HC Deb 15 May 1959 vol 605 cc1571-91

11.7 a.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I rise on behalf of my colleagues—a much larger number than those whose names appear on the Order Paper—and myself to raise the question of the release of detainees and restricted persons in Kenya, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. We shall argue the case on the broad grounds of personal liberty and basic justice which we pride as part of the British way of life. We shall also argue that the steps which we urge are desirable for developing harmonious racial relations in these territories.

I think that it would have been relevant to put the case that the position of the detainees should be reconsidered in view of the treatment which they are undergoing. We have heard in the House this week the tragic story of the 11 deaths at Hola Camp and many of us have been disturbed by the very inadequate reaction on the part of both the British and Kenya Governments, but we do not propose to discuss that matter today. It seems to us to be so grave that it should be the subject of a separate debate with the strength of the full Opposition behind a demand for reconsideration.

I think, also, that it would have been relevant to refer to charges which have reached this country this week from more than one source of pressures exerted by the police on detainees in Nyasaland before giving evidence to the Devlin Commission, but those charges are so serious that we feel it would not be right for us to devote an Adjournment discussion to them. We shall, therefore, limit our case to the broader issues to which I have referred.

There are four groups of detainees and restricted persons covered by the subject we are raising. There are detainees from the Mau Mau troubles who are still restricted in Kenya. There are two groups in Northern Rhodesia, the members of the Zambia African Congress and the officials of the African Miners' Union. There are also those who were detained following the state of emergency in Nyasaland. I shall deal mainly with the position in Kenya and leave it to those of my hon. Friends who are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the other territories.

I wish to argue the case about Kenya on the ground that the practice adopted in the treatment of detainees leaves some of the best men, and some of the men we think are innocent, in detention for the longest period. The method is to round up suspects, put them through a process of screening, exert a moral pressure upon them leading to a confession, and, after that, to place them on constructive work of rehabilitation. During that process they pass through three grades—black, grey and white—and are ultimately released and allowed to go home.

I do not intend to occupy time during this debate in examining that method in detail, but I am doubtful about the reliability of many of the confessions which are secured by that process. It is quite clear that in such circumstances detainees may be tempted to make confessions which would open the path to liberty and enable them to succour their families who have been left in a position of difficulty.

I wish to emphasise the distinction between the two types of detainees who pass into the camps and prisons in this way. A decision would be reached to round up the Kikuyu in the City of Nairobi and the screening process would take place among a great mass of men. But there is another type of African who is brought within this treatment, the African who is known for his political activities. I suggest that an African who has been engaged over a long period of years, quite publicly and openly, in claiming rights for his people is in a very different position from Africans who are rounded up and screened in the way I have described.

I say that because I was in Kenya in 1952 at the beginning of the Mau Mau troubles. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that then existed there a condition of political hysteria. I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and we had to be under military protection night and day. That was because of fear of attacks, not from Africans, but from Europeans.

I think that in the period of ten days while we were there, we were able to break through this suspicion and animosity, but it is an indication of the psychological atmosphere in Kenya at the time. Almost every African who had been active politically—except a small number of Africans selected by the Governor to sit in the Legislative Council, and even one of them was arrested—practically every African who had been prominent in making African claims was arrested and detained.

When men are arrested in that way, the process of screening, of moral pressure. of seeking to obtain a confession, is obviously inadequate in judging whether they are innocent or guilty. Indeed, it will be the man of principle and the man who is innocent who will decline to make the confession of Mau Mau guilt which is urged upon him, and if, as I shall submit, a number of these men are innocent, they would not be likely to become subservient to these pressures, and confess, and pass through all the paraphernalia of rehabilitation leading to release. They are likely to be the men who would, on principle, decline to respond to those pressures. In my submission, the detainees who remain restricted in Kenya—. there are about 1,000—include some of the best men as well as some of the worst associated with Mau Mau. I wish to give three illustrations of that type of person.

