HC Deb 07 December 1959 vol 615 cc107-78

6.57 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I beg to move, That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act on all occasions, particularly at the United Nations, in a manner wholly consistent with this declaration. The theme of what I have to say is a simple one. The human race is one family and it is in the interest of all of us that anything which divides us should be frowned upon. Race and colour are two of the elements which divide us more than almost any other characteristics. Therefore, efforts should continually be made to overcome the divisive effects of race and colour. It is for that reason that we have tabled a Motion which declares in the strongest possible terms our disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination, for to take action against men and women purely on the ground of their colour is wicked. We should say so and we should act accordingly.

We are not satisfied with the actions of the Government on this matter over the last few years. Certainly, within the last few months they have not given the confidence which they should do to mankind as a whole that they intend to act in accordance with the principle which, I believe, will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people of these islands.

We wish to be clear where the Government stand on this matter, for very shortly the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary are to set forth on journeys, throughout the whole of Africa, which may have very great repercussions on our future policy in that continent, and we wish them well. We believe that the Motion provides an opportunity for the Government to make their position clear. That is why I very much regret that they have thought fit to put down an Amendment in the terms they have. I shall return to that in due course.

The Government have recently had an opportunity of declaring themselves on the broad, simple principle that I have outlined, and, as in previous years, they have declined to take that opportunity. Last month, the Political Committee of the United Nations had in front of it a motion reading as follows: The General Assembly … is deeply convinced that the practice of racial discrimination and segregation is opposed to the observances of human rights and freedoms, considering that Governmental policies which accentuate or seek to preserve racial discrimination are prejudicial to international harmony, notes with concern that the policy of apartheid is still being pursued. … Expresses its opposition to the continuance or preservation of racial discrimination in any part of the world. … Expresses its deep regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to appeals of the General Assembly that it reconsider governmental policy which impairs the rights of all racial groups to enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms. We voted against that motion, and I very much regret that that vote was passed in our name. I understand that we voted against it on the ground that it was a matter within the domestic jurisdiction of the South African Government and that the Charter of the United Nations, in Article II (7), says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter. … We have not yet had from the United Nations the transcript of the speech of our delegate on this occasion, but the transcript of the speech of our delegate setting out the reason for his voting against a similar motion last year is contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th November, 1958, and I take it that the reasons for our vote this year are probably the same as they were last year. Our delegate then said: The United Kingdom Delegation will vote against the Resolution before the Committee. It follows from what I have said that in so doing we are not expressing any opinion on the internal policies of the Union of South Africa. The United Kingdom vote has one meaning only. It is a vote in defence of the United Nations Charter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1958; Vol. 595, c. 843.] Words can be made to mean many things, but to use that language in defence of the United Nations Charter seems worthy of Sir John Simon at his best at the time of the trouble in Manchuria.

There is not even agreement among international authorities that this is, in essence, a domestic matter. I understand that the latest edition of Oppenheim's "International Law" states clearly that the rule that a State can treat its subjects according to its discretion is subject to its international obligations and, in particular, the general obligations of the Charter of the United Nations relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United Nations resolution, which I have just read, called upon all member States, and not just South Africa, to conform with their Charter obligations and to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In the vote that was taken on the motion, 66 nations voted for it, seven abstained, and two others—France and Portugal—voted, with Britain, against it. I tell the Government that this is a shocking position to be in. They do not even do themselves justice. After all, both this and the previous Tory Governments can claim to have led many people forward to self-government and the fulfilment of their rights, but on this occasion we have allowed ourselves to be put into a position where we are in company with only two other colonial Powers in defence of a situation that is repugnant and intolerable to the overwhelming majority of our people.

That is not the end of the matter. We have not been consistent in our actions. I can understand the Government standing upon the line that this is essentially a domestic matter—although I disagree with them on that—and, therefore, they do not record their view and express an opinion, but there are other cases where they have recorded their views and expressed their opinion in the current session of the United Nations. In the case of Tibet, just six weeks ago a resolution was passed urging respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people. Sir Pierson Dixon, on our behalf, emphasised the importance which the British Government attached to Article II (7) and explained that it was for that reason alone that he could not support the motion. He was giving the umbrella of his consent to what was being done, while standing on the terms of the Article in question.

There was another example just ten days ago, concerning Hungary. In view of Sir Leslie Munro's reports of the reign of terror there, just ten days ago the Steering Committee agreed to put the question of Hungary upon the agenda. Is the internal reign of terror in Hungary a matter of domestic jurisdiction? I should have thought that it might have been added to that category by a Government who say that apartheid is a matter of internal jurisdiction. On this occasion, however, the United Kingdom delegate supported the motion.

This means that in three special cases we have voted differently. In the case of Hungary we supported the motion to place the matter on the agenda; in the case of Tibet we said that we could not support the motion put forward, on the ground, and only on the ground, that it was a matter of internal jurisdiction; and in the case of South Africa and the question of apartheid we voted against a similar motion.

The other day the Prime Minister criticised the action of the Opposition in raising this matter and said that it would divide the Commonwealth. It is not the discussion of this matter which divides the Commonwealth; what divides the Commonwealth is the policy being pursued by one of its fellow members. We have only to look at the record of the voting on the most recent motion. Canada abstained; Australia did not vote, and Malaya, Ghana, New Zealand, Pakistan, India and Ceylon voted for the motion. Britain voted against it. That is where the division of the Commonwealth takes place.

Let us be clear about it; this policy of racial discrimination and intolerance is dividing the Commonwealth more than any other subject under discussion in the world today. It is dividing it even more than the cold war. It is well known that there are a number of the poorer, under-developed nations in the world which believe that the cold war is a luxury which can be practised by the rich and advanced nations, but it has not much of a message for them. They are divided on that issue, but, if there is one thing which unites the under-developed territories, the poorer territories, the Asians and the Africans and the South American States, it is this question of racial discrimination. And Britain is standing against them—or appearing to stand against them, because I do not believe that the British Government are in that position. But they really must make their position clear. They really must state where they stand, and this debate provides an opportunity for them to do so.

In my view, we have reached a very sorry position where the actions of one member of the Commonwealth are leading people to claim that it would be an advantage if that member were to leave the Commonwealth. Spontaneous boycotts are being organised against the products of that member of the Commonwealth. I am told that it is embarrassing for us to move this Motion tonight, because the Prime Minister is shortly to visit this member country of the Commonwealth. It is no use pushing this sort of thing under the rug. If public opinion has reached the stage where spontaneous boycotts are organised because of a policy which is being followed, that should be debated in this Chamber. We should understand what, in fact, is at stake.

What is happening is that the effect of the cumulation of measures by the South African Government has led to resentment being felt among other members of the Commonwealth and many other nations in the world, especially the under-developed ones, and it is in these circumstances that the Prime Minister is proposing to visit South Africa. He has been invited there by the leaders of that country, although I have no doubt that he will be welcomed by everyone, as much by those who oppose the Government as by those who support it.

The right hon. Gentleman has to make clear where he stands when he visits South Africa, for there are many people in that country—most people—who, although they may not have votes, do not support the policy being followed by the South African Government. We must ask the Prime Minister—I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here tonight—when he goes there, to state, courteously but firmly, his view about this fundamental question. I do not know whether he intends to talk or to listen. The reports from Durban seem to indicate that he may think he is going to talk, but they think that he is coming to listen.

Die Transvaler, of which Dr. Verwoerd is chairman of the board of directors, says it is important that Mr. Macmillan should hear from Dr. Verwoerd himself why it is the object of the Nationalist Party to make the Union a republic. It seems to me that the speaking will not all be on one side. I have a feeling that the Prime Minister is to be subjected by the Prime Minister of South Africa to a very detailed explanation of what it is that he has in mind. As the Natal Mercury says, the invitation is from a Prime Minister who is the architect of a plan to break up a Union which British statesmanship can claim to be one of its finest achievements; whose avowed republican intentions would have put him out of court in any comity of nations other than the Commonwealth for which he professes no great love. Those are not my words, they are the words of an English-speaking South African newspaper. I wonder who, in this case, is to take the ride on the tiger —which is the tiger and which is the young lady? It may well be that the Prime Minister, when he gets there, will find himself faced with urgent explanations about the necessity for a republic and, secondly, with a demand for control of the Protectorates by South Africa. This is a long-established demand on their part.

The question I wish to ask the Government this evening is this: will they please repeat the pledge given by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) about British status over the Protectorates? I will remind the House of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman on 13th April, 1954, when he was Prime Minister: There can be no question of Her Majesty's Government agreeing at the present time to the transfer of Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland to the Union of South Africa. We are pledged, since the South African Act of 1909, not to transfer these territories until their inhabitants have been consulted and until the United Kingdom Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1954; Vol. 526. c. 966.]

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

That is not in dispute.

Mr. Callaghan

I am glad to hear that it is not in dispute. I hope it is not. I am asking that, five years later, there should be a definite reaffirmation of this pledge, so that when he visits South Africa the Prime Minister will know that he is reinforced by the whole body of opinion in this House and in the country. I should like to give the Minister the opportunity of so saying this evening.

If the Prime Minister accepts the hospitality of the South African Government during the next few months, and says nothing about this question, his visit will do great damage to Britain in the eyes of millions of Africans. That is why I said the other day that the very visit means that the right hon. Gentleman will take up an attitude—he must do so. He cannot act with the irresponsibility of a field marshal. He cannot go there and he carried round the country and not meet any of the African political or trade union leaders, not see any of the African territories or any of the work which has been done, and then come back with a defence of the South African Government.

The right hon. Gentleman is in a responsible position. As Miss Perham pointed out in a remarkable letter in The Times last week, this is not a private enterprise venture on which the Prime Minister is engaged. This is a matter in which there are very great hazards. The Prime Minister is a master of the art of propaganda. We saw the way in which he used President Eisenhower when he was in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] By all accounts it was the most successful political party broadcast of them all. I do not know why hon. Members opposite should take exception to what I say. I hope that the Prime Minister will not find himself used by Dr. Malan—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is dead."]—Dr. Verwoerd, in much the same way as the right hon. Gentleman used, successfully used, President Eisenhower.

We have been told that, of course, the Prime Minister is entitled to go to South Africa, that were it to be argued that he is not, he could not visit the U.S.S.R. But is that argument quite on all fours? Does anybody really have any doubt about where the Prime Minister stands on the question of Communism? Or upon events in Hungary? But where does he stand on the question of apartheid? That is the question I want to ask. That is the question which is being asked, and will be asked increasingly loudly by Africa and by the territories through which the Prime Minister will pass.

I absolutely agree with the visit. By all means let the Prime Minister visit South Africa, but let him make quite clear that we in this country—we are speaking for the overwhelming number of people in this country—view the policy being followed there with repugnance. The right hon. Gentleman can say that as politely, courteously, wisely and sagely as he likes, and as we all know he can speak. I do not mind how he says it, but he ought to say it.

If he does so, the right hon. Gentleman will not only be speaking for us in this country. He will be speaking for the Commonwealth. He will be speaking for Asia and for Africa. That is not a bad audience to have and not a bad volume of support to command. If he does not, if he remains silent, I say that his silence will be misinterpreted and Britain will be put unnecessarily in a false position.

The reason why I do not accept that this is a domestic matter is that there is a danger of infection in Central Africa. When I have talked to leaders in Central Africa and further north, I have always felt that one of the reasons why they press us relentlessly for self-government so quickly is that they fear the policies of the Afrikaans in South Africa will be riveted on them. In Nyasaland, time after time we have heard that they want to be in a position before 1960 in which they can determine their own future because they do not want this type of racial policy following them into Nyasaland. That is why, basically, this is not a matter of domestic jurisdiction. It has its repercussions throughout so many territories. Therefore, it seems in the interests of the British Government if, as I believe, they wish to get a solution in Kenya and other Central African Territories, to dissociate themselves from the policies which are being followed in South Africa.

I do not know whether hon. Members read a very remarkable article in the Observer yesterday by Mr. William Clark. He said in the course of that article that a British visitor to the United Nations could not fail to speculate on the gap in leadership which might be filled by Britain: a Great Power whose interests more and more clearly coincide with those of the great majority of smaller nations in the world —there is an enormous fund of good will for the Power which created independent nations in India, West Africa and Malaya. Yet at present Britain forfeits the right to lead (and the lesser Powers lack alternative leadership) because the United Kingdom finds it necessary on almost every occasion to vote in the tiny minority of pro-colonialist Powers. He might have said the infinitesimal minority of colonialist powers. He went on: Is it necessary or prudent for Britain to choose to support South Africa and lose the support of the civilised world? Is there any sense in the nation which above all has brought its colonies forward to self-government putting itself in the position of supporting a reactionary racial policy that has earned world-wide condemnation? Whatever Britain may do, the United Nations Assembly will increase its power, the smaller Powers will develop their influence in the world's councils. However, if Britain chooses she may become the national leader and organiser of the majority in the Assembly. It would be a satisfying, noble and rewarding rôle for us to play. I say amen to that. I believe that Britain has a great rôle, not only in uniting the Commonwealth on these issues, but also in giving leadership to a great many nations outside the Commonwealth, in the United Nations. I should very much like to see us step into that rôle in the United Nations.

Let us get away from this sort of halfhearted policy. Let us try to give some bold leadership in a matter like this instead of relying upon what I must describe as legal pedantry and hypocrisy in defence of refusing to vote for the resolution on this issue. I do not wish to charge the Foreign Secretary with hypocrisy, but how can be explain giving his reasons about Tibet and saying he is in favour of what is being done, how can he sustain a vote on Hungary and yet withdraw his skirts when it comes to the question of South Africa, especially when there is no question whether we should have united the Commonwealth behind us and we have the responsibility for so doing?

