ALIENS ORDER (DETENTION).

HC Deb 01 July 1941 vol 372 cc1307-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn" — [Major Dugdale.]

Major Vyvyan Adams (Leeds, West)

I wish to raise the case of Mr. Richard Weininger, now detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order. As the House is aware, this classification includes friendly or non-enemy aliens. On 20th May my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) asked the Home Secretary how many cases had been considered by the Committee set up by him to deal with cases of citizens of friendly countries detained under a deportation order; how many cases await hearing; and in how many cases has release from detention been granted? The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replied: The Committee appointed to advise my right hon. Friend on the cases of non-enemy aliens detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order has so far considered 316 of the cases referred to it. Fourteen further cases await hearing. Of the cases considered by the Committee, the release of 114 persons has been authorised. In addition, my right hon. Friend has authorised the release of 276 detainees without reference to the Committee Then the hon. Member for Kidderminster asked this Supplementary Question, to which I ask the House to give its special attention: Does my hon. Friend really think that the situation is satisfactory and quite fair to these people? It is quite true that they have the right to appear before the Committee, but is it not the case that they are not told what charges are to be brought against them? It is a difficult thing for a man to answer a charge if he does not know the nature of the charge. MR. PEAKE: I have examined many transcripts of proceedings before these committees and invariably it is the practice of the committee to put to the detained person facts known to his detriment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1941; col. 1383, Vol. 371.] With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think he meant to use the word "dis- credit "instead of" detriment" There is an important distinction between the two. If, for example, I suffer from a harelip or if I am robbed or my house is burned down, that is to my detriment, but not one of these misfortunes would warrant my internment. The distinction is important as the word "discredit" is a great deal narrower than the word "detriment" On 19th June I asked the Home Secretary the following Question: whether, in the inquiry into the case of a friendly alien, Richard Weininger, now held as an internee, under Regulation 12 (5) A, the normal practice was followed by the tribunal of informing him what was known to his discredit? The answer was: "Yes, Sir," and subsequent Supplementary Questions and replies to them were as follow: MAJOR ADAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man is wholly ignorant of the charges made against him? MR. MORRISON: I do not think that is true. The position was made quite clear in the course of the proceedings, and that statement would not be justified. MAJOR ADAMS: Is the Minister aware that he is entirely misinformed, and that this man was examined when he was in a condition of extremely bad health? MR. MORRISON: I have taken great care about this case, and I have decided that detention should be continued. I think I am right in the knowledge of all the facts available. The proceedings were very carefully conducted, and Mr. Weininger had ample opportunity to state his case fully to the committee. MAJOR ADAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he will not reconsider the case? MR. MORRISON: I have already reconsidered it on the report of the advisory committee. I have come to a certain conclusion, and I see no reason to vary that conclusion at the moment Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) intervened to ask: Is the Minister aware that there are very substantial reasons for believing that Mr. Weininger has never had a statement in plain terms of the grounds on which he has been interned? Then the Home Secretary made this statement: When aliens, as distinct from British subjects, are interned, details are not furnished in the same sense as for British subjects. I think that is right. In the course of these proceedings it was perfectly clear that the apprehensions of the authorities were justified. It must be understood that the proceedings under this Order must be different from the proceedings in a court of law" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1941; cols. 805-806, Vol. 372.] Then I said that in view of the nature of the reply I would raise the matter again on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment. The earliest possible moment is to-day, and although I intend no reflection on the Under-Secretary, I must say I am sorry not to see the Home Secretary in his place. I informed him two or three times that this matter was to be raised to-day. I am sure the House would have liked to have heard from him why he said first that the position was made quite clear in the course of the proceedings, and then a moment later said that when aliens were interned details were not furnished in the same sense as for British subjects. This is a contradiction, no doubt unintentional, but both statements cannot be correct. They are mutually inconsistent.

Nor do I understand why my right hon. Friend thinks it right that the reasons for their detention should be given to British subjects but not to friendly aliens. We are under no obligation in the case of enemies to explain, for example, to Hess, why he should be locked up, but there is every reason why we should inform a man who has enjoyed Czechoslovak nationality since the last war, has become well known for his pro-British sympathies and loyalty to the British cause, and one who has been resident in this country fairly continuously since 1936.

