COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING (Hansard, 21 January 1969)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q1, Q3, Q8, Q9, Q12, Q13 and Q14.
The conclusions of the Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, which 250 took place from 7th to 15th January, are set out in the communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library. It will be published as a White Paper.
The House will perhaps expect me to say something about the background to the meeting, and about the main impressions anyone who attended it would be likely to derive.
This was the first Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since September, 1966. Twenty-eight independent Commonwealth countries attended, five new member countries took part for the first time and Tanzania, which was not present in September, 1966, played a full part in this year's conference. Of the 28 countries represented, 13 were African, five were from Asia, two from Australasia, five from the Western Hemisphere and three from Europe. Twenty-four of the 28 countries were represented by their Head of Government.
There were some commentators who were prepared to write off in advance not only the meeting, but the Commonwealth itself. The fact that so many Presidents and Prime Ministers were prepared to leave their pressing domestic affairs and preoccupations for a fortnight, to travel such long distances, and play so full a part in the meeting, is, and I am sure I am speaking here for the whole House, an answer to the pessimists.
Unlike the meeting of September, 1966, adequate time was devoted to all the main issues on the agenda. The time spent in formal session was fairly equally divided between four main subjects—a comprehensive review of the world situation, Rhodesia, a review of the world economic situation, and the development of specific measures of Commonwealth co-operation.
In addition, the session which approved the communiqué enabled Prime Ministers to supplement their previous discussions on these main issues. There was also, of course, the usual review of the Commonwealth's own domestic arrangements, including the Secretary-General's Report on the Secretariat affairs, and the work of the Commonwealth Foundation.
The debate on the world political situation, in which nearly every delegation took part, was of a kind no other forum would be likely to provide for a serious 251 and authoritative treatment of international problems. While some might have expected the very size of the conference to weaken the force and pointed-ness of the debate, the fact that contributions were made with such authority from every continent of the world, the fact that of the 28 delegations so many were represented at Head of Government level, the fact that it was so representative a gathering of so many races, in a multi-racial setting, with wide diversity of political approach on many basic world problems—all these facts strengthened rather than weakened the quality of the discussion and the importance of the occasion.
One difference I noticed from previous conferences was the greater emphasis on regional problems—Australasia, South-East and other parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, with particular reference to the Caribbean. For each Prime Minister it was as though he was given an angle on world affairs represented not by a world map centring on his own country, as we all instinctively tend to see it, but with each problem sharply highlighted from different geographical angles.
Similarly, the debate on the world economic situation, while dealing separately with problems of liquidity and the liberalisation of trade in the general sense, also to a considerable extent dealt with the problems associated with development—including commodity policy—and with aid.
The compelling need of the developing members of the Commonwealth for continued capital aid and technical assistance was eloquently expressed. The contributions being made by the developed countries, despite—for example in Britain's case—the balance of payments problems, was generously acknowledged. More than I have known in previous conferences, there were encouraging detailed suggestions about ways in which the developing countries could share with each other their expertise in dealing with the particular problems each had had, or was having, to face.
The discussion on Commonwealth cooperation was in part at least a development of the three sessions we had spent 252 on the world economic situation and it was here that we were able to review the network of personal, technical and professional relationships that give meaning to the subject under discussion.
The House will expect me to amplify the reference in the communiqué to Rhodesia. This debate was at a high-level, penetrating and impressive and the contributions to the debate were expressed with a great deal more moderation than in 1966. This was, I think, welcome to us all. While we were sharply divided on this question, and while—I would not wish the House to be under any misunderstanding about this—a very considerable majority of the Commonwealth opposed various aspects of British policy, there was a genuine awareness of the difficulty and complexity of the problem. There was no difference on the fundamental objective of majority rule. There were considerable differences about the way in which it should be brought about.
