My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the war situation, with particular reference to the naval position?

My Lords, you will remember that on July 4 my noble friend the Foreign Secretary described the painful but very necessary action which we had taken on the previous day to prevent units of the French Fleet lying in British and North African ports from passing into enemy control. Since that date the Royal Navy have carried out two other operations designed to increase the security of this country against the use of French warships by the enemy. On July 6 a French battle cruiser of the "Dunkerque" class which had been damaged and driven ashore at Oran was attacked by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm who obtained six hits. As a result this powerful ship will be incapable of effective use for a very long time to come.

Apart from the ships thus dealt with, there lay at Dakar in French West Africa the 35,000-ton battleship "Richelieu" which had just been completed and was the most modern and formidable capital ship in the world immediately available for active operations. In accordance with the decision announced to your Lordships by the Foreign Secretary, His Majesty's Government decided that steps must also be taken to ensure that this vessel did not fall into enemy hands in a condition in which she could be used against us. A force was accordingly despatched to Dakar with orders to present to the French Admiral there proposals similar to those offered to the French commander at Oran. On July 7 the Flag Officer entrusted with this operation sent one of his captains ahead in a sloop in order to present the terms in person. On arrival, this ship was, however, informed by the French authorities that they would open fire if she approached close to the port, and it was only after an interval that the French consented to receive this communication by signal.

In view of statements which have been made by the French Government concerning the terms offered at Oran it is desirable that I should recapitulate now those put to the Admiral at Dakar. His Majesty's Government offered four alternatives. First, that the French ships should sail with reduced crews and under escort to a British port with a guarantee that the crews would at once be repatriated, and at the end of the war the ships returned to France. Secondly, that they should sail with reduced crews to a French port in the West Indies where they could be demilitarised or perhaps be entrusted to the United States for safe keeping. Thirdly, that the ships should be demilitarised in Dakar within twelve hours; or, fourthly, they should be sunk within a time limit some hours after the receipt of the signal by the French authorities. No satisfactory reply was received within this limit. Nevertheless, the British naval commander waited longer before carrying out his orders to use force. Finally, as it became clear that the French authorities did not propose to accede to any of the British suggestions, he had no alternative but to carry out his painful duty in the early hours of July 8.

The attack upon the "Richelieu" was two-fold. A ship's boat under the command of Lieut.-Commander H. R. Bristowe, R.N., was sent into the harbour carrying depth charges. With great daring the boat successfully passed the boom defences and went alongside the port quarter of the "Richelieu". At the right moment depth charges were dropped close under the stern of the warship as she lay at anchor in the shallow water in order to damage her propellers and steering gear. The motor boat began to withdraw immediately after dropping the depth charges but while still in the harbour broke down and lay helpless for a time. The crew however succeeded in getting one engine running just as they were discovered and the boat, which was pursued, just managed to escape by crossing the harbour defence nets which fouled its pursuer. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in paying tribute to the gallantry and skill with which this operation was carried out.

The main attack was entrusted to aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm and took place after the attack by the motor boat. These aircraft were successful with their torpedoes, a number of which hit the "Richelieu". The motor boat which was still in the harbour witnessed the aircraft attack, heard five explosions and then saw smoke issuing from the battleship. Air reconnaissance since carried out has established that the "Richelieu" has a list to port and is down by the stern. A large quantity of oil fuel covers the water around the ship. All our aircraft returned safely in spite of heavy anti-aircraft fire. Your Lordships will desire to pay tribute to the skill, efficiency and courage with which this action has been carried out by the officers and men concerned.

Your Lordships will appreciate the result of the action which we have had to take. When the Armistice was signed, France had eight capital ships fit to form a line of battle under present conditions. Of these, three of the "Bretagne" and "Courbet" classes have now passed under our control, one has been sunk, and one badly damaged and immobilised. Of two modern battle cruisers, one has been driven ashore at Oran and, as I have already mentioned, will be out of action for a long time to come, if not permanently. The other managed, as the Foreign Secretary told your Lordships, to escape, and is presumed to have reached Toulon, but only after having been hit by a torpedo which will demobilise her for some time. The state of the "Richelieu" has already been described. There remains, in addition, the sister ship of the "Richelieu," the "Jean Bart" which will not, however, be completed for many months to come. I need not emphasize that the transfer of this powerful modern fleet to the enemy might have altered the whole balance of naval strength, with incalculable results to our cause. As a result of the measures which we have taken, this grave anxiety is now removed.

Perhaps the House will permit me to add a word of thanks to the Naval Staff who had to plan these recent operations immediately with, and following, the completion of the evacuation, in face of the enemy, of troops and refugees totalling not less than 600,000, the greatest achievement of its kind in the history of naval operations and a remarkable tribute to the value of our sea power, which we do not intend to lose. Rather, we intend to prevent seaborne invasion of this island or the escape of any marauders who dare to set foot here.

My Lords, it is impossible off-hand adequately to comment upon this thrilling statement. Historically it will become a renowned statement. As a layman, one is filled with admiration of the ingenuity and daring of the men who carried this operation out. I only hope that the result of this exploit will, in fact, be that this powerful ship will be immobilised for a long time. I do not know what the repair facilities at the port in question are, but I imagine that they are not very considerable for a ship of this kind. As one listens to one after the other of these accounts of acts of boldness and ingenuity by the members of His Majesty's Naval Forces, one is filled with a longing for the day when we shall find their exploits extended to the Italian ships which are diligently skulking in their ports. I am not aware what opportunities they present, knowing nothing whatever about the technicalities of this matter, but one cannot but feel that men gifted with the courage and ingenuity which have so far been displayed will be able to discover some means to induce or compel these reluctant war vessels to take the sea, or will be able to deal with them in the places where they have so far skulked in safety.

moved to add to subsection (1):

"(c) the sums to be paid for the purposes of promoting research or inquiry shall not be applicable to the payment of the salaries of the ordinary scientific or technical staff of any Government Department of the Colony or of or incidental to any continuous advisory or experimental work on which they may be engaged in the course of their normal employment."

I can assure my noble friend that I am in entire sympathy with the purpose which the Amendment moved by him is designed to achieve. Indeed, I can assure your Lordships that it is a very definite intention of His Majesty's Government that the funds which are to be provided by Parliament for the furtherance of research in matters of concern to the Colonial Empire should not be eaten into by using them to relieve Colonial Governments of expenditure which they ought to incur from their own resources. The whole point of the provision which is being made under this Bill is that there are vast fields of research into matters vitally affecting the well-being of the Colonies and their inhabitants which many Colonial Governments are at present unable to undertake because they have not the requisite resources, and it is precisely for the purpose of enabling these vitally important researches to be undertaken that Parliament is now being asked to make provision to enable their cost to be met from the funds of this country.

I know very well from my experience in another field of activity in which I have been engaged for the last two or three years, that there is always a temptation for Colonial Governments when funds are placed at their disposal from an outside source for a specific purpose, to consider whether this outside assistance may not enable them to economise on services for which they themselves have previously been paying, and so really riding off, if I may use the phrase, the very purpose for which the money was given. I have had constant experience of it in dealing with the British Council's affairs where there is a natural temptation for a Colonial Government, on being offered money from outside, to see whether it cannot economise its own revenues. Therefore my noble friend is preaching to the completely converted in this matter. I must confess that I should have been happy if I could have accepted by noble friend's Amendment, or at any rate some modification of it, which would have achieved the purpose which he has in mind. I have, none the less, however, considered the matter very carefully and I have come to the conclusion that no form of words could be devised to achieve this purpose which would not at the same time be so rigid as to rule out assistance in some cases in which I am sure the noble Viscount and your Lordships would agree that it should be rendered. May I give your Lordships an example of what I have in mind?

