§ 4.7 p.m.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I intervene and, with leave, repeat a Statement on Mr. Gerald Brooke being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Brooke, the British subject who was sentenced by a Soviet court in 1965 to five years' imprisonment for alleged anti-Soviet activity, has been released and has returned to this country to-day. Her Majesty's Government have undertaken that a recommendation will be made for the remission in three months' time of the remainder of the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment which was passed on Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kroger in 1961 in connection with the Portland Spy Case. Upon their release Mr. and Mrs. Kroger will be free to go to any destination of their choice. We have also agreed that Polish consular officials may visit them at monthly intervals until their release.
"The Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. provides that consular visits to British subjects in detention in the Soviet Union shall take place 'on a recurrent basis'. Under Soviet regulations such visits have been permitted not less frequently than once every four months; but the Soviet regulations also provide that offences against prison discipline may be punished by forfeiture of consular visits. At one 1102 time Mr. Brooke went for more than a year without a visit, and more recently Mr. Lorraine "—
your Lordships may recall that Mr. Lorraine is another British subject in custody in the Soviet Union—
"has been deprived of a consular visit. We have now been assured that oven in cases where offences against prison discipline are alleged, the Soviet authorities will favourably consider our request that the intervals between visits by British consular representatives should not exceed four months.
"The Soviet authorities have undertaken that, on the day after the departure of Mr. and Mrs. Kroger from this country, Mr. Michael Parsons and Mr. Anthony Lorraine, the British subjects who in 1968 were sentenced by Soviet courts to four and three years' detention respectively for smuggling drugs into the Soviet Union, will be released. "It has been arranged, as a separate matter, that three British subjects who have for some years been endeavouring without success to marry Soviet citizens will, not later than October 24, be granted visas to enter the Soviet Union to register their marriages, and that thereafter their partners will be free to leave the Soviet Union should: hey so desire. We have been told that one other British subject in this category may have a Soviet visa at any time.
"In deciding to make these arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have had three considerations in mind. The first is that of humanity towards Mr. Brooke. We were informed on April 28 that fresh charges, carrying very heavy penalties, were being prepared against him. His health has not been good throughout his imprisonment, and further years in prison might have the most serious consequences.
"Second, the Krogers will have served over 8½ years in prison. They will have paid a substantial penalty for their offences.
"Third, the other arrangements, which I have mentioned, affecting British citizens and consular visits, are in themselves desirable, and remove an obstacle for improvement in relations between this country and the U.S.S.R.
1103 "Taking these considerations into account, and recognising the counterarguments which can be advanced, I believe that the decision which I have announced is right."
§ 4.11 p.m.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for repeating that Statement. I think everyone will be glad that Mr. Brooke is back in this country. He may have been silly but he certainly was not a criminal and he surely has paid more than enough for what he did. I do not think that anyone except the Government can know all the facts and the background of this case. For example, I do not think we can know how much use the Krogers can still be to the Russians. I know from personal knowledge—as I was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time of the Portland spy case, in which they were concerned—how important they were as the centre of an espionage ring. I do not think I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that they have paid a very high price for the damage they did to this country. But that is eight years ago, and the Government may be right that they have outlived their usefulness to the Russians, though it must surely be an encouragement to other Russian spies that they have served only a third of their sentence and have been returned in this way.
I must say that I have misgivings about this deal in the sense that it really is a giving in to blackmail of this Government on behalf of a misguided, if innocent. or moderately innocent. man. But, as I said, only the Government can, and perhaps in this case should, know all the facts; and although I have these doubts I do not think, speaking for myself, I would wish to press the matter any further.
There is just one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and it is this. Are the Government really satisfied about the arrangements for these consular visits? I notice that we are going to allow Polish consular visits to the Krogers every month, while we have only been told that the Soviet authorities will favourably consider requests that intervals between visits by our representatives should not exceed four months.