The first is ex-senior Chief Koinange. In 1950, I stayed with ex-senior Chief Koinange. He had a long political record. He had been very courageous in asserting African claims. He had protested against the confiscation of African land at the time of the Carter Commission. He was the first African farmer to grow coffee and was recognised as a competent farmer. Nevertheless, his coffee crops were destroyed and he was not permitted to engage in a form of agriculture in which he was an acknowledged expert. When I was there, he was feeling deeply, because he was not allowed to operate a sawmill which he had set up to deal with his timber. Ex-senior Chief Koinange was constructive in his desire for African advance. He had a great enthusiasm for education.

But it was not merely his political record which impressed me so deeply. I have met few men whose character has made a deeper impression upon me than that of ex-senior Chief Koinange. He was deeply a Christian. I found it ironical, as I stood on his farm and saw on one side the land which had been confiscated from him and handed to a European farmer and, looking down the valley on the other side, saw the Christian church of one of the English Christian missions which he himself had built and a playground for the children attending the Sunday school of that church.

If I can be any judge of character at all after living in a man's home for ten days, I would say that he is one of the most beautiful characters I have known. Subsequently, I went to Kenya with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, who thought that I was obsessed with the character of this old man. We visited this man together, in prison, and at the end of that interview my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West said, "I can understand the reverence which you feel for this man". He was arrested and was charged with the murder of a rival chief. None of us who knew him thought for a moment that he could possibly be guilty. He was acquitted. The judge rejected the evidence which was brought against him. Nevertheless, he was arrested again next morning. He has been in detention and under restriction for seven years.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies said in this House a few days ago that this man is now 90 years of age. In fact, no one knows how old he is, because he was born before births were recorded. My right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) have both made appeals for his release. They know him as I know him, but their appeals have been rejected. On this occasion, I am asking as strongly as I can for a reconsideration of his case. He is now under restriction. He has been released from detention camp, but he has not been allowed to return to his home. When I was last in Kenya, in 1954, I saw that lovely little bungalow among the woods, empty. His farm is left for his wife, who lives in a neighbouring village, to work as best she can. I believe that the best of us on both sides of this House would desire reconsideration of the case of that man.

The second case to which 1 want to draw special attention, and which I mentioned in the question which preceded this debate, is that of Mr. Achieng Oneko. I am aware that at this moment I may appear to be idealising African characters. I know plenty of bad Africans, as I know plenty of bad Europeans. In my dealings with these people I think that I am able to judge between one and another. I do not intend to speak about Mr. Oneko for long, because I think that others will do so. I knew him in this country and I knew him in Kenya.

Again, he is a man of gentle character and great personal charm. He illustrates, in his period of seven years' detention, the point about the confessions, which I have mentioned. There was an extraordinary case in which an official of his detention camp wrote to one of Oneko's friends in this country and urged that friend to appeal to Oneko to make a confession for the sake of his family outside. I was glad, when we drew the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to that letter, which was official blackmail, that the Secretary of State repudiated it and that the official was reprimanded. Mr. Oneko has all along maintained his innocence. Those of us who know him have no doubt about it. He has declined to make confessions which were demanded of him, and so it is that for seven years he has been in detention and is still in the condition of restriction.

The third particular case to which I want to draw attention is that of Mr. Kamau. He is known to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West as well as to myself. He was associated with us in Kenya in 1952, when we were making appeals to the African people to refuse to take part in Mau Mau or to participate in any kind of violence. Mr. Kamau during those days was one who helped us most. I understand that when he was arrested it was said that his brother was a member of Mau Mau. Mr. Kamau has also been in detention now for seven years, and I am pleading for reconsideration of his case.

The fourth personal case I want to raise is that of Mr. Jomo Kenyatta. I regard him as in a different category from the three whom I have already mentioned. I do not claim for him the same qualities, the same spiritual character that I have claimed in the case of ex-Chief Koinange and Mr. Achieng Oneko. I knew him while he was in this country. One of the most popular hon. Members of this House in his day, my friend Mr. James Maxton, was very closely associated with Kenyatta. Those who knew James Maxton would agree that he would not become a colleague and comrade of someone who was vicious in nature. We found Kenyatta utterly devoted to the cause of African freedom. He had a brilliant mind. He was one of the ablest students at the London School of Economics, where he was praised by the Professor of Anthropology. He wrote his thesis and it was published in book form. He was always good fun.

