HC Deb 15 May 1963 vol 677 cc1393-454

7.6 p.m.

Mr. T. Paget (Northampton)

I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

Mr. Speaker, before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) starts his speech, may I raise a point of order with you? I have just learned, in the last few minutes, that at five o'clock this afternoon Chief Enahoro was refused access to his solicitors and that he learned through the prison machinery that he should be ready to leave on a plane which leaves England at 9.45 this evening.

I ask you: is there any way by which we can ensure that the Home Secretary does not authorise this man's departure at least until we finish this debate?

Mr. Speaker

That cannot be for me. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can help.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I wish to say that there is no truth whatever in the allegation that it is proposed to send Chief Enahoro out of this country before this House has come to a decision.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Paget

That at least is good news. It nonetheless remains a fact that throughout this afternoon Chief Enahoro has been held incommunicado and has not been allowed to provide the instructions or answer the questions which his solicitor wished to put to him and bring to us.

This story begins in Ireland, a civilised country which grants asylum to political refugees. From Ireland, Chief Enahoro inquired whether he might safely come to this country. Believing that he had an assurance from the Home Office to that effect, he came. He was then arrested. The assurance proved to be a misunderstanding. He was brought before the courts on a warrant from Nigeria under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. The courts then had to decide two questions: whether there was a prima facie case of reasonable probability of guilt on the present charges against him and whether, in the Nigerian courts, he could expect a fair trial. The courts decided under Section 10, the magistrates, the Divisional Court and the House of Lords, those questions affirmatively. Neither of those questions has ever been in doubt.

The Fugitive Offenders Act provides that, after the decision of the court, a new discretion, to be exercised on other matters, resides in the Home Secretary. He had to decide on broad political lines whether returning this man to Nigeria was just. I submitted, and the Home Secretary subsequently agreed, that the things which he had to consider at that time were far wider than anything the courts had considered. He had to consider, for instance, whether the circumstances in which Enahoro had come here by mistake from Ireland, whoever was to blame, did not make it just to return him to Ireland from whence he came. He had to consider the political situation in Nigeria.

This is much wider than what the courts had to consider, because when all the leaders of the official Opposition are on charges of treason, what prospect of safety, even if he were acquitted by free and independent courts, would this man have in Nigeria? What chance would he have of again leaving Nigeria? These were things which the Home Secretary had to consider.

The right hon. Gentleman also had to consider the very broad question that when, in 1881, the Fugitive Offenders Act referred to treason, that was treason against a common Queen, a common Government of an imperial and colonial Power. The treason then contemplated was certainly not a treason against a free and independent nation, such as Nigeria or Ghana.

All these things the Home Secretary had to consider. He admitted that he did not consider one of them. He came to his original decision, as he admitted in his statement to the House on 14th March, under he impression that all he had to do was to act as a court of appeal from the courts. So we start with the decision having been arrived at on wrong grounds and without considering the relevant grounds. All that was admitted.

I come now to the debate on 14th March, when the matter came before the House on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time, the Home Secretary agreed that he had to consider all these broader considerations, but none the less came, this time apparently on the right grounds and having considered the right things, to the same conclusion that he had come to when he first considered the wrong ones. Even then he was under a delusion as to what the Fugitive Offenders Act was. He was under the impression that this was an extradition Act covered by an extradition treaty which prohibited the putting of charges other than those for which the extradition had been obtained. Of course, it was no such thing. The Nigerian Government are perfectly free to put any charges they like. The Home Secretary also assured us on that occasion that there was no danger to Chief Enahoro of the death penalty.

The next point we came to was the assurances given by the Prime Minister when this matter was raised again and it was then pointed out that Chief Enahoro was, in fact, in danger of the death penalty. On that occasion, the Prime Minister gave a number of assurances of rising specificness as we went on that night. The final one which I will read to the House, is as follows: The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point; but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point, or, if it is held to be a good point, the Nigerian Government have given a definite undertaking that no charge will be brought against the Chief carrying the death penalty either now or at any other time. That seems to me to be as clear a statement as I can make. The Chief wilt not be returned to Nigeria until there is a definite undertaking from the Nigerian Government that this charge, if it carries the death penalty, is withdrawn and that no other charge that could carry the death penalty is substituted, or until the interpretation placed on this point by the right hon. Gentleman …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.] I need not go on. Nothing could be clearer than those undertakings.

This is an assembly which may contain lawyers, but it is not an assembly of lawyers. We do not wish to chop logic here. The clear assurance being given to the House—what the Prime Minister intended and what the House understood—was an assurance that this man was not being returned if he were in danger of a capital sentence.

Nothing could have been made plainer in the next debate that ensued, because, as hon. Members are doubtless aware, the Prime Minister asked for that undertaking and that undertaking was refused by the Nigerian Government. This is what the Prime Minister had to say on 10th April, dealing with the possibility that other charges might be preferred: Or, to put it another way, have we such lack of confidence that we fear that while getting this man back on one charge they would present another which would carry a capital punishment? Of course, this is theoretically possible. Then the Prime Minister deals with some other matter. He says a little later: First, it would mean that we regarded that Government as of such a character that we could have no faith in them at all—that it had become a tyranny of one man or one party, or because, in addition to the abandonment of constitutional and Parliamentary machinery, it had abandoned any freedom for the individual under the law. A little later I interrupted the Prime Minister and said this: Why does the Prime Minister suggest that it would be"— the word "improbable" is printed, but that is obviously a misprint; it should be "improper"— on behalf of the Nigerian Governent, having obtained the return of this man on one charge, to prefer another charge? When we obtain the return of somebody here by extradition proceedings we frequently prefer another charge and different charges. When magistrates commit a man for trial different charges are frequently preferred. The Prime Minister replied: In an extradition treaty that is exactly what we do not do. We have made complaints of other Governments that they have done it and we have objected to a breach of the spirit of the treaty. It would be a very dishonourable thing to do to sot up these three charges and then not to try the man at all, or to shoot or hang him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,10thApril, 1963;Vol.675, c. 1291–2.] That is what the Prime Minister said on 10th April, and the effect of that—what it was meant to be and what was understood by the House—was, "Well, although I have not got the undertaking that I asked for, the position is exactly the same as if I had got it. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure. They might break an undertaking, but they would be no more likely to break an undertaking than they would any other honourable procedure. It would be utterly dishonourable and improper of them to prefer a captail charge now."

After that, Chief Enahoro proceeded to apply for a writ of habeas corpus and the matter came before the Divisional Court. I should like to read from the proceedings in the Divisional Court. This is part of Chief Enahoro's address to the court, when asking for an adjournment in order to get additional evidence from Nigeria: in addition to this affidavit, my Lord, further affidavit evidence is being obtained in Nigeria which not only supports this affidavit, but will also bring out further fresh evidence putting an entirely new complexion and character on the whole matter of the extradition proceedings against me. There is affidavit evidence in preparation both in Nigeria and in this country not only corroborating the evidence in this affidavit before you, but stating that the Government of Nigeria has prepared further or substituted charges against me which carry the death penalty. A little later he says: For these reasons, my Lord, I ask the court kindly to grant me an adjournment of 10 days to allow these new affidavits to arrive from Nigeria. The court then discussed the reason he wanted the adjournment, and in the course of that discussion the Lord Chief Justice put to him this question, referring to the additional evidence that Chief Enahoro wanted to obtain from Nigeria: It will also state that the Government are preparing other charges against you? The Applicant: Yes, my Lord. The Lord Chief Justice: That they are entitled to do? The Applicant: I always understood, my Lord, that assurances had been given both in this court and another place that I was not going to face the death penalty. The Lord Chief Justice: It has nothing to do with this court. It is for the Home Secretary. In the judgment the Lord Chief Justice said: With regard to preferring other charges, so far as this court is concerned the Nigerian Government are fully entitled to prefer what charges they like. This is not a case of the Extradition Act where a man can only be tried for offences for which he has been arrested without being sent back to his country, and accordingly the fact that other charges may be preferred against you cannot affect the matter at all. That is the position so far as the court is concerned. As the Lord Chief Justice said, it is for the Home Secretary. Let us see what the Home Secretary did about this. Chief Enahoro applied, as he had the right to do, for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Our law and rules provide that a man preparing a petition for leave to appeal shall have 14 days in which to prepare his petition. It is not an unreasonable time, for this is a highly complicated and important matter, even for an Englishman here. But what about an African who is not a lawyer, who is advised only by a faithful band who, from a sense of justice, dedicated themselves to his cause, but not professionally advised, and having to communicate in person with Nigeria? Was 14 days too long for him? According to the Home Secretary, yes. He said, "You have four days. You have till Monday lunch-time to get this petition in."

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)


Mr. Paget

Frankly, I do not blame the Home Secretary for this. Doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had expressed his wishes. The Home Secretary is an obedient character. I do not blame him. I do not blame him any more than I blame a spaniel for licking its master's hand. It is the nature of the animal. I blame the Prime Minister for appointing such a man to such a post.

But let us see the position now. It is for the Home Secretary. The position at this stage is that the Nigerian Government are free to prefer, without any impropriety, as we do and as every other Commonwealth Government do, additional charges. There is no greater impropriety in their doing so than there would be if the Northampton police asked for a man to be sent to Northampton from Birmingham on one charge and then had additional charges for him when he got to Northampton. This was in one empire. That is how this was arranged. This is what it meant.

The position today is that the Nigerian Government are free to prefer, without any impropriety, any further charges whether or not they carry the death penalty. They have refused the Prime Minister any undertaking not to do so. Secondly, Enahoro has reason to believe that additional charges are, in fact, to be preferred—capital charges—and has asked for time to obtain affidavits to this effect. The courts did not give him that time, and quite rightly. They were not concerned with this. It was irrelevant so far as they were concerned. The Nigerians, in law, are free to prefer any charges they like. But it is for the Home Secretary now.

I put this to the House. The least that we can now honourably ask is that the Prime Minister will repeat his undertaking that Chief Enahoro will not be returned unless there is an undertaking from the Nigerian Government that no additional or substituted charges carrying the death penalty will be preferred against him. That is the position as the Prime Minister thought it was last time he addressed us. We ask him—the House has the right to ask him—to be as good as his word.

7.29 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson)

I am sure that the principal anxiety of all hon. Members is: what will be the position of Chief Enahoro on his return to Nigeria and what is the position so far as any risk of a capital charge is concerned? That is the principal subject to which I shall address myself. But before I do so, I must deal with some of the matters which were raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Some of them we have debated a good deal already.

First, there was the question about the assurances that were given if Chief Enahoro came to this country from Ireland. It has been made perfectly clear by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that no such assurances were ever given by anybody on his behalf.

Secondly, there has again been raised today the matter of the meaning of the 1881 Act and how it should be applied in relation to political offenders within the Commonwealth—a matter which we debated at length on 10th April. It is quite untrue to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ever admitted that in the first instance he was considering this matter on the wrong basis. He has never said anything of the sort.

Then the hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the evening of 26th March. The Prune Minister dealt with this point at length upon 10th April and the House came to a decision upon it. Those assurances were plain. My right hon. Friend said: The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point"— This was the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown)— but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.] And then he gave an alternative undertaking. As he explained on 10th April, as a result of the consideration that had been given he was satisfied, and I was satisfied, that that point was a bad point and it has not, I think, been substantially challenged and was not on 10th April.

Mr. G. Brown

It was indeed.

The Attorney-General

In those circumstances, it is quite wrong for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that the Prime Minister ought to fulfil the second part of two alternative undertakings, when, as he explained on 10th April, the first part was in his view fulfilled.

Mr. G. Brown

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The Prime Minister did not in fact say that so long as he got "Hobson's ipse dixit" the second half of the undertaking did not apply. He said "If the lawyers on both sides agree". [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Prime Minister said that. He identified my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), but in point of fact the lawyers on both sides never agreed; it became simply a Hobson's ipse dixit.