Let us assume that a most important piece of research work is being carried on by the scientific officers of a prosperous Colony. Even prosperous Colonies sometimes fall upon bad times, and it might be that the only way of ensuring the continuance this work would be for Parliament to come to the rescue and to vote money for the continuance of this work. I submit to your Lordships that it would be very deplorable if words were introduced into this Bill which would make this impossible, as would certainly be the case if your Lordships were to accept the Amendment proposed by my noble friend. I am afraid, therefore, that I must ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, but at the same time to accept an assurance from me that it is the definite intention of His Majesty's Government—and here I speak for the Treasury as well as for myself—that the funds to be devoted to research under the provisions of this Bill should be spent on schemes which would otherwise be beyond the resources of the Colonies—I think that is a clear enough assurance to my noble friend—and that we shall constantly be on the watch to ensure that these funds are in no way diverted from the purpose for which they are designed by allowing them to be used to relieve Colonies of expenditure which they ought properly to undertake from their own resources. I hope my noble friend, in view of that very categorical assurance, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

While I remain entirely unconvinced, I can of course, quite realise that as long as my noble friend remains the alert watch-dog at the head of the Colonial Department, I may feel pretty happy in my own mind that this money will not be diverted for a purpose for which Parliament obviously did not intend it. These are grave times and, although entirely unconvinced, I do not want, in the circumstances, to press this Amendment.

moved, in subsection (2), after "section," to insert "as respects any Colony." The noble Lord said: As this is a purely verbal Amendment, consequential on the Amendment which follows, I will, with your Lordships' permission, deal with these two Amendments together. My second Amendment is to move in line 7 on the same page, after "himself," to insert:

"in a case where the scheme provides for the payment of the whole or part of the cost of the execution of any works, that the law of the Colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions, and"

The effect of this Amendment, as your Lordships will see, is to place the Secretary of State under an obligation to satisfy himself, before making any scheme which will involve financial assistance being provided by Parliament under this Bill, that the law of the Colony provides reasonable facilities for the establishment and activities of trade unions. This does not mean that the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied that trade unions are actually in existence, and operating, in the Colony concerned; but merely that there are no obstacles, in the laws of that Colony, to the formation, and operation, of trade unions if the workers of that Colony desire to form them. It is therefore not mandatory, but permissive.

The next Amendment is consequential, and I beg to move.

This appears to be a series of Amendments in order to encourage and strengthen the forces of trade unionism so as to ensure proper conditions of labour in our Colonies. Far be it from me, being a convinced advocate of trade unionism in all English-speaking countries, to say any word which would appear to deprecate the desire to ensure proper conditions of labour in any country over which flies the Union Jack, and particularly at this time when we must all agree that during this crisis the attitude of trade unionists and their leaders throughout this country has been nothing short of magnificent.

But I do wish to utter this word of warning. My noble friend the Colonial Secretary did mention that in certain African Colonies this particular provision would not be of very great value until there was a further development of what I may call Western civilisation. I have lately come from a country where, perhaps unfortunately, the very strong trade unionism of the European people, resulting in very high wages and very good conditions of labour, operates as a most unsettling factor in the native mind. After all, in the countries of South-Central Africa, the higher the European wages as the result of strong trade unionism, the more marked by comparison becomes the difference between the remuneration of the European and the remuneration of the native. I fully recognise that where you have got a majority of European population in any Colony, such a provision as this can only operate to the advantage of labour generally, but where you have an enormous preponderance of native people in a highly primitive state, with relatively small remuneration for their labour, you have to be extremely careful, in applying such provisions as this, that you are not indirectly fostering discontent and making the native problem more difficult to solve. I only wish to mention that as a caveat without in any way opposing these Amendments.

On behalf of my noble friends, I have much pleasure in thanking my noble friend the Colonial Secretary for implementing the undertaking given in another place and for introducing this very satisfactory Amendment to the Bill. It is an extraordinary thing, and I recommend my noble friend to draw the attention of his colleague the Minister of Information to it, that while in the totalitarian States—now unfortunately joined by a coup d'état Government in France—highly skilled white labour is forbidden to be in trade unions, we in our Colonial Empire are recognising the need for the gradual and orderly development of the trade union system among skilled and manual workers. That point ought to be driven home through every channel we have to the suffering peoples of Europe. In connection with that, while we are passing this provision with the support of the noble Viscount opposite, who has had great Colonial experience, and without opposition, I regret to see in the newspapers that one of the first acts of M. Laval, the Vice-Premier of the Bordeaux Government, has been to arrest 700 prominent French trade union leaders who had been doing their utmost, through the Confédération Générate du Travail, to increase the supply of munitions and help the French war effort. There you have the contrast. That epitomises the great struggle in which we are engaged.

With regard to what fell from my noble friend the Colonial Secretary about the noisy beginnings of some of these trade unions, it is a fact that where you have unorganised labour, and it is desired to organise the workers and bring them gradually to the state of being able to work together for their own good, it is necessary in the first place, usually, that non-manual workers should take the lead; that is people above their ranks, the intellectual labour of the communities perhaps—sometimes as in India in the past by Europeans and in Africa by Eurasians—and men of the professional classes who have had, in the first place, to organise these, in some cases, primitive workers. The charge made against them has been: "Oh, they have nothing to do with the union; what right have they to try and organise the labourers?" These men, very often public-spirited and self-sacrificing men, have incurred the intense hostility of the employers, as was to be expected, human nature being what it is. But that is got over. We had the same thing in this country a hundred years ago. The agricultural labourers in the Eastern counties of England were attempted to be organised in the first place by men of that kind, but as the unions found their feet so their own leaders emerged. And, of course, that happens in all cases.

Before finally thanking the Colonial Secretary, may I draw attention to how useful unions may be in certain difficult cases? In the quieter times in Palestine the transport workers, dock workers and others, consisting of Jews and Arabs, were all brigaded together into the same unions and worked most harmoniously. There was no communal trouble, and it was not until political and religious issues arose that the harmony was in any way disturbed. There you have an example of the use of a union with, of course, a much more educated working class, for smoothing down communal and racial differences. Speaking for my noble friends, I may add that we are very grateful to my noble friend not only for the introduction of this Amendment, but for the way he has explained its necessity and the Government's policy.

moved, in subsection (2)(a), to leave out "all works the cost of which has to be defrayed in whole or in part in pursuance of the scheme" and insert "the works." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely verbal and consequential on the wording of my second Amendment, and I need not trouble your Lordships with any long explanation of it. I beg to move.

moved, in subsection (2) (a) (i), to leave out "standard rates" and insert "rates recognised by employers and trade unions in the area where the works are to be executed or, if there are no rates so recognised, at rates approved by the person for the time being administering the Government of the Colony." The noble Lord said: The provision which it is now proposed to amend was taken bodily from the Colonial Development Act of 1929, but it was represented in the debate in the Committee stage in another place, that the words "standard rates" are too ambiguous. They are nowhere defined and indeed seem incapable of definition, especially in relation to some of the more backward Colonies where, quite possibly, work may be undertaken on schemes for which assistance is provided under this Bill of a kind which has perhaps never been undertaken before. It was further argued in the course of that debate that the criterion that ought to be satisfied is that fair rates of wages should be paid to workmen in the Colonies employed on works for which funds will be provided by Parliament under this Bill. This, I am sure, is a principle which will commend itself to their Lordships.

moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "in respect of which the scheme is made." The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is purely verbal and is consequential on the wording of my first and second Amendments, and I need not therefore trouble your Lordships with any further explanation of it.

moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): "and the current obligation to apply half its standard revenue in excess of £450,000 per annum towards the repayment to the Treasury of its past loans therefrom." The noble Viscount said: I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time over the two Amendments which I have put down to this clause, because my noble friend has been good enough to allow me to have a conversation with one of his officials and also with a representative of the Treasury, and has made the position in regard to Nyasaland, to which my Amendments refer, much clearer, if I may say so, than on the face of it the Bill itself does. I reminded your Lordships on Second Reading that little Nyasaland, with a very large native population and a very small white population, has had a very heavy capital debt hanging over it in regard to the Trans-Zambesia Railway, and particularly in relation to what is, I think, the longest railway bridge in the world, the bridge crossing the Zambesi and linking up Portuguese East Africa with the Rhodesias and countries to the north of them. This Amendment makes special provision for extinguishing this debt, or at least the greater part of it, and I want very cordially, on behalf, if I may say so, of Nyasaland, to thank my noble friend and the Treasury for taking this very enlightened step. I particularly emphasize it as an enlightened and fair course because this debt has hung like a pall over the whole of the development of what is by far the most fertile part, and the part most capable of development, of this little Protectorate of Nyasaland.

