they think, no matter what the man up above may say when he gets the minute. It is all done in that way. There are often conflicts of opinion between one and the other.
  They come to me, and it may be that with regret, I find that I cannot agree with the Committee. It is suggested that we bring in a High Court Judge. There is already a High Court Judge as Chairman of the Advisory Committee. It would be a little bit awkward to put one High Court Judge against another, but I am there as Secretary of State of the Home Department. We can put our respective cases to the High Court Judge. He decides, and his decision is operative. It does not solve the problem. It makes the Home Secretary's position impossible. He has said to the High Court Judge that,

  1515
  in his judgment, speaking with all his knowledge as Home Secretary and with all the background that he has, this detainee should, in the interests of the State, remain in. Nevertheless, if the High Court Judge takes another view, out that detainee would come. It is right that this House should hold the Home Secretary responsible for security. If it does so, it must give him all the responsibility and power which are necessary.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised a point about "Socialist Appeal." I think it is a monthly publication. It is published by the Fourth International, in other words the Trotskyists. If the Communist Party of Great Britain hate anybody more than they do me, it is the Trotskyists. Sometimes, when I see front page advertisements of this paper in the Press, especially in the Conservative newspapers, I often suspect, not altogether unintelligently, that the Conservative Press is inspired to denounce the Trotskyists by the Communist party [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is getting into respectable bourgeois company lately.
  Anyhow, this paper is there. It has a very small circulation of somewhere between 1,500 and 3,000. They claim 20,000, but that is wrong. The matter it has printed is pernicious in many respects and objectionable. It has apparently had a couple of pedestrians going round talking to miners, but, believe me, any idea that this very limited band of people—I do not know, but I doubt whether the organisation has more than 500 members—[An HON. MEMBER: "Little drops of water"]—are responsible generally for the strikes that have taken place in the mining industry is, I think a hopeless exaggeration of what has taken place. I could suppress that paper under Regulation 2D. I might be able to pick up some of these people under Regulation 18B. I reserve the right to suppress the paper under Regulation 2D, in which case I should have the warm support of the hon. Member for West Fife——
  Mr. Gallacher: Why does the right hon. Gentleman want to bring me into it?
  Mr. Morrison: —He and I know—and of the noble lord; before doing so
  1516
  or taking some of these people under 18B—and I reserve the right to do so—I must remember that these powers were given in order to protect the State against something which had a material significance and was a danger to the State. I am not yet convinced that the existence of "Socialist Appeal,"—which has not had anywhere near as long a run of naughtiness as the "Daily Worker" had at the beginning of the war—is of such danger to the State that I ought to use Regulation 2D against it. I reserve the right to do so, but it is not my wish to use any of these exceptional Regulations unless there is a case, in the public interest, for their use. I am not yet convinced that that is so.
  Earl Winterton: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that my action was taken not because I am a Conservative or a Communist or anything else, but because I wished to call attention to a statement made by the representatives of the Durham Miners' Association, asking whether this matter could be brought up in Debate. I am sure we shall all accept the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but We shall keep an eye on his future actions.
  Sir William Davison: How much paper does it use?
  Mr. Morrison: That is for the Ministry of Supply, not for me. Not only do I not resent my Noble Friend's keeping an eye on me; I will keep an eye on myself at the same time.
  I am afraid that my general argument will have to be eliminated, but I think the points which have been raised in the Debate have been covered, and that is perhaps more satisfactory. I did, however, indicate to the Committee that I would give some figures as to the present situation and the use that has been made of the Regulations. The total number detained under the Regulations at some time or other is 1,817, of whom 1,335 were detained in May, June and July of 1940. The total released to date is 1,288, and the total now detained—less than the latest figure in the Library—is 529. Of those—and here I give the separate figures asked for—322 were of hostile origin or association; those picked up under 18B (1A)—that is more or less the British Union provision—are 141, and acts prejudicial, 66. I will now give the cases of disagreement, which

  1517
  have been a prominent feature in the Debate. The number of cases reported on by the Committees—sometimes they are dealt with direct because the issue is simple and there can be no argument about it—number 1,582. The recommendations accepted by the Home Secretary number 1,498, and disagreements number 84. The Committee recommended release in 70 of those cases, and of those 70 cases where they recommended release and the Home Secretary continued detention, 41 were of hostile origin or association, 25 were 18B (1A) cases—that is, the British Union type of case—and 4 were acts prejudicial. There were 14 cases in which the Committees advised continued detention and in which I released the person notwithstanding that recommendation. I think that gives the essentials of the figures, and the Committee

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES.

  Albery, Sir Irving

  Martin, J. H.

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.

  Maxton, J.

  Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)

  Davies, Clamant (Montgomery)

  Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.

  Wayland, Sir W. A.

  Evans, E. (Univ, of Wales)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)

  White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)

  Hardie, Agnes

  Roberts, W.

  Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Harvey, T. E.

  Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Silverman, S. S.

  Commander Bower and

  Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.

  South by, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.

  Mr. Stokes.

  Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.

  Stephen, C.

  NOES.

  Asland-Troyte, Lt.-Col G. J.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford

  Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)

  Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)

  Crooke, Sir J. Smedley

  Grimston, R. V.

  Ammon, C. G.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Andersen, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (S'b Univ.)

  Daggar, G.

  Groves, T. E.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Barnes, A. J.

  Davison, Sir W. H.

  Hambro, A. V.

  Barstow, P. G.

  De Chair, Capt. S. S.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Baxter, A. Beverley

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.

  Denville, Alfred

  Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.

  Beattie, F.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hewlett, T. H.

  Beauchamp, Sir B. C.

  Doland, G. F.

  Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)

  Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Holmes, J. S.

  Bennett, Sir P. F. B, (Edgbaston)

  Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Bevin, Rt. Hon. E.

  Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

  Hughes, R. M.

  Blair, Sir R.

  Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)

  Hunter, T.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.

  Dunn, E.

  Kurd, Sir P. A.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Ede, J. C.

  Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)

  Bower, Norman (Harrow)

  Edmondson, Major Sir T.

  Isaacs, G. A.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.

  Brass, Capt. Sir W.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.

  Ellis, Sir G.

  John, W.

  Brooke, H.

  Elliston, Captain G. S.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Browne, Captain A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Emrys-Evant, P. V.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Burke, W. A.

  Errington, Squadron-Leader E.

  Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.

  Erskine-Hill, A. G.

  Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)

  Cadogan, Major Sir E.

  Etherton, Flight-Lieut. Ralph

  Kirby, B. V.

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Foster, W.

  Lakin, C. H. A.

  Cary, R. A.

  Frankel, D.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Channon, H.

  Fremantle, Sir F. E.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gallacher, W.

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gammans, Capt. L. D.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Christie, J. A.

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Lewis, O.

  Cobb, Captain E. C.

  Gibbins, J.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Colegate, W. A.

  Goldie, N. B.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Colville, Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  Logan, D. G.

  Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  Mabane, W.

  Cooper, Rt. Hon. A. Duff

  Grenfell, D. R.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  McCorquodale, Malcolm S.

  will see that I agreed with the recommendation of the Committees, whether for continued detention or for release, in 95 per cent. of the cases. That I think is not a bad record in view of the large number of cases that have been considered.
  I can only say that I am grateful to the Committee for the good temper of to-day's Debate. I hope the House will think that I have treated it with proper respect in the use of these powers for I am very anxious to give the House all the help and information that I can.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £1,083,350 be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 222.

  McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.

  Radford, E. A.

  Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Mack, J. D.

  Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Thomas, I. (Keighley)

  Mathers, G.

  Reid, W. Allan (Derby)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Richards, R.

  Thurtle, E.

  Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

  Richards, G. W.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Mille, Colonel J. D. (Now Forest)

  Ritson, J.

  Titchfield, Lt.-Col. Marquess of

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Robertson, D. (Streatham)

  Tomlinson, G.

  Montague, F.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helene)

  Touche, G. C.

  Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)

  Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)

  Tree, A. R. L. F.

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)

  Sanderson, Sir F. B.

  Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

  Sandys, E. D.

  Walkden, E. (Doncaster)

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Savory, Professor D. L.

  Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Schuster, Sir G. E.

  Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)

  Muff, G.

  Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)

  Wells, Sir S. Richard

  Nall, Sir J.

  Selley, H. R.

  Westwood, J.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shakespeare, Sir G. H.

  White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)

  Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)

  Shepperson, Sir E. W.

  Wickham, Lt.-ol. E. T. R.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

  Wilkinson, Eilen

  Oliver, G. H.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver

  Willink, H. U.

  Paling, W.

  Storey, S.

  Windsor, W.

  Palmer, G. E. H.

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Parker, J.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wise, Major A. R.

  Peake, O.

  Strickland, Capt. W. F.

  Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Petherick, Major M.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)

  Woodburn, A.

  Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Studholme, Captain H. G.

  Wootton-Davies, J. H.

  Price, M. P.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Young, A. S. L. (Partick)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Summers, G. S.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Procter, Major H. A.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Pym, L. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Tate, Mavis C.

  Mr. Boulton and Mr. Adamson.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Captain Sir William Brass rose——
  It being after the hour appointed for the interuption of Business, and objecttion being taken to further proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  RELEASED DETAINEES (EMPLOYMENT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—
  [Major Sir James Edmondson."]
  Mr. Denman: I desire to raise a point affecting the administration of the Home Office. It relates in fact to Regulation 18B, the subject which, I believe, was lately considered in the Committee of this House, and indeed, it may still be fresh in the memories of some hon. Members. The point I wish to raise is that relating to persons released from 18B and to the hardships from which they suffer. I suggest to the House and to the Home Office that we ought seriously to
  1520
  consider whether there is not some method of limiting the hardship. There was the case reported the other day of Mr. Knight, of Guildford. His case came into the courts, and it was declared, so I gather from the short accounts of the judgment, that he had committed nothing that in itself justified dismissal, and further, that his contract of service had been frustrated by the fact of the detention. Here you have the result not only that the man suffers considerable social and moral injury from detention, but his whole livelihood is lost. I should like to quote something from that much disputed broadcast that was not delivered at the end of last year by Mr. Gibbs, in which he dealt with this particular point, because in the concluding section of that broadcast he made remarks which seemed to me to be very apposite, although I may say, about the broadcast as a whole, that I was very far from agreeing with it and did not regard it as suitable for broadcasting unless it received an adequate reply. The words which I propose to quote are:
  "And now there is one word of my own I would like to add. Very often the worst part of a man's punishment begins when he leaves prison, and with the stigma of prison on him faces the world and meets his own acquaintances. That is a terrible ordeal."
  Later he said:
  "For the sake of those who are not guilty, for the sake of their wives and children, I

  1521
  would ask you not to forget that although they are in prison they are not technically being punished. Remember that they have never been charged, that they have never been tried and have never been convicted."
  With the exception of certain items of phraseology there, that seems to be a sound maxim. I am sorry, however, that he talks about guilt and punishment, because in this process of detention there is no guilt and there is no punishment. Guilt implies, the commission of some specific offence. It is not in the least necessary for detention, and if there had been a specific offence, the man would have been prosecuted. But, in fact, we find that when a man goes out he is liable to serious victimisation. I had a case, not of a constituent, brought to my attention the other day of which I should like the House to take note. It was of a man who, for 36 years, had been in a clerical occupation and was then put under detention. Coming out of detention he found his work was closed to him. He was taken on later by the Post Office, and I was told that he was dismissed shortly because of the organised hostility of fellow workers, arising, I am informed, from the fact that he had been interned. Well, that seemed to me so unpleasant and so un-English that I wrote at once to the Postmaster-General to inquire into the facts, and I received this reply, from which I will merely exclude names:
  "I find that X started work at Z on 4th May. Over half the staff had been recruited locality, and X's presence immediately provoked a strong protest from members of the staff who knew his past record. Unfortunately, members of the staff refused to teach him or work with him, and warning slips against working with a fifth columnist were left about the branch in which he was employed."
  I ask the House to consider that picture. Here was a man trying to get back into work after being released. He goes into an office where his fellow workers refuse to work with him and where slips referring to working with a fifth columnist are left about for him to see. The reply goes on:
  "Representations followed from the local branch of ex-Service civil servants, and the Department was placed in the unenviable position of having to choose between the alternatives of unrest among the staff and dispensing with X's services. In the interests of parties concerned, including X's, we chose the latter course after the decision had been communicated to X. Officials of another staff association made representations that its members were objecting to working with him.
  1522
  While I sympathise with X, I do not think I can reasonably be expected to compel the Department at Z to employ him at the cost of endangering the harmonious working of 1,600 employees. The fact that X elected to leave at once instead of completing a week from the date on which notice was given to him sufficiently indicates, I think, that he, too, felt that the situation had become impossible."
  I agree. I cannot blame the Postmaster-General for the action he took. He was in a difficulty, and he had to take the most peaceful way out. But I most strongly suggest that this indicates a deplorable situation that is arising out of the public misapprehensions relating to Regulation 18B. There has been so much talk about guilt and punishment, and so on, that the public mind seems to be convinced that there is something permanently wicked about a person who has been detained. We know that persons may be detained, and quite rightly detained, on very slight grounds of past associations, but the very fact that a man is released with a perfectly clean certificate ought to make him eligible to resume life in the circles in which he has previously been. In this case the man was offered jobs by the employment exchange in other parts. He thought that if he went to some district where he was not known it might be easier for him, and he went to a far-distant county. Here he had an interview with a view to taking a job, and he came away from the interview fairly sure that he would get the job, but subsequent inquiries produced a polite letter saying that his services were not required. He has not the least doubt that that meant, in fact, that they had discovered all about the difficulties to which his internment had given rise. I ask the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider most carefully whether it is not possible by indicating to the public the real meaning of these detentions and releases, and by generally trying to break down this bitter prejudice, to make the lot of those released from detention less hard than it is liable to be. I strongly support the Home Secretary's administration of this Regulation. He has a most odious and unsavoury task, and I think it is our business to offer him all the strength we can in administering the Regulation with impartiality and strength, and not to weaken his arm by nagging him into any weakness. But if detention is going to

  1523
  produce results of the kind I have shown on people who are innocent of any fundamental offence, I think the public reactions towards Regulation 18B will be different from what they have been.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Certainly I cannot complain about my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) having taken the opportunity on the Adjournment of raising this point, which is one aspect of the procedure under Defence Regulation 18B. Of course, there is no doubt that detention under the Defence Regulation may result, and sometimes does result, in a business being spoiled or a job being lost. As we saw in the case reported in "The Times" a day or two ago of Mr. Knight versus the Corporation of Guildford, it may well be held that the contract of employment has been frustrated by the operation of the Defence Regulation; but I should like my hon. Friend to appreciate the difficulty in which the authorities stand in this matter.
  Some persons are released from detention Unconditionally; other persons are released subject to certain restrictions imposed in order to make their release compatible with considerations of security. The fact that a person has been released, even unconditionally, does not show that it was wrong or a mistake to detain that person in the first, instance. The fact of release must be allowed, so far as the Home Office is concerned, to speak for itself. It is quite impossible for Us to give testimonials to persons who have been released from detention under Regulation 18B. We have been justified in detaining them, and we have been justified in subsequently releasing them in the altered circumstances, or after investigations which we have made, or subject to the conditions which we impose on release. It is, therefore, impossible for us to give testimonials to those persons,
  1524
  or to consider the question of giving them pensions or compensation. The facts of the case speak for themselves, but we are most anxious that all these persons shall be employed to the full extent of their abilities to help the war effort. In some cases the jobs which they previously held are not suitable employment. They may have been released on restrictive conditions as to entering protected areas and so forth, and the jobs which they may previously have held may have been in such an area.
  It may be taken for granted that we are most anxious that they shall be employed, because persons employed in regular jobs are much less likely to be a source of mischief than persons who are idle. It may be assumed that the Ministry of Labour will do their utmost to place such persons in suitable employment. It can be taken that they are suitable to be employed in any job in which they are placed by the Ministry of Labour. They will certainly not be recommended for jobs for which they are not suitable, and, therefore, there is no ground whatsoever for fellow employees pursuing the sort of course of petty persecutions to which my hon. Friend has referred in the remarks which he has just made. It is inevitable, I am afraid, that the operation of the Regulation will, in many cases, inflict a considerable hardship, but we must bear in mind that war inevitably inflicts hardship to a very large class of the population, and that many very patriotic persons have suffered in their jobs and in their businesses as a result of the war. There is a sphere here in which voluntary organisations can be of assistance. Notices have been posted in the camps that the Society of Friends will try to assist in hard cases, and this is a sphere in which hon. Members themselves may be able to be of useful service.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

