HC Deb 11 July 1939 vol 349 cc2205-10

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

I should like to occupy two or three minutes with this matter in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply. I thought his answers last week were singularly unfortunate. Whether he meant to give the impression which was received even by some of his own friends I could not quite say, and I hope he will give the necessary explanations which will satisfy us that the War Office is not deliberately refusing the service of these men because they served in the Spanish War. It must be remembered, whatever views are held on the matter, that great numbers of these young men in the main believed in the cause for which they fought, and I should have thought they were the kind of men who were wanted for our service. I should also have thought that men who were hardened and had had experience of war were men whom the War Office would want, particularly as they have had experience in what was perhaps not a great war, but the first war in which new weapons had been used and in which those who used them are our potential enemies. It is not true to say that any great proportion of these men were Communists, if that is the objection. The great majority were not, but even if those who are Communists are men who want to serve and are men of good character, the general practice of the British Army has been to accept men regardless of their opinions as long as they are fit and are men of good character. I trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to erase from our minds the impression undoubtedly given last week that these men have been refused because they served in the Spanish war, because if that view was held anywhere in the War Office, the War Office will meet with hostility even from those who are inclined to be its friends.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Mander

It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said in reply to questions recently, and from other sources of information, that a circular of some kind was issued to Army units throughout the country with regard to the circumstances under which they should accept those who have fought in the International Brigade in Spain. I think it can be accepted, and I do not think the Minister will deny that such a circular was issued, and I have no doubt that he will explain and justify what has taken place. Certainly an explanation is wanted, as there is a great deal of misunderstanding and uncertainty and suspicion in the country as to the motive behind it. I should like to ask whether a similar circular was issued to Army units in regard to the conditions under which those who had fought for General Franco in Spain should be accepted, because, if not, it looks very much as if there has been a certain amount of partisan feeling.

It may be said that the Army must be very careful not to allow people to come in who hold certain political opinions. But when one remembers that the Government are trying very hard—and, I think, clumsily and without success—to make a treaty with the greatest Communist Power in the world, the suggestion that no individuals holding those opinions should serve in the British Army is ludicrous. Some other explanation there must be, and I hope the Minister will make it available to-night. I hope he will take the opportunity of stating the number of persons who have been rejected because of the recent circular and the number who are still retained. If he can put up a good case on these points, he will do a great deal to reassure the feeling of the country.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. McGovern

I have never in my life experienced a more grotesque situation than that which we have in this House at the moment. For any man claiming to be against the capitalist system to protest against men of the working class and a working-class organisation being debarred from service in a capitalist Army for a capitalist State is, to me, the complete limit of absurdity. I cannot understand exactly what the complaint is. Is there a demand here that men who are against the capitalist system should be allowed to defend that system in war? We are told that if it is for democracy, they ought to be included, but any man who is a Socialist knows that if war comes, it will not be for democracy, but it will be for the sordid capitalist interests of the ruling class throughout the world. Realising that and understanding that situation and the position of the forces, they ought to be delighted at the prospect of working-class representatives being debarred from service in that Army. This war, if it comes, will be no more for democracy than was the last War, which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) strenuously opposed from 1914 to 1918, and if he advised men then, as I know he did, not to join the capitalist Army, why should he be protesting to-night against men not being included in the capitalist Army?

I am under no delusions regarding the object of war. This story of democracy is a new story that we are hearing in this country because of the fact that Russia now is desirous of getting into what is termed a peace front, and is prepared, we are told, to come in and defend the interests of capitalism. I say that I am not accepting responsibility for the capitalist Army, and if the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench were to tell me to-night that every member of the Independent Labour Party was to be debarred from service, I would thank him; I would not protest in this House against their not being admitted. I say, on the other hand, that the policy of the Communist party, until lately at least, has been to advise men to get into the Army to undermine the loyalty of these forces and to attempt to turn them into a revolutionary army. If that is the object, then I say that the capitalist party, if they are astute, are entitled to keep people of that description out of the Army, just as in the Red Army people are shot if they are found guilty of attempting to use the Red Army for purposes of that kind. That which is done in Moscow they are doing in a modified form in this country, and they are entitled to do that. I say that it is the most amazing display of Communist hypocrisy that I have ever seen in this country. I am quite convinced that every real Socialist or Communist in this country will look upon the action of the hon. Member for West Fife in demanding that these people should be admitted to the Army as being an outrage and an anti-Socialist and anti-Communist action.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender)

