§ 2.56 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why they maintain in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia the previous illegal Government's restriction on prohibited immigrants as indicated in the case of Lord Hatch of Lusby, Lady Hatch and Bishop Lamont.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington)My Lords, many countries have lists of prohibited immigrants. It will be for the elected Independence Government to decide whether to keep or abolish the list. In the meantime, the Governor has decided that people who were banned on political grounds from entering Rhodesia should now be allowed to enter if they wish.
Lord Hatch was admitted on a temporary entry permit, which allowed him to remain in Rhodesia until after the election. Lady Hatch, too, could be free to visit Rhodesia during the Governor's administration. Bishop Lamont returned to Rhodesia on 6th January, and was granted a temporary entry permit. It was made clear to him that he would be free to apply for an extension of his entry permit when it expired in early February. However, he chose to leave Rhodesia.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, though 1006 I welcome the decision to allow entry to those who were declared prohibited immigrants on political grounds, may I ask whether it is not wrong, under British rule, that those who supported British resistance to the rebel Government and were accordingly made prohibited immigrants, should still be treated in that manner? In relation to Lord Hatch, is not the issue raised of his privileges as a Member of this House when he is treated in this way in a British territory? In relation to Lady Hatch, on what grounds was she treated as a prohibited immigrant when she had never been classed in that status before? In the case of Bishop Lamont, is it true that, before he returned to Rhodesia, he went to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office assured him that he would be allowed to return freely?
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, since all prohibited immigrants on the list are being allowed in during the very brief period of the Governor's administration of Rhodesia, I think it seemed more sensible to allow all immigrants to go in than to revise the list. The list consists of prohibited immigrants who are included for other than political reasons. The Governor made it clear that Lord Hatch and Bishop Lamont would be allowed in. I understand Lady Hatch was designated a prohibited immigrant by the previous administration only because, under the relevant law, it was mandatory for the wife of a prohibited immigrant to be so designated herself. The Foreign Office made the position perfectly plain to Bishop Lamont before he returned. So far as I know, there was no misunderstanding.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, may I put this point to the Foreign Secretary: Is he aware that there is considerable concern and disquiet about these two cases, which may be examples of a more widespread treatment of others in a fairly similar position? May I ask why there should be any restriction at all by this properly-constituted Government, a British Government, on any of these three people? Why should they be interviewed, handed papers headed "Prohibited Immigrant", given three days and then two months—in much the same way as they would have been treated by the illegal Smith Government? Why 1007 do we treat them exactly as the illegal Smith Government would have treated them?
Secondly, while there may be a question of privilege arising from the position of Lord Hatch, nevertheless, is it not most unusual that a Member of either House of the British Parliament should be treated in this way and be subject to what I can only describe as indignity, to say the least, to him and his wife? As to the bishop, he spent 34 years in Rhodesia serving all the people of Rhodesia. Is it any wonder that after being branded a prohibited immigrant and given a qualified right of entry in this way by a British Government, the Bishop proposes to raise this matter with the Vatican?
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, as I made clear in my earlier statement, the pre-independence period did not seem to the Governor or to anyone else the time to interfere with existing regulations. It will be for the independence Government to determine future immigration procedures. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, persons have been placed on the list for a variety of reasons. Those who have been placed there for what one might call resistance to the former régime are only one category on the list. Since nobody has been forbidden to enter Rhodesia and the Governor has made it plain that both Lord Hatch and Bishop Lamont can come in, I really think that a great deal of fuss is being caused which is quite unnecessary. If I could just finish my reply, with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I will of course look at the question of privilege; hut, if anybody is suggesting that the Governor is biased about the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, I would remind noble Lords opposite that in a news conference in Lusaka on 14th January Lord Hatch said that the Governor was too closely associated with the Conservative Party; it was this party's policy to recognise the Muzorewa/Smith clique, and that the elections would not be free and fair. This was said on 14th January almost before the elections started. In spite of this somewhat unhelpful observation, the Governor allowed Lord Hatch in.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSSo now we have it! Because my noble 1008 friend Lord Hatch or anybody else dares to express democratically—
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSIndeed it is, my Lords. Now it is out: reservations about Government policy and even about the Governor's actions from time to time—reservations which have been expressed in this House—and therefore he suddenly becomes a prohibited immigrant in the Smith sense.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that is what it comes to. The noble Lord said that these people were classified as prohibited immigrants for a variety of reasons. Is there any reason, other than the political views of Lord and Lady Hatch and Bishop Lamont, for them to be still prohibited immigrants under the present régime?
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do hope that the noble Lord is not going to get too ruffled. I suggested to the noble Lord opposite that nobody has prevented either Lord Hatch, Lady Hatch or Bishop Lamont from entering Rhodesia. They have permits to do so. They are free to remain in Rhodesia. They were put on the list by the previous régime. The Governor has decided that in the very short interim period he will leave things alone, leave it for the next Government to decide on their immigration policy; and, in the meantime, he will let them all in.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, really, I think the way in which we are accustomed to being treated by the Secretary of State is rather more serious. Is it really right for a Member of your Lordships' House to be allowed into a country which is governed by a British Governor under very humiliating circumstances; to be taken aside to an office and to have a file taken down labelled "prohibited immigrants"? His wife had never been in Rhodesia before and she was treated in the same way. And the noble Lord the Secretary of State quotes to us Rhodesian law, law invented by an illegal régime, as a justification for the treatment of these people!
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I cannot go on explaining this again and again. Nobody has prevented Lord Hatch, Lady Hatch or Bishop Lamont from going into the country or from staying there. I will certainly look at the question of parliamentary privilege.
§ Lord BROCKWAYBut, my Lords, is it not the case that Lord and Lady Hatch were handed a document headed "prohibited immigrant" and limiting them as prohibited immigrants to a period? Does this not mean that the British Government now have endorsed the decisions of a Government which they previously recognised as illegal?
§ Lord CARRINGTONNo, my Lords, it means precisely the opposite. It means he was let in.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am sorry to persist, but is the noble Lord aware that we are deeply disappointed by his response to this Question? We had expected a very different kind of answer from the marvellously diplomatic and skilful way in which he has dealt with most of these difficult problems.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, all I can say is that, if the noble Baroness is disappointed when the Governor allows prohibited immigrants to come in and remain during the election without any let or hindrance, goodness knows what she would have been disappointed with in the past!
§ Lord AYLESTONEMy Lords, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary is able to tell us whether or not Her Majesty's Government have accepted the whole of the law and the regulations of the illegal régime, or has the Governor been selective?
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, what the Governor has done is to rescind those Rhodesian legislative Acts which make it impossible to have a free and fair election. The rest he has left alone until the independence Government takes over.