Because this is a general Motion, I should like to say another word about racial intolerance and discrimination at home. We have seen it at Nottingham and at Notting Hill. I do not believe the Government have done nearly enough to deal with the roots of racial intolerance and discrimination in this country. We need a tremendous campaign of education. We need more. Hand in hand with education, we need legislation. We should have legislation in this country that would prohibit and make illegal discrimination in any public place. If the Government will introduce such legislation, I can give them the assurance that we shall support it in principle. We shall make no mischief about it. We believe it is so vital for future good relationships between our peoples to see such legislation on the Statute Book that, although naturally we would want to examine the details, in principle we would support such a Measure if the Government brought it forward.

When I look at the Amendment to be moved by the Government, I wonder why they want to move an Amendment. What is wrong with the words in the Motion: That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination."? The Government want us to leave that out. I could have understood it if they said the Opposition had not recognised all they were doing and that they wanted to add something to the Motion in order to congratulate them. Perhaps that might have been discussed. Can we be told why the Government want to leave that out and to go on record as promoting their efforts to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination? If they ask us to leave this out, it is either complete muddle-headedness on their part or there is a more sinister reason. Which is it? On the whole, I believe Ministers are more incompetent than malignant. I would give them the benefit of the doubt; but how do they think anyone else is going to give them the benefit of the doubt about this?

We are asking for a simple declaration, and they cannot bring themselves to ask their followers to go into the Lobby in support of it. This will not do. We simply cannot agree that our Motion should be amended in this way. If hon. Members opposite were to consult their own private views and not their Whips, they would probably agree with us.

This Motion was put on the Order Paper in a declaratory way with the object of allowing the Government to state their position. I ask the Government to reconsider the form of their Amendment and, if they wish, let them include in their proposed Amendment that they declare very strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination. Perhaps we could come to agreement on that. If they do not, they stand condemned, and we shall not hesitate to condemn them. They have the opportunity. This is not a mere form of words. They have the opportunity of amending the Motion now and allowing the record to be put straight. I warn hon. Members opposite that these events are watched extremely closely in Africa. Every word is examined. The whole sequence of events is examined. Even things which we here know are not connected with the problem are in their minds connected. It is in the interest of Britain that the Government should go on record in support of this Motion.

I ask the House to support the Motion. As to the Amendment, I cannot say that I approve of the efforts of Her Majesty's Government. Their attitude in the United Nations in relation to the disputes I have outlined is not one of which I could approve. I do not believe that at home they have taken the steps they should have taken against racial intolerance and discrimination. I cannot, therefore, ask my hon. Friends to vote for the Government's Amendment as it stands now, but let the Government make us an offer during the course of the debate. Let us see whether some agreement may not be reached so that when the Prime Minister goes to Africa he may go with the support of a united House and a united country, as undoubtedly he would, declaring this fierce opposition to a doctrine that is immoral, and a policy that, if pursued, will lead the Commonwealth to disruption.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I beg to second the Motion.

7.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and nondiscrimination by all means within their power". The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that this debate gave us an opportunity to make our position clear on the subject of racial intolerance and discrimination, and we naturally welcome this opportunity to do so. The whole subject of racial intolerance and discrimination has many ramifications, as has been indicated in the speech to which we have just listened. Some aspects of the matter can be more appropriately taken up by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations when he speaks later in the debate.

The Motion moved by the Opposition makes special reference to the actions of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations, and, indeed, this aspect received considerable attention in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I propose, therefore, to deal with it now.

I would say, in passing, that I think this problem of certain items at the United Nations has been a difficult one for successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative. I was looking up today some of the things that the Labour Government have done on this kind of item at the United Nations, and, no doubt, the hon. Member will recollect the item which continually has been before the United Nations on the treatment of Indians in South Africa. When I looked at the White Paper issued by the Labour Government describing their activities at the United Nations, I came across these phrases on the treatment of persons of Indian race in the Union of South Africa. This is the item: The United Kingdom Delegation declined to enter into a discussion on the merits of this dispute. As a result of this, the United Kingdom Delegation were criticised by the Indian Delegation for supporting what the latter termed the racial discrimination policy of the South African Government. The Labour Party's White Paper goes on to say: The discussions were influenced more by emotional and political appeals than by legal arguments. Having been at the United Nations, I have some sympathy with that statement in the Labour Government's White Paper. I say this having had to deal with the actions of the United Kingdom delegation at the United Nations this year and in previous years.

It has been alleged in this House, and, indeed, was alleged by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, that the United Kingdom has acted at the United Nations General Assembly in a way which conflicts with our declared policy on racial matters. It is said that we have by our vote indicated our support for policies of racial discrimination, and it is suggested that we should have cast our vote in a different way, or that we should have used the opportunity presented by these United Nations debates to express certain views about race relations.

Her Majesty's Government's policy on such matters has been stated in this House on a number of occasions, but I shall state it again now in order to clear away the confusion which still appears to exist.

Hon. Members no doubt know that an item on the racial policy of the Government of South Africa has been put on the General Assembly's agenda at each Session since 1952. Our attitude has always been that these resolutions are outside the competence of the General Assembly.

I must emphasise that our attitude is based entirely on this consideration, and I may say that the same Article was frequently referred to by Members of the Labour Party when they were present as representing Great Britain at the United Nations. As hon. Members are aware, the competence of the Assembly is limited by Article II (7) of the United Nations Charter, which says: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.… The provision which I have just quoted clearly has no meaning unless the effect of it is that when a matter is essentially one of domestic jurisdiction, its formal consideration by the United Nations is excluded, even if some kindred matter is mentioned in other provisions of the Charter. I do not propose to burden the House with a long exposition of this legal question.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

Before the Minister of State leaves that point, would he tell us why the Government changed their mind, abstaining up to 1957, and voting against the resolution for the first time in 1958, and then again in 1959?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

Of course, the item has been the same year after year, but the resolutions have varied very considerably from year to year. There are sometimes as many as seven resolutions on a particular item, and the vote on any resolution has to be taken in the light of the wording of the resolution in any particular year.

The point I was about to make is that the relationship which a country has decided, rightly or wrongly, to maintain between persons of varying races living within its own borders is, in the absence of treaty obligations, a matter essentially of domestic jurisdiction. This was no doubt the reason why the Labour Government consistently abstained on the item about Indians in South Africa. We therefore reject the argument which has been advanced in connection with Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. These Articles deal with co-operation in the promotion by the United Nations of a number of general objectives—higher standards of living, full employment and several others including universal respect for human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. These Articles do not pretend to remove from the domestic field the internal policies of Governments on any of these matters.

It is precisely for these reasons, therefore, that we voted again this year, as we have done in the past, against the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the question of race conflict in the Union of South Africa. The decision to vote in this way was taken for the fundamental legal reason which I have stated. It was a decision reached independently of other considerations, such as whether other countries might cast similar votes. Certainly, the United Kingdom vote ought not to be interpreted as an expression of opinion on the substance of the resolution, because we believe that it would be wrong for us to express any opinion in the General Assembly on a matter which is outside the competence of the United Nations.

Here, I should like to quote from the statement made by the United Kingdom representative in the Special Political Committee on 9th November, a statement which he made on my instructions. These are the words which the hon. Member said he had not yet seen. After explaining that the United Kingdom would vote against the resolution because it contravened Article II (7) of the Charter, he said: I would not want our attitude to be misunderstood. This does not mean that we are not in agreement with many of the sentiments expressed in the resolution. For instance, the universal proposition advanced in the first operative paragraph,"— which dealt with the observance of human rights— is one with which we have, on our record, always been associated. In the territories for which my Government are responsible, our policies are, we believe, clear and unequivocal. We are helping the people of those territories to move to nationhood in freedom, regardless of race, colour and creed.

Hon. Members


Mr. Ormsby-Gore

Hon. Members should not start to shout like that. If we want that sort of debate, there are many instances with regard to Tshekedi and Seretse Khama which we could introduce.

I will continue the quotation for the hon. Member: We are, therefore, committed to the progressive removal of any remaining restrictions based upon race as soon as this may be practicable. In the appropriate place and at the appropriate time my delegation has made this policy clear many times in the United Nations". I wish to quote one more passage from the speech of the United Kingdom representative: Whatever the intrinsic rights and wrongs may be in this dispute … the fact remains that seven years of discussion in the United Nations, and the passing of many resolutions, do not seem to have brought us any nearer to resolving it. In the view of my delegation, this is clear proof that whatever the inclination of a majority of its members may be, the United Nations can take no effective action in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. This being so, surely the United Nations can only lose prestige, if it persists in trying to follow courses which eventually lead to nowhere? I draw particular attention to those final words, because I think they indicate why we consider it was wise to include in the Charter of the United Nations a provision such as that contained in Article II (7). If the United Nations were allowed on any and every occasion to pass judgment upon the internal policies of member States, I believe that it would be subjected to intolerable strain and would rapidly become ineffective as an organisation for promoting co-operation and conciliation throughout the world.

I shall digress briefly to mention another matter which is raised at the United Nations; that is the question of South West Africa. This year we felt obliged to oppose two of the seven resolutions put forward on this subject. I am surprised that it has been alleged in the House on a previous occasion that our opposition to these resolutions on South West Africa implied, in some way, support for policies of racial discrimination. The two questions are quite separate and distinct from one another. We have been guided throughout the long series of debates on South West Africa at the United Nations— incidentally, hon. Members will recollect that the Labour Government voted in favour of the incorporation of South West Africa in the Union of South Africa —by the conviction—

Mr. Callaghan

The Minister of State is giving a series of very incomplete analyses of what has happened. Will he refer to the occasion at the 322nd Plenary Meeting on 13th December, 1950, when a motion was passed urging South Africa to give effect to the opinion of the International Court of Justice on South West Africa, including sending reports? The United Kingdom voted for that motion. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to refer to that to fill out the analyses?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

The hon. Gentleman has not yet heard what I have to say about South West Africa. I was just going on to tell him of the way in which we have conducted the debate on South West Africa in recent years. We recognise that it is an extremely difficult problem, and we believe that a solution which will assist the progress and wellbeing of the inhabitants of the territory can be found only through securing the co-operation of the South African Government as the government which, in fact, administer the territory. It is clear that this co-operation can be secured only through negotiations between the United Nations and the Union of South Africa. It is therefore essential to strive to find a mutually acceptable basis for negotiation and to preserve an atmosphere favourable for that purpose.

In our view, the substance and language of two of the draft resolutions on South West Africa would tend to diminish, rather than improve, the prospects of negotiations. It was for this reason that the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations voted against the resolutions. I can say categorically that the voting on these two resolutions on the question of South West Africa is a separate matter altogether unconnected with the question of South African racial affairs.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that our votes on these kinds of items were inconsistent with our votes on topics such as Hungary and Tibet. I believe that it is absurd to suggest that the attitude which the United Kingdom has maintained towards the consideration by the United Nations of the situation in Hungary is evidence of inconsistency. The two cases are totally and fundamentally different. In the case of Hungary in 1956, we were concerned with the armed intervention by a foreign power in the affairs of the sovereign State of Hungary, and of the continuing threat of armed intervention. This intervention was contrary to the wishes of the constitutional Government of Hungary at that time. It is quite fantastic to try to draw a parallel between that topic and the question of racial discrimination in South Africa.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting point. There may indeed be something in what he says about 1956, but that is not what he was challenged with. He was challenged with the vote in 1959, not in 1956. The vote in 1959 was not concerned with the Russian troops in Hungary but with internal administration and what was held to be—in my opinion, rightly—a conflict between those actions and that administration and the International Declaration of Human Rights. I am not saying that the Government were wrong to vote as they did in the case of Hungary, but what is the distinction between that vote and the vote on South Africa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

I have already described to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East the reasons why the item on Hungary came on the agenda of the United Nations and why we voted in favour of it. A vote on any resolution on Hungary has not yet arisen this year, but it is a fact that the United Nations, as a result of events in 1956, set up machinery, through the appointment of a United Nations Representative, to inquire into what had happened in Hungary, including the armed intervention. We believe that there is still a reason for the Representative of the United Nations to visit Hungary and see whether there is a continuance of the threat of armed intervention in Hungary.

Mr. Callaghan

It is all very well for the Minister of State to say that, but there has been a vote on Hungary.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

Not on a resolution.

Mr. Callaghan

No, not on a resolution, but there has been a vote on Hungary this year. On 23rd November, the Steering Committee agreed to add Hungary to the agenda, in view of Sir Leslie Munro's report of the reign of terror in Hungary. That was carried by fifteen votes to three, with two abstentions. The United Kingdom delegate's vote was one of the fifteen.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

That is absolutely true. There was a vote to put the item on the agenda of the United Nations. The hon. Member should go and look at the United Nations procedure. He would then find that there is a difference between inscribing an item on the agenda and passing a resolution in specific terms.

Mr. Callaghan

The whole of the Minister of State's difficulty, as I understand it, is that a matter of domestic jurisdiction should not be on the agenda. Indeed, a former delegate, who is now present in the House, has said that it should not even be justified. If that applies in the case of South Africa, why does not it apply in the case of Hungary?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

I have tried already to show that the two cases are in no way parallel. The present situation in Hungary has come about as a result of direct interference in that country by a foreign power. That is not the case with the situation in South Africa.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Tibet. Tibet, again, is really quite a different case. The draft resolution on Tibet, which was laid before the General Assembly this year, dealt with alleged breaches of human rights in Tibet. It did not refer to the unlawful intervention by foreign forces. Therefore, we had to determine our attitude towards it on the same fundamental basis regarding Article 2 (7) of the Charter as applies in the case of the resolutions on racial policies in South Africa. However, owing to its constitutional position, the question of Tibet presented certain unusual features and legal complications which cast some degree of doubt on the domestic jurisdiction.