When I have said all that, I do not pretend that Kenyatta did not love the fleshpots. That is characteristic of many other people, who have not been detained as he has been detained. I am very doubtful about Kenyatta's guilt and responsibility for Mau Mau. I am doubtful because, in the years when he was supposed to be organising Mau Mau, I was in Kenya and was co-operating with him in constitutional, democratic political activities. We were then planning together a great petition to this House of Commons on the land question, a petition, which was signed by 67,000 Africans in Kenya. I find it difficult to believe that if Jomo Kenyatta was at that time thinking of a Mau Mau organisation to murder and massacre the European population he was also conducting propaganda among his own people to ask them to look to the House of Commons and to political and constitutional means.

From what I know of Kenyatta, I am certain that he was not guilty of the worst viciousness and obscenities of Mau Mau. Those things occurred after his arrest, and I do not think that he can be held responsible for them. I think that most of us who read the transcript of his trial did not find it satisfactory, and the fact that Macharia, one of the leading witnesses against him, has been acknowledged as guilty of perjury increases those doubts.

Putting these doubts on one side, Kenyatta was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. During his imprisonment he has shown exemplary conduct, which has won him the full remission. He has undergone the punishment which was imposed upon him. I am aware that the court suggested that he might be detained afterwards, but there was no legal power behind that suggestion. I say that it is un-British for us to keep a mart in detention after he has finished the sentence which has been imposed upon him by the court. When I think of what is happening to Jomo Kenyatta and of what is happening, on the other hand, to Nazi criminals in Germany, who are guilty of far worse crimes than those which have been charged against Kenyatta but who have been released and are now in distinguished positions, I find it difficult to speak calmly of our action in his case.

In all seriousness, I say to the Under-Secretary of State that Kenyatta is a legend among Africans not only in Kenya, but throughout the Continent. He has been made the symbol of their struggle for freedom. If we are seeking to win the co-operation of the African people so that that freedom may be gained without violence, I believe that a gesture which would contribute greatly towards it is to reconsider what is happening to Kenyatta.

Would he be allowed to leave Kenya? Is he to be kept in that isolated village until he dies? Would he be allowed to come to this country? Would he be allowed to go to another African country? I suggest that it is impossible that a man should be restricted in this way for the rest of his life.

I shall be brief in the other references which I make, because other hon. Members will be able to deal with them. The first is a reference to the Zambia African Congress. I want the Under-Secretary to look into this matter again. There was some violence. I ask him whether, when they arrested Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and the other leaders of the Zambia Congress, the police authorities in Northern Rhodesia found in their offices documents to be circulated to members of the Congress denouncing the acts of violence which had already occurred and appealing to the members not to engage in that violence. If those documents are in the hands of the police of Northern Rhodesia, they ought to be produced publicly in the defence of these restricted persons.

The other group to which I want especially to refer are the detained trade union officials of the African Miners' Union. I was shocked yesterday by the reply which the Under-Secretary of State gave to my Question. These men were arrested for participation in a strike in 1956. As the hon. Member probably knows, and as he can see from the Colonial Office records, the Labour Party officially sent a deputation to the Minister of State in this matter. I was one of that deputation. We came away with the strong impression that these men were to be released by the end of 1957. We were told that their detention was to be under monthly review.

When I received a letter from Northern Rhodesia, a month ago, saying that they were still detained I could hardly believe it, and when I had the answer from the Minister this week that 16 of these men have been kept in restriction in isolated villages since November, 1956, have never been tried and do not know the charge against them, bearing in mind that their only guilt is participation in a strike by the African workers on the Copperbelt, I was astounded that this Government or any British Government should be giving that kind of example of the British way of life to the African population in Central Africa.

I will not speak about the Nyasaland detainees, because the Devlin Commission is in Nyasaland and, in a sense, the matter is sub judice. I draw the Minister's attention to a report which I have received from authoritative sources that a number of these detainees are unaware of their right to appeal. They have two rights of appeal. One is a direct approach to the Government and the other is to the Advisory Committee. I am reliably informed that the detention orders do not inform the detainees of their right to make these appeals and that many of them are ignorant of this right. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to look into this matter at once and to put it right.

