§ 31. Mr. THURTLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reasons which caused his Department to recommend the cancelling of the endorsement on the passport of the hon. Member for North Battersea, making that passport available for India?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe cancellation of the endorsement was recommended because, first, the hon. Member for North Battersea delivered in the course of his visit to India at the beginning of the year several public speeches containing passages of a nature which led the Governmen of India and my Noble Friend to apprehend a breach of tranquility if he returned to India; my Noble Friend's apprehensions were confirmed by the fact that after the hon. Member returned to England he prefixed to an anonymous pamphlet which, inter alia, repeatedly emphasised the use of force by the Chinese Nationalists, these words: "All I have to say to the people of India on this subject is 'Go and do likewise'"; and secondly, he sent, in July, a telegram conveying congratulations to an individual who had recruited a body of armed volunteers styled "Soldiers of the Republican Army" of Nagpur, and who had consequently been convicted on a charge of sedition.
§ Mr. THURTLECan the Noble Lord say whether any steps were taken to verify the fact that the hon. Member for North Battersea did write the preface, and did attach his signature to the statement quoted?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe only evidence we have on the subject is the fact that the pamphlet containing the statement by the hon. Member had his signature to it. There was no facsimile of his signature in the pamphlet. It stated that the statement was "by Mr. Saklatvala, M.P."
§ Mr. THURTLECan the Noble Lord say why, as an act of courtesy to a fellow Member of this House, the hon. Member for North Battersea was not consulted, to find out whether or not he had done this thing?
§ Earl WINTERTONPerhaps the hon. Member will allow the hon. Member for North Battersea to speak on his own behalf. The hon. Member for North Battersea has never denied that he wrote the preface to this pamphlet, and it has been a matter of public knowledge in India for the last few months.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIf this statement by the hon. Member for North Battersea was a crime, why was he not prosecuted? Why is it left to the bureaucracy to interfere with the right 14 of Members of this honourable House to go where they like? Is the Noble Lord aware that this is not merely a bad precedent but is bad form?
§ Earl WINTERTONThe views of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and mine and the rest of the House on bad form may differ somewhat. In regard to the first part of his supplementary question as to why the hon. Member was not prosecuted, no question of prosecution arises. As I made clear in my answer, he was not given permission to go to India in order that he might be prevented from making the sort of speeches and doing the sort of things he did before, thereby increasing the risk of trouble arising between the various communities there and between the forces responsible for keeping law and order, and the public. As regards the second part of the right hon. Member's question, no privilege is attached to any Member of this House as such outside this House which entitles him to be considered in a different aspect from any other of His Majesty's subjects. As long as I represent the Secretary of State for India, I can assure the hon. Member that I shall make no discrimination between persons inside and outside this House on a matter of passports to India.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAAs the Noble Lord has made serious misstatements, has taken action without first investigating, and as it is difficult to explain the whole matter in question and answer perhaps he will be good enough to let me explain the circumstances on an adjournment of the House.
§ Earl WINTERTONI should be delighted if the hon. Member will do so. Meanwhile, I hope that he will explain in the Press, or some other way, what he means by charging me with having made misstatements.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALAThe Noble Lord, for the first time in public, talks of a preface written by me to an anonymous book without realising that I would never write a preface to an anonymous book, and then charges me with not having answered a question which has never been put to me. Is it not a gross misstatement to describe the Nagpur incident as somebody recruiting armed men, when what really happened was that as a protest by some Indians against the 15 prohibition on bearing arms they merely walked through the streets with a rusty sword, technically challenging the law?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for North Battersea has already given me notice that he intends to raise the matter on an early adjournment of the House; and there, I think, we had better leave the matter.
§ Earl WINTERTONOn that point of Order, may I say that I think it has been held by you, Sir, that hon. Members are not allowed under the guise of questions to make accusations against Ministers. The hon. Member has charged me with having made misstatements, and I wish it to be on record that they are not true. I am content to leave the matter there for the present, but I wish to protest against the hon. Member under the guise of questions making charges against me which are not true.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThere are statements and counter-statements. Clearly, the matter cannot be discussed at Question time. The proper way is for the hon. Member for North Battersea to deal with it in Debate on the Adjournment of the House at eleven o'clock some night.