WEST INDIES (STUDENT'S EXCLUSION) (Hansard, 24 February 1954)

§ Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)
I rise tonight to deal with a matter about which I have had some correspondence with the Colonial Secretary, and also to refer to a matter which has been the subject of a Parliamentary Question. There are some aspects of the current American scene which will disturb many people in this country and some in the United States, a state of affairs which is referred to as McCarthyism, and British observers and some of the United States people have watched with disquiet the penetration of the witch hunt into university life in the United States of America.
A friend of mine, who has been to the United States for a year's appointment under the Commonwealth exchange plan, told me recently that a state of affairs has been reached there whereby the University of Princeton, where he was a lecturer, have attached to their staff nowadays members of the F.B.I., whose function is to vet the political tendencies of the students. He also astonished me by informing me that academic distinction in the American universities is nowadays not the exclusive reason why American students are awarded a Fulbright scholarship but they have to pass screening tests carried out by the F.B.I.
I am raising the case of a British student excluded from the British West Indies in a way which gives rise to most serious misgivings, in my judgment, about the British Government's action. This man's name is Ronald Frankenberg. He is 24 years of age, a Cambridge graduate in science and anthropology and a graduate of the University of Manchester in social anthropology. Late in 1952 he was awarded a Nuffield Foundation Research Grant of £1,000 for the purpose of carrying out a year's study of a family in a British West Indian island. This was to cover a stay of 12 months and to carry out his studies in the island. He chose St. Vincent, although he says any other Indian island would have done equally well. He obtained permission from the island's administrator in a letter which he sent to him on 30th October, 1952.
In making his preparations to leave the United Kingdom he, of course, had 530 to secure from the Ministry of Labour agreement to the deferment of his obligation to carry out National Service. He also consulted the West Indian Commission, which advised him that permission to visit the island was not necessary but suggested he should write to the island administrator, as I have already told the House he had done, and obtain his permission.
Thirdly, he consulted the Secretary of the Colonial Social Service Research Committee at the Colonial Office and no difficulty was anticipated. Certainly, the Colonial Office did nothing that aroused any suspicion in his mind of what ultimately was to happen to him. He proceeded to buy his kit, book his passage, and make arrangements to leave this country. On the strength of his bright prospects as he saw them, he proceeded to marry.
Three days before sailing from the United Kingdom he was telephoned by his professor at Manchester University who told him that he had received a cable from the West Indies which was in response to representations, that he, the professor, had made that this student be granted facilities to carry out his researches. Mr. Frankenberg was told over the telephone that this was what the cable said: Only Administrator, St. Vincent, can grant permission. No such permission granted. As Mr. Frankenberg had in his possession the official acceptance from the Administrator, and had not received any other communication, either from the Colonial Office or from the British West Indies, he assumed—perhaps unwisely—that his wisest course was to proceed on his journey. So he sailed on 20th December, arrived in Barbados on 31st December and, on his second day there, was asked to call on the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who gave him a note from the Acting Colonial Secretary informing him that he was not permitted to enter St. Vincent. Eventually, Mr. Frankenberg interviewed the Colonial Secretary, who denied all knowledge of the reasons for which he was being denied permission to enter the island, and, subsequently, he was asked to leave it within 10 days.

§ Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)
Hellish.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Mr. Frankenberg then sought approval to carry out his research 531 plan in Barbados, but that was refused. He was then refused permission to land in Trinidad or Granada and, as he himself says, this effectively precluded him from seeing anyone in authority in the Government of the Windward Islands, to which he was always referred when he sought reasons for his exclusion. Eventually, after a final refusal to allow him to go to Jamaica, he had no alternative but to return to the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this involved Mr. Frankenberg in considerable financial loss. On his return here he wrote to me and asked me to raise the matter with the Colonial Secretary, which I did. I asked the reasonable question, for what reason was Mr. Frankenberg excluded? In his reply, the Colonial Secretary first said that the right to admit or to deny was within the authority of the colonial authorities and that they had found it necessary to withdraw the formal permission originally issued and to impose immigration restrictions upon him because they considered him to be a bad security risk. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that although it was not a matter on which he would normally intervene he was satisfied that the refusal of entry was made on good grounds and after full consideration of all the relevant facts. Subsequently, I put down a Question to the Colonial Secretary and sought to carry the matter a little further. Unfortunately, I got nothing more from the Colonial Secretary, only a repetition of what he had told me in his letter, and the -right hon. Gentleman said again that he considered Mr. Frankenberg a bad security risk. I regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a bad security risk so far as colonial affairs are concerned, but at least I had the opportunity of telling why I considered he was a bad security risk. My unfortunate constituent is dealt with in this way and has no opportunity of meeting any charges which the Colonial Office may be able to bring against him. The whole thing smacks to me of —

§ Dr. Morgan
Hitlerism.