In the almost certainly unique circumstances of this case, we came to the conclusion that we should abstain when the resolution was put to the vote. That is why the question of Tibet is not germane to the problem of racial conflict in South Africa—

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

Was that conclusion arrived at on the grounds that Tibet is entirely a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of China?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

I am not legally qualified to go into a precise analysis of the position of Tibet in relation to China, but it is a very remarkable position. A great many lawyers have different interpretations of the exact position of Tibet in that respect.

I want now to say a word about Indians in South Africa, a subject to which I have already referred. This is a matter that has repeatedly come before the Assembly, and I think it shows that there is less difference between the two sides of the House on Article II (7) of the Charter than the hon. Member has tried to suggest.

Successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have taken fundamentally the same view of the limitation placed on the Assembly's competence by Article II (7). At the very first session in 1946, and at every subsequent session, with but one exception, the General Assembly has considered the treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. This item concerns the status of one minority in South Africa, but the fundamental problem facing the Assembly has been whether or not the United Nations is competent to consider the matter.

There is doubt about the nature of the treaty obligations upon which the proposers and supporters of this item rely. It is not clear what is the status in international law of the outcome of the discussions that took place at various times between representatives of the Indian and the South African Governments. In particular, there is uncertainty about the status of what is known as the Cape Town agreement of 1927.

It is precisely for this reason, because there is doubt about the nature of whatever obligations may exist—and, therefore, doubt about the Assembly's competence in the matter of the Charter in view of Article II (7)—that in 1946 the Labour Government abstained from voting on the resolutions on the treatment of persons of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. They consistently abstained on similar resolutions in subsequent years. We believe that they were quite right, and we have followed their example. By so doing, neither we nor they should be considered as having passed any judgment upon the rights and wrongs of that dispute.

I have tried to show that although it is, of course, possible to misinterpret deliberately the actions taken by the United Kingdom Government at the United Nations, there is really very little excuse for so doing. In explaining our votes on various occasions, we have always made it abundantly clear that the very fact that, since our decisions have been based on an interpretation of Article II (7), which denied the United Nations Assembly competence in the matter, they could not possibly imply a judgment on the questions involved.

As for our own Government's attitude to racial discrimination and intolerance, that can be judged from their own example, from their own activities, and from the numerous statements of policy on this subject made by successive British Governments. My hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, will no doubt have more to say on this topic when he speaks later, but I would like to remind the House of a passage from the Foreign Secretary's speech at the general debate in the United Nations Assembly on 17th September this year.

My right hon. and learned Friend was discussing our special responsibilities towards the peoples of the dependent territories under British administration, and said: In those territories where different races or tribes live side by side, the task is to ensure that all the people may enjoy security and freedom and the chance to contribute as individuals to the progress and well-being of these countries. We reject the idea of any inherent superiority of one race over another. Our policy, therefore, is non-racial; it offers a future in which Africans, Europeans, Asians, the peoples of the Pacific and others with whom we are concerned, will all play their full part as citizens in the countries where they live, and in which feelings of race will be submerged in loyalty to new nations. That is a clear, unequivocal declaration of British policy. It was made in the General Debate at a plenary session of the Assembly. It represents the Governments' fundamental attitude to racial discrimination, and our actions in particular committees on individual resolutions, or on single paragraphs of resolutions, are subordinate to, and should be judged in the light of this declared policy.

Everyone in this House recognises the many difficulties that inevitably arise in carrying through such a policy. British Governments Labour and Conservative, have had their disappointments. Nevertheless, we believe profoundly that such a policy is dictated to us by morality and by justice. I am proud of the example set by Her Majesty's Government, and I therefore ask the House to support the Amendment that I have moved, which approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination by all means within their power. If so amended, the Motion will be a positive one, and not the negative Motion put on the Order Paper by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

I want to take up the Minister's words where he said that the Government are to be judged on their actions. I want to consider some of those actions and, in particular, to refer to the visit that the Prime Minister is shortly to pay to Africa. The Prime Minister will go to many places there, and he will go to two places where there is still racial discrimination.

The Prime Minister will not find much racial discrimination, fortunately, in East Africa. There was much of it at one time, but I am glad to say that there is very much less now. Tanganyika is undoubtedly an example of absence of racial discrimination and of tolerance that I hope will be followed by other countries. Even in Kenya the position has improved on that obtaining in 1950. I remember being there then and finding that it was impossible even to take an African into any of the leading hotels. The situation is vastly different now, and we are all glad of it.

When we turn further south, what do we find? The Prime Minister will visit Central Africa, and will meet Sir Roy Welensky. Sir Roy has spoken of partnership and I should like the Prime Minister to ask him why it is an offence, in a country where there is partnership, for an African to criticise, or even to complain to the Government. That, in fact, is a punishable offence. Why is it an offence for an African even to argue with a Government official? It is impossible to think of that happening here, but in Central Africa it is actually an offence for an African to argue with a Government official. Why are European ambulances not allowed to pick up an African? If an African is hurt, he has to be left, perhaps to die, rather than be picked up by a European ambulance.

These may seem small things, but they mean much to the Africans there. Why is it legal for the police to arrest or detain an African without any explanation whatever? That is what happens in the British Commonwealth which prides itself on its system of law and order.

I hope the Prime Minister will ask these questions when he goes to Central Africa. Indeed, I hope he will do more than that. I hope he will set a personal example when he is there. I hope he will make it perfectly clear that he will accept invitations only to those places where there is no colour bar. I hope he will accept invitations in Central Africa, for which we still have a responsibility, only to those schools where there is no colour bar. He will find it very difficult in Southern Rhodesia to visit any on that basis. I hope also that he will only go to functions held in hotels where there is no colour bar. Again he will find it very difficult, but I hope he will do so. If he does, he will be doing a great service to the Commonwealth. I hope that he will have the courage to do it.

I turn to South Africa, which I suppose is the subject in which most of us are interested in today's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that there is no inherent objection to the Prime Minister going to South Africa, in the same way as he goes to Russia or to any other country; but he is going to South Africa in rather different circumstances. When he went to Russia he made it perfectly clear from the outset that he was going there to talk to the Russians of whose system he heartily disapproved. His visit to South Africa apparently is part of a great tour round Africa to show how united the Commonwealth is. That kind of visit to South Africa can do more harm than good. It can strengthen the forces in South Africa which are aiming towards apartheid and all it stands for. The people in South Africa who support apartheid can twist this visit round—they can twist even the Prime Minister round—and that is a very difficult thing indeed to do—to make it appear that he is supporting South African policy by going there.

Mr. Braine

How can the right hon. Gentleman say that when repeatedly British Prime Ministers have made it clear that, despite the provisions of the South Africa Act, there is no question of our transferring the three Protectorates to South Africa? That is a clear indication that we do not approve of the native policies of the Union.

Mr. Dugdale

I do not know that it is as clear as all that. We all support that attitude on this side of the House, but I ask hon. Members to consider whether it would not be advisable if the Prime Minister did a bit more than that. He will have a remarkable opportunity. I expect he will have the freedom of the wireless. I am not sure if there is a television service there.

Mr. Braine

There is not.

Mr. Dugdale

If not, he will certainly have an opportunity on sound broadcasting. Will he say clearly what he thinks about apartheid? Will he say that he disapproves of apartheid, just as Mr. Khrushchev made it clear when he was in America that he did not like the capitalist system? He made that clear over the television service. Will the South Africans allow the Prime Minister to voice his disapproval, and will he do so if he is allowed? That in itself would do a considerable amount of good.

There are many progressive forces in South Africa today and, because of them, South Africa is not entirely a bad country. Some of us have had the pleasure only today of hearing a South African in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—a brave man who belongs to a group of brave people in the Progressive Party. We do not want merely to write off South Africa. We want to do what we can to help her people, and one way in which we can help them is by the Prime Minister making these views perfectly clear in public during his visit.

What can we do as a House of Commons and as a British people? There are various things we can do. It would be of great value if we all personally boycotted South African goods. I do not suggest that the Government can do that, but if each of us did so, it would serve a very useful purpose in showing the feelings of people in this country. The co-operative society has already made a move in that direction, and I believe the effects have been felt by the South African Government. There is no time now, otherwise I would read a list of the various products that should be boycotted. It would be as well if they were known by everybody so that people knew what products they should boycott.

Mr. Braine rose

Mr. Dugdale

I am sorry, but I cannot give way again. This action would help Africans, because it would make our feelings perfectly clear. I believe the South African Government pay attention to the feelings expressed in other countries. Not only am I convinced of that, but I think that liberal-minded people in South Africa are also convinced that the Government of South Africa are influenced by what we and other countries do.

There is another thing that we can do. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to pay an official visit, but I think those people—there may not be many of them here—who go off during the winter for a holiday might be advised not to go to South Africa but to go to the West Indies or somewhere else. There is one sphere of activity in which the South African Government could be influenced more than any other—more than by a political move or a boycott of goods or an economic move. I refer to the fields of drama and sport. I welcome what British Actors' Equity has already done. It will not send any actors to South Africa unless they agree to perform before African as well as European audiences. That is of immense value. The Royal Ballet has said that it will only go to South Africa if it is permitted to perform for African as well as white audiences; that it will in fact perform before a wholly African audience in Johannesburg and, what is much more remarkable, before a mixed audience in Pietermaritzburg. That is the kind of thing which influences the Government of South Africa.

In sport, a good example has been set by Stanley Matthews, who has played football with Africans. He has made it perfectly clear that he does not believe in any form of apartheid. But when we consider other forms of sport, the situation is a little different. What a remarkable thing it would be if we were told that there would be no test match held in Africa unless the South African Government agreed that our players should play an African team. I should like them to play a mixed team, but even if they said that they would not go there unless they could play an African team, it would have more effect than many things which could be done by this Government in the field of economics or politics. I appeal to all cricketers in this country to urge that the test team should not go to South Africa unless it is made perfectly clear that they will be at liberty to play Africans as well as white people.

To return to the Prime Minister, he should make it abundantly clear during his visit that he is opposed to apartheid. He should say it on African soil to encourage those people in South Africa who are against apartheid. I hope that a message will go out from this House that we abhor racial discrimination and that we do not intend to allow nice questions of political expediency to prevent our saying so clearly and unmistakably so that people in South Africa and throughout the world can understand.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Chataway (Lewisham, North)

This is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing the House. I realise that this is an important debate, and that there may be concealed behind the customary kindness and courtesy of hon. Members some impatience that the debate should drift temporarily into the still waters of a maiden speech, but, nevertheless, I ask the House to show the tolerance that I have no doubt it possesses to me.

Taking the words on the Order Paper at their face value, I agree with both the Motion and the Amendment. Perhaps this is because I am unversed in the nice subtleties of this House, but the words of the Motion seem to me to be quite acceptable and do not direct the Government to vote in any specific way at the United Nations. To my mind, the passing of the Motion would not necessarily alter the Government's attitude in any way, but I find it strange that the Opposition should not feel able to accept the Amendment. Perhaps it is because I do not appreciate the subtleties of the matter, but one could hardly expect that hon. Members opposite would disapprove of the efforts of the Government to promote racial tolerance. The debate goes wider than South Africa. There is no mention of South Africa on the Order Paper.

I should like to put two general arguments which seem to me to be consistently underrated. The first concerns the kind of unpopular action needed to safeguard the sort of ideals mentioned on the Order Paper. The second is the need for tolerance in our approach to these sentiments. I disapprove whole-heartedly of racial intolerance or discrimination. Like, I imagine, most hon. Members, I consider that I have no racial prejudices whatsoever, but I am continually made aware of how little that tolerance costs. It involves me in no sacrifice or inconvenience, but there are many in this country from whom a great deal of sacrifice is required if they are to show that tolerance. They fear that their jobs or homes may be threatened.

Three years ago, in the course of my work, I had to show on a B.B.C. feature that some branches of the National Union of Railwaymen were preventing coloured workers from taking jobs as porters that lay vacant. It was right to do that because this was a mean piece of discrimination, but, from the angry letters which I received from railwaymen, it was made clear to me that they felt that the bargaining power of their union and the status of their jobs were threatened. When they said to me, "It is all very well for you", I took their point.

There is a happier story to tell in my own constituency, where 1,000 West Indians have been absorbed quite peaceably into the Ladywell Ward of North Lewisham. There has been no trouble —certainly no trouble of the Notting Hill variety. But that has involved some sacrifice on the part of the people there. In one or two cases, West Indians with very different customs have moved into a house, perhaps twelve people to a house, with the result that the value of the next door house for which, perhaps, a man has saved all his working life has been almost halved overnight. In these circumstances, it is a great deal harder to be tolerant than if one is merely writing or speaking about the subject.

I feel that it is against this background, realising something of what it means, that one should discuss this subject. I think that more harm than good is done if those with nothing to lose demand racial tolerance from others at pistol point, so to speak. That sometimes seems to be the attitude of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) twice last year introduced a Bill to make any racial discrimination in this country punishable by law. I think that this suggestion was again put forward this afternoon by the Front Bench opposite —[An HON. MEMBER: "Give way."] I am willing to give way, but I hope that I have not misrepresented the hon. Member. Much as I respect the attitude behind the Bill, I personally feel that these matters are better not dealt with by legislation. In the end, such a measure in this country would have the effect of hardening attitudes and perhaps increasing the sum of bitterness and conflict.