The Attorney-General

At a stage later, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Prime Minister expressed this in several ways.

Mr. Brown

He always does.

The Attarney-General

He said earlier: until I am satisfied that either this charge is withdrawn, or our legal advisers and others tell me that the view just expressed is absolutely right beyond peradventure …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol 674, c. 1283.] As I understand it, the only suggestion to the contrary was from one right hon. Gentleman opposite—he had some doubts about it—hut it really was not a subject of debate on 10th April.

Mr. Paget

Surely the point which we were considering and on which we wanted assurance was the quite simple one whether Chief Enahoro was in danger on a capital charge if he went back to Nigeria. That was the point. It has now been decided, I should have thought by every lawyer, that he quite plainly is in danger.

The Attorney-General

That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is, however, as I have said, the point to which I am coming and with which I will deal later in my speech if the House will allow me. Before I come to that position, there is one other point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.

He said that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had behaved disgracefully or had not behaved in a satisfactory manner in the matter of the time for appeal. There is no Statute which says that there has to be an appeal within 14 days. The Statute says—"unless you do appeal within 14 days you shall not have an appeal at all." [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that the House will debate the matter quietly.

The Attorney-General

And Mr. Speaker, I was just going to add, which is of course a material point and not a technical legal point, the solicitors acting for Chief Enahoro informed the Home Secretary that they would lodge the Petition by 2.30 on Monday if he was prepared to give an assurance that Chief Enahoro would not be returned. It was in those circumstances that my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North) rose

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman knows the rule of the House. If the Minister speaking does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Attorney-General rose

Mr. Thorpe

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rather assumed that the Attorney-General had given way. I had no wish to show disrespect to the Chair or to infringe the rules of order.

Mr. Speaker

I am glad to understand that it was due to an error of judgment of the situation and not to some attempt to defy the practice of the House.

Mr. Thorpe rose

The Attorney-General rose

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not wish to have to remind the hon. Gentleman again.

The Attorney-General

I come then to the principal point which, of course, is the main anxiety of all Members of the House, and that is what the position will be when Chief Enahoro returns to Nigeria, if he does. The suggestion is that there is now evidence—and this, as I understand it, is the basis upon which you, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon gave your permission for this Adjournment debate to take place—that there was new evidence on the way that the Nigerian Government intends to add a charge carrying the death penalty.

This, of course, is a matter of great seriousness and I know that the House will want to consider what is the position in that regard. It is a rather odd suggestion that at this stage, after five months of these proceedings, there should suddenly appear this new evidence which is to come and which has not yet been received. We are not told anything about its source or its origin or its veracity, except that it was said by the Chief himself addressing the Divisional Court. He did not before the Divisional Court produce any evidence to that effect. He did not suggest that he had any material to lay before the Divisional Court, and it would be surprising indeed if he was to have available to him what, after all, can only be information about the intentions of the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria, because the relevant point is what the prosecuting authorities in Nigeria intend to do so far as laying or proceeding upon charges when he finally returns.

Affidavits were put in before the Divisional Court, and today before the other House, which did suggest that Chief Enahoro's advisers were going to Nigeria in order to get additional information which they wished to lay before the courts. But nothing was said that such additional information would have anything to do with the death penalty. His advisers did say that they were trying to obtain additional evidence similar to, and for exactly similar purposes as, the evidence which was already before the courts; but this, of course, was material which had nothing whatever to do with the death penalty, and there was no suggestion in any of the affidavit evidence put in that the Chief might be able to obtain evidence about additional charges—either that there were any additional charges or that they would be capital charges.

As is well known, the present proceedings which are going on in Nigeria are against a great number of accused. I think that there were 31 in all. All the proceedings relate to a single conspiracy, and it is exactly the same conspiracy now being tried in Nigeria which concerns Chief Enahoro. There is no doubt that, had Chief Enahoro and three others been in Nigeria at the beginning of those proceedings, they would have been brought before the courts in exactly the same way as Chief Awolowo, for the same conspiracy and on the same charges. It was only for the reason that those four persons happened not to be there that it was necessary to begin the other trial and to seek the return of Chief Enahoro under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

It would be surprising if, having started on one conspiracy with charges against the principal, Chief Awolowo, and not having made a capital charge, the authorities in Nigeria should later—having intended orginally to charge them all together and having, in fact, charged one conspiracy—proceed against the lieutenant upon a completely different basis.

I respectfully submit to the House that it is inconceivable that the prosecuting authorities would proceed against the principal conspirator before courts which had not the power to pass a capital sentence and then proceed against the lieutenant and others upon a completely different basis.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

Why is the Attorney-General prejudging this?

The Attorney-General

In my respectful submission, what is happening is that, as my right hon. Friend said on the last occasion, the Nigerian prosecuting authorities are being charged with a breach of faith in asking for the return of Chief Enahoro upon non-capital charges when they really intended to add capital charges. This cannot be acceptable. The other view is that, knowing the interest of this House in the death penalty, following with the greatest closeness all the debates in this House, and following everything which has been said, they have now formed the intention—of which evidence will, it is said, be produced—to add other charges without ever informing Her Majesty's Government or making any public declaration of the sort. I respectfully submit that this is highly improbable.

Mr. H. Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has twice in our hearing referred to Chief Enahoro as a lieutenant of a man who is at present standing trial. Since this matter is, presumably, sub judice in the Nigerian courts, has the hon. and learned Gentleman any right to prejudge the issue by saying that a particular accused is or is not a lieutenant in a conspiracy?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that our sub judice rule does not apply to that kind of tribunal.

The Attorney-General

In any event, it is perfectly clear on the evidence and the facts as everyone knows them about the Action Group that Chief Awolowo was the principal in the matters which are being investigated and Chief Enahoro was not.

However much one may consider these hypothetical reasons and other reasons as to whether or not there will be charges added, I ought to inform the House that I thought it desirable, after the hon. and learned Member for Northampton had informed the House that this evidence was on the way—evidence which it seemed to me incredible could be available—to check the likely veracity of it.

Since you ordered the Adjournment Motion, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the telephone with Dr. Elias, who is Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Nigeria and the Minister responsible in Nigeria for the director of public prosecutions and for all proceedings on prosecutions in Nigeria. I told him that it was being alleged that there was an intention that, if Chief Enahoro returned to Nigeria, further charges would be added or substituted. He was astounded and astonished when I told him that. He said that it was definitely untrue that there was any intention at all by him as the prosecuting authority to add any new charges or to depart at all from the charges for which Chief Enahoro's return was asked in the proceedings at Bow Street, the three charges of which we know. He reiterated to me that he has no intention of departing from those three charges in the prosecution of Chief Enahoro on his return.

Mr. Paget

If that be so, will the Attorney-General ask the Nigerian Government to give that undertaking? Then our problem is solved.

The Attorney-General

I should have thought that the statement of the Attorney-General of Nigeria as to his intentions would be perfectly satisfactory to any reasonable Member of the House. I should be very surprised indeed if some person from another Commonwealth country, were to ring me up and ask not only what my intentions were but whether I would give undertakings as to the future. Nothing could be more explicit than what the Attorney-General said about his intentions, of which I have informed the House. He said that there is no intention whatever in him as prosecuting authority to add any new charges at all—not only capital ones but any other charges.

Mr. G. Brown

This changes the tenor of the debate. This was the undertaking asked for on the first occasion when the House had to dissolve in some disorder while a Cabinet meeting was going on on the Front Bench opposite. We asked for that undertaking. Ministers subsequently came to the House and said that the Nigerian Government refused, indignantly, to give such assurances and saw no reason why they should, saying that, as a sovereign member of the Commonwealth, they should not be asked for them. That is what the Prime Minister reported to us.

The Prime Minister was unable to get the assurances. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies was unable to get the assurances. The Attorney-General is now telling us that, in the course of an ad hoc telephone conversation, he got them. Will the Attorney-General now be quite categorical about it? Is he telling the House that the Government of Nigeria have this afternoon given the assurances which they have hitherto refused to give?

The Attorney-General

I must make this perfectly clear. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it is important to be clear on a matter of this sort.

First, no undertaking has been given by the Nigerian Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not the function of the Nigerian Government; it is the Attorney-General who discharges these functions, as I do. Second, I did not think it right or proper or necessary to ask whether he would give me an undertaking. I asked whether the allegation of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there was now an intention to make an alteration and proceed upon different charges was true. He informed me that he had no intention whatever of departing from the present position. I respectfully submit that that is a perfectly satisfactory situation upon which any sensible and reasonable Member of the House could rely.

Mr. G. Brown

May I press the Attorney-General about this? Is he telling the House that this was a statement of the personal view of the Minister of Justice or that it is the view of the Government? Does not he see that, if it is the personal view of a colleague given to him over the telephone, it does not affect the argument, hut, if it is a statement of the Government, it does? If it was not the view of the Government, what is the value of his remark?

The Attorney-General

As I understand the position, the duties of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Nigeria are similar, as regards prosecutions, to those of the Attorney-General in this country. He is not in that respect a member of the Government who does what the Government tells him. He has a separate quasi-judicial responsibility for deciding when he will prosecute, and it is his sole responsibility.

This is well understood, and the Nigerian system, as I understand it, is modelled on, and is intended to copy, our system. It is not for the Nigerian Government to decide these matters, and it certainly was not my intention to ask the Attorney-General of Nigeria to give me any undertaking or, least of all, to give one on behalf of the Nigerian Government. He is the responsible Minister. He has told us his intentions, and all I submit is that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that new evidence is on the way, that there is an intention now to add charges, is completely wrong.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Is it not the case that when Chief Enahoro was in Ireland he or his representatives telephoned our Home Office asking for certain assurances and was given these assurances, and that when he came here he found that the assurances were wrong, which, we ware told in this House, was due to a misunderstanding? Is not this relevant to the new position?

The Attorney-General

This was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 21st March, when he made it clear that he had investigated most carefully what had been said, and it was plain that nobody on behalf of the Home Office had given any such undertaking.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

The Attorney-General centred the whole of his case to the House during the last few minutes on the conversations which he had with the Attorney-General of Nigeria. It is a very peculiar situation, because we had controversy in the House in previous debates about what were the undertakings which might be given from Nigeria. I wonder why the Attorney- General did not ring up the Attorney-General in Nigeria before. Why did not he have a telephone conversation with the Attorney-General when we were having the debate on 27th March? If it was so easy to settle the matter, why did the Prime Minister come to the House and say, "We must make representations to the Nigerian Government through the High Commissioner"?

If it was all so easy to get an undertaking of this character by a telephone conversation, it seems that the Attorney-General has left it very late in the day. After what has happened in all these debates, I do not believe that the House will be content to rely on the assurances which the Attorney-General has given to the House, because there have been so many misunderstandings in this case ever since the original misunderstanding about Chief Enahoro's arrival in this country.

What we are discussing is the conduct of Her Majesty's Government and not assurances given by the Nigerian Government. We are discussing the action of the Home Secretary. The Attorney-General astonished the House, I think, by saying that the Prime Minister had not given an undertaking to this House that Chief Enahoro would not be sent back to Nigeria if there was any danger of his being threatened with a capital sentence. He seemed to be trying to escape from the obligation that the Prime Minister had undertaken. Why should he try to quibble about the Prime Minister's pledge by saying that inquiries would be made as to whether the legal point was a good one or a bad one? Only if it was settled in a fashion adverse to the Government would the other consideration arise. The Attorney-General nods.