My hon. Friend will no doubt correct me if he thinks I am wrong, but I understand we are fighting against the proposition that justice can put on some coloured shirt, and is limited by national boundaries, and can wave some national flag. Unless we repudiate such a doctrine, we sink to the level of Field-Marshal Goering. All I am asking is that Richard Weininger should be given a chance of answering what the Home Office have against him.

Let me give very briefly, in skeleton outline, his history. It is this. On 18th September, 1940, Richard Weininger was arrested at the London residence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). He was detained at Brixton in solitary confinement for 20 hours a day, which included periods when air raids were in progress. This form of detention lasted for 17 weeks. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend say, "What does that matter?"

Mr. McKie (Galloway)

No. Does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that Weininger's position in air raids was any worse than that of anybody else?

Major Adams

It will be apparent to my hon. Friend why I make that point in one moment. If he will possess himself in patience, he will find it unnecessary to interrupt me when time is so limited. This form of detention lasted for 17 weeks. On 5th November, there began the investigation by the Select Committee into the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen. The counsel of my hon. Friend, in his opening remarks, made this point to the Committee: Mr. Weininger was arrested seven weeks ago in Mr. Boothby's own flat. He was taken to Brixton, where he has been for 7 weeks without any charge being presented against him. I have, with the learned Attorney-General's consent, been to see him this morning, and I can tell the Committee that he is almost a broken man On 28th November Mr. Weininger was examined at length before the Committee. Indeed I believe he was virtually the only witness during a single day's sitting. On the same day the Home Secretary, when questioned in the House about Mr. Weininger's detention, said that information had been received raising doubts as to Mr. Richard Weininger's reliabilty, and that he would come before an appropriate tribunal. On 3rd December, still in the course of these inquiries by the Select Committee into the conduct of the hon. Member, Sir Alexander Maxwell, the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Home Office, gave evidence, and was asked this question: Is there anything in the reasons for the arrest and detention of Mr. Richard Weininger which has anything to do with the subject of the inquiry of this Committee? The answer which Sir Alexander Maxwell gave was: No, Sir On 18th December, the Report of the Select Committee was issued, and in the course of it they said: Your Committee has always been clearly decided that Mr. Weininger's conduct was in no way in question and was quite irrelevant to their inquiry On 13th January of this year, Mr. Weininger was transferred to an internment camp at Lingfield, where conditions were a great deal better than they had been at Brixton. It was suspected at this time that he was suffering from what the doctors called a pre-cancerous condition of the bowel, a condition which in- duced considerable pain, and which went back, from this point of time, for at least six weeks.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Dugdale.]

Major Adams

I was describing the pathological condition of Mr. Weininger about this time. The pain was so severe that in order to get any sleep he had to take drugs in considerable quantities. On 20th January, in the kind of state which is induced by soporifics, he appeared before a body known as the Lindley Tribunal. As far as he could recollect, Mr. Weininger subsequently wrote out the questions put to him and the answers he gave. I have seen this transcript, and I have read these questions, and re-read them time and again, searching and searching for some clear indication of what might be moving in the mind of the tribunal. With the best will in the world, I cannot, for the life of me, make out what the tribunal was driving at. How much more obscure must they have seemed to an alien with an imperfect understanding of English, and muzzy with the drugs he was compelled to take because of his illness. I assure the House that if he has at any time been given any clue as to the reason for his incarceration, Mr. Weininger has not understood it. I could read at length the impressions he formed of the Committee, but I will merely give one phrase which he used and which strikes me as significant. The phrase is "cold hostility." The impression he had was that the minds of the members of the tribunal seemed to have been made up for them by the Home Office official.

No witnesses were heard on Weininger's behalf, although, among others, the following gentlemen could have been called.

Mr. McKie

The hon. and gallant Member made great play with the words "discredit" and "detriment." Does he think this "cold hostility" was to the Committee's discredit or—

Major Adams

I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) would not make these ludicrous interruptions. This is a serious matter. This man has been interned for nine months and does not know why he has been interned. This is not the time for these ridiculous interventions.