Finally, let me say this. These detentions are often justified on the ground of security. In my opinion, violence is much more likely to take place in African countries if we deny to Africans the legal rights and liberties which we ourselves enjoy. There are better hopes in Kenya. At the end of this year there is to be a round table conference of the races to work out a new constitution. I suggest that the psychology for co-operation on the African side would be much deepened if these men who are in detention were released. I beg the Minister to think of the grave situation which is developing in Central Africa. Would it not be worth while making a gesture to the African population there which would do something to regain their confidence?

This country has a great reputation for personal and civic liberty. It has a great reputation for legal justice. We have laid down that no man shall be imprisoned without trial and that every man shall be considered innocent until he is proved guilty. These are the rights which distinguish Britain from the Communist countries whose dictatorships we so frequently denounce. What is the value of having these rights in Britain if we deny them in our territories overseas? It is for the good name of Britain as well as for the good of Africa that I make this appeal this morning.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. C. W. Armstrong (Armagh)

This is not the first time that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and I have followed each other in these debates. We can all appreciate his eloquence and sincerity in pleading the case for his individual African friends, although, perhaps, not all of us would agree with him in his estimation of their character, particularly the character of Jomo Kenyatta. I propose to follow him in dealing mainly with the question of the detainees in Kenya.

It is not sufficiently remembered what an enormous proportion of detainees has already been released. I believe that the figures show that about 79,000 men and women have been detained, and that now a little over 1,000 remain in detention. Those released have been released after it had been determined that their fellow Africans considered them no longer a danger to society. It is surely quite clear that no one in Kenya wishes to keep in detention a single soul a day longer than necessary. But we are here considering the obsessed and fanatical residue. These are people whom their fellow Africans do not want among them in their present state of mind. It would be criminal to force people of this kind back into African society.

I believe—I have had a little experience of it—that intimidation is the worst of all injuries to a free society. Mr. Adlai Stevenson defined a free society as one in which it was safe to be unpopular. In Kenya, we have to guard against a state of affairs in which it is unsafe to disobey the orders of a small and ruthless minority. It is clear, for instance, from the experience of Germany under the Nazis, that it is possible for a highly civilised and sophisticated society which has long enjoyed the blessings of one man, one vote, to be terrorised by a minority.

In Africa, the way of the intimidator is far easier. In a country where there is no registration of deaths, murder is much easier, as was shown by the discovery of hundreds of corpses of African victims of Mau Mau which were unearthed in the neighbourhod of Nairobi alone. It is a country where a match can burn alive a man and his family living in a thatched and wooden house. A credulous and superstitious people can be caused argonising distress if their fears of witchcraft and oathing are preyed upon. It is not extravagant to think that the ruthless minority left in detention has among it many people capable of crimes of this kind. Certainly, their fellow Africans believe that many of them are so capable.

It is hard for us in this country to realise what intimidation means. Most of us have never in our lives had to experience it. At the end of the war, I was a member of the Administration in Burma, and the time came when we had to consider elections. Old Burmese officials, men with long service and wide experience, said to me, "These elections, when they come, will be a farce, or worse, because of intimidation". I asked what kind of intimidation. They said that it would be the usual thing, threats of violence, of molesting families, depriving people of their livelihood, and so forth. I said that it would be a secret ballot and that, in my country, any candidate who suggested that kind of thing would most certainly never be elected. They looked at me a little pityingly and say, "Perhaps that is true in your country: certainly not in ours".

I hope that the House will bear with me if I give an example from my own experience of how intimidation works in Kenya. Before the Mau Mau troubles, I built and staffed on my farm a school for African children. It was very popular. There is not among African children the tradition of creeping like snail unwillingly to school. We had an attendance of about 100. Then, one night, there was nailed to one of the doors of the school a dead cat, which was a recognised Mau Mau emblem. The attendance dropped to one, and remained there until I had to close the school. For all I know, that mischief may well have been caused by one man.

