HC Deb 02 August 1956 vol 557 cc1777-90

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to give a Ruling about a matter to which I drew your attention and which I considered affected in some measure the rights and privileges of hon. Members of this House. You gave a Ruling which indicated that my hope of redress and hopes of redress for the House lay with making our protest to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

In doing that, I should like to start by saying to him that I know well, from having watched him at close quarters in Nicosia and from time to time in the Colonial Office, how very much overburdened with work he is. I apologise for having to bring him once again to the House of Commons. I should also like to apologise to the officials and servants of the House, who, I know, are as anxious as we are to get home as soon as possible.

I do not raise the matter as a personal grievance, because I have none whatever. I do not feel insulted, as some people have suggested I ought—I see there is a leading article about it in one of the evening newspapers—by the action of the Secretary of State or the language which he used about me.

What matters is that all of us should do what we can to promote a settlement and end the lamentable situation which is causing increasing daily loss of life in the unhappy Island of Cyprus. This afternoon I met someone who had just returned after having been there for a number of months, and he said it was tragic, day after day, to watch the deterioration of the situation in what ought to be a prosperous, happy and peaceful island. We must try to stop that deterioration. As the Answers by the Secretary of State to Questions by me during the last few days have shown, the situation has deteriorated in that every month more people are being killed and wounded and more damage is occurring, and the rhythm of this has steadily increased since Archbishop Makarios was deported.

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what my motives were in suggesting that I should talk to the Archbishop in the Seychelles. Indeed, I discussed it very frankly with him. He knows that if he wanted to give me any advice, if he wanted to ask me to keep any part of my discussions private or to try to avoid publicity, as I did on many occasions when I was previously in Cyprus, I should certainly have listened to his advice. He knows very well there was no question of political propaganda by myself, the Archbishop or anybody else. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will express some recognition of that fact.

I want to ask the Secretary of State five or six specific questions to which I hope he will be good enough to reply. He indicated that it is his intention, the minute I set foot on the Island of Mahe, in the Seychelles, to put the Archbishop and his colleagues back behind the barbed wire which surrounds the rather uncomfortable villa in which they are housed, whereas at the moment they are free to walk about and to talk to anyone they happen to meet. I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that they have free access to anyone they wish to meet.

Does this extraordinary ban apply to all right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons? Does it—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked this question yesterday—cover members of the Privy Council? Does it cover Members of another place? What would happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted to go to Mahe to reason with Archbishop Makarios about the use of violence? Does it apply to Lord Radcliffe, a legal figure of great eminence, who has just returned to this country from Cyprus and may well say that he wants to consult the Archbishop? If he wanted to go to the Seychelles, would he be prevented as a result of the Secretary of State's ban? My first question is: whom is the ban intended to cover, and why has a distinction been drawn between myself and other hon. Members and members of the general public with whom the Archbishop is free to have any contact he desires?

My second question is: why is the Secretary of State drawing a distinction in respect of political detainees against whom no legal charge has been preferred, who have had no legal proceedings taken against them, and who are guilty of no legal offence, and applying, in their case, rules which are not applied to ordinary common criminals in prisons in this country? The Attorney-General knows that if I asked, through the proper channels, to visit a prisoner in gaol in this country, whether a constituent of mine or not, whatever his crime, I should be allowed free access—

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

The hon. Gentleman may or may not be right about that. He could not go there without permission. That permission might be withheld in certain circumstances.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I should like to take that further, but I am sure that there would be a storm of protest if permission were withheld.

The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that the detainees in Cyprus are being visited constantly. Only the other day a great party of the Press was taken to see them, to inquire into their conditions and to talk to them. Why is this distinction being made in the case of these people in the Seychelles, who are not found guilty as a result of any legal proceedings, who have committed no offence under any of the emergency regulations in Cyprus? Why the distinction in their case?

My third question may seem a simple one—the Secretary of State was good enough to give me that description yesterday. Suppose I asked to see Lord Radcliffe, who returned from Cyprus today, and who, while he was there, said that he would like to talk to anyone who could give him relevant information? What would happen if I wanted to see him to tell him what was, on the last occasion I saw him, the point of view of the Archbishop and of an important section of the public which he represents? Would the Secretary of State threaten to lock up either Lord Radcliffe or me?

My fourth question is this. The Secretary of State said yesterday that it was a condition of the Archbishop's being allowed to see me and, I assume, other Members of Parliament that he should make a prior denunciation of violence. In this connection, I should like to put two points. First, does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect that the Archbishop can make any statement of any significance or influence in Cyprus while he is in detention? Does not the Secretary of State realise very well that if the Archbishop made a statement of this kind the immediate reaction in Cyprus and in other places would be either that the Archbishop had been put under such intolerable pressure by the British authorities that he had been compelled to make the statement, or that he was trying to buy his freedom?

After all, the Secretary of State told us that the main reason why he sent Archbishop Makarios to the Seychelles was precisely to prevent him exercising any influence on the situation in Cyprus. Now, he tells us that it is for the Archbishop, from his place of exile, to make a statement on the use of violence. Is not the Secretary of State prepared to agree, on reflection, that that is a ridiculous expectation, something which the Archbishop could not be expected unconditionally to do?

Of course, there are ways in which his attitude to violence could be clarified, as the Secretary of State knows very well. He knows that I cannot say more on this point, obviously, in this House. He knows very well what my attitude to that subject is, and will be, when I go to the Seychelles. Perhaps I may say one word in parentheses about the Archbishop's attitude to violence. The Secretary of State has been deliberately trying to discredit the Archbishop and to build him up as a sinister bogyman ever since he was deported.

It is a natural temptation, the decision having suddenly been taken to whisk the man off to exile on very flimsy grounds, retrospectively to build up the case against him. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there is no real evidence to support his case. If there is, it is his duty to produce it. A few days after the Archbishop was deported, a large number of troops searched the Archbishopric. I believe that I am right in saying that that search took 18 days.

What was found there? It was suggested that an arsenal was found in the Archbishopric, but that arsenal turned out to be a few disused electric light bulbs in a garden some distance from the building. There were said to be a lot of incriminating documents found. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to publish those documents, because they would prove conclusively the incredible moderation of the Archbishop right up to the breakdown of the negotiations.

I challenge the Secretary of State here, in this House, to produce the documents and let the world judge what they show about the Archbishop's attitude to violence. If, in the course of the sweeps that have been made against Colonel Grivas and his men in the mountains, there has been found any evidence incriminating the Archbishop, let him publish that evidence and let the House of Commons and the country judge its validity.

I say that the Archbishop is a moderate-minded man. I say—and in this I cannot be contradicted—that the evidence is that he wanted an agreement at the time the talks broke down. He expected an agreement and did not understand why the British Government did not get an agreement with him then. I talked to him the day after the talks broke down, and pleaded with him to do what he could to reopen discussions. I said that mistakes had been made all the way round. Amongst others whom I saw was the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, and before that I stopped in Athens. I pleaded with them all not to shut any doors.

They listened to me and looked very benevolent, and two days later they shot the Archbishop off into exile in the Seychelles. If the Secretary of State has evidence to substantiate the claims that he is making about the Archbishop, then, in fairness to the House of Commons, in fairness to myself, who worked with him in Nicosia at that time, he ought to publish that evidence. I repeat that I think that the evidence, if published, would show that the Archbishop took a far more moderate line than anybody outside could have expected.

The fifth question to which I should like to have an answer from the Secretary of State is: what is his aim in doing all this? Is he really seeking to discredit and to undermine the position of the Archbishop? Is he seeking by the things which he said about me to discredit and undermine me or anyone else who is trying to help get a solution of this situation? I do not matter, but the Archbishop of Cyprus will for a considerable time.

The Governor said the other day—and I repeat now that I have the greatest respect for the Governor; and I very much hope that anything that I say in this House will not offend him, much as he may be bound by duty to disagree with me—that it was an anarchronistic arrangement that the Archbishop should be a political leader in Cyprus. Of course it is. It is hundreds of years out of date, and the fault lies with us and with the Turkish rulers of Cyprus before us. The fact is that at the moment, because of the way we have been running the Colony since we took it over, the Archbishop is the only possible expression of the will of the great majority of the people in that island. By sending him into exile the Secretary of State has built up his position so that he has become a kind of national hero.

Nothing that the Secretary of State can do from London, until he has released the Archbishop and made possible the development of ordinary, democratic political institutions in Cyprus, will enable the Archbishop to disappear from the commanding rôle that he now occupies. I am sure that attempts to attack and discredit him without producing any evidence will only backfire on the Secretary of State and make the Archbishop's position even stronger than it is at present.

My final question is to ask the Secretary of State whether he will be good enough to clarify a remark which he made in the House last night. He said—and I quote from HANSARD: I was not prepared to allow anything to happen whereby the Archbishop could carry out long-range artillery. The hon. Member might be a genuine but rather simple bearer of ammunition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1481.] I do not want to labour this point, but at the time that he and the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I discussed the possibility of my going to Cyprus he certainly did not appear to consider that I was a genuine but rather simple bearer of the Archbishop's political ammunition.

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not true, and that what I am trying to do is to help him, in spite of our political differences and in spite of the fact that most of his policy in the last few months has been quite wrong and could have been avoided. I am trying to help to get a solution to this problem. In fairness to me, to the Archbishop and other people concerned in this problem, I hope that he will clarify exactly what he meant by that remark.

I have asked the Secretary of State a number of specific questions. He has plenty of time in which to answer all six of them. I finish with this plea: I beg the Secretary of State to think again. I am not going to be scared off. My plans for the latter part of this Recess are not altered by anything that has been said in the last two days. I am doing what I intend to do because I think it right. I shall make that journey to the Seychelles, and I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider the extraordinary threat that he made yesterday and allow me to continue to do what I can—it may turn out to be tragically little—to help get this problem settled.

9.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

As we are on the Motion for the Adjournment, and despite the fact that we have twenty minutes before the time remaining expires, I see no reason why I need necessarily occupy all that twenty minutes. I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and thank her for the very generous personal words which she used about me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Certainly any Secretary of State who hesitated to come to the House, even at this late hour and on the last day before we rise, to deal with a matter which the hon. Lady regards as important would, I think, be failing in his duty.

The hon. Lady has for years shown a most serious interest in the more important colonial problems, and I hope I may be allowed to say so, particularly at such a moment as this. Never once have I known her put any partisan advantage before the desire to get at the truth of the problems that concern her. Tonight, as on every previous occasion, she has lived up to the reputation that she has long had among her own colleagues, and which she has certainly won since she came into the House among hon. Members whom tonight she may call her hon. Friends on this side of the House.

As to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), I refuse to get indignant with him, even though he works himself up into a sort of minor frenzy with me. That is not because we are rising tonight but because I know that he genuinely wants to help in the pacification of Cyprus. But the hon. Gentleman must not take it amiss if I say that with the generous impulses that actuate him have also gone an astonishing naivety and simplicity and an inability to recognise that some of the people who appear to him to be genuine heroes and workers for national salvation are, in fact, very wicked people who have used ways and means of trying to arrive at their solution which no responsible Government could conceivably tolerate.

The hon. Member for Swindon talks about Cyprus as an unhappy island. It is an unhappy island at the moment, largely because the Archbishop, for whom he speaks so warmly, has refused to discharge his obvious responsibilities in condemning violence. I am not one of those people who are so ignorant of history as to believe that it is possible to say to the Orthodox Church of Greece that it must take no part in politics. Of course, it is a political organisation. Political instincts and political ability, far more than personal sanctity or a desire to promote the Christian faith, cause the appointments of many important members of that Church. I recognise that for centuries it has been a well-organised political body, and I do not quarrel with that, even though my own particular communion prefers to express itself in a different way.

I recognise that it is a political body. But there is all the difference in the world between being a political body anxious to promote the union with Greece of territories that have never belonged to Greece, and being ready to condone, and by silence or in other ways to encourage, active murder of people who do not support one's views. The hon. Gentleman is a politician. If he became a member of the Greek Orthodox Church and continued as a politician I would have no quarrel with him. But if, becoming a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, he thought that thereby he was entitled to go round encouraging people to shoot British soldiers in the back, I should think that I had some cause to complain.

The outrages that have been done in the name of heroism in Cyprus are so despicable that I really find it difficult, even at this late hour, to think of temperate language with which to describe the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman. We do not ask the Archbishop to cease to be a political figure. We only ask him to say that the cowardly and wilful murders of people who are only doing their duty should at least excite his reprobation. Is this now altogether an unreasonable request, when we consider that the majority of the people murdered have been people of his own faith and of his own race—people who do not agree with him? If the hon. Gentleman really believes that the Archbishop can escape condemnation in this House because it is claimed that he is a politician, when he is also condoning murder, I think he is expecting too much of the credulity of his fellow Members of Parliament.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker

The Secretary of State really knows very well that the Archbishop was preparing to make a formal appeal for the pacification of the island the moment that the negotiations had finished: successfully, as he confidently expected. And the reason why he has not made that appeal was because the negotiations were broken off, and because the Secretary of State then sent him to the Seychelles.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I had two negotiations with the Archbishop. I know the hon. Gentleman saw him on a number of occasions, far more than I did. I came away from the last negotiation with the Archbishop quite convinced of this, that if the points of difference between us had, on that evening or within the next month or so, been resolved, long before they had been resolved other points of difference would have been created so as to spin out negotiations which, together with the continued use of terror, the Archbishop hoped would bring about the only solution which he was prepared to accept.

The hon. Gentleman is guilty also of a grotesque parody of recent development, constitutional and otherwise, in Cyprus. It is our fault, he says, that the Greek Orthodox Church is the only political leadership that the Cypriot people know. There could be nothing further from the truth. It is really not very fair on his own party, which in 1948 attempted to devise a constitution under which people who were not controlled and confined as those who follow strictly and alone the Orthodox Church are controlled and confined, might be given a chance to play a part in political leadership. That was turned down, as the hon. Gentleman knows, largely through the activities of the Ethnarchy.

The hon. Gentleman asked the question, could the Archbishop, in the Seychelles, reasonably be expected to denounce violence? Of course he could. Every possible encouragement has been given to him to do so. He could have done so long ago. In the long talks I had with him a year or so ago, and more recently, when the hon. Gentleman was there, I made it quite clear to him that if he were to do that a new situation altogether would arise.

It is perfectly clear from what he said to me—and it emerges also from the recently published statement which was written into the Congressional Record of the United States—that the Archbishop's conception of leadership and my conception of leadership are totally different. My conception of leadership is that, having arrived at a solution which one thinks is right, one should do one's best to guide one's followers to that solution. The Archbishop's conception of leadership is that if one is not quite sure that one's followers are going to follow, one must not start at all. So long as that is his conception, I see no hope whatsoever of a proper arrangement being made. The Archbishop could, of course, have denounced violence when in Cyprus; and he could equally do so in the Seychelles.

The hon. Gentleman said that he doubted whether there had been any justification for alleging the complicity of the Archbishop in this wicked business. We are now having many problems to solve, in Cyprus and elsewhere, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that security and other considerations make it quite impossible to publish the evidence which we possess. He knows also—or any contact with those of his colleagues who have held responsible office would make it clear to him—that from time to time it is quite impossible, in circumstances of this kind, to get people to come forward and give evidence and appear as witnesses whose evidence and whose witness is essential if charges are to be tried in open court.

Such a situation has been, in large part, created by the Archbishop in Cyprus. That is why it has been impossible to bring him to charge. The Archbishop would have been put under detention in Cyprus, with my full authority, had he not been Archbishop of Cyprus. When I finished the talks with him in the house of the Anglican Archdeacon of Cyprus, when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon was present, I came away in very deep personal distress, conscious that some definite steps of a rather dramatic kind would have to be taken. I pondered all through that evening and for the next day, having told the Archbishop that I was waiting in Nicosia until midday next day, as to whether it would be possible either to detain the Archbishop in Cyprus away from political activity or, by allowing him to go to Greece and then preventing him from returning to Cyprus, to do something to prevent him from playing an active part there for the time being.

I came to the definite conclusion that the only solution was to remove the Archbishop, and the three people most closely associated with him, from the island, so that their pernicious influence could no longer be allowed to prevent the pacification of the island. The Archbishop, therefore, was removed, with my full authority, to the Seychelles—and of nothing which I have done since I have been Secretary of State am I more sure that it was right; but had he not been Archbishop, he would have been detained in Cyprus itself.

The hon. Member for Swindon wants to go to the Seychelles and to see the Archbishop. Had the Archbishop been detained in Cyprus, the hon. Gentleman could not possibly have seen him, save with the consent of the Governor, who, in a matter of this kind, would of course have referred to me, any more than the hon. Gentleman could go and see somebody detained in one of Her Majesty's prisons in the United Kingdom without the proper consent either of the governor of the prison or of the Home Office. The fact that the Archbishop, being a grand offender, had to be removed from Cyprus to the Seychelles, does not alter the position in the very least.

I said yesterday in the House: The Archbishop and the other detainees have given their parole, and that has enabled them to have much greater freedom to move in, the island. I was very glad when I heard that the Archbishop had given his parole, and despite all my feelings about the mischief and wickedness he has caused, I am glad that it is possible to detain him under less severe conditions than hitherto.

