CLAUSE I. — (Removal of detained personsto Isle of Man.) (Hansard, 3 April 1941)

§ Mr. Silverman
I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to add: Provided that such detention shall not be deemed lawful custody while any proceedings in which the validity of the original detention is in issue remain undecided. For those of us who spoke on the Second Reading the leading element in our uneasiness and anxiety over this Bill is the feeling that in some way, if men who are detained are removed to the Isle of 1269 Man, their scanty remaining privileges under the law will either disappear or be removed. I understand it is the view of the Government that that is a groundless fear. I understand that they do not desire that any of the rights and"privileges of these people shall be in any way affected by this Bill. They bring it forward as a matter purely of administrative convenience, and perhaps in some circumstances of military necessity; but so long as those requirements are satisfied, the Government do not seek to take away from these detained persons any right which, but for this Bill, they would enjoy, if that is so, I respectfully suggest that they should put it beyond all doubt by accepting this Amendment, or some other form of words which appears to them to embody that principle and to carry it out more effectively.
The Bill provides that people detained under Regulation 18B, or under, I think, 12A, the relevant Regulation under the Aliens Act, 1914, shall be removable to the Isle of Man, and while so detained shall be deemed to be in lawful custody. If this Amendment were accepted, I submit that the Government would lose nothing which they desire and would satisfy a good many fears which many of us have. If it were not deemed that detention in the Isle of Man were lawful custody at any time when the validity of the original Order under which the detention took place were under review by the courts, that would have the result not of setting the man at liberty but of making it necessary that he should be retained in this country until those proceedings were decided. What in the world would the Government lose by accepting that proposal? I suggest nothing.
It is in every way more convenient that a man who is seeking the protection of the British courts shall be within their jurisdiction—I do not mean only their technical jurisdiction, but should be immediately available on the spot. It would be in the highest degree inconvenient to a man who wished to challenge the action of the Home Secretary to have to do it from the Isle of Man. It is difficult enough as it is. Those of us who have had professional experience in these cases know how frightfully difficult it is under the existing conditions when a person is detained either in London or in some place 1270 not so far distant. You have to get orders to be allowed in to see him; you have to have your interviews in the presence of Government servants and agents, something which is unknown to the law of this country otherwise. Any other person charged with even the worst of criminal offences may consult his legal advisers privately, and he should be able to do so. The right to have legal advice, the right to say what you like with complete and absolute privilege to those who have the responsibility of advising you where your liberty is involved becomes almost nugatory if your privilege, your absolute privilege, has to be exercised in the sight and in the hearing of those concerned against you. We are not seeking by this Amendment to alter that position. I am only pointing out that, even in existing circumstances, it is extremely difficult for proper legal advice to be given. When you receive permission, you are all the time under the view and under the con-slant supervision of the gaoler.
That is not all. The circumstances are such that the Home Office apparently find it extremely difficult to do what I am sure they themselves would think fair. Their representatives have said in this House time after time that, while a man has no right to be represented by a legal representative at the actual hearing before the advisory tribunal—they do not admit that right, and it is the only case of imprisonment known to this country where that right is refused—they wish that, in preparing his case for the advisory tribunal the internee shall have the fullest facilities for getting legal advice and for preparing his case. To do this requires time, and it requires that the man shall be told in good time as much as he is going to be told of what the charge is against him—" grounds for reasonable suspicion "or whatever it may be—and that he should be able to communicate those grounds to his legal advisers and be able to consult them before the hearing takes place.
That does not happen. We have had cases in which the notice of grounds has been served on a Saturday morning—the notice of grounds does no more than repeat the Regulation under which the person is detained, without particulars of any kind—and the actual hearing before the Advisory Committee has taken place on the following Monday morning. That 1271 has happened not in only one case, but in numerous cases. In those circumstances, the claim by the Home Office that the man is to be allowed full access to his legal advisers and consultation with them, even though they may not be there, becomes purely and entirely ineffective. I am not accusing the Home Office of bad faith, although it is extremely difficult to see what makes it necessary to serve notice on Saturday morning for a trial on Monday morning. The Home Office say that a man has ample opportunity of consulting his legal advisers. If the circumstances I have described exist when the man is perhaps within 20 miles of London, practically here on the spot or within easy access, what is likely to happen if the man has been sent to the Isle of Man and may have to conduct his appeal to the Advisory Committee from there? He cannot be visited except with very great inconvenience and delay.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he is ready to respond to this appeal? I have found him extremely difficult in these matters in the past, but I expect rather better treatment from the Solicitor-General. I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say if he were still in practice and had to deal with these matters, as some of us have during the past weeks and months. I do not know what his legal conscience would prompt him to do or say in this House on this matter if he were not officially responsible and made officially answerable for it. It is becoming a public scandal. These men are left with no rights—no effective rights.

