HC Deb 18 November 1976 vol 919 cc1567-72
Mrs. Hart (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his decision to deport Mr. Philip Agee.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

I will make a statement about the cases of Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball. I should like first to explain the relevant provisions of the law.

Under the Immigration Act 1971 there are powers to refuse entry to this country and powers to remove people from this country. As regards removal, there is, in the ordinary case, a statutory right of appeal. Where, however, deportation is ordered on the ground that it is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security, there is no statutory right of appeal.

There are, however, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling) explained when the Bill was going through the House, non-statutory arrangements for representations to an independent advisory panel. A person who wishes to make representations to the panel is allowed to appear if he wishes; he is not entitled to legal representation but, to such extent as the advisers sanction, he may be assisted by a friend and arrange for third parties to testify on his behalf. The chairman of the advisory panel is Sir Derek Hilton and the other two members are Sir Clifford Jarrett and Sir Richard Hayward.

This non-statutory provision is available only in the case of deportation and not in cases of refusal of admission where security is involved. On 15th November Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball were informed that I had decided to make deportation orders against them under Section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 because I had concluded that their departure from the United Kingdom would be conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security.

Mr. Agee was informed that I had considered information that he had maintained regular contacts harmful to the security of the United Kingdom with foreign intelligence officers; had been and continued to be involved in disseminating information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom; and had aided and counseled others in obtaining information for publication which could be harmful to the security of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hosenball was informed that I had considered information that he had, while resident in the United Kingdom, in consort with others sought to obtain and had obtained for publication information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom and that this information had included information prejudicial to the safety of servants of the Crown.

Both men were also informed of the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and of the non-statutory procedure which I have described and were told that they had 14 days in which to decide whether to make representations. They have also been informed that they may make any representations to me direct.

My decision at this stage is one of notice of intention to deport. Before proceeding to make deportation orders I shall consider the advice of the independent advisory panel, if the two men decide to submit their case to it, and I shall also consider any representations which they themselves may make or which may be made on their behalf to me direct. If I do make deportation orders, there is a statutory right of appeal against removal to the country specified in the removal directions on the ground that the person ought to be removed to a different country specified by him.

I reached my decision after the most careful consideration. I must emphasise that it was taken solely in the interests of the security of this country and of the personal safety of individuals in the service of the Crown.

I must tell the House that, because of the security issues involved, I am not prepared to go into greater detail than I have already given about the grounds for my decision.

Mrs. Hart

I recognise the great difficulty of discussing matters of this kind in the Chamber. I can relate my questions only to Mr. Agee, because I do not have any personal information about Mr. Hosenball, but given the closed and necessarily secret nature of the advisory panel—I accept that its members are extremely good people—is the Secretary of State ready to see Mr. Agee?

Secondly, will my right hon. Friend promise to read two pages, 567 and 570, of Mr. Agee's book "Inside the Company—CIA Diary", which I believe are relevant to the background of this case? It is my view from having talked to Mr. Agee that it is highly relevant to the questions which have led the Home Secretary to his conclusions.

Finally, will the Home Secretary be prepared privately—one appreciates that he cannot, on a question affecting the security of the State, be public about these matters—to give to Mr. Agee, before the advisory panel hearing, information about "the regular contacts" which are named in the letter to him and indicate whether these were clandestine or perfectly open contacts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I am about to finish; I shall not keep the House long.

Will the Home Secretary also indicate whether any of those contacts were detrimental to British security and whether, having considered these matters, he could regard these open contacts as being entirely consistent with legitimate journalistic research?

Mr. Rees

With regard to letters or visits, all I can say is that I will, of course, do anything that is within the rules. The letter that I sent to Mr. Agee is as far as I can go under the arrangements.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to go into the nature of the visits. It is the purpose of the arrangements set up under the 1971 Act that I must take an administrative decision. The weight is taken off my shoulders, and three independent people consider it and take a judgment. That is what is involved, and if I say any more about the nature of contacts with foreign intelligence officers I may do more harm than good.

Mr. Whitelaw

Is the Home Secretary aware that, although the House is rightly jealous of individual liberty, the security of the State must be the primary consideration? If, therefore, on the evidence available to him he believes that this action is necessary in the interests of the security of the State, he deserves, and I trust will receive, support from all parts of the House.

Mr. Rees

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's words. My approach to the matter is clear in the way that the right hon. Gentleman put it. It is one thing to have free discussion—and in a democracy that matters—but the way in which that discussion takes place must be considered; and then I must make a judgment. That is what I have done in this instance.

Mr. Speaker

I shall allow just one question from each side of the House on this matter.

Mr. Whitehead

As these two cases are linked, and without going into the details of either, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the case of Mr. Hosenball? As the case against Mr. Agee is not to be put to examination in the courts, how can Mr. Hosenball—because the cases are linked—make any representations about the case against him when he meets the tribunal? If that is the case, is he not in precisely the position of Mr. Rudi Dutschke about five years ago when the position was very rightly criticised from our side of the House?

Mr. Rees

I had views about Rudi Dutschke, but I an, not sure that I can see the connection in this instance.

Under the law as I have to operate it, I have to take a decision based on the facts which is not a matter for the court. In the last three or four weeks I have considered how it should be dealt with. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that security is not a matter that can he bandied about in open court.

This is one of the problems here, because if there is a security aspect to this—my judgment is that there is a security aspect—words that are taken out of context can do harm not only to those involved but to many others whom I should protect.

Mr. Swain

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) made her case cogently and asked a pertinent question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—would he be prepared to see this gentleman personally?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has long experience. He knows that that is not really a point of order. It is a question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Rose

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You decided that there should be one question more from each side of the House. Yesterday I tabled a Question concerning the other person involved in this case—Mr. Hosenball, a man well known to those in the Press Gallery and to me personally—and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that on a matter as important as this further questions be allowed.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have announced my decision to the House.

Mr. Churchill

Is the Home Secretary aware that there will be no sympathy for those foreign guests of this country who seek to abuse our hospitality by meddling in security matters, especially those that concern Northern Ireland, and that there will be concern that individuals have been maintaining contact with Cuban and Soviet bloc intelligence services? Will the Home Secretary say whether, in his judgment, these actions have at any time placed in jeopardy the lives of servants of the Crown?

Mr. Swain

What about the Dardanelles?

Mr. Rees

I think that I should stick firmly on the basis that I have a responsibility for security. I have carried out my duty as I think best. There are means laid down by the House whereby people can put their case to independent members of a tribunal. I think I ought to leave it alone at that point.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Litterick

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the original Question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have just realised that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) who was told by me that it was not a point of order but a question to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Litterick

This House's rights have been violated.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must warn the It is a hon. Gentleman that he is not to argue with the Chair.