I am very glad that my noble friend has been good enough to say he will not press the second Amendment and to have been able to assure him behind the scenes that his fears—which I should have shared had I not known the facts—are really not necessary. As regards the Amendment which has just been moved, the position I understand, is this. The arrangement by which one half of the excess of ordinary revenue over "standard" revenue is earmarked for reducing the Nyasaland Government's debt to His Majesty's Government in connection with the Trans-Zambesia Railway Guarantee is an administrative arrangement, and has not been embodied in any Statute. It would accordingly be inappropriate to modify the arrangement by statutory means. Moreover, since 1929 the arrangement has in fact been inoperative since ordinary revenue has always been below "standard" revenue. Really the answer to my noble friend's point is that if it became necessary there would be a grant in aid. I hope therefore he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

Am I to understand from my noble friend's answer that in fact the Nyasaland Government will not be bound to apply half the excess of its standard revenue to these purposes, the main debt having been wiped out?

As I understand the position, that is the case, and I would like to repeat that the position would be met by a grant in aid.

But Treasury control would continue?

I think so.

My Lords, this is a little Bill, but perhaps your Lordships may think it of some interest and some importance. Our industrial code contains, as your Lordships know, provision for prohibiting truck, that is to say, prohibiting arrangements with workmen by which they are remunerated otherwise than in coin of the realm. This Bill arises from a decision, given in your Lordships' House judicially, after much difference of opinion at every stage of litigation, in a case that was tried last February called "Pratt versus Cook." Mr. Pratt was a packer and he brought his action against his employers, Messrs. Cook, who, I think, are wholesale drapers in St. Paul's Churchyard. His point was that for many years he had served his employers under a written contract by which he was paid 53s. per week and in addition received daily his dinner and his tea which were agreed to be of the weekly value of 10s. That particular form of arrangement exists in many businesses and it has generally been supposed to be lawful, but Mr. Pratt had the satisfaction, after going through three Courts, of getting, after a great deal of argument, a decision that it was not lawful.

As a consequence, he recovered the sum of £400, representing the dinners and teas valued at 10s. weekly which in the nature of things he could not return, but which, as it has turned out, he received under the contract unlawfully instead of wages. In fact, this is one of the very rare instances where one may say a man keeps his cake and eats it. It would be intolerable that a large number of persons should follow Mr. Pratt's example and similarly recover sums of money in respect of meals they have already eaten. If the agreement in Mr. Pratt's case, instead of saying he was to be paid 53s. in addition to getting dinner and tea worth 10s., had said he was to be paid 63s. but that there was to be deducted from that 63s. a sum of 10s. which represented his dinner and tea, there would have been nothing to dispute about in the Courts of Law. It seemed, therefore, reasonable to the Government—not indeed that we should correct the decision given, for unquestionably it is for the Judges to declare what the law is and for the Legislature to consider whether the law needs to be altered. It is not proposed to alter the law for the future, but to ensure that there should not be any imitator of Mr. Pratt in respect of agreements already entered into. Therefore, the Bill provides that no action can be brought in respect of agreements already entered into of this kind, provided they would have been perfectly lawful agreements if they had been put into the alternative form which I have explained.

The only other provision in the Bill is put in for caution. If it happens that there is any proceeding now already started in which it is sought to secure the same result, then it is provided that the proceedings shall be dismissed, but the Court shall consider what is the appropriate thing to do in reference to costs. Mr. Pratt himself retains the results of his ingenuity but will remain a solitary example of what can be done by an ingenious and persevering litigant. Before the Bill was introduced in another place its terms were the subject of discussion with representatives of the Trades Union Congress and they agreed that this was a reasonable provision to make. The Bill therefore comes before your Lordships' House not only with the support of the Government, but with the approval of those who naturally would take care to protest if it were proposed to do anything unreasonable. I think your Lordships will approve the Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.

My Lords, as the noble Viscount has intimated, one has heard this Bill discussed at considerable length by those who are intimately familiar with trade union procedure, and I should like to support the correctness of the statement which has been made by the Lord Chancellor in respect of the feeling about the Bill. I believe, however, that it was not arrived at without substantial misgiving, because, of course, they are very anxious that there should be no extension of facilities for payment by truck; but I am assured that nothing of that kind can occur as a result of the passage of this Bill. It appears that if there had been as good relations between the employees and employers in this particular case as there are in a good many others where this kind of thing happens habitually and has happened for a long time, this ingenious litigant would never have emerged. It also appears that you can do the same thing legally if you word it one way and quite illegally if you word it another way, although the Act is identical in both cases. Such however, are the ingenuities and mysteries of the law. In the circumstances, I only have to say on behalf of those for whom I speak that we concur in the Second Reading of this Bill.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

There are altogether three Amendments. They are rather technical, they are rather long, and I think your Lordships will feel that the best course for me to take is to state briefly the effect of the changes that have been made in another place. The first Amendment is a new clause which should be inserted between Clause 2 and what is now Clause 3 of the Bill, and it arises in this way. The Courts, under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act of last year, have felt bound to authorise the enforcement of a judgment in respect of nonpayment of rent or instalments on a mortgage of a dwelling-house unless the debtor—the person who is being sued—actually appears in the litigation. If he does not appear, his absence has the effect of bringing about the judgment automatically. That is manifestly most undesirable. Suppose the tenant or mortgagor is a serving soldier and that is the reason why he has been unable to keep up his payments of rent or instalments on a mortgage. The very fact that he is a serving soldier may be the reason why he cannot appear or instruct anybody to put his case. The situation is made still more serious when one remembers that the actual serving of the process on the debtor may in many cases be by a method which is called substituted service—that is to say, you do not actually find the man and serve him with the process, but, owing perhaps to the fact that the house has been deserted, you get leave to affix the notice on the house. Consequently, you may easily have cases in which a man would, if he were able to appear, give a good reason why he should not be turned out of his house, but the very fact that he is serving in the Army and has perhaps never heard of the proceedings results, or may result, in his losing his home.

The object of this first Amendment—and I have no doubt your Lordships will approve of it—is therefore to provide that:

"Where an application is made by the mortgagee of a dwelling-house for leave to exercise in relation to the mortgage or the dwelling-house any of the rights or remedies mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of the principal Act, and the mortgagor is a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving,"—

it may be his wife—

"the appropriate Court, unless it is satisfied that the mortgagor is able immediately to pay the debt or to perform the obligation in question or that his inability to do so does not arise by reason of circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, may in its absolute discretion refuse leave for the exercise of that right or remedy or give leave therefor subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Court thinks proper."