The House will be aware that a few delegations—and a smaller number than previously—continued to urge that the problem should be settled by the use of force. I explained why in the view of the British Government, who have the ultimate and final responsibility for settling Rhodesian questions, the resort to war was wrong, impracticable and indeed, as I argued, dangerous.
The conference was fully informed about the "Fearless" negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio reported on the discussions he held in Salisbury. I made it clear that the "Fearless" proposals would remain on the table, however negative the reaction so far received from Salisbury.
I also emphasised that, in accordance with the principles laid down by the British Government, the final decision which has to be taken must depend on the requirement laid down in the fifth principle, namely, that any settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It was the main point of my argument that it is they who must have the last word, provided that we are all clear that they can express it in the right conditions. I made it clear that their future will not be decided except with their consent.
253 The House will wish to know about two other issues. Discussion of the problem of Commonwealth immigration, and the related question of Commonwealth citizenship, took place mainly outside the conference chamber. It did not go as far as Her Majesty's Government would have wished. The question of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa—and it may be Central Africa—who have no close connection with this country inevitably proved difficult and delicate.
My right hon. Friends made the position clear in the terms in which the matter was discussed in this House last spring. We had to make it plain that our policy on equality of rights and opportunities for all who have settled amongst us, and for all who, under our laws make their homes in this country, would be frustrated if a balance were not preserved between the rate of entry for settlement and our absorptive capacity.
We intend to remain within the current ceiling for immigration for settlement, whether for Commonwealth citizens or for British passport holders who have no close connection with this country. I think that our Commonwealth colleagues recognise that to press too hard on this matter might involve us in having to limit immigration from other Commonwealth countries. We propose now to seek bilateral discussions with the Commonwealth countries most closely concerned. We shall, of course, also participate in the studies of the wider problems of Commonwealth migration which the Secretary General was asked to undertake.
The other question about which the House is so deeply concerned is the tragic situation in Nigeria. In accordance with the established conventions of Commonwealth meetings, and these conventions are right, there was no discussion of the Nigerian situation round the conference table. But it was the subject of very many bilateral and multilateral exchanges outside the conference chamber, in hotels, at Chequers, and at an informal gathering to which I invited my colleagues at Lancaster House.
The main concern of many Heads of Government was to mount a discussion between the official Nigerian delegation to the conference and the representatives 254 of Colonel Ojukwu who were in London last week. The head of the Nigerian delegation made plain to me, and to others privately, and to the gathering of 27 of us at Lancaster House last week, his willingness unconditionally to attend such a meeting with Colonel Ojukwu's representatives, if one were arranged under appropriate auspices.
Despite discussions by British representatives and those of other countries with the representatives concerned, I regret that there was no move in response from Colonel Ojukwu's representative in time for talks while Chief Awolowo was still here. Nigeria's Commonwealth partners, the vast majority of whom, but not all of whom, have declared themselves against the secessionist movement, stand ready to help in any way any of us can, individually, through wider groupings or through non-Commonwealth groupings, such as the Organisation of African Unity, which number many Commonwealth countries among their membership.
Mr. Speaker, I apologise for the length of this Answer, but this House traditionally has taken a great interest in Commonwealth conferences. May I conclude by saying that it was not within the power of this Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to solve the world's problems. It was within its power to examine those problems in terms of utter frankness, moderation and comradeship and to enhance—in a way that no other conceivable gathering could have done—the understanding of each of us of the problems of each other, and of the views of each other on every problem which we have to deal with in our domestic Governments and Parliaments, and in the wider international community.