  SCHOOLS (HOLIDAY OPENING).
  SCHOOLS (HOLIDAY OPENING).
  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, CROYDON.
  LOCAL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE, CROYDON.
  SOUTH AFRICA (HOUSING SCHEMES).
  SOUTH AFRICA (HOUSING SCHEMES).
  AIR TRAINING CORPS (CHAPLAINS).
  AIR TRAINING CORPS (CHAPLAINS).
  KENYA AND NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE WORKERS, FINES).
  KENYA AND NORTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVE WORKERS, FINES).
  ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (FOOD SUPPLIES).
  ENEMY OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (FOOD SUPPLIES).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Textiles (Export Agreement).
  Textiles (Export Agreement).
  Clothes Rationing.
  Clothes Rationing.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  Forestry Commission (Staff).
  Forestry Commission (Staff).
  Inland Revenue (Public Relations Officer).
  Inland Revenue (Public Relations Officer).
  Air Ministry (Promotions and Appointments).
  Air Ministry (Promotions and Appointments).
  Admiralty (Promotions and Appointments).
  Admiralty (Promotions and Appointments).
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  Anti-Gas Precautions (Exercises).
  Anti-Gas Precautions (Exercises).
  Bombed Houses (Repair).
  Bombed Houses (Repair).
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
FOOD SUPPLEES.
  Brewing and Distilling (Raw Materials).
  Brewing and Distilling (Raw Materials).
  National Bread.
  National Bread.
  Commodity Stocks (Rugby).
  Commodity Stocks (Rugby).
  ARMY NURSES (TROPICAL OUTFIT).
  ARMY NURSES (TROPICAL OUTFIT).
  BRITISH EMBASSY, EGYPT (ITALIANS).
  BRITISH EMBASSY, EGYPT (ITALIANS).
  ARMED FORCES (INSURANCE PREMIUMS).
  ARMED FORCES (INSURANCE PREMIUMS).
  HOSPITAL SERVICES, NORTH-WEST AREA (SURVEY).
  HOSPITAL SERVICES, NORTH-WEST AREA (SURVEY).
POST OFFICE.
  Airgraph Service, East Africa.
  Airgraph Service, East Africa.
  British Prisoners of War (Mails).
  British Prisoners of War (Mails).
  WAR DAMAGE (EMERGENCY REPAIRS).
  WAR DAMAGE (EMERGENCY REPAIRS).
  GEORGE CROSS (ALLIED COUNTRIES).
  GEORGE CROSS (ALLIED COUNTRIES).

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Amulree—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD): My Lords, this is a short Bill which is concerned with the removal of certain administrative difficulties at Greenwich Hospital, some of which have only recently come to light. In these days, when our minds are occupied with far more vital and important matters, a Bill of this kind may not appear to have much importance attached to it, but unless the difficulties are removed or remedied hardships will fall upon certain servants of the State who deserve well of their country. Upon this ground I commend the Bill to your Lordships. In recent years Acts of Parliament have been passed giving members of the Civil Service certain rights and privileges with regard to their pensions, and it is chiefly in this respect that we are concerned under the Act of 1865, which charged the Admiralty with the duty of acting as trustees for His Majesty for Greenwich Hospital. We have certain powers, but the language of these Acts, we are advised by the Law Officers, precludes us from extending to our servants at Greenwich the same advantages, rights and privileges as are enjoyed by civil servants employed in similar capacities in other Government Departments. It is in order to remedy this, and to assimilate conditions of our servants in Greenwich Hospital to those which exist in other Government Departments that this Bill is required. I hope that, with that short explanation, your Lordships will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Bruntisfield.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships are probably aware this might be described as a hardy annual which is presented to Parliament every year after the passing into law of our own Finance Bill. I do not think that there are any points in the Bill which need explanation, but perhaps I should inform your Lordships that Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 confirm Resolutions passed by the Tynwald on April 21, 1942, and 16th June, 1942, increasing and continuing the duties on spirits, wines, sweets and tobacco. This reflects increases in our own Finance Act of this year. Clause 5 confirms a Resolution passed by the Tynwald on June 16, 1942, continuing those annual duties which have not been increased. I do not think there is anything more that I need say about this familiar Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

WAR DAMAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Construction of principal Act.
.—The principal Act shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have effect as if:
(a) After Section twenty-five there were inserted the following section:
Rights over against mortgages in cases to which Section 25 of principal Act does not apply.
'25A.—(1) This section applies in any case where at the relevant date in any year in which an instalment of contribution is payable the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property is subject to a mortgage or mortgages, such case not being one in which Section 25 of this Act applies.
(2) In any case in which this section applies, the contributor shall in respect of his net

911
liability for the instalment of contribution payable in the year in question be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee or mortgagees under the mortgage or mortgages in question to the extent of a rate in the pound upon the amount of the annual interest payable by the contributor to such mortgagee or mortgagees for that year, which rate in the pound shall be the instalment rate for the year in question unless that rate when applied to the amount of such interest, would yield a sum exceeding one-half of the net liability of the contributor for the instalment of contribution payable in that year, in which case the rate in the pound shall be a rate which, when applied to the amount of such interest, would yield a sum not exceeding one-half of such net liability. Provided that if there shall be more than one mortgagee entitled to receive interest for that year under any such mortgage the share of the indemnity to be borne by any one of such mortgagees in respect of that year shall bear the same proportion to the total amount of the indemnity in respect of that year as the amount of the interest payable to that mortgagee for that year bears to the total amount of the interest payable under the mortgage or mortgages for that year:
(3) In this section:
The expression "mortgage" means any charge, lien, floating charge, debenture, debenture stock, or like security on any property (including in that expression floating assets) for securing money or money's worth other than a security which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice;
The expression "mortgagee" has a meaning corresponding to the meaning of the expression "mortgage"; and the expression "the instalment rate" means the rate in the pound at which in the year with respect to which the expression is used the instalment of contribution is levied in pursuance of the provisions of Sections twenty and twenty-two of this Act.'
(b) In paragraph (ii) of Section twenty-seven and subsection (2) of Section thirty-three and subsection (15) of Section ninety-six after the words "Section twenty-five" there were inserted the words "or Section 25 A"; and
(c) In subsection (2) of Section ninety-eight for the words "Section twenty-five of this Act shall in its application" there were substituted the words "Section twenty-five and Section 25A of this Act shall in the application of each of them", and in paragraph (c) of that subsection after the words "subsection (8)" there were inserted the words "of Section twenty-five."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the Committee stage of this Bill I read carefully the replies of the Lord Chancellor, particularly those dealing with the Amendments put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I have further consulted authoritative legal opinion. As a result I have felt compelled to raise the matter
912
at this stage—particularly the position of the mortgagor—and, therefore this Amendment stands in my name to-day. I do this first because it is clear from the Official Report that the main opposition to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount was on the ground that only a portion of the field involved was covered by the Amendment, and that of itself was held to condemn the suggestion irrespective of the merits of the principle. The Amendment I offer to-day is designed to remedy this position. It does not involve any sacrifice by the State. It in no way reduces the amount of money which the State will receive. It merely facilitates the collection of the contribution which the State requires. There are already many instances where contributors have been unable to pay, and it is understood that prosecutions have had to take place. All this increases the amount of work to be done under the Bill.
My Amendment aims at correcting an injustice as between two classes of people affected by the Bill; and I repeat that, were it to involve any sacrifice by the State, I should hesitate to ask for the indulgence of your Lordships in moving it to-day. It is clear to those who have taken the trouble to study the problem, however, that something which appears complicated is really very simple, and that what should be the guiding principle in this matter has been impinged upon by exceptions. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor was able to object to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, by pointing out that that Amendment would apply only to a portion of those affected by the Bill. It is for that reason that I venture to bring forward this Amendment to-day, and to emphasize that its aim is to apply to all cases which arise in this way.
The noble and learned Lord Chancellor explained that the aim of the draftsman of the Bill was to achieve "rough justice," and that suggests that equity, more than law, is involved. Indeed, on the question of law, I submit that the fact that a former Lord Chancellor has asked that relief should be afforded on grounds of justice to some of those affected by the Bill, removes any ground for opposition based on law. I therefore base myself on an appeal to equity and to reason, and I shall attempt to deal primarily with what was said by the

913
noble and learned Lord Chancellor in Committee. It is urged that the mortgagor, having all the privileges, could justifiably be asked to pay all the charges. The mortgagor pays the fire insurance, for example, and therefore it is said that he should pay the War Damage Contribution, or any other contribution which circumstances may require, regardless of the fact that it has been repeatedly urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a fundamental principle of the Bill, that war damage insurance should fall proportionately on all classes of the community. Legislation arising out of the war has imposed this charge, which was unforeseen by those who drew up the mortgage. It may be argued that the lawyers should have foreseen and provided for it.
Let me take the instance of marine cover; the insurer there would never be prepared, subsequent to the writing of the cover, to include items which were not specified in the policy and which were in expansion of it, and any expansion of it to cover such risks subsequently would not be permitted. On the other hand, increased costs, requisitioning of properties at lower rents, losses from empty buildings, war damage, and so on, may very well remove the whole of the income of the mortgagor, but at the same time there is no diminution of the charge which he has to pay by way of interest on his mortgage. He is prevented from rebuilding during the war, and will have to face increased costs in that respect after the war; and yet the Rent Restrictions Acts prevent him from recouping himself. He has to find the whole of the money for War Damage Contributions. If he has not spare capital available, he will have to find that money out of income; and, by reason of taxation, for every pound or contribution that he pays he has to have at least two pounds of income.
That brings me to the argument based on the sanctity of contracts. This was emphasized during all the previous stages of this measure as good reason why the suggestion to broaden the basis of contribution should not be countenanced. Surely the Rent Restrictions Acts have already demolished that argument. Next, it was suggested that to do what is here proposed would imperil lending on mortgage. I would gladly see the State becoming the lender rather than that the
914
State alone should become the source of all building enterprise. In the Committee stage the case of the banks was raised. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor laid considerable emphasis on the position of the banks and the difficulty which their case would raise, but this is provided for in my Amendment, which excludes a security which can be discharged upon less than three months' notice. Apart from that, it is the custom of the banks, as is well known, to lend on short-term, and not to lend on long-term mortgages. It is not the business of the banks to make long-term mortgages; they do not want to lock their depositors' money up in that way, and to do so would be bad banking practice. The question is also raised where an advance is made upon a mixed bag of collateral. It is customary for the banks to value the collateral which they receive against any advance, and that would include the valuation of any property of a real estate character, so that the cover in that case could easily be determined.
Because the position of the banks has been so much emphasized, I cannot refrain from turning to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wardington on the last occasion, when he shed tears of anxiety over the injustice of suggesting any contribution by the poor mortgagee, who is getting the pittance of a meagre rate of interest. The noble Lord should not forget the widespread feeling among many classes of the community with regard to the past policy of the banks. The banks have allowed a very thin and meagre rate of interest on their deposits, while they have not hesitated to charge handsome rates of interest for their advances. Commercial records will show that in the past the rate has been as high as 7 per cent. That feeling may easily explain the widespread idea that the nationalization of the Bank of England is desirable. If there had been no war damage insurance, I suggest that the mortgagees would have been the first to protest. Not only so, but they would have had the sturdy and powerful support of the banks, and it is suggested that they would readily have accepted the requirement of contributions to relieve their otherwise exposed position. There is a natural tendency on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—there has been from the start—to listen to the siren voices of the banks, but there is no reason why favours should all go to them.

915
I could elaborate this at length, but I will ask your Lordships' permission to return to this point of the banks in a few minutes.
I cannot at this stage refrain from expressing my surprise that on a question like this, particularly on points like that raised by my noble friends Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Lord Maugham, dealing with the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes, the Labour Party should have departed from their customary practice of supporting the position of the small man against the privileged financial institutions, and that they should have gone into the Division Lobby against the Amendments which were moved in Committee. This matter affects a vast number of people and involves a cruel hardship on many. There are probably more cases of poor property owners receiving loans on mortgage than there are of poor widows whose savings may be invested in mortgages. This problem is very definitely a difficult one to explain, and the fact was very evident in another place. The Division there on the point which I am discussing resulted in a majority of only 33, which is an indication that those who supported it were members who had taken the trouble really to study the matter.
The banks and big financial institutions are well organized, and, I repeat, they were early in the field to emphasize their point—it is natural that they should have done so—but those who understand the scientific management of property are relatively few. That must be well known to members of your Lordships' House, who are often directly or indirectly associated with property, and who will realize that matters of this kind are different from the problems with which the land agents of big estates normally have to do. It is for that reason that I ask the indulgence of the House in explaining that in the Committee stage, when I put this Amendment down and did not move it, I was in a difficult position owing to the fact that a former Lord Chancellor was dealing with a matter affecting law and was to be replied to by the present Lord Chancellor. In a cross-fire between legal authorities of such eminence it was not for a layman to interpose an Amendment such as I have interposed to-day. The Lord Chancellor on the Committee stage referred to the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, in reply to my suggestion that
916
a mortgagor of a house with contributory value not exceeding £150 and otherwise within the provisions of Section 25 of the original Act is indemnified in part by the mortgagee, whereas the mortgagor of a large block of flats could not be so indemnified, and the Amendment provided by the Second Schedule, paragraph 4, appears to create an even greater anomaly.
I am going to try to save the time of the House and relieve a little the monotony of the subject by asking your Lordships to look at a pictorial description of the matter that I am trying to explain. Here on the drawing I hold in my hand is a block of flats of which the annual rental value does not exceed £35· On the other side is one where the individual values may exceed £35· The contributory value of the flats on this second side may be £36 because they are a little more decorative owing to having window boxes. The buildings are identical, their owners are the same, and they are both mortgaged. In one case where the value does not exceed £35, the mortgagee contributes, but if the value is more than £35, owing to the artistic embellishment of window boxes, there is no contribution by the mortgagee. If that same builder has built the same number of houses, but side by side, horizontally instead of vertically, he does not receive any contribution from the mortgagee. The buildings are just the same, in the same locality, but the flats are horizontal instead of vertical. I could point out other anomalies, but I will spare the House, although the figures have a definite bearing upon the situation. I would, however, emphasize the point that in the case of a block of buildings where the rental value is not more than £35 the mortgagee contributes. The point is that if the payment of indirect contribution is limited to certain mortgages there must be border-line cases. That may well create hardship and dissatisfaction. If this could not be obviated without difficulty it would be understandable, but it appears to be true that the Government's advisers have apparently not effectively understood the practical side of this question, and in presuming to say that I feel sure that the illustrations which, by the kind permission of the House, I have just given will convince noble Lords that there are illogicalities in the measure as it stands at present.
The Amendment moved in the House of Commons providing for contribution by all mortgagees other than in respect of mortgages for short terms, such as those to which I have already referred by bankers, was proposed by those who have specialized in this question of the management of property. It is for that reason that I again refer to the question of the banks. It does not appear to overcome all the difficulties that the Lord Chancellor has been advised would make such a provision impracticable, and also to provide an equitable distribution of the property-owners' portion of the War Damage Contribution among all those with a real interest in the property. I emphasize that the interest of the mortgagee is a very real one. This proposal would avoid anomalies, difficulties, inequalities, or hardships. No valuation would at any time in any case be required, and no question could arise as to the amount of the contribution to be collected by the mortgagor from the mortgagee. The proposal simply is that every mortgagor would be entitled to collect from his mortgagee 2s. in each pound of loan interest paid to him, but not exceeding in any case 50 per cent. of the net contribution of the mortgagor. Of course, if in any year the instalment of the contribution payable by the mortgagor is varied from 2s. in the pound, then the amount due from the mortgagee would be similarly varied.
The reason for that calculation is that the mortgagors contribution is paid on the amount of Schedule A net annual value. This is a theoretical annual income, or net annual income if the rent is an inclusive one. The reason for the limitation of the mortgagee's contribution to 50 per cent. of the mortgagor's contribution is to prevent any anomaly arising in cases where Schedule A net annual value may be low in relation to the capital value and so, possibly, in relation to the mortgage. Mortgages of all kinds are included, whether legal, equitable or debenture charge, because in each the mortgagee has a direct interest in the preservation of the property. There can be no question about that. The mortgagee is equally interested, and at times more interested than the mortgagor in regard to his holding. Mortgages which can be redeemed at three months' notice, as in the case of bank loans, are already provided for.
Let me cite a typical case. A freehold property, or a parcel of freehold properties, with a capital value of £10,000 having a net annual value of £650, may be mortgaged for £7,000 at 5 per cent. interest. In that case the mortgagor's income would be £650. The mortgagee's income would be £350 and the mortgagor's net income would be £300. The War Damage Contribution would be £65 per annum and the mortgagee's contribution, limited to 50 per cent., as well as the mortgagor's contribution, would be £32 10s. If the properties are leasehold with fifty years or more unexpired, the ground rent being £130 per annum, the mortgagor will recover 10 per cent. of the contribution from the freeholder—namely £6 10s. per annum, thus reducing his contribution to £58 10s., and in consequence the mortgagee's and the mortgagor's contributions will each be £29 5s. If the freeholder has mortgaged his ground rent for £2,000 at 5 per cent., his mortgagee's contribution, recoverable by him, will be 2s. in the pound on the amount of his interest, but again limited to 50 per cent.—namely, £3 5s. Thus the burden is spread over all interests without valuations, but by the simplest of mathematical calculations and without interfering in any way with the one collection of the total contribution by the Inland Revenue from the direct contributor.
I ask the patience of the House while I quote figures in the case of a small shopkeeper. Under the Bill a small shopkeeper who wants to place a mortgage on his house is not included in the provisions of Section 25. He wants to impose a mortgage, we will say, on a capital value of £3,000—net annual value £200 and a mortgage of £2,000 at 4 per cent. The War Damage Contribution is £20 per annum and he would collect £8 of it from the £80 interest he pays to the mortgagee. If he has had to raise a second mortgage or £300 at 6½ per cent., he would also collect £1 19s. from the second mortgagee. If the total mortgage interest in such a case exceeded 50 per cent. of the annual value, then 50 per cent. of the total contribution would be collectable from the mortgagees in proportion to the amount of interest payable to each. Again I seek the indulgence of the House while I cite the case of debenture stock. Take the case of a company owning £100,000 of freehold property with a net annual value of

