HC Deb 14 May 1959 vol 605 cc1428-38

At the end of Questions—

Mr. K. Robinson

Last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, in the course of supplementary Questions to the Colonial Secretary my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) asked the Colonial Secretary if he would let the House know, immediately the Attorney-General in Kenya had arrived at a decision in the case of Hola detention camp, whether the decision was to prosecute or not. The Colonial Secretary replied: Yes, Sir, I will do so with the same speed that I have answered these Questions today, after the normal Question Time, because I am very anxious that the House should be kept fully informed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1959; Vol. 605, c. 567.] There are four Questions on the Order Paper today which would enable the Under-Secretary to carry out that undertaking. May I ask, Sir, whether your permission has been sought by the Under-Secretary to answer those Questions, and, if not, how the House can require the Minister to carry out the undertaking?

Mr. Speaker

I have received no such request for these Questions to be answered after the usual time. If the Questions are on the Order Paper, as the hon. Member has stated, and they had been reached, that would have enabled the desired Answer to be given, but we spent a long time today on atomic matters and that is why we did not get to those Questions. I have no doubt that the Answers will be circulated in the usual way.

Mr. J. Griffiths

It is within the recollection of the House that the Secretary of State gave a promise, when asked about this matter, that he would answer as soon as possible and as soon as a decision had been made. The right hon. Gentleman promised that as soon as a decision was arrived at on, first, whether the officers implicated in this matter would be suspended, and, secondly, whether there should be a prosecution, a statement would be made. We understand that those decisions have been arrived at and confirmed by the Secretary of State. Surely it is the right of the House, therefore, to ask that the Minister should seek permission, which I am sure you will grant, to answer these Questions and to carry out the wishes of the House.

Mr. Speaker

I am bound by the rules as much as anyone else.

Mrs. Castle

Further to that point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday this week this information was given to another place? As the original request for this information was initiated in this House, is it not an act of discourtesy to this House and a denigration of its authority, for information to be given in another place without it being vouchsafed to this House so that hon. Members can have the opportunity to ask supplementary questions about it?

Mr. Speaker

Each House works quite independently of the other in these matters. It seems to have been the case that this question was reached earlier in the other place than it was reached here, but I do not see that there is any point of order for me to consider. Hon. Members may feel a sense of grievance about it, but that is not for me. The position as I see it is that if we had reached these Questions the Answers would have been given today. It is not my fault that they were not reached.

Mr. Gaitskell

I think you will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of considerable importance. Eleven Africans were beaten to death in a British camp. This is surely something which none of us can regard with anything but profound anxiety. I feel quite sure it would not be the desire of the Colonial Secretary or the Under-Secretary to evade Questions on this matter when they have promised that a statement would be made. I should like to appeal to the Under-Secretary, who, presumably, has the Answer. If he will give us the Answer, then we can deal with the situation which, as I say, is a matter of very great importance.

Mr. Speaker

Of course, that sounds very reasonable, but the trouble is that I am bound to observe the rules of order, which say that the only Questions which can be answered after half-past three are those to which I have given my sanction to be asked by Private Notice and those which a Minister has obtained my permission to answer after Questions. This procedure does not fall within either case. I understood from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that the information has been given in another place. If there are Questions on the Order Paper dealing with the matter, and they have not been reached, the Answers ill be circulated. There is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. Lewis

Would I not be right, Mr. Speaker, in suggesting that when we debate the Motion for the Whitsun Adjournment my hon. Friends would be entitled to say that the House should not adjourn until we get this information? Am I not right in saying that we could have a long debate on that—as long as hon. Members liked to take part in the discussion? May I confirm that if I were to catch your eye on that occasion I should be in order in raising the matter?

Mr. Speaker

I never give in advance decisions on what is in order. I should like to hear the terms in which the hon. Member desired to intervene on the Motion, which is debatable, but, at first flush, I should say that it would be possible, I have no doubt, for something to be said on the matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths

As this will be the last opportunity that the House will have to hear a statement on this matter for two or three weeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]Well, if the Under-Secretary undertakes to make a statement tomorrow morning —do I understand from the Leader of the House that the statement will be made either by the Colonial Secretary or by the Under-Secretary tomorrow morning?

Mr. Speaker

Is that so? I did not hear that.

The Secretary of Stale for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

As far as I am concerned, we could certainly make a statement tomorrow morning, but it would be equally easy for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make a statement now. I think that it would be preferable, and in the interests of the present position, if we were to make a formal request from the Ministerial Bench that we should have leave to make a statement in answer to the Questions.

Mr. Speaker

If there is a statement on the matter, apart from an Answer to a Question and I am asked for permission for a statement to be made, I can consider that at the end of Questions, but we are not at the end of Questions yet. I now call on the Leader of the Opposition to ask the Leader of the House a question about business for the week when we return.

Later—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the judicial consequences arising from the Hola Camp incident.

The Attorney-General of Kenya has decided that on the evidence available no charge can be framed against identified individuals in respect of identified illegal force used in the incident. In his considered view, such a charge would fail because the prosecution would be unable to discharge the onus of proof of the use of illegal force beyond reasonable doubt.

