§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his refusal to grant entry into Britain to 1564 Lady Crawford for the purpose of medical treatment.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)As Lady Crawford well knows, she is a person who has, by her own actions, furthered and encouraged the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
Although warned previously that she should make prior inquiries, she arrived without notice seeking entry to the United Kingdom on medical grounds which are insufficient to justify an exception to the restrictions on entry already placed upon her.
In present circumstances, reconsideration is not justified.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIs there not a simple point of humanity involved here? Here is a woman who wishes to consult her doctor because her health is at risk and she comes here, I think that the Home Secretary would confirm, on a passport valid for entry into the United Kingdom. Is not the only way to describe the action of Her Majesty's Government inhuman, spiteful, petty and mean?
§ Mr. StewartNo, Sir. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman is very seriously under-estimating the seriousness of Lady Crawford's actions in giving enthusiastic support to a rebellion against the Crown. The House took this matter into consideration some time ago and a statement was made about the appointment of the Cairns Committee to consider cases of this kind.
We are prepared in certain circumstances to make humanitarian exceptions. That was why Lady Crawford was told that if she wished to make application on compassionate grounds she should do so in advance. This she failed to do. Moreover, the medical evidence before me does not justify the conclusion that there was any urgency or any necessity for treatment here rather than elsewhere.
§ Mr. William HamiltonIs my right hon. Friend aware that this side of the House would treat much more sympathetically the views of the Opposition on this matter if they showed an equal compassion of the many black people imprisoned by Smith without trial?
§ Mr. StewartI do think that some hon. Members opposite have got this 1565 question very seriously out of proportion.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterDoes the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the Government's Rhodesia policy involves descending to penalising a sick woman—who is seeking—
§ Mr. William HamiltonHumbug!
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter—who is seeking medical treatment, that amounts to the most damning indictment of the Government which it is possible to conceive?
§ Mr. StewartIt cannot be said that this policy is penalising Lady Crawford. She could have obtained the necessary treatment elsewhere, presumably in a country for which she may have more affection and loyalty than she has for this country.
I would add that if Lady Crawford, or any of those who are considered in this category, chose to say explicitly that they renounce and condemn the rebellion I would regard it as right to ask the advice of the Cairns Committee whether a different view could be taken of their cases.
§ Mr. FauldsWould it not be more appropriate if, even at this belated stage, the right hon. Gentleman made the denunciation of the Smith régime which his Leader—if you will forgive the misnomer, Mr. Speaker—failed to make last week?
§ Mr. StewartI think that it would be easier to understand these questions if we did know a little more clearly what the attitude of the party opposite is towards rebellion against the Crown.
§ Mr. HeathThe Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well—andI am absolutely astonished that anyone with his responsibility and background should try to escape this problem by such statements—that the position of the Official Opposition has always been to condemn the illegal State of Rhodesia, at this moment. It is absolutely clear, and everyone knows it. What the Foreign Secretary is trying to do is to excuse himself from a thoroughly inhuman act by making accusations against the Opposition.
May I ask—
§ Mr. FauldsShe was trying it on.
§ Mr. FauldsRubbish!
§ Mr. FauldsThey know my name.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was allowed to put his question. He must extend the same right to his fellow Members of Parliament.
§ Mr. HeathThe Foreign Secretary has said that Lady Crawford ought to seek medical attention elsewhere. Is he aware that he, or his representative at the United Nations, is urging every other country in the world to follow exactly the same procedure as Her Majesty's Government in this matter? How, then, can he say that she ought to get medical treatment elsewhere? What he ought to do is to allow Lady Crawford to come to this country for medical treatment, which she requires, and which he would give to any other person from any other country.
§ Mr. StewartMay I tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no need for him to repeat it so emphatically to me. He ought to repeat it emphatically to some of his supporters. May I remind the House that on a previous occasion and indeed, on more than one occasion, Lady Crawford has been allowed into this country because it then appeared at least plausible that there was a real humanitarian reason. On this occasion, there is no humanitarian necessity; and if Lady Crawford herself had thought so she could have done as she was advised and given us prior information.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsWas it not a put-up job? Is it not the case that what was offered here was a stick to beat the Labour Government, to which the hon. Gentlemen opposite have vigorously reacted? Is it not a fact that this lady travels on a Greek passport?
§ Mr. StewartI do not think the latter question is really relevant because what we are dealing with is a decision of this House that persons in this category who openly furthered and encouraged rebellion would be allowed in only in exceptional cases—andI do not think that the 1567 Opposition dissented from that proposition—and to deal with the administration of this the Cairns Committee was set up. I see no reason for granting an exception in this case.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, that is one possible explanation of the fact that the advice to give us prior information of her visit was not followed.
§ Mr. David SteelIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this bench would have expected him, had there been medical urgency, to exercise his discretion in favour of Lady Crawford, but that in the absence of any such medical emergency we would endorse his view that there is no room now for ambiguity on the part of any person, particularly the distinguished consort of an ex-Governor, or Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, as to the present status of Rhodesia?
§ Mr. StewartThat sets the position exactly.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisMay I raise with you. Mr. Speaker, a point of order? If you will refer to the Order Paper you will see that on page 4689 there is a Question on this very subject for answer tomorrow.
I wish to raise two points. Why should a matter such as this be allowed as a Private Notice Question when it is already on the Order Paper? Secondly, when I had an exactly similar type of Question, when an Indian was involved, I was told to put the Question on the Order Paper, which I did. I could not ask a Private Notice Question. My right hon. Friend gave a very favourable reply, similar to that being given now, to the effect that if the person concerned could produce medical evidence every assistance would be given.
You have talked, Sir, of saving the time of the House. There would have been no need to waste the time of the House on this if the right hon. Gentleman had left this Question for answer tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerI dealt with a point of order similar to that of the hon. Gentleman earlier this week, in reply to a similar question from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). The position used to be that the existence of a Question on the Order Paper 1568 automatically barred any Private Notice Question from being asked. The House decided that Mr. Speaker should have discretion. Mr. Speaker, having been given that discretion, uses it.
§ Mr. PagetIs my right hon. Friend aware that his description of Lady Crawford as an enthusiastic supporter of the present régime in Rhodesia is quite untrue, that Crawford opposed U.D.I. but subsequently was associated, as a resident director of Anglo-American, with the de facto Government, and that the sole offence of Lady Crawford is being her husband's wife?
§ Mr. StewartNo, Sir, that is not so. Lady Crawford has made very plain her enthusiasm for the illegal declaration of independence, Ian Smith and other leaders of the rebellion.
§ Later
§ Mr. Hector HughesA point of order. May I say, with reference to Lady Crawford, that it was not Lady Crawford who wanted medical treatment. It was her daughter. So the Minister is perfectly right.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If I may coin a phrase, very interesting, but not a point of order.