919
£6,000—a company with an ordinary capital of £50,000, a debenture stock of £50,000 at 4 per cent. The War Damage Contribution is £600 per annum of which £200 is recoverable from the debenture interest. In consequence each holder would suffer a deduction of 2s. from each pound of interest paid to him. Similar calculations to those mentioned would be made in the case of ground rents, second mortgages, or where the total interest on mortgages exceeds 50 per cent. of the net annual value.
In this Amendment provision is not made for contribution by preference stock holders. That point was raised by Lord Wardington on the last stage, and he advanced grounds for avoiding the proposals which had been put forward by Lord Maugham, but if the general opinion is that they should contribute, the additional words can be added to provide for the deduction of 2s. in the pound of preference dividend with precisely the same limitations and conditions as those applying to mortgage interest. In the case of an industrial company with substantial mortgagees on the company's assets including only a small amount of property, no difficulties would arise in the application of precisely similar calculations. I say this because it was emphasized again in the case of the banks. I instance this particular case so that this aspect of it should not be overlooked. This matter was referred to by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the Lord Chancellor, with his usual consideration, was kind enough to admit that there had been some reason in the case presented.
Take an industrial company with £1,000,000 capital divided into £500,000 ordinary and £500,000 mortgaged debentures at 5 per cent., secured as a floating charge on assets of the company with a contributory value of property of £10,000. The War Damage Contribution would be £1,000 per annum. Fifty per cent.— namely, £500, deductible from mortgage interest of £25,000 per annum, amounts to 4·8d. in each pound of interest. In some cases the amount might be negligible and would not be collected. In others it might be considerable, but in no case could it be an unfair or inequitable charge, because it cannot exceed 50 per cent. of the contribution on the property that is actually held as security, and if the loan interest is less than 50 per cent.
920
of the contributory value of the property, then the contribution is calculated on the amount of the interest.
The Lord Chancellor said that the Amendment moved by Lord Maugham did not apply a principle. One of the main grounds, I would remind the House, on which I bring forward this Amendment, is that it is different from that which was moved by Lord Maugham. This Amendment cannot be criticized on the same grounds as was Lord Maugham's. I bring it forward because it applies a definite principle. In his reply on the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, the Lord Chancellor said that
"the authorities who were trying to work this scheme in order to find out how much the contribution should be from the mortgagee will have to value all these items."
That difficulty would not apply in this case as no valuation would be required. Again, later, the Lord Chancellor said:
"… you would get into a terrible confusion between equitable mortgages, floating charges, debentures and the rest of it."
The reason why I move this Amendment is that you could not get into those difficulties under this Amendment, which embraces cases distinct from those dealt with in the Amendment moved in the Committee stage of the Bill.
My Amendment would spread the burden of contribution among those who benefit by the protection afforded by the original Act. At present the burden falls solely upon the mortgagor. The annual instalment of 2s. in the pound of the hypothetical interest is calculated for Schedule A tax, and it is not generally realized that the mortgagor is paying this tax on his hypothetical income before any allowance is made in respect of losses from empties or other causes. Generally speaking, in areas where there has been enemy action—and I need not remind your Lordships how widespread that has been—there is no comparison between the hypothetical income of Schedule A assessment on which the War Damage Contribution is levied and the actual income. I regret that I have had to trench so long on the indulgence of the House, but I hope I have made it clear that the Amendment which is being discussed now is quite different from what was put forward in the Committee stage. Because it affects so wide a body of people, because it does

921
not involve any sacrifice by the State, I bring it forward now. I would remind the House that the mortgagor recovers Income Tax from the mortgage interest, and, therefore, I contend he should recover a portion of the War Damage Contribution also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, with all possible respect to Lord Barnby I do not think that on this subject he is personally open to persuasion or conviction, and therefore, in the very few remarks which I shall make, I shall not hope to persuade him, but I must out of courtesy to him make one or two observations on his proposal. In the first place his Amendment, moved on Report, is precisely the Amendment which he put down for the Committee stage. He did not move it then. He has told us in the course of his speech that he deliberately did not move it then. It is not for me to suggest what is the ordinary practice of the House, but as a matter of convenience I should hope that when members have Amendments to make to a Bill, and they really wish to make them, they should propose to make them at the Committee stage.
But leaving that apart, the proposal which the noble Lord now makes is very close to the proposal which he made last year and the House rejected it. It is also very close to the Amendment that was moved in the House of Commons on this Bill and rejected. The noble Lord was good enough to explain that the reason for the Commons doing that is that the members of the House of Commons who supported the Amendment understood it, but that the Government and all who voted against it did not understand it at all. Now I do not delay to explain the noble Lord's Amendment, and I do not in fact ask for any further explanation of it. He himself has said it is very simple, and the great advantage of simple things is that they do not need to be repeated. Let me, therefore, in very few words, explain to noble Lords of this House why it is that this Amendment is quite impossible. It is impossible for two reasons. The first reason is a reason of principle. The view which has been taken by Parliament last year, and again, as far as past action is concerned, by this House, is that
922
in the matter of this contribution for war damage the mortgagee, generally speaking, should not have to take a share. That is not because mortgagees or bankers or any other body of people have any particular influence in this House. Your Lordships are as independent and right minded a body as can be found in the country. The reason for it is this. When a man lends money to a borrower on the security of property, the man who lends the money does not get any advantage from that transaction except the agreed rate of interest.
If the borrower, pledging his property to the lender, acquires a sum of money by which he buys a valuable patent and thereby becomes a millionaire, the mortgagee is not entitled to come along and say: "Oh, the money I have lent you has caused you to become a millionaire, therefore I must have a portion of it." The whole principle of lending money on the security of property is that both the benefits and the disadvantages associated with the ownership of the property by the borrower continue as they were. That is one of the reasons why the rate of interest when you borrow money giving reasonable security is comparatively low. If you were to adopt the principle that unforeseen or unmeasured burdens never recognized between the parties were to be shared between the lender and the borrower, then you have upset the whole principle on which the borrower borrows from the lender. What we have done—the noble Lord, I know, will remember this—in order to assist the borrower from what no doubt was an unexpected misfortune if his house is destroyed by enemy action, is this. We have relieved him from the obligation which he otherwise would be under to build up his house again, which is the usual covenant in a mortgage based on property. That is the principle which is being applied, and it has commended itself not only to the Treasury and the Government, but to the House of Commons on two occasions and to the House of Lords last year, and to a Committee of this House as recently as last week, for the vote which was given after the very persuasive remarks of Lord Maugham resulted in an overwhelming decision against his proposal; indeed only five members of your Lordships' House voted in favour of the proposal, one of whom was Lord Barnby.

923
That is the principle. Even more conclusive are the considerations of practicability and fairness. The noble Lord makes no distinction between a first mortgage and a subsequent mortgage. He makes no distinction between the measure of contribution which is adopted under Section 25 and the wholly different measure which he proposes in this Bill. If I may take one instance which will not need pictorial illustration, it will be quite sufficient to show what a very grotesque proposal this is. He desires that this plan, that the mortgagee should contribute, should apply to debentures of all sorts and kinds. There are many cases in business where the debentures which have been issued by the company, though they may no doubt be charged on all the property of the company, are in substance secured on property quite different from the building which is exposed to the risk of being bombed by the enemy. Supposing you take a very large mining corporation owning valuable mines in South Africa which has amongst other things an office in the City of London, as most of them I am glad to think have. Of course, if that mining corporation issues debentures for £1,000,000 or £5,000,000 they will no doubt be secured on the whole of the property, but the important security will be the gold mines or the copper mines in South Africa, and the office which is being occupied by the company in London is a very small part of the security. What does this Amendment propose? It solemnly provides that there must be a sharing of the War Damage Contribution which will cast upon the debentures as much as 50 per cent. of the contribution that has to be made for purposes of war damage, and if you assume widely distributed debentures, it involves calculating how many pennies you are to get out of each debenture holder in order to build up the necessary amount.
This matter has been debated a good many times and the Government have done their best to make it plain. I hope my noble friend Lord Barnby will not take it amiss if I say that I recall an observation of Macbeth after Banquo had been killed, and he was faced with his ghost. Macbeth said:
"… the time has been,
That, when the brains were out, the man would die,
And there an end; but now they arise again …"
924
I hope that this particular ghost has now been laid for the last time and that in view of the reiterated decision of the majority of both Houses of Parliament it may be said that in this respect the Bill is about right.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 7 [Short title, construction, citation and extent]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are a few Amendments on the Paper which I have to move, but I am glad to say they will not require any lengthy explanation from me. The first Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment. I can explain it if any of your Lordships so desire, but I do not think you will wish me to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 44, after ("and") insert ("references in this Act and in that Act to Part I of that Act shall include references to provisions of this Act which relate to payments in respect of war damage to land or to the recovery or the ultimate incidence of instalments of contributions, and this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule [Amendments relating to the principal Act generally]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert, after sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 5 [payments to owners of rent-charges]:
"(6) As regards cases in which the title to a rentcharge, or to land subject thereto, is registered under the Land Registration Act, 1925, such provision may, without prejudice to the generality of Section one hundred and forty-four of that Act, be made by rules under that section as may be expedient in consequence of the provisions of this paragraph, and in particular for securing (by the imposition of conditions as to the exercise of the said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of a rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being entered on the register."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary in order to secure that the title of a rentcharge is registered under the Land Registration Act and the amount by which it is reduced in consequence of the owner exercising his right of compensation is notified on the register. I think the importance of that speaks for itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 17, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret that this Amendment is only in manuscript form. It is to add to paragraph 5 these words:
"And as regards cases in which land in Northern Ireland is subject to a rentcharge, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may by rules make such provision as may be expedient for securing (by the imposition of conditions as to the exercise of the said right or otherwise) that the extinguishment of any of the rentcharge by virtue of this paragraph shall not take effect without notice thereof being registered in the proper office for the registration of deeds or titles as the case may require.
It relates to Northern Ireland, and your Lordships will see that it merely trims the Bill so as to make the same provision for Northern Ireland. It secures that if the holder of the rentcharge takes advantage of our new provision it shall be recorded so that nobody shall be misled. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment consequential on what we have already done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("use") to ("Act"), in line 43.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting and consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 12, leave out from ("Commissioners") to the end of line 15.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule [Amendments as to ultimate incidence of contributions under Part I of the principal Act]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to paragraph 4:
"In relation to a dwelling house comprised in such a tenement as aforesaid and forming part only of a contributory property, the reference in this subsection to the contributory value of the dwelling house shall be construed—

(a) where the dwelling house is separately entered in the valuation roll, as a reference to an amount which bears to the contributory value of the contributory property of which
926
the dwelling house forms part the same proportion as the rateable value of the dwelling house bears to the aggregate of the rateable values of all the parts of the contributory property;

(b) in any other case, as a reference to an amount which bears to the contributory value of the contributory property the same proportion as the annual value of the dwelling house bears to the annual value of the contributory property."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, This Amendment deals with a defect which has shown itself in regard to Scotland. We have made a provision, as my noble friend Lord Barnby said in his speech, by which in certain cases where a tenement contains several small residences which added together would exceed the maximum under Section 25, none the less, the separate residences may be treated each separately so that Section 25 may apply to it.
LORD BARNBY: May I ask is there any limit at which that may apply?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my noble friend knows it very well. He mentioned it in his speech. This provision, however, is necessary for this reason, that a dwelling house in Scotland has no separate contributory value of its own and the unit for valuation purposes is the tenement. We must, therefore, make a provision by which you can distribute the proper value attached to the tenement among the portions into which the tenement may be divided. It is always subject to the limitation of value to which my noble friend called attention in his speech.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BARNBY: Is it clear that that is confined only to a limited number of houses which may be of the same value horizontally?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the House will allow me to speak again, I think it is quite plain that in order that the provision may avail to get a contribution from the mortgagee, the mortgage must be created on the occasion of the acquisition of the mortgagee's interest, or the execution of works of improvement on the property. Another condition is that the property in which the mortgage subsists must be either a residential property

927
of a contributory value of not more than £150 or, if a farm, of the value of not more than £500. A third condition is that the mortgage must not have been created in respect of any interest in more than the existing property. The whole point of this present Amendment is simply to secure that there shall be machinery for giving proper valuation to the appropriate sub-divisions of the title.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to thank the Lord Chancellor most sincerely for the very clear and helpful explanation which he has given. I hope that your Lordships will realize, after listening to what he has said, the extreme intricacy of the matter. This provides for impingement on the principle of the Bill. It was on this ground, and on grounds which did not involve any sacrifice to the State, that I ventured to ask for the indulgence of the House which has been so patiently granted to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this last Amendment embodies a drafting change.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 4, after ("immediately") insert ("where it first occurs").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

