HC Deb 25 July 1956 vol 557 cc416-24
51. Mr. E. Fletcher

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken regarding the petition sent to him, signed by 50 leading citizens of the Seychelles, pleading that Her Majesty's Government will refrain from appointing Mr. M. D. Lyon for a third term as Chief Justice of the Seychelles.

53. Mr. J. Johnson

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he received from the Chief Secretary of the Seychelles the petition signed by 50 leading people of the Colony, pleading that Mr. M. D. Lyon be not reappointed a Chief Justice of the Seychelles; and what action he is taking in this matter.

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

I received the petition on 6th November, 1954. There was no question of reappointment: the petitioners asked that Mr. Lyon should not return to the territory for a third tour of duty. The petitioners were informed by letter on 10th December, 1954, that after careful consideration I was unable to accede to their request.

Mr. Fletcher

Is the Colonial Secretary aware that since then, there have been further complaints by a large number of leading citizens, both white and black, that Mr. Lyon is drunk, incompetent, vicious and corrupt, and brings British justice in the Colony into disgrace and contempt? Is he further aware that since I put this Question— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—is he further aware— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. H. Fraser

On a point of order. Surely it is extraordinary for an hon. Member to abuse the character of a person, in privileged circumstances, without giving any evidence.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that it is a point of order. It is a question of discretion on the part of the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan

It is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Fletcher

Is the Colonial Secretary aware of the allegations made by a large number of leading citizens, both white and black, against this Chief Justice, that he brings British justice into disgrace and contempt? Is he further aware that since I put down this Question, one of my correspondents has had his house searched and his papers seized on the spurious ground that, by writing to me, he was guilty of contempt of court?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I would certainly deprecate in the strongest possible language the observations of the hon. Member. In so far as this charge is that Mr. Lyon was not impartial in his judgments, I have the assurance of the Governor, in whom I have full trust, that the petition contained no evidence that that was so. In so far as the charge is that a disproportionate number of cases or decisions have been upset on appeal, I would point out that in the last seven years, the Chief Justice has tried 1,561 cases and only 14 of the litigants have thought fit to appeal.

Finally, I venture to suggest that question and answer in the House of Commons on matters touching individual honour of this kind of an official whose only spokesman in the House is myself, is not the best way of arriving at conclusions.

Mr. Johnson

In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), may I ask whether it is not a fact that beside the leading people of the Colony who signed this petition there were other people who were debarred from signing it because they were magistrates on the Bench, or leading or ex-leading civil servants in the Colony? Is it not a fact that the conduct of the Chief Justice is a matter of comment in the Colony day by day? May I ask whether the Minister would not consider sending an all-party delegation to the Seychelles, not merely on this matter but because of the conditions of the plantation workers and the wages and conditions of people in that Colony?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am not in favour of all-party delegations to the Seychelles at this moment, for reasons quite apart from this case. In regard to what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has said, I can assure him that I have looked most carefully and personally at the charges made, and am satisfied with the propriety of my answer.

Mr. Bevan

Will the right hon. Gentleman not reply to the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) about contempt of court in writing to a Member of Parliament? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that allegations of corruption have been made? The right hon. Gentleman made or repeated a similar allegation yesterday about the Prime Minister of Eastern Nigeria. Are not Members of Parliament perfectly entitled if they think—[Interruption.] How on earth are Members of Parliament to discharge their duty of supervising public servants if they cannot make charges which they think to be well-founded? If an inquiry was necessary yesterday into the allegations made against the Prime Minister of Eastern Nigeria, would not the right hon. Gentleman now make an inquiry into the charges made against this person?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The relevance of associating this question with the matter that was discussed in the House yesterday is a matter for individual decision as to its propriety. In matters of judicial charge of any kind, to associate the case or the arguments against one person with the argument against another person is not only very improper but grossly unfair to the people concerned. In regard to this case, the fact that the subject of the question is a chief justice clearly puts him in a category which hon. Members ought to remember when asking questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] By long tradition there is a particular drill for inquiries into the conduct of judges or chief justices, either in this country or in the Colonies.

Mr. Bevan

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply today will cause the most painful impression in Nigeria? On the one hand, and not with the disapproval of the Opposition, an inquiry is instituted into charges made against a Prime Minister who is black. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. On the following day, serious charges are made in the House not only against the character of this judicial person but against the action that he took when he knew that people were writing from the Seychelles to Members of Parliament; and the right hon. Gentleman is so complacent about this that he does not even suggest that he will now make inquiry to see whether he thinks an inquiry is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman is not doing himself or the House of Commons justice.

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I find it necessary to see that Parliamentary justice is done to a chief justice, even though he was appointed Chief Justice when the Socialist Party were the Government.

Several Hon. Members rose

—

An Hon. Member

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The time is past half-past three. If there is a point of order I will hear it.

Mr. Bevan

On a point of order. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman but he has not answered it. Will he now answer whether he will make an inquiry?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. The hour for Questions has passed.

Mr. Bellenger

On a point of order. Is not the Minister introducing or seeking to import prejudice into a case which may be subject of a judicial inquiry, by the last remark that he made?