I added: If visits are paid by them or attempts are made to pay visits to them, in circumstances which I and the Governor consider would not be in the interests of the pacification of Cyprus, steps would have to be taken to limit for the time of the visit the freedom enjoyed by the detainees. I have no intention whatever of allowing the Archbishop to resume his leadership and his association with E.O.K.A. by firing long-distance artillery from the Seychelles. If, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Archbishop denounces violence, a new situation will arise. A few moments later in the debate last night, the hon. Gentleman appeared to take great exception to that remark of mine, if it suggested that he would only wish to go to the Seychelles, or one of the reasons why he might want to go, was to carry out long-range propaganda. I replied to the hon. Member: I said I was not prepared to allow anything to happen whereby the Archbishop"— not the hon. Member— could carry out long-range artillery. The hon. Member might be a genuine but rather simple bearer of ammunition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1478–1481.] I can only repeat that observation.

I know the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman. He expressed some time ago to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself a desire to help as much as he could in person on the ground, in Cyprus in the task of pacification. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself welcomed that initiative by the hon. Member. Some Governments, I suppose, might be thought to be weak if they were ready to take advantage of offers by the Opposition to help. We feel so confident of the strength of our cause that we have had no reluctance whatever in showing a readiness, and, acting on that readiness, to use any opportunity to bring about a better situation.

I think it is a little ungenerous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we took advantage of his offer at one moment and were ready to discard him at the next. What in fact he is doing by suggesting that we encouraged him to go and now discourage him from going is to suggest that we were ready to use him at one moment and discourage him in the next, merely because, in the changing political pattern, he no longer appeared to be of any value to us.

The truth is that as long as there was a chance of arriving at some arrangement with the Archbishop in Cyprus, the hon. Gentleman's intervention, his own friendship with the Archbishop and his own personal character and generous impulses, might well have helped to lead the Archbishop to realise the situation which had developed. When it became quite clear that, despite that extra help which the hon. Gentleman so generously brought, the Archbishop was not prepared or was not able to take an independent line on this matter, then, for the time being, the usefulness of the hon. Gentleman appeared to be at an end.

The hon. Gentleman asked me if any other hon. Members would be allowed to go. Would Privy Councillors be allowed to go and see the Archbishop? In this matter, no distinctions of any kind would be made between any hon. or right hon. Members of this House in that for everybody, whether Members of Parliament or not, permission would have to be given. As the hon. Gentleman asked me in advance whether, in his case, permission would be given to visit the Archbishop, I felt it only fair to say to him that I did not think that that would be so.

I have since then consulted the Governors in Cyprus and the Seychelles, who confirm my view, and I repeat it as my own personal decision that, if the hon. Gentleman decides to make the journey to the Seychelles during the Recess, he will not be able to see the Archbishop. I think it is fair that the hon. Gentleman should know that in advance. I trust that I shall not be accused of being anything but honest in preventing what might otherwise turn out to be a long and unnecessary journey.

I am very sorry to interfere with any plans that the hon. Gentleman may have for the Recess. I know the value of his visits to other British territories. I know and welcome his desire to get to know their problems at first hand, and I should welcome visits by him to any British Colony. Of course, he can go to the Seychelles, and I should be very glad if he did, but, if he does, he can no more expect to have the right to see a detainee in the Seychelles than, if he decided to spend his holiday in Dartmoor, he would have an absolute right which could not be taken away from him to go and see anybody detained in the prison there.

The question of Privilege was discussed this afternoon, and it is not now for me to enter into that. No question of Privilege arises here, but a question of practical administration does arise. It is for me to see that the purposes of the Government, arrived at after long and anxious consideration, and involving the deportation of the Archbishop and others, are not frustrated by manoeuvres designed by other people and carried out, I do not doubt in good faith, by the hon. Gentleman. If we have willed the original intention of moving the Archbishop out of Cyprus, then we must also take any other steps that are necessary in order to see that purpose is not frustrated.

The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Radcliffe had returned today from Cyprus, and I look forward tomorrow to a talk with Lord Radcliffe on the results of his most fruitful visit. I do not intend that the long-term policy to which Her Majesty's Government is committed, and of which Lord Radcliffe's visit is an essential part, shall be frustrated by once more enabling the Archbishop to play a mischievous part from the Seychelles in the same way in which he continued to do in Cyprus itself.

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House; without Question put, till Tuesday, 23rd October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

Adjourned at Ten o'clock.