§ Mr. Griffiths
—a characteristic which is alien to the normal form of British life.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Common- wealth Relations, who is to reply to this debate, distinguished himself in previous 532 Parliaments, when the Labour Government were in office, as one who was ever ready and extra vigilant in seeing to it that the British citizen was not subjected to snooping activities by Ministry of Food enforcement officers and other civil servants. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us some reasons tonight why this very serious procedure has been indulged in in this case.
I want to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman some questions to which I hope he will be able to reply. Who took the decision to exclude Mr. Frankenberg and why, and why did the St. Vincent Administrator originally grant him permission and then, on his arrival, order him to leave? Why were not steps taken to inform Mr. Frankenberg before he sailed? Let us not forget that the letter informing Mr. Frankenberg that he would be admitted was dated 30th October and Mr. Frankenberg did not leave this country until 20th December and he only received the telephone message through his professor in Manchester, by chance as it were, three days before sailing time.
If something is known about him which leads the Colonial Secretary to regard him as a bad security risk, why did the Ministry of Labour permit him to defer his call-up, for presumably they thought it perfectly reasonable that he should go away for a year's study? They presumably recognised the distinctive academic qualifications of Mr. Frankenberg and were perfectly willing that he should deploy them in the Colonies. Why did the Colonial Office in London, or the section of it to which I have referred, not give him any idea of possible objections?
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are certain people in Government employment in the Civil Service who work in positions which give them access to vital information. They are subject to security procedure. I have had reason to draw the attention of the House occasionally to what I regard as being excesses in the administration of that security procedure. But whatever we say about that, at least the civil servant who is accused of being a bad security risk is given the opportunity—though I think in a most unsatisfactory way—to state his case before a tribunal which the 533 Government set up. But, here, a man is not given any details of what charges the Colonial Secretary has privately made against him. Does any British citizen who is going to the West Indies need a permit? For example, would I be regarded as a bad security risk by the hon. and learned Gentleman?

§ Dr. Morgan
Or I?

§ Mr. Griffiths
What is the procedure? I have in my constituency a fair number of West Indians. I understand that they come over here quite freely to live, stay and work. I am told that we cannot deny them access here to stay and work. What is the trouble the other way? What is the position of a British citizen who wants to stay in the West Indies? Perhaps we can hear something about that.
Finally, a few words about what is possibly held against Mr. Frankenberg. I have questioned him about this and have asked if he could give me any possible idea of what is held against him. He told me that like many other people, and like the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has taken part in student politics. He has been a member of the Labour Club and Socialist Society at Cambridge University and has been even an official of the Socialist Society at Manchester University. All of us know that university students sometimes indulge in politics in an exuberant fashion and quite often in later life take up a form of politics very different indeed from that embraced in their student days. If we examined the student activities of many hon. Members of this House on both sides we might have a cross over both ways from time to time. It cannot be possible, surely, that this young man was excluded on the ground of his student activities.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give a satisfactory answer about this very disturbing case. I ought to mention that this whole episode has cost Mr. Frankenberg about £300—which, he says, is a conservative estimate—in paying for his kit, his wife's passage and all the rest. He has to get a job, but he has been brave enough to allow his case to be deployed and referred to in this House with all the attendant publicity that entails.
That is a brave thing to do; sometimes it is much easier to keep quiet. The reason 534 he has done that is that he is convinced there is nothing in his record that could give reasonably-minded men a doubt about his suitability to take up his studies in the way in which the Government have denied him.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster)
We must get this case in its right perspective. The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) began by allusions to what he called McCarthyism. It is important in this case to see that what is involved is the entry of a person from outside a Colonial Territory into that Colonial Territory. I think that the implication in what the hon. Member said, and also in the Questions he put to my right hon. Friend, was that there was some sort of an analogy with some kind of witch hunt in the country itself.
Probably the hon. Member agrees that this matter concerns the entry from a British Territory outside the Colonial Territory into the Colonial Territory. The position is as follows. These Colonial Territories have the right to exclude people from abroad. I am using the word "abroad" to cover both a foreign territory and a British Territory abroad. They can exclude anyone trying to enter a West Indian Territory from the United Kingdom, other British Territories or foreign countries.

§ Dr. Morgan
I doubt it very much. I doubt whether it is legal.

§ Mr. Foster
The right to do so is possessed by these West Indian Colonies and other British Commonwealth Territories.

§ Dr. Morgan
These are Crown Colonies.

§ Mr. Foster
It is quite true, but these Crown Colonies have the statutory power to exclude persons from entering the Colony from abroad.

§ Dr. Morgan
I doubt it.

§ Mr. Foster
The hon. Member may doubt it, but it is in fact the case.

§ Dr. Morgan
I have actually served under Colonial Governments.