The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has asked me to face the situation, and I propose to do so quite frankly. This matter has arisen out of a question put concerning a circular which purported to be issued by the War Office. I am not here to deny that a circular was issued but I cannot divulge the contents of it, because it is a secret document. But when the hon. Member was questioning me the other day I did categorically say that no instructions were contained in that document to the effect that men who had served in the International Brigade were to be debarred from enlistment in the Army, and that is the case. But if I cannot disclose the contents of the document, I can satisfy the House on that by recounting what its purpose was and what were the circumstances which led to its issue.

The purpose of this circular was to give instructions to units throughout the country regarding action that should be taken if it was found that men who had served in the International Brigade were among the men under their command. Instructions were not issued to recruiting officers to refuse to accept these men, but when I tell the House the information which we have had at our disposal for some time, I think they will realise that it was incumbent upon us to take some steps to safeguard the interests not only of the Service, but of the nation too.

Let me say, in passing, that the political views of a soldier are not the concern of anybody in the War Office. He may be a Fascist, a Communist, a Liberal or a Conservative; he may have any political views he likes; but if his political views are such that they force him to resort to activities which are incompatible with enlistment in the Army, then, in the interests of the State, we cannot stand idly by. The hon. Member for West Fife asked me whether the Army existed to defend the capitalist class. He knows perfectly well that the British Army exists for the purpose of defending people in this country of all classes and all political creeds, and will do so if called upon; but to do so successfully it has to be a disciplined force, and it is only those sections of the community who seek by subversive action to undermine the discipline of the Army that come under our veto.

The circumstances which led to the issue of this circular were that we knew that whilst the International Brigade was in Spain steps were taken to put the British members of that Brigade through a very intensive course of Communist revolutionary propaganda with the avowed intention when those men came back to this country, that they should be used for spreading revolutionary, subversive propaganda. The hon. Member for West Fife laughs, but let me refer him to "The Daily Worker." These facts were freely stated there.

Mr. Gallacher

Not subversive, but Communist propaganda.

Sir V. Warrender

As might well be expected, it was having regard to what took place while they were in Spain that we took precautionary measures to prevent the avowed object of spreading revolutionary doctrines, and doctrines subversive of discipline being carried out, in the British Army. No man can be rejected simply and solely because he was a member of the International Brigade. I quite agree that a number of these men fought gallantly in Spain and that some of them are now in the British Army, where they are making very fine soldiers indeed. It was only in the case of men whose bona fides we had reason to doubt that action has been taken.

The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked me whether I could give him figures as to the number of these men who have applied for enlistment and the numbers that have been rejected. We do not know exactly how many men there are in the Territorial and Regular Armies who have been members of the International Brigade. There may be some who were members, but who are not known as such. We know that there are more than 50 in the Territorial Army and in the Regular Army who saw service with the International Brigade. They are serving in the Army; some of them may be Communists, but that is not our affair. They can have any political views they like so long as these do not interfere with the good discipline of the Force. While we have accepted over 50, only five have been rejected or discharged. I may say that these men have not been rejected simply because they were members of the International Brigade but because they were not men of sufficiently good character, up to the standard that we require in the Army.

I appear to have given some offence the other day because I said that the Army takes steps to verify the character of recruits. In saying that I was merely stating a plain fact and not casting any slur upon the members of the International Brigade, as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) seemed to think. Every man who comes to the recruiting office and wants to enlist has to produce a reference from someone to whom he is well known and who can vouch for his character, and to treat these men differently would have been to put them in an entirely privileged class. I hope I have said enough to-night to make the House realise—or to make unprejudiced Members of the House realise—that there has been no attempt whatsoever to discriminate against these men. All we have done is to safeguard the interests of the Army itself, and I think that, having in our possession information such as I have conveyed to the House, we should have grossly failed in our duty if we had done anything less.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'clock.