ALLIED POWERS (WAR SERVICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which in another place met with general approval and passed through all its stages without challenge. Its proposals were carefully examined and some necessary clarifications were made during its progress through another place. The purpose of the measure was generally accepted as reasonable and right. I need
928
not, therefore, trouble your Lordships with any detailed explanation of the Bill; but a few words describing its scope and purpose may be useful, and, indeed, necessary. The Bill is intended to complete for the present the series of Acts of Parliament arising out of the presence in this country of seven Allied Governments. Parliament has already passed the Allied Forces Act of August, 1940, enabling the Allied Governments to maintain discipline among persons already serving in the Allied Forces, the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act of March, 1941, providing fitting status for the personnel of the Allied Governments, and the Allied Powers (Maritime Courts) Act of May, 1941, enabling the Allied Governments to maintain discipline in their own ships and to direct their seamen to go to sea.
The policy of His Majesty's Government is and has been to enable those Governments to continue their own administration. All of them have, or are developing, Armed Forces which are giving valuable and very much appreciated help to the Allied cause, and I know that your Lordships would wish to express your appreciation of all that they have done and are preparing to do. Those members of the Allied Forces at present in our country have indeed far more to endure than we ourselves have to endure. They realize that their own homes and land are being defiled by one or more merciless invaders, and I do not know any more moving sight in London at the present time than the sight of these Allied Nationals walking our streets with the agonies of their respective countries reflected upon their faces. The majority of these Allied Nationals are already serving in National Forces. Less than 10,000 remain in civil life, and, probably, at least one-third of these are engaged on important work from which it is undesirable to move them. So far as the remainder are concerned His Majesty's Government and the Allied Governments feel that they should not avoid military service except on grounds of the importance of an individual's civil work. That principle has been agreed to by all the Allied Governments except one, and it is hoped that agreement in that respect will shortly be secured.
The Bill establishes a procedure for ensuring that, when a person has not voluntarily joined up by a certain date,

929
he shall be called up to join the British Forces. The Bill can be applied to the nationals of any country allied with His Majesty's Government, but it can only be 50 applied with the assent of the particular Government concerned. Men who are of British military age may have two months—an Order in Council so provides—within which they must join their own National Forces, and if they do not they may be called up to join the British Forces. It is intended to post Allied Nationals who are called up for the British Forces to the Pioneer Corps, unless they have special qualifications for service in the Royal Air Force. Allied Governments will be entitled at their discretion to issue certificates of exemption to any of their nationals. Men to whom certificates are issued will not be liable to be called up for the British Forces. It is proposed to give employers an early opportunity to apply for the deferment of the calling up of Allied Nationals employed on vital war work. The Government will ask the Allied Governments not to call up such men to their own Forces and they will not be called up to the British Forces. That constitutes a very short description of the purpose and scope of this Bill. It is the result of long negotiations with the powers concerned. It is right in principle, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it should be passed into law. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Snell.)
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, when the original Act was passed, about two years ago, giving to the Allied Governments disciplinary powers over their Forces, it was foreseen that some such measure as this would be brought forward, and those of us who were somewhat suspicious of the powers that might be exercised, either disciplinary or otherwise, did our best to see that this measure, when it did come forward, should be in accordance with our more liberal British traditions. I took a deputation to the Foreign Office, asking in particular that the option of joining the British Army should be given 1o all these foreign nationals. That was finally conceded. The Allied Governments agreed to it, and, above all, our own Army authorities agreed to it. I think that that is a great step in advance, because many of the people to whom this measure applies are
930
merely nominally nationals of another country. A great many of them—Poles, Dutch, Belgians, French and others—have lived here for thirty years or so. They belong generally to the poorer classes, who have not acquired naturalization owing to the expense, and therefore they are still nominally the subjects of a foreign Government. Those people may not even speak a word of the language of the nationality to which they are supposed to belong; they have acquired English habits and customs, and they would infinitely prefer to be in the British Army rather than to be relegated to the Army of a country which they have long since abandoned.
In that respect this Bill is an enormous advance and should be welcomed by all those who have interested themselves in this very intricate subject. There are still, however, two points in this Bill which I think are extremely objectionable. There have been many cases where pressure by some Allied Government has forced their nationals into the Army of that Government already—not legally, but by bringing pressure to bear upon them. The subjects of the Allied Government, not knowing what the law was, were induced to enter the Allied Army; they then discovered that the Allied Government had no power to compel them to join, and so they deserted, and, being within their rights, they went back to civil life. Many of them are now working in munition factories and elsewhere. Under this Bill, however, provided that they have ever served even for a day in the Army of an Allied Government, they are liable to be called up again for service in that Army; they have not the option, given by Clause 5, of joining the British Army.
When this Bill was discussed in another place, what my noble friend Lord Snell has called "clarifications" were made; that is to say, pledges were given by the Attorney-General that in such cases as that, where a man had at one time been a member of an Allied Army, he should not be debarred from joining the British Army, if he had meanwhile returned to civil life. That is what every one in the House of Commons wanted, and I think that it would appeal to your Lordships also as being just and proper; but an ex cathedra statement by the Attorney-General is not the same as a definite provision in the Bill. I am a little

931
nervous about these promises that are given—we have had dozens of cases of the same sort—which cut no ice in a Court of Law. I think it would he worth while considering, between now and the Committee stage, whether it is not possible to frame words which would secure that right which we all intend these people to have; even if they have for a short time served in a foreign Army, they should be in exactly the same position as those who have refused to go into the Army at all. There is one point in that connexion which I wish to make clear. It has been supposed that these people are showing a lack of patriotism in preferring the British Army to the Army of their own Government, but I do not think that any weight should be given to that argument. They are desperately anxious to help in the war, and naturally they like doing so amongst people whose language they speak, and, above all, amongst people who are sympathetic towards their point of view. That is something which ought to be understood, and I hope that we shall be able to make this Bill cover all the people to whom it should apply.
There is one point in the speech of my noble friend Lord Snell which I do not like. These people, who are quite rightly allowed to join the British Army, and who are also allowed to work in our war factories, ought to be allowed to join something a little more active, or at least a little more dangerous, than the Pioneer Corps. They do not want their part in this war against Hitler to be confined to a passive role. The reason for putting them into the Pioneer Corps, quite frankly, is that, being foreign subjects, they may be liable to execution if they have to surrender to the enemy; they are therefore put into the Pioneer Corps because it is thought that that is less likely to involve them in surrender. The Pioneer Corps, unfortunately, have in fact been compelled to surrender quite as much as any active troops, and there is no safeguard for a man's life if he surrenders by putting him into the Pioneer Corps, but only less chance of escape. Moreover, these people do not ask for this security; what they ask for is the right to fight, and I think that, when we take them into the Army, we might give them a chance of fighting. I have received masses of letters from refugees now serving in the Pioneer Corps, not complaining of the conditions
932
in the Pioneer Corps or of the work which they are doing, but saying that their relations have been butchered in Poland, in Germany, in Rumania or elsewhere, and yet they are not allowed to kill a German; they are not allowed to fight. I think we ought to realize that it is no longer the exclusive privilege of an Englishman to be killed in the defence of liberty. I beg the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill to make representations to the War Office, to the Admiralty and to the Air Force, that these people should be allowed to enter those Services where there is danger, and not be shepherded into those Services which are safe, and therefore less noble. Of the two points to which I have referred, the first can be dealt with in the Committee stage, but the second is impossible of amendment here, and depends entirely upon public opinion. Well, we have some influence with public opinion, and I think we might bring such pressure to bear upon the Fighting Services of this country that these people would be afforded the opportunity enjoyed by all of us of risking our lives in the common cause.
It is idle for me to conceal the fact that most of these people I am speaking of are Jews. I wish I did not always have to speak for the Jews; I wish the Jewish members of this House would do it instead. The mass of abusive letters one gets about Jews is almost intolerable: every Fascist who ought to be locked up under 18B seems to take a delight in writing me anonymous postcards. But this is not a question of the Jews—it affects the Jews, but this is a question of our reputation, of British honour. It is incumbent upon us to see that even those unfortunate refugees who happen to be Jews should have as decent a chance to fight Germany, as decent a chance of justice and fair play, as any other part of the population of these Islands.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, first of all let me assure my noble friend that his remarks will receive consideration, and if it is possible to meet his desires at the Committee stage, steps will be taken in order to do so. I thank him for his general approval of the Bill. There are few Bills that come before your Lordships' House that some of us would not like to amend in one direction or another. I can only say in regard to the two points that he has mentioned, first of all that

933
of pressure, that for two years now the Allied Powers have been calling up their nationals, and this Bill at least does something to relieve the pressure; that is to say that if the pressure is continued and the persons concerned will not respond to the call, then in two months they will have the privilege, or, if you like, the right, to join the British Army. In regard to the Pioneer Corps, I only desire to say that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the Pioneer Corps is a combatant corps, and it is an honourable branch of service, in which so far a good many foreigners have served, with very great distinction. Nevertheless, the remarks made by the noble Lord will be considered. I now invite your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE EMPIRE.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to draw attention to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, may I begin by saying that the British Empire until recently covered over one-quarter of the earth's surface, and that this area contained over one-quarter of the population of the world. A small but very valuable portion of it was recently wrested from us by the Japanese, but this we will regain after the defeat of Japan, and the British Empire will be reconstituted again as it was, both in size and in population. Let me begin by giving a brief survey of the constituent parts of our Empire and of their attitude to this war. And may I, by way of preface, remind your Lordships that the British Empire consists of the Dominions, forming the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Indian Empire, and the Colonial Empire—truly a loosely-knit combination, but elastic in action, and determined in defence and offence when attacked?
Taking our Dominions first, Canada is not only the oldest but the biggest Dominion, being larger than Europe and even greater in size than the United States of America. Canada was the first overseas Dominion to be constituted under the Grown, and it has ever been a staunch and loyal unit of the British Empire.
934
Apart from men and resources of all kinds, Canada's outstanding contribution so far to this war has been the provision of numerous air training centres, to which not only young Canadians have flocked, but young men from all over the Empire. Those training centres, working under the British Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, have produced air pilots and crews in their thousands, and the Empire Air Force thus created will constitute the foundation of our final victory in the air. Canada's achievement in this way will, moreover, be of inestimable value after the war in assisting the maintenance of world peace. And for civil purposes also the air as a means of transport is bound to become as common as the road, the sea, or the railway is to-day. The Empire air routes and air links will then become more important and vital than ever, and it is certainly more important to think about and prepare for them now than about any air routes to adjacent countries of Europe.
Let us turn to the other Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, all of whom are fighting so gallantly alongside of us. It was largely due to South African troops under the command of that famous general and statesman, General Smuts, who has rendered such remarkable service both to his own country, South Africa, and to the Empire, that Abyssinia was wrested from the hands of the Italian aggressors, and has already been restored to her Emperor and people. South African troops and airmen are still fighting valiantly in the Near and Middle East, and are at this moment engaged in a life and death struggle against the aggressors in Libya and Egypt. Australians are now principally engaged in the heavy task of defending their own country from the Japanese aggressor, and resolutely and bravely fighting to recover from the Japanese the territories taken by them in the adjacent areas in the Far East. They are also fighting, as we know and have learnt quite recently, valiantly alongside other Empire troops in Egypt. But long before it was thought that Japan would join the Axis Powers in their conflict with the Allied countries, at the very first call both Australia and New Zealand sprang to arms, and with indomitable courage and fortitude placed all their resources at the Empire's disposal. At this very moment the New Zealand force

935
are fighting brilliantly alongside ours in the grim battle of Egypt, and are displaying a spirit of courage and determination that has never been surpassed in war.
Then we come to the self-governing Colony, Southern Rhodesia. It will always be to her great credit that at the outbreak of war Southern Rhodesian troops were the first to go outside their own territory to defend another British Colony from Italian aggression, and since then she has placed all her resources at our disposal, and her soldiers are playing a brave part on the battlefield of Europe and the Middle East. Southern Rhodesia has also established air training centres in the Colony, and these are proving of great value indeed in the Empire air effort. Apart from India, to which I shall refer later, there are numerous British Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories scattered over the Seven Seas, all of which in their various ways have made very loyal and willing contributions to the common cause. If these contributions have not, generally speaking, been through military effort, let me remind your Lordships that it has never been the policy of Great Britain to militarize the native peoples of the Colonies, native troops being used principally for police purposes and generally on a small scale compared with the size of their populations. On the contrary, it has always been our object to teach them the arts and blessings of peace, leaving it largely to British arms to defend them against outside aggression. Criticism, therefore, of the native inhabitants of Malaya for not defending themselves against the Japanese are quite unjustified. It is, moreover, well to remember that our Protectorates in Malaya and elsewhere voluntarily placed themselves under our protection for the purpose of being defended by us, and that we formed them into Protectorates acknowledging these very conditions.
What are the bonds that hold us as an Empire and British Commonwealth so closely together? Firstly, there is the common allegiance to the Crown and loyalty to the King. Secondly, there is the bond of kinship and language. Thirdly, there is the bond engendered through centuries of freedom of thought, of action, and expression, of self-government, and religious liberty. These are
936
the bonds and ideals which bind us together, which we all understand and for which we are willing to fight and to die. It is in the pursuit of these democratic ideals that the Empire will keep united both to-day and in the future. In the past, when suggestions have been made to the overseas Dominions for any form of Federation, these suggestions have always been a source of irritation, and have invariably been met with resistance and resentment on the part of the peoples of the Dominions. The late Earl Balfour, as Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Imperial Conference of 1926 to report on questions affecting Inter-Imperial Relations, knew how strong feeling in the Dominions was against any form of Federation, and together with his Committee he issued a simple formula which laid down the relationships for the future in clear and forceful terms. In my opinion that formula will ever remain the surest foundation for Imperial relationships.
It is to be found in Command Paper No. 2768 containing the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926, and this is what it says. Great Britain and the Dominions are
"autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Having made that definition the Report went on to say—and this is very important:
"A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual co-operation easy."
And then, after a short paragraph, the Report adds:
"But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the Dominions stand to each other can do more than express a portion of the truth. The British Empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its life-blood. Free co-operation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present Conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. And, though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.

937
"Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations."
Lord Balfour's declaration can rightly be regarded as the political charter of the British Common wealth of Nations, and it has subsequently found expression in the now famous Statute of Westminster. In its fulfilment, I believe, lies the strongest foundation for the maintenance of unity within our Empire and for a bright future fraught with great benefit to the world.
Let us turn to another side of the relationship between the overseas Dominions and the British Colonies. In this case, although I have not yet spoken of India, I should like to include India. I have no hesitation in affirming that reciprocal trade agreements such as those entered into at Ottawa have been of great practical value in maintaining Empire solidarity. Apart from the ordinary benefits derived by the participating units of the British Empire, these agreements were of the greatest assistance in creating reserves of foodstuffs and raw materials before the war, and are proving exceedingly helpful in the prosecution of the war not only to ourselves but to our Allies. They will, moreover, prove invaluable when it comes to succouring the starving peoples of Europe after the war, because this will be one of the bounden duties of the Empire. I suggest, therefore, that the critics of these reciprocal Imperial trade agreements should pause before seeking the abolition of them when the war is over. I agree that it is more than probable that they will require modification to meet the new conditions brought about by the war. These new conditions are perfectly obvious. The great advance in secondary industries in all the Dominions, and all the other matters which have changed the conditions since these agreements were entered into, will require that they should be modified wherever necessary. But I believe their complete cancellation would be a great mistake, and I sincerely trust this will rot take place.
Let me refer in this connexion to one of the most difficult post-war problems now being discussed, and that is how to ensure that under-consumption in the world will be rectified so that all persons, whatever their circumstances, will get a sufficiency of food to live on. Many schemes are being considered for organizing consumption so as to achieve
938
this object, but I have nowhere seen any suggestion for organizing production and distribution as well as consumption, although the one is governed by the others and cannot be solved without the others. The Ottawa Conference, over which my noble friend Lord Bennett presided with such distinction, did on the other hand largely organize production and distribution within the British Empire, covering, as I have said, nearly one-quarter of the earth's surface and containing over one-quarter of the earth's population. This was decidedly a step in the direction which we are all seeking to-day. Let us, therefore, rather build upon this foundation and do not let us destroy it. Let us see rather whether we cannot dovetail what we have already done in this connexion in such a large portion of the world into the wider world schemes for the organization of production, distribution, and consumption on the broader and more humane lines desired for the future. Having started over, that large area with that great population, surely it is better to try and extend what has already been achieved by adding other things to it, when and as others are willing to join, rather than by destroying what we have done and beginning all over again.
Now let me refer to another matter. Here in this our own country we have much depreciation and criticism of the manner in which in the past we have administered our Colonies and carried out our trusteeship for them. This was common Nazi propaganda before the war, and still is. A great deal is also being talked and written here about internationalization and denationalization of our Colonies, and of obtaining the assistance of other Colony-owning countries in governing them. Indeed, these criticisms and suggestions are inculcating the view in the minds of many of our British Colonies overseas that we do not understand their problems, and they are causing much irritation. But if our administration had been so inefficient as is suggested could our Empire have grown in its strength and have been developed to the extent that it has? Had our policy really been so bankrupt, would it have produced four independent self-governing Dominions and a varied Colonial Empire with populations of many colours and creeds all voluntarily, enthusiastically

