HC Deb 01 March 1944 vol 397 cc1458-75

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £53,873, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special grants and payments, including grants-in-aid; and sundry other services.

Mr. Granville (Suffolk, Eye)

I gather that we are now considering the Votes in connection with the Inter-Governmental Committee of refugees and relief of prisoners of war and contributions for the funds of the International Red Cross.

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, that is so.

Mr. Granville

The Paper says that the additional provision required is a contribution towards the funds of the International Red Cross Society in recognition of the work of the society in the relief of prisoners of war. It goes on to say: The expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I quite understand that, but I thought we might have been told a little more about it.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law)

I must apologise to the Committee, and in particular to the hon. Member who has just spoken, and who has very kindly given way to me. I was not quite quick enough off the mark, but I hope I shall be able to give him satisfaction on the very important matter that we are discussing. I do not think that it will be necessary to give any very long or detailed explanation of the first sub-head of the Supplementary Estimate, which is the grant-in-aid for the relief of prisoners of war, in the form of a further contribution towards the Funds of the International Red Cross. The Committee has always supported right through the war the efforts which the International Red Cross have made to improve the lot of prisoners of war and I do not suppose for a moment that the Committee would wish to withhold any further support that they could give to the International Red Cross.

The additional sum required under the Supplementary Estimate is not a big one, £3,873. The purpose of it is to enable the International Red Cross to maintain a sub-office in Shanghai, where they hope, and we hope, they will be able to be of some service to the very large number of British civilians who are interned in Shanghai, and of course, to help too, I hope, the very much smaller number of British prisoners of war who are there. We are quite satisfied that the International Red Cross is doing as much as possibly can be done for our prisoners of war and our fellow countrymen and women who are interned in the Far East. The fact that it cannot do more is in no way due to any lack of good will or of knowledge and effort on the part of the International Red Cross. It is simply, as I am afraid we all know, due to the attitude of the Japanese authorities. I have no doubt that the Committee will approve this grant-in-aid and I will, if I may, pass on to the second sub-head, the grant-in-aid for the Intergovernmental Committee on refugees. Here I think it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with this matter fairly fully, because it is some time since we had a Debate on this tremendously important subject.

This is not the first time that we have had to came to the House to ask for provision of the Inter-governmental Committee on Refugees, but we have never come to the House for provision on this scale, or indeed, anything like it. In 1939, the Committee was asked to provide £1,950, and in 1940 and 1941 provision was made on the same sort of scale. Since then, there has been no vote for the Intergovernmental Committee. Now I am asking the Committee, not for £2,000 but for £50,000. I think hon. Members will have seen from the Estimate that that is only by way of instalment. On another occasion we shall be asking the Committee to underwrite our proportionate share of what we think may be the expenses of the Inter-governmental Committee in the coming year. That figure is £1,000,000, a provisional figure, and we have undertaken to underwrite £500,000 and the United States have undertaken to underwrite the other £500,000.

The difference between what we were asking in 1939 and 1940 for the Intergovernmental Committee and what we are asking now is an indication of the great growth there has been in this hideous problem of refugees. The comparison between £2,000 and £50,000—or, indeed, £500,000—is not out of place as a comparison of the growth in the horror and complexity of the problem. It is a measure of the determination and seriousness of purpose with which His Majesty's Government and the Government's represented on the Inter-governmental Committee are tackling the refugee problem.

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give a brief review of the events which led to the reconstitution of the Inter-governmental Committee. The refugee problem was, unfortunately, already of monstrous proportions before the war, and it is difficult to realise now that, even before the war, when civilised Governments like the Government of this country, and others, were in relation with the German Government, something like 400,000 human beings were being driven like cattle across the borders of Germany and were either expelled, or had to take refuge in other lands, to avoid a worse fate. It was to meet this appalling situation that developed even before the war that the President of the United States took the initiative in summoning a conference at Evian in 1938. Out of that conference grew the Inter-governmental Committee on Refugees.

