§ 3. Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now state what form of inquiry will be instituted by the Governor of Cyprus in order to clear the good name of the Cyprus Police Force and the security forces.
§ 11. Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the refusal of the Governor to hold an inquiry into police methods in Cyprus.
16. Miss Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to investigate allegations of ill treatment while in Cyprus made by Cypriot prisoners now in Wormwood Scrubs.
§ 17. Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will establish an independent inquiry into allegations of ill-treatment by members of the Special Branch in Cyprus, copies of which have been sent to him through the Home Office, made by Cypriot prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs prison.
18. Miss Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will set up an independent committee to investigate conditions in British prisons in Cyprus.
§ 42. Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will move to set up a Select Committee in order to examine and report on the treatment of political prisoners in Cyprus by British officials.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe campaign of vilification against the police and security forces in Cyprus culminated in a statement by Archbishop Makarios last week. Complaints made to the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon. 384 Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) by Cypriot prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs are clearly, by their timing, part of this campaign. Hon. Members will, I am sure, not be misled by the motives of this campaign.
Archbishop Makarios, who, despite his association with terrorism and murder, has been given every encouragement to put forward constructive ideas on the future of the island, has failed to make any constructive move during his sojourn in Athens. Instead, he devotes himself to making fantastic charges against our fellow-citizens in Cyprus who are carrying out a difficult task with the courage and restraint which are associated with the British police and armed forces everywhere. I know that most hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent these men and men like them in Parliament know that they are not the sort of people likely to commit the acts alleged by Archbishop Makarios in this campaign.
Nevertheless, the Governor is investigating the allegations of ill-treatment recently made wherever they are framed in sufficiently specific terms to make investigation possible, and as soon as these investigations are completed I will place detailed comments in the Library so that the House can form its own judgment on them. I am, however, satisfied, that these wild charges do not justify a special inquiry.
§ Mr. RobinsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that no investigation by the Governor or the Cyprus Government can possibly allay the very real concern that is felt by numbers of people about this? Is he further aware that not only Greek Cypriots but responsible people in Cyprus have expressed great anxiety about some of the incidents which had been reported, and since he said a week or two ago that the Governor was anxious to clear the good name of the security forces, will he not realise that the only way in which this can be done is by an independent inquiry?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI think that some hon. Members do not perhaps altogether understand the conditions at the moment in Cyprus under which witnesses who wanted to give evidence against statements made under E.O.K.A. pressure would be placed if they were asked to 385 make those statements to some other inquiry. I am absolutely satisfied that one of the main reasons for this campaign of denigration is to enable E.O.K.A. to discover and to eliminate weaknesses in its own organisation and methods of operation which have enabled the security forces to make such inroads upon it. One of the so-called victims of these charges, in effect, said a week or so ago that there really was no charge to make. He said, "The Church is very powerful here." Does the hon. Gentleman really think that I, or any other responsible person, should set in motion machinery under which that and similar statements would be published in a way which would identify the individuals?
Miss LeeIs the Minister not aware that it would be quite improper for Cypriot prisoners who are making allegations of maltreatment to be judge and jury in their own case? Is he also aware that the logic which applies to these Cypriot prisoners applies to himself and to the Governor of Cyprus? Is he further aware that, if the situation remains as it now is, in the eyes of the world the British Government have pleaded guilty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense.] Therefore I ask, if we are to justify the good name of our British soldiers abroad, of which we are all proud, that in their interests as well as in the interest of the honour of the Government, it is absolutely essential that an independent inquiry should be set up?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI cannot accept the hon. Lady's conclusions. Her own visit with the hon. Member for 'Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) to Wormwood Scrubs, which the Home Secretary was very ready to facilitate, brought her into contact with a number of men who made charges. These men in Wormwood Scrubs were all examined in the routine manner by the prison medical officers on their arrival last year and at the beginning of this year. I have seen and read carefully every one of the reports.