I wander that the Attorney-General did not take the trouble to read the Prime Minister's speech. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) quoted one part of the Prime Minister's speech which might be open to the interpretation given by the Attorney-General if one stretched it a long way. The Prime Minister said: The Chief will not be returned to Nigeria until there is a definite undertaking from the Nigerian Government that this charge, if it carries the death penalty, is withdrawn and that no other charge that could carry the death penalty is substituted, or until the interpretation placed on this point by the right hon. Gentleman is shown by the lawyers to he incorrect … It is on that last part of the sentence that the Attorney-General has based his claim. But he should have read on a bit further. If he had done so he would have seen that the Prime Minister made the pledge absolutely clear. There could not possibly have been any doubt about it. In the last sentence that the Prime Minister uttered to the House before he moved the Adjournment of the debate he said: If that is the view of the House, and it would make it easier for the House for me to do so, I am ready to move that we should now adjourn the debate, it being understood that it is not the wish of the Government, or of the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286]. That was the pledge given to the House. There could not be anything clearer. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was right in saying that the first thing which is involved is the honour and word of the Prime Minister himself. I must say that grave doubts are cast upon it when the Attorney-General does not even repeat the pledge at the beginning of his speech.

If the Attorney-General was so confident about the second piece of information which he was going to give about his conversation with the Attorney-General of Nigeria, why should he worry about trying to quibble? Why should he try to crawl out of it? The reason that he wanted to crawl out of it is that he knows that it is just conceivable—I do not say likely—that when Chief Enahoro returns something may go wrong and he may be charged with a capital charge.

If that happened, it would, of course, be clear to all the world that the Prime Minister's word had been dishonoured. Therefore, the Attorney-General, in his speech today, wanted to qualify the Prime Minister's pledge. There was no purpose in what he said otherwise. To anyone who can read plain English it is clear that the pledge was given in absolute terms.

One of the problems in dealing with this case ever since the beginning has been that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have approached it from quite different points of view, particularly on the issue of the capital charge. The Home Secretary has claimed from the beginning of these debates to the end that the question of the capital charge never came into it. He said in the first debate that it had nothing to do with it. He did not interpolate in that sentence that if it did have something to do with it it would make a difference. He just said that it did not arise, and that has been his position from the beginning to the end of these debates. Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, it was immaterial, in the way that he has interpreted it, whether there was a capital charge or not.

However, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, when they came along to rescue the Home Secretary in the debate on 26th March, took a quite different view. The Attorney-General said: But I am authorised by the Prime Minister to say that the Government will not in any circumstances send back Chief Enahoro until this point has been cleared up between the legal advisers …"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 26th March. 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1282.] The Prime Minister went on to make the same pledge in the terms which I have given.

What right had the Attorney-General or the Prime Minister to make any of those pledges to this House if the original claim of the Home Secretary was correct? The Home Secretary has said from the beginning of this dispute to the end, "This is a matter which rests solely with me. It is a judicial decision". In the debate on 10th April this was his final claim. He said just before the vote took place—and he said it more than once—that it was his decision and no one else's and that no one else could take the decision for him. … despite the totally unfounded allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Page). …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 1362.] If no one else could take the decision from the Home Secretary, what right had the Attorney-General to say, "I will give a promise that if the capital sentence applies it will not happen."? What right had the Prime Minister to make such a pledge if the sole decision rested with the Home Secretary? It is one way or the other. Who does take the decision? The Home Secretary claims that he is acting on judicial grounds, that he is acting justly and that in his mind the question of a capital sentence has not arisen from the beginning to the end of these debates.

I have never seen a Minister so humiliated as was the Home Secretary in the debate on 27th March, when he had his whole case denied by the intervention of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. After that debate the only proper course for the Home Secretary—indeed, I thought that it would happen—was for him to resign.

Here was the Home Secretary saying that this was a judicial matter. He was pushed aside in debate, first, by the Attorney-General and then by the Prime Minister. Are we now to be told that none of the other members of the Cabinet has ever discussed the question? Has it never been discussed in the Cabinet? Why is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations so assiduous in his attention to these debates? Everybody knows that this matter was discussed in the Cabinet. Everybody knows that political considerations of the widest aspect were brought in to help determine the decision. Indeed, this has been made clear in the Prime Minister's contributions to the previous debates. The Cabinet has taken all these factors into account.

Therefore, when the Home Secretary knows those to be the circumstances, when he knows the pressures to which he is subjected and when he knows that he is submitted to them even though he claims that it is absolutely wrong that he should be, what right has he to have any further say in the matter? The Home Secretary should have resigned on 27th March and left the Cabinet to settle the matter if they were going to do so.

For the Home Secretary still to claim, as, apparently, he does, that he is solely concerned with the justice of the case when he has been subjected to these political pressures is to dishonour the whole process of judicial decisions or so-called quasi-judicial decisions by Government Departments and by Home Secretaries. Nobody again can believe the word of the Home Secretary when he says that he has taken a judicial decision, because everybody in the world knows that in this case he has done nothing of the kind.

There is a further factor. At the start of this debate, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton listed all the considerations which the Home Secretary could have had in mind and which he had set aside. There have been many other considerations since. We are playing cat and mouse with this poor man. The Attorney-General may be correct in saying that no further information is coming from Nigeria, but nobody can trust the Attorney-General's interventions in these matters. He has not been correct on the law, so he may not be correct on the information.

Therefore, looking at all these circumstances, when we start from the proposition that there is an overwhelming case in humanity that the man should have a right to stay here on the simple grounds of political asylum, when we remember the whole squalid, miserable story that has gone on and how the Government have been more concerned throughout this dispute to rescue their own prestige than to look after the rights of one man, I say that if the Home Secretary is determined to persist in his job and send this man back to Nigeria, whether tonight, tomorrow, or whenever it may be—I am not sure what the timetable is—he will never have the right to lift up his face again in the House of Commons.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith (Brentford and Chiswick)

This is the third occasion on which I have been fortunate enough to speak in the House on this subject and I make no apology for doing so again. I maintain that this man's life is at stake and I have maintained it from the outset. This is really the last chance that his case has of being heard in what is virtually the highest court in the land.

It is a fine thing that we are tonight still debating the case of Chief Enahoro. I know that a certain amount of difficulty has been caused with the rearrangement of business, and it is not always expedient that the timetable should be changed, but it is very proper that we should still be considering whether this man's life is at stake, whereas if the Adjournment of the House had not been moved he might well have been on an aircraft tonight, winging his way to Lagos under heavily armed guard.

As the House knows, I have been closely involved in this case right from the start, because Enahoro is a temporary constituent of mine. I will not go through all the details again—some of them have been enumerated by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—but over and above the speeches which I have already been fortunate enough to contribute on this subject, I have felt throughout the importance of the fact that the evidence of brutality which was subsequently available did not come before the court at the magisterial hearing back in November, or when the appeal was heard in January. I believe that this was of material consideration. Had that evidence of brutality been available then, the decision on the part of the magistrates and of the judges who decided the case might have been very different indeed.

I am positive that we ought now to receive a clear-cut and thorough undertaking from the Nigerian Government that the death penalty is not involved. I respect what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said about this, and I am sure that in his mind he is satisfied with the assurance which has been given to him by the Attorney-General of Nigeria, but this is far too important a matter for there to be any doubt.

I am convinced that in an issue which has become as vital as this, nothing short of a categorical pledge at this time by the Nigerian Government to our Government would suffice. I am certain that if the Government reflect on this, they will realise that this is what ought to be done. As a consequence, they ought to give an undertaking not to return Chief Enahoro to Nigeria until they receive that assurance from the Nigeriap Government.

Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tamworth)

Are we not also entitled to know whether the specific question was put by our Attorney-General to the Nigerian Attorney-General whether the death penalty was or was not involved under the charges which were originally heard at Bow Street?

Mr. Smith

I agree with the hon. Member that is an important point.

It is a grave thing to say, but it has to be said, that one is forced to ask how valid are the assurances which are made by Nigeria, bearing in mind the fact that this is obviously a political matter. It always has been a political matter. It is a political charge which Enahoro faces and when he gets back he will be treated as a political fugitive. That is why I make tonight a last plea for clemency on the part of the Government for Chief Enahoro.

I was present this afternoon in the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords and was tremendously impressed with the bearing of this man and with the way he conducted his own case. I believe that he is entitled to clemency from this House. I make this final plea on three main grounds. First, there are serious doubts about the validity of the evidence which has been presented at the various court hearings. Secondly, all the facts were not before the court when his original application for release was refused. Thirdly, even after what has been said tonight, there are still some doubts as to whether his life will he at stake when he returns.

The political situation in Nigeria must always be taken into account when one is considering a case of this sort. I am not an expert on Nigerian affairs, I have not studied them closely, although over the past few weeks I have made it my business to get as much material as possible from Nigerian sources. Only today, news reached me that four senior members of the Action Group, which is Enahoro's political party, including its federal treasurer, have had their passports impounded without any reasons being given. Three other leading imetnhers of the Action Group—Rewane, Shonibare and Lanlehin—have all had their property and belongings in the Western Region listed for compulsory acquisition, again, I understand, without any particular reason being given. Surely, this is a fair indication that political pressure is present in Nigeria. This adds materially to the whole suspicious climate which surrounds the Enahoro affair.

I have always believed right from the start that a strong, steady and rather relentless atmosphere of political pressure was being applied by a Government to an Opposition, and it has been applied all the way through from the start of the Enahoro case.

We must ask ourselves how valid is the evidence on which the magistrate's court, and, later, the Divisional Court, decided that there was a prima facie case for Enahoro to answer when he got back home. Last November when he was before the magistrate's court, and later in January, some of the most material witnesses had not then given evidence in the treason trial.

However fair the Nigerian Judiciary—and I am quite prepared to believe it is fair, having heard in previous debates that it is above suspicion—it is still Enahoro's major submission that the evidence against him has in many instances been obtained by threat and by force. He fears for his life as a result of these activities. He feared for his life when first I met him. He feared for his life when we had our previous debates, and today, after the dismissal of his petition before the Appeals Committee of the House of Lords, he again fears for his life.

I and many others on both sides of the House over the past weeks and months have waded through pages and pages of evidence, of affidavits and of transcripts, and throughout those pages there stalks a rather sinister figure, the figure of Assistant Superintendent of Police Ceulman, a naturalised Briton and former Afrikaaner, who, despite persistent challenges by the defence, has failed to be produced in the treason trials in Lagos. This man Ceulman apparently has been one of the chief people in charge of obtaining evidence and conducting interrogations of witnesses material to the treason trials in Lagos. Ceulman himself has never refuted the charges of brutality made against him nor, as far as I am aware, have any of the other material witnesses in the case.

