HC Deb 16 March 1972 vol 833 cc924-32

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I wish to draw to the attention of the House the case of Bishop Colin Winter, who was recently expelled from Namibia by the South African Government.

It is a reflection upon the procedure of this House that when I tried to raise this matter immediately after the announcement of the expulsion by means of a Private Notice Question it was rejected by Mr. Speaker. There is no means of producing a debate about an issue of such importance other than an Adjournment debate, and I am successful in raising it, even a fortnight later, only by the consideration of Mr. Speaker himself. I am grateful for that consideration, but it would have been much more helpful if we could have had some comment about it before the bishop was actually expelled from the area, in complete violation of the original mandate to this country which was passed on to the South African Government, and in complete violation of the decision of the Security Council that South Africa has no legal right to exercise any power in Namibia itself.

What concerns me about the case is that it is a sad reflection upon Her Majesty's Government's professed desire to change the racial policies of the South African Government by dialogue rather than by confrontation and that, when the moment comes to speak, Her Majesty's Government are found without the power of speech. All this has happened in a case where a British bishop has been removed—illegally, in my submission—from an area which, under the United Nations, is not even within the province of South Africa. No kind of protest has been made by the Foreign Office to the South African Government. No secret representations have even been made to the South African Government, apparently upon the completely spurious excuse that Her Majesty's Government are waiting for the facts.

It may be that Her Majesty's Government do not have the original affidavit put in by Bishop Winter to the court at Windhoek. It may be that they do not have the judgment of the court at Windhoek. But they do not really need it to comment upon the morality of this case and to express their strong dissent from what has happened.

No one who knows Bishop Winter could suggest that he would ever support any kind of violent resistance, even to the South African system of apartheid that he abhors so much. He has been a pacifist all his life. Throughout the years that he has been in Namibia his ministry has been evidently successful in cementing relationships between black and white. His has been the only voice to stand out for the rights of blacks who live in Namibia.

The real tragedy of this case is that at one fell swoop, by expelling him and the treasurer of the diocese and one of the priests, the South African Government have completely stifled every white voice of liberal dissent in their régime. It may be that if they were to expel the Dean of Johannesburg in due course, there would be other liberal voices left in South Africa who could take his place; but, from my experience when I was there only two months ago, I can testify to the fact that there are no other liberal whites who will support the African cause. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that Bishop Winter has been singled out for this treatment.

No suggestion was made before the court or elsewhere that the Bishop Winter had been responsible for any kind of violence. Indeed, in his last visit to Ovamboland, when his permit was withdrawn as he was there, he went to see the chairman of the strike committee of the Ovombos to protest to him about an alleged violent eruption in one of the villages in Ovamboland and to ask him to control whoever was responsible in order that this should not cast a slur upon the dignified protest of the Ovambo strikers against their system of contract labour.

Such is this man. Yet what happened? The South African Government, conscious of the difficulties of expelling a missionary in complete violation of the express terms of the mandate, actually passed in one afternoon an Amendment to the 1920 Proclamation to cover as undesirable residents the cases of the bishop, his two assistants, and a girl teacher.

Having done this in the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek—I repeat, with- out the legal power to do it—they took proceedings to expel the bishop within a few days.

Surely the British Government, through their embassy in Pretoria, could have said something. I gather that when Bishop Winter got to Cape Town and went to talk to the consulate about this matter, the officials there appeared to be indifferent to his plight, and to the case, and talked in legalisms about getting the facts, and then, as he discovered later, circulated rumours round the city that they were not taking much of an interest in the case because—to use their phrase—he was bonkers. If that was ever said by any member of the British embassy in Pretoria or of the consulate in Cape Town he ought to be ashamed of himself, because this man is one of the most significant figures in Southern Africa.

When Bishop Winter left his diocese as a result of this expulsion there were hundreds of Africans singing and crying at the same time that he, their friend, their father in God, should be leaving them, and leaving them without any other white voice to comfort them. His ministry has been a triumphant assertion of his faith and of his belief that all men are equal in the sight of God. For anybody who takes a different view about the way to deal with South Africa, to reflect upon his integrity or upon his intelligence is an insult.