The result, as your Lordships see, will be that we shall no longer have the manifestly undesirable situation in which the fact that the mortgagor under a building society arrangement is not able to appear, and indeed in some cases has never heard of the process, will mean that he loses his house automatically. The remaining subsections are really a matter of machinery, and I doubt whether your Lordships will wish me to read them. I beg to move that the new clause which I have just described—"Provisions as to Mortgages"—which has come from another place, be added to the Bill.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me now to state also what the second new clause provides, because I do not think we shall be in difference about it at all. It has been decided by the Court of Appeal that under the principal Act—the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act—it is not possible, for example, in a hire-purchase agreement, merely because there has been a failure to pay instalments, for the company which is hiring the article out to go in and seize it. The principal Act will provide restraints upon that. But it has also been decided that there is no objection if, instead of going in to seize the property because the instalments have not been paid, the company takes legal proceedings in due form under the agreement, as a result of which it gets a judgment which it will be able to enforce as of right. There can be no justification for that difference. In cases where it is right to protect the hirer even though he has not been able to keep up the instalments, it really cannot make any difference, in common sense or justice, whether the proceedings which are taken against him are proceedings in the way of going to law, or are those which can be taken simply because in ordinary times the company letting out the article is entitled in default of payment to go in and seize it. This Amendment provides that neither in the one case nor in the other can a remedy be enforced without leave of the Court.

That is the second of the Amendments. The third is a very simple one, really hardly more than a definition consequential on the two clauses which I have already indicated. Lastly there is a definition of "armed forces of His Majesty," which is really necessary because, when we speak of protecting the armed forces of His Majesty, we are thinking of the soldier who, because he has joined up and is a serving soldier, is living away from home. The provision ought not to apply, for example, to a Local Defence Volunteer, who is presumably living at home. That is, therefore, a definition to put that matter right. I have ventured to put these matters together in this way, I hope not to the inconvenience of the House, because they are really things about which there cannot be two opinions, and I therefore take it that your Lordships will wish to agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. I beg to move.

had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government to state the total charge to the Exchequer from September, 1939, to June, 1940, for the maintenance of children evacuated from vulnerable to non-vulnerable areas, and what percentage of such charge is borne by the parents of the children evacuated; and move for Papers.

My Lords, I am very glad that this question has been raised by the noble Karl, because I feel that there are many people in this country who will be grateful to him for showing that sometimes, when in these stormy days we have a few quiet moments in which we can think, we give attention to these matters. He has struck a note of anxiety which is in many minds today, as to the cost of this huge scheme and whether this scheme, which is absolutely necessary, is being managed with due regard to economy and with a just regard for the incidence of the expenses. I came across a case not long ago where a man in a good position in life gave up that position and became a paid air-raid warden. He then sent his child into the country, evacuating the child himself, and he fully expected to receive the full Government grant towards the maintenance of that child. I think that he did receive it for a time, but subsequently, because he did not get as much as he expected, he brought the child back again. I do not know what has happened to the child now. That goes to show the way in which advantage has been taken of what I will not call Government prodigality, because this is a very difficult time for any Government; but advantage has been taken of this scheme in a way which was probably never intended.

In these days, when we are spending enormous sums of money and when we can scarcely think except in terms of millions, it is most important that we should obtain the best possible results for our money and that we should see that the expense of this scheme is equitably divided between the local authorities, the Government and the parents of the evacuated children. I can assure your Lordships that the County Councils Association, which represents the county councils of this country, has had considerable anxiety about the charges connected with evacuation. As an instance of what is happening, there is a case where a large number of children were sent into a reception area by an evacuating authority and arrived in a disgraceful condition. Their boots were very bad and their clothing was very bad; everything they had wanted mending or replacing. The people in the reception area did what they could out of their own pockets, but it was obviously the duty of the evacuating authority to see that such expense did not fall on the reception area. That is really a question between reception and evacuation areas, but there is still the question to which the noble Earl referred, as to the proportion of the expenditure which should fall upon the parents. It is often said, "Oh, let the Government pay," but in these days, when taxation has reached such heights, I hope that the noble Duke will be able to assure us that as far as possible strict attention will be given to economy so far as this evacuation scheme is concerned.

I should also like to ask whether there is a proper means test, and what is the standard which is used to decide what parents are to contribute towards the cost of maintaining their children. We must always bear in mind that it is probably more expensive for the parent of an evacuated child to keep him away from home, because he will have to maintain a home for himself and his wife and also to keep his child in another part of the country. I am sorry, in a sense, that this matter was not discussed in Secret Session, because it would have been possible to say more had that been the case, and it might have been desirable to discuss the character of vulnerable and non-vulnerable areas. That, of course, cannot be done now; but I know a reception area very well indeed in which large numbers of children have been received but which is now a defence area; and so the children are moved backwards and forwards from one area to another, and this is going to add very considerably to the cost of the evacuation scheme. I hope that I have made my point quite clear to the noble Duke, and I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Earl for raising this question.

My Lords, I can answer my noble and gallant friend in a very few words. He asks what the total cost of the evacuation scheme has been to the Exchequer and what proportion is borne by the parents. The cost of billeting alone has been £9,750,000. There has to be added to that various other charges, such as the cost of whole schools and institutions which have had special arrangements made for them, the cost of the care of handicapped and difficult children, such as obstreperous lads, and others of that sort, and that brings the total to £11,200,000. The proportion of this very large sum which it is estimated will be recoverable from parents up to the end of June is £1,390,000, or 12·4 per cent. of the cost to the Exchequer. When parents are in a position to do so it is compulsory for them to pay an appropriate proportion of the cost of billeting their children. My noble friend asked whether it was voluntary or compulsory. It is compulsory by Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Acts. Sums paid by the Ministry in respect of the billeting of children are recoverable summarily as civil debts, and a circular to that effect was issued to all local authorities.

At the same time it was felt that it was not right that the whole cost of billeting should be put on the parents. The cost has gone up, but in the early days of evacuation the cost per child in normal cases was estimated at 9s. a week. It is now, for children of ten and over, 10s. 6d. But 9s. a week was originally fixed as the ordinary figure, and of this it was thought that 6s. a week was the amount which should be payable by the parents, the reason being that in most cases the parent did not escape his liability to rent and rates owing to his family having been evacuated, and that 6s. was the amount which he saved by his child being away. Therefore, while there are parents who pay more than 6s. any parent who pays 6s. is looked upon as fulfilling his full legal responsibility. The figures are rather interesting in a way, in that, while only the comparatively small proportion of 12 per cent. of the total cost is recovered, 53 per cent. of the parents are paying the full 6s. or over, and this affects 45 per cent. of the children. But in many cases it is the very poor, who are not asked to pay, who have the largest families, and that accounts for the fact that although 53 per cent. of the parents pay the full amount, only 12 per cent. of the amount recoverable is recovered.

IS that 53 per cent. of the children evacuated, or 53 per cent of the parents?

It is 53 per cent. of the parents: Then, parents receiving public assistance are not asked to make any payment at all, for the reason that the absence of their children, which affects their means test, diminishes their family income; therefore payment is automatically recovered from them. There is a scale of family means laid down by the Ministry, and when parents consider that they cannot afford to pay 6s. they are asked to give a statement of their net income, and their liability is assessed according to a scale laid down by the Department. In cases where they feel aggrieved or where they disagree with their assessment, they can refer to referees, and some 11,000 cases have been thus referred. I am told that in many cases parents are unpunctual and casual about making these payments but that on the whole, when the local authorities ask for them, they do succeed in recovering the sums due. I am told also that it is reasonable to hope, in view of the rapid diminution in the numbers of the unemployed, that the proportion of parents who pay will probably tend to increase as the number of people on public assistance diminishes. I hope that answer will satisfy my noble friend. I have been able to assure him that payments by parents are compulsory, not voluntary, and that the local authorities have been instructed as from October 28, when payments first began to be made, to recover these payments when they can possibly do so.

My Lords, it is quite true that the figures that have been given are extremely interesting. From my own knowledge I know that there is a distinct opinion among those on whom children are billeted that the money paid does not necessarily cover all their expenses. Apparently the parents often cannot afford more than they are asked to pay now, a very large number of them apparently cannot afford to pay anything, and the unfortunate taxpayer consequently is saddled with the very large balance. It seems to me that there is a lack of balance about the Government's scheme, a scheme whereby, apparently, everybody loses—not only the persons on whom children are billeted, not only the taxpayer, but also the parents of the children, who apparently are very hard hit. Surely there ought to be some closer investigation into the ability of parents to pay. I know that many of those on whom children are billeted have been rather upset by the fact that the parents come down quite frequently and rather expensively, to see their children in their billets. Surely those people might be expected to pay rather more towards the upkeep of their children and spend less on the pleasure of travelling to see them.