I shall not weary the House with a large number of quotations because this is only a brief debate, but I think it is vitally important that I should give a few short quotations from the actual transcripts of the trial which has been going on at Lagos. First, I deal with this gentleman, Ceulman. The first piece from the transcript concerns Mr. Umoren, a Member of Parliament, who was called to give evidence and who was a defendant. He said, among other things: Before the statement I was with Ceulman alone. He said this was a serious matter, the Prime Minister had given them full powers. When I entered the room Mr. Ceulman showed me a revolver. He said every senior police officer had been given a revolver and that with that weapon he had subdued others. He would advise me to save myself from being shot. In Mr. Ceulman's office before Ceulman began to issue his threats Mr. Sullivan came in and said that the Government was considering amending the law to make the offence punishable by death. Another witness, Mr. Akinsanya, a barrister who was a defendant and conducted his own defence, said he was handed over to Ceulman and he said in the course of his evidence: Ceulman said he thought I would help the police by giving them information about arms and munitions. He then started to tell me he was a soldier in the latest war and he said that he interviewed German war criminals. He said although Germans were sturdy men, he broke them. He then referred to the political situation in the country and said that the Southern leaders were no good and it was the N.P.C. which was good. He said Onitiri had been released and that the police had a bargain with him and that I too would be released if I helped the police. I told him I was not interested. The third quotation concerns Mr. J. S. Tarka, the leader of the United Middle Belt Congress in the North, a body which was associated with the Action Group. He said in the course of his evidence that he had been interrogated and kept in custody. He said: I said I was hungry and tired, but he said he would give me everything I wanted if I co-operated with him. He said he had instructions from the Prime Minister not to prosecute any Northerner unless such Northerner did not co-operate. He said that with Mr. Ceulman I had an appointment with a midnight bride. He said if I did not co-operate I would be treated like Patrice Lumumba who disappeared in the Congo because he did not co-operate with the British. For the first time in my life I was scared. One is entitled to ask in hearing evidence of this sort if this man Ceulman is innocent, if this man is more sinned against than sinning, because it is not unknown for allegations to be made against police officers and against interrogators. Therefore, I think this particular evidence can be highly suspect unless there is some form of corroboration of the kind of man Ceulman was. Only two days ago an affidavit was sworn in this country by a highly respectable man, Mr. Malcolm Robert Alexander Matthew, of Jocelyn Road, Richmond, Surrey, Mr. Matthew was from 19th November, 1960, to 18th January, 1961, an intelligence officer with the 5th Battalion of the Queen's Own Nigerian Regiment stationed at Bukavu in Kivu Province of the Congo.

In his affidavit he said: During the said stay in Bukavu it was one of my duties to visit the gaol there in an attempt to secure the release of various persons imprisoned there without justification. Many of these persons had been beaten and otherwise maltreated and a number had as a result become hospital cases. Some of these cases had been the victims of a calculated sadism which I verily believe was not typical of the Congolese and I formed the opinion that there was an influence at work which was probably white. Upon inquiry my colleagues and I were told by the police in charge of the gaol that three white men were responsible for the above-mentioned atrocities. We were told by the police officer in charge of the police station attached to the gaol that Ceulman was one of the aforesaid three white men. This police officer pointed out to us Ceulman, who was in the room at the time. The said Ceulman, who was in the room at the time, was short. stocky, fair-haired and almost a hunch-back. This is the description of the man who conducted the interrogations before the Lagos treason trial. Ceulman appears to have been a leading light in all the police inquiries surrounding the Enahoro case.

Having read so much about it, having read this further evidence, I have the very gravest doubts about the evidence which is being presented in this treason trial. Ceulman has, of course, interrogated at least two of the main deponents against Enahoro whose evidence was produced in the courts here when it was decided that he should be extradited. This evidence is evidence which still stands and which will be used against him if ultimately he is returned.

Two material witnesses in the case against Enahoro have, after eight months' detention, now been released on bail pending their giving evidence in the case against Enahoro on his return. One might imagine from the fact that they have been in detention for eight months that the charge against them is one of treason. But the charge against them is not treason; the charge is of theft. Surely it is almost incomprehensible in any country which tries to carry on a democracy that anyone should await trial on charges of theft for something like eight months without actually appearing in court. These two gentlemen are Mr. Oboh and Mr. Olearie and the deduction to he made is absolutely obvious when one remembers they are to give evidence against Enahoro.

I think it is quite true to say that more evidence is likely to come over on Enahoro's behalf because two of his friends, one of them a legal adviser, flew back to Lagos within the last week. They hope shortly to be able to produce some further evidence in this country if their friend by then has not been extradited. It could have come in time for his last petition had the full fourteen days been granted, but as we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the deadline imposed was 2.30 on Monday afternoon.

As a consequence his solicitors had to work extremely hard over the whole weekend. This does not just concern the presentation of one petition. There need to be dozens of extra copies which have to be filed, under law, and I am instructed that the solicitor advising Enahoro was unable to brief counsel, unable to get the help of anybody over the weekend to appeal in this case and as a result Enahoro had to appear and defend himself.

Enahoro has always thought that he was in danger of death, and I think that in this he is utterly sincere. This has not been merely a blind to try to get him off, or to create the various delays which we have suffered over the past five or six months. There have been important reasons at each stage. I believe that this mart genuinely fears for his life through either judicial execution or something more sinister happening to him on his return to Nigeria. He thought so when I took up his case originally, and he still thinks so today.

Finally—I will not go on any longer because there are others who wish to make contributions to the debate—I would say that this has become a very celebrated case indeed. It is a case which is probably unique in the annals of this Parliament. It is a case in which there are tremendous principles at stake. This has been emphasised previously, and we cannot emphasise it too greatly. The case has caused the Government a good deal of unnecessary trouble and put them in an extremely difficult position which is not really of their own making. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that there are feelings on this, but I am here expressing my own personal opinion.

The Home Secretary has had one of the most unenviable tasks which has ever befallen any Minister for years in deciding what should happen to Chief Enahoro. I believe that my right hon Friend has decided wrongly. He believes, and the majority of the Government believe, that he has acted rightly. But he has acted fearlessly, and as a result I dissociate myself from the attacks made on him. He has done everything he has done on points of principle and to the best of the information available to him. But I believe that he was wrong from the start and that he is still wrong today.

Chief Enahoro has conducted himself throughout these proceedings with the utmost dignity and with utter brilliance in his personal performances in our courts. We must remember that he is not an Englishman. He is a Nigerian, and has had no legal training. I believe that this should count in his favour.

I submit that this House would win most tremendous public approval if it said that, because of the real and genuine doubts in the welter of evidence that has been put forward, and after six months of arguing in the Law Courts and Parliament, Chief Enahoro should go free or should at least go back to Eire whence he came to this country. This could be Parliament as its best and greatest. Whatever we may think about Parliament, and we know it is concerned primarily with the day-to-day running of the country, this is what it really exists for—the preservation of the individual liberty of the subject.

I believe that democracy will always flourish when officialdom can say, "Perhaps we were wrong. We will now, even at this stage, give this man the benefit of the doubt." I believe that this is what should happen tonight. I believe that this honourable House is in a position to grant direct mercy to Chief Enahoro, and I believe most sincerely that it should now go ahead and grant that mercy.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

It is most unfortunate that this case has been discussed so much in the law courts and not nearly enough in this House on the main principle at stake, namely, that this is a political case involving a political trial in Nigeria for a man who is sub- ject, in his submission—and, in my opinion, his submission is correct—to the danger of political oppression.

It is not simply a criminal case which has been brought against him. If he had been—we should return to this point again and again—a Frenchman, a German, an Italian, a Paraguayan, or any other nationality than a member of a Commonwealth country, he would not have been returned to face trial. Therefore, I think that we must get back to the basic issue in this last debate that the House may have on this case to prevent this man being sent back to stand political trial.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if Chief Enahoro had been any of those nationalities, he would not have been in this country at all?

Mr. Stonehouse

Chief Enahoro had gone to Ireland and had come to this country from Dublin, and it would be perfectly possible for a citizen of any other country to have come here in circumstances similar to those of Chief Enahoro. Indeed, there have been other cases of men who have been subject to political oppression who have come here and have obtained political asylum. It would be a very sorry thing if in a political case being pursued in a Commonwealth country we drew a distinction in the way that is apparently now being done.

Chief Enahoro has said: The offences with which I am charged are offences of a political character. My return to Nigeria is sought by the Federal Government as part of a plan, which has been pursued relentlessly since the Federal Government was formed by a coalition of the N.P.C. and N.C.N.C. parties in December, 1959, to destroy the Action Group as an effective political opposition. I am not a fugitive from justice but a fugitive from political oppression. I do not wish, and I do not think the House would wish, to enter into a debate as to the merits or demerits of the political confusion in Nigeria, but in any case in the past involving a foreigner asking for political asylum on this sort of ground, we have invariably allowed him the benefit of the doubt and have given him political asylum or allowed him to go somewhere where he would nave that asylum.

Public opinion has been most disturbed by this whole case in the last six months. Newspapers almost unanimously are asking that Chief Enahoro should be allowed to stay here or to go to another country of his choice. We had The Times writing: The whole embarrasing affair has indicated how urgent is the need to amend the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, to bring the extradition arrangements between Commonwealth countries into line with those between other independent sovereign states. The Act must be amended. Would it be fair to amend the Act and not to allow the man who gave rise to all this debate the right to stay here under an amended Act? As the Guardian said in April: Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that Chief Enahoro would not be extradited unless it was clear 'beyond peradventure' that the death penalty did not apply. The doubt remains. This is what was written in April. The doubt still remains. The Guardian went on: This is awkward and embarrassing for the Government, and one may sympathise with Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Brooke and Sir John Hobson in the difficulty that confronts them. But to send Chief Enahoro back now, after the delay has done its damage, would be to make matters worse. The proper course is to promise an early amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act and to say that, meanwhile, Chief Enahoro will be allowed to remain here—in better surroundings than Brixton prison. The Daily Telegraph said: The Attorney-General may well be right in law, the Crown Counsel mistaken. But there seems to be at the very least an element of doubt, of which Chief Enahoro should surely receive the benefit. This is practically the unanimous expression of opinion in the Press—Conservative, Labour and Liberal. Public opinion generally believes that this man should be allowed to stay here or at least to go to another country where he should be free.

In the face of all these expressions of public opinion, the Government are determined to send him back, not in order to do justice to him, not to improve relations between the Nigerians and ourselves—they are already intolerably bad because of the way the Government have mishandled this affair—but in order to protect their prestige. That is what is at stake.

It is in order to protect the prestige of the Home Secretary and of the Prime Minister in particular that this man has to be returned. The Prime Minister has made a statement in the House which apparently he is not prepared to honour. The whole circumstances lend very little credit not only to the Home Secretary but to the Prime Minister himself, for he gave a pledge on 26th March that the Nigerian authorities would be asked for an assurance that this man would not be subject to the death penalty. But tonight the Attorney-General has confirmed that that assurance has not yet been received.

A minor but very important point is that of the assurance which the Home Secretary's officials gave to Chief Enahoro's friend when he telephoned the Department and asked whether the Chief would be free from arrest if he came to this country, first from Ghana and then from Dublin. In fact, there was not one telephone conversation but three. This series of conversations was entered into after Chief Enahoro's friend had consulted his lawyers.

This, I believe, deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who interjected during one of our debates to say that it would have been better for the Chief to have co insulted a lawyer rather than somebody else. Chief Enahoro's lawyers were consulted, and it was because of the need for quick and speedy action that Messrs. Slaughter and May—I am authorised to disclose their names—asked the Chief's friend to telephone the Home Office and seek this assurance. This, the friend did on three occasions. Only on one occasion was he told that the Fugitive Offenders Act might apply and that therefore another inquiry might be made. That is at least what the Home Secretary has said took place. But Chief Enahoro's friend says that he consulted Messrs. Slaughter and May on 10th October, but did not follow up a suggestion made to him in a telephone conversation with the Department that he should talk to a Mr. Morris, the official responsible for the Fugitive Offenders Act, because no such suggestion was made. Ha says: I did not follow up the suggestion to talk to Mr. Morris because, in fact, no suggestion was made that I should. There was only the merest mention of Morris. I insist that I was given assurance that Enahoro would be safe from arrest, otherwise I would be a fool and a knave to recommend to Enahoro that he should come to this country. That is the understanding that Enahoro's friend had, and this statement was made by him after his interview with the Home Secretary. He does not agree that the matter was cleared up after discussion with the right hon. Gentleman. He insists that he was given to understand that Enahoro was free from arrest.

If the Home Secretary or his officials were planning to apply the Fugitive Offenders Act, or were armed with it, then surely it was incumbent upon them to advise his solicitors or his personal friend that it would be unwise of him to come to this country. Surely, after three telephone calls in which the assurance had been given that he would be free from arrest they should have given him a warning that he would, after all, be subject to it. He came from Dublin on a Friday and was arrested the following Tuesday under the Fugitive Offenders Act. He was given no warning that the arrest was on its way.

