HC Deb 03 November 1958 vol 594 cc610-2
57. Sir F. Medlicott

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he instructed the British delegate to the United Nations Assembly to oppose the request that the Rev. Michael Scott should be heard by the Trusteeship Committee of the Assembly on the subject of the proposed partition of South West Africa.

58. Mr. Brockway

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the British delegate on the Trusteeship Council voted on the proposal that the Rev. Michael Scott should be heard on the subject of African opposition to the recommendations of the Good Offices Committee's Report on the future of South-West Africa; and which delegates voted for and against, and which abstained.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Nineteen member States, including the United Kingdom, voted against the proposal that the Rev. Michael Scott should be heard in connection with the discussion of the report of the Good Offices Committee on South West Africa. Nine member States abstained and forty-five voted in favour. The detailed record of the roll-call vote is contained in United Nations document A/C.4/SR.747, a copy of which is available in the Library.

Her Majesty's Government voted against this proposal because they accepted the Advisory Opinion given by the International Court of Justice in 1950. This held that the degree of supervision exercised by the United Nations in respect of South West Africa should not exceed that which applied under the League of Nations Mandates System. The League of Nations Council did not grant oral hearings and in the view of Her Majesty's Government it is therefore contrary to the 1950 Advisory Opinion for the Fourth Committee to grant oral hearings.

Sir F. Medlicott

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it seems rather unfortunate that this country should have been in the minority which sought to prevent this hearing? Is there not a risk of our being accused of being more anxious to appease the South African Government than to come out boldly in favour of full and free discussions?

Mr. Lloyd

I am not in the least bit afraid of being in the minority when I think I am right. I am very dubious about the advisability in any circumstances of individuals, not representing States or United Nations bodies or recognised non-Governmental organisations, addressing Committees of the United Nations, which is an association of States.

Mr. Brockway

What possible justification can there be of this action? Was not the Good Offices Committee a United Nations Committee and, therefore, relevant for discussion? Was not the Rev. Michael Scott appointed by the Herero tribes in South Africa to represent them, and is it not a mean and ungenerous act to rule him out from voicing the claims of these tribes?

Mr. Lloyd

The Good Offices Committee listened to his views in great detail. He had every facility for putting his views to the proper body, which was the Good Offices Committee, and they took account of his views. It is a dubious precedent for individuals who are not representatives of States or United Nations bodies or recognised non-Governmental societies to start to address Committees of the United Nations. Where does one draw the line?