16. Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the reversal of labour policy in Kenya 836 by the introduction of the Defence (Discipline of Native Personnel) Regulations, 1941, which increase penal sanctions and apply to private employment; whether the consent of his Department will be necessary for changes in the Regulations; and why the scope of the 1941 Regulations have been made wider than those of 1940?
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall)My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The Regulations to which he refers are complementary to and not in substitution for the Defence (Native Personnel) Regulations, 1940. The earlier Regulations made provision for the recruitment of natives for the East African Military Labour Service and for specific duties in connection with work of a military character. Members of the Labour Service are subject to military discipline and the new Regulations are designed to provide for the discipline of natives recruited for personal service in connection with the prosecution of the war but who are not enrolled in military units. There is no question of any reversal of policy, nor do the new Regulations apply to private employment. The consent of the Secretary of State is not required before Defence Regulations are made or amended by the Governor.
Mr. Creech JonesWill my hon. Friend look at these Regulations again, because the drafting of the personnel which come under them is very wide and can be interpreted to apply to all kinds of employment? Will he also note that there has been an enormous increase in penal sanctions under these Regulations and that it seems to be a retrograde step?
§ Mr. HallI have gone into these Regulations and studied them carefully, and I am satisfied that my hon. Friend's apprehensions are not justified. I am quite prepared to discuss them with him.