The Deputy-Chairman
Is the hon. Member addressing himself to the next Amendment about the Advisory Committee?

§ Mr. Silverman
No. What I am trying to do is to relate that to the importance of not increasing the difficulties under which everybody is working, but transferring men, in the case of whom there are proceedings pending before the courts, to the Isle of Man. In order to make that point, I am trying to show how difficult it is when they are here. When so little of a man's legal rights remain to him, and when one would have thought it quite practicable to make his rights effective, one is justified in feeling the 1272 greatest possible anxiety at the removal to the Isle of Man of any man so detained when he has challenged the action of the Executive before the courts. I expect my hon. Friend, if he can, to reassure us upon these points. The safest and most certain way of assuring us that the man's rights will not be whittled down still further would be to accept this Amendment or some other Amendment which would make it necessary for the internee to be kept on the spot and readily available until the time comes for his case to be reviewed. It would be time enough then to take him to the Isle of Man. There is no need to take him before then, and if you take him before you worsen the position which is already very bad. It may be objected that this Amendment is very wide, that you would have to wait until he was in the Isle of Man, then start the proceedings, and set him at liberty at once. That is a little far-fetched. If there is anything in that, the wording could easily be amended to deal with it if the principle is accepted. Supposing you accepted it and had to set him at liberty in the Isle of Man he could not leave the Isle of Man, which is where you. want him. The moment he came out of the Isle of Man and came back to this country you could detain him at once. If the object of the Executive is to keep him in the Isle of Man you would be able to keep him there.
So far the argument has proceeded on the basis of British subjects detained under Regulation 18B, but they alone are not concerned. There is another class. A British subject detained under 18B has certain rights. Those rights may be whittled down; by Executive or administrative action they may be rendered nugatory or valueless. The aliens who are detained under Regulation 12A are in a still more powerless condition. They have no rights at all, so far as I can see. They are entirely at the mercy of the Executive and the Home Secretary. It is true that they have two Advisory Committees, but some of us know of cases which seem to cry aloud for inquiry but never get it, and they will be still less able to get it if they are transferred to the Isle of Man. Let me cite just two cases. I will not give names, although I am prepared to do so if I am challenged. I have two cases which I assure the Committee are typical of large numbers of cases.
1273 There was the case of a man who was a Czech citizen. When the Germans invaded his country he fled and went to Palestine. He lived in Palestine for two years until the outbreak of the war, and when the war broke out he made his way back slowly, with difficulty and pain and at his own expense, joined the Czech Legion in France and fought until France collapsed. He was under no obligation to do that; there was no Allied Forces Act to compel him, he was not in any armed force before, but being under no obligation at all, he chose in that way to travel half across the world to fight with the Czech battalion in France until France fell. Then he came as a refugee from France to this country. He was arrested under Regulation 12A and has been in gaol ever since, and he has no idea in the world why he was arrested or why he is still detained.
There was another case, of a Czech who was a lawyer and a judge in his country. A journalist at one time, a lawyer throughout a great part of his career, later a judge and editor of a paper which was the principal supporter of Dr. Benes when the Czechoslovak Government were still in control, he came to this country as a refugee from France. After doing what he could to help, he found a state of affairs in the Czech Army to which he objected. He made a report to Dr. Benes, who asked him for a memorandum. He compiled his memorandum, and a very telling and impressive one it was. I do not: say his case is proved—I do not know —but obviously he made out a case for inquiry. But within two days of presenting that memorandum he was arrested under Regulation 12A and is still interned. He too has not the faintest notion what it is that is being held against him.
1 say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is at the mercy in these matters not merely of a secret police but of a secret foreign police. He said in this House that he fakes full responsibility himself and looks at every case himself. Yes, he looks at every case himself, but what does he look at? The only thing he looks at is what is put in front of him, but who puts it in front of him? He cannot check it, he has no reason to doubt what is put in front of him, and unless he puts it in front of the internee and gets the latter's answer, he cannot give any proper consideration to 1274 the case. Or perhaps he does put something in front of the internee and gets his answer to that, and then says that for other reasons he is going to continue the detention.

The Chairman
The hon. Member seems to think we are discussing Regulation 12A. That is not the Amendment before the Committee. He cannot discuss the administration of those Regulations; that will have to be done at another time.