The primary function of the Intergovernmental Committee in those days was to negotiate with the German Government so that the lot of those unhappy people might be improved and their escape from Germany facilitated: in short, so that the cruelty of the German authorities and the German people might, in some degree, be mitigated. I think it is a fact that, before the war, the Inter-governmental Committee was able to do a great deal in mitigation. It co-ordinated the activities of the various voluntary societies and carried out an examination into the prospects of finding other homes for those unhappy people in various parts of the world. On the outbreak of war, all that work had to cease. There was another meeting of the executive of the Intergovernmental Committee in Washington in October, 1939, but, for the next two or three years after that, it never met again. There was, indeed, no scope or work that could usefully be done.

The work of the Inter-governmental Committee seemed to come to an end when the war broke out, but, of course, the problem remained. With every day that passed, the refugee problem increased in size, difficulty and horror, until it is calculated now that, when the war in Europe comes to an end, there will be something like 20,000,000 human beings who have been uprooted from their homes in Europe. A figure like that is so big that it is almost meaningless. It is literally true that the human imagination cannot comprehend the full extent of human misery contained in a figure of that magnitude. It very soon became clear, as the war progressed and as the refugee problem became more acute, that there was a problem which could be tackled with hope of success only upon the international plane. Accordingly, as hon. Members are aware, representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States met some months ago at Bermuda, and went exhaustively into the whole refugee problem.

One of the recommendations which the Bermuda Conference made was that there should be instituted at once international machinery to deal with the problem, and, as the Inter-governmental Committee still existed—though it had not been active for some time—it was thought to be the most satisfactory form of international machinery. Accordingly, in, I think, August last, the Executive of the Intergovernmental Committee met under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton). The executive consists, as the Committee are probably aware, of representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, Brazil, the French National Committee of Liberation and Argentina. I would like to take this opportunity of saying how much His Majesty's Government appreciate the fact that the Inter-governmental Committee is still able to call upon the experience of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing in matters concerning refugees, and upon his wide sympathy and deep interest in regard to this matter. I would like at the same time to pay a tribute to the other representatives of other Governments who are serving on the Inter-governmental Committee at the present time. Other Governments are represented by their Ambassadors. It is a remarkable thing that these men, busy and over-burdened as they are, have been able to devote so much time to this hideous problem of refugees. And it is very much to the general advantage that they have been able to give that time, because it is an indication to the world as a whole of the importance which is attached to a solution of it by the respective Governments.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

Does the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the amount of time these members have given mean that this Committee has met frequently since the Bermuda Conference?

Mr. Law

It has met several times since the Bermuda Conference. I know from my own experience that all the members of it take a most keen and deep interest in the problem. The Bermuda Conference recommended that the Inter-governmental Committee should be revived, that its membership should be extended and that its Mandate should also be extended. In accordance with that recommendation the Executive of the Inter-governmental Committee issued invitations to a number of other Governments who had not previously been associated with the work to join the Committee, and I understand that replies have already been received, affirmative replies, from Czechoslovakia, Egypt, India, Luxemburg, Poland, the Union of South Africa and the Soviet Union.

But it was necessary not only to expand the membership. It was necessary also to alter its Mandate. As I said earlier the original function of the Intergovernmental Committee was, in the main, to negotiate with the German authorities. Clearly that was no longer possible at the time when the Intergovernmental Committee was revived. It was limited under its original Mandate to dealing with refugees from Germany, Austria, and later on the Sudetenland. Clearly, that again was inappropriate. Its scope had to be much wider than that. Perhaps the most important change that has been made in the Mandate of the Inter-governmental Committee is this: under its original Mandate the Intergovernmental Committee had no financial responsibility of any kind for the maintenance of refugees. Clearly if that provision was maintained it could not do any effective work whatever, so the Mandate was revised, so that there now comes within the purview of the Committee refugees from the whole of Europe, and it was revised further so that the Committee can spend money upon the maintenance, the transfer and preservation of refugees. In other words, in the new reincarnation, the Inter-governmental Committee has changed from being in the main a piece of co-ordinating machinery into an executive office which will be able, of its own initiative, to undertake tasks in connection with the safety of refugees.

