HC Deb 13 February 1948 vol 447 cc792-800

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

These Adjournment opportunities occur unexpectedly, and I have been unable to notify a number of hon. Members who were good enough to express interest in the matter which I propose to raise. I must start by most warmly thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for coming here at very short notice to answer the Debate.

The case is that of a small number, about a dozen, of Polish soldiers who were domiciled in the Argentine before the war, whose wives and families and whose roots are still there, but who are still, two-and-a-half years after the war, detained in a Polish military convalescent depot in this country, because, and only because, they were unlucky enough to be severely wounded and disabled in the war. On Wednesday, at Question time, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred, in another connection, to the case that has become known as the case of the Russian wives, in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have properly taken a keen interest. The separation of wives from husbands by official action is cruel in effect, if not in intention, wherever it takes place. It is not the monopoly of one hemisphere or one ideology; but there are no political considerations at all in the purely humanitarian issue which I want to raise with my right hon Friend and which he knows so well.

First, I had better emphasise that the domicile of these unfortunate men in the Argentine was a genuine and not a new one. Two of them were there for 14 years before the war, one was there for 12 years, and one had been there for 11 years. One went there at the age of five with his father and mother, who are still there awaiting his return. Secondly, I must emphasise the fact that these men came here during the war as volunteers to join up and tight in the Allied cause. Thirdly, I should like to stress the very sad nature of the disabilities which many of them are now suffering. One of them, whom I have seen, was blinded in the war, and lost one arm and one leg. This, in a sense, makes it an even crueller case than that of the Russian wives, since those who are disabled naturally need the comfort of their families.

Perhaps the hardest part of it all—and, if it were not obvious that there is no deliberate cruelty, one might find great difficulty in expressing what one thinks about it—is that, as long ago as September, 1946, these men were actually demobilised at Greenock, shipped home to the Argentine, kept there for 19 days on board the ship in the port while the immigration authorities argued about their case—and then shipped all the way back to Britain, re-embodied in the Polish military forces, and sent back to the convalescent depot, from which they have never since emerged. That was in September, 1946.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

Why?

Mr. Driberg

I am coming to that in a moment, and, in doing so, I must exonerate His Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office, who have done their utmost throughout this long period to persuade the Argentine Government to take back these men. The reason given at that time, in the first stages of the case, was that the Argentine Government would not take them back because they were disabled. It was feared that they would therefore become a charge on the State.

I would ask my right hon. Friend to make a further and more pressing appeal to the Argentine Government, and, if that does not succeed, and they are still intractable, I wonder if he would consider an indirect appeal of this kind. We have a Legation at the Holy See. Would he consider approaching the Holy See through our Minister there and asking, perhaps His Holiness the Pope himself, to intercede on behalf of these few unfortunate men with the Government of a nation which is, after all, predominantly Catholic.

As I say, this case has dragged on inordinately long. I first wrote to the Government about it early last May. At that time, as I say, the difficulty was that the Argentines would not have them because they would be an expense to keep. But on 15th May last the Ministry of Pensions wrote to these men and gave them the following assurance: I can assure you that a pension in respect of death or disablement to a Polish national arising in consequence of service under British command may be paid in the Argentine. So that seemed to dispose of that difficulty.

Mr. W. J. Brown

Is that known to the Argentines?

Mr. Driberg

Yes, this is thoroughly well known to all those concerned in the dispute. That is what, in a way, makes it so mysterious. There were other various difficulties. For instance, on 3rd June, the War Office wrote to me as follows: As discharge for repatriation (and emigration) becomes effective on disembarkation, and these men did not disembark, they were absorbed back into the Polish forces on their return and sent to the convalescent depot near Newbury to await further developments. To enable them to be accepted back into the Argentine they each require a special landing permit, and Headquarters, Polish Resettlement Corps, have written to each of them asking them to make the special application. Three of the eight applications have been received back from the men, and these have been passed to the Argentine Consul in London for forwarding to Buenos Aires for approval. That was in June last year; yet it was in that month that the Argentine Con- sulate in London was still telling these men that the authorities in the Argentine would take them back if an assurance were given that their pensions would be issued to them—an assurance also given in that same month.

As a result of this assurance by the Minister of Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to me on 14th July, and said: To get round this difficulty, we have approached the Argentine authorities … saying that we are prepared to guarantee that the men will be paid a pension by His Majesty's Government on their arrival in the Argentine, and asking for them to be allowed to enter the country accordingly. On receipt of that letter from my right hon. Friend, I naturally thought that most of the difficulties were over, and, fool that I was, wrote to these men saying that I hoped that they would have no further difficulty and that they would be able to go back to the Argentine shortly. That was in July. But the months wore on, and on 28th October the Foreign Office wrote to me as follows: Unfortunately, very little progress has been made with this case. The Argentine authorities have been urged to admit the men, but their attitude has been very unhelpful. We have asked our Embassy in Buenos Aires again to press for a reply. Then, on 24th November, a month later again, the Secretary of State for War wrote me a very depressing letter, saying: Further representations are being made, but the Foreign Office hold out very little hope that the Argentine Government will be persuaded to relax their present restrictions. On 6th December, the Foreign Office wrote to say: The only hope we have of inducing the Argentine authorities to accept any disabled Poles is to show that they are so slightly disabled as to be capable of normal work"— And so the grounds of objection appear to have shifted— and to try to persuade the Argentines to consider each case separately on this basis. We are trying this, not only in the case of the eight men … but also in a number of other similar cases. Even so, I very much doubt whether any of the eight Poles will be likely to qualify for admission, and I think that they would be well advised to seek resettlement in the United Kingdom or somewhere abroad other than the Argentine. Why on earth should they? Their wives and families are there, and there are no over-riding political or national difficulties; there are no difficulties of ethnography or frontiers, such as are responsible for the unhappy condition of so many millions of people in Europe; and at least displaced persons coming here mostly have their families with them.

Then, just before last Christmas, the voice of the helpless human beings concerned intruded rather painfully. I received from one of them a letter, from which I will read only a few sentences: I don't know what to think. Is my cause so desperate that there isn't any hope? I left the Argentine in 1943, leaving behind a wife and two children, aged two and three. Taking an active part in the war, I was wounded in the spine at the Battle of Falaise. In consequence I was declared unfit for military duty and unfit to join the Polish Resettlement Corps. I know I am an invalid, Sir, and cannot go back to my profession. I don't know if I'll be able to do much work either. But why, if I am an invalid, am I still kept in the Army, two years after the war? Why can't I go back to my home and to my children who need a father? How on earth, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, can I answer such a letter? I ask my right hon. Friend to try to give these men a little more hope today, if he possibly can. He himself said on 28th January, at Question time, that this was: A gross and unusual piece of red tape conflicting with plain humanitarian practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 991.] I hope he will be able to translate such expressions of feeling, which we all share, into action.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown (Rugby)

I wish to support the moving plea which has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). We are not pleading with the Minister, because I am perfectly certain that he has done, and will continue to do, all that can be done in regard to this grotesque outrage. What we are doing is to use the machinery of Parliament to bring home to the Government out there what emotions and what feeling this kind of thing generates in this country. I have had something to do with the case of the Russian wives, and while this is not in the same category because, as my hon. Friend says, there is no political considerations of any kind involved, nevertheless, the reaction of the public mind in this country will be very much the same.

As regards the public reaction in the other case, I should like to say this for the benefit of the Argentine Government, that I can think of no single thing in the whole history of Anglo-Russian relations which did more to damage the Russian Government in the eyes of the ordinary working man and woman of this country, than the compulsory continued separation of these wives from their British husbands, and that the reaction in this case will not be any less serious. I ask the Argentine Government to consider, since they are assured that these men will not be a charge on their Exchequer, as the British pensions will be paid in Argentine, and there is no practical reason whatever for excluding these men, whether they cannot reconsider their attitude and agree to admit them.

I would like to add this: relations between this country and the Argentine have not altogether been too happy, but I am quite sure that nothing could do more to promote good feeling between this country and the Argentine than if this grotesque business were brought to a successful conclusion. I would like to plead with the Argentine Government to do the straight thing.

4.15 P.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)

I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) for the courtesy he has displayed towards me on this subject. He has, with great dignity and pertinacity, pursued this matter for many months, and no one in the House or in the Government would wish otherwise than that he should see a successful end to his campaign. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of saying that not all our relations with the Argentine Government in connection with Polish ex-Servicemen have been of this unhappy type. I should scarcely be putting the picture properly if I did not say that under a scheme concluded with the Argentine Government, which will be finished about mid-March, something like 5,000 Poles, with their wives and dependants, will move from Italy to Argentina. Even this month, rather more than, 1,000 ex-Service Poles will move from this country to the Argentine. I should have thought that it was no exaggeration to say that no country has been more helpful in providing normal facilities for these non-British ex-Service men who have no homes and, in many cases, have no nationality left to them.

That, of course, does not influence the sad and protracted case to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention this afternoon. Eight men are concerned and, as my hon. Friend explained, their hardship was made almost unendurable because they were actually inside the harbour. It is still difficult to explain why visas were issued at this end and a dispute took place at the other end. As I understand it, the Argentine Government are not influenced in this case by whether or not there is a pension, or whether a pension is assured. It is only fair to say that their behaviour, in relation to the other Poles to whom I have alluded, seems to suggest that it is not lack of a pension which has been the barrier.

Mr. Driberg

But surely that was their first objection? I have that in writing from my right hon. Friend's Department and from the War Office.

Mr. McNeil

Yes, I am not for one moment denying that there is a great deal of inconsistency, and there are differences of opinions and statements that are difficult to understand. I should not match my knowledge in this case against that of my hon. Friend, but perhaps I may be the second best informed person in the House on this subject, and I agree that it is difficult to explain why there have been so many shifts and changes. I am informed that the difficulty here is that the Argentine Government have a strict regulation which will not permit them to admit people suffering such disability as would prejudice the probability of them earning their own livelihood. In the interests of accuracy, I would make this point: my hon. Friend said that all the eight men were suffering from injuries or disabilities which they sustained in the Service, while fighting. I am not sure that that is strictly true. I believe that there is one man who has a disability which was not sustained during service. That does not take away from the broad and pathetic picture, which the hon. Member for Maldon has presented. These men have, for the most part, suffered grave injuries in fighting in the Allied cause, and it is those grave injuries which apparently prevent their entering into the Argentine just now.

Whether or not we can persuade the Argentine Government to set aside the regulation on compassionate grounds, I cannot promise the House. We have made repeated approaches. We made one following the last Question put down by my hon. Friend. We have since then asked our Ambassador to inquire if they are yet in a position to return a reply. I will consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend that we might employ the services of our representative in the Holy See. I am, however, not anxious to adopt that type of method. I am not without hope that the Argentine Government, who throughout all the rest of the piece have displayed a progressive and generous outlook, may be persuaded, because I am sure that they respect opinions from this House, to review the cases one by one. It would be much better and much more satisfactory—and this is the opinion of His Majesty's Government—if they could manage somehow—and lawyers can usually find a method of doing these things—to suspend the regulation in regard to this small block of cases. That we will continue to plead and press them to do. If we fail in that, His Majesty's Government will still plead that they should reconsider the cases. There must be few international transactions with less sting and greater humanity attached to them than this.

I do not know if the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is quite right in saying that so much misunderstanding would flow from continued Argentine obdurateness, but I am quite certain that everyone in this House would applaud the Argentine Government if they would now yield to the call so repeatedly and humanely made by the hon. Member for Maldon. At any rate, we will continue to give any assistance that we can.

Mr. Driberg

May I ask my right hon. Friend to bear one point in mind, because this will be on record? I mentioned, and he mentioned, eight men, which was the number I originally raised, but I believe that the actual number is 12 or possibly 13.

Mr. McNeil

That is a fair example of the confusion there has been on this subject. At one time there were seven and then I discovered that the number was eight. I will be glad to look at the case made by my hon. Friend that it is now 12. I will try to meet him on that point.

Mr. W. J. Brown

the Minister of State is authorised by me to inform the Argentine Government that whatever they do I will not bracket them with those "scoundrels in Moscow"; but will he also say that the reaction of the British people to what appears to us to be just plain inhumanity is the same in either event.

Mr. McNeil

I was not drawing any kind of parallel. In the case of the Argentine authority, there was and is a regulation which applied to these men from the beginning, but sometimes the very best Government can find excellent reasons for making exceptions to the very best regulation. I hope that this will prove to be such an occasion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes past Four o'Clock.