No marks, bruises, or anything else suggesting injury or ill-treatment were noticed on any of these men, and no complaints of such ill-treatment were made at the time of their entry into Wormwood Scrubs. Of the men that the hon. Lady saw, four complained when they were in Cyprus of rough treatment in Cyprus, 386 and those four cases will be dealt with in a statement that I will lay in the Library. I would ask the House to note—to put it mildly—the curious coincidence in timing between the suggestion made that these two hon. Members should visit Wormwood Scrubs and the statement made by Archbishop Makarios in Athens.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hope this will not become a debate on these Questions. There are a number of other Questions to be dealt with. If any hon. Member wishes to give notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he can, of course, do so.
§ Mr. CallaghanWhile I accept your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, in one sense, may I submit that the Colonial Secretary has made three very long statements—they are not answers to Questions—which could perhaps have been better made at the end of Questions? This is a most important topic, and I must submit that it would be quite improper not improper on your part, Mr. Speaker—but it would be unworthy if the Colonial Secretary by the vehemence of his language and the length of his replies were to get away with statements which are quite unfounded, especially in so far as they reflect on the conduct and honour of my hon. Friends.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that if the hon. Member reflects he will agree that some of the supplementary questions which have been asked did cover a good deal of ground, as did the answers. I am perfectly willing to call hon. Members to ask supplementary questions on this matter. I would only ask that they be questions and not speeches.
§ Mr. Dudley WilliamsOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is very strong feeling on this side of the House that the statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend completely exonerates the forces concerned with security in Cyprus. In view of that fact, would it not be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant)—
§ Mr. SpeakerI have my eye on him.
Miss LeeFurther to that point of order. In view of the urgency and the 387 gravity of this matter, which is now eating into the normal rights of hon. Members at Question Time, would it be in order to move the Adjournment of the House at the end of Questions so that we can give the serious discussion to this matter which it requires?
§ Mr. SpeakerIn any case, this is the wrong time to move such a Motion; but I can tell the hon. Lady that it is not a matter which falls within Standing Order No. 9.
§ Mr. BrockwayIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and I saw the injuries upon nine of these prisoners, and that while many of those injuries might have taken place in ordinary fighting, some, like deep cuts around both wrists, were quite obviously due to other treatment than that? In view of these facts, will he not only investigate these cases but investigate a large number of other cases of which evidence has been given by an independent inquiry for which we have asked?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am not challenging the hon. Member's belief in what he saw, but I would suggest that it would have been better and probably more valuable to the course of justice if those prisoners had themselves complained to the prison medical officer when they were received at Wormwood Scrubs. I have given an answer. I have read the medical officer's report, and I have given the answer that is based on those reports. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Home Secretary has told one of the hon. Members who went to Wormwood Scrubs, the prison medical officer is carrying out a further investigation into these matters, and I think the House will hear about it with interest in due course.
§ Mr. RemnantWould not my right hon. Friend agree that it is an old-established custom in this country to regard an accused person as innocent until he is proved guilty? Since accusation is not proof, should not hon. Members remain neutral until my right hon. Friend has completed his inquiry, when differences of opinion as to the value of the inquiry can be expressed, rather than take sides at this stage?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt is certainly a civilised practice.
§ Sir P. AgnewOn a point of order. Although I am quite satisfied with my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment to point out how ill-founded these accusations are.
§ Mr. EdelmanOn another point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you had not called me before the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) raised his point of order and whether, therefore, I have not the possession of the House; in which case, am I not entitled to put a supplementary question?
§ Mr. SpeakerA point of order takes precedence of other business, because if something has been done which is out of order I am bound to listen to it before I can go on. On the main point, I remember a similar incident happening when a previous Government were in office and when the then Speaker, my predecessor, deprecated the giving of notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment by the same side of the House as was under cross-examination. I would remind the House of that, and I agree with what my predecessor said. I hope we may now pass on, as notice has been given and I am bound by it.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsFurther to the point of order. It is within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew), who has just given the Adjournment notice, must have been aware of your desire and intention to call for supplementary questions hon. Members who had put Questions down on this subject. In view of the fact that the hon. Member must have heard you say that, was it not very discourteous of him to take the action he did?
