HC Deb 06 March 1958 vol 583 cc1338-52
Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 10TH MARCH—Supply [8th Allotted Day].

Air Estimates, 1958–59, will be considered in Committee on Vote A.

TUESDAY, 11TH MARCH—Committee stage of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 12TH MARCH—Second Reading of the Nationalised Industries Loans Bill.

Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Report and Third Reading of the Recreational Charities Bill [Lords] and of the Maintenance Orders Bill.

THURSDAY, 13TH MARCH—Supply [9th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Navy, Votes 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1957–58.

Army, Votes 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Air, Votes 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 11 and Air Supplementary Estimate, 1957–58.

It is proposed to divide the time available equally between the three Services.

At 9.30 p.m., under the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion, and on all outstanding Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Excess Votes required before the end of the financial year.

FRIDAY, 14TH MARCH—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 15th April.

I may also state that we hope that it will be possible to adjourn for the Easter Recess on Thursday, 3rd April, and resume on Tuesday, 15th April.

Mr. Gaitskell

May I, first, express the thanks of the Opposition to the Leader of the House for conceding our request that, on the Army Estimates, the suspension should be for an indefinite period? That is for this evening. May I also ask him whether the Government are likely to be able to make a statement on Cyprus in the near future?

Mr. Butler

I have no statement to make today in reply to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The making of a statement depends on the development of events.

Mr. Nabarro

Would not my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the last time the House had a debate on the proposal for a European Common Market was in November, 1956? Having regard to the tortuous character of the negotiations being conducted by the Paymaster-General and the attitude of the French, would it be possible for time to be given before Easter for a debate, or, at least, for a Government statement to be made on this important topic?

Mr. Butler

I would not describe the negotiations of my right hon. Friend as being tortuous. I would describe them as being assiduous, and, I hope, likely to be crowned with success. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend and the House in wanting information on this matter. I think that we are all in agreement on that point. I would suggest that he should give me an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister before I arrange anything, perhaps through the usual channels.

Mr. Beswick

May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the confusion and concern among the people of this country, to which reference was made a little earlier, about recent exchanges concerning the proposed Summit Conference, it would be possible to have another debate on foreign affairs so that the House of Commons, at any rate, can express its views and its consternation at the recent speech of Mr. Foster Dulles, in which he described the Russian proposals as "a hoax and a fraud"?

Mr. Butler

I must not go into issues of policy in answering business questions. I would only say that if the hon. Member were to study the whole of Mr. Foster Dulles' interview, he would not derive quite so pessimistic an impression from it as he has done from a single sentence.

In reply to his main question, I could not give any undertaking about a foreign affairs debate at present, although I appreciate the anxiety on this matter in the House.

Mr. H. Fraser

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the assiduous but apparently fruitless negotiations with the Egyptian Government on the question of compensation for British subjects, he could give time for a short debate, maybe only half a day, before the House goes into the Easter Recess, because the misfortunes of these people have gone on without much alleviation, and they do deserve the proper attention of the House?

Mr. Butler

This certainly is a matter of great importance. I understand that these negotiations are temporarily adjourned from the Rome discussions, and I think it possible that they may be brought to a further conclusion before very long. It would be difficult to give time for this. I think that I had better both examine the course of the negotiations and perhaps keep in touch with my hon. Friends who are interested in this matter before I give any further answer.

Mr. Houghton

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has noticed the growing support for a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and that of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of this House on the counting of unestablished service for pension in the Civil Service?

[That this House takes note of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (Command Paper No. 9613) and the observations of the Commission in Chapter XV, paragraph 743, on the subject of the reckoning of unestablished service for superannuation purposes in the Civil Service, to the effect that there is no question of merit or principle outstanding, that it is in fact now common ground that it is right that unestablished service should reckon in full, that Parliament conceded that as regards service after July, 1949, by the Superannuation Act, 1949, that the Royal Commission were of opinion that the Superannuation Act, 1946, afforded a precedent for retrospection and supported the argument that if a certain treatment is right at one point in time it is also right at others, and that in the view of the Royal Commission the sole consideration was that of cost; and this House is of opinion that all unestablished service prior to July, 1949, of civil servants subsequently appointed to established posts should be reckonable in full for superannuation purposes (instead of one-half only) on the grounds put forward by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth, in his speech to Standing Committee B on the Superannuation Bill, 1949 (Hansard, 10th May, 1949, Cols. 155–158), and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take the necessary action.]

Does he appreciate the growing urgency of this matter, having regard to what is to happen in shore establishments in the Admiralty in the near future? Before this Motion is overtaken by one dealing with unsuccessful suicide attempts, will he either provide time for a debate or ask his right hon. Friend to provide a remedy?

