INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION (Hansard, 3 July 1953)

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
The matter which I wish to raise on the Adjournment this afternoon is the operation and the running generally of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which I shall refer to, as we all know it, as the I.P.U. I shall do so with special reference to Treasury responsibility, Treasury grants——

§ Mr. Lewis
—and in some instances lack of Treasury control. Let me explain that it is not my intention to attack any individual of the I.P.U., whether as a paid servant or one of the honorary officials. Neither is it my intention to attack any group of Members associated with the work of the I.P.U. My purpose is to find out information and to put forward ideas and suggestions which would be helpful to the I.P.U., and generally to ascertain information which, if not actually unobtainable, is very difficult to obtain in the usual way that Members try to get information in this House.
I ought to make an explanation personally. I in no way intend any reflection upon you, Mr. Speaker, or the work that we all know you do voluntarily and quite arduously on behalf of all Members in very many respects, such as these outside engagements which you undertake on our behalf. Technically speaking, you have the responsibility of selecting the various Parliamentary delegations that are arranged by the I.P.U. I say "technically" because in actual fact you have a very onerous job. I believe that you are given a whole list of names and from it you do your utmost to see that the correct and proper delegation is appointed. I think it is true to say that you do not receive the whole list of the various Members that are put 822 forward to go on these delegations. It is on this aspect that I want to raise a matter with the Treasury.
For some months past I have been attempting to find out how many of these delegations have been appointed over the last few years, how they have been selected and what procedure and method are adopted to see that a proper representation of the House is arrived at in the composition of these delegations.

§ Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? I think he came to the House in 1945, and joined the I.P.U. in 1951. I never remember seeing him attending a meeting. Why does he not use the usual procedure to find these things out?

§ Mr. Lewis
I expected that question. Quite a number of I.P.U. representatives have put that to me. The answer was given when the Chairman himself put it.
In fact, I did join the I.P.U. before that date but I dropped out on a question of inadvertence in the payment of contributions. I would emphasise that I am interested in the principle and not in the individual case of a Member being in or not in the I.P.U., when he joined and how he joined. I am interested in the general principle. I was saying that I tried to ascertain how these delegations were got together, and I did ask the I.P.U. for the information.

§ Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)
On a point of order. I do not know whether you are proposing to reply to this debate, Mr. Speaker. If not I fail to see which Minister can reply to it, because no Minister is responsible for this.

§ Mr. Lewis
Further to that point of order. I was about to say that I wanted to see how the membership of the delegations was arrived at, and how much of the Treasury grant goes towards arranging for and paying the expenditure incurred in the sending of these delegations. As Treasury money is involved, I was going to ask that the Treasury should give an explanation. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that would be in order.

§ Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)
Is not the position this—that despite the fact, or by virtue of the fact, that there is a Treasury grant, hon. Members of this House, whether they are members of the 823 organisation or not, are entitled to the information, but that when the information is sought it is refused by the I.P.U. and it is also unobtainable in the Library?

§ Mr. Lewis
I do not want to develop the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has just raised, but if he will listen to me he will hear that I can confirm in part what he has said.
I was saying that I was trying to obtain information about the number and composition of these delegations. I got into touch with the I.P.U., and after many months of difficulty I eventually obtained a list. Incidentally, I was informed afterwards that I should not have received the list and that if it had been known that I had the list, it would have been stopped. I do not know why. It may be that it is because the list reveals that some 26 delegations have been arranged. Hon. Members would find from the list that there are 22 hon. Members, who shall remain nameless, who have been more than once, and some of them several times, on various delegations.
My first point is that I feel, and this is a feeling that is expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that when there are over 600 Members of Parliament and when the overwhelming majority of those have never been a member of any delegation and have never been invited to become members, it seems unfair that some 22 should have had the opportunity of going on these delegations more than once. I emphasise that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members have not had that opportunity.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)
On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Member is directing certain criticisms—it is not for me to say whether sound or unsound—about the selection by the I.P.U. of certain delegations. As the hon. Member has himself stated that the selection is not the responsibility of myself or any of my colleagues on the Front Bench, I seek your guidance as to how this matter is to be dealt with. I am in no position, nor is it my duty, to deal with the merits one way or the other 824 of the selection by the I.P.U. of these delegations.
It is, I understand, a rule of the House that on a Motion for the Adjournment matters can only be raised for which some Minister is responsible. As I understand, the essence of that is to ensure that in fairness to whoever may be attacked there may be somebody who is in the position to answer for the attacked body or person. I therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how this debate is to be conducted.

§ Mr. Speaker
In reply to that question, it is true that it is a fundamental rule of Motions on the Adjournment that some Minister must be responsible for anything about which there is a complaint. So far, the hon. Member has not disclosed his link with Ministerial responsibility. Perhaps if he will do that now, we shall know where we are.

§ Sir Edward Keeling (Twickenham)
I have another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that these selections are in fact made by you, though it is true on recommendations made by the I.P.U. But I understand that in several cases you have in fact altered the recommendations of the I.P.U. It is a well-established principle that no criticism of yourself may be made except on a substantive Motion. Therefore, I suggest that if the hon. Member has any criticism of the selection which has been made he should put down a Motion criticising yourself.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is true, but so far the hon. Member has refrained from criticising me.