My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Duke said about the parents who do not pay. In my own house I have 24 children, and the parents who pay nothing at all are under 20 per cent. A certain number pay rather less than 4s. But those who pay nothing at all are not those who come down; they very seldom come down. I think there is little doubt that those who contribute nothing are the very poor ones. I would like to ask the noble Duke to say a word about a matter which I mentioned to him just now: I refer to the complaints that were made six or seven months ago about parents coming down to quite small cottages on the Sundays and expecting a full meal for themselves and their friends. It was mentioned to Mr. Elliot some time ago, and he tried to put a stop to it.

My Lords, it appears to me that the two noble Lords who have spoken were somewhat out of order, and have extended the Motion to much wider ground than it was meant to cover. While I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire for his statement, I do not consider that it can be regarded in any way as satisfactory by any of your Lordships, or indeed by many people outside. Day by day, week by week, we see taxation continuing to mount to a figure at which it has never stood before, and we are asked to pay a sum of no less than £12,000,000 per annum for the maintenance of children who have been evacuated to these non-vulnerable areas and whose responsibility is really that of nobody else bat their own parents. I cannot help thinking that if the local authorities had not been so dilatory in their methods, and His Majesty's Government had not indulged in so much wishful thinking, a good deal more money could have been obtained from these parents than the sorrowful figure my noble friend has just given. He mentioned that 53 per cent. of the parents were paying 6s. a week or over. I happen to know of two children, young girls, daughters of a London policeman, who up to certainly a month ago had made no contribution whatever to the maintenance of his family in an evacuated area.

I think it would be worth while if His Majesty's Government again examined most carefully and closely to ascertain whether the parents are paying the normal sums which are properly due from them for the maintenance of their children. I might add one word by way of request to the noble Duke, and that is to ask whether he would be kind enough to send me the scale of the means test which the Department have drawn up. At the same time I should like to ask whether he would be good enough, at the end of the twelve months' period, to communicate with me again informing me in his letter whether in the last two months of the twelve, any better figure has been received from the parents of children who have been evacuated. Finally, I would say this, should His Majesty's Government at some time agree to a scheme of evacuation to the Dominions and the Colonies, I trust that the story the noble Duke will have to tell, as regards finance, will be considerably happier than that which he has given to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on House of Lords' Offices be considered and adopted. I do not think I have anything to explain to your Lordships on this Report. It is purely formal. The Committee sanctioned the application of the Treasury Circular No. 6/40 for the payment of war bonus to the staff, and a special payment was sanctioned to the Superintendent, Mr. H. J. Martin, in connection with his work as A.R.P. warden in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

rose to call attention to the financial position of persons evacuated from Jersey and Guernsey whose money and bonds were deposited in the banks of those islands and transferred to the head offices of those banks in London, but who are at present unable to draw on those moneys; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I do not happen to have the close personal connection with these islands which is possessed by the noble Lord who has just addressed you, but these islands have been for 400 years in the diocese of Winchester. I believe they were originally put in that diocese because at that time the Bishop of Winchester, as Chancellor, was in command of the Fleet. Unfortunately the Bishops did not visit these islands for about 300 years.

IS it permissible to interrupt? The islands were in the Diocese of Dol and Coutance and when the islands became Protestant, Church of England, they had to change.

I think the House probably would not be interested if I went into mediaeval history to that extent, but I have visited these islands frequently. I have been over twice this year and should have gone over again next week, so I am anxious to support the noble Lord in the appeal which he has made to the Government. The evacuation and the demilitarisation of the islands came as a tremendous blow to the islanders. It was followed by very considerable evacuation. The island of Alderney was completely evacuated. From Guernsey about 20,000 or 25,000 left out of a population of, I think, 45,000, and from Jersey about 5,000 or 6,000 left out of the population of, I suppose, 50,000. I have not the exact figures, but the evacuation has been on a large scale, and it has meant that those who have left have found themselves in a condition which can be described as penniless. I am not thinking only of those who have bonds and credits in various banks. There are a large number, I suppose the majority of those who have left the islands, who have no money in any bank, who have lived for years, or all their lives in these islands as their forefathers before them did, and they find themselves suddenly uprooted and here, in what is for them a strange land, penniless. It has been a very great trial to them, and I do hope that the Government will do everything in their power to help these people. Many of them are farmers of very great specialised experience, and I understand that at this moment a large number of these are in big towns. I hope it will be possible to find work for some of them on the land where they can be most profitably employed, but wherever they go I do hope these people will not be treated as aliens but will be welcomed as our own fellow-citizens who are passing through a time of terrible trial and stress.

There is just one other point I should like to make. I hope that it may be possible for the Government some time to give us some information about the people who are left in the islands. I know it would be unreasonable to ask for this at the present moment, for all communications have been cut, but there is very great anxiety. I have had scores and scores of letters from all parts of England during these last few days from relations and friends asking me what has happened to the people in these islands. They know that I am the Bishop, and they imagine that in some way or other I am able to obtain information for them, but, of course, it is quite out of the question for me to do so. Sooner or later I hope the Government may be able to make some general statement about the condition of the people in the islands, and that they will do that whenever it is possible to do so. I am quite certain of this, that during all times the islanders will be loyal to the Crown, and I take comfort in thinking that they have some men of first-rate ability who are remaining at their posts and who are in charge of the islands and will do everything that is possible for the islanders. I think we can look forward with confidence to the day when these islands, with the rest of Europe, will regain their freedom.

My Lords, I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Portsea, was going to touch on these strategical aspects of this lamentable affair. I have not, therefore, had an opportunity of discussing with my noble friends the attitude we ought to take and I am speaking entirely for myself. I would like very respectfully to support what my noble friend Lord Portsea has said with regard to help being given to the successfully evacuated islanders, and if I might I would respectfully support the plea of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, who has just spoken. I hope that we will take all the steps we can to do what we can for the people who are left in the islands. The right reverend Prelate spoke of these skilled farmers who have reached this country. If he will take his episcopalian motor car a drive along the Western Avenue, which is one way of getting to his diocese, he will see hundreds of acres of absolutely idle land which has been bought up by speculators for building purposes, has not been so used and is growing thistles to-day. I drove along it yesterday and was horrified at what I saw.

With regard to the question of the evacuation of the Channel Islands it is only a very few weeks ago that we passed with acclamation through your Lordships' House a Bill dealing with the defence of the islands and tributes were paid to the great services rendered to the Empire by those gallant seafaring people. Now they have been evacuated and abandoned to the enemy. We are living in times of great events. In ordinary times the abandonment of the Channel Islands would not have passed without challenge. There have been in recent times two extraordinary evacuations. One was the evacuation of Narvik after 26,000 British, French, Polish and Norwegian troops had fought for weeks to overcome a German garrison of some 3,000 under most difficult conditions. Narvik was then evacuated almost immediately under most extraordinary circumstances. The other is this evacuation of the Channel Islands. I cannot believe that your Lordships' House will allow these two evacuations to pass unchallenged. I find myself in a most difficult position. With others of your Lordships I am pledged to support the present Government in the prosecution of the war and I intend to do that, but when this sort of event occurs I become most uneasy. I throw out this suggestion for your Lordships' consideration. Would it not be possible for us to have some committee of inquiry into these events? After the Dardanelles evacuation there was a Select Committee, I think I am right in saying, which sat in secret and took evidence in secret. I would like to see a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to look into these things.

