§ 3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity, before we begin our business, to make a statement about the protection of witnesses before the Monckton Commission, which I know is exercising the minds of some of your Lordships.
With regard to the protection of witnesses appearing before the Monckton Commission, I am glad to be able to make the following statement. The Government of Southern Rhodesia and the Attorneys-General of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have given assurances in the following terms:
No statement made to the Commission, whether orally or in writing, will be used in evidence in any criminal proceedings; this does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or re-publication of written evidence given to the Commission.The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governor of Nyasaland have given assurances to the same effect with regard to the making of detention or restriction orders and proceedings arising out of such orders. All these assurances also apply to members of the Commission.My Lords, if that statement is a little complicated, I would simply say that this is the same procedure as was followed in the case of the Devlin Commission.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not remember having seen the assurance given at the time, but I should be very happy to compare it. On the other hand, I must say that I am greatly disturbed at the following words:
… this does not apply to statements made by witnesses outside the Commission, even if merely in repetition of oral evidence or republication of written evidence given to the Commission".It seems to us, at first sight, looking at it in the present circumstances of this inquiry and bearing in mind the controversy ranging around it and the reports which we are getting from the place, that that gives nothing like sufficient protection to those who might well be desirable witnesses to give the real point of view of the native African 647 population. For any person who makes publication or oral repetition of evidence given to the Commission to be subject to new charges and new procedures seems to me to be extraordinary, unless it is the intention of the authorities out there that no such person shall be allowed to give evidence at all.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I believe that this is normal practice. For instance, this protection applies to matters stated in your Lordships' House and in another place, but does not extend to statements made outside. I think that the noble Viscount would study this, and if, in the event of his not being satisfied, he would put down a Question on another day, that may be the better way of dealing with it. I believe that it is a perfectly normal procedure.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, is the noble Earl saying that if a newspaper faithfully reports verbatim the evidence which has been given, both the newspaper and the person who gave the evidence can be prosecuted?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may help me in this, but I understand that that is the normal position.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, I think that there are two different points. First, there is the privilege which attaches to bona-fide reports—I understand that that is the matter with which my noble friend is dealing. Evidence is protected, of course, when it is given before the Commission; but if, subsequent to giving the evidence before the Commission, the person who gave the evidence makes another speech outside the Commission, that has to stand on its own feet. The fact that he says that his speech is the same as the evidence he gave before the Commission will not protect him. The speech has to stand on its own merits and it has to be decided whether that speech is contrary to the law or not.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, that does not deal with the question of the publication verbatim of evidence. I do not know whether the Press will be admitted 648 or not, but on the terms of the reply, even if the evidence were published verbatim, both the person publishing it and the person who gave evidence have no protection. That is the purport of the answer.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, that is the purport of my answer. That is a separate publication and it has to be judged on its own merits.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, does the noble and learned Viscount seriously believe that anyone would be prepared to give evidence on that basis?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYes, my Lords, I see no reason why they should not. They will give the evidence which they think is material and important for the Monckton Commission to hear. But it is quite another thing, having given the evidence, to use the fact that they have given evidence as an instrument for making seditious speeches. That is a matter which has to be dealt with, otherwise the position might be abused. I am quite sure that it will be reasonably used but, on the other hand, it is absolutely essential to have that protection or else the whole purpose of obtaining the evidence will be perverted.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, can the noble and learned Viscount give me one assurance on a matter which troubles me? If a newspaper gives an accurate report of the evidence submitted to the Monckton Commission, can we be assured that that newspaper will be protected and will not be liable?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have to consider what my noble friend really means. If somebody were to say,"This is the evidence I am going to give to the Monckton Commission," and sent it to a newspaper, then both the author and the newspaper would have to stand on the merits of that publication.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be reasonable to put to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that, in these circumstances, the Africans concerned, who are the people I have in mind, would be right in assuming that any proper protection to them would be completely nugatory?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, the protection is complete. It is absolutely complete for any witness who gives evidence before the Commission, whether by word of mouth or in writing. The only thing is, as my noble and learned friend says, the question of publication outside. For instance, let us suppose that some newspaper took all the adverse facts out of the evidence and put them together in an article, that newspaper properly should not be protected. I think that this is perfectly normal practice, and I would suggest to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that he should look at this and consult with his friends. I think he will find that this is normal practice and gives complete protection to witnesses, which is what we are after. Then, if the noble Viscount is dissatisfied, perhaps he would put down another Question.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask two other questions which arise out of the statement? First of all, what is the position as regards civil liability? Is a witness, if he gives evidence before the Commission, protected against action for libel or slander? Secondly, what is the meaning of the last part of the noble Earl's statement? I confess that I do not understand its purport. The noble Earl said that
The Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governor of Nyasaland have given assurances to the same effect with regard to the making of detention or restriction orders and proceedings arising out of such orders.The noble Earl gives an assurance as regards evidence, but how can he give such an assurance as regards restriction orders?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, there are in being certain emergency regulations in Nyasaland and legislation in Southern Rhodesia, and our anxiety was to make it absolutely clear that any witness who might be going to give evidence could not be penalised in respect of that evidence in any way at all under any of these regulations or legislation. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's second question. On the other question about civil slander, perhaps he will put down a Question which I can answer another day.
