§ 3.42 p.m.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, I will, if I may, repeat the Answer given to a Private Notice Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend was asked what action he is taking consequent upon the application to our Embassy in Moscow for a visa to enable Mr. Shelepin to visit this country. My right honourable friend answered this Question in the following terms:
"Mr. Shelepin has applied for a visa to enable him to lead a Soviet trade union delegation to this country for a short period for discussions with members of the Trades Union Congress. After careful consideration, I can find no ground on which it would be proper 512 for me to refuse this application. The power vested in me to refuse an applicant whose presence would not be conducive to the public good should be used only to safeguard national interests and not to express moral approval or disapproval of a particular person or a particular visit. I have therefore granted the application."
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, I am sure that the usual channels were right to stimulate me to ask an unoriginal Question in your Lordships' House in order to achieve an unoriginal Answer. I think I can say that we on this side of the House would accept the decision of the Home Secretary for the reasons he has given, but is there not perhaps a danger of another kind? It may be that people will suppose, simply because we are all anxious for comparable institutions to have cultural exchanges with one another across the Iron Curtain, that the trade union movement in the Iron Curtain countries is analogous to our own trade union movement. Should not that danger be avoided as, on the other side of the Iron Curtain, the trade union movement apparently eschews—possibly under legal sanctions—all kinds of industrial action and forms, so it would seem, a ladder of promotion to the secret police in order to achieve its highest pinnacles?
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we also accept the decision announced in this Answer? Does he not agree that, whatever may be thought of the TUC's judgment in inviting a person who is so highly controversial and who is, in any case, not a real trade unionist, it would be entirely contrary to the democratic traditions of this country to refuse a visa to a person because of the office which he holds or the regime which he represents, and that any such decision would set an extremely dangerous precedent for the future, when a Home Secretary might conceivably decide that other persons whom we would wish to see in this country were denied entry?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, as my right honourable friend indicated in his reply, his decision to grant a visa in no way implies approval or disapproval of the person to whom the visa is to be granted. That is the only 513 decision which he felt it necessary to take at this moment.
Viscount ST. DAVIDSDoes the noble Lord not agree that it is necessary that people of this type should be allowed to come to this country, in order to see something a little different from what they have at home? Would it not be a very good idea if Mr. Shelepin were taken round to see some of our democratic institutions, and if it were pointed out to him that the workers of this country have their own opinions, which are not necessarily those of the Government of the day? For example, and remembering history, perhaps he could be taken to see Barclay Perkins' brewery.
The noble Lord may recall that on 5th September 1850, a certain General Haynau—an Austrian police general who had been particularly brutal in Hungary —was taken to Barclay Perkins' brewery where the workers of the place, on discovering his identity, threw mud at him, chased him down the street with horsewhips and tore off his moustache. He then took refuge in a pub and asked for a brandy, but the publican refused to serve him. Does the noble Lord recall that, after certain understandable protests by the Austrian Embassy, a public meeting was called by a newspaper? I do not know its political colour, but it was called the Red Republican. The meeting was addressed by Mr. Engels and the workers of Barclay Perkins were thanked for their public spirit. Does the noble Lord not think it would be a good idea if Mr. Shelepin were told that the workers of this country have their own opinions?
§ Lord PANNELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, though we can do nothing else but approve the Home Secretary's decision, those of us who have spent our lives in the trade union movement, and who have borne the heat and burden of the day in its cause, view this visit with no pleasure whatever and, indeed, with a degree of disgust?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, dealing with the first question, my right honourable friend is in no way responsible for the itinerary of Mr. Shelepin while he is in this country. That is a matter for the Trades Union Congress 514 and I am sure that they will take account of what the noble Viscount has said.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that there appears to have been a misunderstanding? Surely, this is not a personal invitation? It happens that Mr. Shelepin is the leader of a party of people, who are coming as a party and not as individuals.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, may I follow the question of my noble friend Lord Pannell by asking whether it is not important for us that a man of this nature, who has committed such terrible crimes —and there is no denying that—should have it made clear to him—
§ Lord ALPORTMy Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment in order to ask the Leader of the House whether it is in order—whatever may be our feelings about this individual—to make a statement here that he has been responsible for terrible crimes? Surely, this is something which, whatever may be the truth or the background or our preju-dice or ideas, is not in accordance with the traditions of this House.
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, I have not had a chance to look at the Companion to the Standing Orders, but I think I should agree with the noble Lord, that it is contrary to our traditions to use language of that kind. I did not interrupt, but I was wondering how my noble friend was going to proceed. I think that we should exercise care and, as has just been recognised, this individual is coming here as part of a delegation from a country with which we are seeking to extend our connection. We must look to the end, and not to the immediate future.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, if one is not permitted in this House to refer to matters which are generally known, may I put my point in this way? Is it not important that a person of this nature who was connected with the KGB, and who performed certain actions which we would not consider highly proper— to put it in the lowest possible way— should be made aware from the Government sources, while he is here, of the fact that that kind of conduct is not desirable?
§ Lord GORE-BOOTHMy Lords, may I put it in a slightly different way? Would 515 the Government assure us that they will keep the public informed and, perfectly politely, keep their visitor informed that no institution in this country has any-thing like the powers possessed by the institution over which our guest at one time presided? I put it in this way because there have been allegations that, in some way or other, institutions here do something comparable to that over which the visitor has presided.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, a number of bodies have indicated that they propose to demon-strate peacefully if Mr. Shelepin comes to this country. If he does in fact come to this country, as we expect him to do, no doubt he will have the opportunity of seeing that people in this country have the right to demonstrate peacefully, and I should have thought that that would probably be desirable.