HC Deb 04 March 1953 vol 512 cc393-8
Mr. S. Silverman (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refused visas to four women representatives of the Soviet Women's Anti-Fascist Committee and certain women representing the Polish Women's League and the All-China Women's Federation to attend as fraternal delegates the Annual Conference of the British National Assembly of Women on 8th March next and whether he will reconsider this decision.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth)

The National Assembly of Women is engaged in the Soviet inspired campaign against the policy of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and as my right hon. and learned Friend explained, on the occasion of his refusal to allow foreign delegates to attend the similar meeting last year, he is not prepared to allow foreigners to come here to carry on this campaign under the colourable pretext of concern for the interests of women.

Mr. Silverman

May I ask the hon. Gentleman four short supplementary questions? First, is he not completely misinformed about the purpose of the National Assembly of Women which, so far as my information goes, has no connection whatever with any of the matters to which he has referred? Secondly, is not the meeting on 8th March a perfectly lawful meeting? Thirdly, are these people being refused visas solely on political grounds? Fourthly, was his right hon. and learned Friend aware, when he made this decision, that the Anti-Fascist Women's Committee is reported in our newspapers as having contributed, by collections among their members, the sum of £8,000 as part of the contribution of £90,000 which came into this country to our Flood Relief Fund? Does he think that in those circumstances we, as a great country, can accept their money with any grace and refuse them admission?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

As regards the first question—whether I have not been misinformed about the purposes of this Assembly—I think that I can assure the House that that is not so. Perhaps I shall be believed when I say that the Chairman of the National Assembly of Women is Mrs. Monica Felton. Writing in the "Daily Worker" about this body on 21st February, 1953, she said, among other things: How they have worked for peace. A number of the delegates who went to the Viennese Peace Congress were Assembly members. I think that the hon. Member will agree that that answers that question.

As regards the lawfulness of the proposed meeting, I think that it will be necessary to wait. Until the meeting is held it is purely hypothetical whether or not it will be lawful. On the third question, about the basis of the refusal, I think that I cannot do better than read what my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 31st July, 1952. My right hon. and learned Friend said: The principle upon which I acted I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion. It is that I will not let people come into an artificially created body which under the guise of some harmless name is really an instrument of Soviet propaganda."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1664.] As to the fourth question, these matters are decided on general principles. I hope and believe that all the people who contributed to the Flood Disaster Fund gave the money with a sincere desire to relieve distress and did not have any ulterior motive in doing so.

Mr. McGovern

So long as organisations are allowed in this country as perfectly legal organisations, can the hon. Gentleman say why permits are not being issued? Surely the same rule should apply to Marshal Tito as is to apply in this case. Is he aware that we hope that by means of contact with people outside we may modify their whole attitude towards this country and the West, and that we cannot go on with this policy of banning every person who applies for a visa to come into this country from a foreign country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member has not stated the policy very clearly. I read the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the policy which he was pursuing. That, quite clearly, does not apply in the case of Marshal Tito, but I certainly think that it applies in the present case.

Mr. Nicholson

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in spite of the exceedingly grandiose title of this organisation, it represents only a fragment of the female population of this country?

Mr. Benn

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly whether it is or it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to admit foreign Communists into this country? If it is not, can he say how they differentiate it from the policy behind the McCarran Act and behind Iron Curtain countries? If he believes that we live in a free country, will he not agree that the more foreign Communists see it the greater the propaganda value?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. Member again has not stated the policy fairly. Certain foreign Communists have been allowed in this country. The reason they are not allowed in this case is because of the nature of the organisation and of the meeting which they are seeking to attend.

Mr. Hale

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the question is not whether these organisations with grandiose and misleading names are Communist or not but whether the strength and power of democratic Britain will be injured more by letting in a few silly women or by ceasing to adhere to our tradition of liberty of speech and expression in respect of which it has always been a beacon of freedom throughout the world?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That seems to me to be entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. S. Silverman

On the question of the legality—[Interruption.] Do be quiet. If the Prime Minister wishes to intervene I will give way to him. Would the right hon. Gentleman like a jujube to keep him quiet?

With regard to the legality of this meeting—which the hon. Gentleman seemed not to know about—is he aware that this conference has been held annually in this country without objection for a great many years and that its legality may therefore be presumed? Secondly, will he say on what grounds the Home Secretary presumes to exercise the prerogative which was conferred upon him—for the purpose of keeping criminals and similar people out of the country—in order to discriminate on purely political grounds in respect of meetings which are admitted to be lawful?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

As regards the legality of the meeting, I have no reason to suppose that it will be other than legal, but what I have told the hon. Member is that I cannot say that it will necessarily be legal until I know what is its agenda. As regards the power under which the Home Secretary acts, that was debated in the House only a month or two ago, when there was a question of renewing the power under the Aliens Order. That is the power under which the Home Secretary is now acting.

Miss Lee

Does the hon. Gentleman know that his reply is disgraceful and shame-making and——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady must not use the privilege of asking a supplementary question to make offensive remarks.

Miss Lee

I withdraw anything personal in my remark, provided that my point of view has been made clear. I would ask the Minister whether he can explain why he is so lacking in confidence in himself and his country, and if he is not aware that his decision is contrary to all the best standards of British civilisation?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That appears to be a matter of opinion, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am in no way lacking in certainty that this decision is a right one.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. I do not know whether this is the right time to do it, but I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker

There is a statement to come first. Mr. Birch.

Later—

Mr. Silverman

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely. the abuse by the Home Secretary of his discretionary powers in order to interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by the National Assembly of Women at their annual conference next Sunday.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the abuse by the Home Secretary of his discretionary powers in order to interfere with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by the National Assembly of Women at their annual conference next Sunday. I cannot find that this is within the terms of the Standing Order. The control of aliens has been vested in the Home Secretary and this action of refusal of visas, however the hon. Member may describe it, is within the ordinary operation of the law and cannot come within Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Silverman

With great respect—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill)

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is in order to debate your Ruling?

Mr. Speaker

It is not in order to debate my Ruling.

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. I was about to submit a point of order to you when the Prime Minister interrupted in order to anticipate it. I want to ask you whether you will consider, in relation to the Ruling which you have just given, the consideration that no question of the operation of law is involved in this matter at all. It is purely—[Interruption.] It is not for the Prime Minister to take this point. He has never attempted to accept a Ruling in his life.

Mr. Speaker

I must ask the House to treat this matter calmly. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?

Mr. Silverman

It is very difficult to put it against a barrage of continual interruption. I will put it again and I hope that this time I shall not be interrupted.

The point which I was putting to you was this—and I can put it very briefly: whether you have considered that the matter involved in this Question and Motion is not a matter of the operation of law at all but purely a question of an administrative decision taken within his Department by the Home Secretary. It cannot be denied, I suppose, that it is urgent, since the conference takes place next Sunday, nor that it is of public importance. Since it is purely a matter of administration and not of law, I respectfully submit that it is within the Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker

I have carefully considered the point of order which the hon. Member has submitted to me. I considered it in advance before I came into the Chamber today, to make sure that I was right. I have thought this matter over carefully and I have reached the conclusion which I have stated. We must pass on.