It is in our overseas policy that this pistol-point approach to tolerance carries most danger. In "The Plural Societies," a pamphlet published by the Labour Party two or three years ago, it was said that a Labour Government would order the abolition of all statutory and administrative forms of racial discrimination throughout the Colonies. That is an admirable intention to which one would obviously subscribe, but to say that it should be done overnight shows a lack of sensitivity to the very real human problems that sometimes underlie those forms of discrimination.

I spent a day at a working man's and artisan's club in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, earlier this year. Many of the views which I heard expressed there were alarmingly intolerant. They seemed to me to be prejudiced and racialist. But most of these people worked in jobs which had previously been protected for Europeans and which no Africans were able to obtain. Some of them had lived there from birth, some had gone out from this country since the war. Those who had gone out could hardly know what the future held for them, and they felt that in a way the terms of their contract were being altered. I could feel no sympathy for their views, but one must have sympathy and understanding for them.

It is wrong that these forms of discrimination should exist, but in their abolition one must take into account the suffering that may be caused to some of the Europeans. Some Europeans in that club were disturbed and some were angry at the new law which would make it necessary for unions to be multi-racial. They felt that they were seriously threatened. I feel that our job is to encourage and persuade and sometimes to push such people into more tolerant attitudes. We must always make it clear that time is short if real partnership is to be established.

But what does harm is for Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, who work extremely hard—they work harder than people in this country —and who feel that they are building a nation to be spoken of in Britain as if they were crooks. It is damaging if they feel that we, comfortably off in Britain, have no conception of their problems or sympathy with them. I feel that they are being made to move in the right direction, and I say that we should be tolerant in the demands that we issue for tolerance.

My second point is that the job of ensuring the rights of minorities leads to very unpopular measures. If, in the end, we are to ensure even a fair deal for Europeans in Central Africa, or for Asians in East Africa, we shall be involved in difficult and often, apparently, illiberal measures. Those who campaign for the ideals on the Order Paper must be prepared to back up the unpleasant steps sometimes necessary for their implementation. I consider that the Sudan is a case in point. I spent the first few years of my life in the Sudan. My father was in the Sudan Political Service. If I speak on this topic with a little more heat than is customary in a maiden speech, I hope that I shall be forgiven.

Very little was heard, particularly from hon. Members opposite, at the time the Sudan was being given independence, and in the years before. about the African minority in Southern Sudan. They had suffered slavery before Britain arrived in the Sudan, and it was clear, I think, in the years before independence, that they were in grave danger from the Arab majority. I think that the Government failed to protect that minority. I am sure that very few of those who normally feel strongly against racial discrimination were there to stand up and say, "We will hold on in the Sudan for at least a year or two." It might have meant illiberal and authoritarian measures. It might even have meant an emergency situation. Surely, however, it would have been worth while if, in the end, we had been able to guarantee those human rights to a minority which had been oppressed.

There are, of course, other examples. The protection of the Turkish minority in Cyprus is one. As a maiden speaker, I must obviously concede that many hon. Members opposite saw different issues involved. But I wonder who has these ideals more at heart, those who ask that Jomo Kenyatta should be released or those who feel that he should still be further detained? I feel that it is those who are in favour of his detention. Those who deplore racial discrimination must be aware that it will not always land them on the easy, liberal side of an argument, but, very often, in the camp that temporarily it might be fashionable to look upon as illiberal and authoritarian.

I suppose that it would be conceded now that the argument in our colonial possessions is over, to quote a topical phrase, "means, not ends". There is no disagreement about where we are heading finally in Central or East Africa. It is to multi-racial States in which all races have equality. In South Africa, the ends are different. The objectives are very different. The ideal of the South African Government is not multiracial, but separate States. When talking to an Afrikaans professor in one of their universities one cannot help but feel that apartheid, in theory, is an excellent, admirable and ethical solution. Alexander Steward, in his ably reasoned book, "You are wrong, Father Huddleston", represents the ideal by a little diagram. He portrays the present situation as two rectangles, one on top of the other, a white on top of a black. The ideal at which apartheid is aiming is two rectangles, separate but side by side, one white, one black.

On my own earlier argument for tolerance, one obviously must have a great deal of sympathy for the South African Europeans. History has placed them in an appalling position. They are a large minority. They have to contend not only with a conflict between black and white, but a conflict between the two European races.

Having said all that, however, it is clear that apartheid is no longer believed in even by the leaders in South Africa, simply because it is totally unworkable. Since the rejection by the South African Government of the Tomlinson Report, which laid down the minimal requirements to develop industrially and agriculturally the native reserves, apartheid no longer has the support even of those who pretend to implement it.

At the same time, measures are being stepped up under the pretence of apartheid. From the universities, Africans, Asians and coloureds are slowly being expelled. For the Indians, it not only means that they are denied all higher education but under the Group Areas Act their businesses and their homes are being transferred to barren strips of veldt. It is an exaggeration still to compare the plight of say, the Indians with that of the Jews in Hitler's Germany, because they are not subjected to the same violence. But more and more force is being required every year from the South African Government to implement their policies.

Already, there is mounting evidence to suggest that the pass laws are being used to supply slave labour, or something akin to it, to farmers who are short of African labour. I will not rehearse the facts about South Africa that are fairly well known in this House. The question obviously, is: what should this country do? I believe, like the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), that there are separate actions for the Government and for the public. Even the Observer yesterday, I was glad to see, recognised that there are many things that the public should do which are not profitable for the Government. I believe that the public in this country should do all it can to help the victims of oppression and to show our disapproval of what is going on in South Africa.

I cannot support the boycott proposition, although I have a great deal of sympathy with it, It seems to me that this is a poor principle, although it might shake the Government and persuade one or two businessmen to be more vocal in their opposition. It is true to say that it would do harm immediately to the victims, but so does a strike against a genuine grievance. The real argument against the boycott is that it is wrong in principle to interfere with trade in this way. Once one starts, where does one stop? It makes no sense to stop buying sherry from South Africa and to buy it from Portugal or Spain, which are hardly regarded as bastions of liberalism. Should we stop buying Russian vodka? Trade is a vehicle for ideas and one should firmly hold to the principle that we should trade—and, indeed, foster more trade—with countries with whose policies we disagree.

I agree, however, with the right hon. Member for West Bromwich about sport and the arts. The Campaign against Racial Discrimination in Sport is doing a useful job. It is merely trying to implement the Olympic declaration, which states that no discrimination should be allowed against any country or person on grounds of race, colour, religion or politics. Some notable triumphs have been secured. Already, the perhaps humbler game of table tennis has been brought on to this basis and the campaign has succeeded in extracting from the South African Olympic Association a promise that its team that goes to the Olympics next year will be a mixed one. This is something that should have the support of every sportsman in this country.

I, too, would be glad to see the M.C.C. abiding by this elementary principle. It is not, of course, binding upon the M.C.C., but I feel sure it is widely accepted throughout all sports, and I should like to see the M.C.C. refuse to play South Africa unless it has a multi-racial team. I think that this sporting effort might have more success than, perhaps, may be thought likely, because Europeans in South Africa are extremely interested in and affected by sports. Indeed, I think that they might be more affected by this than by votes in the United Nations.

On the question of the Government's attitude, I know that the progressives, the new Progressive Party in South Africa and many others who have sympathy with them, are anxious about the Prime Minister's visit. They feel that pictures taken of him with the South African Prime Minister may give a wrong impression. They feel that the net effect of his visit may be to make the job of the moderates in South Africa harder. I am glad, though, that he is going. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the delicacy of the situation, and I think that he has good reason to hope that from his talks with the South African Prime Minister a change of attitude could be expected. I am sure that he is right, before he goes to those talks, to show some reserve in what he says on the subject in public.

I believe, however, that the British Government may soon have to decide how much we should be inhibited by our desire to keep South Africa in the Commonwealth. Of course, we want South Africa in the Commonwealth. It is better for the Africans, and it is better for everybody else, that South Africa should be in the Commonwealth, but that, I hope, will not lead us to seem to sit on the fence on so many occasions. It is, to me, hard to conceive that we should vote in the United Nations with South Africa.

I concede that Article II (7) of the Charter clearly says that there should be no interference in the internal affairs of member countries. There is, of course, great argument about the definition of two or three words in that statement. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have been consistent on this, and it seems to me that the line we have taken is a very reasonable one, but are we quite certain that in the situation of today that battle has not been lost? Nearly every country now considers that that Article means something else. They may be wrong. I am not sure that it will make the United Nations a better place if the internal affairs of every country are to be discussed—if the internal affairs of Ghana or Pakistan, or whichever country happens to be in the news at the moment, are to be discussed —but it seems to me that Article II (7) is no longer any protection against that, because the majority of countries have decided to interpret it in a different way.

I therefore wonder whether it is not time for us to revise our policy simply because it leads, on occasions, to misrepresentations about our attitude, and to misunderstandings. I would hope that, however that may be, we should in the future follow the Commonwealth, every other Commonwealth country, and at least abstain on such resolutions.

I have tried to argue, I hope not at indecent length for a maiden speech, that if one is genuine about the ideals of this Motion one must often lay oneself open to charges of seeming to do exactly the opposite, and that we must often proceed slowly against forms of racial intolerance; this means that the Government cannot indulge in the sorts of angry outbursts of self-righteousness which are open to many others. I think that, as a matter of public relations, that makes it all the more important for the Government to seize every opportunity to get our attitude and belief in these ideals over to the world.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I have rarely been more pleased to catch the eye of the Chair, because it gives me the opportunity of expressing appreciation of the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway). I hope it will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I say that ever since I was a spectator when he broke the four-minute mile I have been a great admirer of him; and not only for his athletic prowess, but also for the consistency to which he has stood against racial discrimination in his profession in connection with television. It is a great delight to be able to express the appreciation of the House on the sincere and thoughtful speech, a speech which reflects personality, which he has delivered tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted on this rare occasion to be expressing an opinion which I am quite sure is the opinion of the whole House.

I want, moreover, to thank the hon. Gentleman for having lifted this debate from the rather petty legalistic interparty atmosphere in which it had been. We are now discussing one of the supreme issues in the world. The emergence of the peoples of Asia and of Africa, the coloured peoples of the world to human equality is perhaps the greatest progressive revolution of this century.

We now have thousands of students from all these countries coming to our universities and the universities of America and of Europe. We have these territories in turn achieving their independence. We have these countries now exerting a very strong influence in the United Nations, and it is becoming clear that upon this issue of racial relations will largely depend the future harmony of the world. It is because this issue is so important, not only to two-thirds of the population of the earth but to our future relationship with them, that I have a little regretted tonight that so much of the debate has been argued in a legalistic manner.

I regard the vote which was given by Britain in the United Nations against the resolution which declared in favour of no race discrimination and segregation and in favour of human rights and fundamental freedoms as about the most humiliating action that has ever been taken by a representative of the British Government. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North was absolutely right. We cannot go on arguing this matter on a legal interpretation of Article II (7).

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

Doubtful legality.

Mr. Brockway

I would challenge its legal soundness even though I am not a lawyer. It refers to matters which are internal, but what are internal matters? Can we possibly say today that relations between the white man and the coloured man can be regarded in any territory as an internal matter? Can we possibly say that the relations between races and the treatment of certain races as though they were inferior to others, and the exclusion of the African and the Indian and the person of mixed race in the Union of South Africa from political rights of citizenship, and all the humiliations of the human personality which have to be faced every day, are internal matters of any State?

At the United Nations sixty-three countries voted one way, including a majority of the members of our Commonwealth and including the United States, and we were left in the humiliating position of being in a minority of three, with Portugal and France. That is sufficient to show that Britain's attitude can no longer be defended merely on the legalistic arguments about which we have been hearing this evening.

Tonight, I urge the House to realise that we must face this issue in the United Nations in a new way. I am so tired of the argument from one side of the House and the other of the way a party voted in 1946. This issue is not one between two sections of this House who want to score party points against each other. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, this is an issue which is fundamental to the whole human race. We cannot satisfy it by saying, "You voted in such a way in 1946 and this was the reason why we voted 'yes' this year and in a different way another year." We must rise above petty, party barrackings at each other when we are dealing with these great human issues.

It has been suggested in the speech delivered by the Government bench tonight that if we press these issues too far in the United Nations we may be disrupting it. I believe that no Government in the world today can afford to leave the United Nations. Delegates protest, they walk out of the proceedings, but they come back. There was Soviet Russia which we condemned on the Hungarian issue. She is still in the United Nations. There is France, whose delegation walked out of the proceedings when Tunis was debated, and more recently when the Sahara test was debated. She is in the United Nations. There is the Government of the Union of South Africa whose delegates have walked out of the Assembly on a number of occasions when issues of this kind have been debated, but they are inside the United Nations.

I submit to the House that when Governments are repudiating what is in the Charter, what is in the Preamble to the Charter, which declares human rights and racial equalities; when they are repudiating the declaration of Human Rights which has been adopted by the United Nations, our British vote in the Assembly should be expressing a moral opinion. Then the United Nations will become of permanent value to the world if it is serving as the moral conscience of the world. Even if this means that on occasions delegates of Governments may walk out of the Assembly because of the protest that has been made, in one instance after another it has been shown that the influence of that vote has been good upon those countries. If one may illustrate it from one's own country, is there any doubt that the vote of the United Nations on the issue of our aggression in Suez—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that vote on that issue expressed the moral opinion of the world and saved us from going to further disaster.