As I was saying, no witness was heard on behalf of Weininger, although among others who could have been called were: Mr. F. T. A. Ashton-Gwatkin, well known as a member of the Runciman Commission; Mr. Stopford, of the Ministry of Economic Warfare; Commander P. C. J. Carey, R.N., of the Naval Intelligence Division; Mr. J. H. Thorpe, K.C., now working at the Admiralty, who authorised me only yesterday to say he was still willing to speak as emphatically as possible on Weininger's behalf; Mr. Malik, of the Czech National Bank; and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Nothing was heard from any of these men, who were all willing to come forward and speak to the loyalty and generally to the credentials of Richard Weininger. In February Weininger's doctor applied for a permit to visit him, and on 3rd March the occupants of Ling-field Camp were transferred to the racecourse at York, where conditions were bad. On 16th March the Home Secretary announced his refusal to release Weininger. On 28th March Weininger's doctor received a permit. to visit and examine Weininger, and on 31st March the camp doctor received orders from the Home Office to examine Weininger, and he reported him unfit for internment and camp life. On 1st April Weininger's doctor found him in urgent need of specialist treatment, and on 24th April Weininger was admited to York County Hospital, where he stayed until 21st June, when he was admitted to a mental home known as "The Retreat." where he now is.

One of the reasons why this man is so ill, both physically and mentally—indeed, the main reason—isthe cloud of uncertainty which overhangs him. I have deliberately avoided any opportunity of seeing him myself, so I am able to avoid anything like rhetorical exaggeration. But all who have visited him, his relatives and others, whose word I do not doubt for a single instant, say that the whole time he can do little more than exclaim, "Why am I here? What have they got against me? When shall I be released?" That can be borne out by the intelligence officers who watch him, and, from all accounts from reliable individuals, his brain and his body are being gradually destroyed day by day.

Every possible charge;, likely or unlikely, has been answered by him or on his behalf in appeals to the Home Office. I will give an example. Richard Weininger is a man of some wealth. He has money abroad. I have it direct from his secretary—and I do not doubt her word—that everything in connection with dollar accounts was disclosed at the proper time, just after the outbreak of the war. On 14th May last, in writing to the Home Secretary, Weininger used these words: "I have never held or controlled one single dollar which was not disclosed to the Bank of England" There are many other points which, to put it mildly, had there been time, would deserve inquiry and explanation. I only want to add this. Mr. Weininger is fortunate in having a number of friends, although in this crisis they do not seem to have been able to do him very much good. I cannot help wondering how hopeless is the lot of many of the 200 other friendly aliens who are also detained under Regulation 12 (5A) and may not know anyone who will speak for them.

Here is a case where a man is indefinitely detained for no clear reason. It will not do for the Home Office or for the Parliamentary Secretary, or for the Home Secretary himself, whom I repeat I am sorry not to see here, because this is a very serious matter, to say that Weininger knows why he is detained, nor yet to hint darkly that we have only heard one side of the question. Weininger does not know, and, if there is another side, it should be stated, if not here, at least to Richard Weininger. Nor can my hon. Friend say that it is contrary to the public interest to tell him or anyone else even in confidence. The public interest, I suggest, demands that we should practise the elementary justice for which we are supposed to be fighting, and I do ask my hon. Friend to let this man be released or at least tried again under fair conditions.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

The time is rather short in which to deal with a matter of this importance. I make no complaint, however, because my hon. and gallant Friend has stated his case briefly and fairly. I will deal with the various points he has made in the order in which he made them. I would say, however, at the outset that there is obviously a great practical difficulty in dealing in a Debate in public on the Adjournment with the individual case of an alien whom the Home Secretary has detained for security reasons. It must be perfectly clear to every hon. Member that considerations of security cannot be discussed in public, and I am therefore precluded from dealing, except in the very broadest outline, with the merits of this case as an individual case. My hon. and gallant Friend thought there was some discrepancy between an Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on 20th May and Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19th June. It is the fact that the procedure in the cases of aliens detained under Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order is different from the procedure in the case of British subjects detained under Defence Regulation 18B. Article 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order is merely an extension of ordinary peace-time powers exercised by the Rome Secretary. In times of peace he exercises a complete and unfettered discretion over the entry of aliens into this country and over the question what aliens shall be permitted to stay in this country. My right hon. Friend can in peace-time, without any reasons given, publicly or otherwise, order that any alien shall leave the country, and he can detain that alien without trial pending the carrying into effect of the deportation order.

