HC Deb 26 January 1960 vol 616 cc37-42
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

With regard to the protection of witnesses appearing before the Monckton Commission, I am glad to be able to make the following statement.

The Government of Southern Rhodesia and the Attorneys-General of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have given assurances in the following terms: No statement made to the Commission, whether orally or in writing, will be used in evidence in any criminal proceedings; this does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or re-publication of written evidence given to the Commission. The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governor of Nyasaland have given assurances to the same effect with regard to the making of detention and restriction orders and proceedings arising out of such orders.

All these assurances also apply to members of the Commission.

Mr. Callaghan

Does this really mean that, although a witness is protected in what he says to the Commission, a newspaper may not publish any account of the proceedings that take place? Does it mean that a newspaper may not publish the written evidence that may be submitted, that the leaders of the Congress Party may not consult with their followers about the nature of the evidence they shall give, or report to them afterwards about the type of evidence that has been given or the questions that have been asked?

If this is so, does the Minister of State really think that this is a valuable protection to witnesses? Does he not realise that this is likely to lead to an increase in the work of agents provocateurs and of spying on people who give evidence? Does the hon. Gentleman know that the penalty here is a maximum of fourteen years' imprisonment? Will not he consider this matter again?

Mr. Alport

I think that this assurance is extremely valuable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is in the same terms as the assurance given to witnesses coming before the Devlin Commission, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that the object of the assurance is to enable witnesses to speak freely and openly when they come before a Commission to give their evidence.

Mr. Callaghan

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my questions? Are they right in fact or not?

Mr. Alport

The answer is, "No".

Mr. Callaghan

What, then, is meant by the words that the protection does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or republication of written evidence given to the Commission"? Does not this mean that a newspaper may not be free to publish, or is liable to be charged if it publishes, such evidence or if a body giving evidence reproduces it? How can the hon. Gentleman say that the answer is "No"?

Mr. Alport

A newspaper is under obligation to respect the law of the land and is also at liberty to repeat or publish anything which is in accordance with its judgment. As far as the repetition of these matters outside is concerned, the object of this assurance, as it was in the case of the Devlin Commission, is to make certain that anybody giving evidence before the Commission is able to do so freely and fairly. That is the object, and witnesses obtain the same privileges and protection as do witnesses before a Committee of the House of Commons.

Mr. Callaghan

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that no one who is in Nyasaland will feel very much confidence in knowing that the procedure that was followed before the Devlin Commission will be followed now, in view of the Government's treatment of it? Is it not a fact that anyone who reproduces any of the evidence given in front of this Commission is liable to imprisonment for a period of up to fourteen years or a substantial fine? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is really the way to gain the confidence of those Africans whom he wishes to give evidence?

Mr. Alport

This is certainly a way of ensuring that anybody who gives evidence before the Commission does so freely and fairly. I do not know what evidence the hon. Gentleman has for his reference to the treatment of witnesses coming before the Devlin Commission, subsequent to or before their appearance before it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Is it not correct that the passage which the hon. Gentleman has just read gives no protection of any kind against civil proceedings? Is it not essential, in providing security for witnesses, that they should have protection against civil proceedings? Is it not an undesirable method of dealing with this matter for it to be stated here that the law of Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia is to be overridden by the exercise of a discretion by the Governor? Is not the only proper method that will provide certain immunity for witnesses before the Commission, first, to amend the law and, secondly, to provide immunity from civil proceedings?

Mr. Alport

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct in that. As far as the Devlin Commission is concerned, there were no immunities from civil proceedings in the case of evidence given before the Commission. I do not think that anybody in the House or anywhere else has advanced the view that witnesses appearing before that Commission were inhibited in what they said on that account.

As to the second point to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers—the power of the Governor to override the law on this matter—the undertakings to which I referred at the end of my statement are undertakings similar to those given by the Governor of Nyasaland in relation to detention and restriction orders in Nyasaland in the case of the Devlin Commission.