§ Mr. Ian Lloyd
While the House doubtless will welcome the Prime Minister's anxious and considered optimism about an institution which many of us think has considerable development potential, is there not now a serious danger that it will develop into a forum or centre for inter-Governmental comparison, particularly in the spheres of political and civic morality? If uniform standards are applied to all members, can the Prime Minister say if it can survive such a test?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is expressing an anxiety which has 255 been expressed outside. I think that it is an unreal one. There was no suggestion of inter-Governmental comparison of morality or any attempt to get uniformity. The strength of this conference, much more than others that I have attended, was the very clear way in which individual Commonwealth countries are developing along their own lines and yet, despite that, from all these different angles of approach as well as geography, a much greater unity in the desire to discuss in a friendly way problems not only within the Commonwealth, but of the world itself.

§ Mr. Marten
In spite of the sickening anti-Commonwealth views expressed by some of our political commentators, will the Prime Minister confirm his view that the Commonwealth is very much a living entity? To give more life to that living entity, will he consider ways and means whereby British Parliamentarians can get greater contact with Commonwealth countries on the ground?

§ The Prime Minister
I join with the hon. Gentleman in his repudiation of the doctrine to which he has referred. There were anxieties after the last conference, because of its preoccupation with one issue, however important. From this conference the Commonwealth has emerged a great deal stronger than when we entered the conference. It also showed that many who had thought over the position had decided that, whatever its shortcomings and our respective shortcomings, there was nothing like the Commonwealth for this kind of get-together at this high level.
I was impressed by the repeated tributes paid by the representatives of old and new Commonwealth countries alike to the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is always remarkable on these occasions to see how many Heads of Commonwealth Governments wear their C.P.A. ties and their desire to see the C.P.A. do still more to bring Commonwealth Parliamentarians together.

§ Mr. Wall
While welcoming the communiqué, which demonstrates the value and importance of the Commonwealth, why were the Portuguese territories in Africa referred to? Might not this be thought to be encouraging the guerrillas 256 operating against South Africa and Rhodesia?

§ The Prime Minister
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a restrictive view. We also discussed China, disarmament, and many other matters, such as British Honduras, Indonesia and other countries not directly represented at the conference table. It is a fact that countries in that part of Africa are very much concerned with the dangers presented by those Portuguese colonies, or parts of metropolitan Portugal as they are technically called. The very question, mentioned by him, of infiltration and bloodshed which could spread over the wider part of Southern Africa, was very much in the minds of many who spoke at the conference.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
What reassurance was the Prime Minister able to give the Malaysian Prime Minister when he complained about Britain's lack of leadership in the security of South-East Asia?

§ The Prime Minister
The Malaysian Prime Minister was speaking for himself and his Government on that occasion in a very agreeable speech on behalf of all of us at Guildhall. A number of other Commonwealth Prime Ministers made it clear that they did not agree with his view, and it did not get support when it was repeated in a slightly different form during the conference. His idea of British leadership is perhaps rather an old-world one, in common with the long tradition between this country and that part of South-East Asia. His idea of British leadership would be to maintain forces there which we know that we cannot afford.

§ Mr. Judd
While thanking my right hon. Friend for his full report of what has obviously been a highly successful conference—and, for that, a great deal of gratitude must be due to him for his chairmanship—may I ask him two questions about Rhodesia? What alternatives to the external guarantees proposed on "Fearless" were discussed, and what action do Her Majesty's Government intend to take on the courageous proposals attributed to Seretse Khama about the possibility of a direct British presence in Rhodesia?

§ The Prime Minister
On my hon. Friend's first point, there was no real discussion of alternatives to the second 257 guarantee, though the meeting was informed briefly by my right hon. Friend of what had been said by us both in Gibraltar and during his own visit to Salisbury.
I agree that we heard a courageous and impressive speech by the President of Botswana. With regard to his suggestion about a period of direct rule in Rhodesia, there was no answer to my question about how we should get it, except from those Commonwealth countries which believe that it could be imposed by force, which we have rejected. This has its attractions for many surrounding countries in that part of Southern Africa, many of whom would like to see stability there, and no doubt many Rhodesians would prefer to have stability on a constitutional basis for a further period rather than a fictional independence. But it is not realistic to talk about imposing a period of direct rule in the form that was mentioned by some of my colleagues at the conference.

§ Mr. Barnes
As regards the informal talks about Nigeria, would my right hon. friend not agree that any effort to bring the two sides together to talk to each other depends very much on the basis on which it is done? Could he say to what extent Her Majesty's Government are now actively trying to promote a compromise solution?