§ Mr. Silverman
I submit, with respect, that the points I am making are in Order. What I am saying is, that when these men are in such difficulties on the soil of this country, they ought not to be sent overseas while there is still any question pending of which the courts of this country could take cognisance. Perhaps I have already been too lengthy, but I thought that these points ought to be made, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to give very serious consideration to them. I do not think he would lose anything, I do not think the Executive's action, from the point of view either of administrative convenience or of military necessity, would be in the least weakened if he accepted the Amendment as it stands. If he cannot do that, he can amend it so as to deal with any too great width there may be in its present form. If he will accept the principle, I will be content with that, but the principle ought to be accepted, and there is no reason in the world why it should not be accepted.

§ Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)
I wish to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend above the Gangway, and may I start by saying that I hope the Solicitor-General, when replying, will clear our minds once and for all on the habeas corpus question? I know it is admitted that a writ of habeas corpus lies in the Isle of Man, but what is exercising the minds of a number of us is whether, in fact, the gaoler can be forced to deliver the body. I hope he will clear that out of the way, because I am sure that he would thus shorten the Debate. My experience about legal proceedings has been similar to that of my hon. Friend. It is imperative that people should not be taken far away from their own legal advisers. It is quite wrong for the Undersecretary to attempt to say, in reply, that all these people are perfectly satisfied, and 1275 that there is no question of legal proceedings pending. I know of a number of cases which are likely to come on. I am all the more exercised in my mind because of the way in which the Under-Secretary treated this matter the other day. When I pressed him for an answer as to whether arrangements would be made for people who wished to institute legal proceedings and who were under detention, so that they would be near their legal advisers and able to institute proceedings, he gave what I consider to be a most frivolous reply: It would not be right for me to give a pledge that anyone will be kept here indefinitely, or brought back at any moment, merely because they have initiated some trifling procedure in the courts of this country." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1941; col. 540, Vol. 370.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by a trifling procedure, but it seems to me that the liberties of the individual cannot be exceeded in importance by any other matter. As these people are, in the main, detained for preventive, and not punitive, reasons, their rights should be doubly safeguarded, and they ought to be near their advisers, and not removed to the far-distant land of the Isle of Man.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt)
An appeal has been made to what has been called my "legal conscience." I am not sure that I know what a "legal conscience" is, apart from any other conscience. In so far as a legal conscience is to be differentiated from an ordinary conscience, I suppose that it is best served by trying to stick to the point, and not obscuring the issue. Therefore, I will explain, as simply as I can, what I conceive to be the relative points for the Committee to remember in making up its mind about this Amendment. I am not proposing, and you, Colonel Clifton Brown, would not allow me, to discuss the whole procedure under Regulation 18B. Of course, it is a procedure which to any lawyer, or to any ordinary man, is very unpleasant. On the other hand, war is a very unpleasant thing; and most of us think that this is a very necessary procedure. With that, I leave it. [Interruption.] I differ from the hon. Member in regarding it as being necessary; and, therefore, I will not spend any further time over it.

§ Mr. Silverman
Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow me—

§ The Solicitor-General
I would rather deal with the other points that have been raised.

§ Mr. Silverman
If my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me—

§ The Solicitor-General
No, I must get on. This Amendment proposes that a detention shall not be deemed to be lawful custody while any proceedings under which the validity of the original detention is challenged remain undecided. The hon. Member talked a good deal about Advisory Committees. The Advisory' Committee is not concerned with the validity of the proceedings. It assumes the validity, and considers whether, assuming that validity, the circumstances of the case are such that an order ought to be made; and it reports accordingly. The proceedings under which validity can be decided are two in number—first, habeas corpus, and, second, an action for false imprisonment.

§ Mr. Silverman
Or mandamus.

§ The Solicitor-General
I group together the various prerogatives, but treating them generally there are habeas corpus and false imprisonment. The difference, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will bear me out, is that, whereas the object of habeas corpus is to prove that detention was wrong and to get the man out, the action for false imprisonment deals with the matter at the other end. The man has been in prison and afterwards recovers damages, if the imprisonment is proved to be wrong. Hon. Members will realise that a man may issue his writ or may make an application for habeas corpus, but the point is, Does he make a good case? Without going into technicalities, the practice is that you make your application for habeas corpus. In the old days the Court used to grant either the rule absolute or the rule nisi, but to-day the invariable practice in this class of case is to appoint a day for the hearing of the argument so that both sides may be represented. If after considering the evidence and arguments the Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant is lawfully detained the application for the writ of "habeas corpus is refused. If the come to the conclu- 1277 sion that he is illegally detained the writ is issued.
The effect of this Amendment would be to confer upon anybody in the Isle of Man a much greater privilege than the same man would have in this country. In this country a man cannot discharge himself from Brixton Gaol by merely making an application for habeas corpus. The application for habeas corpus is undoubtedly a proceeding in which the validity of the detention is in issue, and under this Amendment by merely making an application he would be judge in his own case and his detention would at once become illegal. Consider the case where the man does not use habeas corpus but issues his writ for false imprisonment. Under this Amendment, on the mere issue of the writ—it might be merely a device to get out—directly it was issued, the man's detention would become illegal.

