BAHRAINI PRISONERS (ST. HELENA) (Hansard, 20 December 1960)

§ Mr. Stonehouse
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum to Mr. Rahman al Baker and two other political prisoners, now detained on St. Helena, and who are about to be returned to Bahrain, where the normal processes of law do not apply and where the freedoms of speech and association are not recognised.
There is no dispute about the facts of the case. In answer to a Question which I put to him yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal indicated that these three men were about to be returned to Bahrain. In answer to a Question from his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates), he replied: There can be no question of political asylum for the men who are detained. When he was asked if he would make a statement to the House before the Recess, he replied: I shall have nothing further to say to the House before we rise for the Recess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 878.] May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the public importance of this matter, to the editorial in The Times of 1085 3rd June, which dealt in some detail with the case? It concluded: Meanwhile, with the hearing completed, a gesture of clemency to the St. Helena prisoners would be widely welcomed. May I also refer you to an interesting article in—

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot allow the hon. Member to make the speech which he would make if I gave him leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
May I put it this way? There have been many Press references to the case. There is one in the Guardian today which refers to the anxiety of the legal advisers of the Bahraini prisoners to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.
May I also refer you to the great anxiety expressed about the case not only in this country but overseas, in particular in Middle Eastern countries? May I also submit to you that the attention of the world is now on these three prisoners and that if they are returned to Bahrain they will—

§ Mr. W. Yates
—have their heads chopped off.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
As the hon. Member says, they will have their heads chopped off. If they are returned in these circumstances it will be a stain on the record of this country in these matters.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not make his speech now. I will consider his proposed Motion in due course.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is urgent, because we rise for the Recess tomorrow and Her Majesty's Government have already announced that arrangements are being made to transfer Mr. Baker and his friends to Bahrain, and there may not be an opportunity, therefore, for the House to consider this question as we will not be available to hear a Ministerial statement on the matter.

§ Mr. Warbey
I support this submission.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) is out of order in doing so.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has asked for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely: The refusal of Her Majesty's Government to grant political asylum to Mr. Rahman al Baher and two other political prisoners, now detained on St. Helena, and who are about to be returned to Bahrain, where the normal processes of law do not apply and where the freedoms of speech and association are not recognised. I require some help about the facts of this matter. I am in no way challenging the bona fides of the statement of the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but I do not know whether or not it is admitted that the Government have refused to grant political asylum to these men. Nor do I know, from my recollection of yesterday, whether there exists any Ministerial power to do so. I have some recollection of an agreement made with the Ruler of Bahrain. Perhaps I might have the assistance of the Lord Privy Seal or the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

§ Mr. Heath
As I stated yesterday, Mr Speaker, the prisoners were transferred to St. Helena, and an agreement was made, which was cited before the Privy Council when application was made there, that they would be returned to Bahrain on the expiry of their sentences or if their return was requested by the Ruler of Bahrain.

§ Mr. G. Brown
Is it not the case that the Government have refused political asylum arising out of what they claim to be their undertaking to the Ruler of Bahrain? I understood you, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether they have refused to grant political asylum. Am I not right in believing that they have already refused it?

§ Mr. Heath
I have no information at the moment that there has been a request for political asylum.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
May I refer again to the clear statement made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin? His hon. Friend asked for political asylum for these men and was told that there could be no question of political asylum for them. I understand today from the legal advisers to the prisoners that it is the wish of these men to have political asylum in this 1087 country. I have in my hand a communication from Mr. Baker in which he says that he wishes to come to the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Speaker
I wanted help about whether or no there has been a refusal. The hon. Member for Wednesbury will appreciate that this communication of which he speaks does not extend to a refusal on the part of Her Majesty's Government to do something.

§ Mr. W. Yates
In fairness to the Chair and to the whole House, could not this matter be postponed for some time in order that the facts may be fully investigated?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful for that intervention. That is the reason why I want to find out whether there is a dispute or not.

§ Mr. S. Silverman
Whether or not an application for political asylum has been made or refused, it is clear from what the Lord Privy Seal has said that it is proposed to expel or deport three people who are at present in British territory to a territory in which our jurisdiction will not apply, and that these men would then be in great danger. Is not that sufficient, since the fact is admitted, to support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury?

§ Mr. Speaker
At the moment I am invited to act on the word "refusal". I am trying to find out whether this is a disputed matter or not. I am not making good progress, however.

§ Mr. Heath
I have just had information that Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Office have had no application for political asylum for these prisoners, and therefore there can have been no refusal.

§ Mr. Warbey
As to the Government's attitude, the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday that there can be no question of asylum. It would be very helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could alter that attitude now. On the question of whether or not the Government are bound to return these men to Bahrain, there was nothing in the original submission of the Ruler to Her Majesty the Queen requesting the detention of these 1088 men in Bahrain that they might be returned at any time on request. In fact, the reference made in that submission by the Ruler was that they should be put in a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence without any reference to the possibility of their being returned to Bahrain before the sentence had expired.
On the question of what may happen to them and what might happen during the Recess, there is ample evidence from many commentators that the trial at which these men were sentenced was a farce.

§ Mr. Speaker
At this point the hon. Member goes out of order. I confess that my impression is that the relevant fact in the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Wednesbury is so much in dispute that I ought not at this moment to allow his application, but I bear in mind that the hon. Member has tomorrow a slice of—I am afraid I do not remember of what hours—the time proposed for the Adjournment tomorrow. He would be at liberty to debate this matter then.

§ Mr. Paget
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the proposal of the Government to extradite to Bahrain three Bahraini citizens at present in jurisdiction and to remove them out of jurisdiction.
This does not touch on any question of an application for asylum or anything of that sort. It confines the matter to a simple thing—that, without the extradition laws having been complied with or put into operation, Her Majesty's Government affect the whole principle of personal liberty and human rights if a person is sent from our jurisdiction to another jurisdiction for punishment without due process of law. That is the point. There is no suggestion that there is due process of law. This is a removal by the Executive for punishment, and in my submission that raises a matter of profound importance.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asks leave to move the adjournment of 1089 the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, to wit: The proposal of Her Majesty's Government to remove from the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government without due process of law three persons for punishment in another jurisdiction. Does the hon. Member have the support of the House?