939
and loyally ranged alongside us to-day fighting for the same cause and ideals as ourselves? The answer of course on both points is "No." Moreover, these results seem to me to indicate that for so long as we in Great Britain stand by our Empire, for so long will our Empire stand by us.
The idea that the denationalization and internationalization of our Colonies would assist and facilitate the issues of freer trade and wider economy in the world, I regard as absolutely fallacious and mischievous. This thesis was originally formulated before the war by Nazi propagandists and is now supported in this country by Little Englanders who seem incapable of appreciating the importance to us of our Colonies and the loyalty of the Colonies to the Mother Country and the Empire. Surely, there should be absolutely no difficulty in making the raw materials of our Colonies freely available to all nations for legitimate use by them, whilst at the same time maintaining their status within the Empire. The mere fact of internationalizing them and of taking away from them what most of them regard as their birthright, will not help this object in any way whatsoever.
The suggestion which has recently been ventilated in a leading newspaper that our British Colonies require international attention after the war, and that the more barriers that are broken down and national destinies linked up or merged in the world of the future, the more the British Empire will be fulfilling itself, is very attractive no doubt to those theoretical internationalists here who have not the vision to appreciate the pregnant part the British Empire as at present constituted still has to play in the settlement of world problems. But it is not practical politics or practical common sense. It reminds me of the ill-starred League of Nations after the last war, set up under similar good intentions, to which we as an Empire conformed in full faith only to find ourselves twenty years afterwards in the critical situation in which we arc to-day, once more struggling for our very existence both as a nation and as an Empire. Do not let us be so foolish as to repeat this fatal mistake under another guise, and let us at least be sure, before we adopt any measures however seductive in their idealistic and theoretical outlook, that world peace is fully secure for the
940
future. The running of the risk of a second Geneva would be a piece of criminal folly which would probably lead to a third World War.
Let me now speak to you briefly about India. My view is that both in administration and in the results of our policy our government of our great Indian Empire with its 390,000,000 inhabitants has been one of remarkable success. Can your Lordships imagine India, if she had been left to herself, being to-day in the position in which she actually is, of a country aspiring to self-government and independence? Rent as India has been, and still is, by racial quarrels and religious differences, we have nevertheless given her internal peace and progress for over two centuries, whilst to-day we are willing to give her, if she can amicably settle those differences, the opportunity to acquire Dominion status and of taking her place under the Crown as an equal and independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. What better proof of our honesty of purpose in the pursuit of our democratic ideals, and what better proof of our application of those ideals can there be, than that India, through our system of government, should have reached a state when, notwithstanding her racial and religious differences, she wishes to practice those ideals and to apply them to herself?
It may be argued that we have, in this country, on our part, benefited by the large amount of trade and commerce we have over the course of time done with India. Of course, we have benefited, and no sensible person wishes to deny it. On the other hand, we have given back much to India likewise through trade and commerce, and also in many other ways, such as through honest and progressive administration and internal material developments which will be of lasting benefit to that country. We in this country have no reason to wear the white sheet of penitence over India. We can be proud of our record and achievements there, and the time will come, I believe, when India herself will be proud of her membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the meantime she is contributing enormously in men and resources. Her soldiers are fighting valiantly to defend the common cause against the aggressor, and have shown great bravery and courage in the many stiff battles in which they

941
have taken part, and we are most grateful to them.
It is universally accepted that after the war we shall all have to face new conditions and that a so-called "new order" will emerge as a result of this world-wide war, not the "new order" contemplated by Hitler of brutal, bestial tyranny and world domination by Germany, but a new order dictated by the United Nations based upon human liberty and religious freedom. In the creation of this new order the British Empire will have a great and an onerous part to play, and in this work our principal collaborators will be the United States of America and Russia, who to-day is pouring out her soul in agony against the Nazi aggressors. Confronted by a common danger and by acts from aggressor nations there has grown up between the United States and the British Empire—that is the English-speaking peoples—a form of such close collaboration in the provision of men and money and military equipment as would a few years ago have been laughed at as a dream and as an utter impossibility. It must be our endeavour for the sake of future generations to maintain this close collaboration, if not on the same lines, at least on such a basis as will enable us to act together with a common policy in assisting in the settlement of the many acute problems that will arise after the war and in maintaining world peace. Together with the United States of America and with Russia, we must supply the requisite air and armed forces necessary to keep the peace until Germany is re-educated and the aggressor nations have acquired the arts of peace.
I do not for a moment overlook the assistance in this matter that will be and must in due course be rendered by the other Allied Nations, and when possibly an International Police Force may come into being, but, to commence with, nearly all those nations, including possibly Russia herself, will have their hands full with vital problems in the restoration of order and peaceful conditions in their own countries. It will therefore necessarily fall to the United States and the British Empire to form the initial strong nucleus of any fighting forces required to keep peace and order in the world. With a view to pursuing the close collaboration necessary for that purpose between the United States of America and the
942
British Empire, various ideas are being discussed on both sides of the Atlantic for a closer political association between them, but I venture to suggest, with some considerable knowledge of the many difficulties and problems involved, that, whatever the future may bring forth, the wisest form of collaboration at any rate at the start will be that which maintains the political freedom and independence of both the United States of America and the member countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I believe, moreover, that it would be of great advantage if the countries composing the British Commonwealth of Nations were to consult with one another and act together in all matters in which such collaboration is concerned, also for carrying out the vital principles and ethics of the Atlantic Charter. There appears, indeed, to be no good reason why, owing to close collaboration between the United States and ourselves, there should be any disintegration of the British Empire. On the contrary, this welcome collaboration seems to me to provide a good reason for strengthening its unity and not for weakening it. I go further. I wish to urge that when the end of the war is in sight, there should assemble in one Imperial Conference the representatives of the British Commonwealth, India and the Colonial Empire, and that this Conference should fully discuss the major problems with which the Empire will be faced and endeavour to reach a common policy upon them. The Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, once informed Parliament that we had this in view, and I take this opportunity of emphasizing its vital importance.
My task is finished. My object in raising this Motion has been to arrest any tendency there may be to regard the British Empire as a dissolving force, to deny this and, on the other hand, to point out that the British Empire has reached a stage in its history and development when it is more than ever important to hold together and when it will be required to take an even bigger and more responsible share than ever before in promoting democratic ideals and in settling world problems. For our Empire is not merely an acquisitive organization of countries and peoples but rather the spontaneous and natural result of the principles of liberty and self-government and freedom,

943
and to play its full and appropriate part in the world development it must remain united. There are dark clouds all around us. Our Empire's safety is menaced in every direction. No part of it is immune. In fact we have lost a part of it, but we shall recover this. On every battlefield and at sea and in the air the blood of our Empire peoples is commingling in the common cause and cementing our aims and kinship. The road before us is still lined with many unknown dangers and disappointments and we cannot yet see clearly where it will lead us. But of this I am convinced, that we shall be victorious and that with faith in ourselves and our future the British Empire, united in thought and in aim and in action, can be a principal factor not only in winning the war but in winning a peace that will bring rest, tranquillity and freedom to an unhappy, weary, war-torn world. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I am sure we are all very pleased that this question has been raised. I propose to confine myself largely to the Motion as it reads—"the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire." I think he would indeed be a bold man who did not see that these are menaced at this moment. It is idle for anyone to say that the British Empire was created by force. You have only to look at the great Dominions to realize that Australia came into being as the result of discovery and settlement and colonization, and that the same can be said of New Zealand. It is true that in South Africa we did have a war, but in Canada only a small portion of the country can be said to have been won by battle. British Columbia came to us by discovery and the remains of Vancouver rest in a churchyard not very far from here.
I would rather disagree, however, with what was said by the noble Viscount as to our present position. We do not owe that position to the Balfour Declaration. We owe it to the sacrifice of gallant men on the battlefields of Europe, in France and Flanders. Long before the Conference of 1926, the Imperial War Conference of 1917 declared just what was said in the Balfour Declaration, almost word for word. They said:
944
"They deemed it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in common policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine."
That is the basis of Dominion status. It was brought about by the Imperial War Conference that met here in 1917, and which was attended by all the Prime Ministers, except that the Prime Minister of Australia was not able to arrive in time and the Prime Minister of South Africa was represented by General Smuts.
It is only fair to point out that in 1921 they had intended to have a constitutional conference to settle the relative powers and positions of the overseas Dominions. But in 1921, it having been stated with great clarity that what had happened in the meantime had established the position of the Dominions as having equal status with this country. They had an equal voice at the Peace Conference with this nation—though protests were made by foreign nations—and this nation having established their position in this country and internationally (as was pointed out by the then Prime Minister), it only remained for it to be recorded at a meeting of the Imperial Conference. This was done in 1926, as has been indicated by the noble Viscount who has moved this Motion. Then followed the Conference of 1930, to which I shall presently refer, and the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Now those countries are bound together by cords as delicate as one can conceive of, and yet very powerful and strong. It is stated in the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster, as indeed it was stated in the Resolutions in 1917, 1921 and 1926, that they were united by common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Now I would direct attention to the words which state that they are united

945
together and that they are freely associated. They are not held together by force but by free association, and association does not mean separation. But the point to which I would direct attention to-day has to do with the carrying into effect of the terms of the Statute and the Resolutions, It is obvious that if we are to have a Commonwealth of Nations we must in many matters have a common policy. That is obvious. It must be a common foreign policy. How that is to be brought about is, I conceive, a problem of the first magnitude. Mr. Lloyd George said that henceforth consultation must be a reality and must not be illusory. There must be continuous consultation. In other words, no step must be taken by any one member of the Commonwealth that involves any of the others, without the others having full knowledge and notice of it. We must have, by some means, a series of consultations that will ensure unity of purpose, action and policy.
That, it seems to me, cannot be said more clearly than it was said by that great statesman the late Lord Grey, speaking at one of the Imperial Conferences, a Conference at which, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was present as a representative of His Majesty's Government. Lord Grey said:
"It is possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire but it is not possible to have separate fleets in a United Empire without having a common foreign policy which shall determine the action of the different forces maintained in different parts of the Empire. If the action of the forces in different parts of the Empire is determined by divergent views on foreign policy it is obvious that there cannot be union, and that the Empire would not consent to share an unlimited liability the risks of which it could not gauge, because this liability would be imposed upon it by different parts of the Empire hiving different policies. Therefore, the first point I want to make is this: that the creation of separate fleets has made it essential that the foreign policy of the Empire should be a common policy; if it is to be a common policy it is obviously one in which the Dominions must be taken into consultation, which they must know, which they must understand, and which they must approve."
That was the position taken up by Lord Grey. It is the position to-day, and I think we night find in it the solution to that problem which has now, in my judgment, to be dealt with by British statesmen.
946
I conceive it to be very serious because in the overseas Dominions there is no longer that unity of thought and purpose in connexion with this war which is essential. Why it has been so it is not my purpose to inquire at the moment. But in Canada, for example, you have sharp divisions of opinion with respect to conscription. A statement was made in Parliament which indicated that a certain section of the population is very strongly opposed to engaging in European conflicts. In Australia, too, there has been criticism—to use a mild term—with respect to the Government of this island which is on an equality of status with that of Australia. Even in New Zealand, which is practically speaking purely British, in that 98 per cent. of the population is of either English or Scottish descent, there were some criticisms which it is true were less violent than those uttered in other places. In South Africa we have had during this very war a Motion introduced to the House looking to the establishment of republican institutions. Notwithstanding all that has been done there, it is fair to realize that but for the genius of one commanding figure the situation would be vastly different from what it is. In those circumstances, is it not our duty here in this country to inquire whether or not everything that could be done has been done to militate against any such impression getting abroad as that the dissolution of the British Empire is impending?
There are certain matters to which reference might be made, but to which I will not refer because it is not meet that that should be done at a time of stress and strain such as this. But I do say that it is highly important that we should establish beyond question that every policy entered into that affects the life and well-being of the overseas Dominions should only be entered into after the fullest possible consultation—consultation that is real and not illusory. I am bound to say that in some cases—and I speak with some experience in that regard—it is only to be expected that great policies must be initialed by this the most important of the partners in the Commonwealth of Nations whose population alone is 60 per cent. of the white population of the Empire, while within this very City nearly 25 per cent. of that 60 per cent. is living. So that it is quite clear that where John Bull sits is the head of the

947
table so far as foreign policy is concerned, and it is for him to initiate measures that deal with our common concerns. But the problem, as it seems to me, is this; how can you maintain autonomy in the sense in which that term is used with respect to the British Dominions, and at the same time secure that unity of purpose and action that is an essential attribute of the Commonwealth of Nations?
I am bound to say that the history of the movement to that end has been very, very difficult to follow. There were the days of Imperial Federation, the days when we sought to set up a Federation of the British Dominions. A distinguished Canadian, Sir George Parkin, was appointed to make lecture tours throughout the Empire to deal with the question of Imperial Federation, the Federation of the British Empire. There were those who believed, as I did in my younger days, that that Federation might express itself through a Parliament dealing only with Imperial affairs and with nothing else. I recall that, on the occasion of an early visit to this country, in the House of Commons one evening I met the now distinguished Minister of Economic Warfare, who was then a member of that Chamber, and he entertained the views which were so dear to me at that time and which, speaking in his personal capacity, he referred to a few days ago. I had a communication this morning from Australia expressing the strongest possible approval of the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in his personal capacity—and I think that a Minister has always the right to express his personal views with regard to any matter which affects the welfare of the country as a whole.
The effort to establish Imperial Federation fell by the wayside, together with the effort to form an Imperial Parliament, and in its place there came the decentralization movement which culminated in the Statute of Westminster. Both a once said that he believed the keynote of the Imperial Conferences was "autonomy and liberty." In 1905 Mr. Alfred Lyttelton endeavoured to bring about continuity of the Imperial Conferences by setting up a Commission to ensure continuity of purpose and of thought between these Imperial Conferences, which were held at irregular intervals. In 1911, Mr.
948
Harcourt endeavoured to set up a Committee which would ensure continuity for the purposes of the Imperial Conferences, and in 1937 some discussion of the matter took place, but nothing came of it, because certain representatives felt that it would impinge upon responsible government. The result was that no such continuity was established, by the setting up of a Committee or otherwise, and the Imperial Conferences have been held at irregular intervals, and there has been very great difficulty in maintaining that consultation which is so important.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that in 1911, and, while he was opposed to the attitude taken by Sir Joseph Ward, of looking towards the establishment of an Imperial Council of State, he did propose that there should be set up a Royal Commission to investigate the resources of the Dominions and report. That Commission was appointed in 1912, and sat until 1917, when it made a very voluminous Report. It had taken evidence in many countries, it had held many meetings and had examined some 800 witnesses, and, if your Lordships care to consult the Report, you will find that it is an encyclopædia of the resources of the British Dominions. The Commission recommended the establishment of an Imperial Development Board, which was to act in an advisory-capacity to the Imperial Conferences. With that astuteness which characterized him so often, Sir Wilfrid Laurier realized that, having taken the position which he did in 1907 and 1911, it was desirable that something should be done along the lines which I have indicated, and so he proposed the setting up of this Advisory Committee to the Imperial Conferences, thereby maintaining some measure of continuity in their proceedings.
Arising out of the results of the establishment of equality of status and the recognition of the equality of the Dominions with this country, it became essential that the Dominions should negotiate treaties and appoint Ministers, and, as is well known to your Lordships, they in fact sent Ministers to various foreign countries and they exercized their right to make treaties. It is always in my mind that the late Sir John Macdonald, than whom no greater Britisher ever lived, said at the time that the Treaty of Washington was negotiated that he almost felt impelled to give up his position,