Mr. Iremonger

May I ask my hon. Friend whether any assurances have been forthcoming that Africans who give evidence which is not palatable to the Congress Party will be protected against intimidation?

Mr. Alport

I can assure my hon. Friend and the House—now that the matter has been raised—that the object of this assurance is to make certain that evidence is given without fear either of victimisation, on the one hand, or intimidation, on the other.

Mr. Wade

I understand that no statement made before the Commission will be used in evidence or taken into account in making a detention order. Can we have an assurance that this will also apply to the prolongation of a detention order against a person already detained who may wish to give evidence?

Mr. Alport

Perhaps it is difficult to take in all the points in a statement of this sort, but I said … and proceedings arising out of such orders. and what is intended there is that when the review of any detention or restriction order is undertaken any statement made at the Commission will not be used in evidence to ensure any prolongation or to affect any decision made by a tribunal concerned with advice as to whether a detention or restriction order should be continued.

Mrs. Castle

Could the hon. Gentleman state why it is he who is making this statement, in view of the fact that this matter was first raised before the Recess in connection with the protection of African witnesses from Nyasaland particularly threatened by Emergency Regulation No. 35? In view of African fears that their safety is now being increasingly handed over to the Federal Government, is it not most unwise for the Commonwealth Relations Department to have made this statement, thus implying that the Colonial Secretary has washed his hands of his responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of British-protected persons threatened by one of his own Emergency Regulations?

Mr. Alport

This is not by any means the case. If the hon. Lady cares to wait for a statement which is to be made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary almost immediately she will find her question answered.

Mr. Stonehouse

Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will he no proceedings or other actions taken against Africans who refuse to appear before the Monckton Commission?

Mr. Alport

In answer to a previous Question, before Christmas, I said that there was no intention of making it compulsory or of forcing anybody to give evidence before the Monckton Commission. Therefore, it follows that no proceedings would be taken against anyone who refused to do so.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

If a witness gives evidence before the Commission, and that evidence is reported subsequently in a newspaper, will the witness be under any peril in consequence of the publication of the report?

Mr. Alport

No, Sir.

Mr. Mendelson

Does the ruling which the hon. Gentleman has just announced about re-publication imply that if, in due course, the minutes of evidence are published as a State Paper in the House, or made available to the House, the publication of extracts from that Paper will be an illegal act in the Federation?

Mr. Alport

It does not follow in any way that it would be an illegal act, but as far as the United Kingdom is concerned any publication of this sort would carry with it the normal privileges of a State Paper.

Mr. Callaghan

Does it not all add up to the fact that the Minister is really saying, with the assistance of the Attorney-General, "The law is what I say it is, and I shall either prosecute or not prosecute according to how it suits my convenience. I shall not prosecute if the report is officially sent out, but I will prosecute in other circumstances"? Will not arbitrary decisions of this kind undermine the confidence of all Africans in the good intentions of the Government?

Mr. Alport

That is not true and the hon. Gentleman, in making a statement like that, is really making it more difficult for Africans to give evidence before the Commission. I would have assumed that, whatever he or his colleagues may feel about the Commission, they would wish that those Africans who desire to give evidence before it should not be debarred from doing so by anything said in this House. My statement today was intended, as in the case of the Devlin Commission, to give assurance to those Africans who wish to give evidence before the Commission that they may do so freely and without fear of prosecution subsequently.

Mr. Callaghan

Is not the Minister aware that the only intention I have in this matter is to make certain that the evidence which will come out before this Commission can be made known publicly without fear or favour and that there shall be no arbitrary prosecution of anybody who discloses his evidence, and that the best way to secure this would be for the Minister to recommend the repeal of the Emergency Regulations?

Mr. G. M. Thomson

Does not the Minister's statement show the impossibility of providing effective legal protection in a society where, in fact, the rule of law has been suspended?