Sitting of 25 April 1945

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Moyne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, and that Government Business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), and passed.

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and assed.

ELECTIONS IN LIBERATED COUNTRIES.
2.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that when the first General Elections are held in the liberated countries of Europe, there is grave danger that, in certain cases, political groups may be able, by violence and intimidation, to produce electoral results in no way representative of the real wishes of the populations concerned; whether they are therefore considering, in consultation with our Allies, the advisability of arranging that such elections, in all countries of Central and Eastern Europe, shall be supervised by an Allied Commission, in which as many as possible of the United Nations shall be represented, in order to ensure in the suffrage the free expression of popular opinion; whether this question is to be discussed at the San Francisco Conference; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the terms of the Motion standing in my name on the Paper are, I think, sufficiently explicit to make it unnecessary for me to dilate upon them. At the same time, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the circumstances and situations now existing in various parts of Europe, which have made me put the Motion upon the Paper. It was, I think, a great shock to people in this country, of all classes and of all political views, when the liberation of Greece was followed by the extremely distressing events that took place in that gallant little country, when a body hitherto believed to consist of patriotic resisters of the German invader was found unfortunately to contain within its ranks very many, if not a majority of, persons who could be described more as criminals than as patriots. It is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships of the various terrible events that took place in Greece. Unfortunately, it is at present all too obvious that, given suitable circumstances, similar events may again come to pass, not only in that unhappy country but also in a good many others of the countries, small and some not so small, that comprise the Central and South-Eastern European zone.
Some of your Lordships may wonder why I have confined the countries to which I wish to see certain measures

29
applied to the central and eastern portions of Europe and have not included countries in the west. The reason for that is perfectly simple. The smaller countries of Western Europe for a long time past have shown that they are able to make a Parliamentary system work reasonably well, in sonic cases extremely well, and that they are capable of conducting Parliamentary elections without any undue public disturbance, and certainly, so far as France is concerned, whatever might happen in that great country I do not think anyone outside would be rash enough to suggest that the French would ever tolerate interference in their internal affairs from any of their Allies, no matter how well intentioned. But unfortunately it is all too obvious that in many of these European countries the forces of disorder have already in many cases assumed control over large areas and that in other countries they are only waiting for an opportunity of doing so.
And here the unpleasant but only too true fact has to be brought our that it by no means follows that a man or a political organization which has steadfastly and courageously resisted German aggression is necessarily representative of the views of his or its own country so far as reconstruction and a programme of peace are concerned, and that, given fair treatment at an election, many of these persons and bodies would afterwards find themselves in control of their own countries. There is also the all too obvious fact that many of these leaders, even if for the moment national leaders, are quite determined that they are going to retain their positions whether or riot the great bulk of their fellow countrymen desire to see their regime perpetuated. Furthermore, in a number of these countries measures of so-called reform, particularly of an agrarian character, have been put into forcible operation quite without regard to whether these measures had the approval of the majority of the population, and, in some cases at least, with far more regard to the political than to the economic effects of the steps that have been taken. Then it is also unfortunately true that some of the purges of collaborationists which have taken place, and are still taking place, have resulted in the execution or imprisonment of a considerable number of people against whom there was really no evidence whatsoever, their crime being apparently that they were
30
opposed to the political views of the people for the moment in power in the countries concerned. Such a situation undoubtedly occurred in Bulgaria, where a number of people appear to have been executed who were quite definitely opposed all the time to the Germans. The present Bulgarian regime announces, I understand, that it intends to hold free elections. But the question of what constitutes free elections has, I think, rather a different signification in the minds of people here from what it has in the minds of Balkan politicians.
Now the question may be asked, what has it got to do with us? The answer to that is again quite a simple one. We desire—all of us, I hope, desire—that the small countries of Europe shall again have completely free and independent political existence, with progressive and respectable Governments ruling them and endeavouring to adopt a policy of good will towards all their neighbours. Such aspirations are perhaps somewhat optimistic in view of the unfortunate international dissensions which are such an unhappy feature of life in many parts of Europe. At the same time I think most people would agree that there is little chance of any country settling down to a period of retrenchment and reform, let alone peace, if that country is going to be ruled by a clique who have got there by force or by fraud and whose views are very largely at variance with those of the great majority of their fellow countrymen.
Eventually, of course, each country must be responsible for its own destiny, but it is my firm belief that the United Nations, having freed these countries from the German yoke, have still incumbent upon them the obligation to ensure that the first Government to be set up in each country by popular election shall, so far as is humanly possible, conform to the wishes of the great majority of the population of each country concerned. Unfortunately, as I have said, there is only too much reason to fear that in several countries, unless some control is exercised from outside, the result of a so-called popular election will be decidedly unpopular, the resulting Government will be one based upon force rather than consent, so that the countries concerned will have an unstable regime, subject to overthow by force again in a few years' or indeed a few months' time, and the condition of the peoples of those countries will be likely to

