Mr. SOERMUS. (Hansard, 20 July 1931)

§ Sir BASIL PETO
I wish to call attention to one or two questions I have put in the last week or so with regard to the administration of the Aliens Order 1920. Nearly three weeks ago I asked the Home Secretary why a Russian Soviet citizen named Soermus had been allowed to land in this country. I asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Soermus, the Communist violinist, is in this country; and on what grounds has he been readmitted in view of the fact that he was previously deported for subversive propaganda? The reply to that from the Under-Secretary was: The deportation order made against Soermus was revoked in January, 1924"— that was in the early days of the previous Labour Government— and since that date he has been free to visit this country if he could get leave to land at the port. Such leave has been granted him from time to time both under the previous and the present Government. In March last, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend decided to cancel the condition attached to his leave to land on the latest occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1931; col. 1061, Vol. 254.] The House will notice that that answer implied that leave to land was granted by the immigration officer at the port. As a matter of fact, under the Aliens Order the responsibility does not rest upon that officer at all. Under Part I, Section 1, Sub-section (4): 1210 The Secretary of State or an immigration officer in accordance with general or special instructions of the Secretary of State may attach such conditions as he may think fit to the grant of permission to an alien to land and the alien shall comply with the conditions attached. The House will notice that, except with the special or general instructions of the Secretary of State, the immigration officer has no power in the matter whatever. The answer given me was not only very unsatisfactory but was calculated to mislead the House. On 6th July I asked a further question, and this time had the advantage of a reply from the Secretary of State himself. I asked: What were the conditions attached to Soermus's leave to land in this country which were cancelled in March last; and by whom and for what reason these conditions were imposed? To this the right hon. Gentleman replied: When Mr. Soermus arrived at Graves-end in December last the Immigration Officer in the exercise of his discretion under the Aliens Order gave him leave to land for three months. It was this time condition which I decided in March last to cancel. I have already pointed out that there is no such power given to an immigration officer at all. He merely carries out the directions given to him either special or general by the Secretary of State. Then I asked as a supplementary question: Was the only condition attached to this gentleman's landing in this country simply that he had permission to land for three months? The reply was: At the time to which I have referred, I think that was so, but at an earlier stage a prior condition was made that he must not play in this country. I know no grounds on which I ought now to interfere with the freedom of movement of a very accomplished musician."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1931; col. 1725, Vol. 254.] Upon receipt of the reply, I gave notice to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment. I would like the House to know—and the Home Secretary will not deny—that the actual condition imposed by a previous Government on the freedom to land and upon this gentleman's movements was that he should not play at Communist meetings which were advertised in the "Weekly Worker," now known as the "Daily Worker," to raise funds for Communist propaganda. That was the actual condition imposed, and that is what has now been removed.
1211 I want to raise a further question. I want to know whether these conditions which have now been laid down to be carried out toy emigration officers apply only at Gravesend or all the ports in the country, and whether they are general or special. I would now ask the House to consider the answer that I received to the latest question which I put. I asked the Home Secretary if he would state how many Soviet citizens have been permitted to land since the 1st July, 1929, who have been previously refused to land, and how many Soviet subjects are now under similar conditions. The answer I received to that question was that he regretted that the available statistics did not enable him to give the figures asked for. It is common knowledge that there were no statistics in the sense raised in the question. It is perfectly clear that none of my questions, certainly not the earliest, could possibly have been answered by the Home Office if there were no records at the Home Office, and he could easily have given me this reply.
I ask the Home Secretary if he will give me an answer to the two points, first, as to whether he attached any condition whatever in the particular case to which I have called attention, and secondly, whether he is aware that there were very good reasons for the conditions which were imposed in that particular case by the previous Government. What is more important, I want to know whether his removal of all these conditions on free landing into this country of Communists from Soviet Russia have been general and have to be operated by the immigration officials. I want to know if under this complete freedom Communists are allowed to land here and propagate their doctrines amongst members of the military forces or citizens generally. I want to know how many of those gentlemen have arrived in this country, and are actually carrying on their Communist propaganda with the connivance and approval of the Secretary of State. These are pertinent questions, and I hope that the Secretary of State will be able in the few minutes that remain to give me a satisfactory reply.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes)
I thank the hon. Baronet for having 1212 given me personal notice that he intended to raise to-night the question of Mr. Soermus. I do not think that in the short time at my disposal he will expect me to deal with the two other matters that he mentioned, namely, the whole question of the regulations and what I have done under them, and the question of the activities of Russians alleged to be Communist agents in this country. I am compelled to limit myself to the one point. I do not think that the hon. Baronet will consider that in regard to this case he has a good subject for criticism, not to say censure. There has been no change in what I have done as compared with what my predecessors did in 1924 and the following years, except that I have given to Mr. Soermus freedom to play his instruments at concerts and musical gatherings, or, it may be, even at Communist meetings, for perhaps music at Communist meetings would do Communism no harm. The case goes as far back as 1916, when Mr. Soermus came to this country. He came as a professional violinist, not as a Communist agent. I do not know whether he is a Communist; I do not believe that he is. I have no record or evidence of his indulging in any subversive propaganda, and perhaps the hon. Baronet will adduce some evidence if he wishes to press that case on some future occasion.
In May, 1918, Mr. Soermus was asked to leave the country, because the authorities at that time concluded that his playing aroused such emotions and excitement on the part of people as to embarrass them in the maintenance of law and order. That at any rate was their view. The present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary in 1924, decided to revoke the deportation order under which Mr. Soermus had been sent out of the country. Later, my predecessor, the present Lord Brentford, on a number of occasions, had applications to admit Mr. Soermus to this country and he was admitted, on certain restrictions and limitations which have been mentioned, but still, he was admitted. Then, I had to deal with the question in December last year, and I gave him facilities for a visit to this country of three months. Later I discontinued that time condition, as I had discontinued the condition which was, I think, quite inadmissible, 1213 to prevent him appearing at concerts and musical gatherings if he was permitted to be in the country at all. I do not know that Mr. Soermus at any time has said or done anything to the detriment of the country. Nothing has been found against him. He is a musician of talent and I see no ground whatever for interfering with the freedom that has been given him.

§ Sir B. PETO
Has the right hon. Gentleman searched the records of the 1214 "Daily Worker" for advertisements of Mr. Soermus's concerts?

§ Mr. CLYNES
The "Daily Worker" is the very last place to which I should go for facts. I might have added that Mr. Soermus's wife is an Englishwoman.