I think the Committee is aware that Sir Herbert Emerson, the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has for some time been the Director of the Inter-governmental Committee. I think it must be a matter for great congratulation that he has been confirmed in his appointment as Director of the Executive Committee. Sir Herbert Emerson, of course, continues to be League of Nations High Commissioner. It is very valuable that the two bodies which are dealing with refugee problems should have a link between them in the person of the Director. I suppose there is no one in this country, or indeed in the world, who has so wide a knowledge of this problem as Sir Herbert Emerson. I am sure too that there is no one whose heart is more deeply in it.

Sir Herbert Emerson is the Director. Under this new organisation an American citizen, Mr. Patrick Malin, who has had great experience of welfare work is Vice-director, and Doctor Sillem of the Netherlands is Secretary-General. In addition, Doctor Kullmann the Deputy League of Nations High Commissioner, is Honorary Assistant Director of the Inter-govern- mental Committee. With a team like that, there is, I can assure the Committee, every prospect that the executive machinery of the Inter-governmental Committee on refugees will be built up into as effective a piece of machinery as conditions permit. It is being steadily built up now. I hope very much that the Committee will not press me to go into details of the work of the Intergovernmental Committee. This refugee problem is one of those in which the more one talks about what is being done the less chance there is of achieving anything. I think the Committee realises that fully as well as I do but I would just like to say this about what has been done.

The Vice-Director, Mr. Malin, is on a visit to North Africa and Italy, where he has been seeing conditions on the spot. The honorary Assistant Director, Doctor Kullmann, has just returned from a visit to Switzerland, where he has been going into the whole question of refugees. It is, I understand, the intention of the Executive Committee to have permanent representatives in those centres which are mainly concerned with the refugee problem. I can assure the Committee that the Inter-governmental Committee is making every possible effort to forward the work of rescue that is consistent with the effective prosecution of the war.

I would like to say just a word about the actual financial arrangements. The administrative expenses of the Intergovernmental Committee are being covered by a percentage contribution by all the member Governments. Our percentage is 12 per cent. and it is calculated that that will amount to £4,000 in the following year. It does not actually appear in this Vote because the Executive have enough funds to carry on until the end of March, but next year the Committee will be asked to make provision for something in the nature of £4,000 for administrative expenses. The operating expenses are another matter. They are likely to be very considerable. Indeed, we must all of us hope that they will be considerable because the greater the expenditure on operations the more chance there is of our being able to do something practical for the relief and rescue of the oppressed peoples of Europe.

As I said earlier it has been calculated that operating expenses will amount to £1,000,000 in the coming 12 months. The United States Government and ourselves have agreed to underwrite that £1,000,000. It was necessary, I think, to take that action because we could not afford delay, and we could not afford a long period in which neither the Committee nor the Director knew where they stood, but I should make it clear to the Committee that the other member Governments are being asked to contribute to the fullest extent to these operating expenses. I have no doubt that they will wish to share in this very important humanitarian work. Therefore, we may expect that though we are underwriting £500,000 we shall not be called on, in the event, to supply anything like that amount. However that may be I am quite sure that the Committee would not wish the Inter-governmental Committee on refugees to be under any disability at all through lack of finance.

There is just one more thing which perhaps I ought to add. As I have said the Executive Committee has met several times and, of course, it is the Executive Committee which directs and supervises the work of the whole organisation, but it may well be that the time will come when it is desirable to have a plenary meeting of the Committee, and I am able to say now that is being borne in mind by the Executive Committee. When opportunity offers I have no doubt they will give the fullest consideration to the possibility of calling together such a session. I do not think I have anyhing more to say at this stage. I expect that other hon. Members will be making contributions to our discussion, and if necessary I shall be very glad to reply to them. But I do commend most heartily this Vote to the Committee. I am sure that the Committee will want the Intergovernmental Committee to have the fullest possible support and that the Committee looks forward to its achieving, within the limitations imposed by war, very considerable results.

