§ Mr. James Griffiths (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the decision to use heavy bombers in Kenya.
§ The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton)As I informed the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 6th May last, Harvard aircraft have been used to drop bombs on known hiding places of terrorist gangs in the prohibited areas in Kenya. They are also used for reconnaissance. These prohibited areas, mainly the forest ranges of the Aberdares and Mount Kenya, are known to everyone, and there is no risk to law-abiding persons. Harvard aircraft are single-engined machines, have a limited range and can only drop small bombs.
General Erskine has asked for the use of a small detachment of Lincoln aircraft from the Middle East. He hopes that their long range and endurance will enable them to carry out more effective reconnaissance, and where targets present themselves to drop heavier bombs. There has been no change in policy concerning the use of aircraft. No bombing or other armed action by aircraft is permitted outside the prohibited areas.
§ Mr. GriffithsMay I ask the Secretary of State whether his attention has been called to reports that we are now to engage in what is called "pattern bombing," as distinct from target bombing, and whether he will now say exactly what that means? Does it not perhaps involve the loss of innocent lives as well? Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention was called to the statement made by General Erskine on 21st October and reported in the Press on 22nd October, from which I quote:
Though the situation was now much better, there was no military answer to Kenya's problems.1723 General Erskine further stated:The problem is now purely political—how Europeans, Africans and Asians can live in harmony on a long-term basis. If the people of Kenya could address themselves to this problem and find a solution, they would have achieved far more than I could do with security forces.In view of this statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman two further questions? First, will he consider the political repercussions of this statement; and will he reconsider his decision? Further, will he consult the Governor in order to make the Emergency Council in Kenya representative of all communities, so that their views on the political repercussions of military action may be considered? Secondly, in view of the recent statement by Mr. Blundell and Mr. Mathu will he consider reconvening the 1951 conference on further political action in Kenya.
§ Mr. LytteltonOn the first point, I think the definition of "pattern bombing" applies to a large number of aircraft when they all release their bombs at once over a wide area. I think that is so. We are only talking now about four Lincoln aircraft.
With regard to the other question, which frankly appears to me to go very much wider indeed than the original Private Notice Question, of course, when General Erskine referred to these matters he was speaking generally. There is no doubt whatever that political advancement is now the subject of discussion, and consideration of the proposals put forward by Mr. Blundell is being retarded by the presence of these armed gangs in the forest areas. They have to be dealt with if we are to expect any great advance on the other fronts, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that both the Governor and Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the need for an advance on the political and social fronts and that there is no reason whatever to cancel the instructions to try to comb out these gangs from the forest.
§ Mr. GriffithsDo I gather from the answer which the Minister has now given that the term "pattern bombing" used here is not a reference to indiscriminate bombing over a wide region, because that impression was given by the report? Secondly, in view of the proposals of Mr. Mathu, as well as those of Mr. Blundell, 1724 will the Secretary of State now make an early statement on when this conference can be reconvened?
§ Mr. LytteltonI am not prepared to do that at the moment, because informal discussions are taking place. With regard to "pattern bombing," I do not think that is a phrase that has been used from any official source; I would not be sure, but I do not think so. Moreover, it is completely inapplicable to the number of aircraft involved, and also to the fact that the bombing takes place in prohibited areas where it is unlawful for anybody to be at all.
§ Mr. F. HarrisWill my right hon. Friend make a statement in regard to the report which has just been received that three Europeans were killed this morning by Mau Mau in Kenya, and that other Europeans and Africans were injured?
§ Mr. LytteltonNo, Sir; I am not in a position to do so.
§ Mr. EdelmanWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that the penalty for being in a prohibited area is death; and if the penalty is not death, whether it is not savage to use "pattern bombing" on anybody who might find himself in a prohibited area?
§ Mr. LytteltonI do not say that the term "pattern bombing" is the correct one, and if anybody endangers his life by being in a prohibited area, there is a very simple remedy, and that is to come out.
