HC Deb 28 October 1953 vol 518 cc2796-800
Mr. J. Griffiths

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the detention of certain leaders and members of the People's Progressive Party in British Guiana.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton)

When the Governor announced the decision to suspend the Constitution, the People's Progressive Party called for a general strike. The leaders of the P.P.P. followed up the call by touring the sugar estates and trying to get more of the workers to strike. Intimidation and threats have been used by the party against workers unwilling to strike. There are specific cases of workers having their rice farms destroyed, their houses stoned by known P.P.P. supporters, of their being assaulted, and of their lives being threatened by P.P.P. members.

The Deputy Commissioner of Labour in a recent report said: For some long time I could not believe a few persons could create such intimidation as to make a much larger number of people act contrary to their views. I have, however, changed that view and can say for certain that, at the moment, a very large number of workers would return to work but for fear of harm being done, either to their persons or to their property. On 24th October, seven members of the party, including one ex-Minister, Mr. King, were detained for questioning by the local police on reports that they had held illegal meetings on and near a sugar estate. Two members were later released.

The Governor has announced that, owing to widespread intimidation and fear of victimisation, grave difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the evidence of eye witnesses of the illegal meetings which the members are alleged to have conducted. Some eye witnesses have given statements on the understanding that they would not be required as witnesses in court.

The Governor decided that five of them, including the ex-Minister should be detained under the Emergency Order on the ground that their activities constituted a threat to public safety and order and that their detention was necessary to prevent them acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and order. The Governor at the same time appointed an advisory committee under the Emergency Order, with the Chief Justice as chairman, to hear objections by persons against whom detention orders had been made and to make recommendations to the Governor in respect of such objections. The detention of these persons under the Emergency Order in no way precludes proceedings against them for offences that can be tried in the ordinary courts.

It is a matter of great regret to Her Majesty's Government, and to myself, that this action had to be taken, but in the circumstances there was no alternative.

Mr. Griffiths

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall, as I am sure he will, that during the course of many Questions which were put to him a week ago today, and in the course of the debate, he indicated that prosecution was a matter for the Attorney-General and was being considered? Will he consider what I think is the universal wish of this House and the country, that, in view of the grave charges made in the White Paper, these men ought to be put on trial, since the charges are denied, and that the judicial procedure is the one which ought to be followed in these cases?

Mr. Lyttelton

I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that what I was talking of last week was possible prosecution respecting actions by these men before the suspension of the Constitution. The action taken now is related to things that they have done since the suspension.

Mr. Griffiths

Is the Attorney-General still considering taking action in court to prove or rebut, one way or the other, the charges made in the White Paper by which the Government's action was justified?

Mr. Lyttelton

That is so, and not only on that, but on their actions since. On both scores the Attorney-General is considering what has happened.

Sir H. Williams

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind what happened in 1924 when the then Attorney-General of this country withdrew a prosecution under political pressure? Will he continue to bear in mind that the Attorney-General of this Colony must be allowed to exercise his judicial functions without interference?

Mr. Lyttelton

I have frequently said that the Attorney-General must act in this matter entirely without pressure from the Executive.

Mr. Grimond

Do we understand from the Minister's statement that no proceedings have yet been taken against the people responsible for the very serious disturbances on the sugar estate?

Mr. Lyttelton

Yes.

Mr. Grimond

If this is due to inability to get evidence, can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to strengthen the police?

Mr. Lyttelton

Only that the police have been reinforced by troops. The difficulty in the present state of intimidation is to get the actual witnesses to testify in open court.

Mr. Paton

Since the right hon. Gentleman has said in the statement he has just read to the House that known members of the P.P.P. have burnt rice crops, why have not criminal proceedings been taken against them?

Mr. Lyttelton

Because the difficulty is, as I say, first of all to find the people to give information of these charges and secondly to get witnesses into court.

Mr. Griffiths

So far the Attorney-General has not decided whether to prosecute?

Mr. Lyttelton

Yes; he has not decided.

Mr. Griffiths

And it is a matter for him entirely?

Mr. Lyttelton

Yes.

Mr. Griffiths

In conveying what I did, we were not seeking to put pressure on the Attorney-General. The Government having taken the responsibility of making these charges in a White Paper, is it not essential that these charges should be proved, and that the only way of proving them is in court?

Mr. Lyttelton

I have already explained that when there is sufficient evidence, and witnesses to come forward in open court, we shall do so. This is a matter for the Attorney-General, and he can make up his mind in his own time.

Mr. T. Reid

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in serious cases of offences like sedition and of some less serious offences, under the law of British Guiana, there must not be trial by jury?

Mr. Lyttelton

There will be trial by jury. The Attorney-General will try to get the necessary witnesses and get on with the prosecution, but in my statement I explained that it is difficult to get witnesses to come forward at the moment.

Mr. Dugdale

The right hon. Gentleman stated that the burnings have taken place by known members of the P.P.P. Is there no evidence by which they can be brought to trial?

Mr. Lyttelton

I am not saying that these supporters will not be prosecuted. I am only saying that they have not been prosecuted yet.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

Have these Ministers been detained on the statements of witnesses who are not willing to be called and a promise has been given that they will not be called? In that case, how can those statements be tested at any time in order to establish their truth?

Mr. Lyttelton

I cannot go into the details of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked. These five persons have been detained under the Emergency Regulations. The first thing that happens is that their complaints, if they have any, will be heard by a committee set up under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice.