HOME OFFICE. (Hansard, 7 November 1940)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
The principle of financial aid to the voluntary organisations who have sponsored and made themselves responsible for the 50,000 German refugees who entered this country in the years before the war was accepted by the Committee on 22nd February. When I introduced a Supplementary Estimate for £180,000 in respect of the financial year ending on 6th April I explained that very greatly increased responsibilities had been thrown upon the refugee organisations by the outbreak of the war. I told the Committee that, up to that date, these organisations had raised and spent on behalf of those unfortunate victims of Nazi spite and hatred, upwards of £5,000,000. On that occasion the Committee agreed to a grant of £180,000 covering the period from 1st September, 1939, up to the end of the financial year. That proposal was well received in all parts of the Committee, and, in addition to tributes on all sides to the work of these voluntary organisations, some complimentary references were made to the sympathetic attitude of the Home Office to wards this refugee problem. I do not know whether those complimentary references will be repeated on this occasion, but we have found it necessary since February last to increase still further the amount of provision which the Government must make in aid of these refugees. However, as the general picture was explained in February and as the principle was then accepted, I do not think I need now do very much more than give a short picture of the financial situation as it exists to-day.
On the outbreak of war the expenditure of these organisations rose to a figure of some £2,000 per day, principally, of course, on grants for the maintenance of refugees. The arrangement made in February was that the Government would 1505 contribute on a pound for pound basis, the object being to encourage and to avoid drying up the springs of private charity. A maximum figure was then fixed for the Government grant of £27,000 per month, and on that basis we proceeded until the end of the last financial year. When the accounts came to be investigated in July it was apparent that what the Government had in fact contributed was the maximum of £27,000 per month, but it was only some 40 per cent. of the expenditure of the refugee organisations during the period under review. It was then agreed at that time that we should increase retrospectively the amount to be found by the Government to make it up to the full pound for pound basis, and that we should provide a further sum to carry the organisations over until the end of September when a further review was to take place. The amounts of money therefore provided by the Government so far in aid of the voluntary organisations are £80, 000 granted in February last, a three months' provision which was provided in the Home Office Votes at the time of this year's Budget to carry them on for three months of £81,000, and a Supplementary Estimate in July last of £150,000 to make up retrospectively to the full 50 per cent. and to enable the organisations to carry on until the end of September. We are now asking the Committee to provide a sum of £375,000 in aid of these organisations to cover the period from 1st October last until the end of the current financial year.
I informed the Committee that the original pound for pound arrangement was intended to encourage the springs of private charity. As a result of the adoption by the Government of that 50–50 basis in the early part of the year, the principal organisation concerned, which is the Jewish organisation, launched a further appeal, and I think it is greatly to their credit that, in spite of the financial stringency caused by the war and the heavy increases in taxation made since the outbreak of the war, that appeal realised either in cash, or in promises over a period of years, a sum of £370,000. However, despite the raising of that additional sum, not all of which is, of course, immediately available in the form of cash, the organisations concerned approached the Home Office early in September and told us once more that they could not see their way for more than a few weeks or at the out- 1506 side a few months ahead. The new arrangement which we have made with the Central Committee for Refugees, which co-ordinates in one body all the activities of these voluntary organisations, is on the following lines. It is that the Government will for the immediate future and up to the end of the current financial year find 100 per cent. of the amounts expended on the maintenance of refugees. We will, in addition, find 75 per cent. of the administration expenses. The safeguards which we have upon the economic expenditure of this money are these: the needs of every claimant will be assessed by the Assistance Board, and the Central Committee will see that the voluntary organisations carry out their undertaking that the rates of benefit payable shall not exceed the sums as assessed by the Assistance Board. So far as administration expenses are concerned, we have the Central Committee formed under Government auspices and with Treasury representatives sitting upon it, under the very capable Chairmanship of Sir Herbert Emerson who, I am sure, can be trusted to see that no money is wasted on the administration of these bodies. So far as welfare is concerned, the whole cost of that work will continue to be borne by the organisations as before, and they will also bear the remaining 25 per cent. of the costs of administration.

§ Mr. Mander
What about emigration?

§ Mr. Peake
I will deal with that towards the close of the Debate, if I may. I think the Committee will see that the alternative with which we were faced was either the collapse and disintegration of these voluntary organisations, or the support of them by the Government to the extent for which we are asking in this Vote. These organisations are, in fact, I think quite indispensable in dealing with the refugee problem. It has not by any means been only cash, clothing and things of that sort which they have provided for these unfortunate people. They give their care, sympathy and advice of all kinds in the very many difficult problems with which these unfortunate people have to deal. I am sure, not only for that reason, but also for the reason that some central scheme was indispensable and that it would have been quite unfair to have allowed large numbers of these poor persons to fall upon the public assistance of individual local authorities, that 1507 these organisations must be supported in this way. I hope that the Committee will be assured that the Government has taken every possible step to secure economy in the administration of this money.

§ Mr. Mander
Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he said that he would deal with the basis of expenses on emigration.

