HC Deb 17 January 1972 vol 829 cc51-2
Mr. Thorpe

I beg to seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely, The Foreign Secretary's refusal to guarantee that persons in Rhodesia should be accorded the right of representation by counsel of their choice before the Pearce Commission and his further refusal to assert the undoubted right of British Members of Parliament, collectively or individually, to visit Rhodesia to observe the activities of that Commisson. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that this was a British responsibility—and I can find no quarrel with that. In fact, it is ultimately the responsibility of this House. The Pearce Commission has started its work, but in those countries where the rule of law obtains, it is of the essence of that rule of law that a person shall be allowed to retain the counsel of his choice. This was the basis on which the Devlin Commission held its deliberations in what was then Nyasaland and is now Malawi. It is pertinent to note that the Devlin Report paid tribute to the great assistance which counsel had given the Commission by interviewing witnesses and assisting them in the preparation of their statements.

The right to choose one's own counsel, therefore, is of the essence—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he now appears to be making the case for debating this matter. The only issue which I have to decide is whether there should be a debate under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Thorpe

If you please, Sir. May I merely add, therefore, that the Pearce Commission is about to begin its deliberations? There is no guarantee that witnesses will have the right of representation by counsel of their choice. In my submission, it is manifestly right that they should be accorded that basic legal right.

Second, and finally, Member of Parliament have expressed a wish to go to Rhodesia. With the greatest respect to the Foreign Secretary, it is not true to say that no Member of Parliament has indicated his wish to go. My own colleague, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), has already made known to the Foreign Office his wish to go. It is not an unfair disclosure to say that the point has miraculously taken the Foreign Office somewhat by surprise.

In this situation, it is manifestly right not only that hon. Members should be allowed to go and that the Foreign Secretary should assert that right, but that, in order to see that justice is not only done but manifestly seen to be done, witnesses in Rhodesia should be guaranteed by this House the right to representation. Our obligation is to them, to the Pearce Commission and to this House and not, I suggest, to Mr. Smith.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, The Foreign Secretary's refusal to guarantee that persons in Rhodesia should be accorded the right of representation by counsel of their choice before the Pearce Commission and his further refusal to assert the undoubted right of British Members of Parliament, collectively or individually, to visit Rhodesia to observe the activities of that Commission. As I have frequently said before, I have simply a procedural decision to make. Anyone who was present to hear the supplementary questions to the Private Notice Question today must realise the importance which the House attaches to this matter, and I have no doubt that the House will find means of discussing it further. I simply have to decide whether it should be given precedence over the business already fixed. I am afraid that I cannot.