949
because he was being urged so constantly to make sacrifices on the part of Canada in the interests of the relations between the United States and this island. But he remained, and, as your Lordships know, the Treaty of Washington was approved by the Canadian Parliament, but not by the American Senate.
We are now faced with this situation. We have these great self-governing Dominions enjoying almost all the powers of independent States, but united together by common allegiance to the Crown, and, in the language of the Statute, freely associated as members of a Commonwealth of Nations. They are naturally concerned with every act which takes place in this kingdom which affects the Empire as a whole. They are interested in every matter of common concern, because I believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier put the matter properly when he said "When England is at war, Canada is at war, and every part of the Empire is at war." It does not follow, however, that every part of the Empire participates in the war, and indeed it has been pointed out that, in the Boer War, Canada permitted volunteers to go from her shores, but she paid no part of the bill. We did not participate to the extent of paying for the soldiers who went, and participation in the war certainly involves the approval of the Parliaments of the overseas Dominions. It is well known that one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster claims to be neutral in this war. It is known that two others of the Dominions contemplated neutrality, but public sentiment was too strong, and they are now active participants in the war. My own view is that there is no such thing as neutrality on the part of any one of the nations of the British Empire when any one of them is at war.
I need hardly say that this House is the Court of last resort in matters of law. As long ago as 1905 a question was considered by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in a case which arose out of the Boer War and which came from New South Wales. A citizen of New South Wales joined the second contingent from New South Wales to South Africa, and the Government of New South Wales agreed to pay him 10s. a day from the time he left New South Wales until he returned. He went to the war, he survived, and he returned home; but, while he was in South Africa, he received from
950
the Imperial Government—that is, from the taxpayers of the United Kingdom—4s. a day. When he came to adjust his accounts with the Government of New South Wales, they took the position that they would deduct that 4s. a day from the 10s. which he had been promised, because the contract was for 10s. a day. He took the view that he had a right to the 10s. from New South Wales, they having made the contract, regardless of what was paid to him by the Imperial Government.
The case went to trial, and it was tried before a distinguished Judge, who found in favour of the soldier from New South Wales. An appeal was made to the Supreme Court of that State, and, as a result the judgment of the trial Judge was sustained. There was then an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That Committee was presided over by the late Lord Halsbury, then Lord Chancellor, and the Committee, as I think every legal member of your Lordships' House will agree, was a very strong one. It consisted, besides the Lord Chancellor, of Lords Macnaghten, Davey, Robertson, Lindley and Sir Arthur Wilson. Lord Halsbury delivered the judgment of the Committee in these words:
"The plaintiff was in the service of the Crown and his payment was to be made by the Crown. Whether the money by which he was paid was to be found by the Colony or the Mother Country was not a matter which could in any way affect his relation to his employer, the Crown. The learned Acting Chief Justice, in giving his judgment in this case, said: 'The King has no concern with payments for services rendered in this Colony. The obligation is with the Government of New South Wales.' And, so far as their Lordships can understand, this is the ground upon which the judgment rests. But, with great respect to the learned Judge, this is entirely erroneous. The Government with relation to this contract is the King himself. The soldier is his soldier, and the supplies granted to His Majesty for the purpose of paying his soldiers, whether they be granted by the Imperial or the Colonial Legislature, are money granted to the King. And the Appropriation Act, whenever an Appropriation Act is passed, simply operates to prevent its being applied to any other purpose. Under these circumstances money paid was money paid for the services rendered to the King, and no other payment could possibly be due upon the contract declared on."
That is an authoritative statement of what I conceive still to be the law. The Statute of Westminster does not affect that question. The Crown is the Crown. It is the Crown in Canada, it is the Crown in Australia, it is the Crown in South

951
Africa, and it is the Crown here. The service of the Crown, as pointed out, is to be compensated for by the supplies voted to the Crown, and every Supply Act, as every one of your Lordships knows, is directed to the King. The supply is granted to the Crown to make good the requirements of the public service, and the Appropriation Act is merely to appropriate it to particular purposes. An examination of a Supply Bill in any one of the overseas Dominions will show that it is practically in the same form as it is here.
That judgment, in my poor opinion, is a clear statement of the unity of the Crown in every part of the King's Dominions, whether it be Canada or Australia or here. That being so, it seems to me to be quite impossible to speak of neutrality, for one can speak of participation in a war, but not of neutrality. There are within one of the Dominions mentioned in the Statute of Westminster a Legation of Italy and a Legation of Germany. Can anyone for a single moment say that that does not contravene the provision of the Statute of Westminster by which we are freely associated for the purpose of helping one another? What country involved in war as a part of the British Empire, including this Kingdom, is not concerned with the injury that is done to the whole by the maintenance of these two Legations in what is called a neutral country? Can there be a neutral country under the British flag? Can there be a neutral country that is part of the British Dominions? Car there be a neutral country within the Statute of Westminster? These are questions which the Lord Chancellor may answer, but for which I find no satisfactory answer at all, none whatever. That is all I have to say in respect of that particular point.
But now I desire to apply what I have said to a concrete case. Recently we made a Treaty with Russia. A Committee of the Imperial Conference in 1930, presided over by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, dealt with the question of treaties between any one of the King's Dominions and foreign countries. These are the words of the Report:
"Previous Imperial Conferences have made a number of recommendations with regard to the communication of information and the system of consultation in relation to treaty negotiations and the conduct of foreign affairs
952
generally. The main points can be summarized as follows:

(1) Any of His Majesty's Governments conducting negotiations should inform the other Governments of His Majesty in case they should be interested and give them the opportunity of expressing their views, if they think that their interests may be affected.

(2) Any of His Majesty's Governments on receiving such information should, if it desires to express any views, do so with reasonable promptitude.

(3) None of His Majesty's Governments can take any steps which might involve the other Governments of His Majesty in any active obligations without their definite assent."

I will not further read from the Report of Lord Sankey's Committee dealing with these points, because it would be an unfair trespass upon your Lordships' time, but we made a Treaty in this country on May 26, 1942—a few weeks ago—and Article III of Part II reads:

"(1) The High Contracting Parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period.

"(2) Pending the adoption of such proposals, they will after the termination of hostilities take all the measures in their power to render impossible a repetition of aggression and violation of the peace by Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe."

Then comes Article IV:
"Should one of the High Contracting Parties during the post-war period become involved in hostilities with Germany or any of the States mentioned in Article III (2), in consequence of an attack by that State against that Party, the other High Contracting Party will at once give to the Contracting Party so involved in hostilities all the military and other support and assistance in his power."
That is war.
The question that I intimated to the Leader of the House that I thought he might deal with in his reply is to what extent the Dominions were consulted with respect to that paragraph and to what extent was it made known to them that one part of the British Empire—namely, this country—will be at war under the conditions mentioned in Article IV? The very words "military and other support and assistance in its power" indicate war. That is a pertinent and important question, for if, as I think, the effect would be, if there were a war launched under that paragraph, that some of the Dominions at least would plead that they were to be neutral—which in my judgment they cannot be for the reasons I

953
have given—that would at once raise a question of the utmost importance and of the greatest magnitude. Statesmen in the Dominions have dealt with it, but no sufficient answer has yet been found. Statesmen here are constantly dealing with it, and it is a matter of some satisfaction to know that the Leader of this House and Secretary of State for the Dominions has set up an organization within the office that will do much to lessen any possible friction with respect to a matter of this kind. But this is a concrete case about which I think there should be the fullest possible explanation, for if in some parts of the King's Dominions it were known that under certain eventualities they might themselves again be at war, it would not be pleasant to contemplate the attitude of mind of the people of those Dominions.
I conceive that to be a matter of great importance. It is not a question of theory. It is an actual reality, and in my judgment it should be dealt with as such, especially in view of the fact that at the Imperial Conference of 1930 it was established by a report written by a member of the United Kingdom Delegation that there should be no treaties made that had any effect upon any other country in the British Commonwealth of Nations except with the definite assent of that community. These are not theories that I am presenting to your Lordships. They are matters of vital concern, as was said by a Canadian Prime Minister, the late Sir Robert Borden, on more than one occasion, for if we are to have adequate consultation, if we are to have united action, if we are to have a clear understanding, in the words of the late Lord Grey, of the whole implication of our actions, then it follows there must be an improvement in the present methods of communication and consultation.
I am very hopeful, in view of the improvements that have been made in the air service during the last few years, that it may be possible at least twice or thrice a year for the Prime Ministers to meet at the various Capitals for the purpose of discussing these matters of common concern—in Canberra, in Delhi, in London, in Ottawa, or in Wellington. They might meet and discuss these matters of common concern twice or thrice a year because, in 1921, when they passed their resolution indicating that it was no longer necessary to have a Constitutional Conference, they
954
said they should meet annually, or more often, as was found possible. That comprises all I desire to say on this particular point. If the solidarity of the British Empire is to be maintained, if its unity is to be maintained within the terms of the Motion now before your Lordships' House, it can only be done, in view of what has transpired, by making it a part of the responsibility of everyone in these Dominions, including this country, to agree upon whatever policy is to be given effect to. Matters of common concern must therefore be dealt with or we fall. There is no alternative. All you have to do is to study the conditions from day to day in the Press of the overseas Dominions to realize the soundness of what I say.
There I shall leave the matter, but there is one further thing I wish to say—it was referred to the other day by my noble friend Lord Elton—and that is the lack in this Kingdom of knowledge of, and pride in, the Empire. I believe Canadians are prouder of the British Empire than it seems to me people are in this Kingdom. When I think of its achievements, of what it has done for mankind, especially for the right of men to worship their own God in their own way without any man saying them "Nay," one cannot understand this talk of an international patriotism rather than a patriotism of Empire. Part of our difficulties to-day arise from the fact that, for some strange reason I cannot describe, men of some importance in the State urge that we should not be bothered about patriotism of Empire, but rather concern ourselves with an international patriotism, that we should frown upon joining the Forces rather than assist, and that various things so many of us hold dear as life itself should be treated as mere trifles and baubles and unimportant.
This British Empire has been built up by great sacrifices, and by men in this Chamber who gave their lives, as Pitt the Younger did, in defence of everything we hold most dear, and his father the Great Chatham practically died in your Lordships' House. You have a long tradition of great names of men of the past who made such sacrifices and gave their lives for us that we might survive, not, as I said the other day, by accident, but for a great purpose—a purpose that is felt in every part of the world to-night. The people who are concerned

955
about our fate are not only people who live within the narrow confines of this island, but people who are scattered throughout every part of the world and are not even people who live under our own flag only. They realize the contributions we have made to world freedom and to the enjoyment of those things we hold most dear—dear as life itself. For what would life be to any of us within the British Empire if we had to live the life of those who live in Germany to-day, for instance? Can we contemplate it? And yet that is the alternative. That is the reason I feel so greatly concerned about the implementing in the fullest and to the last detail of all those obligations which we have assumed at Conferences jointly with one another, that we might be indeed freely associated, owing allegiance to one Crown, and as one united Commonwealth making not only for our own peace and happiness, but for the peace and happiness of all mankind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel that anything I may say to your Lordships must appear something of a bathos after the brilliant eloquence of the eminent statesman and sturdy Imperialist to whom we have just listened. I am not equipped to deal with the matters of high politics and of outstanding constitutional importance to which he has referred, but I would only venture humbly to endorse at the outset the view that we as an Empire must have a common foreign policy. This, I also concur, must be founded not upon dictation by the Mother Country, but by the free expression of opinion of what are, after all, now self-governing nations, possessing absolute equality of authority, and after full and free consultation between them and the British Government. I particularly welcome what he has said about the prevailing ignorance that exists between this country and its people and the overseas countries of the Crown. That is the subject to which I was going to ask your Lordships particularly to turn your attention. As the noble Viscount indicated, there must be a better exchange of view between the Heads of States as well as a more thorough knowledge on the part of the peoples of these States of each other, their ambitions, their outlook, and the purposes of the bond of Empire.
The question that is down on the Paper is one that concerns the unity and
956
solidarity of the Empire, both now and in days to come. So far as the present solidarity of the Empire is concerned, I for my part have no fear. After all, it is conspicuously demonstrated by the loyal co-operation and splendid heroism of the men who belong to our Fighting Forces from every part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But when we study the important question of how that unity and solidarity are to be continuously maintained, I submit, without any fear of challenge, that they must depend mainly on a greater knowledge of Empire countries, their peoples, their ideals, and their outlook on life, on the part of our own Ministers of the Crown in this country, the civil servants who guide and instruct them, and the general British public from whom the human material for both is derived. Otherwise you are bound to have the prevalence of a continuous element of insularity and myopia which is so absolutely false to any possible ideals of Imperial progress. This knowledge of the Empire, now so deplorably and in my judgment dangerously scant, can only be derived from two main sources—namely, education in our schools and travel or residence in Empire countries. It is true that there is a third source, and a valuable one, but it is temporary and transient—namely, the war-time intermingling of our fighting men drawn from all parts of the Empire.
As regards education, I too had intended to refer to the remarkable and eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in the debate which I, unfortunately, could not attend, that took place in this House last Wednesday. Ignorance of the Empire is, I submit, due to lack of instruction in bur schools, and a lack of knowledge on the part of their teachers. Not one school in ten in this country has a map of the British Empire on its walls, or indeed a map in which Empire countries are clearly emphasized by colour or otherwise. I happen to be president of what is known as the Empire Day Movement, and in that connexion an effort was made some four or five years ago to provide maps of the British Empire for all the schools, primary and secondary, in this country. I am bound to say that the map makers demonstrated considerable interest in the scheme and were prepared to produce those maps at no more than cost price. Unfortunately the Empire Day Movement had not the

957
financial resources itself to do anything in the matter, and the scheme has, for the time being, been deferred. But surely that is a matter that the Government of this country might take in hand. At any rate it is by visual instruction that you can evoke some interest on the part of our young people in the great Commonwealth of Nations of which they will some day find themselves the trustees.
I am bound to say that the ignorance of children on the subject of the Empire in our schools is unpleasantly significant. I took some little trouble after returning from New Zealand in 1935, to visit a few schools in my own county, and with the leave of the headmaster catechized the children as to the location of certain Empire capitals. In two schools that I visited I asked any child who knew the right answer to my questions to hold up his or her hand, and in both schools not a single answer was correct. According to them Melbourne was in South America, Bengal was in China, and Ottawa was in the United States. My noble friend Lord Bennett must agree that that is not very encouraging. I went so far in those schools to ask the headmaster whether he had heard of Waitangi. I may remind your Lordships that but for Waitangi and its Treaty New Zealand would not be part of the British Empire but would belong to France. Neither of those headmasters had the faintest idea where Waitangi was, or knew anything about its Treaty.
I do not think, if I may venture to say so, that our English Press helps us very materially in developing an interest in Empire affairs. By contrast two-thirds of the whole of our very well-edited and conducted New Zealand papers contain full information about the Old Country and its doings. Shortly after I returned from New Zealand in 1935 I met one of the most eminent statesmen of Australia then in this country and he put to me this question: "Cannot you, Lord Bledisloe, having been lately Governor-General of one of our Dominions, induce some of your British newspapers to give a little more news about Empire countries and their affairs? "He went on to say that he had made a careful study during the previous year as to the column space devoted to Empire news and to the news of foreign countries respectively, and as a result he discovered that in the case of one newspaper at any rate
958
the affairs of one single European country, which shall be nameless, occupied more space than the whole of the British Empire put together. I am going to venture from my place in this House to make an appeal, if I may be allowed to do so, to the British Press to help us, as they can very materially, in this matter.
I hope I shall not be treading on too delicate ground when I suggest that our ex-Pro-Consuls, and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions, when they honour us with their presence in the Old Land, be utilized in an advisory capacity by the Government and their advisers. No representative of the Crown who resides for five years continuously in an Empire country, in intimate contact with its inhabitants, its institutions, its industries and economic problems and its general outlook on life, can fail to be at least something of an authority upon its right and wise treatment at the hands of the Imperial Government; and yet these people are hardly ever consulted by the powers that be in this country. They naturally are reluctant to force their views officiously on those possibly less well-informed if they do not themselves seek them. Within six months after my return from New Zealand in 1935 I asked six of the most eminent ex-Pro-Consuls in this country whether, and to what extent, they had been spontaneously consulted about the affairs of the territories over whose administrations they had presided, and the reply of them all was the same, "Not at all." In some cases and on some specific subjects, it is perfectly true, they had themselves tendered unsolicited their opinions or advice.
I hope sincerely I shall not be misunderstood. In what I say I am reflecting to some extent, I think, the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, when he suggested something of the same sort in the last debate upon Empire affairs about two months ago. He indicated the advisability of setting up a Colonial Advisory Council. Personally, I should much like to see the establishment of an Overseas Empire Advisory Council of which ex-Governors-General, ex-Governors and ex-Prime Ministers of our Dominions should be ex-officio members. It would, I am sure, bring fresh vitality based on knowledge and experience into our Governmental solution of pressing overseas problems.

