HC Deb 04 June 1954 vol 528 cc1692-706

3.45 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

My hon. Friends a moment or two ago were asking that there should be a peaceful outlet for people's grievances, and here in this House, where we spend so much time ventilating grievances, it is appropriate that the last three-quarters of an hour before we break up for the Whitsun Recess should be spent in ventilating the grievance of one particular person, not of a whole people, to show how in one particular case the machinery of State moves sometimes without any semblance of justice, courtesy or common sense, and can involve a defenceless person, without humanity, care and tolerance.

The issue I want to bring up is a narrow one, and it is one of civil liberties. It is the right of the British subject to receive help from the nearest British authorities in whatever part of the world he should want it. I realise my own inadequacy for raising this subject, but I am fortified by remembering that someone who knew the case for many years, had he been here in his place, would have been much more forthright than my nature allows me to he. I refer to Josiah Wedgwood, a former Member. But let me say at once to the Under-Secretary of State for Cobmonwealth Relations that I know, and he knows, that he must accept responsibility for all that goes on inside his office, and he knows, and I know, that I am not bringing any personal accusations against him.

The case refers to a woman called Claudine Henry, whose maiden name was Libovitsz. Some 100 or 200 years ago her folk came from Hungary to this country and she was born in Sussex. When the war was over she went to India where she had property and friends, and later she married a man called Henry, of Ceylon. The background which I want to give in some detail commences on Wednesday, 17th March, when in the morning she was served with a deportation order. We have been discussing deportation orders this afternoon. This woman was a British subject holding a British passport and she was served with this order by the authorities in Ceylon, which is a Commonwealth country. It has that power which I cannot criticise, and it is not the purpose of this Adjournment speech so to do. But it should be remembered that it is a power that we in this country have never exercised under any circumstances against citizens from any Commonwealth country.

This woman was served with the order in the morning. The first she knew about it was when uniformed police with two motor cars, police in plain clothes and two policewomen drew up in front of her residence. They had the copy of this order which was served upon her, and it demanded that she be kept in custody until put on a ship or an aeroplane leaving the country. Why it needed half a platoon of people to take her to the airport I do not know, but it sounds rather like comic opera. When she asked what it was all about, she was told that there was nothing to worry about, she was being taken to Colombo, three miles away to answer questions. Ultimately, when Mrs. Henry asked whether she would have to take clothes, she was told to take something for the night. This is a relevant point, because in Ceylon in March the weather is hot, whereas in London and Paris it is very cold. So she took two cotton frocks and a dressing gown and the necessary toilet articles.

With her at the time was a friend, Mr. Kassman, Who said he would get her lawyer and ask him to do something about it. Mr. Kassman wanted to see whether the High Court would not intervene because there is such a thing as habeas corpus in Ceylon as there is here. Mr. Kassman was told by the police that he could not leave, and when he asked, "Am I under arrest?" they replied, "No, you are not under arrest, but you cannot leave, you are coming with us."

So they were taken together to a police establishment where they were kept for two hours. I hope I shall be able to convince the Under-Secretary how he has been deceived by the information given to him because, when Mrs. Henry asked if she could use the telephone to get in touch with the High Commissioner. our representative, to give her some protection and to represent her, she was told that there was no telephone in the building.

Later, after twelve o'clock, she and Mr. Kassman were taken to another build- ing, the police training college. Here there was no pretence that there was no telephone. She was told bluntly that she could not use it but, at the same time. reassured, "Do not worry, we will telephone the High Commissioner for you." As time went by and two o'clock came round another woman was brought in, this time an American, who was also to be deported that day. I am not concerned with her, neither is the Under-Secretary, but it is interesting to note that she came in a oar with two American Embassy officials and that there was a woman member of the Ceylon Parliament in the same car. So the American Embassy knew that one of their nationals was to be deported whereas a British national, born in this country, had nobody to care for her except the man who happened to be with her.

After two o'clock, the assistant superintendent of police came in who had arrested her and had served her with a notice that she would have to leave. He then promised Mrs. Henry that he would phone the Commissioner. This again is an important point, because the Under-Secretary will remember that there have been complete and constant denials by the police in Ceylon that they made any such promises. The assistant superintendent went out, returned, and said to her, "I have now telephoned, the Commissioner says he will see you and we are going to take you to him." This time only Mrs. Henry got into the car because Mr. Kassman was kept in the police establishment. They drove off and, after a minute or two, they turned away from the town towards the airport.

