HL Deb 13 April 1961 vol 230 cc332-4

3.13 p.m.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords, I beg leave 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 satisfied with the first effects of their present Kenya policy which differs from that promulgated in 1958, among which effects, as reported, are the departure from Kenya of Europeans at the rate of 100 a month, and the appointment by the Australian Government of an immigration officer to Nairobi; and further, whether they are satisfied that Mr. Mboya should have used tape-recording of Kenyatta's voice at Cairo, which was a breach of the restriction order imposed on the latter by the Kenya Government.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH)

My Lords, I do not think I can accept the implications of the Question, in so far as it assumes that Her Majesty's Government's Kenya policy is different from that of 1958. While there have been constitutional changes, the basic principles are the same, as I endeavoured to show in the debate in your Lordships' House on March 28, 1960.

In regard to the detailed points in the rest of the Question while in 1960 European emigration from Kenya was at the rate of between 100 and 200 people a month, this was largely offset by new and permanent European immigration, which was at about the same monthly rate. There is no Australian Government immigration officer in Nairobi. Inquiries are handled by a woman clerk locally engaged for general duties. Although the playing of a recording of Kenyatta's voice at Cairo was a technical breach of his restriction order, the Kenya Government do not propose to take any action. Perhaps I should also make it clear that Mr. Mboya is not a Minister designate.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords. I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. I ought to have warned him that I took out the words "Minister designate" only yesterday, but I am afraid that I did not let the noble Earl know.

While thanking the noble Earl for the information which he has given, which unfortunately does not satisfy me, I should like him to allow me to ask another question to elucidate certain points. When restriction of these political prisoners happened nine years ago, certain rules were laid down, and they continue until to-day. There are three things I should like to know. Surely the Governor made it perfectly clear to Mr. Mboya what he could do when he gave him leave to go to see Mr. Kenyatta. The other thing is with regard to the tape recording. How could that have taken place when the regulations state that an official must be present? Was an official present? If an official was present, did he allow the tape recording? If he was present and allowed the tape recording, how was it that it was not censored by the Governor, which is a sine qua non before any publication or broadcast after talking with political prisoners is allowed.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I am not sure to what extent I can answer the various points raised by the noble Earl, but I think I can perhaps help him. As I understand it, an official was present; at the interview at the time when Mr. Mboya was talking with Kenyatta; indeed, I think he took a hand in the tape recording. It was felt that it was important to have this record of what was taking place for general purposes and so that there could not be any misrepresentation of the conversation. As I have said already, I think the taking out of this recording to Cairo was a breach of the restriction order.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I thank the noble Earl.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, arising out of what the noble Earl has just said, may I put this point? What I do not understand, and perhaps what the House does not understand, is why no action was taken on this breach of the prohibition of broadcasting order for Cairo. I understand that it was decided to take no action. Why?

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I think that when there is a breach which takes place outside the country, and in the circumstances that I have described, one must leave it to the Governor, in his wisdom, to decide whether it is sufficiently important to warrant prosecution, or whether it is just a technical breach. He, clearly, in his wisdom decided that it was best to leave it as it was.

LORD KILLEARN

So the answer is that it was done deliberately.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I do not know about the word "deliberately," but it was clearly a decision taken after due thought.