31
be very unsatisfactory from the economic, as well as from the political, point of view.
This is particularly the case in regard to that most unfortunate of all our Allies and of all the victims of German aggression, Poland. His Majesty's Government have very rightly made it abundantly clear that they do not consider the Lublin Committee, at present calling itself the Provisional Government of Poland, a body which is truly representative of Polish opinion. Not only does the personal record of many of the members of that Government induce little confidence in their impartiality, but they are also all, without exception, members of extremist organizations whose voting power in the Poland of before the war was negligible and whose influence is by no means likely to have increased to such an extent as would justify them in assuming that they genuinely represent the great majority of the population.
In view of the all-two-well authenticated stories which are now coming out of Poland, I suggest that it is urgently necessary that the first election to take place in that country, above all others, should be supervised by an Inter-Allied Commission, not a Commission appointed by a single one of the great Powers. It would be desirable that as many of the Allied Nations as possible should take part in such a Commission. Obviously the most important of the Allies—Great Britain, the United States of America and Russia—will contribute each a large proportion of the officials concerned, and I hope that fair representation would also be given to France, who can justly complain of somewhat cavalier treatment having been meted out to her for a considerable time past. It would be highly desirable that all our smaller Allies should also be represented, and, indeed, I would include in the invitation the Governments of countries like Sweden and Switzerland who have a Parliamentary system. The more nations taking part in such a Commission, the less would there be the chance of any one nation being able to exert undue influence and thereby bring about results not in accordance with the will of the electors.
Yugoslavia, too, is a country where supervision will be necessary because, although Marshal Tito has shown himself to be a very courageous and skilful
32
leader, there is no evidence whatever to support his claim to be the sole representative of that very large and diversified country, and he is at the moment unfortunately showing tendencies towards a policy of aggrandisement which if persisted in are likely to prove more than a little disturbing towards the future of European peace. He is making it plain that with possibly an arguable basis he is claiming Fiume, and that with no arguable justification at all he is also claiming Klagenfurt. Apart from all other considerations, Austria was left so miserably small after the last war that a further diminution of her exiguous territory would have to have very grave justification behind it before it could be permitted to be considered at all. Marshal Tito has also announced that the great majority of the people of Yugoslavia are opposed to the retention of a monarchy. On this point I think there is very little evidence save that of the Marshal's own words. There, too, we should wish to have elections conducted in such a way that the real popular opinion may be properly expressed and no undue influence, particularly towards extremism, permitted to prevail.
I have only one more word to say and that is that I fully recognize that, important and urgent as this question is, there is one that is still more urgent, which is the feeding of the population of Europe, not merely the liberated populations but even those of Germany. It is far more important that we should as swiftly as may be restore health and a reasonable standard of living to the peoples of Europe than that we should permit them to have representative institutions. Posterity will look hardly upon us if the peoples of Europe ask for bread and we give them just a vote. Therefore the rehabilitation from a health point of view must come far in advance of any form of political rehabilitation. And we shall have to be prepared to supply the population of Germany equally with such nourishment as they require before we trouble over much about the political future of that miserable country, if only for the reason that the continuance of the present condition of actual starvation over so much of Europe is fraught with grievous danger to the health of Europe and, indeed, of the world. At any moment pestilence on a large scale might break out, and disease knows no frontiers.
But with that proviso I trust that His Majesty's Government will be able to give your Lordships an assurance that they are considering these possibly a little long-term but still very urgent problems in regard to the political re-establishment of the occupied countries of Europe, and also that this question is among those which are being discussed at the present time, or very shortly will be discussed, at San Francisco. I beg to move.
2.25 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think the last part of the speech of the noble Earl will find a welcome echo on these Benches. Certainly we would agree with what lie said about the danger of the breakdown of the food system of a large part of Europe and of the spread of disease. Those two dread horsemen famine and plague are already appearing over the horizon. With regard to the rest of his speech I think, if he will forgive my saying so, that it was unfortunate. He mentioned a number of countries as being in need of tutelage, some of them our Allies. I suppose if he wanted to create ill-feeling and hurt the feelings of a great many people who are to-day fighting and suffering in this war on our side, including the Bulgarians who have coops in the line under Russian command, he could not have gone about it in a more mischievous way.
It is of course the fact that in many European countries, especially in South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, the growth of democracy has been slow. Not only that, but it is a recent growth. It is perfectly true that in Greece, for example, mentioned by the noble Earl, the last plebiscite was shamefully rigged, if I may use such an expression; it was manipulated. The plebiscite which was supposed to bring back the King of the Hellenes was a complete fraud. Everyone knows that, and there is no denial of it. Elections of this sort have been held in other countries and it is unfortunately the fact that in those countries the Party in power, the Government of the day through its appointment of mayors in the towns and villages and the control of the police and that kind of thing, can influence elections very much in its own favour. It is not so very long ago that that sort of thing happened here, and am glad the noble Earl has not the saw political power in Scotland which his
34
ancestors had. Nevertheless I think we have to proceed cautiously—I am sure the noble Earl who I understand is to reply for the Government will agree with this—before we declare that such and such a people and such and such a liberated State is not capable of electing its own representative Parliament and Government, and that we must get in the Swedes and the Swiss and as many representatives of the Allies as possible to form a mixed army of supervision (because it will have to be an army) to see that each election is properly carried out. That is a tremendous task. We have had a few plebiscites in comparatively small areas of Europe—Schleswig-Holstein was one and Allenstein another on the Polish border—after the last war. It means a great amount of organization. The preparation went on for months before and there I think we only used the troops of two Powers in each area, the Italians and ourselves, I believe. In the later plebiscite in Upper Silesia we and the Italians again undertook the responsibility. But the organization required is very great indeed and the time needed is bound to be very long.
Furthermore, the noble Earl talks quite glibly of this election in Poland being supervised by the Swedes and the Swiss, the Americans, the Russians and as many others of the Allies who can be brought in, but when does he think that is to take place? Poland is a devastated country. I do not imagine there is anything in the nature of an electoral roll from one end of Poland to the other. Everyone knows that the records have had to be destroyed to keep them out of the hands of the Gestapo during the German occupation. Then there are vast numbers of Poles who have not yet returned. There are the Poles who have been and are fighting with us, and the displaced persons. Presumably they will have to go back before there can be an election. Many thousands of Poles are fighting most gallantly in our Armies in Holland and Italy and presumably these soldiers must return before there can be elections. When does the noble Earl think these elections can take place in Poland and how does he think we shall be able to spare the forces and organizers and administrators for a very long time to supervise the elections? The suggestion of a vast international supervision of the elections in Poland is fantastic.

35
The noble Earl mentioned other countries. He mentioned Yugoslavia, and he spoke in glowing terms of the efficiency and gallantry of Marshal Tito. But he went on to speak as if Marshal Tito is the sole dictator of Yugoslavia. The Government now in Belgrade is fully recognized by the Allies. It is a Coalition Government. It is not a one-man Government at all. M. Subasic, the Foreign Minister, was the Prime Minister of the emigré Yugoslavian Government. The Yugoslav Government represents, I think I am right in saying, all the Parties and all sections of the people except those who collaborated, and in "some cases are still collaborating, with the enemy. The noble Earl suggested that Marshal Tito cannot speak for the people of Yugoslavia. It is true he certainly cannot speak for the unfortunate people who were misled into collaborating with the Germans, but I do not think my noble friend Lord Selborne can deny that, broadly speaking, the Government in Belgrade to-day does represent the best and most patriotic elements in Yugoslavia. Instead of criticizing them in this way I should have thought that sympathy might have been shown to them. They have gone through a terrible ordeal, they have suffered atrociously, they are still woefully short of food and medical supplies. Yet they managed for years to carry on warfare with the minimum amount of supplies against a cruel and unscrupulous enemy. I should have thought the noble Earl might have had a few words to spare of admiration for these men who have now finally won through and almost liberated the whole of their country. This is no time to say that they are extremists and Bolsheviks and that sort of thing.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I did not make use of those terms.
LORD STRABOLGI: I took down the noble Earl's words. He said they must be replaced by a progressive and respectable Government. "Respectable" was his word. I know quite well that the noble Earl's definition of "respectable" is something quite indistinguishable from Fascist. I was rather surprised that the noble Earl mentioned Greece. That is a very complicated story. When the unfortunate events in that country were in progress the E.A.M. leaders suggested that there should be international super-
36
vision of a plebiscite on the monarchy. I understand that was accepted by our Government. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is going to reply to the part of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield's speech which dealt with Greece, but if he does I should like to ask him—I apologize for not giving him notice but I did not know that Greece would be mentioned—whether we still propose if and when a plebiscite in Greece takes place that it shall be under inter-Allied supervision. There was something bout that I think in the conclusions reached at the Yalta Conference, understand that in future all agreements with Greece and other newly-liberated countries are to be tripartite between the three principal Allies. My question is whether the proposal made by E.A.M. that any plebiscite should be internationally supervised is still the policy of His Majesty's Government.
There appeared in The Times recently a very remarkable article on the Greek situation, which, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote. It represents an entirely different situation from that described by the noble Earl. It says:
"A notable attempt is being made by the Regent, the sole national leader who has emerged, to carry on an interim Ministry of efficient and unbiased administrators until the time is ready for an impartial appeal to a popular vote. One such Ministry has fallen victim to the pressure of the extreme Royalists, seeking to reap the utmost rewards of the success in battle achieved with British aid. The new Government, although appreciably further to the Right—
this is approaching the definition of "respectable" as used by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—
"will no doubt be subjected to the same pressure. There is even a danger, if these influences cannot be held in check, of a forcible seizure of power—this time by the Right extremists."
I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and those who support him are pleased with the result of our intervention in Greece, but I am bound to remind him that many of these Greek extremists of the Right were the foremost collaborators with the Germans.
The article goes on:
"Widespread fears of a return of E.L.A.S. violence are fanned by an active group of Royalists and even Metaxists in high positions."

