Good Offices Committee (The Rev. Michael Scott) (Hansard, 26 November 1958)

§ 7. Mr. Brockway
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the Good Offices Committee of the United Nations, set up to discuss the status of South-West Africa with the Government of the Union of South Africa, gave a hearing to the Rev. Michael Scott.

§ Mr. Ormsby-Gore
As the hon. Member has already been informed, it was the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa, and not the Good Offices Committee, which gave Mr. Scott an oral hearing. The terms of reference of the Good Offices Committee did not cover the hearing of petitioners.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for this opportunity of correcting the reply to his supplementary question on 3rd November, when my right hon. and learned Friend said that the Good Offices Committee on South-West Africa had given a hearing to the Rev. Michael Scott.

§ Mr. Brockway
I appreciate the letter of correction which I received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but may I ask him if this is not a very serious case of misleading the House? In the answer to the supplementary question did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman lay considerable emphasis on his statement that the Rev. Michael Scott had been heard by the Good Offices Committee as one reason why he should not be heard by the United Nations, and, in fact, did not the British vote go against that hearing, both in the Political Committee and in the General Assembly?

§ Mr. Ormsby-Gore
I pointed out that my right hon. and learned Friend freely admits his mistake. It was the United Nations Committee on South-West Africa which gave a hearing to the Rev. Michael Scott, and I think that it is possible to confuse these two Committees.

§ Mr. Wade
Could the right hon. Gentleman say what proposals, if any, Her Majesty's Government have put forward for setting up some United Nations organisation to look after the interests and status of South-West Africa?

§ Mr. Ormsby-Gore
The question I was asked was whether a particular Committee had given a hearing to the Rev. Michael Scott. I am afraid that that supplementary question goes a long way beyond that Question.