§ 56. Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a notorious prostitute from Piccadilly, suffering from a loathsome disease, interned at Aylesbury, has been placed among British and Irish political in ternees, not accused of any moral turpitude; and, if so, whether he will have this state of affairs remedied?
Mr. SAMUELI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Salford.
§ Mr. GINNELLDoes the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement in this question?
§ 57. Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary when it is intended to release and make amends to the two ladies interned at Aylesbury for friendship with Indian-British subjects, Miss Howsin, English, and Miss Brunner, Swiss; why they were not released when the Home Office became aware that they had no German associations or sympathies; alleged admissions by them being wholly false, will he specify the charge on which they are now detained 471 and give them a free opportunity of dealing with it; and if he will state what the reason has been for secrecy regarding both the charge and the treatment in the cases of these two untried ladies?
Mr. SAMUELThese two ladies are interned under Regulation 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The procedure under this Regulation was the subject of a full statement by me in the Debate on 2nd March and has been dealt with in replies to previous questions by the hon. Member. The circumstances in which Miss Howsin was interned were explained by the Attorney-General in the Debate on 23rd March; Miss Brunner was interned for similar reasons. I am satisfied that both of them are well aware of the grounds on which the Orders for their internment were made, that they have had ample opportunities of making representations to the Advisory Committee and to me, and that in the interests of the defence of the Realm they must remain interned.
§ Major NEWMANWas Miss Brunner an English subject?
§ 58. Mr. GINNELLasked where the rules can be seen, and by whom made, under which some prisoners interned at Aylesbury are not allowed to consult a solicitor on any subject, some allowed to consult on private business, but only in the presence of a wardress, none allowed to consult regarding the internment, none allowed to complain of any treatment, insanitary conditions, or other menace to health, and for breach, or attempted breach, of any of these rules, punished by loss of all letters and visits at the discretion of the governor; and whether such rules have ever been submitted to this House for approval?
Mr. SAMUELThe same rules apply to all the prisoners interned at Aylesbury, and any who can show reasonable ground for desiring to see a solicitor with regard to private affairs are allowed to do so in the presence of a wardress. They were all free to obtain legal assistance for the purpose of their appeal to the Advisory Committee, but any subsequent representations as to their internment must be made to the Secretary of State or, as regards their treatment, to the two lady visitors. The rules are made by the Prison Com- 472 missioners with my approval; they have not been and do not require to be submitted to the House.
§ Mr. GINNELLCannot the right hon. Gentleman modify the rules so as to allow an interview between prisoners and visitors in business matters?
§ Mr. GINNELLYes, but in the absence of wardresses?
Mr. SAMUELI do not think it would be safe to do that in connection with these persons, many of whom in Aylesbury are interned under suspicion of espionage.