HC Deb 30 July 1974 vol 878 cc758-68

4.38 a.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Many hon. Members have in recent months put down Parliamentary Questions about British citizens imprisoned in African countries, notably in Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania. I think that this is the first adjournment debate on the subject, but the plethora of Parliamentary Questions and this debate underline the growing concern about this matter that now exists on both sides of the House.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the question of Mr. Andrew Petrie imprisoned in Zambia, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised the question of Mr. Miles, also imprisoned in Zambia, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) raised the question of Mr. Coles imprisoned in Zambia and in the last Parliament my then hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, Mr. Soref, raised the question of Mr. Percy Cleaver imprisoned in Tanzania, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised the question of Mr. and Mrs. Mackay who were imprisoned in Malawi.

No one would criticise any country for taking action against criminals or wrongdoers. That is not what I seek to this Adjournment debate, and it is not what any hon. Member would seek to do. What concerns us all is that so many of these people are held under local laws which permit prisoners to be kept without charge or trial for many months. Mr. Andrew Petrie was so held, and so were Mr Miles and Mr. Coles after being most savagely beaten up for no offence whatsoever by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South called thugs in the Zambian Army.

Mr. Percy Cleaver was held for 11 months without trial and when the trial was held it was carried out in secret. I do not know whether it is known why Mr. Percy Cleaver has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, but certain it is that he waited a long time before the charge against him was heard.

Mr. and Mrs. Mackay were held for nine months in Malawi on a Presidential detention order of indefinite duration. Finally, they were tried for having three books that were banned in Malawi. I do not know what those books were, but I bet that they were not "Clockwork Orange" or "Forever Amber" I wonder whether persons going into Malawi are told that the Government feel that possession of certain books is such a serious matter that anyone having them will be thrown into prison for as long as this married couple were ordered to be detained.

When the trial came on, Mr. and Mrs. Mackay pleaded guilty. Indeed, there was little else for them to do. They were fined £200 and sent to prison. It was an incredibly heavy fine and long sentence for such a crime. I gather that the alternative to paying the fine of £200 was for both to serve another nine months' imprisonment.

It was only yesterday morning that I received a letter from a lady who lives in Bulawayo. She writes as follows: My husband, Peter Jack, has been detained, by special order in Chichire Prison, near Blantyre since April 24th and I do not know, at this time, if, or when, he will be released. … My letter may not be of any assistance to my husband but I hope it may make the British authorities aware of current trends in Malawi and possibly prevent other British nationals from a similar 'fate'. My husband is a professional man being an ACCA and FCIS and is a very honest man. Indeed, he is quite aware that to knowingly become involved in misdemeanours he could not only forfeit his position, but his qualifications as well. His position is that of Director of a property holding group and he is a Rhodesian resident. although he is a Britisher. Approximately three years ago he was asked to sort out the Malawian affairs of a trading company owned by the holding group, and subsequently visited Malawi on several occasions to do this. … In January 1974 we were informed that the Malawian police had raided the company and the home of the Rhodesian manager and his wife. All their personal effects, such as letters and passports were confiscated and the Malawian CID stated that my husband was to proceed to Blantyre to assist them. … On Tuesday 23rd April he was asked to go again to Blantyre and to sign there for the passports of the manager and his wife, which would then be returned to them. I was concerned for my husband's safety but he stated he was not afraid to go again to Blantyre, as he had not … done anything wrong. He proceeded to Malawi on April 24th, was arrested and detained by special order, no charges being laid. … The authorities continued to detain the manager and my husband in Chichire prison and said they would be held 'indefinitely' if the managing director did not also proceed to Malawi. It then seems that the managing director did go to Malawi and was imprisoned as well. This lady says The charge of late share registration was later dropped and the managing director released within three days of his detention. He seems to be of the opinion that this was due to the intervention of the South African authorities but the British High Commission were unable to help my husband. The latter alarmed me … Subsequently I received a letter from the Foreign Office informing me that detention without trial was quite legal in Malawi. This lady goes on to say For myself, I commend the British High Commission in Malawi, particularly a Mr. W. Jones who has spared no effort to help us and who has both tried to speed up matters and obtained medical treatment for my husband who has a duodenal ulcer. I am aware that things must be rather difficult for the British High Commission at this time, as several persons have been deported. Certainly British nationals should be discouraged from accepting employment in Malawi at present.

The letter continues: Wives, and even teenagers, have been detained in Chichire, which is a far from pleasant experience. Unfortunately, the Malawian police have open disrespect for Britain, saying they can 'do what they like' to British people without rebuke. I hope that Britain will soon take a firmer line with these emerging States. This lady goes on to say that she has worked with African people for many years and is rather fond of them, but she is upset at what is happening—and what is happening to her husband, as he has been in prison for so long and she apparently has no way of knowing when he is to be released.

Then there was the case very recently which brought this whole situation to my notice—the case of Mrs. Sue Farrow. Hon. Members will know that this quite young lady is the wife of a man who is in Malawi as a technician with the post office. She criticised one of Dr. Banda's speeches. She did this during the morning—I gather that she worked part-time—and was told that she would be reported. She immediately apologised, but they came for her at 3.30 that afternoon and took her away. She had to leave her children. She was not allowed to telephone the British High Commission. When she asked the people who had taken her away about the Geneva Convention, they said that Malawi was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and that she had no right to ask to see the British High Commissioner whatsoever.

Mrs. Farrow was thrown into a filthy prison. She was told that she would be there for 28 days. However, she was released the next day. While there she saw other British prisoners but was not allowed to speak to them. She had a brief conversation with one man who just had time to tell her that he was from Richmond—though whether it was the Richmond in Yorkshire or in Surrey she did not know—before he was taken away.

Mrs. Farrow spent an appalling night. I shall not burden the House with the details of that night, but I know that it is one that will never clear from her memory. She was desperately worried about her children. I do not doubt that she also had some reservations about her own safety. However, she was taken out the next day and given 24 hours to leave Malawi. She tells me that air mail from the country is censored and she said that it has been made clear by the Malawian Government that if the friends of anyone who is at present in prison should contact Amnesty International the sentences will be increased and if any Briton is arrogant—that is the word; arrogance is apparently a great sin—that Briton will be deported. She states that white people are being increasingly badly treated in Malawi.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and I questioned the Minister as to what representations have been made to the Malawian authorities about Mrs. Farrow's case. My hon. Friend and I were astounded to learn that no representations have been made. Later I learned from the reply to a Parliamentary Question that 84 British citizens are imprisoned in Africa. I am not arguing for those who have committed crimes, wherever they may be. I am most certainly arguing for those who have not committed crimes, in whatever part of Africa they may be. Some of those 84—indeed, the majority of them—have been charged and tried and are serving sentences. It is the others with whom I am concerned.

Is it not possible for this country as the head of the Commonwealth to bring pressure to bear on these countries, which are members of the Commonwealth? This is a blatant denial of the most basic human right of all—the right of freedom. As early as 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated in Article 13(1) that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Article 13(2) referred to the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. These broadly stated standards are bolstered by the prohibition in Article 9 against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

On 16th December 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, inter alia: Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. That is clear enough.

Health organisations condemn and deplore what is going on in Africa, and I on behalf of the British people who are held there condemn and deplore what is going on. I strongly resent the fact that these people have been held for months or years without trial or charge and that successive British Governments apparently have done little to stop it.

On the passport with which a United Kingdom citizen travels abroad there appear some famous words: Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance …". Those are, perhaps, florid words, but they are fine words and their meaning is perfectly clear. Those who carry British passports might well say that they are empty words when they look from the wrong side of a Malawian prison.

Is it not possible for the Government to point out these things to Dr. Nyerere, Dr. Banda and Dr. Kaunda? If they will not listen to justice and reason, is it unreasonable to consider that we might cut off the aid which Britain extends to them?

On 27th June the Minister of Overseas Development told the House—column 541—that the new aid programme to Malawi should be not less than £15 million and not more than £18 million. According to a Written Answer in column 564 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th June this year, grants and loans in 1973 to Tanzania totalled £222,200, and in the same year the figures for Zambia were £5,500,000 in grants and £2,147,000 in loans. Why should we fund these countries when they treat our people so? The British Government must take action and make it clear that British citizens cannot be imprisoned without incurring the just wrath and effective censure of Britain.

4.56 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money (Ipswich)

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly as Mrs. Farrow is the daughter of a constituent of mine.

I should like to put three specific points, and, although I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has been kept here till this late hour. I hope that she will be able to give her attention to these matters because they are of deep concern.

First, are the High Commissions in countries like Malawi making it clear to the Governments of those countries that if an arbitrary arrest, albeit legal under local law, is made in this way, the British Government expect it to be drawn to the attention of the High Commissions at the earliest possible opportunity? No one was allowed to see Mrs. Farrow. She said: No one was allowed to see me and my husband didn't even know where I was. It was a terrible time and when the High Commission did find out they immediately tried to secure my release but the Malawi authorities refused to let anyone see me. This is a basic requirement, which the High Commission must insist upon. If a British citizen is arrested, he must be provided with legal aid and other assistance.

The second matter which I want to raise concerns the circumstances under which British citizens are being kept in prison for offences of this sort for which they have not been tried. Are the High Commissions insisting sufficiently that the conditions in prisons like the prison at Chichire are humane and reasonable? Mrs. Farrow said that she was allowed three filthy blankets and was put into the women's compound which had a small yard and two rooms which housed 30 women prisoners and a number of children. She added: There were no beds or chairs or furniture, just two primitive lavatories and a very squalid cold water shower. In fact the lavatories were so awful I didn't know how to use them and one of the other women prisoners had to show me. The whole of the women's compound was filthy and it stank. Lice were crawling all over the place and I was bitten very badly on my arms. One pays tribute to the work of the High Commissions, to the diplomatic and consular officials abroad, for working in difficult circumstances, but it is a question of the extent to which the Government are prepared to back them. When people are expelled in these circumstances something must be done to protect their interests.