37
This war is being fought against Fascism and Metaxas was one of the leading Fascists in Europe. The article goes on:
"Even if an election could be held now the vote would be against the extremists of the Left rather than in favour of those of the Right. It would register the widespread impression that the power of Britain leans towards the side of the King and the victorious faction."
The Athens correspondent of The Times describes how the Royalist breeze is being fanned by unscrupulous propaganda which is persuading the Greeks to seek salvation in the annexation of Bulgarian territory which it claims
"will be won with British help, if the King comes back, since Britain is supposed to be under an obligation towards the King for bringing Greece into the war."
He concludes by saying:
"Greece will be lucky if she escapes another close of civil war."
I do not think events in Greece have turned out at all well if that is an accurate description of the present situation. All the blood and treasure we expended in Greece have been wasted if we are to allow Metaxists and the Royalist faction to foment civil war or forcibly seize power. The promises and declarations in another place by the Foreign Secretary that the future Government in Greece must include the leaders of E.A.M. obtained the support of Parliament in what was undoubtedly a serious political crisis. I should like to know what has happened to those promises. My question is, if and when there is a plebiscite in Greece—I imagine it cannot be held for many months because of physical difficulties, the lack of transport, and so on—is it going to be internationally supervised? In other words, are our American and Russian Allies going to help us, as I think they should? Why should WE bear the whole responsibility of seeing that any plebiscite is fair?
May I express agreement with what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said in another connexion about Greece. I understand that the great need in that country is food and work. What is wanted is more nutrition and a supply of raw materials so that industry can be restarted. The economic situation, I suggest, is far more urgent than the political situation. In a large part of Europe that is also the case. But when it is suggested that there should be an attempt at supervision of elections in those liberated countries I suggest a rather different approach from
38
that of the noble Earl. It must be a friendly approach and the less we have to interfere the better. These countries that have been liberated after the appalling experience of German occupation are all of them, including France, in a very nervous and highly-strung condition, as we should be able to appreciate if we had shared their awful experience. We escaped, and I do not think it is easy for us to know the depth of their feeling and. their bitterness towards those who collaborated with the hated enemy. It may be that a few people who were not too guilty have been punished, but that is better than that those who were guilty should escape. The whole subject of the restoration of democracy in Europe is bound to be a difficult one with which to deal. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, would be the first to agree that it should be approached with great care, great delicacy and, above all, without creating unnecessary suspicion and prejudice amongst people who are to-day our friends and Allies.
2.41p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the problems raised by the noble Earl in the Motion which he has brought before your Lordships and developed in his speech are of great difficulty, and they are certainly worthy of the serious consideration of your Lordships' House. I do not intend to follow him and the noble Lord who has just spoken, in making a tour of the various countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. I think, myself, that discussion of the nature of the Governments now existing and the personalities which compose them could only have rather unfortunate results at the present time. There are just two points which I should like to take up. The first refers to Greece, to which the noble Lord devoted a very considerable portion of his speech. I should like to say that, contrary to his view, I believe that the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government has been highly successful, and if the policy which he suggested had been the policy carried out I believe that civil war would still be going on in Greece. The other point relates to Poland. I do regret that the noble Earl spoke about Poland in the way in which he did. Some little time ago, we had a debate about the Crimea decisions, a very full and lengthy debate, and it was quite clear from the answer given by the noble Viscount the Leader of

39
the House that His Majesty's Government fully recognized that they had undertaken very grave responsibilities with regard to the future of Poland. I, for one, would like to give them adequate time to allow them to do their utmost—as I am sure they are doing—to discharge those responsibilities, and to fulfil the pledges which they have given.
There are one or two general considerations which I should like to put before your Lordships apart from matters relating to these countries which have been specially mentioned. The Motion which the noble Earl has moved can well be defined as dealing with the methods to be adopted to secure fulfilment of point 3 of the Atlantic Charter—namely, the right of peoples to choose the form of government under which they desire to live, and that the rights of self-government shall be fully restored to those who have been deprived of them. Most of us have wondered whether this can possibly be effected. I think that our minds—probably owing to our happy historic past—turn rather naturally to General Elections, and to the forms of Parliamentary government which result from those elections. We believe that such a system is best fitted to democratic government, that is a Government chosen in accordance with the freely-expressed wishes of the majority of the people of a particular country. But I do not think that as regards other countries we ought to be too dogmatic. Our Parliamentary methods of government may not be immediately practicable for them, and indeed they may not be those which the inhabitants, the people generally, of a particular State, may desire. If that is so, then surely we ought not to try to impose our methods upon them.
It seems to me that what is essential, in the first place, is a Government which commands the support and approval of the majority of the people concerned. In the second place, I believe it to be essential—indeed I think it is the hall mark of democracy —that the people should be able, by constitutional means, to change the Government when it has lost their confidence. The Motion of the noble Earl refers to General Elections. Of course, it would be very gratifying to us to think that in the liberated countries the people have decided to, or wish to, adopt either the British parliamen-
40
tary system or the American system. But I rather doubt—indeed I feel quite convinced of the contrary—whether any suggestion of that kind would, to-day, be a practicable proposition. What, in my view, the existing circumstances require is a Government which will represent, broadly, the feelings of the population as a whole, so far as they can be ascertained. It is obvious that such a Government must be composed of people of varying political ideas, in fact, probably, of utterly opposed political theories, because the principal task of such a Government, as pointed out by the noble Earl, must be to maintain order and to repair, as far as practicable, the immediate ravages of war and restore the economic and social life of the people.
Such a Government, in my view, ought not to remain in office longer than is absolutely necessary, and in many cases it will have to pave the way for a Constituent Assembly. The duty of that Constituent Assembly would be to formulate the methods and the form of Government which the people would wish to obtain in the country for the future. For instance, the Constituent Assembly would be the right body to decide whether the monarchial or the republican principle should prevail. It is clear that the formation of the kind of Government to which I have alluded is not to be an easy task, and it is clear, I think, that the principal Allies and the United Nations should be prepared to give help and advice, and, indeed, if necessary, to take the initiative. I, myself, doubt whether this problem is a subject which can be discussed at the San Francisco Conference proper. I do not think that it would fall within the purview of such a Conference. These problems do require an exchange of views between the principal Powers; the negotiations are likely to be extremely delicate and their success might, indeed, be impaired by any undue or premature publicity. I think, however, that San Francisco may quite well afford a good meeting place for the intimate exchange of views which I have indicated.
I feel very strongly that we must be prepared to be patient on these questions. Some three months ago I was talking to a French friend on whose political judgment I place very great reliance, and I asked him what was the general trend of political opinion in France. He said that the people as a whole were not

