§ 3.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to make any statement on the procedure to be followed by the Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Devlin appointed to inquire into the facts concerning the situation in Nyasaland; whether this will secure that the detailed circumstances in relation to the detention of hundreds of Africans will be investigated; and whether the detainees in question will be allowed to be represented by Counsel.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, Lord Perth, no doubt the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will allow me to answer his Question. The Inquiry will be held in private. The Commission will have the power to examine witnesses on oath, to call for the production of documents and to make rules for their own guidance and for the conduct and management of the proceedings before them. They will also be empowered to decide the time and place for their sittings as they may from time to time think fit.
The Commission will examine all aspects of the events leading up to the declaration of the state of emergency and I have no doubt that the circumstances surrounding the detention of certain Africans will be generally covered. Any person giving evidence before the Commission will be entitled to have his legal representative present while he gives his evidence, but a witness will not be able to have his legal representative present 752 while any other person is giving evidence. This is because the Inquiry is not a trial, the witnesses will not be present on charges of any offence, and in order not to deter persons from giving evidence.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, it seems to me that this Commission is setting out on its undoubtedly difficult task in a rather extraordinary position. We have, of course, great faith in Mr. Justice Devlin, but the special circumstances which I put into my Question and with which, of course, the noble Earl the Leader of the House has dealt, seem to me to be putting these detainees in a very difficult position. I am anxious that Her Majesty's Government should not have to endanger the position of any evidence which comes from informers; that is natural. But there ought to be some real protection, at all stages of this Inquiry, for those who are still to be detained for a long period without trial; and the fact that they can have their counsel there only at certain times and apparently without the right of cross-examination of witnesses—because I did not hear that mentioned—seems to me to be prejudicing the future position of many of these people who may be absolutely innocent of any real crime.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I think we must keep the distinction clear. The function of this Commission is to inquire into the facts which led up to the disturbances. No doubt during that Inquiry, they will wish to interview a number of witnesses, but there is no charge laid against any witness by this tribunal; and although there is a Judge at the head of it, the tribunal is not investigating charges against any named person. That, at any time, must be the function of the Attorney-General of Nyasaland if he thinks fit. But the Commission is really to examine—because, I believe, Parliament wanted to know—the facts which led up to the recent disturbances.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, who decides whether a witness shall be heard if he desires? That is my first question. The second is: have the persons who have been named in the Paper seen a copy of the charges that have been published against them?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, this Commission has nothing to do with charges that are published against individuals—
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI did not ask that.
THE EARL OF HOMEI understand that no witness will be compelled to give evidence if he does not want to do so, but no doubt Mr. Justice Devlin will select, from those who come forward with evidence, those whom he wishes to see.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I am afraid I did not make my question clear. Who decides whether the witness is acceptable? That is my first question. The second is: are the persons named in the White Paper presently in possession of the printed charges which have been circulated against them?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I should want notice of that last question. I feel that it must be for the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Justice Devlin, to decide which witnesses he wishes to see.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, in that case, why is it that a notice appeared yesterday in The Times saying that Mr. Michael Scott had applied to give evidence and had been told by the Federal Government that he could not be admitted to Nyasaland?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, as I explained on a previous occasion, the immigration laws are a matter for the Federal Government. I have no doubt that it will be for Mr. Justice Devlin to decide whether he wants to take evidence from Mr. Michael Scott anywhere else.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe Times newspaper states quite clearly that Mr. Michael Scott applied and was told—not by Mr. Justice Devlin but by Rhodesia House—that he could not be permitted to give evidence to the Commission.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, from what I read I do not think that that was quite so, although this matter hardly arises out of the Question. I believe the point was that the Reverend Michael Scott would not be allowed into the Federation but that, so far as the Federal authorities knew, it would be possible for 754 the Commission to see him outside the Federation, if the Commission so wished.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL-SBOROUGHMy Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House is quite seized of the point which is at the back of my mind. Perhaps I did not put it clearly. No one wants to endanger the position of informers, and there is, of course, no reason why the name of an informer should be given; but surely there ought to be some means by which those persons who may be named by informers and against whom charges may be laid should be furnished with the evidence, without giving the name of the informer, letting them know the charges against them and giving them some opportunity to prepare their defence. Otherwise it seems that what is a very fine and right effort to have a fact-finding Commission may ultimately redound to a piece of injustice for many of the people concerned.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I am not quite sure that we are not dealing here with two different things. I rather think we are. Any charges which were made against individuals would be a matter for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland and would be quite separate from anything to do with the Commission; and the right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary has said in another place that nothing which is said by any witness before this Commission shall in any way prejudice them when it comes to the questions of charges being laid or a defence being heard.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, may I press the noble Earl? Is it really true that weeks after these charges were published he cannot say whether the persons accused are in possession of the White Paper?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, the noble Viscount has asked me a specific question as to whether those accused are in possession of a certain Paper. I should not like to give him an answer offhand, since I am not certain whether they are in possession of that particular Paper; but I will certainly give the noble Viscount that information as soon as I have it.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, the House will be aware that a very distinguished Lord Chief Justice said it was 755 important that justice should not only be done but that it should clearly and manifestly be seen to be done. Does not the noble Earl consider that the arrangements he has announced to the House this afternoon will amount to such an infraction of this important and fundamental doctrine of British law that they will destroy a great deal of the value of this Inquiry?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I should not have thought that there was any infringement of the principles of British justice. This is an Inquiry into the facts of the disturbances in Nyasaland, and during the course of that Inquiry a number of individuals will give their opinion as to why those disturbances took place; but I would ask the noble Lord to keep quite separate in his mind the question of any charges against individuals for subversion or anything of that kind.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, what I am concerned about is the fact that the legal representatives of different people are not to be allowed to be there. Surely that is a manifest breach of the ordinary rules, or at any rate of the way in which these problems are inquired into in this country.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, in order to help him to give the facts or to protect him, if he should want protection, the individual, if he so wishes is to be allowed to be accompanied before the Tribunal by a legal representative, to help the Tribunal to establish the facts about the disturbances in Nyasaland. Again, I must repeat that this is quite a separate thing from charges which may be laid in the future.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, may I say that the British public is still, with its Government, responsible for the Protectorates in the Federation. May I take it from the noble Earl's first answer to my noble friend Lord Chorley that there will be no evidence taken before this particular Commission in private which will be taken as constituting a charge of any kind against any detainee?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, the Colonial Secretary has made it quite clear that any evidence given before this 756 tribunal will not in any way be used to the prejudice of individuals in a further trial arising out of a charge.