§ Mr. Hobson
Further to that point of order. I believe that it is a decision of this House that there is no Supply without redress of a grievance. In this case there is Supply granted in the form of a Treasury Vote, and I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is in order in dealing with it.

§ Mr. Speaker
It would perhaps be best for the hon. Member for West Ham, North to develop the link between what he is saying and Ministerial responsibility of some sort.

§ Mr. Lewis
It seems that for some reason or another many hon. Members are rather surprised and perhaps annoyed 825 that this matter has been raised—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but I was going on to say that in fact Treasury money is expended, and I want to know how far the Treasury take cognisance of the money that is spent, and what action they take to see that it is fairly and properly expended by the body to which they contribute.
I want to know whether or not the Treasury have representation within the I.P.U. on this question of selection, and, if not, why not, and whether they will now consider the advisability of having some representative of the Treasury, so that we can get information as to what exactly is happening.
I have mentioned that I have a list of delegations. I was told afterwards that if it had been known that I had this information it would have been stopped. I tried this afternoon, through the services of the Library, to get information from the Librarian as to whether or not Treasury money is expended on the appointment of conference delegates. The Librarian expressed surprise and amazement that the information had been refused, and I was informed that the office was shut until 3.30. At 3.35 I again asked for the information and was told that it would not be available until Monday.
The point which I am trying to make is this. Surely when a Member of Parliament votes money to the Treasury and the Treasury grant money to organisations he is entitled to know, and to ask either through that organisation or through the Treasury or through the facilities of the Library, just how and in what way this money is being expended.
There is another matter equally important where money is expended. I do not know how much or how it is expended, but certainly Treasury money is involved. Again, I do not know whether the Treasury do or do not have a representative. If they do, I hope that the Treasury will give me some explanation. If they do not have a representative, I suggest that it is about time they had someone from the Treasury to see what happens on the question of the appointment of these—for want of a better name—welcome or reception committees which are arranged.
826 It may be news to many hon. Members that when delegations come to this country, the I.P.U., rightly—no one would object to this—go out of their way, with Treasury money, to give these overseas delegates a really good welcome on behalf of this Parliament. No one would object to that; in face everyone would warmly approve it. This reception committee which is appointed or selected or got together, I do not know how——

§ Major Beamish
If the hon. Gentleman had come to the I.P.U. meetings he would have the information.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am more interested in the Treasury being able to give me the information which I cannot get in any other way.
The reception committees appear always to have the same composition. They take overseas visitors to various parts of the country and show them our national beauty spots, historic buildings and the glories of this great country. That is right. But I want to know why it is always the same persons who give the welcome. Neither I, nor any other hon. Members who had expressed some dismay about this, would have any objection if it were argued that the committees are composed of senior Members of the House who have some prior claim because of their long service, but that is not the position.
I can get no detailed information about conferences until Monday. I am told that it will be available, after the Adjournment debate, on Monday. As to the selection committees, we have no knowledge at all what control the Treasury has over appointments or what say the Treasury has in them.
I urge the Financial Secretary to go further into the matter. I and my hon. Friends want hon. Members to be able to obtain detailed information when they want it, either by writing to the organisation which receives grants or, if we so desire, by going to meetings. If I may deal with the interruption made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), many hon. Members are so busily engaged elsewhere that they do not have the time to attend annual meetings of organisations, but they have 827 the right, which they often exercise, to apply to the organisation or the Minister concerned for information and the information is freely and willingly given. It is no answer to say that because a certain hon. Member does not attend an annual meeting it should preclude him or others from obtaining information about what is happening to Treasury funds.

§ Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)
rose——

§ Mr. Lewis
I cannot give way. We have the I.P.U. representatives here in force. I merely wish that these representatives could have given me the information when I asked for it, but unfortunately, it was not until I got here that I received the information which I have been trying to get for months.
I seek some arrangement—I am sure the whole House would wish it—whereby there shall be Treasury control over the money which the Treasury distributes, whereby we can, if need be by asking Questions on the Floor of the House, obtain information about what is happening to the money, and whereby the duties of welcoming and entertaining the overseas visitors are fairly and properly shared out among all hon. Members, irrespective of party, so that all of us can have an opportunity of meeting some of the overseas delegates. There are some who have never had an opportunity of meeting these delegations.
Again I must emphasise that I am not myself concerned, because if an hon. Member feels that he wants to get on to a delegation this is the last way in which he would deal with that matter. I am interested in hon. Members who have been here for 20 and 30 years, and who have never been given the opportunity of going around the country, meeting any of these overseas people or of proceeding on a delegation. On the other hand, some who have been here only four or five years have been on these delegations, and it is not unknown for them to go twice in succession. That is not fair, and I am asking the Financial Secretary to see that in future when the grant is made the arrangements are fairly and properly organised on behalf of all hon. Members in this House.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)
First, in accordance with precedent, I should disclose the fact that I share the position of joint honorary treasurer of this organisation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). I suppose therefore I have some kind of interest to declare, but it is not in that capacity that I stand at this Box today.
As I sought to make clear at an earlier stage, a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not a matter which it would be fitting or proper for me to attempt to deal with. The greater part of his speech was directed to the expression of view that in the selection of hon. Members or noble Lords either to go abroad as delegations or alternatively to assist in the entertainment of distinguished foreigners in this country, the I.P.U. had not followed the methods of selection which the hon. Member himself would recomend.
Be that as it may, for reasons which I will make clear that is a matter with which I cannot deal at this Box. But I am bound to add this. The hon. Gentleman, as has been pointed out by other hon. Members, because he feels strongly on this matter has taken this opportunity to express his point of view but in circumstances in which it is extremely difficult for the people whose judgment he is challenging to reply. It is no doubt in the light of that fact that hon. Members and people outside will judge the validity or otherwise of the charges he has seen fit to make.