41
greatly concerned with politics; their minds were concentrated on a sufficiency of food for themselves and their families on heating, on clothing, on health, and on other material necessities of life. It was indeed, in his view, doubtful whether men and women who had undergone so many years of suffering and misery were yet sufficiently recovered to resume normal political activities. Naturally there are exceptions to that, but that expression of opinion seemed to me at the time to be very sound. There is also another factor—namely, the return of the numerous prisoners of war and of the large numbers of workers who were deported. It will be necessary to await their return before anything in the nature of a true expression of popular opinion can be taken.
If that is true as regards such a highly-developed political entity as France, it is surely even more applicable to the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe, to which the noble Earl alludes. Assuming that the national territory has been liberated, or that a sufficient amount of national territory has been liberated, from enemy occupation—though even in those cases there may be very complex questions as to the need for safeguarding Army communications—I think, to sum up, that the right procedure to follow would seem to be first of all the establishment of a Government representing the general national trend of opinion. The chief duty of that Government would be to keep order and to provide as far as may be food and work for the people and to prepare, as I have said, for a possible Constituent Assembly. I think that such a Government ought to have the approval and support, both material and moral, of the Allied nations.
The election of a Constituent Assembly would be the second step, and here I think it would be well, if it were practicable, that some measure of inter-Allied supervision should obtain. The noble Earl was rather scornful about the possibility of international supervision, and spoke somewhat slightingly, I thought, of the plebiscites which have taken place. I would remind him of one which took place in the Saar which was a great success, and which did not require an enormous amount of preparation or very many troops to enforce it. There was a certain number of observers, but it was not by any means an army of occupation. At any rate, if that does not prove
42
feasible, and if there cannot be Allied observers, it is essential that the Press should have full liberty of access and full liberty to report. That would be most helpful. The last stage of all would be a General Election for a Parliamentary system or such other system as may be determined by the Constituent Assembly. I obviously exclude Fascism or Nazism, for those are utterly outside our purview and outside the Atlantic Charter. I am therefore convinced that it would be a cardinal error to try to proceed too quickly on these really vital matters. To do so would in my view merely weaken the cause of democratic government, which we believe to be best fitted for the future peace of Europe and of the world.
2.55 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I do not usually use the word "vital," because it is commonly used of something which is merely important; but I think that it is vital that sooner or later some machinery should be found whereby the peoples of Europe will be able to express their wishes freely and fairly on their future form of government. I say "sooner or later" because I quite admit that they have first to be fed, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that it could not be done immediately, when so many are scattered about the earth, many of them still fighting, and it would be impossible to get proper -registers and so on. What I am afraid of, however, and what I think that my noble friend Lord. Mansfield is right in drawing attention to, is that before these conditions are altered attempts may be made in some of these countries to obtain, by one means or another, what may be a false mandate for some Party which finds itself in charge of the Executive.
The history of plebiscites generally is not an edifying one. In Napoleon III's two plebiscites it was notorious that every part of the machinery of government was directed to the same end. I have read that Marshal MacMahon admitted that, had he been able to come to terms with the Comte de Chambord, he would have used the whole machinery of government to obtain his acceptance as King of France. I had a little sidelight on the sort of thing that actually happens when I was in Germany at the time of the plebescite which confirmed

