§ 2.51 p.m.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy 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 when the record of the Prime Minister's conversations with Sir Hugh Beadle in London will, like the records of other conversations, both formal and informal, be made available to Parliament.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, it would not be appropriate to make public any record of Sir Hugh Beadle's personal conversations with the Prime Minister. The documents made available to Parliament in Cmnd. 2807 are concerned with negotiations between Governments.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, are we to understand that the conversations with Sir Hugh Beadle had nothing to do with the political situation in Rhodesia?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, they had a good deal to do with the political situation in Rhodesia, but so had conversations with a number of other private individuals.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, can we infer from the noble Lord's reply, for which I thank him, that nothing was said to Sir Hugh Beadle except in relation to the negotiations which were then proceeding? Can we assume that there was nothing in his conversations with the Prime Minister which dealt with any action that Sir Hugh Beadle might take after a possible U.D.I., or which dealt with any advice which he might give to the Judiciary after a possible U.D.I? Can the noble Lord say that the conversations were confined specifically to the negotiations and to nothing else?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I think it would be unwise on the part of the noble Lord to make any assumption. These were private conversations and no record has been kept.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, was it not really a very extraordinary thing to invite the Chief Justice of a fully self-governing country, who had been appointed by a previous Rhodesian Government, to come to London for discussions, over the head of his own Government and against their wishes?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, Sir Hugh Beadle came to this country on his own initiative, and I should have thought that the majority would have agreed that any possibility of averting the catastrophe which faces us was a possibility worth pursuing.
§ LORD COLERAINEMy Lords, are we not all of us entitled to make assumptions arising out of what the noble Lord has said? Am I not entitled to make the assumption that, when the Chief Justice was brought over here over the head of the legitimate Rhodesian Government, he was being used not so much as a channel for negotiation but as an instrument for coercion?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am bound to say that I should have thought that it was worth while on the part of the noble Lord to make an extra effort to get himself into a more objective posture.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, is there any reason to assume that the Chief Justice, the head of the Judiciary in Southern Rhodesia, in any way departed from his duty?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. There is, indeed, no reason to assume that at all.
§ LORD COLERAINEHas anyone suggested that?
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is the case that no record whatsoever was taken of these conversations?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, these personal conversations were between the Prime Minister and Sir Hugh Beadle. The Prime Minister had had many conversations with other individuals; whether or not notes were taken in some cases I could not say. But certainly, if notes were taken it was never intended to publish them and no publication will be made.