§ The Prime Minister
Not only Her Majesty's Government but the Secretary-General here in London, during the past fortnight, and also we and he and many others, have been trying to promote this at various times up to and since Christmas. One variant was to try to get an unconditional cease-fire, so that relief could begin to flow, and start discussing a compromise solution. So far, both sides refuse categorically to meet except on the basis of an acceptance by the other side of its own terms. That is why it is extremely difficult to hope immediately for an unconditional cease-fire, just as it is difficult to hope for an agreement on the conditions of an ultimate settlement. Both have been tried. The tragedy is not only that the fighting is going on, but that these attitudes prevent the movement of relief supplies, especially food, which are there in abundant quantity, provided from this country and many others, with transport available, and which are not being moved.

§ Mr. Whitaker
Now that the Common-welath Conference and the O.A.U., unfortunately, have made no progress towards peace in Nigeria, could not action be taken, perhaps through the United Nations, towards a complete arms embargo on both sides, instead of more fuel being added to this unhappy fire?

§ The Prime Minister
There have been informal soundings at the United Nations, and my hon. Friend will be aware of what U Thant has said about this matter, which he regards, quite rightly, as a Nigerian matter. Although there has been failure so far—and my hon. Friend referred to the O.A.U.—we are satisfied from our contact with the O.A.U. leadership and with individual O.A.U. members that an attempt is going on all the time to get the parties to the conference table and, as a separate operation, to get relief supplies flowing. Despite the willingness of the United States, Canada and ourselves and many others at the United Nations, I do not think that we should move more hopefully towards peace if we started centralising mediation efforts in yet another area.

§ Mr. Heath
May I express agreement with the Prime Minister on what he has said about the value of the conference. A considerable number of Prime Ministers attended the conference for the first time. I have had informal talks with them, but even those who came with doubts and a most sceptical frame of mind were convinced of the value of the conference in a Commonwealth connection.
I ask the Prime Minister two questions. First, disarmament. Was there any discussion about the positions of various Commonwealth countries on the non-proliferation agreement, and, in particular, the position of India?
Secondly, on immigration, there are two aspects. First, immigration of other Commonwealth citizens into Britain, on which there must be severe limitation, and, secondly, the problem of British citizens in other Commonwealth countries being limited. Why were there no bilateral talks about British citizens, particularly in East Africa, while the conference was going on? Is it not essential that these talks should take place with urgency and should not be left to the 259 general exploration of the Secretary-General?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. First, may I say how much I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's own judgment on the attitude especially of new Commonwealth Prime Ministers, whether from new Commonwealth countries or new representatives of old countries, to the conference. It accords with what has been said to me by many hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Secondly, non-proliferation. There was some discussion not only round the conference table, but also in a series of informal groupings and gatherings. The position of India is well known from the attitude that has been taken by India at the 18-nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva. Apart from short bilateral discussions, nothing was said by India to suggest that there has been any change in that attitude. Other countries have indicated their attitude. There was general support for what has been achieved, but equally a generally expressed sense of urgency by the non-nuclear countries about the need for further disarmament by nuclear Powers. However, certain countries indicated great difficulty about signing and ratifying the non-proliferation treaty. In those circumstances, it was not possible to make progress.
On immigration, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the treatment of British citizens in certain countries, quite apart from the question of the entry of Commonwealth citizens or British passport holders into this country. There was some discussion, particularly informal bilateral discussion, for example, at Chequers on some of these points.
But the group meeting that was mounted for the purpose of discussing all these matters made little progress, unfortunately, partly, I think, because of the strong suspicions and feelings of certain of the East African countries about the kind of pressure that they felt we were all going to put on them—not only ourselves, but also Pakistan and such countries as the Caribbean countries who were anxious that their quotas should not be cut to accommodate more people who were expelled.
260 While we disagree with the East African countries in their policies, many of them felt that we misrepresented their point of view by saying that they were trying to expel Asians when all they were doing was to take away their trading permits and to encourage them to take up other work and still remain.
The Secretary-General is instructed to prepare studies, but we believe that the main emphasis, as the right hon. Gentleman says, must be on urgent bilateral talks with the countries concerned.