43
Hitler in power. In the course of a walk in the Black Forest, I went into an inn in a small town and saw on the table a short pamphlet, which even my limited knowledge of German enabled me to understand. It was from the burgomaster, and it ran something like this: "On such-and-such a day the whole German people will have the privilege of confirming the power of our beloved Fuhrer. The poll will take place from eight o'clock until four. I trust that by two o'clock I may not have to remind anyone that it is his duty to vote." That was a clear threat that people would have a black mark put against their names if they did not vote; and, of course, if they did vote he would quite easily be able to find out which way they had voted.
We talk of the secrecy of the ballot here. The ballot is only secret because the returning officer and the authorities concerned do their duty and respect its secrecy. It is not fundamentally secret at all. Where you have a numbered ballot paper and the number corresponds to a name and entry in the register it is not secret. Parliamentary petitions and scrutinies are out of fashion, but it has often come about in a scrutiny that someone's vote has been objected to on some ground or other and, when the scrutiny took place, it was found that this person had voted quite differently from the way expected, and he was shown up. That would be perfectly within the power of any authority using a register and numbered ballot papers. There are also, of course, other ways of affecting the result, quite apart from violence and intimidation, such as the use of false ballot papers by an unscrupulous authority.
I do feel, therefore, that sooner or later, whether it is a question of a General Election or of the formation of a Constituent Assembly or a simple question of monarchy or republic, there must be some disinterested supervision if the peace of Europe is to be secured in the future. The voting after the last war in several parts of Germany was, I believe, perfectly fair, because it was under disinterested supervision. There were two plebiscites in the two zones of Schleswig, and there was the voting in the Masurian parts of East Prussia. There was the plebiscite in Silesia, and long afterwards
44
there was the voting in the Saar to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has alluded. All this was done just because there were no people in a position of responsibility who were in any way interested in the result. Some of us did not like the result, but the result was fair, the result was abiding. Let us trust that that may be repeated.
Now I must allude for a moment to Yugoslavia, not because of anything that Marshal Tito has said or done, or anything done by the present Government, because the conditions in that country make it more than ever necessary that there should be disinterested control. Nowhere, I suppose, will you find a country made up of such discordant elements as Yugoslavia, which I know fairly well, having often been there. They belong in great majority, it is quite true, to more or less the same race, but there we have three religions, three alphabets, and traditions of former alien dominations by four different neighbouring countries, each of which has left its mark for better or worse on the country—the Turks, the Venetians, the Austrians and the Hungarians. The result is that at one end of the country you have Slovenia, which was as civilized as Kent, and on the other hand you have Macedonia the favourite hunting ground of the Comitadjis, and you could not possibly have anything more divergent. Ever since that country has been set up there has been the most bitter controversy raging between the centralizing of Belgrade, desired by the more or less dominant Serbs in the central position, and federalism, which the other units wish for. That caused on the one hand the murder of the King, and on the other that of Mr. Ravich. That is going on now, and for that reason, if for no other, it is absolutely necessary that no attempt should be made to frustrate the wishes of the people by either the present or any other Government that is in power, because it is literally impossible for them leally to maintain impartiality. And of course similar considerations, though not so acute, apply to other countries in Europe. Now what is our fundamental policy? It is freedom for the nations of Europe to settle their own Constitutions and make their laws. If that freedom is denied them, whether by domestic malice or foreign pressure, the policy we cherish will be null and void.
3.4 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)My Lords, my noble friend has drawn attention, and I think rightly drawn attention, to a very grave problem, but I would like to make it clear at the outset that consideration of that problem would not fall within the ambit of the San Francisco Conference. The San Francisco Conference is not a peace conference in any sense of the word, and still less is it a control commission. It is meeting for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to devise and erect a World Organization for peace and security. Therefore the point to which my noble friend has drawn attention this afternoon is quite a different one, though it is a very important one indeed.
I should like to say that I agreed with him and with other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon when they said that the upheaval that has taken place in Europe, an unparalleled upheaval, is such that in most liberated countries at any rate, it would be impossible to hold a fair and satisfactory Parliamentary election for some months. Indeed, Parliamentary democracy will not be easy for some time, especially in those countries where it is of recent growth, and where it is not supported by ingrained traditions of the people as it is in Western Europe. Therefore I agree with the noble Earl and with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when they said that it would be unwise to try to force the pace and hold Parliamentary elections prematurely. In fact, it would be scarcely possible to do so. Not only are internal passions in some countries still intense, but communications have been disrupted in some cases throughout the country, the officials whose duty it would be to conduct the election have been dispersed, all political Parties have been in abeyance and millions of the people are in exile or have been in exile for the greater part of the war—millions which include some of the very best elements in the population.
Accordingly what will be first required on the liberation of these countries is an interim Government to govern fairly, to prepare for an election, and get back to normality. I am aware, as are your Lordships, that an election has already been held in Finland, a Parliamentary election such as we are familiar with. But I would point out that Finland in several
46
important respects is in a different position from many of the other liberated countries. In the first place it has not been divided by the same bitter factions as we find in some countries, and secondly there have been no mass deportations from Finland. The population has not been driven into exile as it has been in the case of other nations. What is also important is that Finland is not in the path of any advancing army which I think nearly every other liberated country is, and therefore is not at present subject to military occupation. In these respects Finland is in a different position from other countries and it has been possible for the Finns to get back more quickly to something approaching normality than it would be in the case of other peoples.
I would remind your Lordships that it is nearly eight months since France and Belgium were liberated, and yet it has not been judged possible, for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, gave, to hold elections in those countries yet. As your Lordships know, it was agreed at the Crimea Conference that we should attempt in the case of Poland to obtain a Government that was representative of the whole country, that could play the part of an interim Government of the type I have described, but that, unhappily, has not yet been realized. We hope, however, in the case of Czechoslavakia, that it will be possible for the Government that President Benes has appointed to get the country together in order that Parliamentary elections may subsequently be held.
Now the noble Earl asked that the Allies —I understood him to say, the entire United Nations—should set up a Commission or Commissions on which they should all be represented for the purpose of seeing that these elections, when they do take place, shall be perfectly fair. I see the attraction of the proposal that he has made, but I would point out to my noble friend that the difficulties in the path are very grave indeed. In fact, the whole suggestion of foreign interference in national elections in the name of self-government is somewhat paradoxical. But I agree that there might be circumstances when it would be inevitable. I would like your Lordships to consider the practical difficulties. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, spoke of the smoothness with which the supervision of the plebiscite in the Saar had taken place.

47
But that was a district that had been in Allied occupation for a long time, where we had ample warning of the date which was approaching, where it was possible to make every preparation leisurely, and the whole area was a very small one compared with the resources of the nations involved. What my noble friend is proposing is that this system should be applied to the whole of Central and Eastern Europe, which is a very different proposition indeed.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: May I say that I do not suggest that it should be done all at the same time, but country by country?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am glad to have the agreement of the noble Earl with me that far, but I would point out that it would involve such things as, in the first place, the preparation of the list of voters. That is of fundamental importance. You cannot hold a fair election unless only those who are entitled to vote are on the register—I am sure he would agree with me on that. We are having quite a lot of trouble in this country in getting our own register together, but under my noble friend's proposal the list of voters would have to be prepared, not by the Government of the country itself but by thousands or hundreds of inter-Allied officials, who would all have to be acquainted with the language of that country, who would all have to be welded together into one team with a common loyalty, and who would see that everybody in every town and village who was entitled to vote, and nobody else, was put upon the register; that those votes were correctly counted; that there was no impersonation at the polling booth; that only the people who were on the register did in fact vote; and all the rest of the paraphernalia with which we, as Parliamentarians, are familiar.
I very much doubt if it is possible for foreigners to do that sort of thing; it can be done only by the people of the country, though I would agree with noble Lords that where you have a country that is deeply divided by bitter passions, they might find that a neutral country, say one or more of the great Allies, might be able to have a mollifying and steadying effect on the proceedings and so give considerable help. But I do not think that the machinery could be taken over by an
48
Inter-Allied Commission in the way that I understood my noble friend to suggest, Therefore, on that point, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, as against my noble friend, but I think I must say, with all courtesy, that it was almost the only point on which I did find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. He made a great many challenging statements, and because nobody interrupted him on this side of the House I hope he will not assume that he commanded the assent of members of His Majesty's Government or of other noble Lords.
While, therefore, I do not think that the suggestion made by the noble Earl is really a practical one, I should like to make it clear that if any country, newly liberated, expressed a desire that. His Majesty's Government or the Allies, either generally or a selection of them, should assist in the conduct of the first election in order to make sure that it was impartially conducted, then His Majesty's Government would be glad to give what help we could. But the first requisite would be that the people of that country themselves, and their Government, should ask for it and should wish it. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that was the attitude His Majesty's Government took up in the case of Greece. The Foreign Secretary, speaking in another place on December 20 said:
"If our help is needed it will be available, and if our Allies will come and help, that help will be valuable. We ask nothing of the Greeks. It is our wish to bring our troops away as soon as is practically possible."
The attitude of His Majesty's Government in that respect is unchanged, and provided that the Government and people of any liberated country clearly ask for it, we should be willing to help that country on the path to freedom and Parliamentary government.
I should like to make clear, beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, what we mean by those terms. I do not think I can do better than quote from the Prime Minister's farewell letter to Italy after his recent visit. He wrote:
"The question arises 'What is freedom?' There are one or two quite simple practical tests by which it can be known in the modern world in peace conditions—Is there a right to free expression of opinion and of opposition and criticisms of the Government of the day; have the people the right to turn out a Government of which they disapprove, and are constitutional means provided by which

