HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2178-83
Mr. Teeling

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Anthony Brooke has been refused entry to the Colony of Sarawak

The Secretary of State for he Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones)

For some time past Mr. Brooke has sustained and encouraged the opposition to cession and the demand for the restoration of the Raj, with himself or his father as Rajah, which has been voiced by a small and unrepresentative minority of the people of Sarawak. This attempt to subvert existing authority can only confuse and distract the local population from playing their part in the urgent tasks with which the Colony is faced as the result of the war. It is clear that Mr. Brooke's purpose in seeking to enter the territory was to further his objective by personal efforts on the spot, thereby intensifying the harmful effects of his propaganda, and possibly causing strife and disorder. The decision that Mr. Brooke should be excluded from Sarawak was therefore taken in the interests of the territory and its inhabitants.

Mr. Teeling

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he received a letter from this gentleman on 6th November which pointed out that he wanted to go to Sarawak in order to gain information for a libel action being brought against him by the former Rajah's secretary, who was used frequently by this present Government in its dealings on Colonial affairs, and that, in reply, the right hon. Gentleman never, as far as I am aware, stated that he could not go, but said that he could not have priority, especially in his letter of 13th November? Might I ask, as it was known that he was going at the end of November, why nothing was done until this man reached Manilla?

Mr. Creech Jones

It is true that, in his application for priority passage, he said he desired to collect evidence for a libel action which was pending. But subsequently he made his purpose very clear. He gave interviews to the Press in this country, and, when he started on his journey, he gave interviews to the Press in America. It was perfectly clear from those statements that he was going for the avowed purpose of gathering opinion behind him for the purposes of upsetting the present decision. Indeed, in none of the statements made to the Press, or by his solicitor subsequently, has the plea been put forward that he was going to collect evidence for that libel case.

Mr. Stanley

Is there any allegation against Mr. Brooke that he intended to use any but constitutional means to put forward a view which happened to be opposite to that of the Governor? Are we to understand that in future all British subjects are to be denied entry into a British Colony if they desire to further, by perfectly constitutional means, a political view which happens to be contrary to the Government? If that is the case, were there not times when the right hon. Gentleman, in his wilder moments, might have been refused entry into many British Colonies?

Mr. Gallacher

By the Tories.

Mr. Creech Jones

The question put by the right hon. Gentleman involves a series of assumptions which are not true in fact. It is not the case that Mr. Anthony Brooke is proceeding merely for the purpose of acquiring certain information. He has declared quite definitely that he is going for the purpose of establishing himself as Rajah.

Hon. Members

Why not?

Mr. Stanley

Constitutionally.

Mr. Creech Jones

The assumption of the right hon. Gentleman is that all his proceedings are constitutional. A decision has been taken in Sarawak, by perfectly constitutional means, and the whole purpose of this business is to rally forces to build up organisations to upset that decision.

Mr. Churchill

Is not that the same argument that is used by every despotic regime—that they have taken their decision, and no one must be allowed to do anything which agitates against it? Is that to be the position adopted?

Mr. Shurmer

The right hon. Gentleman used to do that when he was boss.

Mr. Churchill

In time of war many things had to be done which were deeply regretted, particularly I8B. I have always regretted that, for which I take my share of responsibility. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not be afraid; the right hon. Gentleman opposite is bearing up all right. But great principles of habeas corpus can only be abrogated with the very greatest care, and in the most supreme crises of the State. What is the case here? Is not this gentleman to be allowed, by constitutional means, to do his best to form the opinion of the people there, and ascertain their will as to their future form of government? On what grounds has he been denied that right?

Mr. Creech Jones

The answer is that nothing unconstitutional has been done by the Governor concerned in issuing his ban in regard to the arrival of Anthony Brooke. The procedure adopted is a perfectly legal and perfectly normal one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Normal?"] It is not peculiar to a Labour Government. It is in accordance with legislation which Governments representative of the other side of the House have allowed to go on the Statute Book for Colonies over a long period. In this particular case it is a deliberate effort in regard to a recent decision for the setting up of a new Constitution in order to deal with the aftermath of war to secure the basis of reconstruction. This is a deliberate decision to upset the work of His Majesty's Government in Sarawak and to make that reconstruction work completely impossible.