Mrs. Henry asked, "Where are you taking me to? This is not the way to the residence of the High Commissioner." Then, for the first time, she was told. "You are going to London." Until then she had no inkling of this. I want the Under-Secretary to think for a moment. If Mrs. Henry had been told that she was to go to London, to the freezing atmosphere which we were experiencing in March from the hottest month in Ceylon, would she have worn sandals and a cotton frock and have taken nothing but two other cotton dresses and a silk dressing gown? Remember, she is a rich woman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman asked a high court judge to believe such a story, he knows, for he is not only an honourable but also a learned gentleman, what sort of credulity he would get from the judge. Obviously, no human being would do it.

It is apparent from that that the woman did not know she was going to be sent out of the country to London, or Paris or to any such climate. She was told only when she could not resist any longer. She was then taken straight away to the aircraft, and the aircraft left at 3.30. When she discovered what was happening to her, she said, "What about an overcoat?" She was told, "You should have thought about that before. You should have known."

I want to spend a few minutes on what happened to this woman when she was in the aircraft. I said earlier that she had her property and her relatives in India and that the trustee for her estate was in India. She wanted to get off at Bombay. She now had hardly anybody whom she knew in England. Her British passport, which was valid until, I think, 1958—certainly for some years—had been taken away from her by the police. An American official—a member of the aircrew, I presume—told her that she could not have her passport back. He held it, and she could not leave the aircraft in India. He went so far as to tell her—this displays some interesting ignorance that she could not get off the aircraft because she had no visa. As if a British subject required a visa in order to go on Indian soil.

This lady desired to leave the aircraft at Bombay because she had relatives and friends there. In Calcutta she had stayed with her aunt, a Lady Ezra, the wife of a former sheriff of Calcutta. Sir David Ezra. In Bombay she stayed with her cousin, a Miss Nathan. The trustee of the property was in India. Why should she have to go to England? Not only was permission refused for her to land. but also she was not allowed to leave the aircraft. The aircraft was refuelled whilst she was sitting in it. She never got her passport—

Mr. Speaker

I wonder whether the criticisms which the hon. Member is now making are not really directed against the Government of India, with which we have nothing to do in this House.

Dr. Stross

I appreciate the point which you make, Mr. Speaker. I am giving the background. The accusation which I am bringing is directed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has certain responsibilities in respect of the High Commissioner for Ceylon. My purpose is to show that this woman did not get the protection which every British citizen has the right to get. I am showing what happened as a result of her not having that protection. I am arguing that if she had had that protection she would never have been treated in this way. I am not criticising the people of India. I have no right to criticise the Government of Ceylon. That is a matter for the hon. and learned Gentleman to take up. My duty at the moment is to attack the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope I shall do so wholeheartedly before I sit down.

This woman's passport was ultimately given back to her in Paris. It was not given back to her direct by the official who held it, namely the American member of the aircrew. It was given to her by the French police to whom it had been handed, and they gave it one look and saw at once that it was in order and handed it to her. She could not leave to go to a hotel. Her money had been taken from her except for 50 rupees. Everybody else who had been in the aircraft was sent to a hotel for the night to sleep. Everyone knows the normal practice adopted by airlines when their aircraft are late and people have to stay overnight at some point on the routes. They send the passengers to a hotel, and pay the cost of it, which is included in the ticket.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Dr. Stross

As I was saying, on these occasions everybody is allowed to go to a hotel and accommodation is found for them, but not for this woman. She does not seem to have been popular with those who had withheld her passport and would not allow her to get off the aeroplane to India. Indeed, the first time a defence of her right as a human being was by a French air hostess in Paris, who said that it was not right that she was not able to go to a hotel. She said: "Cela, ce n'est pas gentil." The answer came: "No, we are not paying for her." That came from a member of the crew.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster)

We are not concerned with the air liner, but is the hon. Gentleman quite sure that the other passengers were not going on to New York? My impression is that T.W.A. does not fly to London and that passengers changing at Paris would not have their hotel paid for if they miss their connection.

Dr. Stross

The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right on that point.

Mr. Foster

I do not know.

Dr. Stross

All I can say is that this lady had only 50 rupees and could not go to a hotel. She still had to go on to London and she did not know what was going to happen to her. She spent that night on three chairs in the airport, covered with a couple of blankets. In the morning she came to London and it was then her story came out. She was met by a woman journalist who wanted the story, and who took off a cardigan and a muffler and gave them to Mrs. Henry. She took her in a car to an address which had been found for her by the London immigration authorities. They found a friend of hers who was living in London, and there she was looked after. That is the background of what happened to this woman Mrs. Henry.