49
they can make their will apparent? Are there Courts of Justice free from interference by the Executive, free from all threats of mob violence and all association with any particular political Party? Will these Courts administer old and well-established laws which are associated in the human mind with the broad principles of decency and justice? Will there be fair play for the poor as well as the rich, the private person as well as the Government official? Will the right of the individual, subject to his duties to the State, be maintained and asserted and exalted? Is the ordinary peasant or workman earning decent living by his daily toil and striving to bring up his family free from the fear that some great police organization under control of a single Party, like the Gestapo started by the Nazi and Fascist Party, will tap him on the shoulder and take him oil without fair or open trial to bondage or ill treatment? These are some of the title deeds on which a new Italy could be founded."
Or as the Foreign Secretary more pithily put it:
"Government by ballot instead of by bullet."
As I have said, the state of Europe immediately after the conclusion of hostilities will be such that we cannot hope to arrive at this condition equally quickly in ail countries. The road will not be an easy one nor a quick one to traverse, and we must beware of drawing analogies from our own country with countries whose history and whose temperament are very different. In Britain our Parliamentary institutions are built on a thousand years of constitutional evolution and are in conformity with the will and genius of the British people. It is therefore no use ignoring the immense difficulties that lie before us, but the goal of freedom of the subject and Parliamentary government, as I have defined it, is our aim and we must pursue it with resolution and patience.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Earl who has replied for the Government in a very thoughtful and eloquent speech has given me considerable encouragement; at the same time there are one or two aspects of his speech which leave me with a certain feeling of uneasiness. One is that I think he has somewhat exaggerated the difficulties of administering an election in a foreign country on the basis that we should expect the methods and the results to be almost as foolproof as we have them here. Such a desideratum would, I think, be too much to hope for. All I would like to see is an election where we should be perfectly
50
certain that the unfortunate elector would not be asked to vote at the point of a tommy gun merely for an official list of candidates, and where there would be some form of secrecy in the ballot and intimidation would not be allowed to prevail. The other point which I am still a little perturbed about is the noble Earl's remark that we could do nothing except by invitation of the existing Government. Here I am very much in agreement with Lord Rankeillour. The danger is that a Government of all sorts now in power, or which might assume power at some future date, might very easily produce a quick snap election and distort or indeed fake the results. I think that is only too likely to happen in Poland if outside supervision is not insisted upon. For that reason I am still somewhat worried about those aspects.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I correct my noble friend on that point? I thought I had made it clear that it must be the wish of the Government and the people that an outside authority should assist them, before such an authority could legitimately go there.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I noted what the noble Earl stated. In that particular country and I think in certain other countries it may be extremely difficult for anyone outside to find out what really is the will of the people. That is what leaves me still concerned. But on the whole I am quite reasonably satisfied with the noble Earl's reply. I agree with practically everything the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said. I am pleased to note also that he has arrived at the conclusion that there are certain European countries under which at present—and I would add for a long time to come—it is unlikely that the people either desire to or could administer anything like our Parliamentary system. However, I think that the debate has been a very useful one.
Now, as the hour is still not too late, let us for a few minutes descend from the sublime to the ridiculous and derive a few minutes of amusement if not edification from the extraordinary speech that came from the noble Lord speaking for the Socialist Party. The noble Lord built up a number of brick walls and proceeded to destroy them with the utmost gusto. Most of what he had to say bore no relation whatever to anything that had been in my Motion, particularly in regard

51
to Greece. He went back to give his own version of the past history of Greece with considerable fervour. What seemed to annoy him most was that there was a possibility of what in modern parlance would be called a monarchist Putsch. From the noble Lord's point of view any Putsch or any popular movement that results in the establishment of a monarchy is obviously something too terrible to be contemplated. Should it, however, result in the overthrow of a monarchy it is of course all right.
The noble Lord also spoke with complete unconcern about what had happened in Greece. It seemed not to affect him at all that many hundreds, if not thousands, of completely innocent people had been murdered by the Greek extremists. He cared nothing for them. Furthermore, may I remind him that a very short time ago there were elections for trade union executives in Greece and in those elections, which I understand were properly conducted, not one single member of E.L.A.S. or of the other band of "initials" which comprise the extremist bodies was returned to those executives? A very good proof, I think, that the Greek working man realizes where his real enemies lie and that they are not to be found only among the Germans. The noble Earl accused me of being a Fascist.
LORD STRABOLGI: No I did not do that. I will not for a moment allow the noble Earl to think that I said that. What I said was that his definition of the respectable seemed to approach that of the Fascist. I did not say he was a Fascist.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: If that is not a distinction without a difference, what is? The noble Lord opposite has a very simple philosophy; it is that anyone who does not agree with him is a Fascist. He also expressed the extraordinary view that it did not matter if a few people who were a little guilty of collaboration, or I presume not guilty at all, were shot or hung or tortured to death provided the main collaborationists were in due course brought to book. Such a view of justice, I think, is not one which will commend itself to your Lordships as a whole or indeed to the country. As the noble Lord, speaking from the Front Socialist Bench, poured ridicule on every
52
attempt by myself, the so-called Fascist, to bring about democratic elections all over Europe, I think we can only assume that the fervent tributes paid in the past to democracy by the Socialist Party have been so much lip service and that democratic government means a government of the Left whereas a government of the Right is bound to be Fascist. I think this debate has had its uses both in showing that His Majesty's Government do take a very serious view of a very serious position and also in having shown that the Socialist Party, not for the first time, is about as wrong-headed on these matters as anybody could possibly be. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR DAMAGE BUSINESS SCHEME.
3.31 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, in valuing goods under the business scheme under the War Damage Act, 1943, they will take into account any rise in the costs of replacing and repairing goods that has taken place since the date of the damage, or is likely to take place after the war, and whether they will now make early payment of at least part of all claims; and also ask His Majesty's Government to consider amending Section 104 of the War Damage Act, 1943, in order that "deeds" and "documents" (e.g., books of account) may be deemed insurable under the said Act.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the question that stands in my name. As your Lordships know, the business scheme came into operation on April 17, 1941, but the Government very fairly decided to apply the scheme to those people whose goods were destroyed by enemy action before the scheme came into operation. I understand that compensation is based on the cost of replacement at the date of the damage, and that the Government do not reopen claims solely on the ground that the cost of replacement has increased since the date of the damage. If that be the correct position I most respectfully ask His Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter.
It may be that when the time comes for payment of compensation to be made the price of goods, or of some goods, will have risen by 50 per cent. or even l00 per cent. as compared with prices prevailing