1104 Are the Government really satisfied about this?
§ 4.13 p.m.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, may I say that of course we quite see that there was a very strong case for doing our best on humanitarian grounds to secure the release of the unfortunate Mr. Gerald Brooke, and that we greet this release with much relief and pleasure. Mr. Brooke, however, as we all know, was savagely punished for an offence which would not have been an offence at all in this country and which, even in other totalitarian States, would probably have resulted only in deportation or in a short period of detention. But, worse still, my Lords, it is now admitted in this Statement that the Soviet authorities were actually going to re-try him in a bogus trial on trumped-up charges, and to condemn him for a further long term of imprisonment which would no doubt have endangered his life—killed him—unless we released some acknowledged, and indeed quite justly condemned, Soviet spies.
We all know that espionage exists and that spies are sometimes exchanged, but this particular deal—and here I think I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—really leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth, even given the facts that the Krogers have served a quite substantial part of their sentence, and that there are, so to speak, certain fringe benefits involved in the deal as a whole. I am afraid I can only say, speaking personally, that I greatly fear that it may lead to trouble in the future. It is said that the deal will improve our relations with the Soviet Union. My Lords, I wonder. The sad fact is that we are dealing, not with the splendid Russian people, but with a soulless regime for whom friendly gestures have absolutely no meaning.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ LORD TREVELYANMy Lords, having had some experience of these matters in the Soviet Union myself, I hope I am not out of order in saying a few words. First, I think we certainly have to be very sure of our ground before we take a decision which will break a man's life and health. 1105 I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether he considers that the presentation of the case in these few words is roughly in accordance with the facts. There is, as he said, a strong humanitarian aspect involved. The arguments against making the exchange are really two. First, we are giving way after a long battle. That, of course, is to some extent true. One does not make a bargain of this kind without giving way on some point. I think we shall all agree that the British Government were quite right in refusing this exchange five years ago; that was very different. But now the Krogers have served a very substantial part of their sentence and we have a much greater humanitarian interest involved on the other side.
The second point is whether this matter will affect the position of other visitors to the Soviet Union. I believe, and I think others also who have served in the Soviet Union would think, that this matter will not affect their position. There have lately been many precedents for exchanges which have set a pattern, whether we like it or not—French, American, German and British. These exchanges were, I believe, mostly exchanges of spies. Brooke was, I believe, never a spy; but he stated in 1965 that he was the courier for an anti-Soviet organisation, which publicly confirmed it. This would be regarded by the Russians as something worse than spying, so that he would be regarded by them as being in a particular category—
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am sorry to do so, but our Rules with regard to Statements are in fact that only questions ought to be asked, although the practice has grown up that particularly the representatives on the Front Benches are allowed to comment. I am very sorry to intervene because I know that the noble Lord has great knowledge of this subject, but I would ask him to put his remarks in the form of a question. It is very clear that we ought not to debate these matters, and I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that.
§ LORD TREVELYANMy Lords, I must apologise. I had said that I should like to know whether what I said was regarded as a fair representation of the facts. I would only add, on the par- 1106 ticular question of a new charge, that obviously we cannot comment, but it is prima facie improbable. My only point is to stress my view that one cannot definitely say that the position of the normal tourist in the Soviet Union has been made any worse than it was so far by the Government's agreement to the exchange, however distasteful it may be to us. May I therefore ask whether, although it was clearly a difficult decision, it was not on balance the right one?
§ 4.19 p.m.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I wonder whether I might answer some of the points raised so far. First of all, let me say how grateful I am to the three noble Lords who have spoken so far for their restraint and for the constructive way in which they have treated what is clearly a very controversial matter. We know that there are arguments on both sides here. The choice was a difficult one. We believe we have made the right one, and I am most grateful for the indulgence and sympathy shown by the noble Lords who have spoken so far.
I recognise the peculiar interest of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, particularly, in the case of the K"ogers. As to his one question about consular access, I can go no further because of the confidential nature of all the exchanges that went on with the Soviet Union (for reasons with which the noble Lord will be familiar) than to say that we are satisfied with the nature of the assurances that we have received about future consular access.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was equally statesmanlike in his approach to this subject. I would simply make one comment for the record and to clear any misunderstanding there may be from what he has said. When one uses the words "trumped up" and "bogus charges", I would point out than; those were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and not mine. All we know about the charges that were to be laid against Mr. Brooke—the extra charges that we were told about on April 29—is that they involved preparation for espionage while under detention.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, may I then ask why he was not charged on that basis in the first instance?
