SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT) (Hansard, 9 May 1968)

§ The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson)
Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained in the first paragraph of the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Commonwealth Secretary on 25th January, 1966.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
That is an abrupt and most unsatisfactory answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official of his Department gave Sir Frederick the reason for taking away his passport that he was seen in the company of Rhodesian Ministers at a Rhodesian trade fair? Is he aware that Sir Frederick has been president of the trade fair for six years, but during that time has come constantly to this country, and since U.D.I.?
Will the Minister therefore say what change there has been which justifies the confiscation of Sir Frederick's passport? What redress has Sir Frederick against this very arbitrary judgment? If the reason is industrial, is the Minister aware that nickel is not on the list of items to which mandatory sanctions at present apply? Again, if the reason is industrial, is it the Government's policy to take away the passports of any British chairman or director associated with a foreign company or a company in South Africa which has incidental trade with Rhodesia?
Is it, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away the passports of the chairmen or directors of oil companies which import oil into South Africa which subsequently goes to Rhodesia? Will he give us an answer to some of these specific questions?

§ Mr. George Thomson
In answer to the two main points of the right hon. Gentleman's very long supplementary question, first, with regard to the reasons for impounding the passport, I think that the House will realise that it is not in the 624 public interest to disclose the information——

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Noise does not help at all.

§ Mr. Thomson
It is not in the public interest to disclose information on which decisions in these cases are taken, but I am satisfied——

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Fascists.

§ Mr. Thomson
I hope that the House will at least listen to what I have to say, and then if hon. Members disagree with it I shall be very happy to try to answer their questions. I am satisfied that Sir Frederick Crawford's conduct and activities since U.D.I. have been such as to bring him within the class of people referred to in the statement of January, 1966.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second main point, Sir Frederick Crawford has been president of the trade fair, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for about six years. Last year, as president of the fair, he acted as host to the gentleman, Mr. Dupont, who purports to be the representative of the Crown in Rhodesia. I think that in many parts of the House hon. Members will feel that Sir Frederick Crawford, with his distinguished record of allegiance to the Crown in the past, should not, under those circumstances, have acted in that way.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Fascists.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of the rights of an individual——

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to shout "Fascists" in this Chamber?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I did not hear anything like that.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
Fascists.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
On a point of order. I take it that you have now heard the use of that word, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is right in his surmise that I have heard 625 it. It is in order for hon. Members to use words which they would not use about an individual about a group of Members in the House. Even so, I deplore them.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that the evidence on which he has taken away Sir Frederick Crawford's passport is simply that he was host, as president, at the trade fair in Salisbury?

§ Mr. Thomson
No, Sir. I am not. I was seeking to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if his supporters will give me a little silence I can perhaps clarify the matter. I said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the reasons for impounding the passport. But I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of Britain, which it is the duty of both sides of the House to uphold, to allow this gentleman to travel around to other countries.
With regard to the trade fair, I answered a specific question asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that Sir Frederick is reported as saying that he always tries to see both sides of moral and political questions. In the case of a rebellion against the Crown it should be quite clear to any former public servant which side of the question should prevail.

§ Mr. Paget
Is my right hon. Friend aware that for a Government who talk of legality, the imposition of arbitrary punishment without trial comes ill, and that liberal opinion in South Africa will be astonished that the representative of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the strongest influence for liberalism in South Africa, should have been selected for this arbitrary punishment?

§ Mr. Thomson
My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no punishment in this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Passports, as my hon. and learned Friend knows better than many hon. Members, are issued under the prerogative and in the discretion of the Crown. What the Government must do is to decide whether it is in the interests of Britain that a particular individual should be allowed to travel around to other countries. Under the law as it stands Sir Frederick Crawford is perfectly 626 entitled to stay here for as long as he likes, but what he is not entitled to do is to travel to other countries where we consider it is against the public interest.

§ Mr. Heath
The Secretary of State must realise that he is evading the main points at issue by his last statement. To impound the passport of a man with the distinction of Sir Frededick Crawford is not only immensely damaging to him and his reputation, but damaging to him in his private and business capacity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Sir Frederick was told that the reason for the withdrawal was that he had acted as host at the trade fair to members of Mr. Smith's Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated this, thereby confirming it, and at the same time is refusing to announce the matters which he says it is in the public interest to withhold.
This is not justifiable in these circumstances. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give a reason which will appear to the House to be fair and justifiable, the country can only conclude that this is a nasty, petty, spiteful, arbitrary act.

§ Mr. Thomson
No, Sir. There is no spite or pettiness or vindictiveness in this. Sir Frederick Crawford is in receipt of the pension to which he is entitled as a former colonial Governor and that pension is still being paid to him. But I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, however much he disagrees with our decision, will at least allow the House to be clear about the reasons for it. [Interruption.] The Commonwealth Office—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members should listen to the answer.

