§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the reason for refusing admission to this country to Mr. J. Oudegeest and Mr. E. Fimmen, who are desirous of attending the International Labour Congress on Migration now sitting in London; whether he is aware that Mr. Oudegeest is the Secretary of the International Federation of Trade Unions, is a member of the 39 governing body of the International Labour Office at Geneva, and a member of several Commissions under the League of Nations, and that Mr. Fimmen was formerly the Secretary of the International Federation of Trades Unions, and is now Secretary of the International Transport Workers Federation; and whether, in view of the representative character of these two gentlemen and the purpose of their proposed visit to this country, he will reconsider his decision to prevent their attendance at the Congress in question.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMy objection is not based on the character of the Congress now being held, or on the positions held by the two gentlemen in question: but information which reached me during the recent illegal strike satisfied me that both of them were trying to interfere with British trade and to arrange for our ships to be held up in foreign ports. I decided that it would not be in the interests of this country to allow them to come here, and so give them increased facilities for concerting any other plans of a similar character.
§ Mr. HENDERSONAre we to understand that this is a new form of reprisal, to be put into operation against bona fide trade unionists who are carrying out their duties in their own country?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman must not understand anything more than I have said. I omitted to answer one question about Mr. Fimmen's connection with the International Federation of Trade Unions. A vote of censure was passed upon him by that federation, and he was dismissed two years ago as being too extreme. My information is quite clear that both these gentlemen took part, in conjunction with the Transport Workers' Union here, in causing British ships to be stopped from unloading on the Continent at a time of grave necessity, and I came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that those who have been acting as enemies of this country should receive the hospitality of this country.
§ Mr. HENDERSONThe Home Secretary has stated the position with regard to Mr. Fimmen, but is he not aware that Mr. Oudegeest, who is the secretary of 40 the International Federation of Trade Unions, is regarded as one of the most moderate trade unionists in the international movement?
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKI never like to be obstinate, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to give me any information on the subject, I am always open to receive it. My information is quite definite that Mr. Oudegeest took part in the action I have mentioned, and unless the right hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary, I must adhere to my decision.
§ At the end of Questions—
§ Mr. A. HENDERSONI beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Home Secretary in curtailing the freedom of discussion of international questions, by refusing to permit the entry into this country of certain bona fide trade unionist representatives, for the purpose of attending an International Labour Congress on migration now sitting in London.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid this is not a Motion which I can put to the House. In the first place, it imports an argument into the Motion, which is quite irregular. Secondly, I find by the Statute that the Home Secretary is given a duty with regard to the Aliens Restriction Act, and it would be quite impossible, whatever the particular position of the two gentlemen concerned may be, to allow their importance to be differentiated from all other persons who come under this Act. The proper occasion to discuss the methods of the Home Secretary is in Committee of Supply.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDWith reference to your first, ruling, Mr. Speaker, surely I am right in assuming that your ruling involves us in this position that this House would never be able to raise, as a matter of urgency, the administration of the law by the Home Secretary, because that is the point that we wish to bring before you, the contention being that this matter is urgent because the Conference is meeting to-day, begins to-day, and therefore it is important for the reasons assigned. We wish to raise a question as to whether the Home Secre- 41 tary, in coming to the decision he has arrived at, is administering the law in a way which this House cannot overlook.
§ Sir JOHN SIMONOn that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask you whether in accordance with your Ruling it is not possible to raise a question, if it be a matter of urgent public importance, even although it calls in review the exercise of a discretion such as the arrest of an individual or the deporting of an individual from one part of the country to another?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must not be taken as going further than what I actually said. If there be some new departure, certainly the House has a right to challenge it, but I have looked up the Act, and find that this is under the ordinary procedure of the Act. What I have said is that, if I were to grant a Motion for the Adjournment of the House with regard to these two gentlemen, it seems to me that I should have to do the same in every case. It is impossible for me to differentiate between different individuals.
§ Mr. MacDONALDWith great respect, may I ask whether that would quite be so?. If we should have to draw your attention, or if some section of the House, should have to draw your attention to any particular case which they considered to be maladministered by the Home Secretary, are we not entitled, and is it not our right in this. House, to get the matter raised in the House when we bring cases which specifically, and in relation to the circumstances in which they come here, are in the nature of cases of mal-administration, as we allege, and, I think, prove?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that that is distinctly a matter far the Committee of Supply. I gave a similar ruling last year, if I remember aright, with regard to the case of a Russian violinist, which it was claimed had some special features, and I can see that, if I once granted a Motion of this kind, I should have no standing ground for refusing it in a succession of other cases.
§ Mr. MacDONALDWill you pardon me, Sir, if I put another question to you, namely, whether, in the case of the Russian violinist, there was really no urgency at all? [Interruption.] It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, 42 that that was not the ground upon which the decision was given. But, in the case of this conference, which is of international importance, a conference on emigration, attended by representatives of practically every European country, and, I think, America—I am not very sure about America—and the Dominions, meeting to-day and terminating this week, does not that establish an urgency which cannot be dealt with on the Home Office Vote, but must be dealt with only by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKEROn that point it is not for me to dispute the right hon. Gentle-man's view of urgency, but I have to look at the position of the Chair. It would involve a decision on my part as to the importance of a particular meeting, and there, again, I fear I should be involved in an impossible succession of questions.