I am really not satisfied. This is not a question of the higher command only. I can quite see what happened. Their attention was taken up by the tremendous events in France, by the question of the French Fleet and by other events. But there are certain explanations required. Would it not have been better to have moved a little more quickly in regard to the Channel Islands, to take away the helpless people, but to leave the fighting men, reinforce them and let them stand a siege? I do not know the answer. But I do know that the abandonment, without firing a shot, of a fief of the Crown held for 800 years as part of His Majesty's Dominions does really require explanation. I warn the Government—and I ask my noble friends who represent the Government here to take note—that if other episodes of this kind happen, Parliament will not be silent. We are fighting for our lives and we intend to do our duty, but this episode following on the evacuation of Narvik has disturbed many of us.

My Lords, I desire to support the suggestion made that due care should be taken of the Channel Islanders for two reasons, one domestic and one military. The domestic reason is that as Chairman of the National Savings Committee I have visited the Channel Islands. The Channel Islanders have contributed a large amount of savings, so I know something of the islanders in that respect. It is to me unthinkable that they should be treated in any other way than with quite exceptional consideration, and I trust it will be realised that they are placed in a predicament in which no other part of the Empire has been placed owing to mysterious strategical considerations which we need not inquire into—I think that is the way to put it.

The Channel Islanders are our chosen children in every matter. I ventured to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, the other day, whether he would give an assurance that nothing of the sort should ever occur again and he gave that assurance. But believe me, it did indeed come as a shock to every man I have spoken to, and to every woman too, that without firing a shot—that is what hurts, without firing a shot!—we surrendered a place where the flag of Britain has flown for 800 years. It is peculiarly cruel because these people rightly say that they are the oldest of us all. I have sat at a table with the High Bailiff when he proposed, solemnly, first the health of the Duke of Normandy, and then the health of Jersey's oldest Colony. That is indeed historically an accurate description. William of Normandy annexed this country when he was already Lord of Jersey. That we should have surrendered without firing a shot a place of such traditions is to me a mysterious thing. We have acquiesced because we presumed there must be some mysterious reason for this extraordinary happening, but for my part I cannot imagine what possible justification there can be for surrendering part of our possessions without firing a shot.

Since I last addressed your Lordships I have spoken to a distinguished officer who won the Victoria Cross in the last war. He said, sadly, "To think that we sacrificed, more than once, 10,000 men to save one line of trenches in France and yet did not fire a shot to save the Channel Islands." I do not want the Government to think that this does not matter, for it matters enormously. I do not know whether it would be wise to adopt the proposal of the noble Lord, to have a Committee sitting in secret to inquire why these things should happen, or whether we should pursue some other course, but I am sure of this, that the sooner His Majesty's Government say that this mysterious happening was due to causes which will probably not occur elsewhere, is unique and that never again will such a thing happen, the better it will be for all concerned.

My Lords, I am rather glad that the two noble Lords who have spoken from the opposite Benches have spoken as they did, because they have strayed so far from the substance of the Motion that any humbler efforts on my part in the same direction may be excused. My interest in the Channel Islands is far narrower than those of the other speakers. They lie in the fact that I have under my command, in my battery, 60 or 70 Channel Islanders between the ages of 30 and 50 who voluntarily enlisted early in the war. Another battery is composed almost entirely of Channel Islanders. Of course the evacuation of the islands has caused them the very greatest distress of mind. In many cases, in fact in practically every case, they are extremely worried about the condition of their dependants, whether they are now in this country or whether they remained in the islands. So far as I know the facts of the case, the method by which demilitarisation and evacuation of the Channel Islands was effected by His Majesty's Government was the one best calculated to produce alarm and despondency. There are many prosecutions going on in this country for that reason. I have seen nothing in newspapers comparable to what has been done in the Channel Islands to cause alarm and despondency to the people concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Portsea, mentioned the fact that at one moment the islands were militarised and then they were as quickly demilitarised. That showed a certain indecision and led to a certain delay in carrying out the evacuation. When the islands were demilitarised an announcement was made, I believe at six o'clock in the evening, that a voluntary evacuation would take place and that those who wished to be evacuated had to register by nine o'clock the same evening. If anything was calculated to cause consternation among a population of something like 90,000 people, that was bound to do so. There was a seething mass, I believe, outside the various offices where you could register for evacuation, and naturally the wildest rumours and everything which goes with such disorder. The voluntary evacuation was conducted in that great hurry; it lasted, as far as I can ascertain, for about two days. Very little explanation was given to any of the people concerned. Parents were told that they would not necessarily be allowed to go with their children, wives—the wives of the men under my command—that they would be separated and be a long way from their husbands. Time was very short, and they were in fact separated from the only persons whom they could consult on whether they should evacuate or not.

At the end of two days, voluntary evacuation finished, and the railway companies were asked by the Government to carry on, and did carry on, a commercial service thereafter at a risk which ultimately involved the fact that most of their staff in the islands are still there. But the people with whom I am concerned, when they had their second thought and decided to evacuate, could not afford the fare back to England. An instance was brought to my notice of a woman with three children whom it would have cost £4 to come to this country. All that she had to live on was the family allowance which she received because her husband was serving in the Army. It was not fair on that woman, first of all to make her take a hurried decision, and secondly, when she failed to do so, to expect her to pay the fare back. Perhaps that is an indictment of the Government, and I may be accused in my turn of causing alarm and despondency; but I cannot see that these facts are going to help the enemy in any way, and my statement of them may stir the Government to take some steps to rectify the wrong that they have done by their unnecessarily hasty action.

To come to the immediate problem dealt with in the Motion before your Lordships' House, that of the finance of these people: so far as those in whom I am immediately interested are concerned—the wives and dependants of those who are in this country—they should reasonably be all right, because their family allowances and dependants' allowances can be paid to them. But they have this difficulty in front of them: they have to find lodgings somewhere in this country and lodging is not too easy to find and is often very expensive. I know of one woman who is now paying 23s. a week board and lodging and her family allowance amounts only to 27s. a week, so she has 4s. for all purposes other than merely living. That problem should, I think, be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, as well as the more immediate problem of the conditions under which they are living to-day. It is credibly reported to me that there are twenty-seven or more living all together, higgledy-piggledy, in either a church hall or a church—I am not certain which—in Glasgow, with no proper conveniences of any sort or any privacy.

But the other problem is that of the wives and families of those left in Jersey and Guernsey to-day. The majority of those unfortunate people with whom I am concerned are dependent entirely on the money they get from their family and dependants' allowances. That is, of course, cut off, and what they are going to live on nobody knows. They have no resources themselves; they are dependent, presumably, on the charity of those who occupy the islands to-day—that is, the Germans. I do not know that I have great faith in their charity, but I can recognise that there are very grave difficulties, and it is presumably almost impossible to send money to these people and ensure that they live, or at least are kept from complete want. I might add that another thing which is worrying the men who are serving their country—I want your Lordships to remember that: serving their country voluntarily—is what is going to happen in the winter. Those islands are dependent for a great many necessities of life on supplies from outside, and there will not, unless their German masters so wish, be even the necessities of life available, even if they have the money to pay for them. Their position is very serious. I must say once again that I feel that considerable blame is to be laid on the Government for not explaining the situation to these people and, if it were possible, making the evacuation compulsory, whether they wished it or not, so that they should not have been left in the really dreadful condition in which they are now.

I recognise the difficulties. I do not quarrel with the decision to evacuate the islands, because, contrary to what was said by the noble Lords opposite, I think that in these days of air warfare they were probably indefensible, and even if they had been defensible, the destruction of life and property would have been such as to devastate the islands completely. But I do beg His Majesty's Government to take note of the right reverend Prelate's appeal to try everything they can to get news of these people. Any news, even bad news, is better than nothing.

Would the noble Earl permit me to interrupt? Is he aware that what he is saying now about evacuating because of the air menace would justify us in evacuating Malta or Chatham?

I fancy it is rather difficult to answer that question.

Very difficult; exactly!