§ Sir P. AgnewI had due regard to the interests of the House before I gave notice. If you, Mr. Speaker, should express a wish that I should withdraw the notice, I will do so; but I shall not do so unless you indicate it. I think it would be right that other hon. Members should have an opportunity of putting their Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have passed that stage now. I have no interest in the matter except to secure a fair division 389 of time among hon. Members who have other Questions on the Order Paper. If notice is given to raise a matter on the Adjournment, I am bound to proceed.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe hon. Member having given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, what steps can be taken if he does not proceed to seek to raise it on the Adjournment?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat matter would require consideration. At the moment it is hypothetical.
§ Mr. EdelmanIs it not an illegitimate procedure and an abuse of the tolerance of the House for an hon. Member to get up and say that although he is satisfied with the Minister's reply none the less he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment? Is not the whole tradition of the control of the debate that a Private Member who is dissatisfied with a Minister's reply then proceeds to give notice that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment, and is not the action that has now been taken most undesirable?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is quite right. That is the usual practice. Notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment usually arises because an hon. Member is dissatisfied with a reply, but it does not affect the validity of the notice whatever the reason an hon. Member gives.
§ Mr. NabarroIs it not a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) and myself are very concerned about this matter? May not the purpose of an Adjournment notice be to express approbation of Ministerial conduct as well as the alternative expression of dissatisfaction? My hon. Friend gave notice that he wished to raise the matter on the Adjournment but not to express dissatisfaction surely that is not a contravention of the rules of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have ruled that the notice was effective. I merely said that it was the usual thing in this House for an hon. Member who was dissatisfied with an answer that had been given to give notice of that kind.
§ Mr. RankinFurther to the point of order. In view of the fact that I desire to express extreme disapproval of the 390 Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Later—
§ Mr. SpeakerI understood that that Question was answered with Question No. 3.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI expressly read out the hon. Lady's Question, which seemed to me to be part of the same story which certain hon. Members were anxious to develop. I answered it with Question No. 3 and regarded my long Answer as covering the Question by the hon. Lady.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is what I understood. I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that.
Miss LeeThere were a great many Questions answered together, and no previous notice was given to us that they were to be answered together. This Question specifically asks for an inquiry into prison conditions and does not deal with actual cases.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIt is within my recollection, Mr. Speaker, that at a certain moment you said that you were ready to receive certain supplementary questions from hon. Members who had Questions on the Order Paper, and the hon. Lady then rose.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it was dealt with.
§ Mr. CallaghanFurther to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have had some pretty ungentlemanly conduct this afternoon. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) asks for the Question to be answered again when it is reached, is there anything that would prevent it being answered again?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, the fact that it has been answered already is a bar.
§ Mr. CallaghanI have always understood that the tradition was that it is by the consent of the House and of the hon. Members concerned that a group of Questions is answered together. If an 391 hon. Member insists on an Answer being repeated, there is nothing to stop that being done if the Minister is prepared to receive further supplementary questions, which would have been asked if it were not for the intervention of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew).
§ Mr. SpeakerThe case might have been different if the hon. Lady had not asked a supplementary question—[HON. MEMBERS: "On Question 16."] Order. I specifically gave her an opportunity of supplementing her Question on the Order Paper. I have to accept, therefore, that her Question has been answered.
§ Mr. CallaghanMay I point out that the hon. Lady has two Questions on the Order Paper, Questions Nos. 16 and 18? She asked her supplementary questions in relation to the conditions of prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs, to which the Colonial Secretary replied, but she has had no answer at all to Question No. 18.
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot help that now. The hon. Lady should have asked her question about it then.