§ Mr. Silverman
Only in the Isle of Man.

§ The Solicitor-General
That is where he is. You would be conferring upon the people in the Isle of Man the privilege of releasing himself instead of having to be released by a Judge and the power to make his detention illegal by the simple process of issuing a writ on the one hand, or making an application for habeas corpus on the other. If you are to have this procedure at all, it obviously is nonsensical to allow a man, on the mere making of an application, to put an end to his detention. I have been asked about habeas corpus. I think the hon. Member is satisfied that there is no doubt whatever that the writ of habeas corpus does lie to the Isle 0f Man. That has been plainly decided as the result of two cases, in re John Anderson and in re James Brown. The hon. Member says, "What is there to make sure that that writ will be effective? When habeas corpus was first granted and powerful nobles in the country used to lock up people in their private dungeons, it must have been somewhat difficult to enforce the writ of habeas corpus. In only one case of which I know was there resistance, and in that the court managed to get hold of the nobleman who had imprisoned the unfortunate person and give him a dose of his own medicine, with the result that the prisoner was promptly released.

§ Mr. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)
We might do that when the war is over.

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Member is anti-war, as we all know: but unless he is an extreme pacifist, he must realise that beyond all law must lie force. That is why we have policemen. If a Judge issues a writ of habeas corpus, in the ultimate resort enforcement of that order will have to be by the civil authorities—by the police, who have the right to call in military, naval or air aid and even to lead an expeditionary force. But that is entirely unreal; we are a law-abiding people. Detention in the Isle of Man is detention by the military on behalf of the Home Secretary here, and, therefore, the Home Secretary is responsible. If necessary, the Home Secretary himself could be put in the Clock Tower or Brixton Gaol if he did not obey the order of the court.
I would say to the hon. Member that it is our intention not to deprive these men by one iota of any legal privilege which they have. We shall not detract from that in any way whatever. If the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, I thought his speech was a little illogical, in that he proceeded to show that the rights which these people have in this country to-day were so small as to be illusory. If that be so, I cannot follow his fear when he thinks that by sending these people to the Isle of Man we take away from them the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus or take any other way that is open to them to test the validity of their detention. I think the hon. Member is unduly suspicious about this Bill. Its primary object is to enable these people, who, for security reasons, must be shut up, to be deprived of their liberty under conditions more congenial to them than is compatible with the conditions allowed under ordinary internment. Secondly, it is to consult the convenience of the authorities, and do not let it be forgotten that events may happen in this country which may make it necessary for them to use and occupy all the accommodation they have in places of that sort in this country. For these reasons I can assure the hon. Member that so far as I can see there is no ground whatever for saying that their rights will be limited by the smallest extent from what they are to-day. In these circumstances I hope he will assist us to pass this Bill, which will in many cases be greatly to the advantage of these people.

§ Mr. Silverman
I have never said that there ought not to be a Regulation 18B. I have always conceded that there must be some extra judicial rights in cases of this sort. The procedure laid down in the Regulations is quite right, or it may be the only possible one. What I have said is that in actual practice the rights are administratively frittered away by no proper opportunities being given. What I fear is that they can be frittered away still further if a person is taken to the Isle of Man. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that in cases where people are taken to the Isle of Man, the Home Office will undertake to allow a proper interval of time between the serving of a notice and the hearing of a case by an Advisory Committee to enable legal consultations to take place adequately and fully?

§ The Solicitor-General
I am not able on the spur of the moment to give that undertaking. What I will do is this: I will add my word to what the hon. Member has said—and with which I entirely agree—that it is eminently right that there should be a reasonable interval of time so that the man may have such consultations as he wants and prepare himself to appear before the Advisory Committee. Anything I can do—I am not committing anybody except myself in saying this—I will gladly do.

§ Captain W. T. Shaw (Forfar)
It seems to me that the Solicitor-General has overestimated the privileges and under-estimated the inconveniences which these people will have. They may have privileges, but it is no good their having them unless they are in a position to exercise them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be well aware that people engaged in legal proceedings in this country often find it necessary to come to London to consult with their lawyers. It will be very inconvenient for these people to be in the Isle of Man. They will have the great inconvenience and expense of coming to London to consult their lawyers, or having their lawyers go to the Isle of Man to consult them. It will also be very inconvenient for the Home Office and for Ministers on the Front Bench who have to answer questions about people who are interned. We are told that this Measure is necessary for security reasons, but in view of the number of people involved, the security reasons cannot be very over- 1280 whelming. If it is a fact that the 200 people who are confined in Brixton Gaol will, in the event of an invasion, be a menace to the security of this country, then I say that, after all the months in which preparations have taken place, if the people who sit on the Front Bench say that this small number of people can become a menace, they themselves are the people who ought to be interned in the Isle of Man. It is much too good for them.

The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not make a Second Reading speech, but must address himself to the Amendment.

§ Captain Shaw
I am trying to do so by pointing out that these people ought to be kept in this country so that they may be able to consult with their lawyers and get not only the privileges, but the conveniences, and the possibility of putting their case. I know that there are several cases pending, and that some of the people who think that they have been illegally treated have instituted proceedings against the Executive, and I firmly believe that is one of the principal reasons this Bill has been brought forward. The hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) has, I understand, started a case against a newspaper which said that he was a traitor. If he is sent to the Isle of Man, will he be in a good position to conduct that case?

The Deputy-Chairman
When the Bill was given a Second Reading, it was decided that these people should go to the Isle of Man. The hon. and gallant Member may not dispute that.

§ Captain Shaw
Was it decided that they must go there?

The Deputy-Chairman
On the Second Reading it was laid down that they should go. That is the principle, and it cannot be disputed in Committee.

§ Captain Shaw
I do not know about that, but I accept your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown. I am still hopeful that something may be done to ensure that they are given some measure of justice. Probably, I shall have something to say on the Third Reading of the Bill, if I cannot say it now.

§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
If I had to choose between a term of imprisonment in Brixton gaol and a term of imprisonment in the Isle of Man, I should plump every time for the Isle of Man, and, mind you, I speak from experience. I do not support the case which is made against the Isle of Man because of its distance from London. I was under the impression during the Second Reading Debate that all the persons detained in Brixton were domiciled in London, but the Isle of Man is infinitely nearer to the lawyers and relations of internees in Glasgow. It is much nearer, quicker and cheaper for people in Glasgow.

§ Mr. Stokes
Does the hon. Member realty suggest that it is quicker to get to the Isle of Man from Glasgow than it is from London?

§ Mr. Maxton
It takes just half the time, providing you go by plane. There is a regular air service from the mainland. Under existing conditions I could travel much more speedily and much more cheaply from Glasgow to the Isle of Man, than I could travel from Glasgow to London. Mind you, I do not think there are any Glasgow men confined under Regulation 18B; I have not heard of any, and I should be shocked indeed if the Government had detained a Glasgow man under Regulation 18B. There will be some detainees from Lancashire, but' certainly it is easier to get from Lancashire to the Isle of Man than it is to travel from Lancashire to London. I could recommend any of these people to a very good solicitor in the Isle of Man, who has made himself specially informed on this particular matter. Therefore I do not think there need be any worry about that. I will give the Committee an illustration, which I consider is one of the cruellest things that can happen to these fellows. I have heard of a case of a man from a Lancashire district who was shut in without the faintest shadow or grounds of suspicion. The whole evidence against him was that he had had two holidays in Germany and had kept up a correspondence with a friend he had made there. When he came before the Advisory Committee they admitted at once that he should be liberated, and he was liberated yesterday or the day before. The fact remains that he had been detained for nine months before his case was heard.
1282 I think that that is terrible, and does not show implicit justice in a judicial system. It is accepted by all authorities that the law should be definite, impartial and speedy. None of us can defend the position of a man being kept waiting for nine or ten months for a trial, which cannot be termed in its fullest sense judicial. There is no difficulty about lawyers in the Isle of Man, or any special difficulty for the personal friends of internees. I know some members of the Advisory Committee. I know the Chairman. He is a busy man, and I know Dr. Mallon, who is a member of the Advisory Committee and who is another very busy man. How often are these men going to be able to go to the Isle of Man as compared with going up to the central place where they carry on this work in London, and how long is it to be before those who are still left interned and unheard, if they arc transferred to the Isle of Man, are to be able to have their cases heard? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) had the Advisory Committee in contemplation or whether he was thinking of the ordinary judicial forms.

§ Mr. Silverman
I was thinking of this: If there is any failure by the Advisory Committee dealing with a case reasonably put to it, the internee may complain of the Advisory Committee.