The whole attitude of the Home Secretary has been deplorable. In view of all the doubts which exist in this case, I believe that the House should now do what the Daily Telegraph advises us to do—give Chief Enahoro the benefit of the doubt and allow him to be free in this country, or go to another country of his choice where he will be free.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

The House is rightly concerned with any question which affects the freedom and safety of the individual, but I hope that it is also concerned with the rule of law, because without the rule of law there can be no justice and no freedom. Although I drew attention to the matter when the House last discussed the case, I feel obliged to remind hon. Members that it is the Home Secretary's duty to apply the present law and not his duty to apply some other law which many hon. Members feel would be more rightly applicable to this case.

Mr. Stonehouse

Would not this have also been the case in connection with the Cypriots, who were not returned?

Mr. Renton

I am discussing the case of Chief Enahoro. I am not discussing the case of the Cypriots. I understand that the circumstances of the two cases are very different.

It is the Home Secretary's duty to administer the Fugitive Offenders Act. There is a misleading impression that that Act applies, or should apply, only to Colonies and Protectorates still governed direct by the Colonial Secretary, and a further impression that it should not apply to self-governing countries of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria. I understand that that is the sort of legal foundation of the case which has been put forward on behalf of Chief Enahoro.

I find that misleading for several reasons. The first is that the Fugitive Offenders Act, although passed as long ago as 1881, applied then to all Her Majesty's Dominions, as they were described in that Act. Some of them were then and still are Colonies. Others were and still are self-governing, such as Canada and the Channel Islands. That Act, not having been amended or modified, must be held to apply as well to those territories which were Colonies, but which have since become self-governing. It is surely significant, as I pointed out in our last debate on the subject, that neither the Statute of Westminster nor the Nigeria Act, 1960, contained any reference to the Fugitive Offenders Act and did not modify it in any way.

The other day, I was turning up a debate in 1947 in which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed his faith in the future development of what he called this "great bulwark of democratic civilisation". He was referring to the institutions of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. There has been fast development since 1947 when the right hon. Gentleman expressed that sentiment, with which I should have thought we could all agree. Independence has been given to a great many countries and we accept each of them as free and, above all, equal members of the Commonwealth.

There is no question of applying the principle which the right hon. Gentleman rightly deplored on that occasion when he quoted the Biglow Papers. I will not quote the saying in the vernacular, but it is: If we say on our platforms that all men are our brothers, We don't mean that some folk ain't more so than others. In other words, if we accept that newly independent members of the Commonwealth are brothers with us in the development of the Commonwealth and its great institutions, then it is not for us here to start trying to be selective and to start placing ourselves in the position, the necessarily somewhat arrogant and censorious position, of judging whether the courts or the police of this or that country are fitted to do what we presume to do in our own country.

I am a member of Lincoln's Inn, and I suppose that Lincoln's Inn has called to the Bar more African barristers and judges than any of the other Inns of Court. Indeed, if one goes there any day one sees perhaps a hundred or more coloured Africans having dinner in the hall of Lincoln's Inn during the dining term. All these young men have come here to be trained in our laws and in our system of justice because they and their Governments have faith in us and in our laws and system of justice, and I ask the House to consider whether we should not have faith in them, too. It would be a great disillusionment to these young men returning to their own countries to feel that the very people who had inspired them with this sense of law and justice had no faith in their capacity to carry out the lessons they had learnt.

There has been a good deal of talk about the so-called right of asylum, and the suggestion is that because we grant asylum from time to time to foreigners who come here and who would be in danger of life, limb, or liberty if they returned to their own countries, that that should necessarily apply to citizens of Commonwealth countries. On the face of it this seems to be a good humanitarian argument, but when we come to apply the principle, if it be a principle, what do we find?

We find that although we would be treating Commonwealth citizens in the same way as we treat foreigners, we should, under our present law, also have to treat the countries of the Commonwealth to which those citizens belong as virtually foreign countries. Although we are all clear enough about the great difference between the Extradition Acts and the Fugitive Offenders Act, to say that the so-called right of asylum, which is not a right but an act of grace, should apply to cases coming under the Fugitive Offenders Act as well, is to say, in effect, that the Commonwealth countries concerned should be treated as foreign countries. In view of the whole process of giving independence to countries of the Commonwealth, I think that this would be a distasteful thing to do.

I also wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), whose sincerity we all admire, have really considered the implications of what they are suggesting today. I think that we have to bear in mind two things that they are suggesting. First, they are suggesting that anyone who falls out with his own Commonwealth Government for political reasons and places himself in the position of having to face a trial in that country, before the courts of that country, has only to come here, or for that matter, go to any other Commonwealth country, to avoid being tried by the courts of his own country.

We must carry this matter to its logical conclusion, and I do not think that that would make for a good Commonwealth. I do not think that it would add to the faith of the Commonwealth countries in their institutions. I do not thin that it would advance the cause of justice in the Commonwealth countries if that came to be a generally accepted practice. If Chief Enahoro is not sent back to Nigeria this case will be treated as a precedent, and that would become the established practice and the accepted principle. It would be a wrong principle and a bad practice.

Mr. D. Smith

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Chief Enahoro were a foreigner and not a member of the Commonwealth he would have been granted political asylum here?

Mr. Renton

That is a hypothetical question, which, in the case of a foreigner, the Home Secretary might decide one way or another.

But, in spite of the very general terms in which this so-called right of asylum has been stated—and, as I say, it is not a right at all—I feel bound to remind the House that this is a matter in which Home Secretaries have always claimed to have a discretion. There are many factors which enter in. It is by no means an easy matter to bring any case within the long- established practice relating to asylum. That is why, in all sincerity, I hesitate to answer my hon. Friend's question as it applies to this case.

Mr. Paget

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that we must be careful lest we create a precedent tonight. Has he realised that if we send this man back we shall be creating a precedent and that we should have to return, for instance, anybody who declined to bow down and worship the god Nkrumah?

Mr. Renton

I have not access to all the previous cases under the Fugitives Offenders Act, and I am not in a position to answer the hon. and learned Member on that point. All I say is that if the point of view put forward by him and other hon. Members were accepted that would be a precedent.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

I am a layman in these matters, and I have listened to the debate with interest. As a layman, I want an answer to one question. The House was categorically told by the Prime Minister that it is not the wish of the Government, or the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.] Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman obtain an answer from the Attorney-General telling us what was the result of the telephone call about which we have heard? Was it said that the man's life was at stake, or was it not? We had a promise that he should not go back, and all this legal jargon means nothing compared with that promise.

Mr. Renton

I do not think that I should answer all the questions that are asked of my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, but I happened to make a note about the telephone call. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend was told by the Attorney-General of Nigeria—who, incidentally, was a barrister who was trained in this country—that it was untrue that it was his intention to add any new charges. As I understand, the charges already preferred do not carry the death penalty.

The matter is plain. What has puzzled me most of all—I nearly raised a point of order about it, but I am not very good at that—was that in view of what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not at once say that his case had fallen to the ground, and that there was no real point in pursuing this matter. But he is a very shrewd parliamentarian, and always bases his political case on as many pillars as he can.

I want to refer to one or two other points that were raised by the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members. The first thing that I should do—because it follows from the interruption that we have just had—is to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Prime Minister's honour is completely vindicated by the information which my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the House today.

Mr. W. T. Williams (Warrington)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to interrupt him?

Mr. Renton

I have given way a great deal. I have tried to make some progress with my speech. But I seem to be doing nothing but answer questions which ought to be answered from the Government Front Bench and will be, as always, satisfactorily.

There is one answer, however, which might come more gracefully from a back bench Member than from the Government Front Bench and it is the answer to the attack which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) made, I thought rather venomously, on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—venomously, and unnecessarily venomously. He said that the sole decision rests with the Home Secretary, and so it does. But in a matter on which a layman might possibly require the advice of lawyers, surely the Home Secretary is entitled, and indeed obliged, to seek the advice of the Law Officers and to heed it. So that part of the rather bitter case advanced by the hon. Gentleman is answered.

The other part of the hon. Gentleman's case related to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister of the day is entitled to find out from the Home Secretary of the day what is his decision in a particular case and to tell the House what it is, and that, virtually, is what the Prime Minister did—

Mr. M. Foot

Is it "not guilty"?

Mr. Paget rose

Mr. Renton

Now I am being asked to answer two hon. Members who are both attempting to speak at the same time.

I will conclude, because there is not much "punch" left in the case which was advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton—

Mr. Harold Davies

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Renton

—and I think that in all the circumstances we might well—now that honour has been satisfied—get on with the debate on the Finance Bill.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: (South Shields)

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) did me the honour of quoting something which I said in 1947. I have not altered my opinions on the matter raised in any way since that time. I do not intend to get involved in a legalistic argument. This is the position. This Chief is in the jurisdiction of this House. The Minister responsible for his health and safety is responsible to this House. If the man goes to Nigeria, this House has no further responsibility for him and that is an important phase of the question we are discussing tonight. He is in the jurisdiction of this House because, so far, the Home Secretary has not sent him back to Nigeria.

The Home Secretary has to consider justice in this matter. No one else comes into it at all. The learned Attorney-General may advise him, but the Home Secretary is responsible for the action he takes on that advice. The Prime Minister does not come into it from the point of view of the responsibility which I am discussing. It is a matter which rests with the Home Secretary alone. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had the same experience as I had when I was appointed Home Secretary. The then Prime Minister said to me, "You understand that there are many things which are your personal responsibility, which you can devolve on to no one else, and you have to satisfy your own conscience that you are carrying out your duties in that responsibility satisfactorily."

I listened to the very forthright and courageous speech of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith), whose conduct throughout this case has been beyond all praise. I attended certain private gatherings to which he invited me with members of all parties to discuss this matter. He has been quite frank with us. He said, "This man is living in my constituency. The case has been introduced to me in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Brentford and Chiswick and I am going to discuss this matter with the Home Secretary. I should like, before I do that, to have a consultation with those of you who are here." I think that there were about a dozen on one occasion who went with him to the Home Secretary to discuss this matter.

When I listened to the case he submitted this evening, I had grave doubts as to what will happen to this man if he passes outside the jurisdiction of this House. In some ways it is a good thing that he has been in custody in this country because, if he had been wandering about free, he might very well have been kidnapped or something might have happened to him which cannot happen to him all the while he is in Brixton Gaol. I do not believe that justice can be assured to this man if he goes back to Nigeria, from what I have heard from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick and from the papers which, in common with other hon. Members. I have had the opportunity of considering in detail.

I hope that we are not going to be as foolish as the Chief was when he accepted a telephone conversation that someone else had with somebody who, so far as I can make out, was not very well instructed in the matter. We are now asked to accept a telephone conversation of this afternoon between the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Nigeria. We have seen what happened through placing reliance on telephone conversations in the early stages of this matter. I hope we shall not think that, because we started off badly with a telephone conversation, the only correct way to wind it up is to rely on another telephone conversation.

We have the disadvantage that we have not had the exact words of the telephone conversation passed to us, although I do not doubt for a moment that we have had the hon. and learned Gentleman's recollection of what he said and of what the person at the other end of the telephone line said to him. It made him feel in some way or other that the pledge which the Prime Minister had given to this House would be fulfilled if as a result of that conversation we were prepared to take action.

I still believe that the Home Secretary has to satisfy the House that he was right in considering the procedure just. In nothing that he has said so far has he convinced me of that. I am sure that there are many Members of the House who share my difficulty in this matter. I agree that the Home Secretary is entitled to have the help of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. In fact hon. Members will recollect that one evening all three of them were assuring us that they were mutually helping one another, but no one of them was quite sure that the other two understood what they were talking about.

Let us be certain of this. The issue before us tonight is of the utmost importance to one wretched subject of the Crown, this Chief who has been imprisoned for some months now in grave doubt as to what his future is, and who says that he is in fear of his life if he goes back to Nigeria. I hope that the House will feel that its first responsibility is to this man, to see that justice is done to him in this country while he is within our jurisdiction. Because I very much doubt if he will get justice elsewhere, I hope that he will remain within our jurisdiction.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

The case of Chief Enahoro raises important constitutional issues and deep human issues. I think that very often constitutional considerations and human considerations conflict with one another. A good many hon. Members feel that conflict strongly in this case. I do not want to argue that point this evening. I would merely say that the human issue arises primarily on the consideration that this man seems to be getting harsher treatment as a British subject than he might be getting if he were an alien.

I would only remind the House that we control the entry of aliens into this country with the utmost rigour and with the universal consent of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is because of that control that we are able, and have been able for a long time past, to grant political asylum in a great many cases. If we are to assimilate the position of British subjects and aliens in respect of such cases as Chief Enahoro, we shall be taking a long step in the direction of making it essential that we put still further and greater restrictions on the entry of British subjects coming from outside this country.

Mr. Thorpe

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that Section 3 of the Extradition Act specifically makes it mandatory upon the Home Secretary not to extradite or deport somebody charged with a political offence gives some indication of the importance attached to political asylum and, therefore, the readiness with which we would allow an alien who was seeking political asylum to come into this country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That is as may be. All I am saying is that there are duties and there are rights. If we alter one, we shall go a long way towards altering the other, because these are carefully matched and balanced. For my part, I do not wish to see British subjects assimilated to aliens, for this or for any other purpose.

Mr. G. Brown

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he mean that they should be kept in a worse state than aliens?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

They are not in a worse state. What I mean is that the status of a British subject, which is well recognised on both sides of the House and indeed universally, is one which, on the whole, I want to see maintained.

This is concerned with a much narrower question. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the subject of the proposed deportation of Chief Enahoro in breach of the undertaking given to this House by the Prime Minister on 26th March last.That is the whole subject of this debate. The undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite categorical. In fact, he gave it three times, and I should like to read each of those undertakings, because they are of the utmost importance in this connection.

On 26th March, at col. 1283, the Prime Minister said this: I give this undertaking: that until I am satisfied that either this charge is withdrawn, or our legal advisers and others tell me that the view just expressed is absolutely right beyond peradventure, we shall not return this man … At col. 1284 he said: I make this perfectly clear. Until either the charge is withdrawn, or if the lawyers decide and advise— [HON. MEMBERSH 'Which lawyers?'] I am quite prepared that my right hon. Friend and, let us say, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) should agree about this. My right hon. Friend would be quite prepared to consult him. I tell the House that there will be no question of this man being returned if there is any doubt or any question at all of the death penalty being enforceable by the courts. Again, at col. 1286, the Prime Minister said: The view of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is that it is a bad point; but I will give this assurance: we will not return Chief Enahoro until either this is shown by the lawyers, after consideration, to be a bad point, or, if it is held to be a good point, the Nigerian Government have given a definite undertaking that no charge wilt be brought against the Chief carrying the death penalty either now or at any other time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, cc. 1283, 4, 6.] On each occasion my right hon. Friend's assurance is given quite specifically and categorically in the alternative. He uses the words "either, or" in every case.

Mr. Paget

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the bottom of col. 1286 he will see: … that it is not the wish of the Government, or of the House, that there should be any circumstances in which this man should be subject to danger of his life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1286.]

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I think that that is correct. I think that that is the necessary corollary to the specific undertaken given by my right hon. Friend. Certainly, the position was perfectly well understood by the Leader of the Opposition, because in his intervention he said: What he"— the Prime Minister— has said in the middle of a debate on a Motion and Amendment before the House is that the Government will take it back and, when the Attorney-General has had time to consider this admittedly difficult point, if he, the Prime Minister, is then satisfied that the point is not valid, presumably the Chief will be deported; but if the Prime Minister is not so satisfied, then the Chief will be kept here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 1283.] That could hardly be more specific. There is no doubt, therefore, that the Leader of the Opposition knew perfectly well what the pledge was, and that was never contradicted. The question was: what was the meaning of the second charge which was brought against the Chief? On that point, curiously, today next to nothing has been said.

I think that one of the most remarkable things about this debate is that, in spite of the express reference to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), he has not been present in the Chamber for one moment during the debate.

Mr. G. Brown

How could my right hon. and learned Friend have known early today that the debate was coming on? It came on after half-past three. If the hon. Baronet wants to make a point of it, let me make it quite clear to him that my right hon. and learned Friend does not agree with the Attorney-General in his view of the law.

Hon. Members

Where is the Prime Minister?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

We have had a good deal of hearsay evidence—

Mr. Paget

Like the conversation with Nigeria.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton presumably knew a little time ago that he was going to raise this matter, and he could have given his right hon. and learned Friend notice.

One thing which is quite certain is that the subject matter on which this Adjournment Motion was raised has not been referred to at all in the debate today. The case of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was entirely based on the argument that new charges are likely to be brought against the Chief when he gets to Nigeria, and that there is some evidence coming which will tend to show that that is the case.

The whole case put by the Opposition, and, I think, by the right hon. Member for Belper, is that the Opposition are now demanding that there shall be some undertaking that no new charges will be brought. I should be surprised if that is not the tenor of his argument when he gets up to speak.

The Attorney-General has told the House that he has today spoken to the Attorney-General of Nigeria, and he has told us quite categorically that the Attorney-General of Nigeria has said that it is not his intention that any new charges shall be brought against the Chief when he returns to Nigeria. I think that the whole House has accepted that statement, at any rate as far as it goes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hearsay."] We cannot have anything but hearsay. We cannot have the Attorney-General of Nigeria in this House. All that we can do is to take my right hon. Friend's word for it.

The Opposition are asking that there should be some express undertaking given by the Government of Nigeria that that is not their intention. I beg the Opposition not to press that demand. The Attorney-General of Nigeria is the prosecuting authority. It is entirely proper that he should be asked and that he should reply as to his intentions with regard to prosecution.

Mr. W. T. Williams

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been more proper for the Attorney-General to have had that information at his disposal, bearing in mind the Prime Minister's assurance, because today, before this debate was started, the Attorney-General said, "I have no information of any kind that an undertaking had been given that they could be sure that there was no danger of this man losing his life." This is the discreditable episode.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The Opposition keep changing their ground. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. The point that was raised last time was the meaning and the effect of the second of the two charges and the whole debate was about that. The whole argument was: what is the meaning of that and what is the intention of the Government on that? Now the hon. and learned Member for Northampton brings forward a totally different case and says, "Why have not we information about that?" We could go on playing that game for ever. The answer is that it is silly to do so.

The House knows perfectly well that the Opposition are playing cat and mouse and that the Government are being extremely patient. The Opposition have now been taken to the point when they are asking another Government to give an express undertaking that they will not prosecute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That is exactly the Question I expected—because it is entirely improper to suggest that any Government should take a hand in prosecution. That is not the case in this country and I hope that it will not be the case in any British country.

Mr. M. Foot

In that case, why did the Prime Minister put the question to the High Commissioner?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Because it is entirely proper to ask the question of a High Commissioner in the circumstances. At all events, I notice that the hon. Gentleman, by his question, admits the impeachment I bring against him, that the question would be improper. I hope most sincerely that the right hon. Member for Belper will not press the Government to seek any further undertakings beyond that which has already properly been given to my hon. and learned Friend.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

In that speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) we heard the essential conservative—I use the word with a small "c"—attitude to justice. [An HON. MEMBER "No."] If other Conservatives want to fight about it, all right, but it seemed to me that there was the whole philosophy and argument summed up. If we fight for a man's life with all the weapons we can find, this, in the view of the hon. Member for Hendon, South, is somehow wrong. If the Government fight with all the weapons they can find to have a man put in jeopardy, the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is somehow right. In that speech the difference between the two sides of the House today was laid clear.

Earlier in his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not want citizens of the Commonwealth to be assimilated to the position of foreigners. He did not seem to get hold of the point that what the Government are doing here is to put a citizen of the Commonwealth in a worse position than an Arab, a Spaniard, a Portuguese or any other alien. Unless hon. and right hon. Members opposite get hold of that, all these debates will have been abortive. They are putting this man in a position in which no foreigner would be.

I restate now something which I have said each time I have spoken, something which, I hoped, did not need to be said again, but which, perhaps, ought to be said every time. We are not criticising Nigerian justice, Nigerian legal procedure or Nigerian democracy. We accept—not merely take for granted—that Nigeria is a new, emergent nation living its life by devotion to the ideals which matter to us. It is no part of our case to cast doubt upon the ideals of Nigeria. But Nigeria should understand that we have, over the centuries, established traditions here, too. We are entitled to ask Nigeria to understand these traditions.

One of our traditions is that we do not send people from these shores when they are charged with political offences. I have little doubt that Chief Enahoro's case will be the last of its kind. I have little doubt that there will never be another Commonwealth citizen who will find himself worse treated than an alien. I am sure that we shall amend the Fugitive Offenders Act and bring it into line with the Extradition Act.

The question, therefore, is: should we make this man, whose case will be the last of its kind, suffer a penalty because the law was not amended a bit sooner? I am sure that, if the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had, instead of sitting on that bench brooding over us and nudging his colleagues the whole time, occupied his undoubted talents and qualities in explaining this to the Nigerians, we should have had no great problem in this case. I am sure that the Nigerians would have understood.

This is both a proud and a sad night. It is a proud night because for the third or fourth time we have held up the business in the greatest forum of democratic debate in the entire world for the case of one man. I came to the House today with no idea that we should be doing anything tonight but dealing with the Finance Bill. Many things make me proud of standing here, but none more than that tonight unexpectedly I should be speaking to the House about the case of a man I hardly know, whom I have met only once, who, perhaps, does not matter in the great scheme of things but around whom great issues seem to evolve and revolve. I said to one of my colleagues earlier, "There is possibly no other democratic assembly in the world where this could happen", and we feel passionately keen about it.

It is a sad night because this is the end of the road. I have a feeling—perhaps it is unworthy, but I have it—that hon. Members opposite have decided, for the most part, to support their Ministerial colleagues in the Division Lobby and to vote in a way which will send this man back to Nigeria. That is sad because I think that all the issues involved call us not to do it.

I turn to the spinning on a sixpence—it was not even legalistic—which the Attorney-General did earlier today in trying to explain away the Prime Minister's pledges. He held up his sleeve to the very last minute and then produced this rather clever act of the conjurer, this telephone conversation with the Attorney-General in Nigeria, when for weeks and months we had been asking for just such an assurance about which he spoke. He suddenly said, "I have had a telephone conversation". When we asked whether that conversation carried the authentic stamp of Government agreement, he said, "Oh, no". This was, apparently, just two chaps having a chat with each other. It seemed to me that the whole speech was so much below the level of what we are discussing. We are discussing great issues of liberty and individual rights which go back to Runnymede and beyond. There have always been, I regret to say, legalistic gentlemen around to be bought to explain why the rights that we claim ought not to be granted.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South spoke about the changed ground of the Opposition. I wish that he would read the debates all the way through—he, like myself, has sat through most of them—and would consider the changed ground of the Government. They have changed their ground on every single occasion that we have discussed this matter. We are shortly to hear the Home Secretary. I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) that if ever a Minister who claimed that he had absolute responsibility in a matter had been so humiliated beyond what any normal man would stand, it is the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have written the law for him and have explained his judgments for him. If he tells us again tonight that he decided this matter all by himself, I am bound to tell him that there is hardly a man in this House who will believe him.