I fancy that Malta is rather better defended than the islands and has rather more in the way of shelter for the people. As to evacuating Chatham, you may say that of the whole of England; but surely you do not want to disperse our Forces by defending an almost indefensible area which has from our point of view great sentimental value but, I should imagine, extraordinarily little strategical value. I do not want to enter into a strategical argument, however. I am not capable of doing so, and it is outside this Motion. But I do appeal to His Majesty's Government, first of all to try to get some news of these people, however meagre, and of conditions in the islands; and also to give us something which we can pass on to these men and women in this country, so that we can try to give them some comfort in their very great distress of mind.

My Lords, I beg to support the appeal of the Earl of Radnor, and shall not wander into any questions of strategy, military or naval, about which I know nothing. The noble Lord who moved this Motion pointed out that what he had to say was in relation to the financial condition of the people who have been affected by the overrunning of the islands by the Germans. He referred to the banking actions which have taken place, or might take place. I am not authorised to speak on behalf of the banks as a whole. All the "Big Five" banks have branches in Guernsey and Jersey, and I think in some cases in Alderney. They have the greatest sympathy with their clients in the hardships to which they have been subjected owing to the occupation of the islands by Germany, and they would like to minimise those hardships as far as they possibly can. The position is very complicated and difficult. It would have been a good deal more difficult and more complicated if the banks had not taken some precautionary measures before the actual occupation. In fact, they have had duplicate records of the accounts of their customers kept on the mainland, and in a short time it is to be hoped that those accounts will be reconstituted and that we may have some fairly up-to-date information as to the position of each one. Noble Lords will easily understand that both banks and customers would have been put in a very difficult position if an unknown man could present himself at a bank with the statement—which he could not confirm in any way—that he was a customer with a large sum of money standing to his credit in Guernsey or Jersey, and that he would like to draw some of it out, when the bank had no information as to his identity and no specimen of his signature. Those difficulties have been foreseen, and I hope that in a short time the accounts of these people will be fairly fully reconstituted.

There are, however, considerable difficulties of a legal nature. Under the Trading with the Enemy (Custodian) Order all residents still in the Channel Islands, including companies constituted in the islands for carrying on business there, are to be regarded as enemies within the Trading with the Enemy Act; and of course banks, like everyone else, have to obey the law. So far as residents who are still in the islands are concerned, there is no means of communicating or dealing with them in any way. Those who are affected by this very unfortunate happening can be divided into three categories. There are, first of all, those who are still resident in the islands, about whom we have very little news and for whom we really cannot do anything, even if their banking accounts have been transferred to the mainland. The only point of hope that I have for them, as far as banking is concerned, is that the Trading-with-the-Enemy branch have authorised the collection by bankers on this side of cheques and sight drafts in their hands drawn by non-enemies and payable for the benefit of persons, firms and companies in the Channel Islands, provided that the proceeds thereof will be retained by the Custodian of Enemy Property for their benefit. That is very cold comfort to them!

The conditions in the islands are matters of conjecture. I have seen a copy to-day of a Proclamation by the German Commandant which appeared in the Guernsey paper on July 1. That set forth the various regulations. No one was to be allowed out after eleven o'clock at night or before six o'clock in the morning. If any trouble arose in the island there was a threat that it would be bombed. The sale and consumption of spirits were not to be allowed. All rifles, revolvers, shotguns and ammunition were to be declared and handed over. No boat was allowed to leave without permission. The sale of motor spirit was prohibited except for doctors and for essential purposes after permission had been obtained. The previous black-out in the island was to be continued as before. And—this is a point which specially concerns what I want to say—banks and shops were to be kept open; and to continue to function. Under what conditions that can be done, I do not know. As your Lordships may know, the currency in the islands has been sterling, and Guernsey has issued its own notes with a sterling denomination. Whether a new mark currency is going to be established, and what the relation between that mark currency and the old currency will be in the future, I have no means of knowing.

The second category of those concerned in this catastrophe consists of those who escaped from the islands but who have left their houses and all their non-transferable possessions there, and whose banking accounts have not been transferred from the islands to this country. The great bulk of their securities, investments and documents of that kind—not big safe-custody boxes of plate, and so on—have been transferred. In the case of these people, who have themselves escaped but whose accounts are still in the islands, it is only a matter of time—I hope a short time—before their banking accounts are reconstituted; and, as we have their specimen signatures and records in regard to them, we hope that they will be able to draw on their accounts in the ordinary, normal course of business in the future. In the meantime, in order to meet their special difficulties, we have been buying Guernsey notes and have given them currency notes which are legal tender here, and we have been making them small advances to help them to carry on for the moment. That, of course, cannot be a permanent arrangement; but, as I say, I hope that in a short time their accounts will be largely reconstituted, that all these securities which have been transferred will be gone through and sorted out, and that we shall be able to let them deal with those securities, if they like, subject, of course, to the Defence Regulations in regard to such matters. One point there is that if their securities are in foreign currencies the Government have the power to commandeer them. Subject, however, to any legal restrictions of that kind, the securities will be at their disposal.

Then the last category consists of those who are resident in this country and who have their accounts transferred here. That presents the simplest problem of the three. I hope, that as time goes on, the difficulties from which they are suffering at present will be largely overcome. But I do not know anything about all those poor people who have no banking accounts, who have no local money, have indeed nothing except what they stand up in. What their plight is I grieve to think. I have great sympathy therefore with the noble Lord who moved this Motion, and if anything can possibly be done for these people I shall be as grateful as all the rest of your Lordships.

My Lords, any of your Lordships who were present when my noble friend Lord Portsea made his speech at the beginning of this debate must I am sure have felt, as I felt, deeply and sincerely moved by what he said. He was speaking as one with very special associations with these islands, and it occurred to me that what he said was bound to stir in all hearts a very great deal of sympathy and interest. I have become myself by degrees accustomed to the practice of your Lordships' House, and it is not a matter of surprise that the debate should branch out and range over some matters which are certainly not within the terms of the Motion. Of course, I do not offer a word of criticism on that account. But still it is just as well that your Lordships should be reminded that what my noble friend Lord Portsea wished to do was to call attention to the financial position of persons evacuated from Jersey and Guernsey, and to ask some questions on that subject, and it was, I apprehend, because that was the nature of the question which he wished to raise that I was entrusted with the task of saying a few words for the Government at the end of the debate. I think the noble Lord may have gathered a considerable measure of comfort, and certainly much useful information, from the speech that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wardington—a most practical speech, dealing with the very matters which he wished to have ventilated.

But in the course of the debate we have had speeches dealing with the strategic and tactical questions raised by this lamentable event, and also, from the noble Earl opposite, some observations both on the manner of the evacuation and on the sad lot of the people whose cases have specially come before him. As regards the strategic question, I certainly should not regard this as a suitable occasion on which to have it discussed. I gathered from the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench that in his view, speaking as a student of strategy and military tactics, the evacuation of the Channel Islands is strictly parallel to the evacuation of Malta or the evacuation of Chatham. I can only say, with my less instructed mind on the subject, that I should have thought that, strategically speaking, there could hardly be a more obvious difference.

Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me? I hope he will not father on me arguments that I have not used in some remarks made in an interruption to another noble Lord.

I am not fathering anything on anybody. I merely make an observation urbi et orbi. Malta, as I apprehend, is one of the strongest fortresses in the British Empire. Chatham is, I suppose, one of the best defended places—certainly ought to be—both from air attack and from other attack, in the British Isles. Unfortunately the Channel Islands are not at all in a comparable position from a defensive point of view. I was a little surprised at the observations made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Mottistone, because I gathered that he also felt greatly troubled and deeply concerned that the authorities should have thought it necessary not to maintain the defence of these unfortunately situated islands. The noble Lord mentioned this matter in the debate a few days ago and drew on his great experience of the War Office in past time. He said:

"I know very well from my own service as Secretary of State that the Channel Islands stand in a peculiar position, tactically and strategically, because they are practically a part of the French continent. We never, in those days"—

that is, when he was Secretary of State—

"nor have we in these days, envisaged the fortification of the Channel Islands as an outpost. They are right under the guns of part of France.…"

It may be that that is his view to-day, but at any rate he surprised me. But I do not really think that this strategical problem can be thrashed out in a debate in this House this evening.