53
at the date of the damage. Moreover, those people who lost their goods in the early days of the war, say in September, 1940, will be at a disadvantage as compared with those who lost their goods at a later date, say in September, 1944. The cost of replacement in September, 1940, was not a great deal higher than the cost of replacement at the outbreak of war. The cost of replacement in September, 1944, was very considerably higher than the cost of replacement in September, 1940, Therefore, when compensation comes to be paid those people who lost their goods in September, 1940, will have been assessed on a lower basis than those who lost their goods in September, 1944, and hence early losers will suffer more than later losers because of the great increases in price. The same line of argument applies to goods badly damaged by enemy action and requiring to be repaired or reconditioned, If it has been impossible to get repairs carried out reasonably soon after the date of the damage, it may be that the cost of repair, owing to the rise in wages and in price of materials, has materially increased by the time repairs are in fact executed. It does appear that in such a case some consideration should be given to people who through no fault of their own have suffered through an increase in the cost of repair.
I now pass to consider another point. A number of people whose goods have been destroyed by enemy action are anxious to receive some substantial payment on account of compensation—that is to say, some amount in advance before the full claim is finally paid. I understand that the technical term applicable to such an advance is an "early payment." I understand the policy and practice of His Majesty's Government on this point to be as follows: Claims assessed at £100 or less are paid at once. Early payment of the whole or any part of claims assessed at more than £100 is not made unless the Government are satisfied either that the repair or replacement of the damaged or destroyed goods is expedient in the public interest or that it is expedient that payment should be made to avoid undue hardship. Expediency in repair or replacement in the public interest is given a fairly wide interpretation. Such, I understand, is the practice of the Government in this matter, and I know that there is a large measure of satisfaction
54
with the manner in which the Government have handled the business scheme.
It is submitted that the Government should now make early payment of at least part of all claims, subject possibly to one proviso—namely, that the claimants are still carrying on business. There are a considerable number of people—who may be called deserving people—who have not as yet received any compensation under the business scheme and who admittedly are not doing work of national importance within the narrow meaning of that term. Let me give a concrete example within my own knowledge, an example which will incidentally also illustrate some of the other points which I have already mentioned. The office of a firm of chartered accountants in the City of London was destroyed by enemy action on May Io and II, 1941, and it was impossible to salvage anything. The firm was covered under the business scheme for £600 and a claim was submitted as follows: Furniture, £390; clients' books and effects, £122; library, £58; stationery, £30; making a claim of £600 in all. The figure of £122 for clients' books and effects was entirely struck out as the books in question—namely, statutory books and so forth; for limited companies—had been used, and not being booksellers the firm of chartered accountants could not claim for this particular item. With the claim then standing at £478 and all vouchers lost to substantiate the prices paid for the furniture, with reluctance the firm of chartered accountants agreed to a depreciation figure of 5 per cent. making the claim £454 2s.—which still remains unpaid, but agreed, by the Government.
In order to illustrate the hardship caused in this case by the rise in prices let me give four examples. The Government have agreed to pay £6 for a steel filing cabinet which was purchased in 1938. In October, 1942, the claimants were able to obtain a similar article for £9 15s. 7d. The Government have agreed to pay £6 for another steel filing cabinet which was purchased in 1938. In November, 1942, the claimants were able to obtain a similar article for £10 17s. 7d. The Government have agreed to pay £35 for a Royal typewriter with a long carriage which was purchased in 1939 at that price. The claimants replaced it in June, 1941, with a thirty-year-old rebuilt machine at a cost of £38. Likewise the Government have agreed to pay £35 for

55
another Royal typewriter which was purchased in 1939 at that price. The claimants replaced it in June, 1941, with a second-hand machine for £45. These claimants, in order to set up their offices again, have had to spend 16o, and this figure would have been considerably increased had not the claimants been able to obtain some furniture from their own personal homes, such as chairs, tables and carpets, for use in their new offices.
The short position is therefore as follows: The claimants have had to spend £160 in order to set up their offices again. The sum of £454 2S. is still owing to the claimants. In this connexion, however, it is only fair to the Government to say that interest at 2 ½ per cent. per annum has accrued on the aforesaid sum and will continue so to accrue until final settlement is made. It is submitted, however, that even the accrued interest will not compensate for the increase in the cost of replacement that has taken place. Last, but not least, the claimants had to work for about three months for nothing on replacing their working papers which were and are uninsurable under the business scheme.
The last remark brings me to the question of amending Section 104 of the War Damage Act, 1943. Section 104 provides in terms that the expression "goods" does not include "evidences of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purposes of a business." In February of this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place said deeds of property are not insurable under the War Damage Act, 1943. So far as documents owned for the purposes of a business are concerned, I would refer to the case of Hill versus The King reported in The Times of March 2, 1945, which was a proceeding by way of Petition of Right. The suppliant was an insurance broker. On December 20, 1940, his office and furniture and other goods and thirty-three books of account were destroyed. The thirty-three books included a large daily brokering journal, several ledgers, clients' ledgers and an underwriting journal and ledger. It was held that these books of account were documents owned for the purpose of the business, and hence were not insurable, and the Petition of Right was dismissed.
Now it is perfectly true that "deeds" of property are merely evidence of title to property and are not property in themselves. Likewise, documents owned by a person for the purpose of his business, such as books of account, are merely evidence of transactions but no more. There is, therefore, no way out of the difficulty except to ask His Majesty's Government to consider amending Section 104 of the War Damage Act, 1943, in order that deeds of property and documents owned by a person for the purpose of his business, should be made insurable under the Act, and should always have been regarded as so insurable. There are numerous arguments against my contention, but there is one very good argument in favour of my contention—namely, that deeds relating to property and documents owned by a person for the purposes of a business are of essential importance to the owners, and have to be replaced, and such replacement must be paid for by the owners. It is submitted, therefore, that they should always be deemed to have been insurable in the same way as other goods.
3.42 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Meston, on several occasions, has thought it right to take advantage of his position in this House to put questions about the War Damage Act and its operation. I have been very glad to do my best on each occasion to answer what, for courtesy, I will call his speech. It is, of course, a carefully prepared document, and I am grateful to him because he has, I think, usually supplied the Government with a copy of what he was proposing to read.
In the present case, I think that what Lord Meston has overlooked is that we are really dealing with a contract that is made between an individual who is insured under the business scheme and the Board of Trade, I think it is—at any rate the Department that makes the contract itself, the policy of insurance. It is a business scheme in more senses that one. The property which is being insured consists of certain chattels connected with business. If you examine the policy of insurance the form of it is all set out in Regulations made under the Act, and you will find what it covers and what it does not cover. I do not think it is a very

57
helpful method of proceeding to ask a question in the House of Lords as to whether the policy cannot be treated as covering something which it manifestly does not cover. Presumably the rate of premium is related to the liabilities accepted.
I give as an illustration one which my noble friend mentioned at the end of his speech. He said that traders insured under this scheme who have the misfortune to suffer war damage which destroys their possessions, do not get any compensation in respect of trade books, books that contain lists of customers, or books that contain any other necessary records of transactions and the like connected with their business. That is quite true. But why is it so? Well, the primary reason is that Parliament—your Lordships' House and the other House together —when it passed the War Damage Act, in express terms provided that insurance under this business scheme should not cover business books. It is therefore, if I may say so with all possible courtesy, rather beating the air to submit—I think that was the word used by my noble friend—that the business books, when they are destroyed, should be paid for under the scheme. The law of the land says that they are not to be included, and they are not included, in the contract.
They are not included for, amongst other reasons, one very obvious one. I do not know if my noble friend has a suggestion to make, but my imagination does not enable me to conceive how you can pay a sum of money for such a loss. What is the money value of such business books? As he says, this is not the case of a bookseller who has books for sale on his shelves; these books of which he speaks are account books belonging to traders and relating to their business. It is a great inconvenience no doubt if they are destroyed, whether by an ordinary fire or by action of the enemy, but what is the value which could be paid for them? The only way in which you could hope, in the days which now apparently are happily over, to preserve these useful records of your business was to do what many people have done m recent times, that is to duplicate them, and keep the copies in some other and safer place. Let me take an example which has apparently come to the notice of my noble friend. He speaks of a case in which a figure of
58
something in the neighbourhood of £16o was claimed for books. Why are they worth £160? They are merely so many pages on which are written so many names, or the records of so many transactions. It is obvious that you could not pay compensation in such a case under a system of insurance, devised with the assistance of both Houses of Parliament, and set out in express terms in an Act of Parliament which excludes such things altogether.
The same argument really applies to the rest of the matters to which my noble friend has referred. This, as I have said, is a contract, and it is not a contract which is pushed at anybody in the dark. The terms of the policy are contained in the Schedule The people who have got claims are people who have got a copy of the policy. Under that policy they undertake to pay a certain rate as a premium, and in return for that premium they get an undertaking that they will be compensated for certain things. I really do not know the method by which it is proposed—even by a question in the House of Lords—to secure any alteration of the terms of a binding contract. My noble friend, I think, perhaps means to suggest that there should be an amendment of the Act. I have pointed out how difficult it would be to make such an amendment as regards business books, because I do not know how they could be valued.
As regards the rest of it, the matter is to a large extent covered by commonsense reasons. It is the case that if there are special reasons for making an early payment the Department which manage this matter do their best to pay as soon as possible after the claim is proved. But the general principle, the principle that is laid down, is that payments are not made until after the war. They are deferred until after the war. It may be a disadvantage to have a policy of insurance governed by that rule, but if that is the rule laid down, it is no use complaining after you have accepted the policy. In order to be as little harsh as possible, the provision is further made that small claims, for £100 or less, will be paid snore promptly, so as to help the small shopkeeper and the small man generally. Your Lordships will see, however, that in the general management of the financial side of this business, where we are dealing with claims which in the last resort

59
must amount to many millions of pounds, it is an understandable requirement that they shall not be instantly paid, but that it shall be understood and agreed that they will be settled when the war is over. There is, however, this exception. Where the Board of Trade are satisfied either that the repair or replacement of goods is expedient in the public interest, or that failure to pay at once will produce undue hardships, they will do their utmost to make the payment at once.
I do not know anything about the case which my noble friend mentioned, nor do I think that any of your Lordships know it, but if this firm to which my noble friend has referred has not applied for early payment, it had better do so. It there are reasons why the money should be paid at an early date it had better show what those reasons are. If my noble friend will inform the firm of chartered accountants of whom he spoke that it would be as well to communicate with the Board of Trade and see whether it is not possible to be paid more promptly, that would be a very practical course to take; but I venture respectfully to think that it is not a useful way to proceed on this matter in your Lordships' House by way of question and answer. I am not in the least unwilling to reply, but the question is what is the most useful way to proceed. All this information is given in the Statute and in the rules, and my noble friend is a considerable expert as to what they contain.
If he wishes to suggest amendments in the law, we shall be grateful to him for any suggestions which he may have to make. But what he has called to the attention of the House is not that sort of thing at all, but simply the working of a contract which has been entered into between the persons who have suffered and the Board of Trade, who issue the policy of insurance; and I am afraid that your Lordships' House cannot be occupied at great length with a discussion on whether or not there is hardship there. It might mean that there would have to be a new policy negotiated and a new
60
or amending Act of Parliament. I hope that the practical suggestion which I have made—that he should advise these chartered accountants, if they have not already made a claim for early payment, to do so and give their special reasons—will be of some assistance, but for the rest I do not think that I can carry this matter further.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his answer. I do not propose to move the Motion standing in my name with regard to war damage value payments.
House adjourned during pleasure at four minutes before four o'clock.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Ministry of Fuel and Power,

Colonial Development and Welfare,

Ministry of Civil Aviation,

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Staffordshire Potteries Stipendiary Justice.

MID SOUTHERN UTILITY [PETITION FOR BILL].
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Mid Southern Utility.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
The Examiners' Certificate of noncompliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past four o'clock.