Later, I became aware that my Kikuyu Africans were unhappy and frightened, and I could not get them to tell me exactly why. When I said to them, "Why do you not tell me? Surely, you are not afraid of me", they said sadly—perhaps not very flatteringly to me—"No; nobody here is afraid of you, not even the children". Later, I discovered that they were being visited in their homes at night by members of Mau Mau gangs. We moved them all down to within 200 yards or so from my own house, and that trouble stopped. They volunteered to come out with me on patrols and ambushes, and so on, and later they went out by themselves, catching and killing Mau Mau raiders on the farm.

The point I have been trying to make is that intimidation is damnable, especially when it lights upon people whom one knows and of whom one is fond. I believe that it is far worse an enemy of freedom than corruption or a restricted franchise. I believe that to release this obsessed and fanatical residue before their fellow Africans are ready to receive them would be a betrayal as wicked as it would be foolish.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Probably no Member has devoted so much time and energy to representing the colonial peoples as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). It is not a job that earns massive popularity, but it means that probably for the first time some of the humblest, poorest and simplest folk under British rule have had a voice in our affairs. I am, therefore, very pleased to follow my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) spoke about the danger in Colonial Territories of intimidation and terror by a minority. I could not agree more. The basic fact with which we have to deal in these territories is that they are all governed by minorities. The whole of our problem in dealing with colonialism, if we believe in democracy, is how to hand over, stage by stage, our responsibility from the minorities, who now govern with superior means at their disposal, to the majority.

One of the things about which Members who have raised this debate are concerned is the way in which we are acting to lay the foundations for fostering democratic rights and responsibilities, for developing civil liberty, for basing the whole of our policy upon the struggle of the people in these islands to develop democratic institutions of their own and a fairer distribution of wealth among the population in order to have a peaceful and free society. I believe that the only hope is to base our policy upon understanding and sympathy for the majority in these territories and to set an example, based upon our own political history and experience here in Britain, to these people.

Reference has been made this morning to the terrible crimes that have been and are being committed in Africa by Africans, in some cases by Europeans and in some cases in the name of our own Government. I do not propose to make more than a passing reference to the revelations about the Hola Camp, but they should, at any rate, induce a proper sense of humility, especially among those inclined to argue that we must always trust the Government and that the Government are always right, or that the men on the spot are always right. Terrible mistakes, which have been admitted, have been made.

I cannot say much about the next matter to which I want to refer, because it is sub judice, but it may be shown in the courts, in the case of some of those whom the Government have claimed to rusticate in Northern Rhodesia, that the Government have been acting illegally and unconstitutionally for several years. If Mr. Mwenya succeeds in his plea of habeus corpus in the High Court, he may show that the Emergency Regulations of 1956 were ultra vires.

One of the deplorable things in this matter is the issue of wild and smearing propaganda from official Government sources against individual Africans and sometimes against organisations which have no power or chance to reply to the allegations made. I hold no brief for the Zambia African Congress of Northern Rhodesia. I think that it is unfortunate that there has been a political division among Africans in Northern Rhodesia, and I hope that the African leaders there will reconcile their political differences for the benefit of constitutional and political advancement in the territory.

At the same time, I do not know of any evidence, because the Government have not produced any, which would support the banning of the Zambia African Congress, a couple of months ago. A number of sweeping allegations have been made, and there is no doubt that in governing circles the views, ideas and political tactics advocated by the Zambia Congress were very unpopular. But we shall not make progress in these territories by the banning of political parties, by the arbitrary detention of individuals, or by attempting to suppress unpopular views.

Why was the Zambia African Congress suppressed in March? The Under-Secretary of State, in reply to me some weeks ago, said: The Governor's decision was based solely on the actual intimidation practised by, and violence planned by, the Zambia Congress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May. 1959; Vol. 605, c. 194.] In Lusaka, on 16th March, the Chief of Police said that there was a co-ordinated plan by the Zambia Congress in Northern Rhodesia to spread chaos throughout the country. He went on to refer to the arrest of the leaders of the Zambia Congress, like Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, and said that they were free men but would be restricted to areas which were not their own homes.

Since that period not one shred of evidence has been produced by the Government about the alleged plot to spread chaos throughout Northern Rhodesia, nor have any of the leaders of the Zambia African Congress been charged; they have merely been rusticated. Three members only of the Zambia Congress have been charged. One was acquitted and two convicted, but not one of the well-known leaders of the Congress has had the opportunity of presenting his case to a court of law and answering the charges that have been made.