I want to make a confession tonight, and that is that it is with diffidence that I criticise the Government of the Union of South Africa on the matter of racial discrimination because I am so aware of the racial discrimination which still continues in many British Colonies, in the Commonwealth and in this country.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, North referred to the fact that I introduced a Bill dealing with racial discrimination. I nearly committed the discourtesy of interrupting his maiden speech because he suggested that I had introduced a Bill which would make all racial discrimination illegal. I was very careful about that. My Bill made racial discrimination illegal only in public places and public institutions.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

In private firms also, surely.

Mr. Brockway

I should say that the relationship of employers to workers is a public relationship. I should have thought that anything which affected employment, production and the economy was a matter of public service and public life, and the Clause in my Bill which dealt with that was concerned, in my opinion, with a public matter and a matter of public relations.

I am conscious of racial discrimination in our own country and ashamed by Notting Hill and Nottingham. However, I do not think that one can take the view that one must not express an opinion on these matters because one does not have to sacrifice oneself to remove racial discrimination. If one took that line, one would very often not be in a position to speak for the victims of racial discrimination in our Colonies and Commonwealth. We have no right to criticise what is happening in the Union of South Africa unless our voices are quite clear in condemnation of racial discrimination and segregation as they occur, particularly, in the Rhodesias in Central Africa.

I think that probably our most effective way of influencing racial relationship in the Union of South Africa would be to make our own Protectorates in Africa models of racial equality and of African social and economic advance. The Observer of last Sunday has been quoted more than once today. It suggested in its leading article that the Protectorates had been held back because we did not want to embarrass the neighbouring Union of South Africa. Certainly education has been held back within the Territories. However, we must recognise that by the introduction of inter-racial legislatures in Basutoland and Bechuanaland an example is being given of inter-racial citizenship which may have a profound effect in the Union of South Africa. If we really want to influence events in the Union of South Africa, we must make our Protectorates of Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland examples of racial equality and African education, social and economic advance.

I hope that before the debate ends there will be a response to the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and that a very clear declaration will be made that we shall still stand against the incorporation of the three Protectorates in the Union of South Africa as long as racial discrimination, segregation and apartheid remain there.

I say, in conclusion, that the British vote at the United Nations was deplorable. In the first place, it will deepen the distrust of Africans throughout the Continent of our Government and of this country. The crisis at this moment is in Central Africa, and the fear in many minds is that that situation may develop into one of terrible violence. Not merely South Africa but the whole of Africa today is resurgent and dynamic. Africans in every part of that territory are feeling their solidarity and the British vote—this minority of 3 against 62 nations in the United Nations Assembly—will deepen the conviction among the millions of Africans that this country is not sympathetic to the ideals of racial equality.

The second reason I deplore this vote is because I believe that Britain today, although a less material power than it has been in the past, has a tremendous moral influence in the world. If we were standing in the United Nations for human rights and liberties and racial equality, we would be true to all that is best in the history of this country. That is why we are shocked by the British vote. That is why we are ashamed of the British vote, and that is why we on this side of the House shall vote against the Government tonight. We desire to show to the world that we believe in human liberties and racial equality.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Torquay)

Tonight's debate, and, in particular, the excellent maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), has revealed perfectly clearly that the dislike of racial intolerance is by no means limited to one side of the House. I think that hon. Members will concede that, generally speaking, in this country we all share the dislike of racial intolerance. It is only a matter of how we approach this problem.

It is for that reason that I cannot share the point of view of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that our behaviour in the United Nations can be regarded as based merely upon legalistic quibbles. The reputation and future of the United Nations must rest to a great extent as to what lengths we allow its procedure to be varied because of a genuine emotional desire for the time being to make public our feelings on certain issues. I cannot accept our reservations on this as merely a legalistic quibble. Let us see where we would go if we followed these emotions in talking about racial intolerance in South Africa. If once the precedent is established—and it may well be by an overwhelming majority of votes—that it is in order to discuss racial discrimination within a sovereign authority within the United Nations, it will not only be South Africa which will be concerned.

I should like to remind the House that it is not so long ago that we had racial riots in Ceylon and other countries of the Commonwealth and that there are also signs that Asian countries with Chinese minorities are beginning to get nervous about these minorities.

There are, indeed, plenty of other countries in which there are allegedly oppressed racial or sectional minorities. If once we give way to the conception that because we all feel particularly strongly about what is happening in South Africa we can discuss it publicly in the General Assembly or the United Nations, that body, whatever else happens, will completely vary the rôle it has played hitherto and become a mere debating chamber for those issues of the day, within the domestic jurisdiction of one country after another, which happen to excite international public opinion. That must lessen its influence.

The point was made that we should be ashamed of our United Nations vote because we were in a small minority. I cannot understand why one should necessarily be wrong when one is in a minority. if that is the case, the Labour Party has been self-confessedly wrong in its policies in the last three General Elections. If the further point is made that the Labour Party is not a small minority, our Liberal friends, on this argument, have no basis for existence, because they are in a very small minority. More seriously, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend—and I am satisfied that they were not mere legalistic quibbles, but were consistent and valid reasons—we had to vote against what I know must have been the moral inclination of those concerned.

The other ground of criticism which seems to have arisen from the debate concerns the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) quoted a number of newspaper reports about it. I notice that he did not refer to the leader in The Times the other day, which described the suggestion of the Opposition that the Prime Minister's visit implied some sort of endorsement of South African policy as the worst bit of irresponsible nonsense that had emerged in this House for some time. That was a quotation to which we were not treated tonight.

The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who is not now in the Chamber, said that when the Prime Minister went out to South Africa he should appear on television—if there is television out there—or on the radio, to make an assault on the policies of that country. He said that there would be nothing wrong in doing that.

Earlier, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that there was no parallel to draw in connection with the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union; it could not be said that that was an endorsement of the policies of that country, because the Prime Minister's view about Communism was known perfectly well. I am sure that the attitude of him and this Government and this country towards racial discrimination in all places where we have sovereign rule is equally well known.

If it is argued that the Prime Minister should make public speeches in South Africa attacking matters within South Africa's domestic jurisdiction, one might as well argue that when he visited the Soviet Union he should have made speeches attacking concentration camps, the secret police, and the lack of a vote. I wonder what hon. Members opposite would have said if he had taken the advice of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich.

Furthermore, if it is said that the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa is an implied endorsement of racial intolerance, I wonder whether the Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition would agree that their visit to the Soviet Union allows hon. Members on this side of the House to say that, since their attitude towards Communism is, to be kind, neither more nor less well known than is that of the Conservative Party, that visit was an endorsement of many of the things that go on in the Soviet Union. On the argument put forward by hon. Members opposite we are entitled to say that the Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition, by their recent visit to Moscow, implied that they endorsed Soviet Union policies.

The Opposition always find themselves in a difficulty in these debates, because they suffer from a series of blind spots. Tonight, it is apparently quite in order for us to criticise what is going on in South Africa. I said myself at the beginning of my remarks that I do not dissent from the expressions of abhorrence of certain aspects of Government policy there. But it is noticeable that there has not been a word said about what the Prime Minister ought to do when he passes through Ghana on his way to the Union of South Africa. Should he go on the radio in Ghana and say that there are certain aspects of domestic policy in that country of which he does not approve, such as locking up members of the opposition party and the five-year detention without trial which is now part of the ordinary legal system of that country? Are hon. Members opposite saying that my right hon. Friend ought to do something like that before he gets to the Union?

Is it seriously suggested by hon. Members opposite that when the Prime Minister went to India he ought to have expressed his disapproval of an Act which applies in Indian-occupied Kashmir, where there is five-year detention without trial as part of the permanent legal system? Why is it that only when the Prime Minister goes to South Africa he is asked to do things which hon. Members opposite would disapprove of him doing in any other country?

Mr. Brockway

The hon. Gentleman has referred to "blind spots" from which hon. Members on this side of the House suffer. Would he be fair enough to acknowledge that many of us who criticise these things in South Africa have also criticised them in the case of Ghana, India and the other places which he mentioned?

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman has interrupted me on these lines before. I listened to his speech tonight, but I did not hear him mention that the Prime Minister should drop off at Ghana on his way to South Africa. So I repeat my charge that hon. Members opposite suffer from blind spots which weaken the whole force of their arguments on every occasion.

I remember the very warm welcome which was rightly given last summer to a Government statement that a distinguished trade delegation was going to Moscow in an endeavour to increase trade between the Soviet Union and this country. About two days later there were no less unenthusiastic comments from the benches opposite, expressed with equal warmth, about a suggestion that a trade delegation in charge of a Minister might go to Portugal. The remark was made that surely we did not want someone of the distinction of the Prime Minister, or a senior member of the Cabinet, going to a country where an authoritarian system was in force. So it was all right in the case of the Soviet Union, but only two days later it was all wrong for Portugal. It is for such reasons as this that, time after time, we are given valid grounds for believing that hon. Members opposite are not logical or consistent in their attacks. We have had many examples of this and I am prepared to wager that there will be an increasing number of similar situations in the future.

What would be the practical result were we to adopt the suggestion of the Opposition that the Prime Minister should go to Africa and attack the policies of that country? Apart from the rhetoric of their speeches this evening and their desire—despite their denials— to score party points in the debate, do hon. Members opposite think for a moment that such a course of conduct on the part of the Prime Minister would help the South African people of all political parties to adopt a more reasonable attitude?

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Bennett

No, I have only a short time left in which to speak and I do not propose to give way again. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) spends a great deal of his time in the Chamber on his feet, and when he is not standing up speaking he is usually talking while sitting down, so I do not propose, on this occasion, to give way to him.

I repeat my conclusion that the practical result of the suggestion by hon. Members opposite, were we to accept it—and they know perfectly well that we shall not, and that were they in office their own Prime Minister would also not do anything so foolish and irresponsible—is that they are not all as idealistically interested as they would like us to believe in solving the problems of racial discrimination. It is that, tonight, they are united on one of the few questions on which they are capable of uniting at the present time.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

I shall not attempt to discuss the comparative merits and demerits of the policies of the last Labour Government and the present Government. I am concerned with the issues that we are facing today. I wish to make a very brief comment, however, on the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). I think that the Duke of Edinburgh made a very wise and courageous speech at the university when he visited Accra. 1 hope the Prime Minister will follow that example in the various countries he visits.

On the subject of the Prime Minister's tour, I see no objection in principle to the Prime Minister going to South Africa, but, of course, the interpretation that is placed upon that visit is of very great importance. It is absolutely essential that he should go to the High Commission Territories. He has expressed a hope that he will go there. On 26th November, in reply to a Question, he said: It is certainly my hope to take the opportunity of my visit to the Union of South Africa to visit also the three High Commission Territories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 559.] I should like to hear that it is certain that he is going to all the High Commission Territories.

The right hon. Gentleman has a very great responsibility in visiting South Africa. If he can make it absolutely clear, without any shadow of doubt, that Britain is not pursuing a policy of appeasement towards South Africa and, at the same time, encourage the High Commission Territories in their political and economic advance towards complete racial equality and self-government, I think that the visit might do some good, but I do not think that hon. Members should be blamed if they have a feeling of uneasiness. One reason for this uneasiness is the behaviour of the British representatives at the United Nations. As this is a very short debate, and I have little time, I shall come at once to the point. I do not think that we have had any satisfactory excuse or explanation of the votes at the United Nations on the subject of racial discrimination and the subject of South West Africa.

I am, of course, aware of Article II (7). I am also aware of Article I (3) of the Charter and I am aware of the Declaration of Human Rights. Surely, objecting to the resolution calling upon member States to observe the principles of the Charter, on the ground that it is contrary to Article II (7), is stretching the interpretation of that Article too far. I do not believe that the legal arguments present the true reasons for the vote. To put it quite bluntly, I believe that Britain is using a narrow, legalistic interpretation as a cloak for a policy of expediency.

Some of these resolutions on race relations are very moderate in terms. I think that the legal arguments against them have been particularly weak, especially on the resolution passed in the Committee on 10th November and the resolution before the Assembly on 17th November calling on member States to bring their policies into conformity with their obligations under the Charter. To suggest that France, Portugal and Britain were courageously upholding the correct interpretation of the Charter is something more than I can stomach. These votes tend to create an impression—it may be a quite false impression—that Britain is pursuing a policy of appeasement about racial discrimination in South Africa.

May I, for a moment, act as devil's advocate? It might be said that there are too many resolutions at the United Nations and that those who put them forward have too little sense of responsibility, as have those against whom they are aimed. There might be some truth in that. It might be that sometimes resolutions are concerned with matters essentially within the domestic responsibility of a particular nation, but the decision should not rest with any one nation. I should like to see this treated as a matter for the International Court. I welcomed the statement made last April by Vice-President Nixon, of the United States. Because of the time, I cannot quote it in full, but it was in support of the view that future international agreements should include provisions binding the parties to submit disputes arising from them to the International Court and to accept the Court's decision. On that occasion—it was on 13th April of this year—Vice-President Nixon declared that the Administration would soon attempt to modify the reservation which gives the United States the right to determine unilaterally whether the subject of a particular dispute was a domestic matter or not.

I should like to see Britain follow that lead, and propose that all these questions of the interpretation of a resolution should be tested by the International Court. I know that that may involve some delay, but many of these points about which these resolutions are concerned do not need to be acted upon within 24 hours. There is time to take them to the International Court. I should like to see Britain setting an example, and trying to persuade as many other nations as possible to agree that where this question is in dispute—whether it is a domestic matter or not—it should be decided by the International Court, and that, in any case, Britain would abide by that decision.