Thirdly, the Farrows lost everything they had. Their goods were confiscated or lost and they had to borrow more than £800 to pay their fare home, having been turned out of the country which was their home at two days' notice.

4.59 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor)

The concern which has been expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is shared by all hon. Members in this House. As the hon. Lady said, our concern is not so much for those people who had been tried and imprisoned for offences which have been proved as for those United Kingdom citizens who are imprisoned in parts of Africa before they have been charged and tried.

It is important to point out also that those of us here who are accustomed to the concept of British law whereby in normal circumstances—I stress that, and I shall return to it later—a person must be charged with and tried for an alleged offence and that his guilt must be proved in court beyond all reasonable doubt find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that that is not a concept which is universally recognised. But, as we all know, it is not.

I have discussed this matter with many people in Zambia and in other parts of Africa and I share the concern that United Kingdom citizens should be caught up in this mesh of legislation and be denied what we have long considered to be basic human rights as we have known them in this country.

For many years Ministers of both Governments have taken every opportunity to discuss this problem at the very highest level with the responsible Ministers of the countries concerned. In passing, I should add that there are detained in Rhodesia at this moment a large number of people who are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government but for whom Her Majesty's Government are not in a strong position to make any positive representations, although we do what we can to draw the attention of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia to what they are doing. I assume that the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) were referring to those people as well as to many others.

Our missions abroad have a duty—I assure the hon. Gentleman that they take it seriously—to do all in their power, whatever the provisions of the local law, to press that United Kingdom citizens are brought as speedily as possible to trial if there are charges to be answered, or else released. Governments have been left in no doubt about our concern and about our attitude towards detention without prospect of trial. But in the final analysis there is little that we can do. Although she presented a very concerned case on behalf of these people, the hon. Lady made only one positive suggestion as to a way in which we might bring pressure to bear. I shall come back to that in a moment.

We have to understand, as people who come from abroad to live in Britain have to understand, that when we live in another country we have to accept its laws. This is a fact of life. It is a fact of international life, and, however unpleasant it may be for those who have different rules and a different judicial system, we have to adhere to it.

I remind the House also that colonial rule itself, backed with all the power of the British Empire, not so long ago used detention without trial consistently and not rarely, in the countries which are now so early in their development after independence.

have already said that we all deplore this practice in normal circumstances. But in Northern Ireland, for example, unusual circumstances have forced British Governments to impose detention without trial and to continue it. We have said, as did the previous Conservative Government, that this is essential to safeguard the innocent. We have argued that people must be detained, even though one cannot bring evidence and take them to trial because others are afraid to testify, and so on, and it has been argued strongly in the House that detention without trial in Northern Ireland is essential in order to protect innocent people and because of the need to protect the community against the activities of a minority. I shall not comment on it, but that argument has been used.

Mrs. Knight

Surely the hon. Lady is not equating Mrs. Farrow, the Mackays and the others I mentioned with IRA-connected suspects. Does she put them in context with the distribution of bombs in cars, with people being blown up and the rest of it? The situation in Northern Ireland is entirely different from the circumstances about which we have been talking.

Miss Lestor

The point I make to the hon. Member is that when it has suited us—I am not proposing to argue whether it is right or wrong—we have used detention without trial. The hon. Member for Edgbaston says that offenders in Northern Ireland are likely to cause damage and destruction, and, therefore, we must adopt this policy. Whether she accepts it or not, that is exactly the position of the African countries.

I agree that Mrs. Farrow was never likely to commit acts of violence against anybody, but when we raise these matters the question of Northern Ireland is thrown up at us. The hon. Member says there is not a situation of war in any of these territories. We do not claim to be at war in Northern Ireland. In Zambia and other countries there have been bomb attempts—for example, at State House—and in Tanzania the President of FRELIMO was murdered. Africa, too, therefore, is in a sense in a state of war. These African countries are at war with external enemies. White supremists in the South are determined to overthrow some of the independent African régimes, or at least that is how the Africans see it.

These countries are fighting against tribalism which could undermine a new nation before it develops to full nationhood or before it has established the full processes of law and order. At the same time they are wielding a tremendous battle against poverty. We defend detention without trial in Northern Ireland for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, and countries like Zambia and Tanzania have their reasons for adopting these policies. We cannot get people to give evidence against possible offenders, and they probably face the same difficulty. They make mistakes, as we have made mistakes in Northern Ireland. It is the accepted system of law and order in those countries, and we must accept their system if we go there.

Mr. Money

The hon. Lady is being drawn away too much on to a general statement of fairly controversial points without dealing with the specific concern we have expressed. No one can suggest that people like Mrs. Farrow are involved in political offences. I want an assurance that respectable people like Mrs. Farrow who get involved in the mesh of the police background of an African State will have everything done to protect their interests.

Miss Lestor

The hon. Member for Edgbaston quite rightly referred to declarations of human rights which I completely accept, but there is another side to this issue. I will not get drawn off the particular cases. Perhaps I may deal with them in a moment. The hon. Lady raised the question of objections in principle to detention without trial. On the question of Mrs. Farrow—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjorned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock a.m.