§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the contents of any documents seized by the Basutoland police were communicated to the police or the Government of the Union of South Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)My Lords, it would be contrary to established practice to make public statements about the confidential relations which are maintained between the police forces of all countries in the prevention of crime. Whilst I have no specific information, I feel quite sure that the Basutoland police have not communicated any information which it would not be normal for the police of one country to pass to another. However, it should not be assumed from this that the Basutoland police have, in fact, passed information. They understand clearly that it is not part of their duty to pass information to the South African authorities in connection with acts which would not constitute offences under the law of the United Kingdom. In view of the situation, my right honourable friend has expressly reminded the authorities that it is not their duty to pass such information.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, may I ask the noble Duke whether he expects that I can be satisfied with an answer which suggests that we can neither assume that this information has been passed on by the Basutoland Police to the South African Police nor assume that this has not been done? May I ask the noble Duke whether he is not aware that in the minds of many people the fact that several hundred men have been arrested in South Africa, immediately after these documents were seized in Basutoland, suggests more than a mere coincidence? May I also ask him whether he would not agree that the growing tension between Basutoland and the Republic of South Africa is placing our Ambassador in South Africa in an impossible position? Does he not agree that it 975 is impossible for our Ambassador to have the confidence of the South African Government and of the people of Basutoland? If this is the case, should not the Government, at the earliest possible opportunity, separate the two posts, so that they may be held by different individuals? Finally, may I ask the noble Duke whether he will impress upon the Government the desirability of asking the Government of South Africa to negotiate an extradition treaty, such as we have with other foreign countries, which will distinguish between political refugees, such as members of a banned political organisation and offenders or alleged offenders against the criminal law?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I shall do my best to answer the noble Earl's series of supplementaries. I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to his last two points. On the question of the desirability of separating the two posts, I am sure that he will give due weight to what the noble Earl said. I shall also draw his attention to the matter of the desirability of negotiating an extradition treaty. As regards the wider question, I must confess that I can only apologise for not being able to give the House more specific information; but the fact remains that the position is not clear. My right honourable friend has been in urgent communication with the authorities to try to clear up the position, but at this moment I fear that, with all sincerity, I cannot yet give more specific information than I have done in my original reply.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, before arriving at any decision to separate these two posts, would the Minister consider most carefully whether it is not in the best interests of Basutoland, which is surrounded by South African territory and has to live on terms with the Union of South Africa, to continue the existing practice? I think that noble Lords who have occupied the same post as myself will agree that on the whole they have enjoyed pretty happy relations over Customs and all sorts of services. Before any decision is taken to alter what has been the existing practice, would the Minister carefully consider the practical convenience of having the two posts together, whatever the logical distinction may be?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have no doubt whatever that, when considering this matter, my right honourable friend will give due weight to all questions. I hope that I did not mislead the House when I said that my right honourable friend would pay attention to what the noble Earl who asked the Question said. The last thing I wish is to commit him in any way. I meant merely that I would report to him the views expressed by the noble Earl opposite.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, if the noble Duke is unable, as he says, to answer a plain question of fact, is it not a reflection on the state of administration inside the Protectorate of Basutoland if that information is not obtainable?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREI have no doubt that the position will be clarified; but at this moment, in the interests of accuracy (the last thing I wish to do is to mislead the House), I can only repeat what I said: that on this particular issue I have no specific information.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I cannot ask any more Questions because we are rising this afternoon, but if I put down a Question for Written Answer will the noble Duke do his best to obtain this information for the week when we start sitting again? May I say that I am asking this Question because I think that, on reflection, he will agree that it is not purely a police matter but a matter of very great political importance.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I fully appreciate the wider implications of this question. I should like to thank the noble Earl for his very considerate attitude, and if he puts down a Question for Written Answer I will do all in my power to see that the Answer fully satisfies him.