I should like to see other reforms of the United Nations. I think it only right that we should be positive and put forward something constructive. The United Nations is a kind of club, and its members must observe the rules. I should like to see every sovereign State being a member of the club automatically. If that were so, the appropriate sanction would not be to expel members from the club. Therefore, I should like to see a proposal adopted—it may be impracticable at present—whereby any member acting in breach of a resolution would forfeit the right to vote until there was a positive resolution wiping the slate clean. I believe that that would be a deterrent. I believe there is a public opinion in the world. I also believe that member States would be very chary of being branded as States not entitled to vote. That is what I should like to see put forward by Britain.

In the meantime, the best way we can help is to avoid these unforunate situations in which Britain finds herself in a minority of three on a technicality. After all, Britain has an important rôle to play. We have already had quoted extracts from an article by William Clark in the Observer. I shall not quote the whole paragraph again, but may I read one or two sentences: Yet at present Britain forfeits the right to lead (and the lesser Powers lack alternative leadership) because the United Kingdom finds it necessary on almost every occasion to vote in the tiny minority of pro-colonialist Powers. Is it necessary or prudent for Britain to choose to support South Africa and lose the support of the civilised world? Is there any sense in the nation which above all has brought its colonies forward to self-government putting itself in the position of supporting a reactionary racial policy that has earned world-wide condemnation? To that question, I would say, emphatically, "No".

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Surbiton)

Although I rise to oppose the Motion and to support the Government's Amendment, I know that hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any personal sympathy with racial intolerance or racial discrimination. During the past year or more, I have made as close a study as I can of race relations, and have tried as hard as I can, in company with many other hon. Members from both sides of the House, to reduce racial tension and improve race relations in the United Kingdom.

I feel just as strongly about the reduction of racial tension in the Commonwealth as a whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) that this problem of racial relations is one of the most important that faces us in the second half of the twentieth century. It is a great world issue which we must do our very best to resolve, particularly in Britain, which is the heart and centre of a great multi-racial Commonwealth, the vast majority of whose citizens are coloured.

In my view, we shall not retain the integrity or the cohesion of the Commonwealth unless we can eradicate colour prejudice here in Britain and also throughout the other territories for which we have responsibility overseas. The emergence of the new Commonwealth and its full development is a tremendously exciting and important task and responsibility for us as the leaders of it. I believe that the solution of the race relations issue is quite central to it. If we cannot solve it, we shall imperil our whole colonial policy under any Government and our whole Commonwealth ideal and purpose. If we can solve it, we shall set a wonderful example to the whole world.

That is my faith, and I hold it with deep sincerity. I therefore support wholeheartedly the first dozen words of the Opposition Motion, and I welcome the debate, as other hon. Members have, because it gives us an opportunity to make the declaration which the first dozen words of the Motion contains and also to correct the widely held misapprehensions which exist outside the House about our vote on the United Nations apartheid resolution. Let me acknowledge at once to the Opposition that our vote did cause widespread anxiety, criticism and misunderstanding outside. I have been approached by very many coloured British citizens residing in this country who were horrified by our vote and did not at all understand the reasons for it. They thought that the vote gave some endorsement to South African racial policy. Therefore, harm was done, and I am thankful for the Motion, because it gives us an opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding.

I should have preferred if we had abstained on the United Nations resolution, as Canada and Australia did, because the racial policy of South Africa is a source of regret and embarrassment to us all. It is completely contrary both to our principles and to our practice in the Colonial Territories for which we have responsibility.

But we must look at the speeches as well as the votes in the United Nations. There is, in the Library, a summary of the speeches. I agree very much with the representative of Finland, who said that the practice of racial discrimination was in fact a denial of human rights and of fundamental freedoms. But I also agree with him when he said that negotiation and conciliation would be more likely to succeed in influencing the Government of the Union than the repetition of resolutions passing judgment upon the South African Government. The United Kingdom representative said categorically that the British Government were opposed to the continuance of racial discrimination in any part of the world. That statement should be noted outside the House.

The truth is that sovereign States do not like interference from other States in their domestic affairs. We should not like it. The British voter, the ordinary British working man, would be the very first to resent it. And we have no monopoly of patriotic feeling in such matters! No doubt South Africans feel exactly the same. Nothing rallied the Spanish people more effectively behind the Government of General Franco than the criticism of his régime by the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Nations in the years following the war. It does not help publicly to criticise friends and allies. It is the very worst way of influencing them to mend their ways. The Labour Party never seems to understand that; but it is only human nature.

We remember the insistence of the Leader of the Opposition, a year or so ago, that the Government should publicly rebuke the United States for their Formosan policy. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to harden their policy and make matters worse than a public rebuke from a friend at that time. Of course we were not so foolish. It is just as though one of us, instead of going to a friend and criticising him in private, wrote a letter to The Times criticising him. It would not be at all well received. Great sovereign nations do not like it either. Private advice in a private conversation is very different and is much more likely to achieve what we all want to achieve. Why should we publicly affront a fellow member of the Commonwealth? Is that the way to maintain close and harmonious relations? Is it the aim of the Opposition to induce South Africa to leave the Commonwealth? It might very well lead to that. The vast majority of our people dislike very much the South African racial policy of apartheid, and the South Africans know it perfectly well.

We disapprove of it very strongly indeed and consider it quite inimical to all that a multi-racial Commonwealth should stand for. That is my personal feeling, and I am sure that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. But South Africa is an independent sovereign State, and it is not for us to dictate to her what her internal policies should be, just as it would not be for other nations to tell us what we should do about our own internal affairs. For instance, there is Ulster. Would we like other nations to tell us what to do about Ulster? I can think of nothing more certain to irritate public feeling here, and still more, public feeling in Northern Ireland.

Ghana and Pakistan have been quoted as not being democracies in the true sense. And once we breach the principle of non-interference in the case of a sovereign State like South Africa we risk interference not only in Britain and her Colonies but in other sovereign States in the Commonwealth, such as Ghana and Pakistan, which, I am sure, neither they nor we would want.

I would have liked to speak at greater length on this subject, but I promised to sit down by 9.20. I will therefore, conclude by saying that much as I would have liked my right hon. Friends in the Government to have instructed our delegate to abstain in the vote at the United Nations—having regard to what we all feel in our hearts—yet, feeling that, I would far sooner, following the principle of non-interference, they instructed him to vote against the resolution rather than to vote for it.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

I am sure that the House will agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in emphasising the great importance of the subject matter of this debate. Racial discrimination presents the world with one of the gravest and most critical of its political problems. The American author, Herbert Agar, recently wrote: This is about the last chance that the white race has of joining the human race as an equal. This evening we have had from both sides of the House eloquent speeches denouncing racial discrimination in all aspects of life: in sport—we welcomed, if I may say so, the notable maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Mr. Chataway) on that theme—in the arts, in education—in the whole range of social and economic life. It is a splendid thing that this message of the House of Commons as a whole should have been uttered at this time of crisis in the affairs of Africa, and at a time when the Prime Minister is about to visit the Government of the Union of South Africa.

I must immediately dispute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) that we on this side have suggested that when the Prime Minister goes to South Africa he should there make a public denunciation of South African policy. No one on this side has suggested that, and it would be quite absurd to do so. What has been said from this side is that opportunities should be taken for conversations between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, in which our point of view can be clearly and firmly, and, we hope, forcefully expressed.

I am quite sure that the result of what would happen would not present us with the remarkable situation that has arisen from the visit of Field Marshall Montgomery to Cape Town. He is reported in the Daily Mail of 5th December as saying: He had the greatest admiration for the South African Premier. It was absurd to say that the Union was a police State. Asked if he had seen the other side of the country, he replied, 'I am satisfied that things are not as bad as people say. I have not met non-European leaders, because they have all been banished.' That is a remarkable political contribution by Field Marshal Montgomery.

We feel that the debate is opportune because the Prime Minister can now take with him the clear message that the House most fervently opposes racial intolerance and discrimination. In the light of what has been said today, if it is meant sincerely on the part of the representatives of the Government, for the life of me I cannot understand why they seek to delete from the Opposition Motion the words: That this House declares its strong disapproval of racial intolerance and discrimination… Why the deletion? Do they not agree with those words? Why do they delete the words: …and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to act on all occasions, particularly at the United Nations, in a manner wholly consistent with this declaration. What is wrong with that? I share the difficulty of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North in failing to understand why his party cannot support the Motion. Why is it that, although there have been eloquent voices in the House, the Government voice on this matter has been so muted?

As for the Government's official representation at the United Nations, we have, a we have been reminded more than once today, found ourselves ultimately in a position where we have taken a stand against the view of the overwhelming majority of civilised States who have gone on record in criticising the apartheid policies of the South African Government—policies which represent perhaps the cruellest and ugliest of all contemporary manifestations of racial discrimination. Gradually, our friends have deserted us in this battle on the issue of apartheid until, in the end, we are left with France and Portugal. It is a most shameful story. The battle has been lost. The battle should never have been joined in the name of Britain. It is no use saying that by our votes we do not mean to condone apartheid. The United Nations is a political assembly. A vote is a vote. One is either against this issue, against these monstrous practices, or one is for them. There is no room for neutrality upon this matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in opening the debate, read the text of the resolution which was adopted by the General Assembly and against which our representative was put up to vote. Is any passage of it not wholly acceptable to the Government? It says: The General Assembly … notes with concern that the policy of apartheid is still being pursued. Expresses its opposition to the continuance or preservation of racial discrimination in any part of the world". Apparently, we support that opposition— Solemnly calls upon all member states to conform with their Charter obligations and to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Expresses its deep regret and concern that the Government of the Union of South Africa has not responded to appeals of the General Assembly that it reconsider governmental policy which impairs the rights of all racial groups to enjoy the same fundamental rights and freedoms. That language is moderate in character, representing apparently everything that the Government say they stand for. Why vote against it? We are told tonight, "We are not for apartheid." I hope that the Government spokesman who is to follow me will be eloquent on this theme, and not silent, as was the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. If it be the case that the Government oppose apartheid, I hope that they will say so in clear terms. It is said that we were driven by the force of legal necessity to take the position that we have taken at the United Nations. One of my hon. Friends deplored the fact that the debate has been full of legal aridness, but I must be forgiven, in view of the apparent intention of the Government to maintain their legal position in this matter, if I make a few comments about what seems to me to be the legal position.

It is our view that the Government's legal case is a bad one. I do not know who has been the legal adviser of the Government in this matter. I am told that at the time of Suez one of the things which the Government did not do was to consult the legal department of the Foreign Office. Perhaps that was a wise thing in the circumstances of what they were about to do, but I can say that some of the world's greatest international lawyers share the view which we on this side take—it is certainly my view—that the Government's case based on Article II (7) of the Charter is bad.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore

In that case, could the hon. and learned Member explain the votes of the Labour Government concerning the Indians in South Africa? Why did they quote Article II (7) of the Charter?

Mr. Elwyn Jones

I hope that the Government's reply to the debate will be on a more serious level than that. What I can say is that there was abstention by the representative of the Labour Government on that issue, not an adverse vote. The present Government see fit not merely to abstain, but to go into battle with Portugal and France.

The legal issue in this matter turns upon the interpretation of two of the principal terms in Article II (7), namely, "intervene" and matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. It is significant that paragraph 7 refers only to such action on the part of the United Nations as amounts to intervention. It does not rule out measures such as the resolutions of the Assembly falling short of intervention. Intervention in the context of the Charter is a technical term meaning a peremptory demand, or an attempt at interference accompanied by enforcement, or threat of enforcement in the case of non-compliance. Discussion, debate, investigation, recommendations by the General Assembly are not, in the view of the most eminent international lawyers, intervention in this sense.

That is the view expressed by no less an authority than the British judge at the International Court of Justice, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht. He has said, in his classic study, "International Law and Human Rights": The General Assembly or any other competent organ of the United Nations are authorised to discuss a situation arising from any alleged non-observance by a state or a number of states of their obligation to respect human rights and freedoms. That most eminent authority has also said this in quite express terms—and his edition of Oppenheim's "International Law" is said to be the bible of the Foreign Office; one would have thought that the Foreign Office would have learnt something from this— The provisions of the Charter and its solemn and repeated provisions in the matter of human rights would be rendered meaningless if Article II (7) were interpreted as excluding, for instance, the right of investigation and recommendation". As to the phrase matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State", as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) pointed out, both the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations and Article I make it crystal clear that the raison ďêtre, if I may put it as high as that, of the United Nations is to protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is stated in precise and well-known terms and I shall not trouble the House with quotations. The Charter refers no fewer than eight times to the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as to their observation, as one of the fundamental principal purposes of the United Nations.

The Charter does not only declare rights: it creates and imposes international legal obligations for its members, perhaps these days the most fundamental legal obligations that exist in the whole of international law. As protection of human rights has been written into the Charter as one of the basic purposes for which the United Nations was called into existence, surely it is clearly wrong to contend that the question whether a member State advances or obstructs human rights and fundamental freedoms within its territories is essentially a matter merely within its domestic jurisdiction.