§ Mr. HaleDid not the right hon. Gentleman assure the House a few weeks ago that Kikuyu tribesmen were being compelled to join Mau Mau or to go to Mau Mau and were being taken by force into these prohibited areas? Does not this represent a policy of extermination of innocent people? Is it justified by any law of any kind, and what defence will the right hon. Gentleman have against an indictment for murder brought against him and all other persons carrying out this policy?
§ Mr. LytteltonI really think the hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. All that we are dealing with here are gangs, and he should have addressed his question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), because the policy we are now pursuing is precisely similar to that pursued in Malaya, where Lincoln bombers were used in 1950.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe right hon. Gentleman said there was no "pattern bombing."
§ Mr. LytteltonThe right hon. Gentleman again raises this question. The term "pattern bombing" does not come from official sources, and I have already said that I regard it as inaccurate. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which he himself made on this subject when he was asked on 25th October, 1950, by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to reconsider the whole policy of using bombers in Malaya. He replied:
This is a matter which I would prefer to leave to the Director of Operations in Malaya."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 2772.]We are not so leaving it in this case of Kenya.
§ Mr. AlportAre not the jungle conditions in Kenya precisely the same as existed in Malaya? Were not these areas used for training in jungle operations in Malaya during the last war, and, therefore, the circumstances are exactly parallel to the conditions in Malaya itself?
§ Mr. LytteltonI think that is so.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot debate this matter further at Question time.
§ Mr. HaleI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to utilise in Kenya Lincoln bombers in a new policy of large-scale bombing of British citizens of African birth.May I say, in support of this Motion, as I am entitled to do—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman should bring his Motion up to me. The hon. Gentleman asks permission to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
The decision of Her Majesty's Government to utilise in Kenya Lincoln bombers in a new policy of large-scale bombing of British citizens of African birth.I cannot find that that is at all within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. BowlesOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerI will deal with this point. I must deal with it first.
§ Mr. BowlesI have a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member can rise to his point of order when I have sat down. The hon. Member who asked leave to move this Motion must place it as a definite matter of urgent public importance. The statement I have heard today from the Minister really means that, though the use of aircraft has been going on in Kenya—so the use of aircraft as such is not urgent or new—a new aircraft is being used, one of longer range. I cannot see that that is an urgent matter of public importance such as to justify me in interrupting the Orders of the Day for this Motion.
§ Mr. BowlesThe point I was seeking to make is rather serious, and is almost irrelevant now. It is that my hon. Friend should be allowed to make his submissions to you before you come to any decision. It is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to change his mind when he has come to a decision. In future, I suggest that you should hear submissions from hon. Members who raise points in this House before any prima facie Ruling is given. This is not making any criticism of your decision. I remember the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] We are now allowed to make submissions to you, I assume, Sir?—in 1936 successfully moved the Adjournment of the House during the middle of the Spanish civil war as a definite matter of urgent public importance, in spite of the fact that the war had been going on for some time. I would ask you to have regard to that decision given by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker FitzRoy.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith regard to the first point, naturally I will consider what the hon. Member says. I am acting in accordance with the practice, and I do not propose to alter it without deep consideration. With regard to the second matter, the ground of my decision is not that the emergency is still in progress in Kenya, but that I see no definite matter of urgent public importance in the use of one aircraft instead of another. There has been no Question put and no evidence given of any use of these aircraft in any exceptional way which might raise another matter. Clearly it is not within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. HaleMay I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a literary authority on the matter, Lewis Carroll, who pointed out the difficulty in which applicants are placed if the verdict is given before the evidence is heard? I would also respectfully call your attention to the fact that you quoted a statement made by the Colonial Secretary today without giving me an opportunity of quoting my side of the facts, so as to have the facts put from both sides of the House. The facts I wished to submit to you are these: the Colonial Secretary has said more than once that there are more people than the Mau Mau in the Aberdare forest, people who are being compulsorily recruited, being taken there by force, and being kept there as prisoners; therefore there are innocent people in the Aberdare forest who will be liable to suffer from this bombing.