When I wrote quite a while ago to the Under-Secretary of State I asked him some questions and he sent me the answers. The questions I asked in the first place were whether he knew that this woman was to be deported and whether notice was given by the Ceylon authorities; and if he knew, why did he not do for her what we in this country do for foreigners who have to be deported. We give foreigners notice, and we ask them to which country they want to go and what arrangements they have made. Then we tell them how much time we give them. Sometimes it is a week and sometimes it is longer. In this case they came in the morning and held this person under arrest till they sent her away. I cannot believe for a moment that the High Commissioner did not know that this was going to happen.

Now I come to the third of my questions, which was, Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman not take action to give this lady protection and care and to move on her behalf? After all, he knows that since this woman came over here against her wish she has asked to see him or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. and that the request has been refused.

The Council for Civil Liberties has made a full statement on the matter, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that I put the case to him as fully as I knew how. I doubt whether I have said anything with which he is not fully conversant. The answer I got from him was interesting. He wrote me a letter after I put the general questions, and it reached me eight weeks after I wrote to him. It falls into two parts, as it answers two questions. I am going to read it, if I may. It says: I have now received a report from the High Commissioner in Colombo on the questions raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties concerning the deportation of Mrs. Henry, about which you wrote to me on 31st March. As regards the first question, the Ceylon authorities state that Mrs. Henry made no request to be allowed to communicate with the High Commissioner, and there is no ground for the suggestion that the officers by whom the deportation Order was served undertook to convey a message to the High Commissioner on her behalf. That we absolutely deny. The information I have is utterly contrary to that, and there are many sources of information. They point out that Mr. Kassman who was with Mrs. Henry when the deportation order was served was free at any time to convey a message to the High Commissioner. They add: … it is not the case that Mr. Kassman was held under arrest until her departure but that he elected to stay with her, and that during that period he was in fact in communication with a number of persons, including the secretary of the Ceylon Communist Party. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know what really went on, because I do not think that he has had any true information so far.

If it be true that no request was made to get into touch with the High Commissioner, that does not allow the High Commissioner to say that it was not his duty to ask her beforehand, if he knew beforehand, whether he should help her. Secondly, this letter sent two months after I asked for an answer—sent I am told from the High Commissioner's Office—seems to be repeating only what the police in Ceylon have told the High Commissioner they did. I want to know why the High Commissioner did not do certain things.

I should like to read part of a letter sent by Mr. Kassman on 19th March to Mrs. Henry in which he said: I was released at about 4 o'clock …"— that is on the day when the aeroplane left at 3.30— I did not know what had happened to you until about 6 p.m. when we checked with the airport. All I could do at that stage was to contact the High Commissioner and insist that he contacted the British Embassy in Paris by cable and sent somebody to meet you. Chappie was not happy about it, but I do not think he would dare to ignore my request, especially as I had your lawyer with me. Please let me know whether you were met in Paris and helped by anybody, as this matter will have to be pursued if nothing was done by the High Commissioner to assist you. The news of our arrest had got around by about 10 o'clock … That means 10 o'clock in the morning, because someone else was arrested who had with him a Ceylon Member of Parliament— Frantic efforts had been made by our various friends, separately and collectively, to locate us and then to move the Supreme Court, but since we were hidden away by the police, nothing could be done till it was too late. In a letter sent the next day there was an interesting postscript which the hon. and learned Gentleman will find interesting: By the way, when I came home after your departure I found that the upholders of law and order had wrenched out the wires in my wagon and also cut the telephone line, which was cut a few weeks ago! That is real efficiency. All this is evidence given to me. I have not had legal training although I have spent nearly half my life in the law courts—almost as long there as I have spent in the pursuit of medicine. I could not help it; that fell to be my lot. When I consider the evidence, I feel that the letter I received from the Minister was not worthy of his office. I should like to read the second part of the letter which says: As regards the second question, the Ceylon authorities state that when the deportation order was served on Mrs. Henry, she was told that she would be deported to the United Kingdom as soon as possible and she was asked to pack her bag, which she did … there was nothing to prevent Mr. Kassman himself from obtaining additional clothing for her before her departure, or from communicating with friends en route or in London about the journey. In the circumstances, it was not considered necessary to make any special arrangements in connection with her journey to or her arrival in this country. If that last sentence means anything at all, it means that the office of the High Commissioner must have known about this at least a day before. They knew, but chose not to do anything. The best I can say on their behalf is that they relied on Mrs. Henry's friend to help her —the friend who had had the wireless wrenched from his car and his telephone wires cut, and who had been held incommunicado until the next day.

I think that I have the right to ask the Under-Secretary of State to do three things. First, he should consider what type of action is required to prevent this type of thing ever happening again to any British citizen in any part of the Commonwealth for which he is responsible. So far as this case is cncerned, in view of what I have said, of the evidence I have given, and the further evidence I can bring if he so desires, he should demand an explanation as to what really was the case, and why no action was taken to give this woman the rights which every British person has.