§ Mr. Thomson
The Commonwealth Office did not state yesterday to Sir Frederick, in a long interview with him, that the reason for impounding his passport was his presence as president of the trade fair. Indeed, the situation is that he, apparently feeling on the defensive about this, volunteered the information as to his presidency of the trade fair as an explanation of his association with Mr. Dupont. [Interruption.] I am seeking specifically to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the trade fair and I am bound to say that in my view it is quite wrong for a former 627 colonial Governor, with a distinguished record in the past of allegiance to the Crown, to set an example in this case by acting as host to a usurper of the Crown's functions in Rhodesia. I should be interested to hear the personal views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite about that.
But these were not the reasons on which we impounded the passport. It is not the practice, as right hon. Members opposite know, to give reasons for impounding a passport. The decision in this case was taken by my predecessor, Lord Aylestone, as far back as June last year, but I have been carefully over the papers in this matter since it was raised with me yesterday evening and I am taking this decision on my responsibility. I am satisfied, having studied the papers, that it would not be in the interests of Britain for Sir Frederick Crawford to be given our permission to travel to other countries.

§ Mr. Richard
Can my right hon. Friend go a little further and confirm that the reason the passport was impounded is that, in the opinion of the Government, there are reasonable grounds for believing that this gentleman's activities have served to assist the régime in Rhodesia? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, accept from me that we on this side, while recognising that this is a very grave step to take, feel that, though regrettable, it is right?

§ Mr. Thomson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must resist the temptation he offers me, just as I resisted it from right hon. Members opposite, to go into the reasons.

§ Mr. Wall
What right of appeal——

§ Mr Paget
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that one does not give notice in that way.

§ Mr. Wall
What right of appeal has an individual against the arbitrary action of the Executive in this situation? Is not this action low compared with even the lowest standards of the most unpopular Government in living memory?

§ Mr. Thomson
I fully expected the hon. Gentleman to take that view, but I am surprised that he should feel so heated at this stage because what has been done is the implementation of a decision announced to the House on 25th January, 1966.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the warmest support of the country for this action, which will make sure that British citizens, however distinguished, understand that they must loyally help in applying sanctions?

§ Mr. Thomson
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Hogg
Will the Secretary of State explain to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) that there was once a time in this country when a man was innocent until proved guilty? Will he also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the refusal to publish any reasons, however much this may be said to be in the public interest, is to reduce this country to the level of a police State?

§ Mr. Manuel
A bunch of traitors you are.

§ Mr. Hogg
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—[Interruption]——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must hear the point of order being put to me.

§ Mr. Hogg
On a point of order. I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire shout to right hon. and hon. Members on this side, "A bunch of traitors you are". If we are to debate in peace and quiet, may we ask for the protection of the Chair?

§ Mr. Roebuck
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the régime in Rhodesia is illegal and in rebellion against the Crown, that those who support it are guilty of sedition, and that sedition is not allowed in this House under Standing Orders?

§ Mr. Speaker
I ruled earlier that unpleasant epithets hurled at groups of Members in the House as distinct from individuals may be in order, but that I deprecate them equally from both sides.

§ Mr. Thomson
I understand the very deep feelings of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about this matter, but I remind him that the authority under which this passport was impounded has been exercised under the prerogative by successive Governments. He is a former Minister of the Crown and knows that perfectly well.
I assure the House that this action is only taken in rare circumstances and after very careful consideration indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a gibe about a police State. After his magnificent defence of liberal tradition in a recent debate, I would have thought that he would feel that a country like this, which exercises this exceptional action only in the rarest cases, might be supported in its efforts to end what is undoubtedly a police State in Rhodesia.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Could we not more readily appreciate the passion exhibited by some right hon and hon. Members opposite if they had protested as vigorously against the detention of persons in Rhodesia and other subversive activities indulged in by the Rhodesian authorities, which coincide more with the description of a police State than does the reference of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

§ Mr. Thomson
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It occurs to me that I am meeting a great deal more passion and heat from the benches opposite than I have ever had on a number of issues of the kind my right hon. Friend has referred to.
I can only say in this case that there have been other cases of this kind, but I hope that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong to apply a different standard to a man of public eminence, however distinguished his past services, because he has the necessary connections to enable him to press his case.

§ Mr. Iain Macleod
I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, does he know Sir Frederick Crawford personally and well, as I do? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman turn up the record of the Uganda Independence Conference, held when I was Secretary of State and Sir Frederick was Governor, and read Sir 630 Frederick's speech, which was one of the noblest affirmations of the need for African advance that I have ever listened to?

§ Mr. Thomson
First, I do not have the advantage of personal acquaintance with Sir Frederick Crawford. Secondly, I was not seeking to suggest that he was against African advance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I sought to pay tribute to his past distinguished service. But that does not excuse him from his present position in Rhodesia.