§ Mr. Maxton
A man should not De shifted to the Isle of Man until he has had his hearing by the Advisory Committee. He should at least be protected to that extent. If the Government can arrange a machinery by which the Advisory Committee will go to the Isle of Man and sit full time and get ahead with the cases with real speed, that is the procedure that I should favour. If we cannot have that—and I see the difficulties of it—Ithink no man should be removed from his present place of internment until such time as his case has been heard by the Advisory Committee.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
Perhaps 1 can reassure the hon. Member on the last point that he raised. Generally speaking, with very few exceptions all the men who have been recently detained or whose cases offer special difficulty—all persons detained under Regulation 18B—have now been before the Advisory Committee.
1283 It will not obviously be our policy to transfer men to the Isle of Man before they have had a hearing by the Advisory Committee, unless we decide to transfer the Advisory Committee itself from its present headquarters to the Isle of Man. As regards legal proceedings, what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) was really concerned about was that these persons should have as full an opportunity of conducting any legal proceedings from the Isle of Man as they would have had here. It is clearly impossible for us to pledge ourselves that we will not transfer or bring back to this country any man at any time who initiates legal proceedings, but the Home Secretary will act most reasonably in the matter. If a man's presence is required by any court in this country, it is clearly in my right hon. Friend's interest, and in the interest of his reputation for fair play, to see that the man has every opportunity not only for a hearing but for preparing his case, and that will in every case be given.

§ Mr. Silverman
Who is to be the judge of the reasonableness of the request to be brought back? Some of us have had experience of the Home Office itself electing to be the judge, whether the presence is required or not. Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further and say that he will accept the word of the man's legal adviser that his presence is desirable and then, in a suitable case, bring him back?

The Deputy-Chairman
It seems to me that the discussion has wandered now on to the second Amendment, that in the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) —in page 1, line 14, at the end, to add: Any person whom the Secretary may decide to remove to the Isle of Man shall have a right of appeal to the Advisory Committee against that decision and shall not be so removed until that appeal has been heard. Had we not better discuss them both together?

§ Mr. Peake
In response to the question of the hon. Member, I think that obviously in the first instance it must be for the Home Secretary to decide at what stage of any legal proceedings it is desirable for a man to be brought back to this country. It is clear that if any court of justice were to express the view that a man's presence here was necessary or that his case was 1284 in any way prejudiced at any stage of the proceedings by his absence from this country, my right hon. Friend would immediately see that he was brought back.

§ Mr. Silverman
You cannot at an early stage or at any stage of a case 20 to the court and say, "Will your Lordship please express an opinion that you think it advisable that the man should be brought here?" There is no machinery for that, and if you wait until the case comes on for trial, you have waited too long.

§ Mr. Peake
I appreciate' that difficulty, and that is why I said that the Home Secretary would act reasonably in these cases. Proceedings in the High Court, in an action, say, for false imprisonment, may well drag on for a year or 18 months, and it would be, in our view, unreasonable to bring a man back immediately proceedings were instituted and have to keep him in Brixton gaol for such a long period.

§ Mr. Stokes
I wish to speak particularly to the Amendment which stands in my name.

§ Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)
May I raise a point of Order? I have no desire to prevent my hon. Friend moving his Amendment, but I should like to be assured that it is in Order. It seems to me that the Advisory Committee have no power to hear appeals of this kind or to give any decision. The committee is purely advisory.

The Deputy-Chairman
I do not think that that is a point of substance, because the hon. Member is not rising to move the Amendment. The discussion is ranging over the whole subject.

§ Mr. Stokes
I would like to make an observation about the legal position of the Isle of Man, which apparently has been loosely swept aside by the Government Law Officers as being a thing of no particular importance. I would like to quote as an example something which may not be familiar to hon. Members, that the Isle of Man had to declare war on Germany separately in 1914. In point of fact, she did not do it this time because, although she declared war in 1914, she forgot to make peace, so that she is still at war with Germany. It is wrong to assume that 1285 because the Isle of Man is close to the coast of Britain the standing of the subject is the same in that territory. My concern is with the rights of the detained persons, and I am seeking an elucidation of Clause 18B, sub-paragraph (3) of the Regulations, which says: Any person aggrieved by the making of an order against him, by a refusal of the Secretary of State to suspend the operation of such an order, by any condition attached to a direction given by the Secretary of State or by the revocation of any such direction, under the powers conferred by this Regulation, may make his objections to such a committee. I submit that therein the detained persons have a right to appeal against removal to the Isle of Man. Surely that is a substantial change in a condition of detention, and I submit that in any case, if that is not so, it is all the more important that my Amendment should be accepted in form and substance. We have heard that detained persons are at liberty to have legal representation. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has claimed that it is just as easy to get from the Isle of Man to London as it is to set from Glasgow to London. I am not going to argue with him on the point because he has probably done both journevs and is sure of his facts, but it is not true that it is probably easier for this procedure to be followed. We are not seeking to say that everybody must be detained in this country. We say that they should have the right of appeal. The advantage of going to the Isle of Man is very great, in a large number of cases, but a minority of people would prefer to stay here. I emphasise that fact as the conditions under which they are detained are not meant to be punitive. I can argue on another occasion that they are punitive. To cart people away from their friends and relations, meeting with whom is one of the few joys they can get when they are detained, and to put them out of the reach of convenient and speedy visits, is a punitive thing to do. I am not arguing that everybody wants to stay in Brixton Gaol or wherever it may be. The vast majority of these people would probably prefer to be in the Isle of Man, but as the conditions of detention are not meant to be punitive, they should be given the option to stay in this country should they so wish.

