§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy 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 how many persons are now detained in Aden in consequence of the recent bomb outrage; how many of these are Yemenis, and what steps are being taken to bring them to trial.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)My Lords, 52 people, none of them Yemenis, are now detained in the Federation of South Arabia. As police investigations are still proceeding, I am unable to say what criminal charges, if any, will be brought.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, may I ask the noble Duke the following supplementaries? Is it a fact that among these 52 people are all but one of the executive council of the T.U.C. in Aden and of the office holders of the People's Socialist Party? If this is a fact, can the noble Duke say that if evidence is not found which makes it possible to bring these people before a court on a charge of complicity on the bomb outrage they will be released from detention?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, to deal with the noble Earl's latter question first, I think any question of release from detention must depend on the situation which develops in Aden, and must, of course, wait until the police investigations which are now going on have been concluded. As regards the first part of the noble Earl's question, the detailed names of those detained have not yet been forthcoming, and though it is true that they contain some, I should rather doubt whether the noble Earl is quite accurate in going as far as he has in saying they include virtually all the leaders of the T.U.C. movement.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, is the noble Duke aware that there is suspicion that these detentions are aimed at the political leadership of the Opposition in Aden, and would he agree that the best way of dispelling those suspicions would be to bring about an early trial in public?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I am quite sure that the paramount concern of the Supreme Council and the High Commissioner at the moment is that of public security, and I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House would subscribe to that view. I am afraid I can go no further than I have just gone, and say that the future of this unhappy development must depend upon the completion of the police investigations into this outrage.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, while fully agreeing with the sentiments the noble Duke has expressed may I remind him that these men are detained under an Emergency Regulation? Can the noble Duke say whether legal advice and legal aid is available to these men under detention?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, no doubt as soon as charges are preferred against them—if they are preferred—legal advice will be made available to them. I would add that the constitutional processes by which they have been detained are entirely in order.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, this seems an astonishing statement. Here you have a large number of men who are the controllers of the trade union movement 108 in this Protectorate of ours, and they have been interned. We do not know what for, unless it is on suspicion of being implicated in this dreadful outrage. They are being interned like that straight away as if each one were under direct suspicion of being implicated. Surely they are entitled now to have legal advice. I have never heard such a thing in my life.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I can go no further than I have already gone. I would say that there is some reason to suppose that this bomb incident was part of an organised conspiracy, rather than the action of one individual. Police investigations are continuing. With all respect to the House, I think it would be unwise to jump to any conclusions after an outrage in which one woman, who was not involved in any way, was killed, and a number of distinguished people gravely injured. Clearly a risk to public security has been established, and it would he unwise to jump to conclusions before the police are given adequate time to conclude their investigations.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHI have jumped to no conclusion, and I have given my opinion about what was a dreadful outrage. But I say it is quite un-British, having once interned them, to deny them legal advice until you prefer a charge against them which may be this week, next week or in one or two months—who knows? They are entitled to legal advice now. If not, we ought to move the adjournment of the House and debate it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, could the noble Duke give us an answer to-morrow, because the House is going up for the Christmas Recess, and it is a matter of considerable principle. I hope the noble Duke can give a reply to-morrow.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, provided a Question is put down I shall be delighted to give an answer.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he will be willing to make a further statement after the Recess when the police 109 investigations have been completed and it has been decided whether there is sufficient evidence to bring these men to trial?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I hope by that time my noble friend Lord Lansdowne will be back in his place. I shall be pleased to keep the House informed of developments in the situation.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHMy Lords, I am not wholly satisfied with the answer. I give notice that unless we can have private conversations in the meantime and a further undertaking, we feel we ought to raise this issue on the Motion for the Adjournment to-day.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, the noble Duke said that we were jumping to conclusions. Are not the authorities jumping to a conclusion that these 52 people may be guilty? Their conclusions may be absolutely wrong. Therefore, should they not be tried immediately?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I think the situation here is, as I have said, that public security must be the controlling interest. An outrage has taken place. The security forces in Aden have taken the steps that they think right, and who are we to contradict them? Being some thousands of miles away, who are we to think that these steps are wrongly taken? Surely it is right that, until police investigations have been concluded—and I repeat it, it is right—to await developments. Our primary concern must be the preservation of public law and order and public security, and it is in those interests that the steps have been taken.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, the noble Duke asked the question: who are we? We happen to be Parliament. And Her Majesty's Government are responsible to Parliament. They are responsible not only for security but for justice to every citizen or resident in the territories they govern. We are asking merely for an act of pure justice, and that is that men who are interned and likely to be accused should be given the advantage of legal aid now if they desire it. I want an answer to that point.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I would accept what the noble Earl says, but as I see it the position is this. It is difficult to know what legal advice could be beneficially tendered to those who have been detained until they have been charged with some offence.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGHIs it not the right of everybody living in our territories that they can ask for legal advice when they want it? Why do you deny legal advice to any citizen?
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLReally!
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHYou have already laid down the law that you are not inclined to give us a favourable answer to our question. I think we had better raise it on the Adjournment.