§ Sir Dingle Foot
Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side of the House entirely share the admiration which is felt for Sir Frederick Crawford for his record, particularly in Uganda? None the less, is he aware that we share the view of my right hon. Friend, that those who give, or appear to give, aid and comfort to the rebel régime cannot expect to travel freely on British passports?

§ Mr. Thomson
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. David Steel
May I ask the Commonwealth Secretary whether it is not a fact that this is not the first case under the procedure agreed by this House when a passport has been withdrawn? If so, is it not the case that no different treatment should be meted out to a distinguished public servant than to anyone else, and that there is a case for arguing that his standard of conduct should be greater than anyone else's? May I ask whether it would not be in the public interest to give the reasons for the withdrawal of the passport, simply because I believe that these reasons might well serve as a warning to other persons engaged in similar activities?

§ Mr. Thomson
I am bound to resist any temptation to give reasons in a case like this. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that this will reassure the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House might wait before it says "No", to decide whether the reassurance is adequate. It may decide that it is not, but I hope that it will listen.
There have so far been four cases in the last 12 months of action taken in this country against holders of United Kingdom passports. There might be other categories of people acted against 631 in other countries, holding United Kingdom passports, but I could not, without notice, give that information to the House. There have only been the four cases in the last 12 months of action taken, and I hope that this will reassure the House that action is not taken lightly.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Can my right hon. Friend say whether Sir Frederick has ever unequivocally subscribed to the Crown, and condemned the illegal régime? Should not the benefits of a British passport be available only to those who oppose the illegal régime in Salisbury?

§ Mr. Thomson
My hon. Friend's question is presumably not directed to the grounds on which this action has been taken, and of which I refuse to give details. Sir Frederick Crawford has, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, represented the Queen with great distinction in at least two Colonial Territories in the past. It is true, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, that in his case any action which gives an aura of respectability to Mr. Dupont is very much to be deplored.
I have noticed that other distinguished representatives, judges and soldiers of the Armed Services, for instance, have all sought to avoid taking part in any public ceremonies involving Mr. Dupont. Sir Frederick Crawford not only acted as host to him a year ago, but only a few days ago acted in the same capacity.

§ Mr. Braine
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he has said there have been only four such cases in the last year, in the last week there has been an instance of a man who has never been a supporter of the régime but who bears the identical name of a Minister in that régime, and who has been refused renewal of his passport, with no reason given? This is manifestly an error. What safeguard, what appeal, have individuals against arbitrary and cruel actions of this kind?

§ Mr. Thomson
I am very anxious indeed to avoid any miscarriage of justice in cases like this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Member has not already passed to me details of the case, I would be glad to have them, and will certainly investigate it thoroughly.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Would my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the yearly statistics since the war, showing how many passports have been taken back from British citizens, and in how many cases reasons have been given in those years?

§ Mr. Thomson
To the best of my knowledge reasons have never been given, and were never given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were members of their Government.

§ Mr. Peyton
Does the right hon. Gentleman find it easy to contemplate an action on the part of the Government more mean, petty and so characteristic?

§ Mr. Thomson
I would feel much more sympathy with the hon. Member if he had used the words "mean, petty and spiteful" about many of the actions of the illegal régime in Rhodesia, in the constant debates that we have had in this House.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? I wish to make an application for leave to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. Do I do so now, or after Business questions?

§ Mr. Speaker
The moment to do so is after Business questions.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to persist, without reason given, without the opportunity of redress, without any right of public or judicial investigation, to accord this treatment and put this slur on this gentleman? If that be so, is it not a gross violation of the rule of law and of the constitutional principles which we follow in this House?

§ Mr. Thomson
Sir Frederick Crawford had a long interview with an official of my office yesterday. I am certainly ready to hear any further representations that he may wish to make. They will be considered very carefully, but I repeat that the action that has been taken is no different from the action taken by Governments of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so distinguished a member.

§ Mr. Lipton
Is there not one reason for the passion displayed by hon. Members opposite—the fact that this gentleman, whose case we are now discussing, happens to be an old Etonian?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must protect the business of the day. Mr. Heath. Business Question.

§ Sir J. Langford-Holt
On a point of order. I tried to catch your eye at an earlier stage, Mr. Speaker. This House has an interest in this matter. At an earlier stage, the Commonwealth Secretary said that it was his view that this gentleman—and I took his words down—should not be given permission to travel to other countries. Has it not always been one of the duties of this House to preserve the rights of the citizen?
The right hon. Gentleman has made a clear mis-statement, I hope unintentionally, of what is the legal right of every citizen—he has the Attorney-General on his left—which is that at all times, having given some form of identification only, he shall have the right to enter and leave this country at any time that he so wishes.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a point about which we are arguing. It is not a point of order.