This has been a political decision. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has sat here all the way through, nudging, whispering and urging. There has been no doubt who has been at the bottom of this decision. The Home Secretary has hardly ever been able to explain for himself the reasons that he has stuck to this decision. He has been the most ineffectual Minister in the whole thing, totally ineffectual. We have had the Attorney-General with his weak, legalistic spinning, the Prime Minister jumping in when the credit of the Government seemed to be at stake and the nudgings of the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary. The only man who never seemed to be in charge here was the one man who had the decision to make.

Today, we have been told, not by the Home Secretary, but by the Attorney-General, about the telephone conversation. Let me ask the Home Secretary what relevance that conversation, of which he had never heard, has to his decision. It is the Home Secretary's decision. He did not speak to the Home Secretary of Nigeria. The Attorney-General spoke to the Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. What relevance did that telephone conversation have to the Home Secretary? He had already made up his mind.

I do not know at what stage the Attorney-General told the Home Secretary about the telephone conversation. The Attorney-General was good enough to tell us that he rang up his opposite number in Nigeria only after my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had got Mr. Speaker's permission to move the Adjournment of the House at seven o'clock. That means that the Attorney-General must have telephoned between 3.30 and 7 p.m. Did the Home Secretary know that he was going to ring up? Did the Home Secretary say, "My decision turns on this"? I am bound to ask the Home Secretary to tell us what relevance that telephone conversation has to a decision for which he alone is responsible. The Home Secretary told us before that he would not be moved by any of these things; he made up his own mind. What relevance did that telephone conversation have?

How does the Home Secretary judge that telephone conversation? Has he a record? Does he know the questions which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General put to the Attorney-General of Nigeria? Does he know what answers were given? Were I Home Secretary, this being my decision, I should want to know exactly what the conversation was and what undertakings were given. Does the Home Secretary know? Is there any record of that conversation or was it just on the "old pals act" between two lawyers.

If the Home Secretary is relying on something that happened inside the last three hours, when he had already ordered the aircraft, when he had already prevented the man's solicitor from going into Brixton to see him, did he know about the conversation when he did that at about 5 o'clock? The Home Secretary should tell us rather more about it.

All I can say is that I am very unimpressed. Since this is the Home Secretary's decision and not the Attorney-General's, will he hold this man here until he can place in the Library a straightforward recording of the conversation, so that we can see what it was the Attorney-General asked and what it was the Nigerian Attorney-General undertook?

Let us have a look. It may well be that the undertakings which the Attorney-General got this afternoon at short notice—very short notice—were the ones we have been asking for in the last weeks. All right. Then let us have a look and see, and if they are I shall not be awkward. I have been asking for these for weeks. If they were the undertakings we have been asking for I will be the first to say how pleased I am. But will the Home Secretary not sign that order till we see this conversation and see just how genuine and how full in fact it was? I think that this is the test, and I and my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side will be very pleased to stand by and have a look at it. I do not think I can be more forthcoming to the Home Secrettary.

Let us have a look. He must want to have a look. He cannot possibly at this stage have any more than the same kind of rather loose statement from the Attorney-General that we had. I do not think that any Home Secretary could make this kind of decision on this kind of statement. He must want to have a look.

Let us recall what we are doing tonight. If we send this man back without really knowing whether he stands trial for his life or not, we are making a new decision which will long outlive us. The very same Attorney who is alleged this afternoon at very short notice to have given the undertakings about new charges which the Nigerian Prime Minister indignantly said he could not be asked to give a few weeks ago, the very same Attorney, is the man who signed the warrant, the affidavit. It is the very same man. It is the man who signed the affidavit which drew the magistrate's attention to the fact that the death penalty already applies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, indeed. His name is T. O. Elias. Is that not right?

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I have seen that document and the signature at the bottom of the list of signatures. It says that what he is certifying in that document is that the signatures of the persons making the affidavit were perfectly in order.

Mr. Brown

It is a certificate which says: At the Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos. For authentication and legalisation of the following signatures". It says: Dated at Lagos this eighth day of December". It is signed: "T. O. Elias." Hon. Members opposite can have it their way if they want it that way. They mean Mr. Elias signs the documents, maybe has telephone conversations that may mean nothing —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us be clear about it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

It is certifying the signatures.

Mr. Brown

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing no service to Nigeria.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Neither is the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke rose

Mr. Brown

No. The hon. Gentleman is doing no service to Nigeria at all. The name of Mr. Elias appears at the bottom of this document and he took responsibility for it.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I have more faith in Mr. Elias than apparently hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

The right hon. Gentlemen is making it extremely difficult for me to support the case which I think ought to be supported tonight, but really do ask him to believe me when I say that he is on a totally false point over this, and he is making it no easier for those of us who want to back my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith).

Mr. Brown

I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He must face his own conscience and make his own decision.

What I am saying is that if I am asked this afternoon to accept the declaration of Mr. Elias on the telephone that he told the Attorney-General that no further charges will be preferred which carry the death penalty I am bound to observe the bottom of the affidavit which drew the attention of the magistrates to the fact that the death penalty is carried by that charge. If hon. Gentlemen tell me that the only point of the signature was to authenticate the signatures of other people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—I doubt whether Mr. Elias would have gone that far unless he accepted what was in the affidavit.

The Attorney-General

This ought to be made clear so that the House is not under any misapprehension about the telephone conversation. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has said that the Attorney-General of Nigeria gave undertakings that additional charges would not be made. I had, I hoped, already made it perfectly clear that this matter arose out of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that there were intentions to add additional charges and that there would be evidence to this effect; and all that I said to the Attorney-General of Nigeria was that this had been said, and he told me that he had no intention at all of adding any such charges or of departing in any way in the proceedings from the charges in respect of which Chief Enahoro had been committed by Bow Street.

Mr. Brown

I do not quite see the point of that. [Interruption.] I ask the House to listen to this. It may be that my argument is wrong, but let hon. Members listen to it. Perhaps the Leader of the House will stop that "H'm, h'ming". It would not be a bad thing if he also started listening, and maybe he would not be in quite the trouble that he is on his own side if he listened a bit more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is too easy to come down here late at night and treat the subject as though it does not matter. This is a serious matter.

I was not quite clear whether the Attorney-General was saying that his opposite number in Nigeria had or had not given him undertakings. I understand that his opposite number had given him an undertaking that no new charges would be preferred. Is that so?

The Attorney-General

I hope that I can make it plain. I think that it is understood. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton said that new evidence was coming and that new charges were going to be added. The only person who can add them is the prosecuting authority in Nigeria, the Attorney-General. So I asked the Attorney-General of Nigeria what substance there was in this statement, and he said that there was no intention, as I have told the House, by him as the prosecuting authority to add any new charges or to depart at all from the charges on which Chief Enahoro was to be returned by Bow Street.

Mr. Brown

Let us get this clear again. [Laughter.] This is very important. Has the Attorney-General of Nigeria told the Attorney-General of Great Britain that no further charges will be preferred against Chief Enahoro if and when he goes back?

The Attorney-General

I will repeat what I have already said. The Attorney-General of Nigeria has said that there is nothing whatever in the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there is an intention to add any additional charges, whether capital or not.

Mr. Brown

Are we not really spinning now? I asked: would any further charges be preferred? The Attorney-General keeps getting up and saying, with a lot of words, "There is no intention." Is that the same thing?

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that?

Mr. Brown

I asked the Attorney-General: is that the same thing? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Is that the same thing? Does "no intention" mean that there will be no further charges?

The Attorney-General

It depends upon what reliance one places on the word of the Attorney-General in Nigeria.

Mr. Brown

It is the word of our Attorney-General with which I am concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Attorney-General of Great Britain has to uphold a very honourable office. Does he believe that no further charges will be preferred?

The Attorney-General

I will give my personal opinion. I certainly believe the word of my colleague, the Attorney-General of Nigeria, who told me that he did not intend to add any further charges. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that in these circumstances he would not do so.

Mr. Brown

I shall be very surprised if that satisfies hon. Members opposite. We have now had four or five attempts and still the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say that no further charges will be preferred. Let hon. Members opposite understand that if they vote tonight for the Government they are voting for something to which the Attorney-General is not willing to commit himself.

The point is that the Attorney-General gave an assurance, and the Prime Minister's honour is wrapped up in this. The Prime Minister said, "We will not send this man back if there is any doubt". Does the House believe that the Attorney-General would have gone on word spinning like that unless there were doubt? It would be very simple for him to say, "I have been assured this afternoon that no further charges will be preferred". But that is the one thing he cannot say, and it leaves the Prime Minister's assurance totally in doubt. It leaves it totally unredeemed.

The fact is that, even having gone to the length of telephoning to Nigeria this afternoon, the Attorney-General still failed to extract the only undertaking that would have let the Prime Minister off the hook. All this word spinning leaves the thing in doubt. The Prime Minister said that the Government would not send Chief Enahoro hack if there were any doubt.

I must sit down to allow the Home Secretary time to reply. I say this in conclusion. This man's life is in danger. There is a great deal of doubt about existing charges. There is a great deal of doubt about whether they carry the death penalty. There is a lot of doubt about whether, if Chief Enahoro goes back, further charges will be preferred in order to make the penalty clear. Everyone has tried. The Prime Minister tried to get an undertaking from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations tried. This afternoon, dramatically, the Attorney-General tried. Every one of them has failed.

The Attorney-General

I did not attempt to get an undertaking from the Attorney-General of Nigeria. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that I have made my position clear. The only issue I discussed with him was the allegation made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.

Mr. Brown

So now we have it. The reason that the Attorney-General kept spinning words was that he not only did not get an undertaking but did not even try to get it. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. The assurance that he gave was that this man would not go back unless we got such an undertaking. Not only have we not got it but the Government have not even today tried to get it. The Government are covered with shame. So will anybody else be who votes with them tonight.

9.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I have been left a quarter of an hour and after that speech I should remind the House that what we are debating is my decision that it is just to send Chief Enahoro back to Nigeria. Other hon. Members may have changed their ground. I have never done. I gave that decision to the House two months ago. I have stood by it.

I was asked by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) whether this telephone call was relevant to my decision. How could it have been relevant to a decision which I took two months ago? It was relevant simply and solely to an allegation which turned out to be a false allegation made this afternoon by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and which was the occasion for this debate.

The House has to weigh tonight, as it has so often had to do through its history, the balance of freedom and justice. Hon. Members have said that this is a question of the freedom of an individual. It also must be a question of justice, because there is no freedom for the individual unless law and order prevail. The Fugitive Offenders Act puts on me the grave responsibility, which only I can carry, of determining whether it is just to send a man back to Nigeria, fortunately in this case in no danger of his life.

It has not been made easier for me to carry this responsibility by allegations which have been made in the debate falsifying what I have said. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who made a bitter personal attack on me, alleged that I had admitted that on 14th March I had not considered any of the other aspects of the case except the course of the legal proceedings. That was a serious charge. What I said to the House on 14th March was: I have given most careful consideration to all aspects of this difficult case and to all the representations which have been made to me by Chief Enahoro and on his behalf".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1963; Vol. 673. c. 1543.] Hon. Members have said that I should have changed my decision because it seemed possible that there was a likeli- hood of a capital charge. In fact, in the petition which Chief Enahoro submitted to me in February there was no suggestion whatever that he thought that he was liable to the death penalty if he returned to Nigeria. I respect what my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. D. Smith) says—that at this moment Chief Enahoro feels that he may be in danger of his life. But if he had felt that in February, he would undoubtedly have included it in the petition which he submitted to me seeking to convince me that it would not be just to return him to Nigeria.