§ Mr. Heffer
My right hon. Friend says that joint efforts are being made for a compromise solution to the Nigerian-Biafran conflict. Does he agree that the transport of Nigerian Federal troops in British merchant ships is not conducive towards such a compromise? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have written to the Foreign Secretary giving him chapter and verse of the use of such ships? Will he give an assurance to the House that, irrespective of any arms embargo at this stage, such a practice will cease?

§ The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend will no doubt study the information supplied by my hon. Friend and I shall be glad to see it. On that issue, particularly on the arms issue, in all the discussions that I heard and took part in and all the informal discussions on Nigeria during the conference, I heard no argument put forward that if our arms policy were different there would be a likelihood of shortening the fighting by a single day. If I had heard that I would feel it my duty to report it to the House. But those in closest touch with the situation, including the two countries which have recognised Biafra, have made no attempt to support that thesis for a moment.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Is the Prime Minister aware that no one reading the communiqué and the range of subjects covered would fail to be impressed by the Commonwealth as a forum for discussion and understanding? Is he also aware that particularly welcome are the proposals in the last 13 paragraphs for increased Commonwealth co-operation at different levels?
I ask one question concerning immigration. Although the Prime Minister has said that there will be bilateral talks 261 and multilateral studies by officials under Mr. Arnold Smith, is this not essentially a multilateral political question in which there should be continuing talks between the Ministers of all the countries affected? Will the Prime Minister consider that and say whether any Commonwealth countries have declined to participate in any such meeting?

§ The Prime Minister
On the communiqué, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and thank him for what he has said. A great deal of ground was covered. That is why it is an unusually lengthy and informative communiqué, even where there were differences on the recognition of China and matters of that kind.
It would have been ideal if we could have had a gathering with all the countries concerned to try to hammer out an agreement on immigration, but it rapidly became clear that that was not in prospect. In these circumstances, we feel that bilateral discussions are the most likely to prove productive, though I do not underrate the problems presented. The Secretary-General's function is ancillary to what will be the main bilateral discussion.

§ Mr. Ogden
Can the Prime Minister tell us a little more about discussions, either formal or informal, for an increase in Commonwealth trade? Can he give an assurance that those discussions will be followed by bilateral discussions at different levels between this Government and individual Governments?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. There have been continuously, and we have convened special meetings of Commonwealth Trade Ministers as well as the annual meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. My hon. Friend will find in the communiqué in the section on economic affairs and on Commonwealth co-operation what is being done to stimulate intra-Commonwealth trade as well as measures of Commonwealth association.
I am sorry that I did not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question earlier about a special conference of Ministers. In view of the difficulty that we had in getting Ministers round the table on this question, I would not hold out a lot of hope of getting a conference of this kind now that the Ministers have gone home. I think that the bilateral approach will have to be tried in the first instance. If that were productive, we might have a Ministerial conference.

§ Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles
Was the Prime Minister able to convince the Prime Minister of Singapore about the effectiveness of continued British interest in South-East Asia after the withdrawal of all armed forces east of Suez?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that the Prime Minister of Singapore has acted with remarkable speed and resilience upon the decision which we announced a year ago. He is much more relaxed about the situation than when he came to Britain in January last year. He is now taking the most energetic measures to secure boom conditions for Singapore by his own and his people's efforts and our help, including our substantial aid programme, which he values, and also the recent Commonwealth Trade Mission.
If there is any issue on which he has expressed anxiety here publicly, as well as privately, it is not our defence policy, which he takes as given and settled, but his disappointment that more of our industrialists are not moving in quickly to take advantage of what he regards as likely to prove the great development and growth centre of South-East Asia. Some of our industrialists, under the Grierson Mission, have made a start, but he is disappointed that more is not being done in investment and trade.

