§ Mr. Healey (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resignation of Sir F. Pedler from the Pearce Commission and the steps being taken to replace him.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)Sir Frederick Pedler very properly submitted his resignation to me on 6th January after discovering that a company with which he is associated has small, dormant interests in Rhodesia. I am this afternoon giving the House, in answer to a Written Question from the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), the full text of his letter of resignation and of my acceptance of it.
I have considered the possibility of replacing him, but in view of the fact that the Commission was on the point of leaving for Rhodesia I decided that it would not be feasible to do so. As the House will be aware, the Commission has started work in Rhodesia.
§ Mr. HealeyCan the right hon. Gentleman explain how, when he took such care to ensure that no one with political interests in Rhodesia was appointed to the Commission, he should have stumbled on someone with a pecuniary interest?
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side cannot accept his reason for not appointing someone to the vacancy? He will be aware that he is being pressed from both sides of the House to appoint to the Commission either an African from outside Rhodesia or a distinguished European who has the confidence of the Africans? Is he further aware that recent events very much strengthen the desire—throughout the House, I think—to improve the balance of the Commission, because there is deep concern at the failure of the Commission so far to stand up to the pressures put upon it by the Smith regime? I refer particularly to its refusal to meet the Rev. Sithole and the withdrawal of the written forms on which the Africans might express their views only two days after circulating 6,000 such forms? Could he say why these forms were withdrawn after a meeting between Mr. Smith and two members of the Commission?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS "Get to the question."] This is directly concerned with the question, because the reputation of this House and of the country depends on the test of acceptability being carried out thoroughly and honestly, with full regard to the opinions of all the 35 inhabitants of Rhodesia, whether African or European.
Furthermore, is it not the case that so far Mr. Smith has not honoured his promise to allow normal political activity in Rhodesia, because the African nationalist parties are not allowed to operate inside the tribal territories and there is every sign of a scare campaign being used to prevent full freedom of discussion in the urban areas also? Is he aware that, unless he takes rapid action to press the Smith régime to carry out its promises, the test of acceptability will be regarded on this side of the House as totally unsatisfactory?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeOn the first question, Sir Frederick himself did not know of this small interest that he had, and I can hardly be expected to do so. The moment Sir Frederick recognised that there was this small subsidiary company involved, he quite properly gave up his post.
Secondly, it is a British responsibility to see this through, and we cannot surrender it either to Europeans or to Africans. We ourselves must see it through. In regard to the forms, if only the right hon. Gentleman had waited until this afternoon, instead of making a public speech yesterday, he would have learned that they had nothing whatever to do with the meeting between Lord Pearce and/or any member of the Commission and Mr. Smith. The forms were issued because great queues of people wanted to see the members of the Commission. It was hoped that the forms would facilitate this process, but they were taken away and abused and were used for filling in the names of hundreds of other people on one side or the other. Therefore, the Commission withdrew them as a matter of practical convenience. It is for Lord Pearce to say whether the political situation is such that he can operate freely.
§ Mr. Ronald BellWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this delay, however necessary, has given an opportunity for all the trouble makers and career agitators in the world to congregate in Rhodesia? Will he impress on the Commission the importance of speed before trouble is created there which has never existed before?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have constantly warned the House how near violence is to the surface not only in Rhodesia but in many of the African countries.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonSince the test of acceptability is designed to give confidence to this House that the settlement is an acceptable one, and since we are not to have on the Commission anybody with real experience of the Africans in Rhodesia, could we ask that at least the sources of news should not be polluted by Mr. Smith? He has kept out of Rhodesia some of the most well-informed in British journalism and is thereby indicating to the Press that any critical reports on the situation in Rhodesia will probably lead to the expulsion of journalists as well? Furthermore, may I emphasise my right hon. Friend's point by saying that unless the Africans are allowed free political debate—and that means amendment of the Law and Order Act in Rhodesia—they cannot possibly express their true convictions to the Pearce Commission?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think we had better not anticipate trouble about the journalists before we meet it. When the hon. Member says that there is nobody on the Commission with intimate knowledge of Africa, he surely cannot have looked at its membership. I suppose that Sir Maurice Dorman and Sir Glyn Jones know as much about Africa as anybody in this country.