The Under-Secretary knows very well that the political views and tactics advo- cated by the Zambia Congress had a considerable amount of support in Northern Rhodesia, judged by its membership and by the fact that only one-third of the 7,000 Africans eligible to vote under the Constitution bothered to register for voting purposes compared with 80 per cent. of the 20,000 Europeans eligible to vote in Northern Rhodesia. He also knows that he has received a petition from the Northern Rhodesian African Congress, led by Mr. Nkumbula, which has not been banned, that is very similar to the proposals and demands put forward by the Zambia Congress to the Secretary of State in a perfectly proper way before it was proscribed. It merely appears, therefore, that in a state of panic these repressive measures were taken because of the political unpopularity of the views put forward.

I want to draw attention to the position of the leaders of the Zambia African Congress and of others referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough who have not been detained, but who have been put under restrictive orders and rusticated in Northern Rhodesia and other territories. There has been some controversy about this matter here in the House and also in the Press. We have constantly been told about the care being given by the Government to the families of those who have been removed to and restricted in areas that are not their own homes. We have also been told about the legal aid alleged to be available to those who would be charged in court and who might wish to proceed against the Government for damages on account of their detention.

I want to draw attention to a very interesting letter which appeared in The Times of 22nd April, and which has not been answered from official sources. It was written by Mr. Kaufman, a representative of the British section of the International Society of Jurists, which goes under the name of "Justice". He paid a visit to Central Africa on behalf of the Society to inquire into these matters and has brought back some disturbing reports about the situation. In his letter, Mr. Kaufman said: I found that the fees charged by Northern Rhodesian lawyers are too high for the average African because of the cost of living, overheads and travelling expenses. He went on to give an example: In a recent case, ten persons were charged with creating a disturbance: six were granted legal aid and four were refused. A distinguished European resident thought it right to undertake the cost of the defence. They are, apparently, compelled to call upon the generosity of distinguished European residents.

Mr. Kaufman went on to say: Further, no provision is made for Africans who may wish to challenge detention and restriction orders or to present actions for damages against the Government. No provision for legal aid exists and, therefore, those who, like the leaders of the Zambia African Congress, are put arbitrarily by the Government under restriction orders instead of being charged in the courts, have no possibility, save in a case like that of Mr. Mwenya, when an international society decides to take it up as a test case, of resorting to any legal remedy if they feel that they can prove their innocence.

At the end of his letter, Mr. Kaufman states that there are still a number of persons who have been restricted— he is referring to Northern Rhodesia— and without means of livelihood for over two years and who have had to be helped with funds from this country for subsistence and legal assistance. This is quite irreconcilable with the Answers that have been given to us in this House about legal aid and assistance and the treatment of restricted persons.

Having given notice of the fact to the Colonial Office, I want to know what the Government will do immediately to enable those Africans who are treated in this way by being rusticated to be in a position to take legal action to claim habeas corpus, so that they can have the normal right that a citizen, for example, in the United Kingdom would have to challenge the arbitrariness of the Government.

It is an intolerable situation that over a period of years the Government should abuse emergency regulations to keep under restriction, away from their homes and families, political leaders whom they do not like, but against whom they can bring no evidence—they cannot substantiate the charges—and then, having restricted them to these areas, to subject them to the powerful stream of smearing propaganda that comes from Government sources.

Therefore, I hope that, bearing in mind the mistakes which have been made in other places and this kind of arbitrary detention of persons and the refusal to give to African organisations or individuals the right of reply and the opportunity to answer the allegations or to argue the matter, the Colonial Office will realise that it is actions of this sort that breed resort to violence. We should take steps immediately to see that those against whom the Government cannot bring charges should be released and freed.

Those against whom the Government have evidence of conspiring to spread chaos or to disrupt the Constitution of the country should be charged and given the opportunity to answer those charges in a court of law. Otherwise, it is the Government who are using force illegitimately and it is the Government who will be responsible for inciting others to subvert the Constitution.

