Mr. DESMOND FRANCIS (Hansard, 29 February 1968)

§ Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)
It is a long tradition that hon. Members should draw attention to injustice or outrage done to citizens, and this concern for the rights of ordinary men and women has never stopped short of the boundaries of the United Kingdom. The case I wish to present is somewhat unusual, since it concerns a British subject who has been arbitrarily and unlawfully robbed of her husband, who is not, incidentally, a United Kingdom citizen. I will allow time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) to speak, and I am glad to know that he wishes to support me.
In 1965, a young English woman, Mary Hair, went out to Zambia to work as a school teacher. Secondary schools in Zambia are staffed not only by local people but by many different races, and people from England are very welcome. While she was there, she met and, early in 1967 married, a young South Africa teacher of Asian origin, Mr. Des Francis. They lived and worked in Livingstone, where they had a wide circle of friends among people of all races. Mr. Frances was particularly respected for his youth club work supported by local churches.
Although his forefathers came from India, Des Francis is South African. South Africa is his mother country and Afrikaans his mother tongue. He holds a current valid South African passport, but he realised that when he married an Englishwoman he and his wife could not 1910 return to South Africa because of that country's racial laws. So they planned to come to England when the contract with the Zambian Government ended. Mr. Francis had received his higher education in England.
Last Christmas, the last long school holiday which they would spend in Zambia, he invited his mother and sisters from Johannesburg to join him and his wife as this would be their last opportunity to meet his wife and infant son before they left for England. They came and the whole family spent a happy Christmas and New Year together.
On Tuesday, 2nd January, Mr. and Mrs. Francis drove across the border from Zambia into Rhodesia at Victoria Falls. They were going to inquire about the times of trains travelling south, as Mr. Francis' relatives intended to return to South Africa later that week. The Rhodesian town of Victoria Falls is only five miles from Livingstone and I gather that it was a perfectly normal practice for people to book seats and catch the train going south from the Rhodesian side of the border.
During the time that they lived in Livingstone, Mr. and Mrs. Francis both together and individually, often crossed the border without any difficulties.
On this occasion, however, they were immediately detained on the Rhodesian side and were questioned separately by the Rhodesian police. After three hours, Mrs. Francis was allowed to return to Zambia but without the car, which was seized by the police. She was told that her husband was being held for further questioning and that she should return the following day. She did so and was again questioned at length, mainly about her husband's activities and friends. She was allowed to see him briefly. Their car was returned to her and she was sent back to Livingstone. The Rhodesian police gave no indication what charges, if any, they intended to bring against her husband.
For the next couple of days Mrs. Francis maintained contact by phone with the Victoria Falls police station. She was told that her husband was still required for questioning. On the following Saturday the police told her that her husband was no longer in Victoria Falls 1911 but had been sent to Bulawayo "for further questioning". A few days later she was able to phone the police in Bulawayo. They confirmed that her husband was there and told her that he was in good health. They said, however, that they could not allow him to see a lawyer or speak to anyone as he was being held incommunicado.
In the mean time, Mrs. Francis had been in touch with a lawyer in Livingstone who advised her that as her husband had not broken any Rhodesian law, he might be held for questioning for up to 30 days, but he would then be returned to Zambia. In fact, he was not returned to Zambia. He was deported to South Africa on 19th January. He was sent by the Rhodesian police to the South African authorities and transferred from Bulawayo to Pretoria. News of this reached his friends via the B.B.C. news. I understand that he is being threatened with proceedings under the notorious 1967 Terrorism Act which has been roundly condemned for the sweeping and retrospective powers it confers upon the South African authorities.
I must stress that Mr. Francis was in Zambia perfectly legally. His South African passport was completely in order. There are, in fact, a good many South Africans of all races in Zambia with the full knowledge and approval of their Government, who are loyal citizens of their own country. My information is that Mr. Francis is a quiet man who condemns violence and, although by his marriage he has demonstrated that he does not see eye to eye with the racial theories of the South African Government, he was not in any way a supporter of terrorist activities.
His wife, who is a British citizen, and entitled to the support and protection of the British Government, is now left without means and with a baby to care for and a home to maintain. Worse than this is the nagging psychological torment about what may happen to her husband, whether he will be punished for marrying a European wife, whether he will be ill-treated while in custody, on what charges he will be tried, or if indeed he will be tried at all, or simply held for months or years without any charges being preferred against him.
1912 It is not many months ago that public opinion in this country was gravely disturbed, and rightly, by the kidnapping of two British pilots and their unlawful detention in Algeria. The whole civilised world recognises that it is outrageous that civilians going peaceably about their ordinary business should be seized, interrogated, subjected to indignities and arrest without any pretence of due process of law nor the slightest allegation of any criminal act.
The seizure of the husband of Mrs. Francis, who herself is entitled to the full protection of the British Government, is an outrage compounded by the fact that it could only be accomplished by the direct connivance of the illegal regime in Rhodesia. It must be clear to the Government of South Africa that the regime in Rhodesia is illegal, that the sole lawful Government of the territory of Rhodesia is the Government of the United Kingdom. It follows that any conspiracy or connivance with the Rhodesian regime must be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a hostile and unfriendly act. Certainly it is difficult to see how Her Majesty's Government can in any way condone the calculated kidnapping of the husband of a British citizen. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear beyond any doubt that they regard this incident as an outrage to the well-being of Mrs. Francis and will exert every possible pressure upon the South African authorities to induce them to restore Mr. Francis to his wife and baby.
Amid all the terror and hatred which have been set up throughout Southern Africa by the racial hatreds which grow deeper and more difficult to reconcile as the years go by, it may seem trifling and insignificant to draw attention to the plight of one solitary Englishwoman and her child. Nevertheless, I believe it is right to do so. Standards of civilised behaviour are measured by the way in which a country treats the weakest and most vulnerable of its citizens. By releasing Mr. Francis and restoring him to his wife and baby son, the Government of South Africa could demonstrate that they are not wholly unmindful of those standards. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices to persuade them to this end.

§ Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for leaving me ample lime. I am glad that he has raised this matter and I support what he said.
This very sad case was brought to my notice recently by several of my constituents. I also understand that it was the subject of a strong resolution passed last week by the Cambridge Union. One constituent who has written to me is a personal friend of Mr. Francis and shared his house with him for eight months in Zambia in 1965.
As for the facts, my information corroborates absolutely what the hon. Member for Heeley said. It is particularly poignant that the initial detention of Mr. Francis occurred when he was simply checking train times for the return of his family to South Africa. Earlier this month I took the matter up with the Foreign Office, and I am grateful for the helpful reply I have now received from the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office, who is replying to this debate. It is at least some relief to learn from our information from South Africa that Mr. Francis is in good health. I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that our High Commission in Lusaka will continue to give Mrs. Francis, as a United Kingdom citizen, whatever help they can.
I appreciate that it is not easy for the Government to make formal representations to the South African Government in this matter because Mr. Francis is a citizen of South Africa. However, is it not possible for our Embassy there to make stronger representations, informally, in view of the intense feelings which this case is arousing here? At a time when there have been some signs of a thaw in South Africa's relations with the rest of the world, a small gesture by that country in this case would do a great deal to help the process. At the very least, could not South Africa give the lawyers access to Mr. Francis, and then let him either be released, which would be ideal, or brought to trial speedily?
There have been fears that Mr. Francis, as a person of Indian origin who married a white woman, might now be prosecuted in South Africa under the Immorality Act. Can the Minister confirm what a 1914 Government spokesman said in another place on 29th January, that there is little likelihood of proceedings being taken against him under that Act?
I hope that the Government will exercise all their ingenuity to secure the early release of Mr. Francis and his reuniting with his wife.

§ The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas)
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) have rightly brought to the attention of the House a disturbing and, indeed, tragic case, about which no one with any feeling of compassion can fail to be disturbed.
The facts are as my hon. Friend has outlined them. I am glad to tell the House that the British High Commission in Zambia is in regular touch with Mrs. Francis. We have explained fully the limitations on the powers of Her Majesty's Government in this case. However, I wish to say at the outset, in public, how deeply the Government sympathise with Mrs. Francis in the harsh circumstances of this event. We sympathise with her anxiety and distress. Mrs. Francis has been told that if there is any help that we can give her personally, we will be glad to do so. She has replied to the High Commissioner that she is not financially distressed, having taken her husband's job as a teacher in Livingstone, but she will of course keep in touch with the High Commission and if this situation changes the High Commissioner will deal with her case with sympathy and understanding.
Mr. Francis, as my hon. Friend reminded us, is a citizen of South Africa. That very fact makes it impossible for us to have any right of interference on a consular level about a citizen of South Africa. We understand that he is at present being held under the South African Terrorism Act. I confirm that our knowledge is that he is in good health. I regret to say that his lawyers have not so far been permitted to see him. The circumstances under which Mr. Francis was detained in Rhodesia we regard as illegal. It was an illegal detention. The authorities there ought to feel ashamed of the meanness and the cruelty of the course of action which they pursued. It 1915 is not possible for us to forecast what will happen to Mr. Francis, but I assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cambridge that we have no reason to believe that charges will be preferred against him under the South African laws concerning marriage and for the fact that he, being an Indian, married a European. It is a strange world where the State tries to tell people whom they should marry.
My hon. ' Friend also asked about representations to the South African Government. I can assure him that we are informally keeping in touch with the South African authorities on behalf of Mrs. Francis, who is a British citizen. We are making arrangements for a letter from Mrs. Francis to be conveyed to her husband. As soon as his detention was originally brought to our notice, our residual mission in Salisbury made contact with the lawyers retained for her husband. There was no further action under present circumstances which we could have taken in Rhodesia to remedy the illegal detention. The House knows our physical limitations about controlling the acts of discrimination and other acts that are at present conducted in 1916 Rhodesia. Equally, we could not prevent the deportation of Mr. Francis to South Africa. The fact is that he is there; he is detained and my hon. Friend maintains that he is likely to be charged under the Terrorism Act. I do not know. I presume that if they act against him it is likely to be under that Measure. I can only tell the House that I share the sense of dismay and disgust which decent people are bound to feel at the action of Rhodesians in this matter. But we are maintaining our contact informally with the South African authorities, and that is all that we can do in this matter. If Mr. Francis were our citizen, we could be more forthright, but he is their citizen.
Therefore, if my words reach the ears of Mrs. Francis, as I trust they will, I can assure her, as I assure hon. Members tonight, that to the maximum of our ability we are eager and anxious to help. What limited powers we have will be used in the interests of humanity in this case.