959
In this connexion I cannot help comparing the interest displayed by the Dominions and their Governments in each other, which to my mind is a greater and more live interest than is sometimes displayed by this country in any one of its grown-up daughters. I paid a visit to South Africa in 1936 as the guest of the Union Government, and before I left after a month or six weeks tour, which I thought was all too short a period in view of the request that was made to me, I was asked by the South African branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association to deliver an address upon similarities between New Zealand and South Africa, under the chairmanship of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and in the presence of my good friend General Smuts. I had, I may say in passing, to give as the answer to that particular question that I could find no similarity whatever, except the warmth of hospitality, the almost continuous sunshine, and the fact that nine-tenths of the farms were subject to a heavy mortgage. However, I only mention that incident as showing the obviously keen interest on the part of some of the Dominions in the affairs of the other Dominions of the Crown.
May I also indicate what I think is a little bit unfortunate and is largely due, I think, to the lack of travel or residence in other parts of the British Empire on the part of those who are responsible here for guiding Empire policy—namely, the inaccurate views which are so often expressed in both Houses of Parliament in regard to the outlook, the ambitions and the prudent treatment of native populations? I do not think the average native in our tropical and sub-tropical countries overseas has any great interest in representative government or the political development of the various tribes that arc to be found in those countries. I am bound to say that I think members of both Houses of Parliament overrate the intelligence and the standard of development of many of those for whom they purport to speak. When four years ago I was acting as Chairman of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland Royal Commission, many native Chiefs came before us for examination and cross-examination, and I found that the average native Chief was utterly apathetic upon the particular subject upon which we desired to have his opinion. What he was
960
far keener about than anything else was to have a sufficient number of cattle to purchase more wives.
To show your Lordships how very difficult it is for us in this highly developed democratic country to visualize accurately the outlook of these people in an early stage of development, I would mention one little incident that occurred in Nyasaland. The purpose for which I and my colleagues were sent to South Central Africa, was to report as to whether Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were to be amalgamated. I asked a paramount Chief what were his views about amalgamation. "Oh," he said, "'amalgamation'—that is what my brother was sent to prison for." It turned out that his brother had been sent to prison for stealing amalgam when he was employed in one of the mines in Southern Rhodesia. It may be said that this is trifling with a great subject, but what I am trying to show is that we in this country, in the absence of travel, education or residence, do not sufficiently visualize the conditions obtaining in many parts of our overseas Empire.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, spoke of that delicate cord which binds different parts of the Empire together—sentiment, tradition, ideals and the like. I should like to say that for my part, after visiting all the Dominions and certain other parts of the Empire and residing for five years in the most distant of them, I am perfectly certain that if we try either by the Balfour Declaration or by some statutory enactment to bring about the greater solidarity of the Empire we are almost certain to fail. It is a loosely-knit organization which is far better left alone to develop by a sense of brotherhood and by the commonalty of traditions and outlook, than by attempting to fasten anything in the nature of statutory shackles upon it. Of that I am convinced.
May I in conclusion quote what I thought was a perfectly admirable letter addressed to The Times on April 13, 1940, by a great Imperialist, a gallant gentleman and one who was in his day a distinguished Pro-Consul—namely, Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes? He said:
"The British Empire can be made the greatest instrument of civilization in the world and the most varied and united of free human associations. Here is a faith and a hope big

961
enough for all to share and supremely worth fighting for against enemies abroad and laggards or critics at home. The time and the opportunity are now when the men and women of the Empire are welded into a single spirit of resolve and endeavour."
I do not think that I could possibly better those words, and with those words I should like to support—so far as I feel justified in expressing an opinion—everything that has been said by the great Imperialist who preceded me.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has raised in the Motion which he has put before your Lordships the whole question of the future of the British Empire. I must confess that I, personally, have approached this debate with some trepidation for the future of the British Empire is a subject in dealing with which Ministers must walk as delicately as ever did Agag. Not very long ago one of my colleagues indulged in some brief speculation on this subject, and he found himself very violently attacked both in Parliament and in the Press. He was quite wrongly attacked, I think, and I am very glad to have the very powerful support of Lord Bennett for my view. Whether all noble Lords agree with my noble friend or not—and noble Lords very seldom agree with a speaker on everything—it seems to me that we should all agree that he stimulated consideration of these problems, and that, at the present time, is very valuable. One will never get anywhere by behaving like an ostrich and burying one's head in the sand.
With that experience before me it is perhaps natural that I should have felt a certain anxiety when I knew that I was required to make a speech on the whole future of the British Empire. I do not complain that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, should have raised this subject for, as I have already said, in my view the more we think about this question the better. But noble Lords have raised, in the course of their speeches, a number of fairly controversial subjects, and I am quite certain that they, in their wisdom and experience, and the House as a whole in its wisdom and experience, will not expect a detailed answer to all of them. But, at any rate, I think there is one proposition with regard to the
962
British Empire which can be made without fear of contradiction. It is not a static institution. It is dynamic in character. It is a living organism. The relationship of the component parts has changed fundamentally during the last decades, as Lord Bennett has shown, and is likely to continue to change and develop in the years that are before us. In this respect I think the British Empire is different from most of the great Empires of the past. They were rigid in character, and, what is more, they were imperialistic in the worst sense of the word. That is to say they were predatory—based upon a principle of exploitation. These earlier Empires consisted nearly always of a dominant nation and subject nations who were kept down by an elaborate machinery of armed force, secret police, and so on, for the benefit of the dominant Power. We have had many examples of that. To a certain extent I think it was true of the Roman Empire, and to a certain extent of the Napoleonic Empire. It is certainly true, in the most extreme and atrocious form, of the Third Reich as we see it to-day.
Our British conception has, I think, always been entirely different. The Empire has been compared to a family. My right honourable friend Mr. Macmillan, referring to the structure of the Empire in another place the other day when the Colonial Estimates were being considered, rightly pointed out that to try to draw such an analogy exactly would be fallacious for, as he truly emphasized, in a family parents die, and are succeeded by their children, That is not true of nations. I very much hope that it is not going to be true of Great Britain. But with this essential exception I think a certain comparison can be drawn between the family and the relationship of Great Britain and the Dominions and Colonies. There is, for instance, the same alteration in the relationship as the children grow up. In the early days of the family, children are young and inexperienced, and not able to face problems of life for themselves. Therefore they have to be protected and educated. But gradually they grow up and begin to take their own line—to think for themselves. Eventually they become independent entities, independent personalities, and, finally, if they are worth anything at all, they become self-supporting. They

963
are no longer dependent upon their parents, but they remain members of the family still bound to each other by ties of affection, and still having a responsibility to help and protect each other. They all benefit, and they know that they benefit, from that mutual relationship.
That I think is the experience in all well-conducted families, and I think it is equally true of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The successful operation of this conception, of course, puts a great responsibility on the Mother country herself. She has got to recognize that her family are growing up, and that is always a very difficult thing for any parents to do with regard to any children. They always tend to try and keep their children on leading strings too long. Such a course leads finally to friction and alienation of the child. Indeed, the child may—and in a number of cases does—break away entirely from the family, though the passage of time nearly always softens and even wipes away bitterness in later life. We, in Great Britain, have had salutary experiences of this kind. I do not wish to go into those experiences, but they may have been almost worth while if they have taught us an essential and invaluable lesson. I think that they have, that we have taken advantage of it, and that it has ever since been our aim to make the links between ourselves and the daughter nations not rigid and intolerable, but as flexible as possible.
The furthest stage which has yet been reached is the Statute of Westminster, which has been referred to in the debate to-day. That Statute recognizes the Dominions as self-governing nations and as arbiters of their own fate. It is our public recognition of their maturity. It is a very far-reaching document. It seemed to me at the time—and I think we should all believe it so to be—essential and wise. I think it has already been justified by events which have happened since. So far from the links between ourselves and the Dominions and Colonies having become looser, they have grown closer. They have stood the strain of two of the greatest wars in history. From either of these wars, from the second of these wars undoubtedly, the Dominions could constitutionally have stood aside had they wished, but, with one exception with which your Lordships are familiar, they
964
have not done so. On the contrary, they have thrown all their energies and resources into the struggle in a way which constitutes a complete justification, I think, of the policy adopted in the Statute of Westminster.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, at the beginning of his speech paid a noble and eloquent tribute to the heroic contribution of the Dominions in the present struggle. I suppose there is no one who knows more than I do of what the Dominions have done, and I do feel that it is a thrilling thought that men and women should have come, as the people of the Dominions have done, from the very ends of the earth to fight for the principles in which they believe. I echo everything that the noble Viscount said about the Empire training scheme, one of the greatest institutions for war which has ever been devised. I also echo everything that he said about the valour of the Dominion and Colonial troops. Nothing which we can say can possibly do justice to their courage, to their constancy and to their passionate loyalty to the cause of liberty, for which the British Empire stands. If, however, that happy situation is to continue—although, of course, the constitutional relationships may alter—it is essential that we should have a very close collaboration in the future, and if possible an even closer collaboration than in the past.
On the last occasion on which I addressed your Lordships on this subject, which was on April 2, 1941, and which was also in answer to a Motion by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, I described the machinery which had at that time been built up to ensure this collaboration. I said that there were three main channels of communication. There are first of all the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions, who maintain, as your Lordships know, the very closest contact with the Dominion Prime Ministers and Governments. Secondly, there are the Dominion High Commissioners in the United Kingdom, who perform the same functions in this country; and, as your Lordships know, their task is now greatly facilitated by the daily meetings which they have with the Dominions Secretary in the Dominions Office. This enables them to keep in constant touch with the events of the day, and with the deliberations and decisions of the War Cabinet.

965
It would perhaps be convenient if, in this connexion, I said a word about the question of the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, in his very powerful and moving speech. The noble Viscount rightly emphasized the importance of a common foreign policy between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, and in that connexion he asked, as I understood him, what the position of the Dominions was with regard to the Anglo-Soviet Treaty. As your Lordships know, the Anglo-Soviet Treaty does not directly involve the Dominions; that is to say, it is a Treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the Soviet Government, and it does not bind the Dominion Governments. We all know, however, that they are vitally interested in it, and I should like to make it quite clear—and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so—that the Dominion Governments were in fact consulted at every stage of the negotiations. It is quite evident, from statements which have been made by those Governments since the signature of the Treaty, that the Treaty had their full approval. I shall not quote those statements, because I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I can assure you that they are both whole-hearted and unqualified. The same is true of the Mutual Aid Agreement; there the Dominions were fully consulted in the preliminary negotiations, and I understand that it has their full approval.
I do not pretend, and I suppose no one would pretend, that the task of securing an identical foreign policy for the whole of the British Commonwealth is an easy one. It is a very difficult one indeed, when we consider that the different members of the Commonwealth are faced with rather different conditions, and with different geographical conditions, apart from anything else. Clearly, however, it is most desirable to attain it so far as possible; and that is the value of the machinery for consultation which has been built up, very largely since the war, and which is being further developed, as I hope to show in a moment. I do not think that even now that machinery—if one may use such an expression about machinery—is entirely watertight, but I see no other way, apart from consultation, by which unanimity may be sought, and no other way, at any rate, which is consistent with the complete independence of
966
decision which now exists in the British Commonwealth.
I have given your Lordships some account of two methods of communication between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. There is, of course, a third method, the method of direct communication between Prime Minister and Prime Minister, and that is resorted to whenever circumstances require it, although it is not the normal method of communication, the normal method being through the Dominions Office. In addition, there have been since the beginning of the war, as your Lordships know, periodic visits by Dominion Prime Ministers and Ministers to this country. Since I spoke on this subject in April, 1941, we have had immensely valuable visits from Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, and from Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister. I believe that those visits from Ministers constitute a method which is almost more useful than any other means of communication, because the Ministers keep in touch with both ends. They see the situation here, and they then go back to their own country and know the situation there. That forms a very realistic type of link between the two countries.
That was the machinery which existed when I spoke just over a year ago, but since then it has been both improved and developed. To-day, for instance, the Dominions Secretary is a member of the War Cabinet, which was not so at the time when I spoke last. Clearly he ought to be a member of the War Cabinet, for he is one of the most important members of the Government, by virtue of his position. In addition, the representative of Australia to-day attends the meetings of the War Cabinet; and I think that both we and Australia are very fortunate in having such an immensely able and experienced man as Mr. Bruce as the representative of Australia. He has a lengthy knowledge of politics and of international affairs, both as Prime Minister of Australia and as Australian representative at Geneva, and there is no one whose advice could be better worth having at the present time. These facilities, of which Australia has availed herself, are, of course, open to any other Dominion which wishes to take advantage of them.
In addition, we have evolved additional machinery for liaison at a lower level. In

967
recent months, the Dominion Governments were told by His Majesty's Government here that we were prepared to agree to the appointment of Service liaison officers, to keep in touch with the Chiefs of Staff organization. The purpose of that was that these officers should be able to let their own Governments know about strategic plans during the formative stage, in case the Dominion Governments should wish to make any comments on them. I think that that is a very important step, and already more than one Dominion has taken advantage of it. A similar arrangement has been made with regard to foreign affairs. There is now a senior officer of the Foreign Office who is appointed specially as liaison officer with the Dominions. He attends every daily meeting of the High Commissioners at the Dominions Office, and he is always available for consultation on individual problems which may affect one Dominion or another. Finally, the closest co-operation is maintained in the field of production, supply, the assignment of finished munitions, the allocation of raw materials, and so on, and the machinery set up under the combined United Kingdom-United States organizations is such as to ensure that the fullest account is taken of Dominion and other Empire interests in the matters coming before the various Boards. These are just examples of the constant growth and development that are taking place in Imperial relations.
Up to now I have dealt entirely with what I may call the grown-up children, the self-governing Dominions, but I have said nothing about the non-self-governing Colonies, with which I myself am to-day principally concerned. I did this deliberately, because we have had a good many debates in this House in recent weeks upon Colonial questions, and I do not think that there is anything that I could very usefully add at the present stage. I should like to emphasize, however, that the same principles apply to the Colonies as apply to the Dominions. It is true that they are not yet grown up, it is true that they are still in a state of tutelage. Some are more advanced and some less advanced, but everywhere our aim is that the people of a territory should play their full part in the government of the country. That is bound to be a gradual process. It is a question of political evolution. But that is our aim, and I
968
see no reason why any British Government should depart from it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has asked me about the future. Of this, as he will appreciate, it is not very easy for me to-day to speak. The question of a development of inter-Imperial machinery is not a matter for a unilateral declaration by one member of the British Commonwealth. The noble Viscount in his speech, I think, said that there were three main bonds that united the Empire. The first was common allegiance to the Crown; the second was the bond of sentiment arising from a common kinship and language; and the third was freedom of thought, action and expression. I myself would add a fourth, the bond of mutual interest. Together the members of the British Commonwealth can have, I suppose, the greatest influence for good of any great Power in the world to-day. Their importance in the solution of the far-reaching problems of the post-war world, problems both political and economic, problems such as the problem of under-consumption, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, spoke—their importance for that purpose so long as they remain together cannot be overestimated; but if they once became separated into their component units, then they would find that all their influence was gone. They would be merely a number of comparatively unimportant States, without power and without authority. Now I think it is essential that neither we nor the Dominions should forget that fundamental fact.
What we need now is not only to strengthen but to multiply the bonds that unite us, bonds political, economic, social and educational, to which reference has been made to-day. Both the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made the point about education, I thought with very great force. They rightly stressed the need for education in the schools as to what the Empire means to us, and I am afraid we should all of us agree that there has been a lamentable shortcoming in education with regard to Imperial questions in the past. It has been a great gap in our educational system. The House may, therefore, like to know that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education is at present taking an active interest in increasing the study and knowledge of the British