Otherwise the British taxpayer could save money by shutting up these places. If what I have said is the truth, they are not worth very much to us. Secondly, he should see her—she has the right to be seen—with her representatives, and hear her story from her own lips. Thirdly, and I think most important of all, an apology should be given to her for the way in which she has been treated.

4.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster)

The account given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central (Dr. Stross) of what happened to Mrs. Henry, and the grievances he made, falls into two separate compartments. One is the action of the Ceylon authorities, and the other the action of the High Commissioner according to his version of the facts. With regard to the Ceylon authorities, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that, as you pointed out in the similar case of Indian authorities, the United Kingdom High Commissioner and the Commonwealth Relations Office are in no way responsible for the action of those authorities. In this particular case the points which the National Council of Civil Liberties brought to the attention of the hon. Member were put to the Ceylon authorities by the High Commissioner.

The letter which I wrote to the hon. Member contains the answer of the Ceylon authorities. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can really expect the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Ceylon to conduct inquiries on his own. He has to deal with the Government of that country. We are, of course, prepared to accept the answer of the Ceylon authorities as being the correct version of the case.

Just to summarise the points at issue, which were set out in the letter from me to the hon. Gentleman, the two main grievances against the Ceylon authorities were, first, that neither Mrs. Henry nor her friend Mr. Kassman were allowed to communicate with the United Kingdom High Commissioner; and, secondly, that she was deported to the United Kingdom at very short notice under circumstances which, she alleged, involved her in being badly treated.

The answer of the Ceylon authorities is that that is completely untrue. She was not badly treated. Her friend. Mr. Kassman, was not kept incommunicado during the day. Any further action would obviously fall to her to take up with the Ceylon authorities, because, on the evidence which has been presented to us, we are satisfied that the version of the Ceylon authorities is the correct one.

What should the United Kingdom High Commissioner have done? At the beginning of his exposé the hon. Gentleman put to me a dilemma which, he said, was a forensic dilemma. How was it that this lady, if told that she was being deported either to Paris or London, included in her bag only a few cotton frocks, Ceylon being warm in March, but London and Paris being cold?

That is a speculative question, and I should like to give two speculative answers to show that it is not by any means necessarily true that the lady was told that she was going to be questioned overnight. The hon. Gentleman might consider that what might well have happened is this. The lady was convinced that she would be able to get out of the aeroplane in Bombay when she was told that she would be deported. Bombay has the same climate as Ceylon, and if she was convinced that she would be able to get out at Bombay it is very natural that she would take only a couple of cotton frocks. I should think that that is a much more likely explanation than the one the hon. Gentleman gave.

Dr. Stross

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say why a British subject with a British passport should be prevented from getting out of an aeroplane at Bombay?

Mr. Foster

The answer may not be apparent to the hon. Gentleman owing to his lack of legal training. I was trying to account for her lack of cotton frocks in her bag. The question that I am putting to the hon. Gentleman is: Is not my explanation, that she thought that she was going to get out at Bombay, a reasonable explanation of why she had only two cotton frock's?

Dr. Stross

No, it is not reasonable at all compared with the explanation that the woman herself gave—that she was taken to Colombo to be questioned and that she took some night clothes. She was told that only when she asked whether she needed any clothes.

Mr. Foster

The hon. Gentleman can make what answer he likes.

Dr. Stross

No, I am not answering. The hon. and learned Gentleman is answering.

Mr. Foster

Well. I was asking a question, and that is the hon. Gentleman's answer. I would only add this. She has herself said in her statement that until she got to Bombay she was convinced that she could get out at Bombay. If she was convinced that she could get out of the aeroplane at Bombay, it is likely that before she was taken in the aeroplane she would only take two cotton frocks in her overnight bag.

The complaint of the hon. Gentleman is that the United Kingdom High Commissioner should have done something. I should like to meet the hon. Gentleman squarely on that suggestion. Here was a rich woman who was going to be deported. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the United Kingdom High Commissioner knew about it about 24 hours before. He had no representations from her, and it is to be assumed that if she is deported she will have some opportunity of communicating with the High Commissioner, which the Ceylon authorities said she had, either directly or through Mr. Kassman. This, in my submission, is a long way from a breach of civil liberties.

I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman can say that the United Kingdom High Commissioner, when he hears that a British subject is to be deported, should assume that she will be badly treated and that she has the wrong clothes. Here is a rich woman with friends in Bombay and, I should have thought, with friends and relations in Paris, too—the hon. Gentleman might look into that—and she has a friend who can telegraph all along the line to her friends and relations. In addition, there are facilities in this country for taking care of anybody who is destitute.