§ Dr. John Dunwoody
Concerning the difficult problem of emigration within the Commonwealth, which was discussed at the meeting, does the Prime Minister agree that the problem of British citizens in East Africa is distinct and different from the more general problem of immigration within the Commonwealth? If we are to solve these two problems, will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind in bilateral discussions taking place in future?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. That distinction was one reason why it was difficult to get any common view even in the meeting that was arranged, because countries from which there is at present a small degree of normal immigration, not of British passport holders, were very much alarmed that if we opened our doors to any extent to let in British passport holders from East African countries, or from Zambia if that becomes an issue, there would be a still smaller number coming in from the more traditional Commonwealth immigrant 263 countries, and that it might mean interference with what exists today, under fairly strict controls, for the uniting of families. This is why there was a clash between countries from whom immigrants come; there was a sharp division between those two groups quite apart from Britain's own position.

§ Mr. Fisher
In addition to the bilateral talks on Commonwealth immigration, which we all greatly welcome, I was not clear whether the machinery to be set up within the Commonwealth Secretariat for the study of the problem is to be permanent, for studying all aspects of Commonwealth migration and issuing information to other Governments concerned, or whether it is to be only a temporary thing dealing with the particular problem of Kenya Asians.

§ The Prime Minister
"Permanent" is a word which covers a very long time, but as far ahead as we can see the Secretary-General will be asked to undertake the task which we have given him—I would say certainly up to the next conference, when the matter can be reviewed. His job is more to get facts and to try to measure—if one can use this phrase—the "tidal flow" of migration, so that countries can get advance notice of the kind of problem with which they might be confronted, and so that individual displaced persons are not left, as it were, without a home.
This would also enable some of us to put pressure on countries not to expel or force out. Of course, if this worked, together with bilateral discussions, it would lead us to better machinery, perhaps inter-Governmental machinery, and that kind of work might give way to something new which might be laid on the Secretary-General at a later conference.

§ Mr. James Johnson
Referring to Nigeria, since my right hon. Friend or the British Government are in such disfavour, apparently, with the Ibo or Biafran leadership, what use are we making of Tanzania or Zambia, which are in favour? Is there any chance of success in using them as mediators?

§ The Prime Minister
This was raised in the discussion which I mentioned at, I think, President Nyerere's hotel between 264 the Presidents of Zambia, Uganda and Tanzania and the leaders of the Nigerian delegation. I think—I do not want to put it higher than this—that our friends, particularly from Tanzania and Zambia, but also President Obote, who played a distinguished part in getting the parties together at the very outset at Kampala, will consider what more they can do, but in view of the utterly intransigent position at present, it is doubtful whether they would be successful in persuading those concerned to come to the conference table.
As has been made clear by many of those with influence with Colonel Ojukwu, he refuses to contemplate either a cease-fire or discussions on any basis other than that which involves in advance acceptance of what he calls his "nationhood".

§ Mrs. Ewing
May I agree with the Prime Minister on the excellence of the forum provided by the conference? May I, without disrespect to him, express the hope that, after his Commission on the Constitution has deliberated, or the next election, whichever event is first, the Prime Minister of Scotland will be able to attend? Did the conference discuss the criteria on which new nations are admitted to the Commonwealth? If so, what were those criteria?

§ The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady will know, the Commonwealth rules provide that all new countries seeking to join the Commonwealth must be accepted by all members and have to show to the Commonwealth, of course, that they have effective control of the country which they represent. The hon. Lady will have noted, for example, the leading part played at the conference by my right hon. Friend, who is a Scot and represents a Scottish constituency and who, in that conference, was able to speak in a Scottish accent for 50 million people.
The other general view of the Commonwealth Conference which I think I should draw to her attention—this came up not only in Nigeria, but in general discussions of the world situation—was the general Commonwealth opposition to Balkanisation.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is an important subject, but we must move on.