HL Deb 08 July 1937 vol 106 cc223-34

LORD NEWTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if any of the Basque refugees in this country have expressed a desire to be repatriated, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will facilitate their departure. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question I am, of course, aware that the majority of the refugees in this country are children, and it would obviously be difficult to obtain their views upon a question of this kind. But I understand that they are accompanied by a number of adults in the shape of schoolmasters, nuns, priests, and others, who thoroughly understand the situation and who would be quite capable of giving a definite opinion upon the point which I raise. On May 25 last there was an elaborate statement made with regard to this question by the noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin, representing, I think, the Home Office, and in that statement he explained that this action was not action taken by His Majesty's Government, but action taken by a Committee which called itself the National Joint Committee for Spanish Relief. He stated that this Committee accepted all responsibility in connection with the scheme, and in particular that they were prepared to finance it and were not going to ask the Government for any financial assistance. They also undertook that at the earliest possible moment these refugees should be repatriated.

In conjunction with this statement it was added that the Committee had made most careful inquiries upon the spot with regard to the refugees, and had been most careful that there should be no differentiation as regards religion, class or political opinion. Well, if this principle was rigidly adhered to, it seems to me perfectly obvious that a great number of these refugees must be Nationalist in sympathy, because the Nationalists in Spain far outnumber the supporters of the Government, and I should think it highly probable that there are far more Nationalist sympathisers in Bilbao and in that neighbourhood than there are sympathisers with the Government. That being so, it seems to me that this portion of the refugees ought, after a proper inquiry has been made, to be repatriated without delay. Since Bilbao was occupied by the Nationalists it is in normal conditions, and if anybody doubts whether I am speaking the truth or not I would refer him to the English illustrated papers, which contain photographs of the streets of Bilbao taken only a few days ago which show that this assertion is quite true. The place is perfectly quiet, and except for the fact that the Government have destroyed the bridges and no doubt abstracted all the valuables from the banks and elsewhere and taken them away, the conditions are absolutely normal. There is no reason whatever why the refugees, or at all events this portion of the refugees, should not be sent back there with the smallest possible delay.

On the other hand, supposing it is found upon investigation that there are no Nationalists among them, and nobody wanting to return to the neighbourhood of Bilbao, then that seems to show that the Committee must have been misled and that, no doubt with the best objects in the world, they have brought here a selection of persons who will be utilised for anti-Fascist propaganda. Well, I prefer to take a charitable view, and I feel that the statement of the Committee was no doubt quite correct. They did their best to be impartial. But, even supposing that nobody expressed a desire to go back, I do not see why the remainder should not be repatriated. I say this because I observe that it was stated by the Foreign Secretary only a day or two ago that the French, who have on their hands a much larger number of refugees than we have, are now occupied in sending them back to Spain, to localities where at all events they will be safe. If the French can do that we could do it too. It seems to be a perfectly simple business to send these refugees back to France and to ensure their being transported back to some portion of Spain where they will be safe. It does not seem to me that that is a very difficult task, and I should have thought that, if necessary, Government money could be better expended in that way than by leaving them here.

Of course I am aware that no Government money is at present being spent on maintaining them, and, as I have stated already, the Committee assured the Government that there will be no call upon them. But I know exactly what will happen. They are now being supported by private contributions. If I am not mistaken, there are about 4,000 of these refugees. It is perfectly obvious that voluntary contributions will not last long enough to maintain these people for any length of time, and there will inevitably be a call upon the Government. The Government will be pressed from various quarters to give assistance, and, although they may protest at first, they will eventually give way. The result will be that, Government assistance having once been obtained, we shall have these people quartered here indefinitely.

As I am speaking upon this subject, I cannot refrain from expressing the opinion that this action in bringing the refugees to this country, although creditable to our humanity, is of a very questionable nature. I cannot understand how anybody can contend that this action is consistent with strict neutrality. It is always said of us with great truth that we are a people devoid of imagination. I will ask anybody to whom it has never occurred to consider what would have been our feelings if during the War, when we were blockading Germany, some neutral Power, say Sweden or possibly the United States before they came into the War, had insisted upon sending supplies of food into Germany and had followed that up by taking away a number of noncombatants. I confess that I sometimes speculate as to what would have been the attitude of noble Lords opposite if circumstances had been reversed, if for instance, Cadiz or Malaga were being besieged by the Government forces, and if His Majesty's Government had practically insisted upon food being conveyed to them for their sustenance and had eventually brought non-combatants away.

I have always been given to understand that a belligerent Government, whether it is fighting another foreign Power or whether it is conducting a civil war, is responsible for the safety and welfare of the civilian population and of its women and children. If they are unable to provide the requisite protection and if they refuse to adopt a proposal which has been made in this case that the non-combatants should be conveyed to a place of safety, as was offered by General Franco, then it seems to me that the only possible alternative is to make the best terms they can with the enemy. What the Republican Government have done during this civil war—and I do not think I am using the language of exaggeration here—has been to fight all the time behind the civilian population, behind the women and children. They have abandoned them to the enemy and left them in the lurch, and now they endeavour to hand them over to foreign nations to look after. I am not at all sure in my own mind whether it is the best form of humanity to help non-combatants while the war is going on. I am not at all sure that it is not better to wait until the war is over and then assist the nation to recover. By affording hospitality and shelter to the non-combatant population you are in effect prolonging hostilities, and what everybody must desire, whatever his politics may be, is that this particular war should come to an end as soon as possible. I am unable to see that there was any obligation upon us to take the step we have done, because we have been, on the whole, strictly neutral.

This particular instance which I have quoted is not a serious one, but that does not apply to other nations. All the other great Powers have taken an active part in the war, and no Powers have taken a more active part in the war than France and Russia. If it is a question of leaving such measures to countries on the Government side, then these are the two countries who ought to afford hospitality and shelter. It is not much good thinking of Russia in this connection, because it is doubtful whether anybody would care to go to Russia even in preference to going back to Spain. In the case of France it is different. The French have professed neutrality all through, but everybody knows they have participated in the war for something like a year, and, if it had not been for this participation, the war would have come to an end. It is only fair that they should take the consequences. If they choose to interest themselves actively, and take sides and prolong the war, then the consequences are their own, and they have only themselves to thank.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this subject, but after the speech of the noble Lord I must be allowed to say a few words. It seemed to me that the noble Lord was doing some excellent propaganda for Generalissimo Franco. He asked about sending these children back to Bilbao, and said Bilbao is now very quiet. It probably is very quiet. Has the noble Lord seen some of the photographs which I have seen of Bilbao when the dust is laid after aerial bombing? It usually is very quiet then. I would like to know, if some of these poor little children are going to be repatriated, whether their fathers and mothers are there. From what I have read and know personally a good many of these mothers and fathers have been killed by General Franco's aerial bombers. It is not very often that children are going to revolt when they hear that a place like Bilbao has fallen, but we know from our own newspapers that these children were so upset that they broke camp and had to be brought back by the local police. If that is the feeling of these children, surely your Lordships must understand that their feeling would not be that they wished to go back to Bilbao, which is now being ruled by General Franco.

The noble Lord went on to say that these children are being used for anti-Fascist propaganda. There can be no anti-Fascist or anti-anything propaganda in the case of children who would probably have been maimed or killed by aerial bombs had we not evacuated them. Then the noble Lord talked about neutrality, and so on. Does the noble Lord's mind go back to 1914 when we took a certain number of Belgian refugees into this country? Was there any suggestion then that they should be repatriated to territory occupied by the Germans? That is the position to-day. The noble Lord talked about France and repatriation, and said they were repatriating into Spain again people from Bilbao. That is perfectly true, but they are, as far as I understand, people from the Basque country who go through France in order to get into Catalonia, where so far, thank heaven, General Franco's bombs have not vet percolated.

With regard to the contributions which go to keep these children, I may say that thousands of letters have been received from men and women throughout the country who are willing to take one or two children into their own homes and keep them for the duration of the war, but the Home Office—possibly owing to a scare regarding various diseases—have seen fit to refuse to allow the children to be adopted in this way by people who are willing to take them into their homes. It is nonsense for the noble Lord to suggest that these children would be simply thrown on to the British Government. There are people sufficiently nice-minded in this country who are only too willing to look after these children, and if they cannot take them into their homes, they are prepared to subscribe sufficient money to see that they are kept properly until this dreadful war is over. The arguments of the noble Lord are, it seems to me, on a par with the suggestion that Abyssinian children might be repatriated to Addis Ababa under Mussolini's rule, when probably their parents have been killed or tortured. I sincerely hope we shall hear from the Government that there is no suggestion to repatriate these children.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, I should have liked the speech of the noble Lord who introduced this Question to have passed without comment, and for it to have been left to the judgment of his fellow countrymen. But in the course of his speech he took occasion to suggest that if the circumstances had been altered, and certain other towns had been troubled, Labour people would not have been concerned with starving children. I hope the day will never come when any section of our countrymen will ask what political opinions parents hold when the question is that of starving children. I could reply with some heat and indignation to statements of that kind which the noble Lord all too frequently makes in your Lordships' House. I pass it by with just this remark, that of course the circumstances are dreadfully depressing. The noble Lord says it would be difficult to obtain the views of the children about going home. It would not be difficult at all. Every child wants to go home to its own parents. That is the first thing it would say. One does not suppose that these children ever desired to come, but we are not in the habit, I hope, of asking whether we shall leave children to starve when it is within our power to help them.

I just wanted to say that the Basque Children's Committee have already made it quite clear that they are only acting as the temporary guardians of these children, but that in view of the unsettled condition of their country, the Committee feel that the time has not yet arrived when they could, with safety to the children themselves, take the step of returning them to war conditions. If their parents were in a position to receive them, the Committee would be prepared to facilitate their return at once. The Committee would like it to be known that they have, in fact, sent back one child whose father wrote asking for her to return, and General Franco himself has admitted that Bilbao is unfit for foreigners at the present time and will be so until conditions change. The Committee concerned are not of that wild type which the noble Lord would ask you to believe. It is true they have the disadvantage of including among their number members of the Trade Union Congress, but there are also the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and representatives of the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends, the Save-the-Children Fund and others. They have tried to do, in exceptional circumstances, what I hope our countrymen will always be willing to do, without respect to any man's religion or the political Party to which he belongs—namely, give help so far as they can to children who are suffering as these children have been suffering.

LORD STRICKLAND

My Lords, I rise to ask of the noble Earl who represents the Foreign Office a question which arises from the speech of the noble Lord who raised the Question before the House. The remarks of the noble Lord appear to have been based on the assumption that both the contending parties in Spain are in the fall sense of the word "belligerents." Before actually formulating my question with reference to that point, may I say that Parliamentary language appears to me to be inadequate to express appreciation of the ability and forethought of the action taken by the Foreign Office in reference to Spain throughout the unfortunate circumstances which prevail. Nothing but praise can in this matter be directed to His Majesty's Government; and it might also be said that fortune has favoured them. The attitude which everybody in this country undoubtedly wishes the Government to maintain is one which, when the controversy is over, will place England in the most friendly relations with the whole of Spain, and not with any section of Spain. The charity and consideration which have been extended on every possible occasion by His Majesty's Government and by His Majesty's forces indiscriminately and without partiality in Spain wherever opportunity has been offered deserves the greatest praise, and no exception whatever can arise from the circumstances indicated by the noble Lord who raised the question before your Lordships' House regarding repatriation.

But from his speech a specific question arises, on which your Lordships might like to have an answer from the Government Benches. It arises not only from that speech but also because at the present moment neither of the contending parties in Spain can trace under International or Constitutional Law legitimate succession under any mandate to a previous legal Government either arising from the will of the people of all Spain constitutionally expressed or from claims traced from hereditary right. Nevertheless the question is glaring under International Law—namely, whether it is a matter of reckoning with one belligerent, or with two belligerents, or with no belligerent that should be recognised preferentially by International Law. If one only of the contending parties be recognised as a belligerent the other party and the ships of the other party should be treated as pirates either inside the three mile limit or outside it. And from the point of view of International Law there is no escape from this position. We have to admit, perhaps reluctantly, and as a certain necessity, that in this complication the matter before the House cannot be treated logically, or even argued seriously, until it has been settled whether one lawful belligerent or two belligerents are to be recognised as such, not by one Government or several Governments but by all Governments, according to the heretofore accepted principles of International Law. Let us hope that this question may be answered.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, I want to intervene for a few minutes only. I have had nothing whatever to do with the Committee which manages the camps or with the Committee which gave this invitation to the children, but I have visited a camp frequently which is very close to Winchester. I should, therefore, like to make one or two comments on the speech which was made by the noble Lord who has asked this Question. He based his criticism against taking the children away from Spain on the ground that if the children had remained there it might have hastened the end of the war, and he regarded the children as counters in this horrible war. In other words, the more children that were killed in this war the quicker would one side or the other have surrendered. I entirely agree with the policy of the Government of non-intervention, but this country, where it can save children from the horrors of war wherever that war may be, surely is justified in doing so. I saw these children when they first came. They were overstrained, terrified and nerve-stricken, and the change in them has been quite remarkable during the months they have been in the camp.

The noble Lord suggested that he was afraid a number of these children all belonged to one Party, though he admitted that the Committee did their utmost to see that all children were sent here irrespective of parties. I can assure him that one of the difficulties in the early days of the camp was to prevent the supporters of the Government from fighting the supporters of General Franco. I admit there were other cleavages in the camp, but certainly there were many children representatives of each party, and I have seen a tent with scrawled upon it the words "Fascist Tent." Therefore, a genuine attempt to bring children away irrespective of party was made. The noble Lord asked whether the children expressly desired to go back. As the noble Lord opposite has said, if you ask a child when he has been away three or four weeks from home whether he wants to go home, almost invariably he will say that he does.

LORD NEWTON

I said clearly that the people to be consulted were those in charge of the children, not the children themselves.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

I do happen through an interpreter to have spoken to a certain number of those who are in charge of them. I think the noble Lord is referring to the Spanish teachers. There are no male teachers among them. There are only women teachers, and most of them are quite young. I certainly understood that, though they naturally would wish the children to return to Spain as soon as possible, yet they did not wish to go back themselves, and they do not wish the children to go back until they are satisfied that it is safe for them to do so. I have no kind of independent knowledge as to whether it is safe for the children to go back or not, but I understand from the members of the Committee that they have always taken the line that as soon as it is safe these children will go back to Spain. I imagine that the Foreign Office here, after communication with the authorities in Spain, will say so as soon as it is possible for these children to be sent back safely to their own country. But to send them back while the country is still unsafe will undo the good which has been done to these poor children.

LORD CROMWELL

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, if I understood him rightly, appears to have asked two questions, the first being whether the refugees have expressed a desire to be repatriated. If the answer to that is in the negative, naturally enough the Government are not concerned with the second part of the question; but, assuming that it is in the affirmative, then I think it will be very helpful to know what the Government policy is in this connection. It is quite true to say, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, that there is no doubt private subscription will not be able to compete with this question if the children are to stay in this country a very long time. I myself, who sit on the same side as the noble Lord in this House, would have wished that he should have confined himself to asking the first question, and, if that question had been answered in the affirmative, of justifying his reasons for the Government facilitating their departure; but, unfortunately, the noble Lord did not confine himself to that. He entered into a lot of details such as which countries were supporting which side in the Spanish war. I think myself that as this country has declared itself to be entirely neutral, it is better for us officially, or at any rate in our official speeches in an official House, to assume that other countries are doing the same. I will leave that point and will only conclude with this, that I think—and I am glad to say that I think it is true—that history is full of instances of this nature in which this country has helped the under dog, and although at the time it has appeared to be quite unjustifiable from a material point of view, judged from that standard only, as history rolls on I think it has been justified materially as well as for humanitarian reasons. From the fact that the name of this country has stood through the ages so high it has been able to stand as high as it does to-day.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)

My Lords, I am afraid I have little to add to what has already been said upon this subject before, and I do not think that your Lordships will expect me to deal with the various issues—controversial, most of them, and some of them irrelevant, if I may say so—which have been raised during the course of this debate. As a matter of fact in so far as these issues are concerned the speeches to which we have listened have to a very large extent answered one another. I would only point out once again the actual position so far as these children refugees are concerned. I want to repeat what has been explained before in your Lordships' House, and on numerous occasions outside, that it is the National joint Committee for Spanish Relief which is responsible for the maintenance of these refugees financially and in other ways, and that this Committee has undertaken to arrange for their repatriation as soon as circumstances will permit.

So far as the actual questions asked by the noble Lord are concerned, I would say in reply to the first that the Secretary of State has no information at present as to whether any of the refugees have expressed their desire to return to Spain. He has asked for a report from His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye on the whole of the question, and your Lordships will agree with me, I think, that a report from him is of the first importance in coming to any decision on the matter. On the receipt of this report he will consider the desirability of approaching the Committee with a view to ascertaining their intentions in regard to the matter. As regards facilities for departure, I would say that no permission from the Home Office or from any Government Department is needed for this particular purpose as an alien does not require permission to leave the country. I would add that His Majesty's Government will naturally put no obstacle in the way of the repatriation of these refugees.

The noble Lord, Lord Strickland, asked me a question, the full purport of which I am afraid I did not entirely appreciate, but it raised a question of belligerent rights. I hope he will not mind my saying that I cannot see that that is very relevant to the issues we are discussing. I can only say that this is a very delicate matter and I do not think your Lordships will expect me in the circumstances in which we are placed to give any answer with regard to that particular issue.

House adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.