I apprehend humbly, though I have no claim to be a strategist, that the collapse of the French Army and the subsequent withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force from Northern France may possibly have made a good deal of difference, strategically speaking. I apprehend that, with the French coast in German hands, with Coutances, Avranches and St. Malo and all those little ports in that corner of France, the peculiar geographical position of the islands at least raises a very serious question as to whether it is not necessary to recognise that it would be a wholly uneconomic use of our military forces to endeavour to supplement the small garrison there. But it is not for me to say. It is undoubtedly a proper subject to raise on a proper occasion, and no doubt if it were duly raised the authorities would be those who represent the War Office and the War Cabinet rather than myself.

I was very much impressed also with the observations made by the noble Earl, who felt that the way in which the evacuation had taken place was in some respects unfortunate. It may be so; I do not wish to do more than furnish the House with such information as I can give. Of course there can be no question that the British Government were facing a sudden collapse which had never been assumed as possible—namely, the collapse of this magnificent French Army, the sudden surrender on the part of a great democratic Power, our Ally through all this business up till now, which completely overwhelmed and overturned the calculations which had been made beforehand. For my part I will surrender to nobody in my concern for the case of these ancient islands, these Iles Normandes as they were called. At the same time, I think it only reasonable that we should recognise, all of us, what was the overwhelming character of the problems which faced His Majesty's Government at that moment.

My noble friend Lord Mottistone reminded the House how in the earlier debate he had raised the question whether this lamentable and distressing event of withdrawal should be regarded as an isolated case and entirely by itself, or whether it could possibly betoken the beginning of a policy. I am glad that the noble Lord referred to that, because he will recall the answer he then received. He did not get a qualified answer—he got an absolute answer, and I repeat it now. This incident, lamentable and distressing as it undoubtedly is, is a totally isolated case. It is due, rightly or wrongly, to the geographical position of these islands near to the shores of France.

That is what gives them their value.

I must leave the noble Lord to argue the high points of strategy with those who are equal to the matter; but your Lordships will realise that the British Government are also advised by competent stategists. This does not, therefore, form any sort of precedent for any part of the United Kingdom. As the Leader of the House observed in a recent debate, His Majesty's Government have not the least intention of abandoning any possession in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, because here we are fighting for our own fortress and our own homes, and we will carry that through, whatever befall, until we have vanquished the foe.

Now I must refer to the matter which really started this debate. It is not a mere form of words to say that we feel sympathetically for the state in which these gallant and loyal islanders find themselves. It is a deeply and sincerely felt sentiment, and it is right I should remind the House of how His Majesty the King expressed this sentiment in the message he sent to the two Bailiffs yesterday. His Majesty sent this message to the Bailiffs of Guernsey and Jersey:

"For strategic reasons it has been found necessary to withdraw the armed forces from the Channel Islands.

I deeply regret this necessity, and I wish to assure my people in the islands that in taking this decision my Government have not been unmindful of their position. It is in their interest that this step should be taken in present circumstances.

The long association of the islands with the Crown and the long service the people of the islands have rendered to my ancestors and myself are guarantees that the link between us will remain unbroken, and I know that my people in the islands will look forward with the same confidence as I do to the day when the resolute fortitude with which we face our present difficulties will reap the reward of victory."

May I just say one or two words on the specific financial matter the noble Lord raised in his Motion? I have had inquiries made, and am glad to find that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, confirms the information given to me. Perhaps I can state the position in a slightly different way. As regards joint stock banks, I understand that these banks in this country are treating the deposits which were made in their Channel Islands branches, and which belong to persons who have come here from the Channel Islands, as accounts which have been transferred to this country. That is the principle. Although an islander may have banked in a branch in Jersey, when he comes here his bank will do its best—and Lord Wardington has described the method already adopted—to see to it that he has an account here. That is a very valuable arrangement. The result is, as the House will see, that depositors should have little difficulty in being able to draw their money. Of course, as Lord Wardington pointed out, in the case of credit balances on current accounts, it will be necessary to satisfy the banks that the person who makes the claim is the person entitled to the money, and to satisfy them also that the credit balance has not been already drawn upon before the claim is made. These are mechanical difficulties which arise out of the evacuation. The main thing is that bank accounts which would normally be regarded as solely for the islands are being treated by the joint stock banks as bank accounts in this country and are being drawn upon as far as islanders who have come here are concerned.

In the case of securities, where securities were deposited for safe keeping and the local branch has been able to bring them away—and that is so in a great many cases—there should be no difficulty in the true owners of these securities making good their claims, although here again satisfactory proof of ownership may be necessary. The main thing is that banks in this country which have branches in the Channel Islands are prepared to treat refugees from the islands who have come over here as their customers in this country. Such difficulties as remain must be met as best they can in view of the necessity of proof and the like.

I should add a word, if I may, not about ordinary banks but about savings banks—a very important subject. Similar arrangements are, I am informed, being made to enable depositors in the Jersey and Guernsey Savings Banks who are now in this country to draw on their deposit accounts and to deal with the Government Securities Section of the Post Office Register kept at those banks so long as the depositors are in this country and so long as they have brought with them, as they probably have, their passbooks and other evidence of title. This applies both to trustee savings banks and to accounts in the Post office Savings Bank. I may add that an Order in Council is being made which will clear up this position as far as Jersey and Guernsey Trustee Savings Bank are concerned. The proposed regulation will enable the National Debt Commissioners to make arrangements with the Trustee Savings Banks in this country to conduct business, in effect, as agents of the Channel Islands Banks. No special arrangements are, of course, necessary in the case of Post Office Savings Bank depositors, because the Post Office Saving Bank is situated in this country and can operate through any of its branches. I hope this detailed information may give some measure of comfort to those deeply concerned with the practical side of this matter, and I wish to assure my noble friend Lord Portsea and everyone in the House that we shall continue to do, in co-operation with the banks in this country, everything that can be done to solve the difficulties which have arisen.

I should like, if I may be allowed, to add two or three words on this very moving as well as distressing occasion. I share most completely, as do all your Lordships, the feeling of concern and distress that there should have been this withdrawal from these islands. After all, they are not only possessions of the British Crown, but they are actually older than the Battle of Hastings itself. "1066 and all that" came after the time when these islands first became attached to the ancestors of the King, and throughout all that time they have shown themselves not only industrious but chivalrous. They have contributed, both in peace and in war, most significantly to the service and to the strength of our country. I am glad to recall that at this moment, as I understand, the two Bailiffs—the Bailiff of Jersey, Mr. Alexander Moncrieff Coutanche, and the Bailiff of Guernsey, Mr. Victor Gosselin Carey—are continuing to carry on in the islands, to the best of their power, the civil administration for which they are responsible. I think it is a splendid tribute to the courage and loyalty of this distressed people. If it be the case that, by withdrawing the small garrison from these islands these people are saved, as I think they may be, very terrible and continuous bombardment from the air, I think people of that spirit and courage will regard that as a small compensation for the loss and distress which they feel at this temporary separation from their homes. I venture humbly to echo the words of His Majesty, repeated as they have been by many of your Lordships to-day, and I trust the day is not far distant when, by persevering in our purpose, as we are determined come what may, we may have among our triumphs the supreme satisfaction of seeing these good people returned to their homes.

My Lords, I beg to withdraw the Motion which stands in my name, and, if I may, to offer my thanks to the Lord Chancellor for his most sympathetic and kind reply, which we will feel very much in our islands.