Mr. Stanley

Are we to understand that if any man, or an hon. Member of this House, takes the view that a Colony ought to be independent, he will not now be allowed to visit that Colony, in case he might stir up trouble against the Governor or the Government?

Mr. Creech Jones

No such deductions should be drawn at all, but each of such cases must be treated on its merits. This is an effort deliberately to overthrow the responsible Constitution set up by the Government in Sarawak.

Mr. Edgar Granville

In view of the fact that this House has a responsibility to see that any citizen of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations has justice, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is basing his case upon statements made in the American Press? If not, can he tell us if at any time an authoritative statement has been made by this gentleman which is consistent with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made at the Despatch Box this afternoon?

Mr. Creech Jones

We did not rely for our evidence on the American Press only. We had evidence drawn from the British Press. We know telegrams which have been sent in Sarawak, and we have reports of the activities of Mr. Brooke in respect of the inhabitants of Sarawak from the Governor of Sarawak himself. The evidence is pretty complete.

Mr. Churchill

If Mr. Brooke has influence with the people of Sarawak, and if he conducts himself in a strictly constitutional and law-abiding manner, is there any reason why his influence should not play its part in allowing these people to form, and later on to express, their opinion about this matter?

Mr. Creech Jones

The urgent need of Sarawak at the moment is that reconstruction should go on, that health services should be established, and the people should not be confused at this moment with another constitutional problem.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Churchill

This last statement, phrase by phrase, and line by line, is the very perfect declaration of tyranny.

Mr. Henry Strauss

Does the Minister mean that he has or that he has not some evidence that this gentleman intended to commit some criminal offence? If he has such evidence, does he mean to bring him to trial?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot compel a Minister to answer. If he does not choose to do so, that is his affair.

Mr. Frederick Lee

Do right hon. Gentlemen wish to connive against the authority of His Majesty's Government or do they want to cause the same mischief in Sarawak as they want to do in India?

Mr. Churchill

We are not on the side of Russian tyranny.

Mr. Teeling

Were the seditious statements supposed to have been made by Mr. Brooke made before he left this country? If so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman do something to tell him that he could not enter the country, instead of saying that he could not get priority?

Mr. Creech Jones

The answer is simple. Certain of these statements were made before we had knowledge that he had left the country. Some of them were also made after he left the country,

Mr. H. Strauss

May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Teeling

On a point of Order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply may we, Mr. Speaker, move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Such a Motion has to be put in proper form, and I have to accept it or reject it after having seen it.

Mr. Teeling

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 8, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of His Majesty's Government to allow Mr. Anthony Brooke to enter Sarawak.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has asked permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 8 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of His Majesty's Government to allow Mr. Anthony Brooke to enter Sarawak. I have not had much time to consider this, but in my view it does not come definitely under Rule 8. Certain facts have to be taken into consideration. One is that the refusal of a Government is not a usual ground. It is generally some action of the Government which is brought up. The second is that the facts do not appear to be entirely known, and it does seem to me to be a continuing matter but a matter which can be raised now or later, and there does not seem to me that definite urgency about it that comes under the Rule. The point which no doubt it is desired to argue is whether the right of refusal to an individual is the point at issue. That, after all, is not Mr. Brooke. It is a general proposition, and Rule 8 does not apply to general propositions. I think it is mainly on that ground that I shall have to reject this application.

Mr. Stanley

On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit, as regards the definite nature of this matter, that the House adjourns tomorrow for five weeks? Meanwhile, this gentleman is in the Far East, refused admittance both to Sarawak and, we understand, Malaya. If it is impossible to raise the matter now, he will have to wait for five weeks until the House reassembles, before the matter could be considered. I am not raising the general question. I am raising the case of this particular man who has been refused admittance. I gathered from the answer of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he had had full consultation with the Governor on the matter and he knew exactly the reasons for which he had been refused admission—including, no doubt, the full statement by the Governor in this morning's Press.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that tomorrow is an Adjournment day. It is perfectly true that I have announced some business but it could be taken then.

Mr. Churchill

Do I take it from you, Sir, that it will be open for hon. Members to raise this question on the Adjournment tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker

I hope we will be able to arrange that. Of course, it must be understood that I cannot give the full time to this subject, but a reasonable time could be allowed.

Mr. Teeling

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.