Disciplinary proceedings are, however, being started against the camp commandant and his second-in-command, and they have been interdicted from duty. These officers had both been posted away from Hola some weeks ago.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I ask two questions? The first concerns the Attorney-General's decision. Is the Minister satisfied that the Attorney-General had all the information required at his disposal from every quarter before he made up his mind that no prosecution could be made with prospect of success against any of the individuals who are implicated in this deplorable event, particularly having regard to the fact that the coroner cast very serious reflections upon their veracity? Secondly, will he tell the House about the court which will conduct the disciplinary proceedings against those who have been suspended? Will it have the power to dismiss them from the posts in which they are implicated in the killing of 11 men?

Mr. Amery

Let me say in advance that both we and the Government of Kenya were deeply shocked, as was the whole House, by this incident. As far as we are aware, the Attorney-General had all available information at his disposal. The answer to the first part of the question, therefore, is "Yes".

Answering the second part of the question, I want to study exactly what are the powers of the court, but I assume from my knowledge that they would cover the possibility of dismissal, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Griffiths

I gather that as far as the Under-Secretary and his right hon. hon. Friend are aware, the Attorney-General had all the information before him. Will the Minister call for a full report from the Attorney-General giving all the information which is available to him and the reasons, on the basis of that information, which led him to his decision?

Mr. Amery

I will consider in detail what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Attorney-General has already reported the reasons which have led him not to institute a prosecution. I will read them again: In his considered view, such a charge would fail because the prosecution would be unable to discharge the onus of proof of the use of illegal force beyond reasonable doubt.

Mrs. Castle

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that at the inquest Mr. Peters, the European officer in charge of the irrigation scheme at Hola, testified that he personally saw continuous beating of detainees, apparently for refusal to work and not for any disturbance that he could see? Has there been an identity parade of the warders who were carrying out this illegal force? If not, why not? Is any lack of keenness with which the Attorney-General is pursuing this matter due to the fact that, as the Kenya Government are well aware the real responsibility for the use of illegal force lies with their own instructions and policy?

Mr. Amery

I will certainly look into the point which the hon. Lady has made about an identity parade, but I repudiate any suggestion that there has been any lack of keenness on the part of the Attorney-General.

Mr. P. Williams

Is it not a fact that the Kenya Government desire not only to obtain a full disclosure of the truth of this most regrettable incident, but also that anyone who is in any way connected with it should be brought before the most suitable tribunal? It it not also true that the greatest mischief in this matter can be created by those who desire to show. apparently for no known and obvious reasons, that this is a matter of Africans versus Europeans?

Mr. Bottomley

Is it intended that the coroner's report will be printed so that the general public can read it if they wish to do so?

Mr. Amery

The report was given in public and I will certainly consider whether we can make copies of it available.

Mr. J. Johnson

Does not the Minister agree that this is the biggest blot upon our good name in the Colony for many a year? If this had happened in this country, if 11 men had been beaten to death in England, does the Minister honestly believe that the Government would not have taken more action than this?

Mr. Amery

We have been just as deeply shocked by this incident as has any hon. Member on either side of the House, but I am satisfied that the Attorney-General has investigated it with the closest possible attention, and I do not find it within me to challenge his conclusion.

Mr. G. Thomas

While in no way doubting the integrity of the Attorney-General in Kenya, and in no way seeking to underestimate the concern which must be felt by everybody in responsible office in Kenya at this outrageous incident, is it not desirable that not only those responsible for policy but those responsible for the perpetration of the deed, who must be known to those in charge of the camp, should also come under consideration, and ought not the full evidence—all of it—which was available to the Attorney-General be made available to the House and subject to debate?

Mr. Amery

It would be eminently desirable that those who were guilty of the use of illegal force should be brought to book. The Attorney-General's view, however, is that it is not possible to bring a charge because the prosecution would be unable to discharge the onus of proof.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not the case that the Attorney-General's difficulty is in being able to discharge the onus of proving that any particular guard or warder used more than justifiable force? If that is so, is it not also clear from the coroner's report that 11 people were murdered by their guards in this camp, the guards acting collectively? Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Attorney-General, in making his investigation, also considered the possibility of a collective charge of conspiracy to murder?

Mr. Amery

I am not an expert in legal matters, but I understand that the position is more difficult than that represented by the hon. Member. Had there been, for example, an attempt to escape from the camp, or had there been any attempted assault on the prison staff by any of the persons involved, the use of force would not have been illegal and, therefore, there would not in those cases have been murder. Therefore, it has to be established, not only that force was used, but that in all cases the force was illegal.

Mr. Silverman

They died.

Mr. Amery

Yes, but had it been used where a man was trying to escape, or where he was assaulting a warder, it would not have been illegal. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish not only the identity of the person, but the illegality of the use of force in the particular case.

Mr. K. Robinson

As the camp commandant and his deputy claim that they were acting under instructions approved by the Kenya Government, would it not be desirable that the tribunal which hears the disciplinary charges should he wholly independent of the Kenya Government in order that the truth can be arrived at and the responsibility fixed? Is it not a fact that the tribunal has been appointed by the Kenya Government from among their own servants?