§ The Solicitor-General
I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that 1286 the less these conditions are made punitive, the better they will be, and that is one reason why I am so strongly in favour of putting these people on the Isle of Man. It gives a very much better chance of making the conditions less punitive. The hon. Member who has just spoken asked a question about Regulation 18B and about the words: the condition attached to a direction. I think that the only reason he asked the question was because he read paragraph(3) without reading paragraph (2). If he reads the Regulation as a whole I think he will see what the scheme of the Regulation is. First of all you get, in 18B (1) the absolute power to detain and then you go on to 18B (2) which says: The Home Secretary may direct that the operation of this Order be suspended subject to certain specified conditions. It is obvious that the direction which is referred to in paragraph (3) is one of those specified directions in paragraph (2).

§ Mr. Stokes
It was not the last part of the paragraph to which I was referring, but to the words: Any condition attached to a direction.

§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, but the hon. Member is reading from paragraph (3). If he has the Order before him, he will see that paragraph (2) sets out what the Secretary of State may direct, which is that the operation of the Order may be suspended, subject to certain specified conditions. For instance, there is a condition about the possession of a camera. If a person is aggrieved by it or by any condition attached to a direction, it is provided under paragraph (3) that he may go before the Advisory Committee. If the hon. Member reads the Regulation as a whole it will be plain that the conditions attached to a direction referred to in paragraph (3)are the conditions in paragraph (2). It must be so. Suppose a man is interned in York and is moved to Doncaster: Does anybody suggest that that will be a reason for appealing to the Advisory Committee?

§ Mr. Stokes
Surely it is not representing me fairly to put the matter in that way. I have not the legal experience of the Solicitor-General, but surely, at the time these people were detained, there was no question of sending them to the Isle of Man, because it was against the 1287 law. It is the whole object of this legislation to make sending them to the Isle of Man legal. Therefore, it could never have been contemplated at the time that they should be sent out of the country; and thus, I suggest, an entirely new condition is introduced, attached to the direction, that it was never contemplated and that it is a condition against which they have a right to appeal. That is all I am contending in the Amendment. Perhaps I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary assured me, when the people were moved from York to Huyton, that they were not going to be taken out of the country. I passed that information on to the people concerned, and they understood that it included going overseas to the Isle of Man.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am sorry if I have not made my meaning plain. I was discussing the mere legal question as to the meaning of the phrase, "condition attached to a direction," in paragraph (3). If the Regulation is read as a whole I do not think the hon. Member or anybody else could have any doubt that the conditions there referred to are those specified in the preceding paragraph. I agree, as to the necessity for the Bill, that it is at least doubtful whether, without the Bill, detention in the Isle of Man would be illegal.

§ Mr. Silverman
Is the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General quite as conclusive as all that? Suppose one conceded that the condition attached to a direction was one referred to in paragraph (2). I do not think that concession would disturb completely the point made by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). At the moment, in the case of every per son concerned, on the occasion when the Order was made —

The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid the discussion is becoming out of Order. We are going on to discuss the interpretation of some other Regulation which does not come under the Amendment.

§ Mr. Silverman
If the interpretation which I am going to suggest is right, it may obviate any further discussion of the Amendment. The question I want to ask is whether the Amendment is not already in the Regulation? In every one of these cases there is an Order directing that the 1288 person be detained. If the Bill becomes law, and the Home Secretary wishes to transfer any person to the Isle of Man, he must make a new Order, or alter the terms of the existing Order. Paragraph I of 18B provides that, if the Secretary of State has reason, he may make an Order against a person directing that he be detained. He has done so. Under the Bill, he will some day make another Order against that person directing that he be transferred to the Isle of Man. When he makes the new Order surely it will come within paragraph (3), and the internee may then make his objections to the Advisory Committee. Why would an alteration of the existing Order by which he is detained in Brixton, securing that he shall be removed to the Isle of Man and in future be detained there, not be an Order of the Home Secretary upon which the internee may make his representation to an Advisory Committee?