In May, 1940, we were faced with the position that for practical reasons it was impossible in many cases to effect deportation. As a rule the only country willing to take an alien whom we wish to get rid of is his country of origin, and by May of last year countries such as Czecho-Slovakia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and some other European countries had become impossible of access. It was also in some cases inexpedient to carry out deportation orders. There were some aliens who knew so much that it would have been very unwise to allow them to go overseas. Therefore in May, 1940, we were faced with this situation, that under our peace-time powers we could detain aliens without trial pending deportation, but to have done so indefinitely in point of time would, I think, have been an abuse of our peace-time powers. Therefore, we proceeded to take additional powers which enabled us to hold in detention an alien in respect of whom it was either impossible or inexpedient to make use of our peace-time powers of deportation. I say that by way of explaining that in establishing a committee to inquire into these cases under Article 12 (5A) my right hon. Friend has given something which does not exist in time of peace, that is to say, an independent tribunal which goes into the merits of the individual case.

It is clear that enemy agents are much more likely to be found in the ranks of so-called neutral and friendly aliens than among enemy aliens or British subjects. It is common knowledge and experience that the most suitable persons for employment as spies are persons of neutral nationality. Therefore it is pretty certain that among this small group of 200 or 300 aliens detained under this procedure we have some of the most dangerous enemies of this country. That is why my right hon. Friend has always thought it right to exclude if necessary from consideration by the Lindley Tribunal cases where considerations of the very highest degree of national security were involved. The only difference in procedure in considering the cases of people held under Defence Regulation 18b and of people held under this Aliens Order is that in the 18b cases a statement of reasons for detention has to be furnished before the hearing by the Committee. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) has often complained of the vagueness and lack of definition in statements furnished under that procedure. It is often necessary not to specify in too great detail the sources of information upon which the Home Office and the security services have to rely.

My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned in the course of his speech that he had seen a statement drawn up by Mr. Weininger giving his account of his experiences before the Lindley Committee. I have also seen that statement. It consists of heads of questions put by the Committee, some 45 in number.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich)

Was Mr. Weininger given notice of those questions before they were put to him?

Mr. Peake

No, he was not given notice of those questions. Mr. Weininger's examination by the Committee, when reduced to print, consists of more than 23 pages of closely typed foolscap. I have studied this transcript on more than one occasion. It shows that Mr. Weininger fully understood the purpose of the questions which were being put to him.

Major Adams

How could he when he was drugged?

Mr. Peake

It shows that he was not in any way muzzy or incapable of dealing with them.

Mr. Stokes

Is it clear from the notes whether the report was made out as a result of shorthand notes taken by Mr. Weininger or his representative at the time or was written out from memory subsequently?

Mr. Peake

A full transcript was made by an official shorthand writer. There was a separate document made by Mr. Weininger, which he passed on to his solicitor and a number of copies of which have found their way into circulation. One of them was sent to me by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Another was sent to me by the solicitors acting for Mr. Weininger. Apparently yet a further copy has been communicated to my hon. and gallant Friend who raised this matter.

Major Adams

Surely that does not surprise my hon. Friend?

Mr. Peake

I was surprised at the names and details mentioned in the document. If it were in the hands of an agent of the enemy, it would convey a great deal more to him than it does to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is quite clear that the whole purpose of this tribunal will be defeated if solicitors acting on behalf of clients in any way broadcast verbatim accounts of what is alleged to have taken place before the Committee.

Major Adams

I must interrupt again. I did not get it from the solicitor, and I have treated it in the most confidential way.

Mr. Peake

I was quite unaware of the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend came into possession of this document. The House will see that the task of the Committee in trying to indicate to the alien in question what is known against him—and to indicate it with such particularity as may enable the alien to meet the case—will be made infinitely more difficult if it is thought that after the hearing details of what has been put to the alien are going to be scattered abroad. I hope that everybody who has come into possession of a copy of this document will treat it with very great care, because it contains a large number of names of individuals who are very well known to the security services of this country.

