Mr. Rudi Dutschke

HC Deb 05 November 1970 vol 805 cc1244-6

17. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision to expel Mr. Rudi Dutschke from Great Britain; and whether he will reconsider the case.

Mr. Maudling

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on Thursday, 29th October, to a Question by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).—[Vol. 805, c. 177–8]

Mr. Hamilton

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a good deal of disquiet about the way in which this matter is being handled? Is it not a fact that Mr. Dutschke has adhered quite firmly to the conditions under which he was allowed to stay here? Is it not grossly unfair on him not to be allowed to know the reasons why the Home Office chooses to seek to expel him?

Mr. Maudling

Parliament has provided that there shall be an appeal from the Home Secretary's decision in this sort of case. While an appeal is pending I think it would be wrong for me to express any view on the merits of the case. However, I would not accept that the premise on which that supplementary question was put was necessarily true.

Mr. Lane

Now that my right hon. Friend has decided the form that the appeal proceedings are to take, can he confirm that the hearing will now proceed with the least possible delay?

Mr. Maudling

I certainly hope so. This is a matter for the tribunal to decide; but, from my point of view, the sooner the better.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Under that part of the Immigration Appeals Act, which came into force on 1st July, was Mr. Dutschke informed in the first instance of his right of appeal under that Act?

Mr. Maudling

He was informed at the first appropriate moment of the decision that had been taken and of his right of appeal and so on. He, or his legal advisers, have been kept fully informed ever since.

Mr. Richard

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this decision is causing very great public concern in academic circles outside this House—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may howl, but my postbag bears out what I have said, rather than their howls.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that if there are good reasons for the decision he has taken, it is absolutely critical for the well-being of the immigration policy of the Government and of the country that it should be justified publicly? Is he aware that if, at the end of the day, it smells as though an illiberal decision has been taken behind closed doors for non-public reasons, that will redound to nobody's good, neither his nor the country's?

Mr. Maudling

I have said that the appeals system places an inhibition on me in the giving of the reasons to the House. The sooner I am able to give them, the better pleased I shall be.

Mr. Callaghan

Let us be clear about the procedure. Do I understand that the Home Secretary has referred this matter to a special tribunal because there are security considerations alleged to be involved? If so, does he intend, at the end of the day, to publish what those security considerations are supposed to be? If not, how could he have given such an affirmative answer to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Maudling

Under the appeals procedure under the 1969 Act, where security information is involved which cannot in the public interest be made public, there is a special procedure laid down—this procedure was laid down in the last Parliament—to which I have scrupulously adhered.

Mr. Callaghan

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. He gave my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) an assurance that when the inhibitions on him were released, he would be able to publish the reasons. I am asking him whether he is giving an undertaking to publish the reasons, which may be security reasons, and, if not, how he is able to justify them?

Mr. Maudling

Clearly, I cannot publish what it is not in the national interest to publish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—a situation for which the previous Government provided in their legislation. Apart from that one particular factor, the more that is published the better it suits me. As for the facts about the circumstances in which Mr. Dutschke came here and remained here and has asked for a different basis to remain here, the sooner I am able to make these known without inhibition, the happier I shall be.