§ Mr. ThorpeIs the Foreign Secretary aware that his reason for not replacing the resigned member of the Commission is not very convincing? Is he aware that the most recent comparable Commission on a constitution was the Crowther Commission and that when one of its members was elected by this House to high office and had to resign Her Majesty's Government found no difficulty at all in providing an immediate substitute? Therefore, is he aware that on precedent there is no great case to be made out for saying that it is impossible to provide a substitute person to take the place of somebody who has resigned since, on precedent, it has never been thought inadvisable before? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to replace Sir Frederick and if, as he has asserted, it is a British interest, does he not agree it is somewhat disquieting that a distinguished 37 lawyer like Sir Dingle Foot has been banned entry into Rhodesia by Mr. Smith. [An HON. MEMBER "Oh!"] Sir Dingle Foot has served with distinction before the Devlin Commission and he and his fellow counsel were thanked by Lord Devlin for the assistance they had given to the Commission. Is it not, therefore, even more disquieting that somebody whom the Commission itself has indicated would be acceptable to appear before it has been banned by Mr. Smith? Would the Foreign Secretary also agree that, this being a British interest, it would be somewhat surprising in these circumstances if any hon. Member of this House were to be banned from going to Rhodesia and watching the Commission at work?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI did not say it was not possible to get another member of the Commission—it would be possible. But the Commission has done a lot of preparatory work and is now out in the country in Rhodesia. Therefore, any new member would have lost three weeks of the Commission's preparatory work. As I said at the beginning, I think that these four members will carry out the work most adequately. On the question of Sir Dingle Foot, that is not a matter for me to answer.
§ Mr. MolloyThen you should pack up the job; this is an illegal régime.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI should have thought that the Africans were perfectly capable of providing their own spokesmen.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithAlthough as yet we do not know the full facts which are purported in justification of the banning of Sir Dingle Foot, would my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have known Sir Dingle over the years, both professionally and in this House, regret the fact that he is unable to give the Commission the benefit of his services —indeed, that we regret his being banned on this occasion just as sincerely as we regretted his being similarly banned from West Africa a few years ago?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have a very high opinion of Sir Dingle Foot's abilities. The matter of who enters Rhodesia is not one for me.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonThe right hon. Gentleman has just disclaimed responsibility in this matter, but since a few minutes ago he said that this was a British responsibility is he aware that the constitution of Rhodesia is governed by the Southern Rhodesia Act, which was passed by this House and is still in force? While the right hon. Gentleman has reposed a great deal of trust in Mr. Smith in terms of the settlement which he has announced to the House, has he not an equal responsibility to this House for the manner in which Mr. Smith enables the conduct of this Commission to be carried out in the way it wants and in the way this House has a right to see it carried out?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe Commission is, of course, a direct British responsibility. This is what I was speaking of just now. The terms of reference of the Pearce Commission say that it should ascertain Rhodesian opinion by means of direct contact with the people of Rhodesia. I think it had better be allowed to do that.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonBut the right hon. Gentleman has been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the refusal of the Rhodesian authorities, by their immigration control, to allow a former Law Officer of the Crown to go there when he has been found to be acceptable to the Commission itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made the strongest representations to Mr. Smith, with whom he was recently negotiating, in order to tell him that this is regarded by this House and the country as an intolerable decision?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have made representations to Mr. Smith conveying to him Sir Dingle Foot's wish to go to Rhodesia. The answer was that Sir Dingle Foot, in Mr. Smith's opinion, should not go to Rhodesia. I conveyed that opinion to Sir Dingle Foot.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he is simply playing Ian Smith's game? Does he not recognise that this is a matter which affects the reputation of this House? When a former Law Officer of the Crown is rejected by Ian Smith's régime, does he not think it necessary to rebuke that régime and make representations on behalf of this House?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have stated the position to the House and my responsibility in this matter. I conveyed this information to Sir Dingle Foot.