Not only does the Charter, when properly interpreted, directly oppose any such contention, but the practice of the General Assembly itself over a period of 13 years disproves its validity. For instance, as long ago as 1946 the General Assembly refused to treat the question of the political régime in Spain as a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of that State. In 1948, when the question arose of dealing with the refusal of the Soviet Government to allow the Russian wives of foreign diplomats to leave Russian territory, the Assembly, on that occasion, also, rejected the view that the observance of human rights was within the scope of Article II (7). The same has been done on a great many occasions and the Government, by their votes and their resistance to this development since 1951, have been flying in the face of consistent decisions by the United Nations contrary to their view.

It is a well-established principle in international law that no State can plead its own domestic legislation to justify breaches of its international obligations. It is, indeed, lamentable that the British Government, by their votes at the United Nations, should seem to be encouraging South Africa to take a different view, the view that human rights within its community are its own exclusive concern.

We have a direct interest in the matter, both because these human rights are now guaranteed internationally and by the important coincidence that those who are being adversely affected are enjoying British citizenship and have the right of such influence on their behalf as we are still able to exercise. Therefore, on grounds of a fair construction of the Charter, of the writings of the most eminent of lawyers and of United Nations practice, at the very least there is room for argument and for doubt about this legal proposition which has driven the Government into taking such unfortunate political action at the United Nations. Indeed, the view that their legal position is ill-advised has strong support.

Therefore, whatever else may emerge from this debate, we on this side of the House ask the Government immediately to give instructions to their representative at the United Nations to put an end to this abysmal record of being on the wrong side of the fence. This is a critical time in our affairs, and the Government, in taking protection in this matter on a legal point of doubtful validity, in the face of what is expected of us by our people and by the overwhelming majority of the population of the Commonwealth, of Asia and of Africa, and in pursuing their position at the United Nations, are, in our view, betraying the trust which has been placed in their hands.

We believe that when a friend or an ally errs we have a duty to tell him so. We have a responsibility, for instance, to the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa to assist them in any way we can, and we sincerely hope that the Prime Minister, before he leaves for South Africa, will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate and take with him the eloquent message that in no circumstances will we tolerate racial discrimination.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) on his maiden speech. He did well to remind the House that the problems of racial discrimination are problems which we face here, as they are being faced by other countries overseas. He gave the House what I might call a most compassionate speech, which showed an engaging independence of mind, and the House will wish to hear him again on many occasions.

The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) sought to draw a distinction between the first half and the second half of the terms of the Motion which the Opposition has moved. He is, surely, an astute enough practitioner of the law to know that that Motion must be taken as a whole. It was drafted for that purpose, and it was drafted in a critical sense as far as the policies and actions of the Government are concerned. In those circumstances, it would not be possible for the Government to accept it other than by amending it, as we intend to do at the end of this debate, and amending it in its entirety.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has fully explained the principle upon which our vote at the United Nations was based. We made it perfectly clear at the time that we were voting against an attempt, which we regarded as a misuse of the forum of the United Nations, in defiance of Article II (7) of the Charter, to interfere in the internal domestic policies of a member country.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said that the United Nations was a club and that all members of the club should obey the rules. We cordially agree with the point that he made. In our view, the rule on this matter is perfectly explicit, and what we were doing, even though we were voting in a minority, was what we believed should be done, and that is to try to maintain the rules laid down for the club as we conceive them to be framed and intended.

We did not by our vote seek to commend or condemn the racial policies of the member country concerned. We believe that if the United Nations is allowed to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State the authority of the United Nations will progressively be weakened. Had this Article not been inserted in the Charter and observed by its members, there would have been nothing to prevent the Labour Government of 1945 to 1950 from being arraigned at the United Nations for their policies in Malaya. After all, between July, 1948, and June, 1950, over 25,000 persons were the subject of detention orders and imprisonment without trial. I do not think for one moment that right hon. Members, particularly hon. and learned Members, opposite would have accepted that it was merely a legal quibble if we had advanced in defence of our rights in these circumstances the provisions of Article II (7) of the Charter in order to support action which we believed to be essential in those circumstances and which in actual fact has enabled Malaya to advance to independent status within the Commonwealth and into taking its place as a member of the United Nations itself.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked the Government to make clear their intentions on various points, but I have noticed that he did not follow the challenge which was made to his party in the leader in the Guardian today when it said: What sort of resolution would they, if in office, regard as being in order (though not necessarily as justified) in criticism of British policy?"— of what I assume to be South African policy. If they can say that, the debate will gain fresh substance. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to come before the House and give us their views in general terms, but I think there is some responsibility upon the shoulders of hon. Members opposite, particularly on the Opposition Front Bench, to be specific as to what action they would have taken in those circumstances had they been in power.

The views of the United Kingdom Government on questions of race discrimination are perfectly clear. They have already been described by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, but they were expressed in a different way by Sir Andrew Cohen, our permanent representative on the Trusteeship Council, not so very long ago, when he said: It is our constant aim, Sir, to banish discrimination where it may still be found by the use of positive measures which would increase co-operation between races that are living together. In this way we are, in the words of a former Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Chandos), trying to create every day that passes more and more things in which the people of these territories, all the people, have a common interest and a common purpose. That policy and approach has inspired our attitude to race relations and race discrimination both here and in the overseas territories for which we are responsible. We believe that it is by means of bringing races together upon the common ground of understanding that we will eventually do things which would be very difficult if not impossible to achieve by legislation or administrative action.

The House should not forget—and I think that it is right to point this out in the interest of the historic basis of British colonial policy—that many of the provisions which exist in our overseas territories and which, I suppose, could be described as discriminating between races, particularly where these affect land tenure and commercial practice, were designed precisely to protect African peoples against exploitation and the abuse of their interests. Therefore, I consider we should be careful in all circumstances when we are dealing with this problem to make certain that we realise that in certain circumstances it is important that the interest of minorities or maybe of majorities should be protected by legislation or the action of Government.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, in opening the debate, made it clear that one object was to call in question the propriety of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa. That the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should for the first time in history pay a visit while in office to countries of the Commonwealth situated in Africa, and should include both influential independent members, like Ghana and South Africa, and dependencies like Bechuanaland, is an event which I should have thought all people, irrespective of party, would have welcomed warmly.

Mr. Callaghan

The hon. Gentleman might have listened to the debate. What I said was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] There are Ministers here who are within the recollection of what I said. The Colonial Secretary is here and he will be able to contradict me if I did not say that.

I did not have the good fortune to read the Guardian this morning before I came here, but if I had done so and if I had realised that the question was being put, I would have answered that we would have voted unequivocally for the resolution at the United Nations. I would like to ask one question. What is it in the resolution that prevented us from at least abstaining if we could not vote for it?

Mr. Alport

That was not the question which was put by the Guardian. It asked what would be the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—action hon. Gentlemen opposite would have regarded as being appropriate. But I will give it to the hon. Gentleman, he has shown himself in his speech as not being absolutely and entirely up to date on the subject with which we are dealing. In fact, he has forgotten that this Motion was put down as a result of exchanges which took place in the House last week, in which the hon. Gentleman and right hon. Gentlemen opposite left no doubt that what they were seeking to question was the propriety of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. That is quite untrue. We have never sought to question the propriety of the Prime Minister's visit. What we have suggested—and this debate has given the Government an opportunity they have so far failed adequately to take—is that they should make it plain that they, like us, are wholly opposed to the policy of apartheid.

Mr. Alport

If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will give the answer in the words of The Times leading article on 2nd December, which was based upon that particular exchange to which I have referred. It stated: Mr. James Callaghan invited the Prime Minister to realize that his forthcoming visit to South Africa is 'in itself taking up a position' about apartheid. If Mr. Callaghan's argument held water then Mr. Macmillan, by being the guest of or the host to Mr. Khruschev would be taking up a position about the plight of, for instance, the Baltic States and Hungary. Mr. Gaitskell went even farther astray in his questions to Mr. Macmillan. For the second time in a few days Parliament has heard the Leader of the Opposition calling upon the Prime Minister publicly to announce in advance of his meeting Dr. Verwoerd, that he proposed to take the opportunity of lecturing his host on the evils of apartheid." [An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Observer editorial."] The truth of the matter is that, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, at a time when public interest is focussed on Africa it is surely right that someone like the Prime Minister, who has great responsibilities with his colleagues in the United Kingdom for shaping the developments taking place there, should go out to see for himself the problems which exist there at first hand.

No one has ever supposed that a visit by a Prime Minister of one Commonwealth country to another signifies that the Government over which he presides agrees with every aspect of the domestic policies of the country he is visiting. For instance, the visit of Mr. Nash to the United Kingdom last month did not mean that the Labour Government in New Zealand agrees with the Conservative Government's opposition to Socialist theories and practices.

The fundamental basis upon which the relations of independent countries of the Commonwealth rest is that each member should be free to follow its own policies, both internal and external, without interference. Our obligation is to maintain the established practices regarding consultation in the external field and the transmission of the fullest information about those policies and actions which may be possible in each different case. That was the spirit of the Balfour Declaration, that was the intention of the Statute of Westminster, and that is, frankly, the principle which has been accepted by all Governments of all political complexions since the Commonwealth came into existence.

The logical consequence of the ideas which lie behind the Motion and the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be the break-up of the Commonwealth. If that is their purpose, then they should say so. The attitude which they advocate the United Kingdom Government should take up with regard to the domestic policies of the Union of South Africa once accepted would logically and inevitably be extended to other differences which may arise between individual members of the Commonwealth over a wide variety of problems.

There has been reference to the fact that in recent years we gave independence to Ghana and India. But let hon. Gentlemen opposite also remember that we gave independence to South Africa as well. The leaders of the party opposite know perfectly well that any United Kingdom Government which sought to intervene in matters which were the internal policy of Commonwealth Governments would be acting contrary to the whole spirit of the Commonwealth and would produce a reaction in the country at which the interference was aimed which would add strength to rather than modify the policies to which the United Kingdom Government might take exception.

The Opposition Front Bench is littered with fallen Ministerial timber. I can see two ex-Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and one ex-Colonial Secretary there. When they were in power they knew perfectly well what were the bases of the policies of the United Kingdom in respect of Commonwealth Governments and that they must be in accordance with the spirit of the Commonwealth if the Commonwealth is to continue as an organisation and a

force in the world. They knew that when in power. Having known that when in power, why do they support diametrically opposed policies when they are in opposition?

Mr. Callagham

Are the Government against apartheid?

Mr. Alport

I ask the House to consider the Motion and the Amendment, on those grounds, and I ask the House to support the Amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

Mr. Callaghan

Are the Government against apartheid or for it? Will the hon. Gentleman give us a clear answer to the question, "Are the Government in favour of apartheid or opposed to it?"—or are the Government too ashamed and too cowardly to give us a clear answer to it?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 341.