§ The Solicitor-General
The Order for internment is one thing, and the Regulation provides that the person to be interned shall be detained in such place as is authorised. Each time the Home Secretary chooses to alter the place of a man's detention that is not a new Order for detention; it merely affects the place of detention. I should venture to think that that point is quite plain.

§ Sir I. Albery
I beg to move, in page I, line 14, at the end, to add: Provided that no such removal shall take place under such conditions as would in any way impair the power of the House of Commons or of the Committee of Privileges of that House to order and enforce the attendance of any Member of Parliament who may be detained under any regulation made by a Secretary of State. I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). I believe that it would be possible for the Under-Secretary or the right hon. and learned Gentleman to assure us that there is no ground for a provision of this kind. Under those circumstances, I do not want to be too long. The main reason why I am so anxious to obtain this assurance is that I am one of those persons, who seem to be only too few in this House of Commons, who are at present seriously concerned about what I regard as the lessening of the Privileges of the Members of this House. It may not 1289 be the general view, but I regard it as already having taken place to some extent, and I am therefore the more anxious that there shall be no chance of a further lessening of those Privileges.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
I desire strongly to support the point made by my hon. Friend. I did raise the point during Debate on a previous occasion. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that in past unhappy days a large number of Members representing Irish constituencies were arrested, but the difference is that in those days this House had complete control over the Irish police, among other things. That is to say, the Secretary of State for Ireland was responsible to this House for any action taken, and there-fore it is not on all fours with internment in the Isle of Man. I believe that I have a long record in relation to matters affecting the procedure and rights of Members of this House, and I contend that without some such provision as this there is a real risk that any hon. Member might be arrested and put in the Isle of Man, and the House would not have the power, which has always been enjoyed, of requiring his attendance here. It will be recollected that there has been some doubt as to the legal position. A question was asked about it, and I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that the Attorney-General was not able to answer the question. Therefore, I hope that the Solicitor-General will either accept this Amendment or will make it abundantly clear that there is a historic right of this House to require a Member who has the misfortune to suffer imprisonment to attend this House. I hope it will not be thought improper to raise this matter.

§ Mr. Peake
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised this point in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and I said that at that stage I could not answer for the powers of the Committee of Privileges, but I can now give my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment the assurance that he desires. The position appears to be this: First of all, it is the practice of this House, when establishing a Committee of Privileges at the beginning of every Session, to order that the Committee have power to send for a person's papers and records. It is therefore clear that the Committee has power to summon witnesses before it.
1290 The position, where a witness whose presence is desired by a Committee of this House is in custody, I understand, is this: this was the practice followed when it was desired to obtain the presence of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) before the Committee of Privileges last summer. If hon. Members refer to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges in that case, they will see that it was ordered in the committee that the Chairman do move the House, that the Governor of His Majesty's prison at Brixton be "ordered to bring Captain Ramsay in custody to the committee. As a result of that, the chairman of the Select Committee moved accordingly in the House, and the Speaker's warrant was then issued, directing the production of the person whose presence was desired. It is perfectly clear that anyone transferred under this Bill to the Isle of Man remains in the custody of the Home Secretary, and it would be the simplest possible matter— and in fact it would be the proper procedure—for the Speaker's warrant in that case to be directed to the Home Secretary, whereupon it would become the duty of the Home Secretary to produce the witness, or the person whose presence was required by the Committee of this House.

§ Mr. Stokes
Whether he was a Member of Parliament or not?

§ Mr. Peake
The Amendment, and the procedure which I have been describing, apply only to Members of Parliament.

§ Mr. Stokes
May I ask my hon. Friend a question which the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) asked me to put to him categorically? Can he give an assurance that what he has just said about the rights of this House, or of a Committee of this House, to demand the presence of a person from the Isle of Man, would apply equally to an ordinary member of the public as well as to a Member of Parliament?

§ Mr. Peake
I do not think there is any doubt about that question. If the presence of a person transferred to the Isle of Man under this Bill were required in this country, either by a court of law or by this House, the subpoena in the case of ordinary legal proceedings, or the Speaker's warrant in the case of a summons to attend a Committee of this 1291 House, would be properly served upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

§ Sir I. Albery
In view of the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.