CHINESE NATIONALS (VISAS REFUSED). (Hansard, 8 March 1927)

Mr. BECKETT
I desire to raise the question of the exclusion from this country of Mr. Chen Kuen and Mr. Lian Hansin, two very distinguished Chinese citizens, who were anxious to come to London for a certain purpose which I hope to explain to the House. I choose this opportunity of raising the matter, because I felt that it conveyed too great an implication upon the methods in which we are conducting the affairs of the Home Office that it should be dealt with at Question time, in spite of the curt answers which were given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is usually so courteous. The position is that one of these gentlemen is a member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang, which is the party responsible for governing more than one half of China at present. The other gentleman is a member of the All-China Trade Union General Council. I and friends of mine in the House had the very great pleasure of a long discussion with these gentlemen in Brussels at a conference which they were both attending some weeks ago. Speaking for myself and my friends, we were very greatly impressed with the broad, intelligent and constructive outlook, and especially with the friendly attitude towards this country which those two gentlemen showed.
There were with me the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), and we felt that, if these gentlemen had come to this country they should have been given an opportunity of coming into this building, and we would have done our best to summon a meeting of all parties in this House— 1198 because I do not think any Member of this House is so intolerant as to refuse to listen to a distinguished Chinaman, even though he disagreed with him—as we felt it was vitally important that the point of view of the Chinese Nationalists should be understood, even if it were not agreed to, by Members of all parties this House. To our very great surprise, we heard not long afterwards that these gentlemen had made their application and that for no good reason the Home Office had refused their visas.
I protest against such an arbitrary method of judging who is to come into this country. There is no Government in control of these men who would have told our own Home Office that they were not desirable people to come here. I do not know whether the Home Office exclude members of the Communist party who come from other countries, but that would not apply 'to these gentlemen, because they are not members of the Communist party, and from considerable conversations which we had with them, they are, I should say, at least as far removed from the Communist ideaology as some of the hon. and gallant Members who sit on the benches opposite.
It is quite true that they have been in touch with Moscow, just as the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his Government have also been in touch with Moscow, and as representative men in every country throughout the world, whether they agree with Moscow or not, have got to be in touch with Moscow. If some of the hon. Gentlemen who have just been laughing had been in Brussels they would have been just as delighted to meet them as to meet anyone else who was present. It seems to me not only narrow-minded and insular, but that the action of this Government is going to have a very serious effect upon that large part of advanced Nationalist opinion in China which is by no means unfriendly to this country provided it is persuaded that it can get a square deal. They will not be persuaded that they are getting a square deal when two members of the Central Executive, for no reason given, are refused admission to the country. If hon. Members are half as confident in the justice of their cause as they would wish us to believe, they certainly would not be afraid of two China- 1199 men and an interpreter coming to the House of Commons to address them, if they would be kind enough to attend and listen. If you admit them they can do you no damage. If you do not, you administer a slap in the face to the whole of the rigth wing of the Kuomintang in China. I do beg of the hon. and gallant Member, if he is going to refuse this request to allow these two men in, that in the interests of our good name amongst people with whom we do not altogether agree we may at any rate be given some solid and sufficient reason for it, and that he will not treat my request in the very peremptory and despotic manner—I know it is through no fault of his own—in which he dealt with the question yesterday afternoon.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking)
This debate has arisen as the hon. Member has remarked out of what he describes as the "curt reply" which I gave to a supplementary question of his when he asked me if I would give the reasons for a decision that had been reached to keep two Chinese citizens out of this country. My reply was: No, Sir. It is not necessary to give reasons. The discretion is in the hands of the Home Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1927; col. 819, Vol. 203.] To that answer I adhere. To that answer I have very little to acid. The Secretary of State derives his authority from the Aliens Restrictions Acts, 1914 and 1919, as continued by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Under those Acts Statutory Rules and Orders have been made. One of them under the heading of "Admission of Aliens," reads: An alien coming from outside the United Kingdom shall not land in the United Kingdom except with the leave of an immigration officer. It continues: Leave shall not be given to an alien to land in the United Kingdom unless he complies with the following conditions, that is to say. I am not going to quote them all, but just those which really matter— He has not been prohibited from landing by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has prohibited them, and he is quite in order in refusing permission to these two Chinese subjects 1200 to land. These individuals have not complied with the Regulation, which says that they must fulfil such other requirements as may be prescribed by any general special instructions of the Secretary of State. In the cases of certain nationals, not only Cantonese, but other nationals, including Chinese, the Secretary of State has prescribed that they must carry British visas on their papers when they come to this country. These Chinamen have been refused permission to land and have been refused visas, and they will not be allowed to land under the Regulations which I have quoted. There is nothing in the case I have quoted or in the Statutory Rules or Orders which even suggests that my right hon. Friend should give reasons for any action which he may take in regard to particular cases.