§ Mr. Peake
Perhaps if the hon. Member is going to speak, he will make his point, and I shall have an opportunity of replying.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker (Derby)
The Under-Secretary made an extremely clear statement. He made it quite plain that these organisations are performing a great public service. If they had not existed, I hesitate to think what would have happened to these refugees in this country and elsewhere. I am sure we shall all agree with the Under-Secretary in saying that none of us can pay too high a tribute to the organisations and the individual workers who, over long years of disaster and disappointment, have continued their heart-rending work of mercy with ever greater devotion and zeal. They might long ago have thrown up the sponge. They have done exactly the opposite, and the greater the disaster became the more energy they have shown. I am sure that we all deeply appreciate what they have done.
The Under-Secretary told us of the very great financial efforts which the organisations have made, and the sums of money which they have raised are amazing. That they should have been able to raise £370,000 while the war was in progress is little short of a miracle. The policy which the Government have pursued in regard to internment must have added to the responsibilities with which the Government had to deal, and I agree that the collapse of these organisations would be nothing short of a disaster. The Under-Secretary has explained—and I do not think anyone who knows the facts could possibly contest it—that if we had stuck to the pound for pound basis for all purposes, the organisations would have collapsed and could not have done the work which is, required. Therefore, I could not agree to opposing that which is required today. In fact, I am not certain that the 1508 Government are not leaving too great a burden upon the shoulders of the organisations, and whether the money which they have is enough. I am quite satisfied with the guarantees in regard to economy and administration which the Government have received. I have known Sir Herbert Emerson for a long time. I have had the advantage of working with him on committees and in other ways, and I am sure that the Committee can be certain that with his knowledge of administration this money will be well spent, that it will not be wasted and that it will be used for the purposes for which it is intended.
I regret that on this Vote it has not been possible to have a wider Debate on the general policy which the Government pursued with regard to refugees and internment. I recognise, of course, that it is not possible, but I hope that the Government will consider representations in the early future that there should be such a Debate. In the last few weeks a new Minister has taken office as Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Many things have happened in the last six months. There are many issues of immediate policy. There is the main principle upon which the whole of our policy is based and which requires the early consideration of the Home Secretary, and I think that that consideration should be given in the light of the views which hon. Members may hold. In supporting the Vote, I hope that in a short time we may have a general Debate on the questions of policy which this matter involves.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I should like to join in the praise which has been expressed for the work of the voluntary organisations. I am sure they deserve it to the full. It would have been exceedingly difficult to carry out the work which has been done in connection with refugees without their available knowledge and experience; in fact, the only mistake that has been made has been in not consulting them more. Many of the difficulties the Government are in at the present time would have been lessened had we consulted them. A large number of people came over here for emigration before the war. Most of this was not done in association with the societies, and they therefore had no knowledge of the position, but had to come to the task afresh when it was thrust upon them after war 1509 broke out, and all the people who could not emigrate—at least, as rapidly as was expected—had to be looked after. The work of the voluntary organisations was also increased, as has been pointed out, by the internment policy followed by the Government and the necessity of maintaining the wives and families of those who were interned or who had to leave prohibited and protected areas. Many people who were interned were actually wage-earning at the time. The internment policy of the Government is not in question at the moment, as I understand it would not be in order to raise it.
I also want to express admiration for the wonderful generosity of the subscribers, particularly the Jews, who have raised hundreds of thousands of pounds in addition to their other burdens during the period of the war. I think the Government are perfectly right and wise in coming to the House now and asking for this extra grant. I was, however, a little disappointed with what the Under-Secretary said in relation to expenditure on welfare. I understood him to say that that expenditure was to be borne entirely by the voluntary societies in future, whereas I should have thought that it would have been reasonable for the Exchequer to bear it in addition to the administration expenses, and I hope he will be able to see his way to concede that.
There is one point that I would like to press in regard to the general question of emigration. People are emigrating as rapidly as possible, and I understand that something like 4,000 have left in the last six months or so, to America. I am, however, disappointed to see that very few have gone to Palestine. In spite of our responsibilities there, so far as I know the number is only about 65.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
I hope the hon. Member will not pursue this subject further. It does not come under this Vote.

§ Mr. Mander
I appreciate that it is connected with it perhaps by a rather narrow link. Perhaps one or two of the points I have raised will be dealt with subsequently.

§ Mr. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
1510 I think this money is excessive, I think it is unnecessary, and I propose to vote against the grant. The Under-Secretary stated that we voted this money in February last. That was before the Government's policy of interning the whole of the Jewish alien refugees came into operation. It is that which has thrown an absolutely impossible burden upon the Jewish societies. It is because of that that we are asked to vote this sum now. I ask the Committee to observe what this sum of £375,000 which we are now voting really means. It means £1,000,000 a year, according to the figures.

