§ 2.43 p.m.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they consider that the publicity given to the arrival in this country of political refugees (as instanced recently in the case of the Soviet Army officer, Colonel J. D. Tassoev) is in the best interests of all concerned; whether this publicity is not liable to prejudice the asylum granted to such refugees; and whether they will consider taking steps to ensure a greater reticence in these matters in future.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am entirely in favour of reticence, both in these matters and generally. Indeed, I consider that the absence of due reticence is one of the most unfortunate tendencies of the present age. In particular, I agree that it is not normally desirable to give publicity to the arrival in this country of political refugees, and His Majesty's Government do not make a practice of it. In the case to which the noble Lord refers it was thought necessary to issue a statement to the Press, in view of the conflicting reports circulating in Germany and elsewhere and the assertion that this officer had been kidnapped by the Americans.
§ LORD AILWYNMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. Arising from that reply, I should like to ask whether it is not true that a general prerequisite of effective asylum in this country is a minimum of publicity concerning the individual concerned, and whether any failure by the Government to ensure reticence in the future will not, unwittingly and unwillingly, be one more burden placed on the shoulders of our splendid but overworked and understaffed police and security officers.