12.5 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate initiated by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). Several times we have been together in colonial debates, especially on a Friday. Although I do not agree with all that the hon. Member has said, I must say that he always speaks sincerely and has the points at issue very much at heart.

First, however, I must take exception to what the hon. Member said about Jomo Kenyatta. I cannot believe that this man was not one of the initiators of the Mau Mau and I think that that is one of the reasons why the hard core who still are followers of his are wanting his release and hoping that they may eventually join him. I do not know sufficient about the other members whom the hon. Member has mentioned and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply concerning them in detail.

There is, however, a point on which I am at issue with the hon. Member. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said. Everybody on this side of the House would agree with him that we must dislike very much the system of detention and restriction of the liberty of the individual without proper judicial process in normal times. As the hon. Member knows, I have spent a considerable time in Indonesia and Malaya under difficult conditions and I have been to Kenya on more than one occasion and have visited many camps. We must all be delighted to know that these camps are now reduced in number from fifteen to four.

The hon. Member questioned the idea of the screening process which takes place. I should like to refer him to paragraph 85 of the Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to Kenya, which, as the hon. Member knows, comprised Members of both political parties. Paragraph 85 states: Already by means of the rehabilitation process many thousands of detainees have been released (20,000 last year alone)"— that was in 1957— without any serious incidents in the districts to which the detainees have been returned. This is probably due to the fact that the policy of the Government is to push the detainee down the pipe-line to the exit and then depend upon the verdict of the local community as to whether he should be finally released. In view of the numbers involved, I do not think that the local community would be quite as happy as the hon. Member suggested to have present detainees returned.

I have myself known restriction and what it is like to be kept in from 6 o'clock in the evening until 6 a.m. next day because of difficulties concerning the safety of the individual. I have also known, particularly in Indonesia, restrictions on areas. I assure the hon. Member that in many cases it is extremely helpful in the protection of those who may be intimidated or who may be shot at if at certain times and in certain areas these measures are adopted.

That was recognised by the Parliamentary Delegation when it said, in paragraph 94, that there is a segment of those in detention, the size of which is as yet unpredictable, who may not pass the test of acceptability back in their former home country, at the hands of the local population. That is one of the things that we fear, and it is feared in Kenya at the present time. Furthermore, the Report, to which it is essential to refer because it is an all-party Report, states in paragraph 80: From our own careful observations and inquiries we are satisfied that the Government of Kenya and its officers have done, and are still doing, everything possible to make malpractices impossible, and where they occur to detect them and bring the offender to justice. We hope that that will be done in the cases to which hon. Members have referred, particularly concerning the Hola Camp. Paragraph 80 continues: It would be ungenerous and unrealistic not to recognise this and to say that in both the Administration and the field of law and order, Kenya is fortunate in having the services of men of the highest integrity and goodwill. Having previously known the present Attorney-General in Malaya, I do not think we can in any way doubt his integrity concerning these matters.

Several hon. Members have mentioned that the number of detainees have been reduced—and we are very glad that it has been—since 1954, when, I gather, the number was about 78,000, down to about 1,000 in May this year, 91 of whom, I believe, are women. These camps have inspections by the district commissioners and by the Minister and I think it is fair to say that they have already once been inspected by the International Red Cross, which has facilities to go there again.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

They do not seem to find very much, do they?

Miss Vickers

Having served in a temporary capacity with the International Red Cross, having been to Geneva, and also having served three months in Indonesia for that organisation, I think that it makes a very thorough investigation, and it is, of course, an entirely impartial body, composed mostly of Swiss and Swedish people. It has carried out investigations in many countries all over the world, and I think its honour and integrity cannot be questioned.

I think that one must remember that it is not exceptional to have this type of power in the emergency which still remains in Kenya. We have also to remember that between 1939 and 1945, we in this country had a great many restrictions. I believe it was said by one lawyer at the time that the War Cabinet "could do everything except give one a baby." At present, when we talk about new Commonwealth countries, we remember that Ghana had its Emergency Powers Bill introduced when there was no emergency. In fact, the Third Reading of the. Emergency Powers Bill was already through before the state of emergency was declared in Kumasi. They have also the Preventive Detention Bill, under which people can be sent to prison for up to five years without any trial at all, in the case of any person who has acted in a way considered to be prejudicial to the security of the State. Although I am not saying it is a good idea, we must be quite realistic and understand why some of these countries which have newly acquired their independence have found it necessary to bring in these powers.