§ Mr. Peake
This is over a period of six months; if my right hon. Friend will multiply £375,000 by two, it does not come to £1,000,000.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I understand that hitherto a great deal of this money has been found by the society, but that they are unable to do so in future. Twice £375,000 comes to just £750,000. I am told that hitherto we have found 40 per cent., so I do not think I am underestimating the cost if I say that in a year it will come to £1,000,000. But that is not the total sum that will be thrown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country by the Government's internment policy.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid that the Government's internment policy cannot possibly be discussed under this Vote. Some other occasion might be found, but now I must rule it out of Order.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
With all due respect, I desire to submit my reasons for thinking that this money ought not to be voted. It ought not to be voted because it enables the Government's internment policy to continue. If this money is not voted, the Government will be unable to carry on their internment policy, and for that reason I shall vote against it. I am sorry to differ on this occasion from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), but, of course, there always are, and always have been, two entirely different schools of thought in the Labour party in dealing with nearly every problem that comes up. There is a large school in the Labour party whose idea is always to be kind to the poor. They are the humanitarians of the party. They are to be found not only in the Labour 1511 party; all parties in this House include a section which wishes at all costs to be kind to everybody. I have not the slightest desire to be kind to anybody. Working-class people do not want charity. The working class—and this is what they appreciate in the Labour party—is seeking justice, and exactly the same principles should be applied to the internment policy of the Government by everybody who speaks in this Debate. The hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) spend days and nights seeking to make the internment policy more tolerable.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have warned the right hon. Gentleman that the internment policy is not a subject which he can discuss under this Vote. I must therefore warn him again. I must rule him out of Order.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I am not out of Order in giving my reasons for objecting to the Vote of this money. The Vote of this money will perpetuate a system which we, as a Committee, ought not to support. People are interned at the present time because it is expedient, or the Government think it is expedient, to intern them. The result of that internment is this enormous burden upon the Government and upon these societies of about £1,000,000 a year. If these people were not interned, they would at the present time be able to support their families. The Government and these societies are now supporting 279 wives of people who have been interned and who have been sent out to Canada and Australia. They are receiving part of this money. Again we have had people in good work, earning £4 a week, who have been interned, with the result that their wives and children have had to be supported out of this £375,000. The Under-Secretary in his speech did not mention that both in February and in August he promised facilities whereby a number of interned people would be able to escape from internment and get back to work, thereby ceasing to be a burden on this country. Those promises have not been carried out. The only category of people who have been released from internment in any numbers is the sickness category. It has become a perfect scandal. The people who get out are the rich, who can afford to employ solicitors.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is again discussing internment. I allowed him to give as his reason for objecting to the vote of this money, the internment policy of the Government; he is now discussing that policy, and that I cannot allow under this Vote. I am afraid I must be firm. The Chair must be obeyed; I cannot allow him to discuss the internment policy.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. I am trying to say where this £375,000 goes to, and that the expenditure of the money is unnecessary. It is the wives and families of the people who have gone to Canada and Australia who are receiving this money, and I submit that I am absolutely and strictly in order in showing why we should not pass the Vote. This money is also being drawn upon by the wives and children of people who are interned at the present moment, many of them whose release has been promised but who have not been released. The hon. Member for Derby says, with perfect justice from his point of view, that we must vote this money in order that they may still receive charity. We do not want charity, neither do the internees. They do not want your £375,000; what they want is justice.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is again outside the bounds of Order. After all, the Government's internment policy is not under this Vote. It is a matter which can be raised only with the Home Secretary himself. The policy covering this Vote has been passed already by this House, and the principle is agreed to. It seems to me that internment matters are those which were raised on the Home Secretary's Vote, and not on this Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I ask whether you have not perhaps made a mistake. You said the policy was agreed to, but it was agreed to on a Vote taken before the internment policy had been put into operation at all. We are now discussing this grant under entirely different circumstances. It is true we were at war in February, but there was no general internment policy and no exclusion from certain areas. The situation is entirely new, and I submit to you that I am in Order.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Actually, we did not pass the Home Secretary's Vote 1513 when this policy was finally passed, but a Supplementary Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps thinking of a Supplementary Estimate of 22nd February last. Since then we have had another Supplementary Vote which carried on the policy to which this is a Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
When the Home Secretary's Vote was taken we had certain definite promises for the reduction of the number of people in internment. Instead of that reduction, however, we have had just promises and a large number of expensive committees. We have had 494 people paid, I understand, on a time basis and not on piecework, who are stretching out the inquiries indefinitely. The circumstances are now entirely afferent. No longer have we the prospect of a short war, or possible invasion; instead the risks of invasion have decreased, and we had an intimation from the Prime Minister yesterday that the war is going to last until 1944. Surely even the Under-Secretary does not propose to go on with this subvention, and the policy which necessitates it, for another four years, keeping people unjustly in gaol when they might be earning their own living.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
I know something about this matter, because I was one of those instrumental in getting this grant. It has nothing to do with the internment policy. It is to enable people for whom employment cannot be found to get some money. Otherwise, they would starve.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I prefer to see people get justice rather than the dole. I know that the Noble Lord is responsible more than anybody else in this House for interning people, through his work in connection with refugees. The Noble Lord, no doubt, will be able to speak later in the Debate. I hope he will. The circumstances under which we are voting this money to-day are completely different from those when the original policy was decided and when we voted a definite grant in July and again in August. It was admitted then that the internment policy was largely induced by the fear of invasion, by stories—unsupported by any evidence—of the evil work of Jewish refugees in Holland. We had this fear of 1514 invasion. No doubt it was a justifiable fear, but it was a panic as far as the internment of Jews is concerned.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have been very patient with the right hon. Gentleman. The internment policy and what arises from it cannot he discussed on this Vote. I must insist upon that.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
With all due deference, we are asked to vote a large sum of money. I am proposing to vote against it. I propose to give my reasons for objecting to that sum of money being paid. My reasons are that when we accepted the policy in February circumstances were completely different from what they are to-day. The risk of invasion is now far less. We realise that we are in for a much longer war.
This policy of internment, if continued indefinitely, will cost the country, on the basis of this Supplementary Estimate, £1,000,000 a year. I think it is a mistake to vote money for the perpetuation of such a policy. The policy was started more or less in a panic. We all know that the Home Office ever since has professed to be anxious to let the people out and to end the policy. We know now that there is no likelihood of any great release of these people. This £375,000 is being voted to keep them there for another six months—to the end of the financial year. I submit to you, Colonel Clifton Brown, with all due deference, that it is extremely material to this Vote whether we approve or not of the way the money is being spent.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has now said quite enough. He has explained why he proposes to vote against the Supplementary Estimate. To go further, and to discuss the policy which he has outlined, would be out of Order and not relevant to the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman has said shortly why he proposes to vote against the Supplementary Estimate, and he must not develop his arguments any further.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I do not understand a Ruling which graciously allows me, in this free House of Commons, to vote against a sum of money being granted, without explaining my reasons for doing so.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman has given his reasons.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Oh no, nothing like all of them.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Chair rules that the right hon. Gentleman has given his reasons quite adequately.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Am I to understand that you are calling upon me to resume my seat?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No, I do not call upon the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat; but I ask him not to continue the discussion on those lines.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I will change the lines of the discussion. But I ask the Committee to think twice before voting this money. If they vote it, they will be perpetuating indefinitely a system of which I believe not one hon. Member in ten approves. If they vote against it, they will force the Home Office to reconsider the whole policy. This is the only opportunity we shall have to force the Government to change their policy. It is all very well for you, Colonel Clifton Brown, or for the Leader of the Opposition to say that we shall have an opportunity of debating this policy later on. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Government, pressed for time as they are, will give us this opportunity.

§ Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom)
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Committee be informed who is the Leader of the Opposition?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I meant the Leader of the Opposition for the time being. The hon. Gentleman who speaks from this side in reply to the Minister is generally accepted, in the peculiar circumstances in which we live, as being, for the time, the Leader of the Opposition. But I must not be led away into irrelevancy, although I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for making a point which I have often wanted to make myself. The question is, are we to vote this first instalment of what will be £1,000,000 a year, in order to keep people who could perfectly well keep themselves if the Home Office would change their policy and do something which we all know is desirable, but which they are afraid to do, because 1516 they think that they would lose face if they admitted that they have made an expensive mistake and one that we cannot live up to. This £375,000 is not a large sum when we are considering an expenditure of millions a day. It is not the amount of the sum that I am considering. When I oppose it, I shall not be casting a vote to cause hardship to anyone. I register a vote—and I hope others will join me in doing so—against the policy of the Home Office, which makes this expenditure necessary.

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I do not know that I can go anything like as far as the right hon. Gentleman did when he said that he was against voting this money at all. The result of successfully opposing the Estimate would obviously be to deprive a great number of deserving people, who are suffering great misfortune, of any support at all. But the right hon. Gentleman's argument that this Supplementary Estimate has been necessitated, largely at any rate, by the change of Government policy, is one which appeals to me very strongly indeed. The Noble Lord pointed out that the purpose of the fund was to provide sustenance for those refugees who were unable, by their own efforts, to maintain themselves. Take the case of Mr. X, with a wife and perhaps one or two dependants. He is able, being in a job, to maintain himself and his family. He is no charge upon the fund. But take him away and put him in a camp at Huyton or in the Isle of Man, or deport him to Canada or to Australia, leaving his dependants at home without support, and promptly they become a charge upon the fund, [Interruption.] And, as is pointed out to me, they are not even allowed, by the conditions of their entry, to work and maintain themselves. Therefore, it seems that, at any rate, a large part of the Supplementary Estimate is directly due to a policy which, I think, has never had the support of a majority of this House. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of this Supplementary Estimate would have been rendered unnecessary if the speed which in the last Debate we were led to hope for—I do not say that there was a promise, as I do not think there was—had been maintained?

§ Mr. Peake
I cannot understand these references to a promise, or even an indication, in the last Debate on this subject 1517 that releases from internment would be accelerated. The last Debate on this subject was on 22nd February, at which time only a few hundred Germans and Austrians had been interned, and those on grounds of security only.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am sure the hon. Member does not want to make a purely verbal point. My question was, how much of this Supplementary Estimate would have been necessary if the rate of release which, on the last occasion when we discussed internment, we were led to hope for, had been maintained? On 22nd August there was a Debate in this House about the Government's policy of internment. I am not discussing that—if I were, there are a great many things that I would like to say—but it was said in the course of the Debate that the Government's amended policy would lead to accelerated release. I do not think any figures were mentioned, but we were led to believe that there would be a considerable speeding up of all releases from internment camps. Suppose that the releases had been so speeded up—and we know that they have not—how much of the Supplementary Estimate would have been rendered unnecessary? Can the hon. Member tell us how many releases there have been, and to what extent the charge upon the fund has been reduced as a result of those releases? Much as I would regret voting against the grant of this money at all in these circumstances, we would like to be assured by the Government that if we do not oppose them on the Supplementary Estimate we are not thereby endorsing a policy of which I believe the House, by a majority, heartily disapproves. If the Supplementary Estimate is to be granted in these circumstances, may we have some indication whether it is really to be repaid? If it is true—as I think the right hon. Gentleman fully made out—that the Supplementary Estimate would not have been necessary at all but for the adoption of this new policy, we are entitled to hear from the Government what they propose to do about the maintenance of that new policy, having regard to the feeling that the Committee have expressed. I hope that the hon. Member will be able to assure the House that, if we grant this money on this occasion, the indications given during the last Debate on the internment of refugees will be better maintained than they have been so far, so that 1518 it will be unlikely that the Government will have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate on these grounds again.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) for interrupting him. I thought he gave way. I suggest that he raised what is entirely a false issue quite apart from the question of order. I would like to answer the very sincere speech made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) in three particulars. This policy, quite apart from the question of order, has nothing to do with the question of internment. I believe I am giving away no official secrets when I say that, when I was in the Government I, with others, pressed—because I was responsible for refugees—for a sustenance allowance for these people, many of whom were out of work. Bloomsbury House and other voluntary organisations, which do splendid work on behalf of refugees, recommended, through the organisation of which I am the head, that it was necessary to have some sustenance allowance, and consequently the Government granted it. Whether we have an internment policy or not, there are bound to be a great number of these unfortunate aliens out of work. I myself in my private capacity am employing alien refugees at this moment, but it is not possible to find employment for all. That is the answer to the first point which the hon. Gentleman made.

§ Mr. Silverman
Does the Noble Lord realise that many of them are prohibited from working by the conditions under which they were allowed to come into the country?

§ Earl Winterton
That has nothing to do with what happened in February last, when, out of a very large number of aliens in this country, only a very few were interned. That was long before any question arose. That is where the hon. Gentleman is wrong. He may perhaps concede the first point I have made. He may say, "That may be so, but, as a result of your internment policy, you have put other people into prison or internment camps who otherwise might be employed." That is really not the case. On the contrary, several of the people who were interned were not in employment, and therefore the charge is lost by reason of the fact that they are interned.

§ Mr. G. Strauss (Lambeth, North)
Is that on balance?

§ Earl Winterton
It is difficult to say, but I believe it to be the case.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I got everybody out of internment except one man who happens to be a working man; he is an artisan, and I cannot get him out. He was engaged in making shelters at Birmingham and was earning £4 per week. He is still interned, and his wife and child are a burden on this country. Is not that a case in point?

§ Earl Winterton
It may be one case but it does not make a number, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has given personal examples, may I give my personal examples? I have refugees in my house. There is no question of any of them being detained at all. They are Belgian refugees. Several of them are highly skilled labourers—one in particular. I have been trying for a long time to obtain work for this particular man. There is no question of internment, but people do not like employing alien labour, even in the case of a Belgian. There are thousands of cases of that kind, and I do not believe that on balance there is much in it. It is probably the other way.

§ Mr. Silverman
How do you know that?

§ Earl Winterton
You can only take a general figure.

§ Mr. Silverman
Why do not the Government tell us?

§ Earl Winterton
They will presumably tell us when they give an answer. I take exception to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on behalf of the refugees. We had the greatest difficulty in getting money out of the Treasury for this purpose. This money has been obtained, and it has enabled thousands of unfortunate aliens who otherwise would be on the street to obtain work. Here is the right hon. Gentleman claiming to be the greatest friend of refugees and to speak on their behalf in this House, and yet he objects to this Vote the refusal of which would deprive these unfortunate people of this help.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I do not like being charged with being inhuman. If these 1520 people had not been maintained by the Jewish organisations, and if they had gone down Regent Street carrying placards saying, "I am a Jew. I am not allowed to work. I am starving," they would have been allowed to work honestly instead of living on charity.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I must remind the Committee, as I said at the beginning, that if we got on to the subject of internment it would open a very wide discussion.

§ Earl Winterton
I am sorry, but I would like to answer the right hon. Gentleman, who will persist in thinking—and nothing will ever get it out of his mind—that this is a Jewish problem. He is obsessed by the Jewish question. It hovers over his head. In his waking and sleeping hours there is only one question with which he is concerned, and that is the position of the Jews. I am sorry for the Jews, but I am more than sorry that they have the support of the right hon. Gentleman. Of all the calamities that have befallen this unfortunate race, I know of no one greater than that. This is not exclusively a Jewish problem. It is one of employment and not internment. I very much hope that the Committee will vote this money and enable to be carried on what is really a highly beneficent work and one which is necessary in the interests alike of refugees and of the general public.

§ Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)
I am more in sympathy with the point of view—though that is unusual—of the Noble Lord on this particular question than with that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne (Mr. Wedgwood) because I recognise that this grant is absolutely necessary. The discussion is a little futile in some respects because we recognise that the main reason why the refugee organisation threw themselves upon the Treasury was really the war itself. The majority of these refugees were brought to this country, under guarantees, in the expectation that they would be able within a few months to emigrate and become permanently settled overseas. But the war brought that expectation to an end. That is really the major consideration, and, apart from the internment policy and everything else, a Vote of this kind is necessary because of 1521 the war. It is true that it is partly due to that policy that the sum is as large as it is. I am a member of the Central Committee which dispenses these funds, and when I first joined it I was surprised to find that the drain on the funds did not seem to diminish. I expected, after some 25,000 persons had been interned, a lightening of the burden on the refugee organisations and that they would stand much less in need of the Government grant. I soon learned that it was not so, because a large proportion of the persons who had formerly been earning their own living were now in internment, and their families and dependants had to be kept. What the refugee organisations had gained by having the support of a certain number of men taken off their shoulders when they were interned, they had lost because they had to undertake the maintenance of the families.
There is another point which I am rather surprised those who have so repeatedly stressed this question of internment have not mentioned. The sum is not only swollen by the Government's policy of internment, but also because of the policy in regard to unemployment. I entreat the Home Secretary to give his attention to the question as to whether the burden on the funds of the refugee organisations and on this grant cannot be lightened by adopting a more progressive and enlightened attitude towards the employment of aliens. I will mention one respect in which, I think, the policy is peculiarly retrogressive and unnecessarily cruel to the refugees. It is the driving of aliens out of protected areas. It is really preposterous that people who have been earning their living steadily for years and have not taken a penny out of the refugee organisation, and are known to everybody in their neighbourhood and are thoroughly trusted, should be driven out and obliged to live miserably on a pitiful allowance out of the grant we are giving to-day.
I know doctors among that precious, small, select few who have been permitted by the British Medical Association to establish practices in this country. I have a particular case in mind which is typical. It is that of a young man who has built up a practice in Liverpool. His wife is a very experienced masseuse. They are known to everybody. The man was interned, and when he was released 1522 he was told he must return not to Liverpool, where he had built up his practice, but to a little Northumberland village, where he lived for about a week when he first came to England. There are scores of cases like that, in regard to one of which I propose to ask a question on a subsequent occasion. The man fought on our side during the last war. He has lived in Plymouth for 18 years and is a waiter. During the last four months he has been moved four times from one area to another. First he was in the port of Plymouth where he lived for 18 years. Then he was told by the chief constable to go to Torquay and get a job and from there he was ordered to Barnstaple and from there to Frome. This poor working man had to move his household four times from one area to another.
This is the kind of stupidity by which we are increasing the problem and burden of refugees and I submit that the Home Secretary should seriously consider whether Chief Constables are really the best persons to judge in questions of this kind. Does the training of a Chief Constable make him a particularly good judge of international issues and whether a person is or is not the right person to live in a certain area? I could give instances of how industries which have been established with Government money, such as those with trained alien lumberjacks and agricultural workers, have been ordered to leave a protected area just when they have got going. People talk about "security first." By all means let us have security first but let us put a little common sense into our interpretation of security and not "chivy" these people about all over Great Britain. The policy of internment, I am sure, takes second place only to the sheer stupidity of the policy adopted in the protected areas and on the question of employment. This policy about aliens has been worked up by people in authority who ought to know better—employment exchange officials and, above all, Chief Constables. Let us give all these people an opportunity of renewing their living so that in time we shall be able to give up this grant altogether.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Did I hear the hon. Lady say that she preferred the arguments and attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to mine? This is the result of a University training. The whole of her arguments 1523 were arguments which really might have been made by me—

§ The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward)
The right hon. Gentleman must address the Chair and not individual Members.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I will do so, but I still say that the arguments used by the hon. Lady were precisely the arguments used by myself and my hon. Friend behind me. I moved to reduce this Vote by £100 in order to take the only opportunity we have of emphasising how much this Committee disapproves both of the Government's internment policy and the method by which it has been carried out. I am perfectly certain the hon. Lady agrees with me and that if she followed her conscience she would vote with me, instead of satisfying the Government Front Bench and being led into the Lobby by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham. We say that the Government is clearly wasting £375,000 which ought not to be spent, or found by the British taxpayer. They ought to adopt the policy of allowing these people to work, especially at a time when we want London cleared up. Jews are prevented from doing this clearing up; they are allowed to join the A.M.P.C. but every obstacle is put in their way. They would give their right hands to be of some use to this country at the present moment but they are refused. Hundreds of thousands of them are interned.
Really, the Committee must understand what these people are feeling. They have been robbed by Hitler of everything—their property, their future and their fathers; indeed, of everything except their family life and we have here the British Government and the Under-Secretary in particular—I cannot believe that this is the policy of the Home Secretary—robbing them of this family life. The taxpayers of this country are charged with keeping them in internment. It is not a policy which anybody in this Committee can envisage as continuing year after year as the war goes on. These people are perfectly innocent, yet they are put in prison indefinitely. I know we are told that there are committees appointed to go into each of these cases and that they are considering these cases. They have appointed up to 1st September—

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. It has been previously ruled that we are not at liberty to discuss internment policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman to be permitted in a second speech—he was ruled out at least six times during his first speech—to discuss this matter? If so I shall have to try and catch your eye, Sir Lambert, in order to answer him. I do not, however, think he is in Order.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Every word of this speech has been in reply to the hon. Lady who has just sat down. If I am out of Order then she was out of Order. I moved a reduction of the Vote in order to register disagreement with the policy and I say that I cannot be out of Order. I know the way in which the Government and their two Chief Whips—

The Temporary-Chairman
I was not in the Chair when the original Ruling was given, but on reading the Supplementary Estimate and listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it seems to me that he is going very much wider than did the hon. Lady who preceded him. I understand it has been ruled that the policy itself is not under discussion and I must, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal only with the question which arises on the Supplementary Estimate.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
The question of policy is the only question I am discussing. I am moving the reduction in order to get the opinion of the Committee on the policy for which the money is being voted. I know that the Chief Whips on the two sides rig these Debates and try to prevent free discussion. [Interruption.] Well, I will withdraw the word "rig" and substitute the word "arrange." They arrange these Debates as a sort of sideshow in order to get on with further Votes. We are a free assembly here and I move a perfectly legitimate reduction. It is true it is not on the Paper but we cannot get things on the Paper now-adays—

§ The Temporary Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman evidently wants to point out that he intends to divide on an issue which is not included in the Estimates at all.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
This Vote is for that purpose. If it was not for these people being interned they would be able to earn good wages and keep their families.
1525 Instead of that they are not allowed to earn wages and we have to keep them.
Am I not in Order in saying—

§ The Temporary Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman is in Order but when he attempts to prove the reason why he intends to divide, then I must stop him.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Well, I think you have given me a very good chance.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker (Derby)
About an hour and a half ago my right hon. Friend said that if we agreed to this Vote it would be because there were members of the Labour party who always preferred charity to justice. That is a suggestion which never should have been made. If the right hon. Gentleman would face the facts he would know that the rejection of this Vote would mean the dissolution of the voluntary organisations, and disaster to refugees and would not influence the Government's policy to the slightest degree. I agree that the Government's policy needs revision, and I am sure that we e ought to have an early debate on the whole question of refugee and internment policy. We have a new Minister and circumstances have changed but it would be most unsatisfactory to have such a debate now in the remaining minutes of a crowded afternoon, when the Home Secretary has made no preparation and, indeed, is not even here. I hope my right hon. Friend will not waste the time of the House; if he does I shall vote against him, and I hope that many of my friends will do the same, and I shall give that vote hoping that the Government will have a debate on the whole policy in the near future.

§ Mr. Hicks (Woolwich, East)
I support the proposal to grant the money and I would like to inform the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) that it is mere assumption to say that if a man were at liberty he would he able to work at his trade. A large number of Britishers are unemployed, all trying to find work; in every branch of industry there are unemployed. The trade union movement takes no second place in trying to assist refugees. They have done so for years, but merely to say that if a man is released from an internment camp he can go to work straight away, is far from facing the facts.

§ Mr. Peake
Two or three points on which I did not touch in my opening speech have been raised in the course of the Debate. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) interrupted my original remarks to ask about emigration. I did not deal with that matter because it is only indirectly relevant to the granting of this money. The position is that the United States of America grant immigration visas on the basis of affidavits given by relatives and friends of the refugees resident in the United States, and the intending immigrants must depend upon them, or upon their friends in this country, to arrange for their journey to the United States of America. So far as the administrative expenses connected with immigration are concerned, the position is that the Emigration Department of the Central Office for Refugees is, of course, constantly engaged in finding new openings in foreign countries, securing employment for the refugees in their new countries, and putting the refugees into touch with committees abroad similar to those which exist here. In so far as those expenses are concerned, they will rank for the 75 per cent. grant which is part of the money being voted to-day.
Several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have spoken about employment, and it has been said, or apparently understood, that there is some ban upon the employment of aliens as such. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who think there is such a ban are under a complete misapprehension. The ban on the employment of aliens generally was lifted in November, 1939, and except for a specified group of industries—war industries, munitions, and so forth—in which there is a security aspect, any alien can register at the employment exchange and can obtain a job, always provided that there is no British subject available for it. The only way in which one could increase the employment of aliens at the present time, apart from the internment policy, with which I will deal in a few minutes, would be by giving a preference to aliens over British subjects.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Why not allow them to work in their own shops?

§ Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)
Is the Under-Secretary's statement true as regards the protected areas, where many aliens could get jobs 1527 without interfering with British workers? The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the exception in the case of war industries, but it is in those jobs that men are wanted. There are plenty of industries that want men, but they are just the industries which aliens cannot enter.

§ Mr. Peake
There is no ban on aliens taking a job in any industry, however important to our war effort the industry may be, but for certain groups of industries a special permit has to be obtained.

§ Earl Winterton
Will my hon. Friend answer the point as to whether or not the authority does not rest to too great an extent with the local police authorities and not with the Home Office? Will he sympathetically consider this very important matter of the Home Office being the deciding factor?

§ Mr. Peake
I was about to deal with that question, which is separate from the question of the permission to aliens to take employment. It is the question of the protected areas. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee must be aware of the very strong feeling about aliens throughout the country especially during the past Summer months. The feeling about them varied inversely in proportion to the distance of the locality from the coast. The feeling against aliens in coastal districts, and particularly in the neighbourhood of dockyards, ports and so on, was very strong indeed at that time. It is the case that that feeling is to a considerable extent modified at the present time, but nobody can say—

§ Mr. Wedgwood
It never existed in North Staffordshire.

§ Mr. Peake
That is not one of the coastal districts.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I live there.

§ Mr. Peake
That feeling is modified to a considerable degree at the present time, but nobody can say that it will not become very acute again if the danger of invasion recurs. At the same time, I will take note of what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have said, and the question of the protected areas will be considered in the light of the Debate that has taken place to-day. It is obvious that in principle we must leave the operation of these 1528 Orders very largely to chief constables, who are much more familiar with the local feeling about aliens than anybody at the Home Office can be.

§ Mr. Silverman
Does the hon. Gentleman say that on account of local feeling people ought to be detained, imprisoned and deported, even where the local feeling has no justification?

§ Mr. Peake
I was not talking about internment or deportation, but about whether or not aliens should be allowed to reside and remain in certain areas. The local feeling about aliens is a very important factor in deciding that question.

§ Mr. Silverman
How is it tested?

§ Mr. Wedgwood
Surely, the fact that people in a certain locality dislike a group of persons is not a reason for sending those persons to prison. The majority of people in this country may dislike me, but that is not a reason for sending me to prison. The majority of people certainly do not like the Communists, but we do not want the Communists to be put in prison.

§ Mr. Peake
I am dealing, not with the question of internment, imprisonment or deportation, but with the protected areas, and where we shall allow and where we shall not allow aliens to reside. One very important factor in making a decision is the feeling in the locality at the time. In that matter the advice and opinion of chief constables is of very great use to the authorities.

§ Earl Winterton
I am sorry to press the point further, but it is really important. I find myself in sympathy with my hon. Friends on this side. I do not want to make any charge against chief constables, but I could give examples of most astonishing discrepancies between the treatment in two adjoining countries. I refuse to believe that it is based on any attempt to ascertain public opinion, To put it quite frankly, it is based upon the individual opinion of particular chief constables. I suggest that in this and other matters the Home Office must be a little firmer with these gentlemen, and that in time of war the Home Office should be the controlling authority.

§ Mr. Peake
I have already given an assurance that what has been said in the Debate will be taken note of, and I can tell the Noble Lord further that this 1529 matter has been the subject of discussions that have been proceeding for some time past with chiefs of police and the security services.
I pass now to the speeches that have been made in support of the Amendment to reduce the Vote which was moved by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) and supported by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). It is, of course, out of Order, as you, Sir Dennis, and your successor in the Chair ruled, to discuss the policy of internment, but it is, I think, in Order to consider the effects of that policy upon the amount of money required for this Vote. The right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in stating his reasons for moving the Amendment to reduce the Vote, seemed to hold the view that the amount of money required by the Vote would be very much smaller if the policy of internment had not been pursued. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne seemed to think the same thing. The facts of the situation directly controvert that view. The actual peak of the financial charges upon these organisations was reached before the policy of general internment was adopted, and the amount of money spent on maintenance has declined, and declined substantially, since the general internment policy was adopted in June. If the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters behind him seek to show that our policy, in June, was wrong, then, if we had followed the policy of which they approve, we should have to-day to vote a very much larger sum for the maintenance of refugees.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
The Under-Secretary has taken up a magnificent position—we are saving money by putting people in prison. Does he really believe that because we have people in prison without work we are doing that?

§ Mr. Peake
The right hon. Gentleman thinks we should require less money under this Vote if we had riot followed a particular policy in the month of June. He has made two long speeches based on that premise; his premise is, in fact, hopelessly wrong and the absolute reverse is the case. The facts prove that we should require more money under this Vote had we gone on as we did in the early months of last year. Therefore, I think, the Committee can be assured that not only, is 1530 this money required to enable these excellent voluntary organisations to carry on their good work, but that it is a smaller sum than would be required if the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was carried.

§ Mr. McEntee (Walthamstow, West)
I want to stress the need for a modification of the powers of chief constables. They act in an entirely different way in different areas. I have a case which I have sent to the Minister for his consideration. It is that of a Dutchman who for about 28 years has ben living in Rom-ford, which is not too close to the sea. This man has been sent out of the district into another area with no money, and the friends he has left behind in the trade union to which he belongs, and to which I belong, are aiding him in his effort to live in a place where he cannot get work. He had plenty of work in Romford before he was turned out. There is no justification for the treatment of a man in circumstances like that. I have heard it stated by chief constables, "I am not taking any risk in the matter. I might make a mistake in letting a fellow stop. I am clearing out all the aliens." They are afraid they may make a mistake, and rather than do that they are ready to clear all of them out. I hope some instructions will be given to chief constables so that a uniform policy can be adopted in the case of people who have lived a lifetime in this country, who are not enemy aliens, but friendly aliens.

§ Mr. Hogg (Oxford)
On a point of Order. Is it really in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to prove such a menace to Parliamentary government by preventing—

The Chairman
The hon. Member wishes to put a point of Order. He must put it as a point of Order, and must not introduce other matters.

§ Mr. Hogg
I must apologise for putting it in that way. But is it really in Order for a right hon. Member again and again to intervene in debates, thereby preventing other Members from speaking?

The Chairman
The hon. Member has, I think, put his question. The answer is in the affirmative. It is in Order.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) must be a very 1531 new Member of this House not to realise that every Member during a Committee stage is allowed to speak as often as he chooses.

The Chairman
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not try to gild the lily.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
I want to put two questions to the Under-Secretary before we vote. He omitted saying anything about the unfortunate wives who are waiting in London to go out to Australia or Canada. They have thrown up their jobs and have been waiting to go for about four months. Is it not possible for them, either to be told they cannot go so they can get work, or that they can go? My second point is that I wish to know how much of this £375,000 goes for administrative purposes. For instance, is Sir Herbert Emerson's salary made out of this sum, and are the costs of the Committee out of this Fund?

The Chairman
I am not sure that I can allow the Minister to reply to that question.

§ Mr. Peake
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that Sir Herbert Emerson does not receive any salary. Therefore it will not fall to be charged on this Fund. I think I had better communicate to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the other point he raised, about the wives.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
What about the committees?

§ Mr. Peake
I did explain very fully in my opening remarks this question of administrative expenses which are to be checked by the Emerson Committee. Seventy-five per cent. of the expenses are to be borne out of this sum.