Mr. Granville

I apologise for having stood between the Committee and that very interesting statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I will only detain hon. Members for one or two moments before the Committee go on to discuss the second part of this Vote on Refugees. I would like very briefly to refer to prisoners of war under the heading BB, which is: Relief of prisoners of war; contribution towards the funds of the International Red Cross (Grant in Aid). I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the sum which is being voted is £3,873. As he says, of course, the Committee will not grudge the Government this item. I am sorry it is so small. I understood from the Minister for State that it is our contribution towards the setting up of an office in the Far East by the International Red Cross Society. I was rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us a little more about this because we have all a considerable number of constituents who are extremely anxious after the statement which was made in the House by the Foreign Secretary with regard to what is happening to our prisoners in the Far East, and the atrocities that have been committed by the Japanese. Although I understand that there is a great deal of anxiety and tremendous interest in this problem of the international refugees I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not take a little more time in his speech to tell us what it is hoped to achieve by the setting up of this office by the International Red Cross in Shanghai because, so far—I shall be very brief about this—we have had, I think, two statements from the Foreign Secretary about what is happening out there, and we have also had a statement from someone connected with the International Red Cross. My view is that there is a feeling in the minds of the relatives and dependants of our prisoners of war in the Far East that these statements are somewhat contradictory. One was reassuring and others gave facts of brutal treatment. I realise that it might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to give us all the information which is available to him from men who have escaped from the Far East, but I think it would be better if he could give us a little more information on what is intended with regard to this office which is to be set up. Is it hoped that, as a result, His Majesty's Government or our military authorities or the Red Cross will be able to make some contact with the Japanese Government, and make representations which will secure an alleviation of the conditions of our prisoners of war in their hands?

Mr. Law

I am extremely sorry if I gave the impression that I was dealing in a cursory way with the questions which the hon. Member has just touched upon. I certainly appreciate fully, and I do not think anybody could fail to appreciate, the deep anxiety which prevails throughout the country about the conditions of our prisoners of war and internees—

Mr. Granville

I thought the right hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me. Perhaps I might be allowed to finish, as I have already been interrupted once. I know the difficulties of the Foreign Office. The difficulties of distance and the attitude of the Japanese constitute a tremendous handicap to the Government in trying to get improvement in the state of affairs, but I hope the Government will remember that this Japanese war may go on for years. What is to happen? I ask them to put themselves in the position of the dependants of these prisoners, who suddenly get this statement from the Foreign Secretary after they had received post-cards from prisoners saying that they were well treated.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member said he hoped the Debate would be short. He is now going into the question of the length of the war and a great many other things. This is a narrow point, and I hope that he will keep to it.

Mr. Granville

Very well. I will confine myself to saying that I hope that in setting up this office no money will be spared, and no amount of initiative be lacking on the part of the Government in supporting the Red Cross, so that we shall have more information as to what is happening to our prisoners of war who are suffering in Japanese hands. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give a full assurance on that point.

Mr. Law

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member just now: I thought he had finished. I was saying that we were conscious of the very deep interest in the House and in the country in the matters on which the hon. Member has touched. He asked whether the opening of this new office would lead to more success in the representations made by the International Red Cross to the Japanese authorities. It is really impossible to give any answer. One must hope that it will lead to improvement. It will certainly lead—I think it is bound to lead—to some improvement. The functions of the International Red Cross, as the hon. Member is probably aware, are to transmit lists of prisoners of war, to distribute parcels, to visit camps, and so on. The Japanese authorities have been extremely stiff about allowing the International Red Cross to exercise their rights: in fact, they have not allowed them to exercise their rights, in spite of repeated representations, in what are called the occupied territories, the Philippines, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and so on.

Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)

Are the Japanese authorities parties to the Convention?

Mr. Law

I will tell my hon. Friend that in a moment. As I was saying, in spite of repeated pressure from the International Red Cross and the protecting Power, the Japanese have refused to allow any visits to camps in the occupied territories. With regard to the obligations of the Japanese under the Geneva Convention, the Japanese Government did not ratify the Convention, but at the beginning of the war in the Far East they said that they were going to observe its provisions. How little they have kept their word the Committee are aware.

Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)

While I do not intend to trouble the Committee with a very long speech, I am afraid I shall have to depart from the welcome brevity which has marked practically all the speeches in to-day's Debates, because I have a fair amount to say about the work of this Committee. This is the first opportunity we have had since 19th May of a general Debate on the refugee question. When some of us have asked in recent months for such an opportunity, we have been reminded that the opportunity would come when we discussed this Vote. That is my excuse for going in a little more detail into some of the questions which are troubling myself and others who are interested in refugees. Is it not rather significant of the importance attached to different aspects of the question, that not long ago we spent an entire day discussing U.N.R.R.A., and that the amount we then voted was £80,000,000, while now, when we have our first opportunity since May of discussing the work of the Inter-Governmental Committee, the subject is sandwiched in between other subjects on a very busy day, and the amount we are asked to vote is £50,000. I was glad to hear that that covers only administrative expenses, and that the expenditure on the operative work of the Committee is likely to be something in the nature of £1,000,000.

I am not making any comparison between the Inter-Governmental Committee and U.N.R.R.A. U.N.R.R.A. covers a vast field. Its job is to deal with the whole post-war problem of rehabilitating distressed Europe. Dealing with displaced populations, who include refugees — that seems the new fashionable term for refugees — is only one part of its work. But this Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees also covers a pretty vast field. Consider some of its responsibilities. I noted that my right hon. Friend said that he did not want to go into detail in discussing its work, and that it would be better not to go into details. I quite recognise that, but there are certain facts known to us all as to the kind of work it has to do. First, it is responsible, I gather, for concerting immediate rescue measures for the victims of Nazi oppression, so far as they are dependent upon inter-governmental action; for instance, the removal from the neutral States of the overflow of those refugees they have taken in, and the maintenance of those refugees who are removed from neutral countries to havens of temporary refuge, and also of refugees who have escaped directly from enemy areas. We heard that the Deputy-Director, Mr. Malin, has been in Italy and North Africa, where, no doubt, he was considering that problem. We know that many thousands of refugees were found in that part of Italy which has now been liberaated from the enemy.

Also, in regard to its post-war plans—and I attach extreme importance to this—the Committee is responsible for negotiating arrangements with neutral Powers as to what help we can give them in removing, now or after the war, the burden of refugees that they carry, so that they may be willing to take larger numbers. Obviously, what the small neutrals do largely depends on whether the burden is going to be a permanent burden or whether they can count on other nations relieving them of a part of it or assisting them with the maintenance of their refugees. For all this work what machinery has the Inter-Governmental Committee? It has a small office, with several rooms, in Lower Regent Street. It has four people, whose identity has been described by my right hon. Friend: Sir Herbert Emerson, his American deputy, his Swiss deputy, and the Dutch secretary to the Committee—an admirable team. I know them all. I have the highest esteem for them all. They have wide experience and great knowledge of refugee problems, and their hearts are in their jobs. Sir Herbert, especially, has worked at this problem for a long time. He has a background of Civil Service experience and very great knowledge. We can be confident that any work done by a team like that will be done with the utmost discretion, with high technical efficiency. No rash promises will be made, and there will be no unwise publicity. It will all be in the best traditions of British and other diplomacy. But that technique has its disadvantages. It is inevitably slow—work that has to be consented to by a large number of nations working together has, I suppose, inevitably to be slow.