Division No. 11.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo Davies, Harold (Leek) Hayman, F. H.
Ainsley, William Davies, Ifor (Gower) Healey, Denis
Albu, Austen Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Herbison, Miss Margaret
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Deer, George Hewitson, Capt. M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) de Freitas, Geoffrey Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Awbery, Stan Delargy, Hugh Hilton, A. V.
Bacon, Miss Alice Dempsey, James Holman, Percy
Baird, John Diamond, John Holt, Arthur
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Dodds, Norman Houghton, Douglas
Beaney, Alan Donnelly, Desmond Howell, Charles A.
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Driberg, Tom Hoy, James H.
Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brist'I,S.E.) Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Benson, Sir George Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Blackburn, F. Edelman, Maurice Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Blyton, William Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hunter, A. E.
Boardman, H. Edwards, Robert (Bllston) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Bowles, Frank Evans, Albert Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Boyden, James Fernyhough, E. Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Finch, Harold Janner, Barnett
Brockway, A. Fenner Fitch, Alan Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Fletcher, Eric Jeger, George
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Foot, Dingle Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Ginsburg, David Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Callaghan, James Gooch, E. G. Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Carmichael, James Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Gourlay, Harry Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Chapman, Donald Greenwood, Anthony Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Chetwynd, George Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Kelley, Richard
Cliffe, Michael Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Kenyon, Clifford
Collick, Percy Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Grimond, J. Lawson, George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gunter, Ray Ledger, Ron
Cronin, John Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Crosland, Anthony Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hamilton, William (West Fife) Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Darling, George Hannan, William Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hart, Mrs. Judith Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Lipton, Marcus Paton, John Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Logan, David Pavitt, Laurence Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Loughlin, Charles Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Swain, Thomas
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Peart, Frederick Swingler, Stephen
McCann, John Pentland, Norman Sylvester, George
MacColl, James Plummer, Sir Leslie Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
McInnes, James Prentice, R. E. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mackie, John Probert, Arthur Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
McLeavy, Frank Proctor, W. T. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Pursey, Cmdr, Harry Thornton, Ernest
Mahon, Simon Rankin, John Thorpe, Jeremy
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Redhead, E. C. Tomney, Frank
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Reid, William Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Manuel, A. C. Reynolds, G. W. Wade, Donald
Mapp, Charles Rhodes, H. Wainwright, Edwin
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred Warbey, William
Marsh, Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Watkins, Tudor
Mason, Roy Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Weitzman, David
Mayhew, Christopher Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mellish, R. J. Ross, William Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mendelson, J. J. Royle, Charles (Salford, West) Wheeldon, W. E.
Millan, Bruce Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. White, Mrs. Eirene
Monslow, Walter Silverman, Julius (Aston) Whitlock, William
Moody, A. S. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Morris, John Skeffington, Arthur Willey, Frederick
Mort, D. L. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Moyle, Arthur Small, William Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Mulley, Frederick Smith, Eills, (Stoke, S.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Neal, Harold Snow, Julian Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Oliver, G. H. Sorensen, R. W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Oram, A. E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Winterbottom, R. E.
Oswald, Thomas Spriggs, Leslie Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Will Steele, Thomas Woof, Robert
Padley, W. E. Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Wyatt, Woodrow
Paget, R. T. Stonehouse, John Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Stones, William Zilliacus, K.
Pargiter, G. A. Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.
Agnew, Sir Peter Butcher, Sir Herbert Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Aitken, W. T. Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Errington, Sir Eric
Allason, James Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Erroll, F. J.
Alport, C. J. M. Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Farey-Jones, F. W.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Farr, John
Amory,Rt.Hn.D.Heathcoat(Tlv'tn) Cary, Sir Robert Fell, Anthony
Arbuthnot, John Channon, H. P. G. Finlay, Graeme
Ashton, Sir Hubert Chataway, Christopher Fisher, Nigel
Atkins, Humphrey Chichester-Clark, R. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Balniel, Lord Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Forrest, George
Barber, Anthony Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Foster, John
Barlow, Sir John Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)
Barter, John Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Batsford, Brian Cleaver, Leonard Freeth, Denzil
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Cole, Norman Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Collard, Richard Gammans, Lady
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Cooke, Robert Gardner, Edward
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Cooper, A. E. George, J. C. (Pollok)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Cooper-Key, E. M. Gibson-Watt, David
Berkeley, Humphry Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Glover, Douglas
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Cordle, John Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Bidgood, John C. Costain, A. P. Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Biggs Davison, John Coulson, J. M. Godber, J. B.
Bingham, R. M. Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Goodhart, Philip
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Goodhew, Victor
Bishop, F. P. Critchley, Julian Gower, Raymond
Black, Sir Cyril Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Bossom, Clive Crowder, F. P. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Bourne-Arton, A. Cunningham, Knox Green, Alan
Box, Donald Curran, Charles Gresham Cooke, R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Currie, G. B. H. Grimston, Sir Robert
Boyle, Sir Edward Dance, James Hall, John (Wycombe)
Braine, Bernard d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Brewis, John Deedes, W. F. Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. de Ferranti, Basil Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Digby, Simon Wingfield Harris, Reader (Heston)
Brooman-White, R. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Doughty, Charles Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bryan, Paul Drayson, G. B. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccisf'd)
Bullard, Denys du Cann, Edward Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Duncan, Sir James Harvie Anderson, Miss
Burden, F. A. Duthie, Sir William Hay, John
Head, Rt. Hon. Antony Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel McLean, Neil (Inverness) Russell, Ronald
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Henderson, John (Cathcart) McMaster, Stanley Scott-Hopkins, James
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Seymour, Leslie
Hendry, A. Forbes Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Sharples, Richard
Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Shepherd, William
Hiley, Joseph Maddan, Martin Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maginnis, John E. Skeet, T. H. H.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Maitland, Cdr. J. W. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Markham, Major Sir Frank Smithers, Peter
Hirst, Geoffrey Marlowe, Anthony Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Hobson, John Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Hocking, Philip N. Marshall, Douglas Spearman, Sir Alexander
Holland, Philip Marten, Neil Speir, Rupert
Holland-Martin, Christopher Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Stanley, Hon. Richard
Hollingworth, John Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Stevens, Geoffrey
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hopkins, Alan Mawby, Ray Stodart, J. A.
Hornby, R. P. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Mills, Stratton Studholme, Sir Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Montgomery, Fergus Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Moore, Sir Thomas Talbot, John E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Morgan, William Topsail, Peter
Hughes-Young, Michael Morrison, John Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hulbert, Sir Norman Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Hurd, Sir Anthony Nabarro, Gerald Teeling, William
Hutchison, Michael Clark Neave, Airey Temple, John M.
Iremonger, T. L. Nicholls, Harmar Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Jackson, John Noble, Michael Thomas, Peter (Conway)
James, David Nugent, Richard Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Oakshott, Sir Hendrle Thompson Richard (Croydon, S.)
Jennings, J. C. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Tilney, John (Wavertree)
JohnsonSmith,G.(Holb.&S.P'ncr's,S.) Osborn, John (Hallam) Turner, Colin
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith Page, Graham Tweedsmuir, Lady
Kaberry, Donald Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Partridge, E. Vane, W. M. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Peel, John Vickers, Miss Joan
Kershaw, Anthony Percival, Ian Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Kimball, Marcus Peyton, John Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Kitson, Timothy Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Lagden, Godfrey Pike, Miss Mervyn Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Lambton, Viscount Pilkington, Capt. Richard Wall, Patrick
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pitman, I. J. Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)
Langford-Holt, J. Pitt, Miss Edith Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Leather, E. H. C. Pott, Percivall Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Horald
Leavey, J. A. Powell, J. Enoch Watts, James
Leburn, Gilmour Price, David (Eastleigh) Webster, David
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. Alan Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Prior, J. M. L. Whitelaw, William
Lindsay, Martin Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Linstead, Sir Hugh Profumo, John Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Litchfield, Capt. John Proudfoot, Wilfred Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Ramsden, James Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Rawlinson, Peter Wise, Alfred
Longbottom, Charles Rees, Hugh Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert Rees-Davies, W. R. Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Loveys, Walter H. Renton, David Woodhouse, C. M.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Woodnutt, Mark
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Ridsdale, Julian Woollam, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Rippon, Geoffrey Worsley, Marcus
McAdden, Stephen Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
MacArthur, Ian Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
McLaren, Martin Robson Brown, Sir William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Roots, William Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Ropner. Col. Sir Leonard

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 239.

Division No. 12.] AYES [10.12 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Balniel, Lord
Aitken, W. T. Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tiv'tn) Barber, Anthony
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Arbuthnot, John Barlow, Sir John
Allason, James Ashton, Sir Hubert Barter, John
Alpert, C. J. M. Atkins, Humphrey Batsford, Brian
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Freeth, Denzil Litchfield, Capt. John
Beamish, Col. Tufton Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'n C'dfield)
Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.) Gammans, Lady Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Gardner, Edward Longbottom, Charles
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) George, J. C. (Pollok) Longden, Gilbert
Berkeley, Humphry Gibson-Watt, David Loveys, Walter H.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Glover, Douglas Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Bidgood, John C. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bingham, R. M. Godber, J. B. McAdden, Stephen
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Goodhart, Philip MacArthur, Ian
Bishop, F. P. Goodhew, Victor McLaren, Martin
Black, Sir Cyril Gower, Raymond McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Bossom, Clive Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Bourne-Arton, A. Green, Alan Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute & N.Ayrs)
Box, Donald Gresham Cooke, R. McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Grimston, Sir Robert Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hall, John (Wycombe) McMaster, Stanley
Braine, Bernard Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Macmillan, Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Brewis, John Hare, Rt. Hon. John Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Harris, Reader (Heston) Maddan,Martin
Brooman-White, R. Harrison, Brian (Maidon) Maginnis, John E.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Bryan, Paul Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bullard, Denys Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Marlowe, Anthony
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Harvie Anderson, Miss Marshall, Douglas
Burden, F. A. Hay, John Marten, Neil
Butcher, Sir Herbert Head, Rt. Hon. Antony Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Butler, Rt.Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Henderson, John (Cathcart) Mawby, Ray
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hendry, A. Forbes Mills, Stratton
Cary, Sir Robert Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Channon, H. P. G. Hiley, Joseph Montgomery, Fergus
Chataway, Christopher Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Moore, Sir Thomas
Chichester-Clark, R. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Morgan, William
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Morrison, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hirst, Geoffrey Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hobson, John Nabarro, Gerald
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hocking, Philip N. Neave, Airey
Cleaver, Leonard Holland, Philip Nicholls, Harmar
Cole, Norman Holland-Martin, Christopher Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Collard, Richard Hollingworth, John Noble, Michael
Cooke, Robert Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Nugent, Richard
Cooper, A. E. Hopkins, Alan Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hornby, R. P. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. D.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patrioia Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cordle, John Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Costain, A. P. Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Coulson, J. M. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Page, Graham
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hughes-Young, Michael Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Critchley, Julian Hulbert, Sir Norman Partridge, E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hurd, Sir Anthony Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Crowder, F. P. Hutchison, Michael Clark Peel, John
Cunningham, Knox Iremonger, T. L. Percival, Ian
Curran, Charles Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Peyton, John
Currie, G. B. H. Jackson, John Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Dance, James James, David Pike, Miss Mervyn
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Deedes, W. F. Jennings, J. C. Pitman, I. J.
de Ferranti, Basil Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pitt, Miss Edith
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnson, Erie (Blackley) Pott, Percivall
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Johnson Smith,G.(Holb.&S.P'ncr's,S) Powell, J. Enoch
Doughty, Charles Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Drayson, G. B. Joseph, Slr Keith Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
du Cann, Edward Kaberry, Donald Prior, J. M. L.
Duncan, Sir James Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Duthie, Sir William Kerby, Capt. Henry Profumo, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Kerr, Sir Hamilton Proudfoot, Wilfred
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kershaw, Anthony Ramsden, James
Errington, Sir Eric Kimball, Marcus Rawlinson, Peter
Erroll, F. J. Kitson, Timothy Rees, Hugh
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lagden, Godfrey Renton, David
Farr, John Lambton, Viscount Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Fell, Anthony Lancaster, Col. C. G. Ridsdale, Julian
Finlay, Graeme Langford-Holt, J. Rippon, Geoffrey
Fisher, Nigel Leather, E. H. C. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Leavey, J. A. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool,S.)
Forrest, George Leburn, Gilmour Robson Brown, Sir William
Foster, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Roots, William
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Lindsay, Martin Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Linstead, Sir Hugh Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Russell, Ronald Talbot, John E. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Tapsell, Peter Wall, Patrick
Scott-Hopkins, James Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)
Seymour, Leslie Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Sharples, Richard Teeling, William Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Shepherd, William Temple, John M. Watts, James
Simon, Sir Jocelyn Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Webster, David
Skeet, T. H. H. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Thomas, Peter (Conway) Whitelaw, William
Smithers Peter Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Willis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Spearman, Sir Alexander Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Speir, Rupert Turner, Colin Wise, Alfred
Stanley, Hon. Richard Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Stevens, Geoffrey Tweedsmuir, Lady Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) van Straubenzee, W. R. Woodhouse, C. M.
Stodart, J. A. Vane, W. M. F. Woodnutt, Mark
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Woollam, John
Storey, S. Vickers, Miss Joan Worsley, Marcus
Studholme, Sir Henry Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Redmayne and Mr. Legh.
Abse, Leo Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ainsley, William Evans, Albert Lawson, George
Albu, Austen Fernyhough, E. Ledger, Ron
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Finch, Harold Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Fitch, Alan Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Awbery, Stan Fletcher, Eric Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bacon, Miss Alice Foot, Dingle Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Baird, John Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshlre, W.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Lipton, Marcus
Beaney, Alan George, Lady Megan Lloyd Logan, David
Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Ginsburg, David Loughlin, Charles
Benn. Hn. A. Wedgwood(Brlstol,S.E.) Gooch, E. G. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Benson, Sir George Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. McCann, John
Blackburn, F. Gourley, Harry MacColl, James
Blyton, William Greenwood, Anthony McInnes, James
Boardman, H. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McKay, John (Walisend)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mackie, John
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Griffiths, W. (Exchange) McLeavy, Frank
Bowles, Frank Grimond, J. MacPherson,, Malcolm (Stirling)
Boyden, James Gunter, Ray Mahon, Simon
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brockway, A. Fenner Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hamilton, William (West Fife) Manuel, A. C.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hannan, William Mapp, Charles
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hart, Mrs. Judith Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hayman, F. H. Marsh, Richard
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Healey, Denis Mason, Roy
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Herbison, Miss Margaret Mayhew, Christopher
Callaghan, James Hewitson, Capt. M. Mellish, R. J.
Carmichael, James Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mendelson, J. J.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hilton, A. V. Millan, Bruce
Chapman, Donald Holman, Percy Monslow, Walter
Chetwynd, George Holt, Arthur Moody, A. S.
Cliffe, Michael Houghton, Douglas Morris, John
Collick, Percy Howell, Charles A. Mort, D. L
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hoy, James H. Moyle, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mulley, Frederick
Cronin, John Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Neal, Harold
Crosland, Anthony Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oliver, G. H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hunter, A. E. Dram, A. E.
Darling, George Hynd, H. (Accrington) Oswald, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Owen, Will
Davies, Harold (Leek) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Padley, W. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Paget, R. T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Janner, Barnett Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Deer, George Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pargiter, G. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jeger, George Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Delargy, Hugh Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Paton, John
Dempsey, James Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Pavitt, Laurence
Diamond, John Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Dodds, Norman Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Peart, Frederick
Donnelly, Desmond Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pentland, Norman
Driberg, Tom Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Prentice, R. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Edelman, Maurice Jones, T. W. (Merloneth) Probert, Arthur
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Kelley, Richard Proctor, W. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kenyon, Clifford Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Rankin, John Stewart Michael (Fulham) Weitzman, David
Redhead, E. C. Stonehouse, John Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Reld, William Stones, William Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Reynolds, G. W. Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Wheeldon, W. E.
Rhodes, H. Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) White, Mrs. Eirene
Robens, Rt, Hon. Alfred Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Whitlock, William
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Swain, Thomas Willey, Frederick
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Swingler, Stephen Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Ross, William Sylvester, George Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)
Royle, Charles (Safford, West) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Taylor, John (West Lothian) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Winterbottom, R. E.
Skeffington, Arthur Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Thornton, Ernest Woof, Robert
Small, William Thorpe, Jeremy Wyatt, Woodrow
Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.) Tomney, Frank Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Snow, Julian Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Zilliacus, K.
Sorensen, R. W. Wade, Donald
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wainwright, Edwin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Spriggs, Leslie Warbey, William Mr. Rogers and Mr. Short.
Steele, Thomas Watkins, Tudor

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House approves the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to promote racial tolerance and non-discrimination by all means within their power.