HC Deb 04 February 1960 vol 616 cc1191-4
1. Mrs. Castle

asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what protection will be afforded to African witnesses from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia before the Monckton Commission against civil or criminal proceedings arising out of their evidence.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 26th January.

Mrs. Castle

Is the Minister aware that that statement is quite unsatisfactory and does he not think it is quite wrong that the protection of witnesses before the Monckton Commission should depend upon assurances from the very executive arm which those witnesses may wish to criticise and have no statutory authority at all? Is not that the sort of procedure about which we complained in totalitarian States, and will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, take steps to amend the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry Ordnance so that it may extend to both the witnesses before and the members of the Monckton Commission the statutory provisions of that Ordnance?

Mr. Alport

I think that the assurances which have been given by the Attorneys-General of both these Territories should carry the full confidence not only of all Members of this House but also of all those who wish to give evidence before the Commission in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Marquand

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the assurances given by the Colonial Secretary on Tuesday in respect of the inquiry into the Blantyre riots were entirely acceptable? They were full and uncompromising. Could he now not give a similar assurance on this particular issue?

Mr. Alport

I think that if the right hon. Gentleman refers to a statement made by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place on 2nd February, he will find it covers further ground in regard to this particular subject, and, combined, I am quite certain they constitute complete protection for witnesses.

Mrs. Castle

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question?

Mr. Alport

Yes, if the hon. Lady will remind me what it was.

Mrs. Castle

It was whether he will take steps to amend the Nyasaland Commission of Inquiry Ordnance so as to give statutory authority to this protection, without which it is not really valid.

Mr. Alport

That is a matter which should be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

5. Mr. Stonehouse

asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland requesting them to grant official facilities to all members of the Monckton Commission.

Mr. Alport

I am sure that all the Governments in the Federation will grant members of the Commission all appropriate courtesies and facilities.

Mr. Stonehouse

But are those facilities to be available to all the United Kingdom members of the Commission? Is the Minister aware that both the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Federal Prime Minister have engaged in attacks on Lord Shawcross? May we have the hon. Gentleman's categorical assurance that Lord Shaw-cross will not be made a prohibited immigrant?

Mr. Alport

These facilities will be available to all members of the Commission; not only to the United Kingdom members but to those coming from other Territories as well.

Mrs. Castle

May we have the Minister's assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give better protection to a member of another place than they gave to an hon. Member of this House in similar circumstances?

Mr. Alport

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman to whom the hon. Lady refers was at that time a member of a Royal Commission.

8. Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations whether the hearings of the Monckton Commission will be held in public.

Mr. Alport

It will be for the Commission itself to decide its procedure.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Do I gather from that Answer that the evidence may be given in public? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, whilst he has been driven to provide some relief from the criminal law of Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia to those giving evidence, no relief at all has been provided for newspapers that report that evidence? Does he realise that if a newspaper in the Federation dares to publish any evidence that can be regarded, in the very wide phrasing of the enactments of those Territories, as likely, among other things, to undermine confidence in the Federal Government, it is liable to criminal prosecution?

Does he appreciate that that more or less covers all the evidence that may be given against the Federation, and that this will tend to completely one-sided reports in the newspapers? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to prevent this muzzling and distortion of the reports of the Commission's proceedings, and will he not now amend the enactments that provide for this criminal procedure?

Mr. Alport

I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to study the Answer given by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place on 2nd February, when my noble Friend referred specifically to the position of newspapers in relation to the reporting of evidence before this Commission.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Will the Minister of State repeat that statement in this House? I have, of course, studied the statement, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that in that statement there is no guarantee of any kind against prosecution in accordance with these objectionable enactments?

Mr. Alport

If it were in order to do so I would, of course, be only too willing to repeat the statement, but it is, I think, well publicised in the normal way. I would only say that my noble Friend drew attention to the legal position, with which I should think the hon. and learned Gentleman is much more familiar than I am, which relates to the defence of qualified privilege.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

But does not the Minister realise that that does not apply at all to procedures under these enactments? He really must come to the House better briefed than he is at present.

Mr. Dugdale

The Minister of State suggests that this is a matter for the Commission, but have the Government no views; and would the hon. Gentleman today express in this House the view that it is very much better that these proceedings should be heard in public?

Mr. Alport

I think that it is a matter that should very properly be left to the very distinguished members of the Commission to decide for themselves. In the circumstances, I believe that the House would be well advised to leave it to them.