Mr. Speaker

There is no question of a judicial inquiry yet. Therefore, the point does not arise.

Mr. Fletcher

On a point of order. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek the earliest opportunity of raising this matter.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in relation to this matter? The Question, which referred to allegations against the Chief Justice in the Seychelles, was accepted at the Table. Was the Secretary of State for the Colonies therefore justified in questioning the propriety of what is contained in the Question? Surely if a Question is accepted at the Table there is nothing improper in my hon. Friend asking supplementary questions about the matter contained in the Question.

Mr. Speaker

There is no mystery about the matter. The Question was in order, and it was allowed. I am bound to say that some of the supplementary questions were couched in terms rather different from the Question on the Paper. Though there was nothing out of order that entitled me to intervene, it is my experience in the House, and I am sure it is that of the right hon. Gentleman, that every action has its equal and opposite reaction, and that if violent language is used on one side of the House it is apt to be countered by language of a similar character on the other. There has been nothing out of order. The Question was a proper Question for the Paper; otherwise it would not have appeared there.

Mr. Shinwell

Do I understand from your observations, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, has not been guilty of anything improper?

Mr. Speaker

I have said quite clearly that nothing out of order has occurred, or I should have felt it my duty to intervene.

Mr. Bevan

May I ask the Prime Minister if it is not a fact that when a statement of such gravity is made concerning a member of the judiciary, it is essential—

Mr. Speaker

I said that I would listen to a point of order and nothing else. I am not allowed by the rules of the House to permit this discussion to go on any longer. The House is kind enough to allow me a certain discretion, but really, twenty minutes to four is a little over the time.

Mr. Bevan

May I—

Mr. Speaker

Does someone wish to raise a point of order? If there is one, I will listen to it, but we cannot have any more discussion.

Mr. K. Thompson

On a point of order. Is it not a fact that when notice has been given that a matter will be raised on the Adjournment, further discussion is out of order?

Mr. Speaker

That is quite true. Notice that a matter is to be discussed on the Adjournment does preclude further discussion. I was prepared to listen to points of order. Several hon. Members signified that they desired to raise points of order but so far I have not heard one, except to some degree that which was raised by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Bevan

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This is an unusual situation and I ask your guidance because it does concern the good name of Parliament. If a statement of such gravity is made concerning a judge who tries people day by day, accusing him of these offences or conditions, including corruption, is it not desirable in his own interest and in the interests of this House that the case should be cleared up as quickly as possible? Does it not affect the administration of justice in the Seychelles? May I ask your guidance—[Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite are not doing the House of Commons any good by this. Has it not always been established that when charges of this sort are made against judges the whole matter should be cleared up as quickly as possible in the interests of the judge—[Interruption]. It is obvious from the cries of hon. Members opposite that so long as corruption is charged against the white man it is all right. Can we have an answer?

Mr. Speaker

So far as I could gather the question of the right hon. Member, I am afraid that it is not one on which I can intervene. The expediency or otherwise of an inquiry is surely a matter for the House itself to decide. I have no power to intervene on such a matter as that. I would remind the House that the weather is very hot, and that we ought to move on.

Mr. Bevan

I shall raise the question next week on the Consolidated Fund debate.

Mr. Donnelly

On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about another matter which has been raised this afternoon? As I understood, although I could not hear completely because of the hubbub that was going on, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that someone had been persecuted and his property searched because he had communicated with an hon. Member of this House. Is it not a fact that that prejudices the operation of this House and the freedom of Parliament? Does it not come within the bounds of the possibility of a breach of Privilege? May I seek your guidance on that, Sir, because it seems to go very much wider? A certain allegation was made which was precise and specific. It is a very serious matter if people cannot communicate with hon. Members of this House from territories for which this House is responsible, and who are there subject to a penal approach, or to forceful approach, and that their freedom of speech should be prejudiced in relation to this subject?

Mr. Speaker

I have heard nothing so far of a sufficiently definite character to raise any issue of Privilege. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I have not. If the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who has the facts in his possession, cares to formulate them in the proper way for my consideration I will consider it tomorrow. I cannot consider it now because it was not raised in the first instance as a matter of Privilege but as a supplementary question, and that is not the way to raise a question of Privilege. If the hon. Member has the facts on the subject, I will allow him to raise it tomorrow.

Mr. Fletcher

I am much obliged for what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I received this letter only late yesterday, and in my opinion it raises matters of breach of Privilege. I am anxious to reserve my rights in that respect and would like to raise the matter as a breach of Privilege either today or, if you prefer it, tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Speaker

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the hon. Member raised the matter tomorrow. After all, it has come before the House, not as a direct challenge on a matter of Privilege, but merely adventitiously, in the course of a supplementary question. If it were a matter of Privilege it should have been raised as such, because the Privilege of this House is a very serious matter and not too lightly or inadvertently to be invoked. If the hon. Member will submit the facts to me I will, without prejudice, allow him to submit the question tomorrow if, after consideration, he thinks that Privilege is involved.

Mr. Fletcher

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of the rules of this House that matters of Privilege should be raised as soon as possible. I should be perfectly prepared, if necessary, to raise the matter this afternoon, but in view of what you have said, I will raise it tomorrow afternoon.