No doubt the Government will eschew such an assertion about him, but they cannot, when they have remained silent for a fortnight whilst this man has been expelled, make the pretence that they are anxious to do something about the plight of Africans in general, or about 13,000 Ovambo strikers in particular. It would be rank hypocrisy for them to say anything at all on the subject of racial conditions in Southern Africa when they keep silent in the face of monstrous injustice like this.

Therefore, I hope that even at this late stage the Government will open their mouths. They can. They need not resort to the suggestion that any Government can expel anyone they want. If this Government make a protest to their South African friends, it would have enormous repercussions. How can they expect any British voice to stand up courageously to the South African apartheid system if it will not be backed in the final analysis by its own Government at home?

All I ask is that there should be a protest, there should be a word, there should be some suggestion to Mr. Vorster, even through the ambassador in this country that this conduct is intolerable and should be reversed. That might have a considerable effect. It is not much to ask, but in God's name it is about time that it was done.

11.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw)

Bishop Colin Winter of Damaraland, who is a citizen solely of the United Kingdom, has been in South-West Africa for the past 13 years. He has been a consistently vociferous critic of the policies of the South African Government in South-West Africa. He has repeatedly expressed views critical of apartheid and of the treatment of Africans in the territory, in his sermons, his public statements and his writings.

When the Ovambo strike began in December, 1971, Bishop Winter was on holiday in Cape Town. He returned to South-West Africa some time later and spoke out in favour of the strike, which he regarded as thoroughly just. He played a major part in financing the defence of the 12 strikers who are being tried at Windhoek. On 28th February, he was refused permission to enter Ovamboland, which forms a large part of his diocese, and he was later served with an order to leave South-West Africa by noon on 4th March.

Similar orders were served on the Rev. Stephen Hayes, deputy parish priest in charge, Dr. David De Beer, Diocesan Treasurer, and a Miss Halberstadt, all of whom, I understand, are South African citizens. All four appealed to the courts against the decision, but their appeal was rejected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Bishop Winter subsequently went to Cape Town and flew directly to Britain on Thursday of last week. He has since made it plain to television and the Press that he considers his expulsion to have been unjust.

He has been to see my noble Friend the Marquess of Lothian and has explained to him his views in this matter, which now the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has deployed before the House. I understand that Bishop Winter has now left for New York with the intention of laying his case before the authorities of the United Nations.

Bishop Winter made clear to my noble Friend, and the hon. Gentleman has repeated this view tonight, that he considered that Her Majesty's Government should have been more active on his behalf, and in particular should have protested to the South African Government about his expulsion.

The hon. Gentleman—though not, I think, Bishop Winter—will realise that Her Majesty's Government cannot usefully officially protest to a foreign Government in matters such as this unless there are legal grounds in international law for doing so. It is therefore necessary to examine the legal position.

The Undesirables Removal Proclamation, 1920 gives, in Section (1)(a) to the administrators of the territory, the power to order the removal from the Protectorate of persons of undesirable character if he is satisfied inter aliathat there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person within the territory is dangerous to the peace, order or good government of the territory. The House will note that the person who is removed need not himself commit any overt act.

By Section (1)(c) any person who is not a British subject may be removed if he has engaged actively in political propaganda. That is to imply that British subjects may engage in political propaganda but it does not imply that Section (1)(a) is overridden, so that a British subject could engage in political propaganda and not be beyond the reach of Section (1)(a).

It is, however, the case that in the Supreme Court no reliance was placed on Section (1)(c) and, in any event, by Section (3) of the Proclamation of 1920, it is laid down that no court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any direction made under this Section by the Administration of the territory.

I have studied the judgment of the Supreme Court of Windhoek in the proceedings brought by the bishop. I am satisfied, and I am so advised, that there is nothing in those proceedings which could form the basis for a protest by Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, the bishop himself, when he spoke with my noble Friend, conceded that the opinion of the Supreme Court was one which should be treated with respect. So far, therefore, we have nothing to justify on legal grounds, which are the only sure grounds, any protest.