The only reason why these Chinamen desire to come here is to further certain political aims, and take part in subversive propaganda. The Secretary of State is not going to allow them to land here for that purpose, tending as it must to overthrow our present Constitution. The original question asked by the hon. Member stated that they were anxious to come to this country to discuss the Chinese situation with certain British citizens and not with members of the House of Commons. That indicates a few citizens. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) and his friends that, if they desire to continue these discussions, they should have them in Brussels, and not here. A suggestion was made in the second supplementary question when he said: Are we to understand that the Cantonese Government is regarded as an unfriendly Power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1927; col. 819 Vol. 203.] That is a suggestion that we are taking sides against the Cantonese. If I may use a vulgar phrase I should say that it is pure unadulterated nonsense. Are we to assume that if we refuse leave to land to a certain Frenchman that we are taking sides against the French Government or French nation; or are we to assume in the case of refusing leave to an Italian or American that we are taking aides against America or Italy. There are certain undesirable people in every 1201 country, unfortunately in our own, and that view is not held by Great Britain alone, but by every country in the world. It is only because, in our opinion, these particular Cantonese—not the whole Cantonese people, not the whole Chinese people—are undesirable, so far as this country is concerned, that the Secretary of State has determined that they shall not land upon our shores. The whole administration of the Aliens Act of 1920 regarding visas and otherwise, is at the sole discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. But there are many occasions, which are well known to this House, when that discretion may be called to account by Parliament; and if any action which the Home Secretary may take at any time is considered by this House to be wrong he can be dealt with as any other Minister of the Crown can be dealt with by this House. I personally, however, am firmly convinced that he will weather this storm, as he has weathered many other storms, and that his action will receive the full and complete support of those Members in the House who really have the interests of the British nation at heart.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
The hon. Gentleman in one part of his statement took pains to state that it was only to interview certain people in this country that these two Chinese citizens were asking to be allowed to come here. He knows, or he ought to have been told, that they were invited here by the London Trades Council. [Interruption.] The London Trades Council may be an insignificant body in the opinion of the hon. Member, but they are a body of citizens who are as much entitled to ask people to visit them as any Conservative association. It has been specifically stated to the authorities that the object of the visit was to enable them to meet representative people and put the views of the Cantonese side of the Chinese dispute before us. Although the Home Secretary has all these powers, think the House is entitled to ask the 1202 hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell us on what evidence he bases the statement that these two Chinese citizens are not fit people to come to this country. We were engaged to-night in voting a large sum of money to force the Chinese people to allow certain British citizens to remain there. Here are two citizens of that country simply asking to be allowed to come here to meet British citizens, and they are refused without any evidence being given to the House as to why the Home Secretary considers them unworthy to come here.
I attended the gathering where this was discussed. I have no doubt some of the paid spies of the Department were present. When travelling one gets accustomed to the espionage of the British Government. I can pick out the man who sat with us in the hotel and I challenge the Home Office to produce the report, because, if he gave an honest report he would give exactly the report the hon. Member has given. We said to them, "We think the finest thing that could happen for you is that we should get a gathering of all sections of the House of Commons to hear your side," and you are afraid to allow them to do it.

§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERT
I think I am right in saying that the lion. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said that these Chinese gentlemen wanted to come here to put the point of view of the Cantonese. I have always understood that the party opposite objected, as we on this side object, to the Government of this country taking sides in the Chinese quarrel—

§ Miss WILKINSON
Hearing their point of view is not taking sides.

§ Mr. HERBERT
What party is it in this country that wishes to advocate the side of one party in China?