§ Mr. SandysWill my right hon. Friend do what he can to ensure that sight is not lost of the real issue which the Commission is sent out to settle, namely, to find out not whether the people of Rhodesia like and regard the settlement as ideal but whether they prefer the advantages which the settlement offers to a continuation of the present situation?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThat position was made clear in the debate a few weeks ago.
§ Mr. ThorpeMay I ask the Foreign Secretary to be good enough to answer my third question? Since he has apparently, by implication, conceded the right of Mr. Ian Smith to decide which counsel will or will not be allowed to appear before the Pearce Commission and thereby over-ruled the Commission, can he say whether he concedes to Mr. Smith likewise the right to veto visits to Rhodesia by Members of this House?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThat question has not been raised—
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIt has not been raised unless the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), to whom I shall be talking later this afternoon, raises it with me. I think that if there is to be any official delegation to Rhodesia it would be much better on an all-party basis.
§ Mr. PagetCould the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any lawyers are being heard by the Pearce Commission and whether he regards the question before this Commission as being a justiciable one?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs I have said the terms of reference of the Commission are to make direct contact with the Africans. I have no reason to think that it will not be able to do so. There is no reason to think that the Africans cannot express their opinions very clearly.
§ Mr. HealeyThe Foreign Secretary is quite right in saying that we are to meet later this afternoon, and as far as matters relating to me personally are concerned, I do not wish to pursue them in this House at the moment. Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House will regard it as intolerable if he gives Mr. Smith the right to decide whether any British Member of Parliament, in any capacity, is allowed to visit that country? Is he aware that we shall feel, if he acts as a messenger boy for Mr. Smith, that he has already accepted the unilateral declaration of independence, which is a matter at issue in this whole affair?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI was asked to inquire whether Sir Dingle Foot would be acceptable in Rhodesia. I conveyed to Sir Dingle the message in reply.
§ Mr. HealeyWith great respect, the right hon. Gentleman was asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party whether he conceded to Mr. Smith the right to decide whether Members of this House should visit Rhodesia. He is well aware that he was asked on 22nd December to convey to Mr. Smith the desire of myself to visit Rhodesia. I expect that was by letter, but it is no good his telling the House that he has not been asked by anyone whether a Member of Parliament could visit Rhodesia. He must already have decided by this time in principle whether he is prepared to press the rights of Members of this House. We want the answer now.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeMembers of Parliament have been going backwards and forwards to Rhodesia quite freely. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go to Rhodesia there is obviously no hindrance.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonOn the question of Members of Parliament visiting Rhodesia, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that under the previous Government no objection was raised to hon. Members in all parts of the House visiting Rhodesia, and Conservative, Labour and Liberal Members did so quite freely, including the right hon. Gentleman, without any exception being taken by the Government. No Minister got up at the Box to say that it would be better if they went on an all-party delegation. They were allowed to go, whatever view 41 they expressed, including many who spoke in favour of U.D.I. in Rhodesia. That was a situation very different from now, when, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we are responsible for the conduct of the Commission. Now everything is clamped down and hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman says, should go only in an all-party delegation. He thinks it would be preferable. Are we to infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he regards his duty in this as being merely to pass on a request to Mr. Smith, and, if Mr. Smith does not like the individual concerned, to say that he cannot go, be he a Law Officer of the Crown doing a job in relation to the Commission or a senior Member of this House? Has the right hon. Gentleman no rôle except to pass back messages from Mr. Smith to hon. Members?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI did not know that Sir Dingle Foot was a Member of this House. The position of the Government is exactly the same as that of the last Government. The right hon. Gentleman said that the last Government had no objection, and this Government's position is exactly the same; we have no objection to any Member of Parliament going to Rhodesia if he wishes to do so. The proposal, I understand, has been put forward that during the time when the Pearce Commission is there, Members of Parliament either collectively or singly may want to go out and see it in operation. I was only saying that in my view I think there is a strong case for an all-party delegation going to see the operation.
§ Mr. ThorpeOn a point of order. I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House—
§ Mr. SpeakerNot now.