969
Empire. The question of providing suitable text-books at the present time, as noble Lords will well realize, is not a very easy one, but it is being tackled, and I understand successfully tackled. Also he proposes to set up a course for teachers in the history of the English-speaking peoples, which will, of course, include primarily the Dominions, but also the United States as well. It seems to me that we need more and more contacts between the members of the British Commonwealth. That is, I think, the main point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who speaks with great personal experience, made, and I am quite certain it is true.
Lord Elibank asked whether there would be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war. Well, I think we may be quite certain there will be an Imperial Conference at the end of the war: there can hardly be any manner of doubt about that. But I would add this. Imperial Conferences undoubtedly have a vital importance in the machinery of the Empire, but in the nature of things Imperial Conferences can only take place rather seldom. The next generation is probably likely to have to face strains and stresses such as the British Empire has never had to stand up against in the past.
The Empire is coming to a period when unity will be absolutely essential for it if it is to survive, and it seems to me—and I put the point to noble Lords with great deference—that we want to make our mutual protection—because it is a mutual protection—a coat of mail composed of innumerable links, strong and subtle, of affection, sentiment, mutual interest and so on, both in our public life and in our private life. The machinery which has been set up during this war, I think, does mark an important stage in creating this coat of mail, and I hope very much—I think we all hope—that that machinery will be not only maintained but further developed after the war. And perhaps this sort of machinery which we have set up here may be set up in the Dominions as well. Personally—and I am speaking entirely for myself—I should like to see Dominion civil servants in United Kingdom Government offices and United Kingdom civil servants in Dominion Government offices; I believe that would make for mutual understanding and knowledge.
970
But that, of course, is a matter not only for His Majesty's Government but for the Dominion Governments as well. As I think Lord Bledisloe said, unity really depends, and depends almost entirely, on mutual knowledge. I certainly think that the knowledge that Governors have gained during their Governorships should be taken fully into account when these Govenorships come to an end.
In conclusion I would just say this. I do hope that other nations—not the British Commonwealth—will make no mistake about the present position. The British Empire is not dead, it is not dying, it is not even going into a decline. So far as it is suffering pains, or has suffered pains, I believe them to have been growing pains, and if those pains are properly and sensibly and sympathetically treated, as I am quite confident they will be, I feel that the British Commonwealth will emerge from our present trials stronger, wiser and more united than it has ever been before in our long history.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I feel that at this somewhat late hour some of you deserve very hearty commiseration in that I am asking you to listen to remarks from many of which I am afraid you will differ strongly. I can only say two things in explanation. The first is that I feel that many of the things which I am about to say do need saying in the interests of the Empire; the second is that some of the remarks that your Lordships deliver cause me quite as much mental pain as I am afraid that some of mine will cause you. For the promotion of the unity and solidarity of the Empire I feel that two things are essential. The first is that the Government should make their plans well in advance, taking into full consideration even the most unpleasant and unwelcome possibilities. If they are determined, as they appear to be, not to end the war until they have conquered Europe and a great part of Asia, they should decide how this can be done, even if things again go badly in Africa, and even if they go badly in Russia and China as well, and if they are obliged to come to the conclusion that the conquest of Europe and a great part of Asia is impossible without the help of a Continental Ally, then they would do well to explore the alternative policy, which I suggested on the last occasion when I spoke in your Lordships'

971
House, and in the interests of all concerned they would do well to do so while all our Allies are still in the field.
Politicians would do well to remember that there is nothing heroic about talk of fighting in the "last ditch" if they themselves do not intend to occupy that most unpleasant cavity. They would also do well to remember that there is nothing wise about fighting in the "last ditch" if, after the battle, defeat is probable—defeat which might have been avoided by a negotiated peace. There is also a good deal of unreflective talk about the need for national unity at this time. Now the right kind of national unity is a most necessary thing, but it has got to be unity in pursuit of a sensible objective and behind the right kind of leaders. The Gadarene swine were united in purpose, and presumably had confidence in their leaders, but as the latter were pig-headed in every sense of the term, the result of their leadership was disaster to the herd.
The other essential thing is that we should rid ourselves for good and all of wishful thinking and optimism which is not grounded on sure foundations. During the comparatively short time I have been a member of your Lordships' House I have been much struck by the spirit of courtesy and friendliness which exists here, and by the tolerant hearing which is usually given even to the expression of unpopular and unusual opinions; but I am afraid I must add that I have been literally appalled at times by the extent to which many of your Lordships seem to be living in a cloud-cuckoo-land of complete unreality with regard to very important events which preceded the war, with regard to the military situation and our chances of victory, and with regard to the character of foreign statesmen. Some of the latter are treated as absolute devils, whose sins are quite unforgivable and with whom it is unthinkable we should ever have any dealings. Others, with a very similar record of cruelty, tyranny, and aggression, are readily forgiven and are welcomed as good friends and allies.
There is also a similar tendency to wishful thinking with regard to the attitude of many of your Lordships towards our own political leaders, and especially towards the Prime Minister. I am aware that in criticising the character and
972
ability of the Prime Minister I am treading on dangerous ground. I do not wish to be unjust to any one, nor to hurt any one's feelings unnecessarily, and I would therefore ask you to look at this question from what is, perhaps, a new standpoint. None of us—and here I include myself—like to have to confess we have made fools of ourselves. It is particularly hard to do so if many innocent people have suffered as the result of our folly. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that I should be right about this war and the majority of your Lordships should be wrong. If all the people who have been killed in this war ought not to have been killed and need never have been killed, and if you by your support of the war are partly responsible for their death, that would be a very terrible thing, and a very difficult thing for which to admit responsibility. If all the people who have been maimed, blinded, and driven insane by this war ought not to have been injured and need not have been injured, and you by your support of the war are in some measure responsible, that again would be a very terrible thing to have to admit. Therefore, when any prominent man says, "This war is right," your whole emotional nature, your whole natural instinctive desire to be on good terms with yourselves and to retain the respect of your fellows, rises up in vehement but quite unreflective approval. It is much the same thing with the stories of German and Japanese atrocities, real or imaginary, which are such a very potent reason for the continuation of the war. These atrocities——
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, may I be permitted to ask a question with regard to what the noble Duke is saying? On a point of order, may I ask your Lordships whether it is not the custom of the House in some way to relate one's speech to the Motion before the House? The noble Duke's remarks do not seem to have any relation whatever to the Motion, and therefore I would ask your Lordships, especially the Leader of the House, what steps we ought to take in order to induce the noble Duke to relate his speech to the Motion before the House or to bring it forward at some other date.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, as your Lordships know, we do not in this House always strictly adhere to the terms of the Motion before

973
the House, but it is a general expectation that noble Lords who take parts in debates will try to make what they say relevant to the purposes of the debate. I think that is all I can say on this occasion, and I hope it will be remembered that, as far as possible, while desiring to give complete liberty to every speaker, we ought as a matter of courtesy and order to relate ourselves to the terms of the Motion before the House.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, may I say that I feel that what I am saying is exceedingly pertinent to the maintenance of the unity and solidarity of the Empire, because in my opinion the continuation of this war in a reckless manner is, of all things, most calculated to bring the Empire to an end, particularly if the leadership be not the kind of leadership that is required? I submit that the Prime Minister is the living embodiment of that spirit which declares that this war is right, and it is for that reason, and not because of any qualifications for leadership which entitled him to guide the nation and the Empire at this period of crisis, that you accord him your whole-hearted and quite uncritical support. If you consider his record in the last war, he was in a great measure responsible for our failures at Antwerp and in Gallipoli. He was also responsible for the foolish and disastrous expedition against our present Soviet Allies. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he was responsible for our financial policy, which reduced this country to unreasonable poverty and unemployment; and again in this war he has had a great measure of responsibility for our failures at the Skaggerak, at Narvik, and at Namsos. He undoubtedly was responsible for the exceedingly futile expedition to Greece, which in turn is the cause of most of our serious difficulties in Africa. Again he is responsible in a very great measure——
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, on a point of order, as the mover of this Motion, I think the noble Duke should at least stick to the terms of the Motion. He says nothing about the Motion at all. He is making a direct attack on the Prime Minister of the country without any regard to the Empire whatever. I am sure your Lordships have listened to a very long debate. In ordinary circumstances I would not have made this intervention, but I do feel that the noble Duke, having
974
once been asked to speak to the terms of the Motion, might at least have conformed, and allow us to get on with the debate in which we are concerned.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, you would not wish to deny the noble Duke his right to criticize the Prime Minister upon a proper occasion. The extent of your Lordships' tolerance and traditions would allow that, but I have already expressed my opinion, as Deputy Leader of the House, that the noble Duke should endeavour to speak to the question before the House.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May I say then that I feel that for a very long time past members of this House, as indeed people in the country generally, have, in a manner exceedingly dangerous to the welfare of the Empire and to the future of the Empire, acquired what I may term the mentality of a greyhound engaged in the pursuit of electric hares, which is continually starting enthusiastically after a new hare unmindful of all the other hares it has failed to capture? The technique whereby these hares are presented is becoming all too familiar to thoughtful people. A wonderful victory is announced from some theatre of war, and for a time the theme of this victory is developed with enthusiasm. Then if the victory turns out to be a defeat, or at least a very modest success, the news from that theatre of war is very judiciously damped down and a new hope of a new victory is announced from somewhere else. During the past few months we have had the Kerch hare, the Kharkov hare, the Cologne hare and the Midway Island hare, and, more recently, the North African hare. Still later men, planes and petrol have been wasted on the Bremen hare, night raids on Germany being the last resort of a strategic bankrupt.
Then I would particularly warn your Lordships, if you have any real regard for the future of the Empire, not to place undue reliance on the amount of help which you think you will get from America. The American war effort and our war effort are very closely united, and I do not think anyone in this House can dispute that the welfare, the security and the solidarity of the Empire depend on the result of that effort. There is, in the case of American help, the serious barrier of ocean distances. There are

975
the very serious shipping losses; and remember that it is not merely a question of landing an Expeditionary Force on the Continent, it is a question of keeping that Force adequately supplied. Remember also that there are very serious difficulties with regard to adequate war supplies in America, particularly, of course, with regard to the supply of rubber. And politicians who send an Expeditionary Force to the Continent—our last hope, perhaps—inadequately supplied, are guilty of something very like murder, and I would say, if I believed in capital punishment, which I do not, that they would richly deserve to be hanged. It makes no difference whether the inadequacy of the supply is due to decisions made three years ago, to shortage of materials due to the fact that the enemy commands the main sources of supply, or to the lack of shipping, the result is the same. The men are killed and the Empire suffers perhaps irretrievable disaster.
There are also the corruption and selfishness of the great American armament firms. Some little time ago a report was published dealing with this question which reveals a very serious and startling state of affairs that received very full publicity in American papers and exceedingly little in our own——
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, on a point of order. As the oldest Peer present, and as the noble Duke declines to obey the Deputy Leader of the House and be relevant to the debate which is before your Lordships, I beg to move that the noble Duke be no longer heard.
Moved, That the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard.—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope, my Lords, this Motion will not be persisted in. I disagree with every sentiment the noble Duke has expressed; at the same time I have heard many speeches in your Lordships' House which were not very relevant to the subject under discussion. With a little more Parliamentary experience the noble Duke could have brought all his remarks within the scope of this Motion. I could have made the speech he has made by relating every argument to the Empire. In the interests of a very small minority of the country, and a still smaller minority in this House, for which
976
apparently the noble Duke speaks, I hope this Motion will not be persevered with. If we do go on with it, we shall be helping the cause of those who are out to make mischief and weaken the war effort of this country. We shall advertise and make much of the attitude of this very small group for whom the Duke of Bedford speaks, and, therefore, in the interests of the country, I trust that this Motion will not be proceeded with.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord who has just addressed us was not really paying particular attention to what the noble Duke was then saying. I know he is a most astute debater, but I think even Lord Strabolgi would have found it impossible to relate bad practices of armament firms in the United States of America to the question of the well-being of the British Empire. In no circumstances whatever could that be regarded as in order in the other House of Parliament, and both Houses do attempt to follow the same general rules of order. I must be permitted to say, after an experience of forty years of Parliament, that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the subject before the House as that to which we have been listening. I have a question to ask afterwards in which I take a lively interest, and it is a matter of some concern to me to hear the noble Duke going on and on as he has been doing. I submit with all respect that I have never heard a speech so utterly remote from the Motion before the House.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, might it not be possible for some of your Lordships who have had much experience in this House, to suggest to the noble Duke that he might put down a Motion for Papers that will enable him to discuss the conduct of the war and everything else he wishes to discuss? But, out of respect for the traditions of this House, I hope he will have regard to the general attitude of the House, which has been shown in the discussion, and accept the suggestion which has been made to him, so that there need be no recourse to such severe action as is embodied in the Motion of Lord Gainford.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House would be reluctant to be compelled to vote the noble Duke down, especially when he is giving utterance to sentiments that are most unpalatable to members,

977
because we are anxious that this should be a very free debating assembly. But I would make an appeal to the noble Duke to bear in mind that the speech he has prepared is not really a speech on the Motion which relates to the vital importance of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British Empire. Would he not think it better and more courteous to the House to conform to your Lordships' evident general desire that he should make his speech on a more relevant occasion?
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, may I say I have no wish to oppose the House? If it is the general opinion of the House that the result of the war has no important effect on the unity and solidarity of the Empire, if that is the decision—and it seems to be the decision of most noble Lords present—I shall be very pleased to follow their wishes and speak on another occasion.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, that the Duke of Bedford be no longer heard, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, at this late hour I wish to say only a very few words in reply to the debate. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for his reply. From the terms of that reply I feel that he is fully impressed with the necessity for maintaining the solidarity and unity of the British Empire, and I think that so long as he is at the head of the Colonial Office, we can leave it to him to look after those interests. I should like also to thank particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, for their contributions to the debate. They have made very valuable suggestions. I was especially impressed by the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, that with the much quicker communications by air which we have to-day and will have after the war, it might be possible to have Imperial Conferences attended by the Prime Ministers of different parts of the Empire three or four times a year. In that way we might be able to obtain that common policy for defence and on foreign affairs which will be so vital to us after the war. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

"PLANS FOR CIVILIAN ACTION IN INVASION."
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing on the Paper in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, if they can state the reason for the long delay in issuing the pamphlet Plans for Civilian Action in Invasion, dated 8th June, 1942, and issued to both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday, 9th June. And further, whether they will take steps to ensure that the contents of this pamphlet will be made as fully known to the civilian population and the Defence Services as in the case of the two previous pamphlets Beating the Invader and If the Invader Comes, which have now become obsolete.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the statement to which the noble Lord refers was made available to the Press on June 9, that is the same day on which it was made in this House. Copies of it are being dispatched to military and civilian authorities and to all members of invasion committees. The question of further publicity will be kept under review and such steps taken as from time to time may be considered necessary.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, arising out of that reply may I be allowed to ask for a specific answer to the question whether the Government will give the same publicity to this new order as was given to the old order? In the original order we were told to be rabbits, quite definitely—rabbits, go to ground—and in the new order we are told to be lions. I think it is only fair that the people should be told of the change. May I press for an answer? Will the noble Duke give an assurance—I understood that it was the Government's intention—that the same publicity will be given to the lion document as was given to the rabbit document?
THEDUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I think very much wider publicity is actually being given to the new document,

979
for the invasion committees are new bodies and every member of those committees is being sent a copy of the new instructions which have also been issued to the Press. The fact that we have seen rather less of this new order than of the previous order may be due to the fact that invasion is not so much in mind now as it was in June or July, 1940. The Press, however, are in full possession of the document and it is now being issued to all responsible authorities throughout the country.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Perhaps the noble Duke has forgotten that the rabbit document was circulated to every citizen by house to house distribution through the Post Office. Let them be told to be lions in the same way.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I will bring that suggestion to the notice of my right honourable friend.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.
Draft Special Order, dated 17th July, 1942, made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Sections 38 (3) and 52 (2) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1942.
Draft Special Order made by the Ministry of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, under Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, and the Determination of Needs Act, 1941:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned.