HC Deb 21 February 1958 vol 582 cc1638-50

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

4.15 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

After the pantomime performance that we have had over an alleged injustice on a collective basis, I welcome this opportunity to refer to injustice to an individual. It would be a sad day for the House of Commons if time were not given for so important a matter as injustice done to an individual.

I refer to the refusal, which has been supported by the Colonial Secretary, on the part of the East African High Corn-mission countries and on the part of the Central African Federation, to provide an entry permit, a visitor's permit, for Mr. Basil Davidson. He is an English subject who wishes to go to those countries for the purpose of historical study under the supervision and instruction of one of the greatest archaeological experts in the world, the Reverend Dr. Gervase Mathew.

The House will be aware of the antecedents and experience of Mr. Davidson. He is a writer and journalist. Those of us who read his article in the Manchester Guardian on the position in the Sudan will compare it not unfavourably with more pretentious articles written in less worthy newspapers because it shows that he has a reasonable and commonsense approach to the problems involved. Mr. Davidson gave devoted war service to the country. He was one of the newspaper correspondents who covered the Hungarian revolution, with such effect that the Soviet Government branded him as "A British agent who was himself responsible for the Hungarian revolt."

Mr. Davidson is hated by the Communists throughout the world. He has done great damage to the cause of Communism by his attitude over Hungary. His record in Africa as a commentator on events there is probably unrivalled. I ought to add that he is a prohibited immigrant in South Africa. Probably, in time, this will be recognised as an accolade that is given to people who fight injustice and racial discrimination wherever it emerges.

Mr. Davidson wanted to go to East Africa and the Central African Federation to pursue his historical studies, a purely non-political purpose. He has theories about the part played thousands of years ago by the African peoples in the development of civilisation. He was going—I hesitate to use the word—for a cultural purpose.

In his application for a visitor's permit Mr. Davidson mentioned that he was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and by myself. If the Government had any feeling that I might have been reckless in my recommendation they could not possibly have the same feeling about my hon. Friend, who is known for the caution and the carefulness with which he expresses himself, and for the fact that in no circumstances would he lend his name to support any cause or man that he thought unworthy of it.

Armed with this support, Mr. Davidson had consultations with the Colonial Office in this country and sought their advice on his itinerary. Officers of the Colonial Office gave him every assistance they possibly could. He applied in mid-October for a permit to the countries which I have mentioned, Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and the Central African Federation. There was a long delay. He went to the East African office and was told by the immigration officer that he would have to await instructions.

On 20th November, more than a month after he asked for the permit, he was told by the immigration officer, "No, you cannot enter these countries." He was advised to appeal. The appeal was rejected by the three East African countries—by Uganda on 28th November, by Tanganyika on 29th November, and by Kenya on 31st December.

I put this seriously to the Minister. It looks as though the decision to ban Mr. Davidson was taken, first, by Kenya and then, the Kenya Government having taken the decision, they transmitted their view to the others, which followed suit. I want to know whether when people apply for entry permits that is the course taken. A letter saying "No" was sent to Mr. Davidson by the East African High Commission in London, dated 20th November. The Governor in Tanganyika did not put his stamp on it until two days later. How does the immigration officer know what the decision of the Tanganyika Government is unless he knows that, Kenya having refused permission, the other countries would automatically refuse?

No permit is required for admission to Central Africa. Mr. Davidson went to the Federation offices and discussed his plans. He asked for an itinerary and the general help which the Colonial Office had been giving him in the case of the East African countries. He made application and was told on 16th December that he was declared by the Executive Council a prohibited immigrant.

No reasons were given, but, in a conversation with the officer in charge, it was made quite clear to him that the reasons were, first, his criticism of the white settler policy and, secondly, his opposition to Dominion status under existing conditions. Thirdly, he was told that this decision to regard him as a prohibited immigrant might be reconsidered if his opposition to the cry for Dominion status was withdrawn. I must be perfectly fair. The Central African Federation officer denied that he made that remark. Mr. Davidson, on the other hand, told me of the conversation within a day or so of his interview. Knowing him, I believe what he says to be absolutely true.

On that basis I put this point. Has the situation now arisen that if a member of the Labour Party, a Socialist, criticises the white settlers' policy, the white settlers themselves will decide and determine to exclude him? Has free criticism disappeared entirely from Central Africa in this way? Why are the powers and authority of the Colonial Secretary being usurped in this manner? It looks as if decisions and conclusions are taken in Nairobi, not in Dar es Salaam, or Kampala, in Salisbury and not in Lusaka, or Zomba. This really will not do. Tanganyika is a Trustee Territory. We have a representative in New York at the United Nations explaining—and, I hope, not having to defend—our attitude and behaviour in Tanganyika. It is not up to the Nairobi Government to decide beforehand, without hearing Mr. Davidson, whether he shall be admitted to Uganda and Tanganyika.

I know that the Minister will say, "We cannot disclose the information on which the Government have acted and the Labour Government themselves never divulged any information in such circumstances." We have been wearied by such remarks over and over again. The Government must stop trying always to make virtues out of our vices. The fact that the Labour Government failed to do something is no justification for this Government continuing the same failure.

Mr. Davidson has been given no reason why he is barred. I think I know why he is barred; it is because a stupid "copper" thinks that he is a Communist. That is the reason. I do not believe that there is any criticism at all of Mr. Davidson's moral behaviour. If there were, it would be completely laughable to those of us who know him to be a devoted family man. That is not the reason at all.

A stupid, ill-informed fellow has probably got hold of a very old M.I.5 list—and goodness knows, they are not reliable when they are fresh—which says. "This man is a Communist and he is not to to be admitted." Without giving Davidson the slightest chance to disprove this, he is told that he cannot be admitted and, furthermore, that he cannot be told why he cannot be admitted.

A British citizen has the right to know the reason for charges laid against him, and surely, within the ordinary appreciation of human rights, when a Briton is refused admission to any Colonial Territory he should be told why. He should have the right to go before "three wise men" in exactly the same way as a civil servant accused of a breach of security, or of whom it is alleged that security reasons make it necessary to move him from his job, can go before "three wise men" and make his case.

I urge upon the Minister that a Briton wanting to go to a part of the British Commonwealth, in particular to the Colonies, should have a right to appear before the "three wise men," to make his case, to listen to the charges and perhaps to ask that the findings and the hearings should be in public. That is an ordinary human right which we give to a man if he is charged with riding a bicycle without a light he is allowed to go before a court and to present his case.

Here, however, all the paraphernalia of Government is used to do as much possible harm to a man whose policy the Government do not like. The whole of this atmosphere gives the impression that we have something to hide and that we do not want an experienced journalist of Mr. Davidson's standard and standing to go to a country and to describe what goes on there. What have we to hide? Why should we try to hide the truth? What we are trying to hide here is the historical truth, because we are telling Mr. Davidson that he cannot go to Africa and find out what went on thousands and thousands of years ago.

This is the sort of thing which makes a mockery of liberty, and I suggest to the Minister that he ask his right hon. Friend, before the latter goes off into the brewery business, to have another look at this situation and to decide that there shall be no more exclusion of honest writers and journalists who, in the interest of culture and their profession, want to visit countries which should welcome them with open arms.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I wish to take only two minutes to express my protest against this malicious piece of petty prosecution. There is no other way in which I can describe it. We all know Mr. Davidson's record. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), I do not know whether the reason in the Government's mind is that they think he is a Communist, but I flatly believe that the Governors out there are moving more and more into a position where they are trying to exclude people if their political views are not in accordance with those of the Governors. Whether that may be so or not, I say to the Government that they have smeared Mr. Davidson and they owe him a duty to advance the reasons why they have done so. If they do not advance those reasons, we shall believe, and we shall continue to believe, that this is not a matter of which they should be very proud.

There have been other cases of this nature, and although this debate is about Mr. Davidson, I shall mention them. There was the Sheikh Ali Muhsin Barwani, of the Zanzibar Executive Council, who was refused permission to leave the country in order to attend the conference they had in Cairo. Another case was brought to my attention only this week by Mr. Morgan Phillips. It is of a young Devonshire man, Eric Marles, whose father-in-law, living in Devon, has written to say that Marks, who has been working in Nairobi as an architect and town planner since 1953, has been refused a renewal of his entry permit, and has to return home.

This man was a bomber pilot in the war. According to his father-in-law, he has never been interested in politics, and has never been a member of any political organisation. Why, then, should he be excluded? As far as I can see, there is only one reason. According to the information that I have received, he had the temerity to entertain my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) when he was out there.

Really, Mr. Speaker, where are we getting to? I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government simply will not get away with this on an Adjournment debate. Far too serious issues are emerging about the exclusion of British subjects from these territories for us to be fobbed off today with a routine reply by the Under-Secretary of State. Does his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary accept full responsibility for these acts? The people who are committing these acts are his servants, and he is, therefore, responsible to this House.

The Governor is responsible to the Colonial Secretary, and the Colonial Secretary is responsible to this House. He is, therefore, indirectly excluding from these British territories people against whom there is no charge of any sort, and against whom, on the testimony of reliable people, no charge could reasonably be made. I tell the Government that they are taking upon themselves a very heavy responsibility in this matter, which is one to which we shall have to return again.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

I want to add my own complaint to those that are piling up against the Minister. I have been occupied with this matter for some months, and on Tuesday last I used terms like "puerile behaviour" and "fatuous." A case that I should like to mention is that of George Hauser. I took up this case months and months ago. I am sure that no "copper" can have anything against this man, because I cleared him myself. I contacted the United States Embassy, and made inquiries in Washington in the autumn.

Mr. Hauser is a Quaker and a pacifist, and it is just a bit thick when such men are smeared in this way. He has behind him, on his American-African Committee, people like Chesney Bowles, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and other people in the U.S.A. and it is bad when people like this can be put on a list. Is there a list? Will the Minister be forthcoming about this, because on Tuesday last his right hon. Friend said that responsibility lay with him, and he went on to say that he had complete faith in the Governors and Executive Councils in Dar es Salaam, Kampala and elsewhere.

Is it possible, really, for any Governor merely to tell the Colonial Secretary that he wishes such and such a man to be barred? After all, in the final analysis, this House of Commons does govern these Colonies—and what good does this do, anyway? Is there much use in barring two, four or twenty-four citizens when hundreds of students come here to London and elsewhere and see our people? It really is like the small Dutch boy who put his finger in the hole in the dyke to stop the flood—if the flood is there.

We should take this matter out of the hands of some people who are behaving in this way. No one wishes in any way to derogate from the authority of a Governor and his Executive Council, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that there is a case for an all-party Committee of the House to whom appeal can be made by people of this standing, and to whom—in secret if that is so desired—their protestations or views can he made? The moment we have this apparently ad hoc finding there is at once suspicion that there is a black list somewhere, and that it is merely a question of the Governor saying that someone's presence is uncomfortable to him for that person to be barred entry.

4.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo)

As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) assumed when he was speaking, this is not a matter in which I am prepared to depart from the principles which have already been laid down by my right hon. Friend, who made it perfectly clear the other day that, in accordance with well-established principles, he is not prepared to make public the reasons why any individual has been or, indeed, is declared a prohibited immigrant into a Colonial Territory.

I do, however, detect behind the speeches which have been made something considerably deeper than a protest over one or other individual case which has come to light. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This amounts to concern about the administration of Colonial legislation governing the entry of people into the Colonial Territories. It is this concern which I should like to try to dispel this afternoon, even if we have to discuss it again another time.

Let us start with the fact that every Colonial Territory has legislation governing the entry of people who are not what is called "natives" of the territory. These immigration laws, of course, vary from territory to territory, but in each case they have been enacted by the local legislatures to meet local needs and circumstances with the general purpose of protecting the interests of the local community and safeguarding its welfare.

The development of these laws has gone on under successive Secretaries of State, no matter what party has been in office, and it has been accepted right the way through that a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom who does not belong to a territory is not automatically entitled to enter or remain in any particular territory. After careful study of Departmental records, I cannot find any evidence at all that there has ever been any difference of opinion about this principle.

Nor in fact in this respect are Colonial Territories out of line with Commonwealth practice. Apart from the United Kingdom, the immigration laws of Commonwealth countries generally regulate the entry of all people who are not citizens or permanent residents of those countries.

It has been consistently accepted as a general principle that it is right and necessary for Governments to have within such laws the power to exclude such individuals as are considered undesirable as visitors or immigrants. I am convinced that that proposition could not be denied by anyone who is honestly and seriously concerned with the discharge of the responsibilities of government in our overseas territories. This power has existed and has been exercised by Colonial Governments for many years.

The current provisions in East African immigration legislation are derived precisely and without any change from the provisions inserted in parallel ordinances enacted in the three East African Territories in 1948. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in his place, because he was Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time. These ordinances start by listing the type of people who will at all times be prohibited immigrants. Then they go on to provide for the exclusion of any people who, in consequence of information received from any reliable source, are considered by the Principal Immigration Officer to be "undesirable immigrants."

Sir L. Plummer

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied about that?

Mr. Profumo

I think I had better explain the whole case first. There then follows a most important proviso which exists in all this sort of legislation—that any decision of the Principal Immigration Officer on this category of person shall be subject to the confirmation or otherwise of the Governor-in-Council.

Finally the laws state categorically—and this is significant—that the decision of the Governor-in-Council shall be final. The authors of this legislation in 1948, no doubt, thought it right that once the essential safeguard of consideration by the Governor-in-Council—not the Governor alone—had been established, there should be no further argument or appeal. That has been the case ever since.

What we are discussing today is the exercise of this power in the case of a particular individual. I have already indicated that I am not prepared to break with wise precedent and disclose the reason for any particular decision, but this I must try to impress upon hon. Members. These individual decisions are made under laws expressly designed to meet local needs and circumstances, and it is, therefore, right and proper that they should be made by the only authority able to judge the case in the light of all the information available and against the background of local needs and circumstances. That is the Governor in Executive Council, which is the constitutionally appointed executive body of the territory concerned.

Mr. Callaghan

A decade has gone by since that legislation was set up. Since that time in this country we have set up special machinery—I believe in 1950 or 1951—for dealing with cases where there seems to be an element of security risk in a man's employment. Will not the Under-Secretary consider having some similar kind of machinery set up to review these cases?

Mr. Profumo

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think I ought to explain the principles in this case. I am not pleased, because I have gone into the background—[Interruption.]—I am not trying to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for this legislation, although one hon. Member made that point. I think it was the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter. If we thought that legislation was wrong, it would be up to us to change it, but I do not consider that it is wrong. I do not consider that, as the hon. Gentleman said—I thought rather unfairly—there is any question of malicious persecution or any ideas of that kind. This question is reviewed and decided by the Governor-in-Council. One hon. Member talked about "three wise men."

Sir L. Plummer

I did.

Mr. Profumo

I thought it was the hon. Member for Deptford. There is an appeal to the Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

Was Mr. Davidson heard?

Mr. Profumo

No. I said that cases are reviewed by the Governor-in-Council, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been listening to me, he would have heard me say that, when the Principal Immigration Officer takes decisions of this sort, by law they are subject to review by the Governor-in-Council, and that always has been so.

I have heard it suggested that this case indicates that the East African Territories are slipping out of even the formal control of the Colonial Office, and that the functions of the Colonial Office are being usurped. That is a bogus argument. Let me repeat that the power and the decision is and always has been vested by law in the local Governor-in-Council, not in the Secretary of State or in the Colonial Office.

If, under our general Colonial policy, the progressive devolution of authority to territorial Governments means anything at all, it must surely be extended to this kind of judgment and decision. The question at issue is whether it is desirable to allow an individual to enter a particular country in all the local conditions and circumstances—not whether an individual is acceptable or not in London to the Secretary of State or the Colonial Office. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways—by demanding local freedom whenever the hand of Whitehall appears to be misdirected, but Whitehall control when local decisions appear to be unpalatable.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

This is Moscow.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield)

I should like to make the point that, to the best of my recollection, in the East African legislation which has been quoted, the essential purpose there was to safeguard the African position in the light of a great deal of Indian immigration; and, further, it was most desirable that certain types of undesirable people should be kept out of the territory.

Mr. Profumo

I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, with all the knowledge which he has of the time when this legislation was being framed. The point I am trying to make—and I am trying most sincerely, because I do understand that there is a genuine feeling about this—

Mr. Brockway

Moscow.

Mr. Profumo

If it were Moscow, the hon. Gentleman would not be allowed to sit there and listen to a Minister.

I most respectfully suggest to the House that we should have considerably greater grounds for apprehension if such decisions, in law and in practice, lay to be taken not locally and individually, but centrally and universally by bureaucratic procedure in Whitehall.

It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that the decision followed upon the refusal of entry to Mr. Davidson by the South African authorities, and that this was in some way a sign of the spread of certain political philosophies into East Africa. Let me say quite clearly that the East African decision had no connection whatever with the decisions reached or the views held elsewhere in the Commonwealth. It is entirely in the discretion—

Sir L. Plummer

I am sure that the Minister does not want to misquote me. I said that Mr. Davidson had been a prohibited immigrant in South Africa, but I did not say that there was any connection between the two. I said that he had been disbarred from South Africa at the time, and that that was an accolade of honour.

Mr. Profumo

It was suggested that there might be some connection. Of course, there is no connection at all. These discretions are entirely in the hands of the immigration officers, and this was gone into in the same way as all other cases are. In each case, the matter was looked at by the Governor-in-Council, and "the Governor-in-Council" means that representatives of all communities concerned in East Africa had a hand in it. It was not done by my right hon. Friend; it never is. It never is done by a Governor on his own.

I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), if he were Colonial Secretary, would not want or feel it right to take these decisions, taking them out of the hands of those who have legally been given the right and duty to carry out the responsibility.

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter to Five o'clock.