Mr. Amery

Yes, and I am fully confident that that tribunal will not only investigate the matter, but will take whatever action is required by the gravity of the circumstances under consideration.

Mr. Gaitskell

The Under-Secretary of State will realise how seriously the House as a whole views this situation. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman three questions. First, will these disciplinary proceedings take place in public? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman make available the detailed reasons why the Attorney-General found it impossible to prosecute? Why was he unable to identify in any way whatever the persons responsible for these eleven deaths? Thirdly, will the hon. Gentleman make available to the House not merely one copy of the coroner's report, but will he have the report printed so that all hon. Members may have access to it?

Mr. Amery

I will look into the first and third of the questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot give him the answers offhand. As to why the Attorney-General was unable to identify those responsible, I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the coroner's verdiot, in which the coroner expressed himself, having started off the inquest, as being unable to identify which particular persons were concerned.

Mr. Gaitskell

The hon. Gentleman will surely be aware that a coroner's court very frequently fails to identify the murderer in a particular case. That does not prevent the police from conducting their investigations and eventually perhaps bringing the criminal to justice. Why has that not been done in this case? Further, are disciplinary proceedings contemplated against any persons in addition to the camp commandant and his deputy?

Mr. Amery

I do not know of any other proceedings which are being instituted at present. Police investigations have not, as yet, revealed any further information than that available to the Coroner's court.

Mr. J. Griffiths

The Under-Secretary again says "police investigations have not, as yet". I therefore press my earlier point to the Under-Secretary. The Attorney-General has made up his mind —I am not casting any reflections—very quickly on a matter which has been going on for some months and about which there is deep concern. I presume that the Attorney-General has conveyed his decision to the Governor in the form of a submission in writing. I ask that that be published so that hon. Members can read it and arrive at their own conclusions as to the reasons why the Attorney-General arrived at his decision.

Mr. Amery

I do not think that the Attorney-General has been unduly slow in making up his mind. Indeed, we were pressed by hon. Members in other parts of the House to produce the answer some time ago. I will look into the right hon. Gentleman's request. I cannot give him an answer offhand.

Mr. Page

Is this not rather an unsatisfactory way in which to leave this matter, which is of great anxiety to both sides of the House? Am I correct in understanding that the decision depends entirely on the Attorney-General of the Colony, on one legal opinion? Is it not constitutionally possible to have it considered by further legal opinion? In that case, would it not be very unsatisfactory for the moment to disclose the reasons leading the Attorney-General to reach his conclusion?

Mr. Amery

I must make it clear that the Attorney-General is acting, not in a governmental, but in a quasi-judicial role. Therefore, it is not for us, and it would be quite unconstitutional for us, to require him to do this, that or the other. He is exercising a quasi-judicial function which cannot be added to or taken away from him by others.

Mr. Grimond

Are the Government prepared to leave this matter in this way, that 11 people are killed in a prison in Kenya and that no criminal charge is brought against anyone? As I understand it, their argument against bringing a criminal charge based on conspiracy is that the prisoners may have been attempting to escape. Has this ever been suggested before?

Mr. Amery

I tried to explain to the House—perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood me—that two points have to be established: first, the identity of the person administering the force; and, secondly, that the force used was illegal. Two issues have to be settled. In the Attorney-General's view, it is not possible to establish that the force used was illegal in each individual case.

Mr. John Hobson

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the rule which, I understand, applies in England will be applied to the Attorney-General of Kenya, namely, that the information upon which he acts and the basis of his decision shall not become a matter of political decision because he is making a quasi-judicial decision?

Mr. Amery

As I tried to explain a moment ago, the Attorney-General was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and it is not for Her Majesty's Government or the Government of Kenya to try to influence that decision.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Are we to understand from what the Under-Secretary has just said that it is possible to identify some of the warders who inflicted this force and that the only question is whether they were acting legally or illegally?

Mr. Amery

Nothing that I said was intended to convey that.

Mr. S. Silverman

That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman for this, but he has not been able to answer a number of questions asked by hon. Members this afternoon. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we, for our part, do not intend to leave this matter alone until we are satisfied that everything possible has been done to find the truth and bring those responsible to book? Will the Under- Secretary reflect on the whole situation, the questions asked, such answers as he has been able to give, and make a full statement on the position, answering the questions put, immediately after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Amery

I would not quarrel with anything that the right hon. Gentleman said. I will certainly consider whether it is possible to make a fuller statement, although I think that it will be very difficult for the Government to add to the view expressed by the Attorney-General in his quasi-judicial capacity?

Mr. Gaitskell

There are many questions which the hon. Gentleman has not answered, particularly relating to the nature of the disciplinary proceedings and the reasons for the Attorney-General's decision not to prosecute. Those are matters of great importance to us and I must warn the hon. Gentleman that we shall return to this matter. I very much hope that he will be able to satisfy the House that the Government are doing what they can by making a statement of the kind I have indicated.

Mr. Amery

I have already told the House that I will look into questions about the disciplinary proceedings which I was not able to answer this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot carry the matter further now.

Back to