LORD REAMy Lords, on the question of protection in general, can the noble Earl give us the assurance that 650 this statement will be spread widely throughout all parts of the Federation so that as many of the inhabitants as possible are aware of it?
THE EARL OF HOMEYes, my Lords, that will be made quite clear to everyone throughout the Federation. The reason why the Federal Government are not particularly mentioned is that the regulations and legislation in question all come under the Territorial Governments.
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEMy Lords, may I put one question about a point which has been troubling me? Do I understand that the evidence before the Commission is not going to be published anywhere? Suppose a person gives evidence before the Commission and makes some libellous charge against some other person. Is the second person never to be aware of what is said or have any chance of refuting it? If statements made to the Commission are published somewhere, then, of course, anybody can see what is said against him; but if the evidence is not going to be published anywhere, this opens the door to libellous statements which cannot be refuted.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, at the end of the day, the evidence will be published by the Monckton Commission, but this statement is to protect people meanwhile.
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEMy Lords, do I understand that at the end of every day a report of the day's proceedings will be published?
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, perhaps I should have been more precise. When the Commission publishes its Report, the evidence will be published.
§ LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCEMy Lords, as a matter of interest, that does not meet my point. Somebody makes a statement which is libellous to another party. According to what I understand from the noble Earl, that statement will not be published anywhere until the end of the sittings of the Commission, when the volume containing the report of the proceedings and evidence is published. In the meanwhile, the other party, who is not aware of this libellous statement against him, has no opportunity of refuting the statement made by the first person. That is the question I put.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I do not know what the Commission will decide about how many sessions will be held in private and how many held in public. I should like to discuss that possibility with the noble Lord, if I may, but I think that what he points out is a risk we have to take with any Commission of this sort.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I should be glad to look into this matter again, as the noble Earl has suggested, but is it not becoming fairly clear to him that if there are so many doubts that can be raised prima facie on this statement in your Lordships' House it is necessary to make with much greater and more easily understood clarity the statement to be published to the Africans themselves? The great thing we must do is to get back their confidence and goodwill. It seems to me that this statement is so unclear to them that it should be amended.
THE EARL OF HOMEThat is why I asked the noble Viscount to look at it again, because I think that when he does his doubts will disappear. That will probably be this afternoon or tomorrow. We shall, of course, so far as possible, make this clear to the Africans throughout the Federation.
§ LORD SILKINMy Lords, may I make this point? The noble Earl appears to contemplate the possibility that some of the hearings will be public. In that case, I ask what is to happen about publication of those public hearings. If a newspaper publishes these things verbatim, as it will be entitled to do at a public hearing, is it not protected? And is the person giving evidence not protected if it is published verbatim? I would ask the noble Earl to have this matter looked at again to see whether a real protection cannot be given to people giving evidence to the Commission.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, I have no doubt at all that the people giving evidence to the Commission are completely protected. I cannot say, of course, what procedure the Commission will adopt; that is for them. I will have another look at this point; but I do not know whether the newspapers here are 652 protected when they, for instance, report the proceedings of this Parliament.
§ LORD SILKINYes, they are.