§ 4. Mr. H. Hyndasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will take the opportunity now afforded by the retirement of the present High Commissioner in South Africa to separate that post from the one of High Commissioner for Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland.
5. Mr. Dugdaleasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth 384 Relations whether, in view of the increasing burden of work falling on the holder of the joint offices of High Commissioner to the Union of South Africa and High Commissioner for Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland, he will take the opportunity presented by the retirement of the present holder of these two offices to make separate appointments for each of them.
Commander NobleNo, Sir. As my hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 3rd April, my noble Friend is satisfied that the advantages of the present arrangement outweigh any possible disadvantages.
§ Mr. HyndDoes the Minister realise that the present administrative arrangement is not only unwieldy but causes delay, because everything has to go through the Union of South Africa? More important than that, does not he realise that there is a question of principle involved here, and that the people of these three High Commission Territories have certain objections to being governed by the High Commissioner of South Africa, particularly in view of recent developments in the Union?
Commander NobleFirst, may I say in answer to the supplementary question that I do not think the present arrangement is unwieldy. The economies of the High Commission Territories are closely bound up with the Union of South Africa, the political developments of the Territories are liable to have repercussions in the Union and vice versa, and therefore there is obvious advantage in the person responsible for the administration of the Territories being closely in touch also with the developments in the Union.
Mr. DugdaleIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that to combine these two posts is about as foolish as it would be to combine the post of Ambassador to Italy with the Governorship of Malta? Does not he realise that it is a very important task to govern these three Territories and that it cannot be done by a man who is also Ambassador to a country which has a totally different outlook?
Commander NobleI answered a Question on this subject put by the right hon. Gentleman on 5th July, 1956, when I think he asked practically the same supplementary question. I would say that our opinion has not changed since then.