In the circumstances, it can be assumed that such a woman, with comfortable means, can well look after herself. That is a long way from the case of a person differently situated. I can see that if the Council of Civil Liberties accept as true the account given by Mrs. Henry as to her treatment in Ceylon the case is the sort which they would take up.

Dr. Stross

This is important. 1 do not think we are quarrelling about this. It is now admitted that the High Commissioner knew that Mrs. Henry was being deported, and did not feel that he needed to do anything about it. But if he accepts what I have said on behalf of Mrs. Henry, that she was prevented from getting in touch with him, will the hon. and learned Member tell me what the High Commissioner and his Department are going to do in relation to the Ceylon Government for their treatment of this woman and for holding her incommunicado?

Mr. Foster

That has already been done. On the statement made by Mrs. Henry a letter was written to the Ceylon Government stating that if Mrs. Henry's statement was true it was a matter that called for explanation. The Ceylon authorities have answered and said that her statement was not true. We must accept the word of a Commonwealth Government on this point, especially in view of the circumstances of the case. Mr. Kassman, according to the statement supplied by the Ceylon authorities, had the opportunity at any time of the day to communicate with various people. He apparently saw fit to communicate with the secretary of the Communist Party.

Dr. Stross

So the Ceylon authorities say.

Mr. Foster

That is a definite statement which identifies somebody else. It may well be that Mr. Kassman, for motives of his own—and, perhaps, Mrs. Henry—is anxious to make the circumstances look as bad as possible. One knows that such a situation does develop, especially when given the surrounding circumstances of these two people. I do not know that; it is speculation on my part, but it is a possible explanation for these statements which, according to the statement of the Ceylon authorities, are completely untrue.

I do not think I can take the matter very much further. I have dealt with the two divisions of the case presented by the hon. Member. We have asked for an explanation and we have got it. With regard to the actions of the United Kingdom High Commissioner, my view is that there was no duty upon him to wire along the route, when he had been interviewed by Mrs. Henry's friend, for warm clothing and money to be sent to her. Nor do I know what funds or warm clothing are available to the British Government representatives in Paris or London. Where would the hon. Member have applied? The only two bodies I can think of with whom one might have communicated are the Red Cross and the W.V.S.

Dr. Stross

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman really believe that we have no Embassy in Paris, with a staff attached to it, and that nobody can meet an aeroplane when a woman is sent out from Ceylon with 50 rupees, a couple of cotton frocks, and in bare feet?

Mr. Foster

The amount of money possessed by Mrs. Henry was not within the knowledge of the High Commissioner. All he knew was that she had not very much money, and no warm clothing. I do not know whether there are any funds for providing warm clothing. If a person is destitute it is a different matter, but if one is just a little uncomfortable I do not see that anything can be done.

It is not worth blowing this matter up into a great civil affairs case. I cannot see it in that proportion. Even assuming that the hon. Member were right that it was the duty of the British authorities along the route to meet the aeroplane with bundles of warm clothing, I do not think that any great harm has been done. I can see that the hon. Member had to say what he has said because he wants to tack on to it the circumstances which he alleges took place when the lady departed from Ceylon.

As I say, I do not think I can carry this very much further. The first part of the matter was entirely for the Ceylon authorities. As for the second part of the case, the High Commissioner did know, but did not think, from the notice presented to him by Mr. Kassman that Mrs. Henry had left or from the advance notice he was given by the Ceylon authorities, that anything fell to be done by him. I agree with him. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a matter in which a great accusation can be made against the Commonwealth Relations Office or the United Kingdom High Commissioner.

The hon. Gentleman said that Mrs. Henry asked to see me. I was a bit surprised, because I did not know about it. I certainly should have liked to have considered that. Very often, I find, in this kind of case, one ought to see the person concerned, even if the story may be overexcited, misconceived, or invented—although I am not saying that this story was any of those. However, I have no record of her asking to see me.

Dr. Stross

An approach was made by the Council of Civil Liberties. A request was made to see the Secretary of State. That was refused. Individually, the hon. and learned Gentleman may indeed know nothing about this. However, if he would see her I think that that would go a long way towards meeting us.

Mr. Foster

I should like to consider that sympathetically, without binding myself. I am told in the Department that there is no record of such a request.

Dr. Stross

I will check.

Mr. Foster

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would confirm that one way or the other. I think it would be interesting, too, if the hon. Gentleman would clear up some of the other points at issue, but I hope that he will see the case in a perhaps less dramatic form than that in which it has been presented to me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes past Four o'Clock, till Tuesday, 15th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.