It is interesting to look back over the course of events with regard to the death penalty. As long ago as 21st March, in the first long debate which we had on this subject, I said: Let me add … that there is no question of Chief Enahoro being sent back to stand trial for his life, The offences for which he is charged under Nigerian law do not carry the death penalty."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 21st March. 1963; Vol. 674, c. 601.] That was said in the House at five o'clock in the afternoon and it was not challenged by anybody, not challenged even by learned counsel for Chief Enahoro, who was present in the House when I said those words. This suggestion that has later come, that he is in danger of his life, was not supported by any of the evidence which was put before the Divisional Court or before the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords and, I find most convincing of all, never put in his petition to me.

All that has happened today is that because a fresh debate was called for, simply and solely, so far as I can judge, on allegations made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there was some possibility of additional charges which carried the death penalty being about to be made, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General telephoned the Attorney-General of Nigeria and received the reply of which the House is aware.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that because there happens to be in the House counsel who has appeared for Chief Enahoro when the matter is debated, and he fails to intervene in the debate, that is an acknowledgement on his part of the rightness of what the Home Secretary is saying? The right hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that Members of Parliament who appear as counsel have no right, under the standards of their profession, and under the rules of this House, to intervene in matters where they have appeared professionally in a court of law.

Mr. Brooke

I was simply and solely making the point that when as long ago as 21st March I said in the House that there was no question of Chief Enahoro being liable to the death penalty, nobody interfered, nobody raised the point, and that it was not until a subsequent debate that it was first alleged that there might be any question of the death penalty, an allegation which has been totally disposed of by what the Attorney-General has since said.

I want to take up further points which have been made in the debate, and to take up if I can each of what were put to the House as being the most damaging ones. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) suggested that an assurance had been given by the Home Office that if Chief Enahoro came to this country he would be free from risk. No assurance of that kind was ever given. I set out the facts of this at length in the debate on 21st March, and they are there on the record for all time. The only assurance that was given was that Chief Enahoro could be admitted to this country if he came here, but he was told of the existence of the Fugitive Offenders Act, he was told that he might be at risk of arrest under it, and he was told where he could get further information about that fact.

If action is taken under the Fugitive Offenders Act it does not originate with the United Kingdom Government. It originates with the overseas Government. No one in this country can say what an overseas Government will do, but it is the fact that Chief Enahoro's friend was informed about the Fugitive Offenders Act, and he was informed where he could get the information.

Mr. Stonehouse

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Chief Enahoro's friend does not agree with the interpretation of the conversation which the Home Secretary reported to the House, and that the Chief's friend still confirms that his understanding was that he had an assurance that Chief Enahoro would be free from arrest.

Mr. Brooke

I am saying that no assurance was given. I did what I thought was the right thing. I invited him and the Home Office official concerned to my room and we went over all the facts, and what I said in the House on 21st March was as accurate an account as I could possibly give of what took place at that time.

Mr. G. Brown

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman called a genuine misunderstanding when he spoke to us before, would not the easiest way out of this be to let the man go back to where he was before the misunderstanding, namely, to Dublin?

Mr. Brooke

I do not think that that outweighs the conviction to which I have come, and which I have stood by, that it would be just in all the circumstances to return him to Nigeria.

Allegations were made that this would not have happened to the man if he had been an alien instead of a Commonwealth citizen. This is not true. The Fugitive Offenders Act applies absolutely equally to Commonwealth citizens and to foreigners. If he had been a foreigner who had been mixed up in these affairs in Nigeria he would have been just as much liable to extradition under the Fugitive Offenders Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent-ford and Chiswick quoted at some length from the proceedings in Nigeria, which suggested that certain evidence in the trial of Chief Awolowo had been obtained under duress. These are matters for the Nigerian courts. That evidence has been considered and weighed by the Nigerian courts, and any further evidence that was brought forward against Chief Enahoro would likewise be weighed and considered there. The House must make up its mind whether or not is has confidence in the courts of Nigeria.

The right hon. Member for Belper assured us that nothing had been said against their integrity. On the other hand, his right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said—and I took down his words—that he did not believe that justice could be ensured for this man if he returned to Nigeria. I cannot read that as anything but a criticism of the Nigerian courts or the Nigerian legal system.

Hon. Members have suggested that this is a political offence, which should not be made the subject of action under the Fugitive Offenders Act. I would remind the House of the allegations made against Chief Enahoro and others who were said to have taken part in this plot. Chief Enahoro is alleged to have taken part in a plot, with the aid of arms and explosives imported from outside the country, to capture key towns in Nigeria and to seize the Prime Minister and other Federal Ministers, and assume control—in other words, to overthrow by forcible means the lawfully constituted and democratically elected Government of the country.

That is the nature of the charge which is being preferred against Chief Enahoro and other members of his party. That is the plot in which Chief Enahoro is alleged to have been involved, and I have said from the beginning, having taken everything into account, that. I think that it is just that he should return to Nigeria and stand his trial there. He claims that he has a complete answer to all these charges. The place where that complete answer should be given and established is in the courts of Nigeria.

The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the assurances that the Prime Minister gave. Those assurances have been fulfilled to the letter. What he said was that either it would be established that those charges on which Chief Enahoro was to be arraigned did not carry the death penalty, or, if they did carry the death penalty, he wished for an assurance that they would be withdrawn and that no other such charges would be brought. It has been completely established that these charges do not carry the death penalty. The allegations made today that there is some intention of preferring new charges which do carry the death penalty have been explicitly refuted by the Attorney-General of Nigeria.

In those circumstances, I suggest to the House that there is no reason for it to depart from the decision that it reached five weeks ago, that is, to uphold my decision that it is just to return Chief Enahoro.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 247.

Division No. 111.] AYES [9.59 p.m.
Abse, Leo Harper, Joseph Pavitt, Laurence
Ainsley, William Harris, Reader (Heston) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hart, Mrs. Judith Pentland, Norman
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hayman, F. H. Prentice, R. E.
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Healey, Denis Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis) Probert, Arthur
Baird, John Herbison, Miss Margaret Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Rankin, John
Baxter, William (Stirlingshlre, W.) Hilton, A. V. Redhead, E. C.
Beaney, Alan Holman, Percy Reid, William
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hooson, H. E. Reynolds, G. W.
Benson, Sir George Houghton, Douglas Rhodes, H.
Biffen, John Hoy, James H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Blyton, William Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Boardman, H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W.(Leics, S.W.) Hunter, A. E. Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Ross, William
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Boyle, Charles (Salford, West)
Bradley, Tom Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Short, Edward
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jeger, George Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Skeffington, Arthur
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechtord) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Rt.Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Small, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jones, Dan (Burnley) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cliffe, Michael Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Collick, Percy Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Snow, Julian
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Kelley, Richard Spriggs, Leslie
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kenyon, Clifford Steele, Thomas
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kerby, Capt. Henry Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cronin, John King, Dr. Horace Stonehouse, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Stones, William
Dalyeil, Tam Lee, Frederick (Newton) Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Darling, George Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Swingler, Stephen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Loughlin, Charles Taverne, D.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield'
Davies, Ifor (Gower) McBride, N. Thomas, lorwerlh (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McInnes, James Thornton, Ernest
Deer, George McKay, John (Wallsend) Thorpe, Jeremy
Delargy, Hugh Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Timmons, John
Dempsey, James McLeavy, Frank Tomney, Frank
Diamond, John Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wade, Donald
Dodds, Norman Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin
Donnelly, Desmond Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Mapp, Charles Weitzman, David
Edwards, RI. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Marsh, Richard Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mason, Roy Whitlock, William
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Millan, Bruce Wilkins, W. A.
Fell, Anthony Milne, Edward Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Fernyhough, E. Mitchison, C. R. Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Fitch, Alan Monslow, Walter Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Fletcher, Eric Morris, John Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Neal, Harold Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Forman, J. C. Oliver, C. H. Winterbottom, R. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) O'Malley, B. K. Woof, Robert
Galpern, Sir Myer Oram, A. E. Wyatt, Woodrow
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Oswald, Thomas Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Ginsburg, David Paget, R. T. Zilliacus, K.
Gourley, Harry Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Grey, Charles Pargiter, G. A. ELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Parker, John Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Parkin, B. T. Mr. McCann.
Hannan, William Paton, John
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Batstord, Brian Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Allason, James Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goa & Fhm) Braine, Bernard
Arbuthnot, John Berkeley, Humphry Brewis, John
Ashton, Sir Hubert Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Atkins, Humphrey Bingham, R. M. Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Brooman-White, R.
Balniel, Lord Bishop, F. P. Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Barber, Anthony Black, Sir Cyril Buck, Antony
Barlow, Sir John Bourne-Aston, A. Bullard, Denys
Barter, John Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Burden, F. A. Hollingworth, John Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Pilkington, Sir Richard
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hopkins, Alan Pitman, Sir James
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hornby, R. P. Pitt, Dame Edith
Cary, Sir Robert Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Pott, Percivall
Channon, H. P. G. Howard, John (Southampton, Teat) Prior, J. M. L.
Chataway, Christopher Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hughes-Young, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hurd, Sir Anthony Pym, Francis
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Ramsden, James
Cleaver, Leonard Iremonger, T. L. Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Cole, Norman Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cooke, Robert James, David Rees, Hugh
Cooper, A. E. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Rees-Davies, W. R.
Corfield, F. V. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Costain, A. P. Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Ridsdale, Julian
Coulson, Michael Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Kaberry, Sir Donald Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Crawley, Aidan Kerr, Sir Hamilton Roots, William
Critchley, Julian Kershaw, Anthony Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kimball, Marcus Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Cunningham, Knox Kitson, Timothy Russell, Ronald
Curran, Charles Lagden, Godfrey Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Currie, C. B. H. Leather, Sir Edwin Seymour, Leslie
Dalkeith, Earl of Leavey, J. A. Sharpies, Richard
Dance, James Leburn, Gilmour Shaw, M.
d' Avigdor-Goldemid, Sir Henry Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shepherd, William
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. Linstead, Sir Hugh Skeet, T. H. H.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Litchfield, Capt. John Smithers, Peter
Doughty, Charles Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geolfrey (Sut'nC'dfiefd) Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Drayson, G. B. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
du Cann, Edward Longbottom, Charles Spearman, Sir Alexander
Duncan, Sir James Leveys, Walter H. Spelr, Rupert
Eden, Sir John Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Stodart, J. A.
Emery, Peter McAdden, Sir Stephen Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Errington, Sir Eric MacArthur, Ian Storey, Sir Samuel
Farr, John McLaren, Martin Studholme, Sir Henry
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Summers, Sir Spencer
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Talbot, John E.
Freeth, Denzil Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs) Tapaell, Peter
Gammons, Lady Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Gardner, Edward MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
George, Sir John (pollok) McMaster, Stanley R. Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley) Temple, John M.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall(Dumfries) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Glover, Sir Douglas Maddan, Martin Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Maginnis, John E. Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Goodhart, Philip Maitland, Sir John Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Goodhew, Victor Markham, Major Sir Frank Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Gough, Frederick Marshall, Douglas Tilley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Gower, Raymond Marten, Nell Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Green, Alan Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mawby, Ray Turner, Colin
Gresham Cooke, R. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Vickers, Miss Joan
Gurden, Harold Miscamphell, Norman Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Montgomery, Fergus Walder, David
Harrison, Brian (Malden) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Walker, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morrison, John Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Ward, Dame Irene
Harvie Anderson, Miss Neave, Airey Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hastings, Stephen Nicholls, Sir Harmar Whitelaw, William
Hay, John Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Llonel Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Wise, A. R.
Hendry, Forbes Osborn, John (Hallam) Woodhouse, C. M.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Woollam, John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Page, Graham (Crosby) Worsley, Marcus
Hirst, Geoffrey Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Hobson, Sir John Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hocking, Philip N. Peel, John Mr. Chichester-Clark and
Holland, Philip Percival, Ian M. Finlay.
Forward to