Mr. Butler

It would be a pity if we confounded the two Motions on the Order Paper, copies of which I have before me. It is important to make up one's mind on the latter difficult question before the House decides upon the solution of the former. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity of a little time to consider it, because I want to give him a satisfactory answer.

Dame Irene Ward

Has my right hon. Friend noticed a Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper on the subject of subsidising opera? As this is a very urgent matter, as far as public money and employment are concerned, can he find time for a debate on this subject?

Hon. Members

Sing it.

Mr. Butler

I think that my hon. Friend would make a fortune in any profession.

Mr. K. Robinson

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has seen the Motion on the Order Paper on the law relating to suicide, which is signed by more than 170 Members of all political parties and of all shades of religious opinion? Would he, as Leader of the House, provide time for a debate, or, better still, as Home Secretary, introduce a simple Bill to give effect to the terms of the Motion?

[That this House is of opinion that the existing law of England relating to suicide has no deterrent effect, is capricious in its incidence and can no longer be regarded as reflecting the attitude of society; and considers that suicide and attempted suicide should now be removed from the category of criminal offences.]

Mr. Butler

I do not think that the question of suicide being a crime is as simple as all that. There are a great many feelings and opinions on this matter. If the Opposition would wish to find time on a Supply Day for this or any other similar general question, it would be an interesting subject for the House to discuss.

Mr. Harold Davies

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the confusion existing in farming and agricultural circles about Government policy, he will give the House a chance of debating the Government's policy on agriculture before the Recess?

Mr. Butler

We have just published the Agriculture Bill, and I sincerely hope there will be an opportunity for debating it on Second Reading before the Recess. The conclusion will be twofold; first, the Bill will be passed by a very big majority; and, secondly, the position will be clarified for the agricultural community.

Mr. Brockway

In view of the urgency of the matter, and the fact that a man's liberty and perhaps life are involved, will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity for a discussion of the Motion, which carries the names of more than 100 hon. Members of the House, relating to the threat that Joaquim PerezSelles may be deported to Spain?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum to Joaquim Perez-Selles, an opponent of the political regime in Spain, from which he has on three occasions attempted to escape and where he has already served four and a half years' imprisonment, and who is now in Brixton Prison awaiting deportation to Spain.]

Mr. Butler

I have seen the hon. Member about this case, and I have written to him. I am also causing letters to be written to other hon. Members who have approached me on this matter. I cannot accept that this case has the features which the hon. Member has brought to my attention, and, having examined it, I do not think that it is a case for affording political asylum to this man. Therefore, I must return a negative answer to the hon. Member.

Mr. Rankin

Can the Leader of the House say whether the suspension of the Standing Order will be unrestricted on Monday, when we debate the Air Estimates?

Mr. Butler

We propose a suspension of two hours, as in the case of the Navy Estimates.

Mr. Callaghan

Following up the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), will the Home Secretary agree not to deport this man until after we have had a debate, which will be coming on very shortly on the Home Office Estimates, which will give Members who feel strongly about this case the opportunity of deploying their arguments and also give the Home Secretary an opportunity to make his reply to them?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. We have found very often that it is not fair to keep these cases hanging on, if we are satisfied about their merits. I have been into this case very fully. I have found that this man is a stowaway who has come here on previous occasions. I do not find that the political dangers which hon. Members have put to me are as severe as they fear. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that this case must be decided in the sense that I have stated.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Would it not be much more unfair to send this man back to Spain—a man who has refused military service in Spain and would, therefore, be subject to political prosecution if he were sent back to his own country?

Mr. Hirst

A very good reason for sending him back.

Mr. Butler

The right hon. Gentleman has seen me about this matter and he knows that there is quite a complicated history relating to this man—and it is not a satisfactory history. There are features of it which are not political, but which relate to the man's refusal to do his military service and his absconding from a variety of responsibilities in military service. If I thought that this case were a purely political one, I should take a different view, but I do not believe it to be so.

Mr. Bevan

Would the right hon. Gentleman come to the same view if this man had come from behind the Iron Curtain? Has he prepared his mind to reply to the representations that many Members have made to him, that instead of sending this man direct to Spain he might enable him to go to some other country whose hospitality might be more generous?

Mr. Butler

Yes, Sir. At the request of hon. Members I did examine the possibility of sending this man to France, and I got in touch with the French consul with a view to seeing whether it would be possible. I found that it was not likely to be received as a request from this Government, and, therefore, there was no help in this direction. It was against that background that I saw no alternative to the policy that I have decided to pursue.

Mr. Bevan

We understand the reply of the French Government, but why did the right hon. Gentleman think that it was a good idea to ask the French Government? Was he hoping that they would relieve him of his own anxieties in the matter?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I did that because I have been seen, within the last 48 hours, by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), who requested me to ask whether a transit visa to France was possible. I accordingly investigated the matter, and I am sorry to say that it does not appear to be possible.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We seem to be getting away from the question of business.

