HC Deb 09 March 1948 vol 448 cc1195-204

1.38 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

Is it possible for me to wait a few moments till the Minister, who was here a few seconds ago, comes back because my remarks must be addressed to the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

The hon. Member must make his speech now or he will lose the adjournment.

Mr. Lindsay

With great respect, I do so with a protest because I want to address the Minister and therefore I hope he will be coming very soon. I hope very much that one of the Whips opposite has gone to fetch him.

What I want to draw the attention of the House to once more is the outrage which has been inflicted upon a dozen Englishmen whose wives are detained in Russia—a personal tragedy which I venture to think is as heartrending as any on record. It has certainly aroused a great deal of righteous indignation. All the facts are now widely known and therefore I propose to give only a brief summary of them tonight.

Fifteen young men, mostly in the Services, who were in Russia for the purpose of giving aid to that country, married Soviet girls, and with the Kremlin's full knowledge and permission. In spite of repeated applications, diplomatic requests and protests, their wives have not been allowed to leave the Soviet to rejoin their husbands in Britain. By this time some of these marriages have broken at that end, and it is hardly to be wondered at. One of these men has not seen his wife for six years. The wonder is that ten of these marriages are still very much alive and it speaks highly for the type of Russian girl involved, and the character of the ten Englishmen whose courage and dignified bearing has very much impressed all those who have interested themselves in their case.

The position of these families becomes more and more desperate as the months and years go by, and particularly as pressure, it would seem, has recently begun to be brought to bear upon their wives. There has been, for example, application for payment for tax for not bearing children, as brutal as it is grotesque. In the past two weeks it has been announced that two of these wives have come forward seeking divorce. Similarly, an allied wife has been arrested, and a fourth announces that she seeks divorce because "she can allow herself no longer to be the wife of a subject of an unfriendly country." After an interval of four years three applications for divorce in two weeks is significant. At the same time three Russian employees of our Moscow Press Department have been arrested, and two days ago there were Press reports that the storekeeper of our Embassy, a British subject, is charged with infecting a Soviet girl with venereal disease. We can all recognise the familiar technique, the preliminary barrage, the Press build-up, to be followed later either by mass recantations of their foreign husbands, or arrest for those courageous enough to hold out.

Therefore, I firmly believe that this may be the very last chance for His Majesty's Government to act and rescue these ten girls and their five children, because if nothing is done now, I fear that very soon there may be nothing left to do anything about. I know that His Majesty's Government have protested and requested, and done so many times. A full statement of the successive steps taken by the Government was given to Parliament on 13th August last. I hope that the Minister of State will not waste time this evening by giving us once again a long catalogue of protests, which only makes it evident that these alone are completely ineffective. Since what has already been done by way of protests, however well-intentioned, has clearly proved to be utterly inadequate, I hope the Minister will tell us tonight that some positive action is at last to be taken.

I would remind him that nothing less than the good faith of His Majesty's Government is at stake, because the Government's spokesman in another place pledged the Government to act in clear and unequivocal terms by accepting a Motion which said that such action as may be most appropriate and effective should be taken. The Government, therefore, is, I venture to suggest, committed, and cannot honourably withdraw at the present moment. It is quite obvious that nothing but drastic action will have any effect whatever in the Kremlin. The days of diplomatic notes are over.

It is drastic action for which I ask tonight. Why not? On 3rd January, the Prime Minister spoke out boldly against totalitarian tyranny. Only eight days later the Lord President of the Council said, "We must do things. We must take action." So I ask the Government to take action now, as suggested by a noble Lord in another place, on the lines of parity and reciprocity. There are some 135 Soviet wives in London over and above those of the Embassy who have diplomatic immunity. I suggest that this number should be reduced to that of the wives, British by our law, who have been detained in Russia. It is surely quite intolerable that this large Soviet colony in London should continue to enjoy all the amenities of family life which are so barbarously denied to our own men.

In taking such action we should not be the first nation to stand up for our rights. France has already done so, and even the small republic of Chile had the courage to impound the Soviet Mission at Santiago. We can find a precedent from our own history. Fifteen years ago the Russians imprisoned on false charges seven British engineers. His Majesty's Government took retaliatory action, which involved the passing of an Act of Parliament; and every Member of the House will remember that the British engineers were very speedily set free. I do not doubt that a similar result would speedily follow in this case upon the taking of such action as has been suggested by the noble Lord in another place.

This is not an issue which concerns merely a handful of married couples. I believe that this is a great moral issue, and that it is no less than the question whether a great and proud nation is prepared to neglect the fundamental rights of her own citizens. If this is the case, I believe that we shall lose—and rightly so—our self-respect. If, on the other hand, we show by firm action now that the days of appeasement are over, and that no longer are we prepared to accept the snubs and affronts of the Kremlin, then I believe we shall send a great pulsation of new hope into the hearts of freedom-loving people all over the world, and revive once again the respect for Great Britain that so many of them have recently been beginning to lose.

1.48 a.m.

Mr. Delargy (Manchester, Platting)

I am wholeheartedly in favour of the plea which has been so ably made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). With him, I agree it is absolutely intolerable that Russians should be allowed to live here with their wives when our men's wives are immorally detained in Russia by the Russians. It is intolerable in these circumstances that Russians should live here in luxury. As far as I can see, all Russian delegations live in luxury. I have seen them here; I have seen them in Paris; I have seen them in Brussels, and elsewhere. It is intolerable that they should be allowed to live here—

Mr. W. D. Griffiths (Manchester, Moss Side)

Has the hon. Member any evidence for what he says about the Russians living in luxury?

Mr. Delargy

Certainly. I do not want to go into details of that now. I have been at Soviet receptions and I have seen, even judging from the rooms they occupied—for instance, in the capital of Belgium—that they do live in luxury. However, I do not want to labour the point now. I want to support the hon. Member for Solihull in saying that drastic action ought to be taken on behalf of our men and their wives. The action proposed is drastic. I suggest that those 130 Russian wives here, over and above the wives of those men who enjoy diplomatic immunity, be sent away until such times as the wives of these British citizens be returned here.

This retaliatory action and even the threat of it would not, I think, precipitate any trouble at all. The Russians are realists and, in my opinion, brutal realists, and they would not precipitate trouble for the sake of a few wives. Indeed, I wish their moral principles were so high that they would feel indignant about a few wives, but Stalin and Molotov and Vishinsky, and all these people, are unfortunately completely immune from the pressure of public opinion, because in Russia there is not such a thing as public opinion. Let us show them that here at least there is a public opinion, a powerful thing which influences all of us. Now public opinion in Britain is overwhelmingly in favour of these ladies coming to this country and resuming normal, healthy and happy relations with their husbands. This refusal to allow the Russian wives to join their husbands in this country is not merely an injustice to the wives and husbands—and that in itself is a serious thing—but it is an injustice to us. It is an insult to us. It is a gross impertinence to this country and this Parliament.

1.52 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I would like to associate myself very strongly with the two hon. Members who have spoken. We have to face the fact that if we want to get these women, who are entitled to return, back in this country, we have to deal with the Russians, as the hon. Member said, realistically, because there is only one thing the Russian understands, and that is to be treated as the barbarian he considers himself to be. If you treat him like that, you will get what you want. We are merely asking for ordinary normal human rights to be granted to these people. Normal human rights mean nothing at all to the Russians—or I should say to the Russian Government and not the unhappy people they govern. I beg the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to say he will at last—and he and his right hon. Friend have made many gallant efforts—take the bull by the horns and say, "This is what we are going to do. The Russian wives will go out unless the other women come in."

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

I only want to support in general what has already been said, though I think some of the remarks are a little extreme. I am not certain that the best way to persuade the Russian Government to release these unfortunate wives is to say that all the Russian nation consists entirely of barbarians.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I said the Government, and not these unhappy, people.

Mr. Wyatt

The impression given is that the only thing to do with the Russians is to treat them as barbarians, because that is all they are, and apply retaliatory action. The Government are showing remarkable reluctance to do what has been done in regard to Eastern Europe. They do not hesitate to send a steady stream of protests to the Eastern European countries. The protests have probably been put in the waste paper basket. This is a case of crying "wolf" too often. When the Government want to do something more in the interests of their own nationals, they are not in a position to do so. They do not think we are serious. They think we are making some fuss about something going on in a place like Bulgaria. The Russians do not consider these problems in the same way as we do.

All I ask the Government is, instead of sending protests which go into the waste paper basket, to take some definite action which will indicate to the Russian Government that on this occasion, whatever we may have felt about previous occasions, we happen to be serious. I think that what is wanted is not so much the sending back of the wives of Russians in this country at the moment. We do not want to "bust" up the trade arrangements, and other things of that kind, which are to our mutual benefit. What is required is that we should say that the visas of all Russian personnel in this country who are not covered by diplomatic privilege, will be withdrawn, and that they will not be allowed to return home until the Russian wives are allowed to come here. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying "Oh, goodness" to that. I am offering him an effective form of protest as against protests which are dropped into the waste paper basket.

I am suggesting something which will indicate that we feel seriously about this matter. I am sure that I have not been misjudging my right hon. Friend for two-and-a-half years in thinking that he did feel seriously about this matter. It is not good enough to say that to take retaliatory action would be sinking to the Russian level. Is it sinking to such a terrible level to say that until Russian wives are allowed to come to this country, certain Russian women in this country will not be allowed to return home? I do hope that we will not have tonight from my right hon. Friend all that talk about the difficulty of taking retaliatory action against Russia. This is one way by which we may have a legitimate influence with Russia.

1.57 a.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)

I find myself a little puzzled by the speech which we have just heard. If I understood the hon. Member's words aright, he thinks that our protests to those Eastern countries, to which he considers we have had no response, have been ineffective because they have not been strong enough; but I have noticed that the hon. Member has not raised his voice when these matters were previously under discussion. It is also a pity that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) did not follow the advocacy offered by the noble Lord the last time this subject was debated. It is easy to make party capital, it is easy to have a kick at the Government, and it is easy to advance all kinds of absurdities.

Mr. Delargy

There has not been any endeavour to make party capital out of this. There have been speeches in support on both sides of the House.

Mr. McNeil

The hon. Member must listen to me, and let me make my statement.

Mr. Delargy

It is not party capital.

Mr. M. Lindsay

I am sorry if anything that I said gave that impression. If I said anything which suggested that I was making a party issue out of this matter. I would like to withdraw it.

Mr. McNeil

That is much better. I want to make it plain that on this subject the Government have been concerned with nothing except the fate of these women and of their husbands in this country.

Mr. Lindsay

I would not suggest anything else.

Mr. McNeil

It is easy to point to methods of embarrassing the Soviet administration. One hon. Gentleman said that nothing but drastic action would be effective. What is the authority for the statements made from all parts of the House that drastic action would be effective? How do hon. Members square the statements, first, of saying that the Soviet administration is barbarous and has no concern for a handful of individuals, and then, secondly, suggesting that such brutality as we might be able to show would be effective? It would be more suitable to say that drastic action might prove to be ineffective. Hon. Members should understand that when they ask the Government to commit themselves to brutal action, they are running the risk of having a final position in which these women, whom we cannot reach, may be in a worse state than they are at present.

Three points have been made. There was the suggestion that we might seek to equalise the number of visas. That has been considered, but there are various reasons why it would be extremely difficult to achieve that. For the welfare of this whole community, it might be necessary that there should be some action in regard to visas, but is it suggested that we should withhold visas from Soviet people with whom we wish to treat until there are visas in the opposite direction?

I have had a hurried look at Dod's Parliamentary Companion, because I had it somewhere in my mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) had some legal training, but I find that that is not so. I looked that up, because I wondered why it was suggested we could hold Russian wives in this country. We have no power to hold aliens unless those aliens have committed an offence. As has been said tonight, the last time we did that, there was special Parliamentary legislation, but as things stand, we have no power, and hon. Members cannot ask the Government to take action when they have not got the power.

The third and more attractive suggestion, I think, at first sight, is that we should put out a similar number of Soviet wives until these other Soviet women, who are also British subjects through marriage to British men to whom we have got obligations, are released. But it is not such a parallel as at first sight it would seem to be. The Soviet Government did not put out these British husbands from Soviet territory; they were withdrawn for a variety of reasons. They had finished their tour of duty or it was thought they should be replaced for the reason that they were due for release, and it would not be a parallel to seek to remove the legal authority by which Soviet women can join their husbands in this country—the wives of Soviet citizens discharging an accredited duty in this country.

There is no reciprocal action; there is no reciprocity available to His Majesty's Government along those lines. They might commit themselves to some retaliatory action, but I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to think very carefully about this "slippery slope" and that is what it would be—to which they are asking the Government to commit themselves. In retaliation one action follows another, and there are many possible courses here. Above all, as I have already indicated, I am certain the first victims of any retaliation which we might attempt would be these women who are, I am certain, the first concern of every hon. Member who has addressed himself to this subject.

There is one other possibility, to which His Majesty's Government have given consideration, and that is whether we might raise the matter through some organ of the United Nations. We have considered that, and again it is quite certain that we could embarrass the Soviet administration. That is not our aim. Our aim is to acquire for these women the rights to which we think they are entitled. It will be certain, too, that in the Bill of Human Rights, to which a Commission is at present addressing itself, this subject will come in, and the Soviet administration will have to defend their action. I do not pretend that I hope that will be effective.

His Majesty's Government will continue to be concerned with this subject and will be ready to examine any proposition offered from any part of the House if it is equitable, reasonable and likely to be effective. Our greatest difficulty is that no one knows why the permission is withheld from these women. No one can understand why half of the women were permitted to return here and the other half are still held. Further, no one can find any justification for this in international law or in morality. I have seen it suggested that there is justification for this under Soviet, law. There is not. There have been subsequent decrees, I believe—even on this I am not quite clear —but at the time of the marriages there was no prohibition, no ban and no disapproval. The Soviet administration must understand that this single action has cost them more possible friends than any political activity in which they have indulged. If they wanted to display their willingness to listen to reason and their willingness to accept ordinary international standards of humanity, they would act upon the pleas which this House makes.

The Question having been proposed aften Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes past Two o'Clock.