QUESTIONING OF M. CASSIN (Hansard, 2 February 1954)

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD)
My Lords, so far as I am aware, M. Cassin was not, and did not claim to be, coming as a representative of the French Government on this occasion. He was not questioned for an hour by police officers. He was questioned for a few minutes by immigration officers, but, owing to a misunderstanding, he was delayed about forty-five minutes passing through the control. Her Majesty's Government deeply regret any inconvenience which he may have suffered in consequence and have sent an expression of their regret to the French Embassy.

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his answer, I should like to ask whether he does not think that it is ironic that a gentleman of this eminence and such a great friend of this country should have been treated in this way. The noble Lord, no doubt, 591 remembers that admirable publication La France Libre which used to give us such encouragement during the war. The January number, which I happened to see yesterday, is entitled Les Amitiés Britanniques. I think it is rather ironic that there should be in it an article by M. Cassin entitled Entente Cordiale et gratitude des Français libres. Does not the noble Lord think it is a most unfortunate thing that, at the very moment when this article, so full of affection for this country, comes out, this distinguished Frenchman should have been treated in this way? Will the noble Lord suggest to his Minister that he should impress upon his officials that in future they should take a great deal more care than was evident in this case?

LORD LLOYD
The immigration officers do their best to see that the minimum of inconvenience is caused to travellers coming to this country. When the noble Lord considers the large number of people who come to this country, I am sure he will realise that on the whole the amount of inconvenience and misunderstanding which arises is very small. In this particular case I quite agree with him that it is extremely unfortunate that this misunderstanding should have arisen, but Her Majesty's Government have done what they can by sending an expression of regret. I would add that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is himself, in addition, sending a personal letter to M. Cassin. I hope in the circumstances that the noble Lord will feel that the Government have done what they could.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
Does the noble Lord say that the immigration officer was at fault? Surely he must have been acting under instructions? Can he give us an idea what the instructions are that are issued to immigration officers? What is the purpose of their questioning? What are they trying to find out?

LORD LLOYD
I said that it was a misunderstanding. In all the circumstances, since no useful purpose can be served by pursuing this matter and magnifying it, I think that from the point of view of the relationships between the two countries it would be far better if the matter were left as it stands.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his views on matters of taste, but I want to know what instructions are given to the immigration officers. Are they given instructions to cross-examine immigrants who wish to come here? M. Cassin is a distinguished friend of this country. We all applaud the natural courtesy of the Government in offering an apology, but what are the general instructions issued to immigration officers? Are they told that certain people with certain opinions must not be admitted to the country? Is it an unofficial McCarran Act that is being operated?

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)
My Lords, perhaps I may say a word. I am not complaining of what the noble Viscount has said, but surely he is greatly widening the issue raised in the Question. What he is asking now is, indeed, a completely different question. Therefore, if he wishes to ask that question, he must put it down in the ordinary way. It certainly does not arise as a supplementary to this Question.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
The question I asked was, what were the questions put to M. Cassin? I do not suppose the immigration officer knew who he was. He was operating under general instructions, and I should not have thought that it was widening the Question to ask for some indication what these instructions were. Of course, the responsibility of the Home Secretary is complete—we know that: but what are the general instructions that he gives to his servants?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I think that is certainly widening the issue, which is concerned solely with what happened on a particular occasion to an individual. When the noble Viscount asks what are the general instructions given by the Home Secretary to his officials, that is a much wider question, as I am certain he would agree if he were sitting on this side of the House. If he wishes to put down a Question, he should do so in the proper course.

§ LORD CHORLEY
The noble Marquess must be aware that this is net an isolated incident. If during the last few weeks he has read The Times, he will be aware that there have been several letters published, including one from some French schoolteachers who were held up 593 and sent back again. A very distinguished French educationist has also been held up in the same way. Is this all part of a plot to line this country up behind the United States, by having a completely barbarous system in relation to people wishing to enter this country?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The noble Lord says that there are other cases of the same kind. I think your Lordships will find that in any country in the world the immigration authorities (who, I must say, have an invidious and difficult task) are bound on occasions to be in error. In regard to such errors, all that the Government concerned can do is to put the matter right. But the immigration authorities are essential people. I have no doubt that as a result of what has been said to-day by noble Lords opposite, be matter will be reviewed to see whether any further action should be taken. But I still think that a wider issue has been raised than is covered by the original Question.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I am sure the noble Marquess will forgive the questions which have been put. They were put simply because many people in this country are proud of the fact that we have a reputation for freedom which is not enjoyed elsewhere.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
But the noble Viscount must not think that our reputation for freedom means that there need be no rules or regulations at all with regard to immigration. I think we are at one on the question of freedom; I would entirely agree with him on that; but there must be these regulations. On occasions I am afraid the regulations are interpreted too rigidly, or whatever it may be. A misunderstanding has, I understand, taken place in this case, and it is quite right and proper that a matter of this kind should be raised in Parliament and looked into by the Government of the day. I am not complaining about that at all. But I am not going to allow the House to think that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that there should be no rules and regulations with regard to immigration. I should like to feel that no rules or regulations at all were 594 necessary; but they are necessary, and that is a fact we must all recognise.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
The noble Marquess has invited me to put down a Question. If I were to put down a Question asking in general terms about the character of these rules and regulations, will he answer it?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
The noble Viscount had better put down his Question and I will see what I can do about it.