Mr. Gaitskell

I think that the Home Secretary realises that hon. Members on both sides of the House are very sensitive to this question of the hospitality which is afforded to aliens escaping from foreign dictatorship countries. That has been evidenced, for instance, in recent weeks by the decision of the Home Secretary in regard to the Hungarian stowaways. [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite different."] Will not the Home Secretary at least delay a decision in this matter for a week or ten days, to enable him further to consider representations made on behalf of this man?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I think that I would be doing wrong if I did so. I always examine these cases with the utmost sympathy. I realise that hon. Members opposite feel strongly about the suffering that might ensue if the man is returned to the hands of the Government of Spain. I have examined the matter very closely and have taken all the evidence that I could get and I find that my decision is the right one. It is, therefore, better to take a decision, and tell the House so, than to cause further delay and confusion in the mind of this man, which might lead to further suffering.

Mr. Gaitskell

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the excuse—which is quite unworthy of him—that he cannot review his decision because it would cause confusion in the mind of this man. I ask him to reconsider the matter. Is he really saying that he will send this man back to the Government of Spain, knowing perfectly well what kind of fate awaits him when he gets there? Does he want to get that sort of reputation as a Home Secretary? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am astonished that hon. Members opposite show no interest in people coming from Fascist countries, although they usually show some interest if they come from Communist countries. Let us have a sense of consistency in these matters. I ask the Home Secretary, once again, whether he will be good enough to reconsider the matter upon representations being made to him.

Mr. Butler

The case has been considered on exactly the same level as it would have been if the man had come from any other country—Communist or otherwise. I am satisfied that hon. Members have supported this case without realising two things—first, that it is not altogether a satisfactory case, and, secondly, that it does not conform to the general understanding reached by my predecessors in office—not only of one but of all Governments—about the qualifications required for political asylum. I do not believe that this man qualifies for political asylum in this country and I have, therefore, no other course than the one that I have adopted.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must remind the House that this question arose out of the discussion of business for next week.

Mr. Dugdale

On a point of order, Sir. Would it be in order to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent and definite public importance, namely, the refusal of the Home Secretary to grant asylum in this country to a man threatened with death if he returns to Spain?

Mr. Speaker

That would not comply with the conditions of the Standing Order. This is an operation in the ordinary course of law. Are there any other questions which are strictly related to business?

Mr. Fernyhough

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision in relation to next Monday's business. He informed us that the suspension of the Standing Order would be only until 12 o'clock. Is he aware that on Tuesday many hon. Members wanted to take part in the Navy Estimates debate but were kept out, and that the pressure to speak will be even greater on Monday? In the circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Butler

I do not think that it will be necessary. I think that two hours should be sufficient to enable us to transact the business.

Mr. Paget

Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—

Mr. Speaker

I have dealt with that point of order. We have passed from it.

Mr. Paget

With respect, Mr. Speaker, you asked immediately afterwards whether there were any other questions on business. As a matter of courtesy I left that question to be answered, but this is a point of considerable importance, and I venture to say—I am speaking from recollection—that there is a direct precedent, which you will find in Erskine May, for granting the Adjournment in the case of a proposal to deport an alien who claims political asylum. I have not Erskine May with me, but my recollection is that there is a direct precedent for this course being taken.

Mr. Speaker

This question has been tit issue for a long time. There is a Motion on the Order Paper about it. It is not like a question that has suddenly arisen.

Mr. Rankin

Reverting again to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) and myself on Monday's business, does not the Leader of the House agree that every hon. Member has the right to raise a grievance before Supply is voted? Does not he realise that in restricting the duration of the debate he is restricting the rights of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he not reconsider his decision?

Mr. Butler

We are not restricting hon. Members; we are extending the debate by two hours, which I think is satisfactory.

Mr. Brockway

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said just now that the matter of Joaquim Perez-Selles was on the Order Paper. The Home Secretary has announced his decision today. The boy is in danger of being sent to Spain tomorrow, certainly to a long imprisonment, and possibly to his death. Under those circumstances, will not you allow us to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of public urgency?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot do so under the Rulings which exist on the interpretation of the Standing Order. This is a matter which follows in the due course of law. The decision is left with the Home Secretary. He may be accused afterwards of having done wrong, but there is no power to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Gordon Walker

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of the due process of the law, but of administration which is under the direct responsibility of the Home Secretary. There is no court involved and no matter of law. This is a matter of Government administration, and it is very urgent.

Mr. Speaker

I understood that it was a matter of extradition or repatriation and entirely a matter laid down by Statute.

Mr. Bevan

The whole question could never have arisen were the Home Secretary automatically obliged to repatriate this man, but it rests entirely within the clemency of the right hon. Gentleman and his administration. This matter has been raised over and over again in the House. It is a question whether the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his powers of discretion, would grant asylum to this person in this country having regard to all the facts of the case.

As the facts of the case have not been unfolded to the House of Commons, all that my hon. Friends have suggested is that the Home Secretary should defer his action until the House has had an opportunity of finding out whether, in fact, his judgment is sound or not. Surely it is perfectly reasonable and within the rules of order to raise this matter in this way.

Mr. Speaker

I must adhere to my Ruling. I do not consider that this matter has reached a stage which justifies me—

Mr. Brockway

Tomorrow he goes.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not know the facts about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us get the facts."] The House should listen to me. I have just heard about this man being deported tomorrow. Is that so?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Butler

I am not aware which day he would be deported, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of the means of communication. I have written to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) conveying my decision to him and—

Mr. Brockway

Joaquim goes tomorrow.

Mr. Butler

—that is the position so far as I see it.

Mr. Bevan

So that you, Mr. Speaker, may be able to form your judgment upon the urgency of this matter, is it not proper that the Home Secretary should inform you how urgent it is?

Mr. Speaker

I should like to know, to enable me to make up my mind, when this deportation is to take place. Can somebody tell me?

Mr. Butler

I will certainly acquaint myself with the exact time of the deportation and meet you at your convenience. Mr. Speaker.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. My trouble is that I have to decide the matter now and that I really do not know what is the answer.

Mr. Butler

I have ascertained that I am perfectly correct, Sir. I have no information in my possession at present, as Home Secretary, about exactly when he is likely to leave. I have written to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, whom I saw in company with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and conveyed to him my decision on the basis of facts. I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. Member for Smethwick are aware of the facts, but I am certainly ready to meet right hon. Gentlemen and inform them of the facts on which my decision was taken, if that would be for the convenience of the House. What I am not going to do is he forced to take a decision against my better judgment and the facts in my possession simply on the basis of what I believe are the kind hearts of hon. Members opposite who have not been able to study all the facts. I have as kind a heart as anybody on that side of the House and I have taken this decision only because I think it the right one in the circumstances.

Mr. Bevan

In view of the Motion which it has been sought to move, and on which you, Mr. Speaker, are now proposing to rule, is it in order that the Home Secretary may escape the frontiers of your Ruling by refusing to give information to the House of Commons about the urgency of the matter? May it not be that before the House sits next week this man may be sent abroad? How are you, Sir, able to rule upon the urgency of this question, and that is one of the submissions to you, unless the Home Secretary puts you in possession of that information?

Mr. Speaker

I have to act on the best information I receive. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said definitely that this man was to be deported tomorrow. Is that correct?

Mr. Brockway

According to my information, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—this boy was a stowaway on the MacAndrew Line and the boats of the MacAndrew Line leave tomorrow or on the 11th.

Mr. Speaker

Will the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) bring his Motion to me?

The right hon. Member for West Bromwich moves that leave be given, under Standing Order No. 9. to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter a urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Home Secretary to grant asylum to Joaquim PerezSelles threatened with death. I think that the House is sufficiently seized of the matter. I am in the dark as to the precise facts, but I think that in the circumstances, accepting what is said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, I should allow this Motion. If we have a short discussion at seven o'clock the facts can then come out and we might feel justified in providing an opportunity for the House to find out what is happening.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), until Seven o'clock this evening.

Mr. Butler

On a point of order. May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, for future guidance? I had no warning that this matter would be raised on business, and I have not brought any of my papers connected with this very difficult case. I was, nevertheless, submitted to questioning on business and had to answer without any of my information being at my disposal.

I accept your Ruling absolutely, of course, and I shall be only too glad to tell the House the reasons which have led me to this decision. It is perfectly reasonable that I should do so and I am not questioning that at all. What I am asking is for some guidance on Parliamentary procedure. If a Minister is to be submitted to this sort of cross-questioning without having his information by him, could we have some understanding that it is not done on business but in a more formal manner?

I happen, on this occasion, to have all the information in my head with the exception of the one point that I have not been informed by my office as to the time that this man was sailing. I do not believe that any final decision has been taken, but I will give the House the latest information at seven o'clock. I am only explaining to hon. Members that I could not have the latest information because I did not get warning.

Mr. Speaker

I think that we should pass to other business now, but in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House I would recall that this matter started with a proper question on business, whether the right hon. Gentleman would find time for a debate on the matter In reply, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that he could not do so and gave reasons which led to a rather prolonged debate on the merits of the matter, which came into question. I have taken the course which is, perhaps, the best in the circumstances, but may I say that hon. Members should not use business questions for raising matters of substance.