§ Mr. Lewis
On a point of order. When I spoke I pointed out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I had tried to raise this matter through the proper channels and had been blocked at every turn. It was only then that I felt justified in raising this on the Adjournment.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Lewis
My point of order is this. Having explained my attitude, surely I am in order, having failed through the normal channels to get redress, to raise it on the Adjournment, particularly if I feel 829 dissatisfied with the cursory treatment I have received from the organisation?

§ Sir Robert Boothby (Aberdeenshire, East)
Further to that point of order. May I point out to the hon. Member that the normal and usual channels in this case was surely the I.P.U.?

§ Mr. Lewis
I tried them.

§ Sir R. Boothby
But the hon. Gentleman never comes near any meetings of the I.P.U.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I think that episode only underlines the force of what I observed a moment ago. The position is this so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. If the hon. Gentleman were good enough to consult the volume of the Civil Estimates for 1953–54, Class I, Vote 23, Miscellaneous Expenses, he would see that there is set out the grant to the Inter-Parliamentary Union of expenditure during the coming year of £7,700. He would also have observed, had he consulted the Estimates, a footnote to that Vote which points out that expenditure out of that grant-in-aid would not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and that any balances of the sums issued which may be unexpended at 31st March, 1954, would not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. Also material to this is a further note which says that the accounts of the Union would be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

§ Mr. Glen vil Hall (Colne Valley)
In order that those unacquainted with the facts will get the position right, would the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of that £7,700 goes overseas to the larger body to which the I.P.U. is affiliated?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The right hon. Gentleman has great experience of this matter and is well aware of the position and of the fact that in the statement which, of course, is issued with the I.P.U. reports——

§ Mr. H. Hynd
To all Members?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am much obliged. As I understand to all Members. The report which I am holding in my hand says that of its total income a sum of £3,120 8s. 10d.—I rather like the 830 precision—goes to the Inter-Parliamentary Union Bureau, the International Headquarters, as I understand it, of the I.P.U. at Geneva. The point I was making was that it is there expressly provided that these matters are not accounted for in detail.
The only other point the hon. Gentleman raised, which perhaps falls to me to deal with, is his suggestion that, even with those facts I have stated, for some reason Her Majesty's Treasury and Government ought to have intervened further; ought, in fact, to have revealed the detailed expenditure of this sum of money. I do not share that view. It is the fact that when we are dealing with grants-in-aid to outside bodies—and for this purpose this distinguished body is an outside body—the arrangement I have read out from the Estimates is not unusual; for this reason, that where we are dealing with a body composed of extremely eminent persons performing a useful public function, it would be both inappropriate and a waste of everybody's time, for Her Majesty's Government to seek to interfere.
I will fortify that view with the views of a former hon. Member of this House to whom the revival of the I.P.U. after the war was perhaps due more than to anybody else, the late Ernest Bevin. He said this: The Inter-Parliamentary Union is the kind of body that can do things which Governments cannot do. When I took office I thought that it would assist not only the preservation but also the redevelopment of democratic institutions if parliamentarians from different countries could meet and talk freely to each other. They could, moreover, say things that I could not say as Foreign Secretary. … That is true. Surely it follows from that, that if Her Majesty's Government were to intervene in such details as the composition of the bodies that, subject to your decision, Mr. Speaker, the I.P.U. send overseas, that strong independence, which is one of its assets, would be in great degree prejudiced. Not only, therefore, would it be most inappropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in the affairs of this body but, by doing so, it would do a great deal to undermine the value of the work which this body has been and is doing.
I must, therefore, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, say that I disagree 831 totally with his suggestion that, either by appointing its representatives or by attempting to maintain detailed control of the expenditure of this relatively small sum of money, Her Majesty's Government should intervene in its affairs.

§ Mr. Lewis
rose——

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
No, I am sorry. It is a body that performs a tremendously useful function as a meeting place of parliamentarians, not Governments, who can speak more freely than members of Governments——

§ Mr. Lewis
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order, order.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
—or those with official responsibility can do.
832 In the last moment available I want to say that Her Majesty's Government have the highest regard for the immensely important work in the international field which this distinguished body is doing, and feel the greatest gratitude towards the distinguished members of both Houses who undertake the responsibility of managing its affairs. We regard this grant, which is all that I am responsible for, as money exceedingly well-spent and have no criticism to offer of the way in which it is spent.