I was dealing with the alleged discrepancy between the answer which I gave in the House on 20th May and the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 19th June. My answer was: I have examined many transcripts of proceedings before these Committees, and invariably it is the practice of the Committee to put to the detained person facts which are known to his detriment" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1941; col. T383, Vol. 371.] My hon. and gallant Friend uses the word "discredit," and he is perfectly welcome to it. I never said, nor could I have been heard to say, that they invariably put to every detained person every single fact known to his detriment or the source from which that fact has been obtained. That would clearly be impossible. The Committee have to exercise very great discretion in putting matters to these aliens, for fear that they may betray the very intimate sources from which this information is sometimes obtained. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave his answers on 19th June, there again I can see no inconsistency between the answers which he gave and the answer which I gave on a previous occasion. My right hon. Friend said that in the case of Mr. Weininger the position was made quite clear in the course of the proceedings. … —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1941; col. 805, Vol. 372.] but my hon. Friend's complaint is, that in reply to a later question by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) my right hon. Friend said: When aliens, as distinct from British subjects, are interned, details are not furnished in the same sense as for British subjects" — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1941; col. 806, Vol. 372-] I have already explained that what my right hon. Friend was referring to there was that no statement of reasons for de- tention is furnished to the alien under the procedure laid down as it is under Defence Regulation 18B, but again that cannot be taken to mean that in any individual case details were not furnished to the alien in the course of his hearing before the Committee. In the case of Mr. Weininger the examination was exceedingly full, and Mr. Weininger himself was asked what he had to say. At the end of the proceedings he made a speech to the Committee which covers three and a half pages of foolscap paper. He retired, and then as an afterthought found that there was something more he would like to add. After an adjournment he again came before the Committee and made a further statement. There is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that Mr. Weininger has not had his case fully and fairly investigated.

Mr. Stokes

Has he seen the report as transcribed?

Mr. Peake

He has not, of course, seen the official transcript.

Mr. Stokes

Why should he not?

Mr. Peake

I do not know that it would carry the matter any further if he did My right hon. Friend has to consider the report of this body, which is only an advisory body, and upon that lie has to make up his mind. My hon. and gallant Friend, in raising this question, also said that no witnesses were called on behalf of Mr. Weininger. It is equally true to say that no witnesses were called who were opposed to Mr. Weininger. All the statements made before the Committee were, in this case, written statements, and testimonials, I think, from all the gentlemen whose names my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned were before the Committee at the time they investigated this case. There is one other misstatement which has gained currency, that Mr. Weininger was arrested in the flat of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen. In point of fact, the police went to Mr. Weininger's hotel and found him there, and were about to arrest him for detention. He pleaded, however, that he had an urgent and pressing engagement of importance with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and the police, therefore, accompanied him to the flat of the hon. Member, and after he had said what he wished to say to the hon. Member, he was taken away for detention.

May I just refer to the point raised about his condition in January of this year? It is true that his health was not good then; it is true that his health has deteriorated steadily, I am sorry to say, during the period he has been detained. It is also true that his solicitors at that time were pressing that his case should come before the Advisory Committee. No request for any adjournment was made on his behalf because his health was indifferent, and in fact, an examination of the notes shows very clearly that his mind was perfectly clear and was fully able to deal with all the points which had been made.

I wish to avoid any reference to the merits of this case, but Mr. Weininger is one of the few aliens about whom something is known to the general public beyond what the Home Office knows. Mr. Weininger's internment had nothing whatever to do, as was stated in evidence before the Select Committee, with the affair of the Czech assets, in which an hon. Member of this House was concerned —nothing whatever. But if hon. Members refer to the Report of the Select Committee, they will see two things. They will see first a very clear finding of the Committee, in paragraph 49 of their conclusions, first of all that the hon. Member in question had a claim to participation in this very large sum of money; and secondly, that: Your Committee are satisfied that, generous as Mr. Weininger may have been and anxious as he was to help his friend whose political activities he admired, the promise to pay him such a considerable sum of money was given on the understanding that Mr. Boothby would render services in return. Such services included political speeches and pressure on Ministers of the Crown and Treasury officials That is the finding of the Select Commit tee. I must confess that an alien who is prepared to come to this country and spend his money in that way is not one who commends himself very highly, at least in my eyes, and, I suppose, in the eyes of many Members of this House. A further point is perfectly clear. Hon. Members will remember that this matter was raised on a question of Privilege later, because Mr. Weininger was never ready to accept the decision of this Committee. He challenged them in the "Times" newspaper and put himself, the "Times" and his solicitors within peril of breach of Privilege. He is no more willing at this time to accept the decision of the Home Secretary; he challenges it fundamentally, and he is not ready to accept it. He will make use of any and every method which may be open to him to challenge that decision. I hope that hon. Members —

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.