On the question of degree, it may very well be argued that there is no material difference in nature between the stink bomb and the atom bomb, but I venture to say that there is a difference in the moral sense of this country in regard to the use of the atom bomb even in time of war.
There is this additional matter. The right hon. Gentleman has said that Harvard aircraft take off from land quite near and do not have to pass over any populous area. The Harvards are short-distance aircraft, easily manœuverable. They can take off from any short space. There is the important fact that I wish to put to you as a matter of common knowledge of which you can take judicial notice that throughout the war towns in Holland and Belgium were being destroyed by accident as bombers passed over them. It is not therefore accurate to say that the introduction of new, modern bombers in a place like Kenya can be done without risk to the civilian population.
This is a grave decision and a matter of great importance. It means that British citizens who are innocent may be killed tomorrow. There can be no greater urgency than that and no greater reason for moving the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerThese arguments are really out of order. I gave careful consideration to this matter. I anticipated that such a Motion might arise when I saw the Private Notice Question. I 1728 have given my decision after the deepest consideration. There is nothing new in what the hon. Gentleman has said that was not before my mind when I came to the decision. There is no question here of atom bombs or stink bombs, and there is nothing before the House of that nature. There has been no change at all in the policy which has been pursued of using aircraft in this emergency. I do not see that the substitution of one aircraft for another alters the matter at all.
§ Mr. WarbeyOn this question whether or not there has been new development in policy, according to reports in the Press, confirmed, I believe, by what the Colonial Secretary said today, this matter was referred by the Director of Operations on the spot to the Cabinet, and the decision embarked upon, this new development of bombing, was taken at Cabinet level. Do not that fact and the fact that the matter should be referred to the Cabinet in themselves indicate a new development?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere would be difficulties if every matter decided by the Cabinet became the subject of a Motion under Standing Order No. 9. Lots of matters are decided by the Cabinet. I have no knowledge, anyhow, of that except what the hon. Member tells me.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMay I put two short points to you? If this development involves nothing which is either new or urgent, how came it to be allowed—as it did not come from the Leader of the Opposition—as a Private Notice Question? Secondly, if the change is one from a small aircraft flying locally and using minor armaments to the use of much larger aircraft flying larger distances with immensely more powerful and more destructive armaments, does that not amount to a change, in view of the increased destruction and the wider area of destruction that are obviously involved?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs regards the first point, there is no necessary connection at all between my allowing a Private Notice Question and allowing a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I frequently allow a Private Notice Question on a matter which I think is of interest to the House. When the right hon. Gentleman asked leave to put this Question, I 1729 thought it was a proper Question for him to ask and I allowed it. That does not by any means settle the question whether I shall accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale).
As regards the second part of the point put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I have covered that entirely in what I have said. I do not think there is anything new here solely because another type of aircraft has been used. No evidence of the use of bombs from these aircraft is yet before the House.
I assure the House that this is not a decision I have come to for any other reason than a desire to save the House from undue interruption of its business on matters which do not comply with the Standing Order. I further assure the House that I have given the matter careful consideration, and I hope that the House will accept my decision.
§ Mr. Fenner BrockwayIn view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether, if this bombing does take place on a large scale over a wide area involving great loss of life, you will then be prepared to accept such a Motion, despite the Ruling you have given today?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is always a very unwise thing to answer hypothetical questions. The events themselves must be clearly established and a proper shape given to them before I could give a useful opinion to the House upon them.
Mr. I. O. ThomasArising out of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, can you indicate what size the bombers used will have to reach before the matter becomes one of urgent public importance?
§ Mr. Harold DaviesWould I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in appealing to the Government Chief Whip on this occasion to move the Adjournment of the House, in view of the fact that the matter has necessitated a special Cabinet meeting and that the change of policy involved is of such vital importance to Her Majesty's subjects to whom the party opposite wishes to be loyal?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that the hon. Member's question is another one in the hypothetical range. I could not possibly give an answer on that matter. As far as the present position is concerned, we have no evidence that any bombs have been dropped from these aircraft, and that is the position before us.