But when one thinks of the machinery of that little office, with three or four rooms, four people, with their two or three typists, and £50,000 which we are voting to-day for their expenses, one thinks of the tasks allotted to them. How many of the millions of men, women and children who are threatened not merely with death, but with torture, can be rescued? What is to be done with them if they are rescued, and, then, what is to be done with them after the war? It is just a little as though, seeing a number of people escaping from a hungry tiger, you sent after them a stage coach, drawn by four white horses, when what you needed was a Rolls-Royce. It seems rather a leisurely machine, and a small machine. I am not complaining; I suppose an Inter-Governmental Committee has to work in that way. We have been told that there are 36 member States on that Committee. They have not yet met in plenary session, but we are told that a meeting is likely to be arranged. That is not likely to lead to a quick result. When you have 36 Government representatives meeting together like this, every one of them will ask, "What does my Government think of it?" before they agree to anything. Then as to their Executive. I am not going to criticise them in the least. I have no justification for doing so, and I am told that they work together admirably, but it is rather odd to note that you have the Argentine also—I make no comment, but note the name—and also the Netherlands and Brazil as members, the Liberation Committee of France is a member, and the other two members are the United States and ourselves. So far so good, but it is rather curious that most of the countries which are the chief victims of persecution, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia and the U.S.S.R. are not, as far as I know, represented on this Executive. Nor are the chief neutral countries which have space to receive refugees—Sweden and Switzerland. The Executive was appointed in 1938, but it has never been reviewed or added to with a view to making it rather more realistic. Is it not possible for something to be done about that?

Now I come to a more important point. Many of us have had our minds on this point for over a year, and we then suggested that what was wanted in this country was a new organ of Government which would co-operate with the Inter-Governmental Committee so as to secure the full-time concentration of first-class minds on this question. Well, only two or three weeks ago the United States did that very thing. President Roosevelt set up a War Refugee Board, composed of the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Morgenthau, and the Secretary of State for War, Mr. Stimson. We have a subcommittee of the Cabinet here composed of three equally eminent Ministers, but the difference is that the American Board's functions are clearly defined and it has a full-time Executive Director. Its functions are set out in a pamphlet—which I have here—

The Deputy-Chairman

I think we are getting a little wide, because if it is possible to pay a tribute to the American representatives on this Board, in a wide way, such as is now being done, it would be equally possible to criticise them, and it is not within the duty of this Committee to criticise or otherwise comment on the representatives of a foreign Government in that way. I did not wish to stop the hon. Lady before, but I do not think we must go any further.

Miss Rathbone

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but the point I wanted to make was that the Inter-Governmental Committee can only act, just as the League of Nations did, through the individual Governments represented on the Committee. It cannot do anything itself except on a small scale, because all its action depends upon what the individual Governments may do, and, therefore, I want to say that, while we gladly vote this money, we should supplement the work of this Committee by insisting that an organ similar to the Board in the United States, with a full-time executive director in constant touch with the director in the United States, should be set up. The American Board has direct access to the President himself. The object is that it would make it so much easier for the Inter-Governmental Committee to do its work if it had in London a body representing His Majesty's Government which really is carrying out the recommendations made by the Inter-Governmental Committee.

This is a vast problem. This Inter-Governmental Committee is an inevitably slow mechanism in tackling so vast a problem as the problem with which it has to deal. There are questions of shipping and transport, collecting of refugees, questions as to where refugees are to be kept until permanently settled, and questions of negotiations with neutrals. There are questions of food supplies and so forth. It is a huge business, and it is the one hope of rescue for millions of people, nearly every one, in a way, a separate problem. You really cannot work it unless the nations represented on the Committee have their separate machinery for co-operation with the Inter-Governmental Committee, for perpetually working backwards and forwards as between it and themselves to carry out the projects planned on a far bigger scale than would be possible if the work depended on a Committee with so small a mechanism of operation.

This is my last word. I ask the Committee to recognise that we in this country have a rather special responsibility for this Inter-Governmental Committee. We ought to take the initiative and set a lead to other nations by what we ourselves are doing to help the Inter-Governmental Committee. For one thing, the Committee is situated in London, while the headquarters of U.N.R.R.A. are in the United States, where we expect that a good deal of the planning out will be done. The chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee and the British representative on it is the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and therefore the Committee looks a good deal to him, because we know his great interest in this problem, and we want to see that he is able to say to his Committee that the British Government are going to do so-and-so and thus give a lead for the whole of the world. There is another reason for our special responsibility. We know that though very many of these threatened millions are non-Jewish, the majority of them are Jewish—the Jews being the one race which Hitler threatens with wholesale extermination of men, women and children, and he is doing it. He threatens to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe. Well, we hold the gates of Palestine and we promised the Jews a National Home there—

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid the hon. Lady must keep off Palestine and the Home for Jews. If we once begin to discuss that, there will be absolutely no end to it, and it has nothing to do with the Question before the Committee.

