§ Colonel WEDGWOOD(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Charles Fox, of 5, Newbould Street, Commercial Road, was arrested by the police on 19th April without being charged or any indications of the grounds of arrest; whether any form of trial of this man has been held; whether he has been informed that he is to be deported to Danzig on 28th April; on what authority the police have acted in this 1046 matter; and whether similar arrests and threats of deportation are being made in other parts of London, especially directed against the Jews?
§ Mr. SHORTTCharles Fox was convicted at the Thames Police Court on 7th November last for landing in this country without permission, and, in accordance with the policy I have already announced, he and a number of other Polish citizens who have landed illegally in England have recently been arrested and are being sent to Poland. The deportations will be carried out under orders made by me in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by the Aliens Order, 1920. There has been no discrimination against Jews in this matter. Any alien, whether Jewish or not, who lands in this country without permission is liable to be sent back to his own country.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was fined in November last, and was given an identity book allowing him to stop in this country? He therefore opened a hairdresser's business, and the day that he opened that business he was arrested and his business broken up.
§ Mr. SHORTTI did not know that. I think that, like the suggestion which is made in the question, it is wholly unfounded.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODMay I ask why a perfectly proper question put by a Member of this House should be answered by the Home Secretary with his usual impertinence?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat word has been frequently used and has been ruled not to be a Parliamentary word. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw it.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI withdraw the word "impertinence," and I will say "in his usual casual manner." May I ask the Home Secretary, particularly as he chooses to insult me in this way, which part of the question he considers to be as unfounded as usual? May I have an answer? [HON MEMBERS: "No!"]
§ Mr. KILEYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that full details of this case have been supplied to his office, and that they are awaiting his attention?
§ Mr. SHORTTThey have been tested by the answer which I have given in consequence.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWhat do you think was wrong in my statement?
§ Captain WEDGWOOD BENNIs it accurate or not?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf hon. Members insist on asking supplementary questions in the way they do, they cannot expect to have the same correct answer as if they gave notice. The hon. Member has put a number of facts in supplementary questions, and he is surprised at the answer he gets. He should not be.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSurely it is not necessary for anyone answering from the Front Bench to insult a man who asks a supplementary question. There is no reason why he should insult a person who puts a question. He may refuse to answer, but there is no reason for insult. We have a perfect right to question the Government in this House as much as we like.