Mr. Brockway

Is the hon. Lady aware that I have publicly denounced what has been done in Ghana in these respects? I denounce it whether it is done by the Soviet Union in the case of Hungary, in Ghana or anywhere else. My criticism is that other people see only one side of the coin.

Miss Vickers

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, he is perfectly sincere in what he says, but we must also realise that some of these countries which have newly become independent have found the necessity, in the type of society very similar to that which we are discussing today, to bring in these powers. Therefore, while not defending them, and I have taken the view that we want to get rid of these restrictions, we have the knowledge that these newly-formed countries have found it necessary to do this.

I should also like to say something about the present situation and in regard to the future in Kenya of a new organisation called Kiama Kia Muinzi, which I understand means "Assembly of the People." I think it is most regrettable that of all the people who have been arrested—and I understand that there are 2,520, with 2,137 convictions—94 per cent. are ex-members of the Mau Mau organisation. Therefore, one has to consider this present problem in the light of the fact that there are a number of persons who, as hon. Members opposite have said, have not got rid of the background of Mau Mau. I understand that, of these, 182 have been sent to prison, 96 were sent to prison because they could not pay their fines, while over 1,800 have been fined for being members of this new organisation. Some have not yet been prosecuted, but 329 have been detained and restricted to one particular area.

While we have these societies, and I was in Kiambu in 1957 when this society was already starting, I still feel that those people who want to live in peace must be protected against the activities of organisations of this kind. I understand that the society to which I am now referring also goes in for oaths and a similar type of organisation to Mau Mau. It indulges in publicly singing songs and slogans in adulation of Kenyatta and his colleagues, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) that Kenyatta was a power in Mau Mau and might again be that power in the future.

I should like to consider some of the good things which have come out of these detention camps. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give me some figures about the number of villages which have been set up, and which I personally think will be very beneficial to those who have been involved in these unfortunate Mau Mau happenings. These have been particularly helpful to the women. It has made life more easy for them. Also, I should like to know the number of women's clubs which have been formed, which have been most beneficial in supplying the needs for education.

I should like to refer to the camp at Wamaumau which was for the boys connected with Mau Mau. All these have now been sent home, and the camp is being used for boys who are in need of care and protection. We have found how important it was for these boys to have clubs, which is something which was not fully appreciated before. African boys, like boys in this country, like to indulge in physical activities, and I understand that as a result of this camp many boys' clubs have been established. and perhaps the Under-Secretary will confirm that that is so, showing that out of evil has come some good.

I am not going to deal with the point about the Church of Scotland Mission, because I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is to speak on that subject, but I have had representations from the British Council of Churches.

I should like to remind the hon. Member for Eton and Slough that he has in Africa a very special influence, and I therefore hope that he will be very careful in future how it is used. I say that for this reason. I visited some of the detention camps and found that quite a lot of people were quoting what he had said in this House. Some of them thought that he had rather more influence than perhaps he has. I pointed out to them that he and I were only backbench Members of this House, and, therefore, were always speaking in an individual capacity. I think that there are a great many English-speaking Africans who feel that some of us in this House, and especially the hon. Member far Eton and Slough, possess rather more power than we actually have. It is a little misleading for some Africans, who seem to think that individual members of this House have more power than we in fact possess.

I will not say very much about Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia, because, as the hon. Member mentioned, we are hoping to find a solution to the problem there. I am glad to see that the tension is considerably less since the Commission went out, and I hope that the Commission will be successful in arriving at a solution of this very difficult problem. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell me how many people are still detained. The figures which I received in March showed that there were 743 males, five females and one European. We know that since then there have been some further releases, but we should be grateful if we could have the latest figures about detentions. I understand that detainees in these areas are not required to work, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary could confirm that.

I am quite certain that the House will be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating this debate today. I am sure that the people of Kenya have equal pride with us in the good name of their country. They are equally keen to see that justice is done to everyone.