§ LORD CHALFONTBecause he was not then in detention, my Lords. We can only find out the true facts from Mr. Brooke, and we shall do so, but the extra charges were believed to be based upon a charge that he was preparing for espionage while he was under detention serving a sentence on his first conviction. I leave noble Lords to form their own conclusions about it but I would say that I did not use the words "trumped up" or "bogus charges".
The noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who I think succeeded in framing a very constructive statement, at least theoretically, in the form of a question, has unrivalled experience of these matters and of Soviet matters generally. I wish to make only one comment on what he has said, which is to confirm that the humanitarian aspect of this was a strong one. Mr. Brooke has been a sick man while he has been under detention and I think any people who saw his appearance on television to-day would realise that they were looking at a man who had been under considerable mental and physical strain. It was on these humanitarian grounds, as well as the others that I have mentioned, that Her Majesty's Government made this decision.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I ask one question? Why is it that Polish consular officials are paying these visits? Are Her Majesty's Government now saying that the Krogers are Polish citizens? I ask the question because the Press has hitherto said (and I thought it was the contention of Her Majesty's Government) that they were United States citizens.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always regarded the Krogers as United States citizens. The request for access by the Polish consular officials has of course been the subject of consultation between us and the United States authorities, and the latter have made it clear to us that they regard the handling of the Krogers as being entirely a matter for us to decide.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, the noble Lord said that he was moderately satisfied with the consular arrangements: can he say whether any arrangements have been made about the first time when a consular official can approach anyone who has been arrested? 1108 Is it four months before he can see a Consul—that is, 120 days? The most important thing when a man gets into difficulties is to see an adviser as soon as possible. Has any progress been made in that direction?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, no progress on that particular point has been made in the context of these discussions and arrangements. I will certainly undertake to look into the point. My understanding is that whenever a citizen is under detention in the Soviet Union the usage is that consular visits may be made at intervals of not longer than four months. But I will undertake to look further into it. May I say, again for the official record, that I did not say I was "moderately satisfied" about the future prospects of consular access: I said that I was satisfied, and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied.
LORD GRENFELLMy Lords, would the noble Lord and the House not agree that an appeal should go out from this House to the Press and the television authorities to allow a peaceful time for Mr. and Mrs. Brooke in order that they may now take up their married life together again?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord in making that intervention. He may have noticed that in the interview at the airport with the Press, Mrs. Brooke particularly said, "I hope you will now allow us to go away in peace". I have great sympathy with that.
§ LORD CITRINEMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is in a position to tell us whether any undertaking has been required from Mr. Brooke that he will not reveal anything of the conditions under which his sentence has been served?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, if the noble Lord means have we imposed upon Mr. Brooke any such undertaking, the answer is "No". Whether anyone else has tried to impose such an undertaking upon him I do not yet know; but that of course we shall discover.
§ LORD CITRINEMy Lords, anyone at all familiar with the happenings in Soviet Russia knows that the Soviet Union can easily bring such pressure to 1109 bear upon individuals within their control as to require undertakings of the kind I have mentioned.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, happily Mr. Brooke is now back in this country, where such pressures are unknown.
§ LORD SNOWMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that many noble Lords feel that the Government have acted with extreme judgment in a very difficult situation?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that comment.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, can my noble friend tell me what will happen in such an event as this: if Mr. Brooke is approached by a newspaper with an offer of many thousands of pounds for his story, will the Government ask Mr. Brooke to give prior consideration to the Government in anything he discloses?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, that is one of those easy questions to answer because it is a hypothetical one and I can say that I will not answer it. However I would point out that Mr. Brooke, now that he is back in this country, is a free man.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLMy Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, say how much of their sentences Mr. Lorraine and the other young man have to serve, and how sentences for drug-running in Russia compare with those one might expect to receive for similar offences in this country?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think it would be dangerous for me to make any kind of comparison. I believe that, normally speaking, this kind of sentence tends to be more severe in the Soviet Union than in this country, although I am not making any kind of value judgment on these particular cases—or indeed any kind of legal judgment. So far as the amount of time that they have to serve is concerned, I think I had better check the facts and let the noble Duke know, but my recollection is that they were sentenced to something like four and four and a half years respectively, and that was in 1968. But I will confirm that and let the noble Duke know.