Miss Rathbone

In our hearts, it has very much to do with it, because we always remember how many people are already massacred who might be alive and happy now if they had been allowed to go to that promised land. We remember also that the British Empire is a big place. If I cannot mention Palestine, for God's sake, let us find a place somewhere in the Empire where these people can get in. I was reminded by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department in putting a question—

The Deputy-Chairman

We cannot go into Home Office matters on this Vote.

Miss Rathbone

I will not go further with it. But if it was a mistake to mention the Home Office, it was not my mistake but that of the Under-Secretary in telling me that I should be able to raise the question on this Vote. We vote this money gladly and only wish that the sum we are voting was larger. I hope the Vote for the operational activities of the Inter-Governmental Committee, which we shall be asked to agree to later, will be larger because we have a heavy responsibility in this matter. Let us save all the threatened victims we can and not grudge the money, but vote it gladly.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

I am sure the Committee will understand why it was somewhat difficult for the hon. Lady to keep within the rules of debate. We know how very strongly she feels on this subject, and how much she has done herself to arouse public opinion to a sense of responsibility in the treatment of refugees, and we are extremely grateful to her. I welcome the increase in the amount of the grant from £2,000 to £50,000, with the promise of underwriting £1,000,000 for further operations, because this increased expenditure, I hope, means an increase of activity. One naturally asks oneself—Is the amount that is being spent even now enough, and are we really tackling this problem as it ought to be tackled, because we were reminded by the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Vote, that this is a problem which is really beyond what the imagination can conceive, and therefore the action dealing with it ought to be in accordance with the need. We were asked not to inquire into the details of the work. We will respect that request, but we are very much left in the dark as to what actually is being done. So far as we are told today, all that has been done is that certain machinery has been set up, but we did not find, in the information given to us, any sense of urgency or of the importance of the time factor. There are millions of tragedies behind this particular problem, so we ask ourselves how many lives are being saved and whether this problem can be tackled only by the orthodox method associated with inter-governmental committees.

I would like to ask the member of that Committee in what spirit they approach this problem. Do they see it in this light? Supposing the positions were reversed, and, instead of them being an intergovernmental committee trying to bring succour and relief to victims of Nazi terror, they were those victims and were themselves the refugees? Could they honestly say that they themselves, in those circumstances, would be satisfied with what was being done by the Inter-Governmental Committee? It seems to me that that is a very fair test. But for the grace of God, the position might have been reversed, and, instead of the Inter-Governmental Committee being in the position of being able to help, they might themselves have been needing this help, and I want to submit, in all earnestness, that that is the test they should apply to this problem. I have to confess that I cannot find anything in the record of achievement of the Inter-Governmental Committee to justify any very great confidence that they are alive to the urgency of this problem, and that the action they have taken is commensurate with the need.

Mr. Silverman

Will the hon. Member not agree that, within the limits which they exercise, they do show a sense of urgency, and that, after all, we should be very grateful to them?

Mr. Lipson

Surely the answer to that is this—that, if the limits of their powers are too narrow or too confined, the Commitee ought to say so, instead of saying that they are able to deal with the problem, when they know they are not in a position to do so.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

I gather that my hon. Friend is criticising my Ambassadorial colleagues on the Committee and myself—the representatives of the United States and other countries—when he talks of "they." It is only in order to make the point clear that I have interrupted.

Mr. Lipson

We are asked to vote a sum of money towards the work of an Inter-Governmental Committee. It is only right that we should ask, Are we getting value for the money that is being spent?; is enough money being spent?; and is the dividend in the shape of lives being saved adequate?

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Forward to