There remains, however, Article 5 of the League of Nations Mandate, which reads: Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of public order and public morals, the Mandatory shall ensure in the territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship and shall allow all missionaries, nationals of any state, Member of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling. I assume that the South African Government would argue that the qualifying provision at the beginning of the Article would justify the action taken. Because, however, Her Majesty's Government consider that the Mandate still subsists, we have in certain circumstances a consequential right to make representations to the mandatory power.

We have, therefore, instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Cape Town formally to inquire of the South African Government their reasons for the expulsion from the territory of Bishop Winter, and we await their reply. If we find their reply unsatisfactory, we will, of course, pursue the matter further.

There are a number of subsidiary points. Bishop Winter quoted to my noble Friend an opinion of a Professor Dugard of Witwatersrand University that Her Majesty's Government had a duty to protest. I do not accept that. In British law no duty is laid on the Government to lodge such a protest. Whether or not that is so in South African law I do not know, but it is certainly not the case here.

Bishop Winter also said that the South African Government had no legal right to expel an Anglican bishop. I am afraid that I must disabuse him. Whatever may be the case in the next world, in this one bishops can be expelled like anyone else. If, however, the bishop had in mind the terms of Article 5 of the Mandate which I have quoted, then, as I say, we are formally making inquiry of the South African Government.

Bishop Winter has also called in question the power of the South African Government to amend Proclamation 50, and says we should have protested when that was done. It is not yet known to us under what authority these amendments were made, but we do know that the Supreme Court ruled that they were validly made, and we respect the integrity of that court.

Bishop Winter also said that we should have insisted to the South African Government that he be brought to trial, rather than have his character blackened by an unexplained expulsion. But the South African Government, as I have said, do not to our knowledge aver that the bishop has himself committed any offence that would warrant him being brought to trial. All they say is that his presence in the territory is dangerous to peace, order and good government. We cannot, therefore, protest on that ground.

Mr. Lyon

Why?

Mr. Kershaw

Because, as I have said, since the bishop is not to our knowledge judged by the South African Government to have committed any offence that could bring him to trial, we cannot protest that he has not been brought to trial. He is not charged with anything for which he could be brought to trial in that way.

As for the bishop's allegation that the post in Cape Town said he was bonkers, I have no information about that. I certainly find it hard to believe, and I certainly take note of the fact that when the bishop called upon my noble Friend he never mentioned that, and made no complaint about it—and they had a long conversation which I think went to the depths of the matter.

Finally, in speaking with my noble Friend, the bishop said that the real reason that Her Majesty's Government have not protested is that they are too conscious of our economic interests to wish to jeopardise them for the sake of moral interests. I reject that absolutely. Her Majesty's Government have never neglected to stand up for the legal rights of British citizens abroad, and we are not neglecting that duty now. I have explained that we are doing what in fact is possible for Bishop Winter. The economic interests of this country in South Africa are totally irrelevant to the matter before us.

A few hon. Members repeatedly come back to the economic issue. We on this side of the House do not believe that an economic boycott of South Africa would serve any useful purpose whatsoever. Nor did the party opposite believe that when they were in office; during their period in office they made the most strenuous efforts, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to increase our trade with South Africa, and not only with South Africa but with South West Africa as well, where they contracted for the purchase of the large quantities of uranium which are the basis of our supply of that commodity.

I respect the feelings of the hon. Member for York, who has always been frank about his opinions on South Africa, but in this case his enthusiasm in this cause blinds him to what are in fact the possibilities open to Her Majesty's Government. We are not today in the world of Palmerston and Don Pacifico, and it is not in the interests of British subjects that we should protest unless we have a legal basis for doing so.

But I must make it clear that at the same time we have the greatest possible sympathy for the bishop. We realise that he, his wife and his family—I believe that he has five children with him—have been ejected from the diocese where for the past 13 years he has been striving and seeking to do the work of God. We realise that he is a voice which represents an opinion in that part of the world which probably cannot now be duplicated, and that he feels, as he said to my noble Friend, deeply hurt and disappointed that his mission has been brought to an end in this way.

I am sure that the whole House and the people of this country will have the greatest possible sympathy for him. But I nevertheless say that in this matter Her Majesty's Government are doing what is possible, are doing what is right, and I reject the criticism that has been laid upon us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.