§ Mr. Foster
If the hon. Member has served under Colonial Governments that does not make his statement accurate. The statutory power which these Colonies possess is exercised by them on their own. As my right hon. Friend said in writing to the hon. Member this is a power in the use of which the Colonial Secretary does not normally intervene. It is also the practice not to give reasons for exclusion.
As the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange pointed out, it is not a power for which there is a countervailing power in this country applying to Colonials coming here. That is quite correct, but in the case of aliens it is also the practice never to give any reason for exclusion. Therefore, the only thing that can be done in the debate is to assert the statutory power which exists, to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that reasons are never given, and to repeat what the Colonial Secretary said, that in this case the ground on which the man was excluded was that he was a bad security risk. My right hon. Friend has satisfied himself that in the circumstances there are good reasons under legislation for coming to that decision. There is nothing more that I can say on the point.

§ Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)
Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he answer these points? He has referred to the very serious powers which are evidently vested in the authorities in the Colonies. Has the Colonial Secretary any right of intervention? Has he the last word? If he has the last word, did he intervene in this case, and if so, with what result? Even if it is not the practice to tell a person why he is excluded from a Colony, surely in a case like this, when it can have very serious effects upon a young man's future career, might not the man or his representative be given the reason privately? Why this Star Chamber secrecy?

§ Mr. Foster
The Colonial Secretary has the right, in the last instance, to intervene, but in this case he did not do so. As to whether the Colonial Secretary could give a man or his representative the reason, I will put that to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not for me to make any decision either way.

§ Mr. W. Griffiths
It seems a most extraordinary state of affairs that the Colonial Secretary can tell me in a letter that he has examined the case and that he is satisfied with the decision which has been reached, and yet the House of Commons apparently cannot get from him or his representative tonight the reasons which enabled him to arrive at that view. Yet the Colonial Secretary can suspend the Constitution of British Guiana. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs that in an important matter like this—it affects an individual, but it may be typical of many cases—the House of Commons cannot be given the reasons why this action was taken.

§ Mr. Foster
It is not an unusual case. When I was in Opposition and was practising as a lawyer, I appeared for an alien who was not allowed to return to this country where he had a British wife and three British children. He was excluded on similar grounds. I do not mean that the facts were similar, but he was excluded on grounds which meant, in effect, that he was a bad security risk. Perhaps it did not go as far as that, but he was excluded and it was apprehended that it had something to do with security. I went to see the then Home Secretary, who said, "No, we cannot give any reasons."

§ Mr. Griffiths
That was in the case of an alien.

§ Mr. Foster
That concerned an alien, but the situation is not uncommon.
The hon. Gentleman has asked whether in the case of British subjects someone could be informed privately of the reason for exclusion, and I will put that point to my right hon. Friend. However, the situation of someone being excluded and not being told why is fairly common. The only point which the hon. Member can make on that is that in the case of a British subject some further information Should be given, and I will bring that point to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

§ Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)
This is a most extraordinary case. I have had considerable experience of dealing with colonial cases. As a young man, I was employed for about three years in the Colonial Secretary's Department of the 537 Island of Granada, which is not far from the island which we are discussing. We used to deal with cases then—and it is a long time ago—but the Attorney-General was consulted, the Secretary of State was consulted by telegram, and every effort was made, especially if the man was a British subject, to give him fair play and justice according to British law.
Yet here we have a case, surprisingly, of a Britisher, a citizen of the British Empire, who was prevented at his ultimate destination, when he sought permission to land in a certain Colony, from being able to do so, and who was told that, for some reason that was not given to turn and which has not been given to someone acting for that British citizen in the House of Commons tonight, he must be excluded from that particular Colony.
That is a most extraordinary state of affairs, and we are really verging on Hitlerism when we get an answer like that from a Government Department. The Minister is telling us in this calm and cool way that a British citizen can apparently be deprived of his rights in entering Colonial Territories because some local governor is afraid to allow this man into the Colony.
I plead with the hon. and learned Gentleman to take this case back to the Colonial Office, and ask the Secretary of State to see whether he cannot look into 538 it again and discover whether freedom of entry by ordinary men, against whom there is no legal conviction, should not be allowed in the case of peaceful, decent, honest citizens. Secondly, the Minister should consider the matter from the legal point of view and find out whether the local Attorney-General's opinion has been asked in connection with this case. Thirdly, he should consider it from the point of view of the British House of Commons, in which this case has been raised. Does the Minister think that the answer he has given tonight on such a vitally important subject dealing with the rights of citizens of this country, is the sort of answer which will bring him credit throughout the British Empire and all the Crown Colonies, especially the West Indies?
I ask him to take back this case to see whether ordinary justice—and no no more than that is being asked for—and the right of entry into the Colony by peaceful and apparently decent citizens of the Empire should not be preserved; and that he should explain how a man can be precluded from entering the Colony for no reason which has been stated publicly and has not even been stated in the House tonight.