HC Deb 11 May 1933 vol 277 cc1703-6
Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: The admission of certain German Fascist propagandists to this country, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to secure undertakings from such persons that they shall not engage in Fascist propaganda.

Sir J. GILMOUR

May I make a statement in regard to this question? Herr Rosenberg came to this country for a visit of a few days, and, in view of the fact that the German Ambassador interested himself in the circumstances of that visit, I saw no reason to make a special arrangement in the circumstances.

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely: The admission of certain German Fascist propagandists to this country, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to secure undertakings from such persons that they shall not engage in Fascist propaganda. I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that that matter cannot be discussed in accordance with any of the provisions of Standing Order No. 10. Consequently, I cannot allow it.

Mr. LANSBURY

The two gentlemen who, have been admitted, apparently through the Foreign Office, are definitely Fascist propagandists, teaching Fascism, which they are at great pains to explain, through the Press, is for the purpose of overthrowing this House and the Constitution of this country. Headquarters of this organisation, a German organisation, have been set up in this country. The Home Secretary, in dealing with another political creed, Communism, forbids the entrance into the country, even with guarantees, of propagandists of that organisation.

Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman now speaking about your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or what is he doing?

Mr. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is putting his case to me.

Mr. LANSBURY

The right hon. Gentleman exercises his power to keep out certain political propaganda and he exercises his power to admit certain political propaganda, both of which are revolutionary. We maintain that it is the right of this House to discuss and to determine the conduct of the Home Secretary. With great respect, I read the Rule, and in our judgment this is a matter of definite and urgent public importance, because the propaganda is going on at this minute, and an organisation is being set up in this country for the purpose of overthrowing this Constitution, and also to provoke disorder. We have no chance except this to discuss the matter. We thought that the Rule in the Standing Orders of this House was for the purpose of enabling the House instantly to deal with a Minister who, in our judgment, is discriminating between various revolutionary opinions as to which he will allow in and which he will keep out. I respectfully submit that you should give some consideration to that point of ivew.

Mr. SPEAKER

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given every consideration to that point of view, but there are certain conditions which are necessary for the compliance of a Motion of this kind with Standing Order No. 10. I have to interpret those conditions, and I have come to the conclusion very definitely that this particular Motion does not conform with what was intended in Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. LANSBURY

May I raise one further point? Already actions have been taken in the City of London, even within the precincts of this House, which might have led to riots. Almost outside our doors, at the Cenotaph, something has happened which I should have thought it impossible to happen. I have tried to tell you that propaganda is going on, and the Home Office which is supposed to safeguard us and to act fairly between people who apply to come in have done nothing of the kind. They have discriminated to allow one form of revolutionary propagandists to come in and to keep others out.

Mr. LAWSON

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether in coming to your decision you have borne in mind the fact that the gentleman concerned is even more a representative of Prussian militarism than he is of the Fascist ideas?

Mr. BUCHANAN

The Motion has to prove that it is definite, urgent and important business. May I submit that it is a definite matter of urgent public importance, seeing that the Government have made a departure from their previous definite policy? Hitherto, all Governments have laid it down that no foreign Government or representative of a foreign Government shall endeavour to come here if they intend by extra-constitutional methods to upset what may be described as the ruling system. In the past, all Governments have been subject to that rule. It is, I submit, a definite and urgent problem that the Government have departed from that policy by allowing people to come in who are challenging by extra-constitutional means the authority of the Government. That is a departure from the established practice—whether that practice be good or bad I am not arguing—and it is a matter of importance and urgency in the sense that every day that goes by there is a condition of affairs arising that may lead to conflict of one kind or another. I therefore submit that, in essence, the Motion satisfies the condition that it is important in the sense of this grave departure from the action of Governments in the past, and that it is urgent as it affects our relationship with other countries and the action of the Home Office.

Mr. SPEAKER

All these points may be perfectly true, but they do not alter the fact that the Motion in my view does not comply with the conditions laid down in Standing Order Number 10.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

If the individual about whom the Leader of the Opposition is asking, and upon whose case the Motion for the Adjournment has been moved, has visited the headquarters of the Nazi organisation in London, can that be construed into his recognition and assistance of the, propaganda in this country of German Nazism, and, in that case, does it not come under the Standing Order?

Mr. SPEAKER

That question does not arise.

Mr. MAXTON

May I ask whether your Ruling implies that if the business to-day is finished before Eleven o'clock this subject, which has been made the basis for a Motion for the Adjournment, would not be precluded from being discussed? Would it be out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER

No, certainly not. If the Business for the Day is concluded before Eleven o'clock, or if the Business is concluded at Eleven o'clock, the matter can be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is nothing against that. All I am ruling now is that the Motion does not conform to the conditions laid down in Standing Order Number 10.

Mr. LANSBURY

May I give notice, so that the Home Secretary may know, that if there is time this evening I propose to raise this matter?