Lords Sitting of 5 December 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans

N.A.T.O. AND TRADE RESTRICTIONS
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the OrderPaper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to proposals recently announced in the Press emanating from official advisers to the United States Government suggesting the possible use by the N.A.T.O. countries of trade restrictions mainly for the purpose of influencing the political policies of China and the Soviet bloc ; and whether they will state that they will not bea party to any such action which would disrupt and weaken N.A.T.O.;exacerbate the critical situation for British exports; and be injurious to the long-term industrial interests of this country.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I take it
2
that the noble Viscount has in mind a report by a Mr. Samuel Pisar, entitled A New Look at Trade Policy toward the Communist Bloc, which was prepared for a sub-committee of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. This report is one of several study papers prepared by scholars and experts at the request of this sub-committee to assist them in their researches. It is the work of aprivate individual. It cannot, therefore, be taken as an official statement of United States policy, nor can we judge how much weight will be attached to it when it comes to be considered by the Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Of course, it is quite fantastic that advisers to the American Government should come forwardwith any such suggestions as these. But if such proposals come along, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind in relation to them that in 1957 they themselves, to their great credit, took the initiative in dismantling some of the worst rigours of the Chinese embargo, even without the consent of America and COCOM, and that all the otherEuropean countries in COCOM later followed suit?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount will be aware that recentlyHer Majesty's Government have effected a rather satisfactory trade with China in aircraft. I think the noble Viscount will have read about it. I want to emphasise, so that

3
there will be no misunderstanding, that this report to which the noble Viscount referred is only one of a series of studies which are being submitted to this Committee, and they must not in any way be considered as being representative of American Governmental opinion.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, can we therefore regard this Question as one of a series?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As one of a series of Questions? The noble Lord must put that to the noble Viscount.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that the proposal of this individual, if it were implemented, would amount to economic sanction, and is that not unprecedented during peace time?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had an opportunity of reading this report. I will not pretend for one moment that I have read the whole of it myself. But Mr. Pisar discusses in greatdetail what the possibilities might be, if some sort of economic embargo were brought in. That is his job. He has to study all eventualities so that the sub-committee which looks at this subject will be able to form an opinion on this report and other similar reports produced by men of equal distinction to Mr. Pisar's.

PURCHASE TAX ON RACING CARS
2.40 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether for the sake of the future of British motor racing they will reconsider their decision to discontinue allowing purchase tax rebate on racing cars.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the value to the British motor industry, on grounds of prestige and technical
4
development, of successful British participation in international motor racing. They do not consider, however, that in present circumstances it would any longer be justifiable to maintain the special concession of a refund of purchase tax on racing cars. The industry willno doubt be prepared to give motor racing their support to the extent that they consider this to be warranted by the benefits which it would bring to them.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that many firms who are interested in motor racing and who represent this country abroad are not big firms such as, shall we say, the British Motor Corporation; they are small firms making their headway? And if they are to be charged an unreasonable amount of purchase tax, how can they possibly afford to go on with their enterprises'?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am quite aware of the firms which participate in motor racing. I am not aware that they cannot afford to go on if this rebate is withdrawn, as it will be; nor am I aware that the British motor industry wouldnot continue to support them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is it not a fact that purchase tax is chargeable on motor cars only if they are designed to carry passengers? If that is the case, if these cars are not designed to carry passengers why is purchase tax charged?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that was all gone into in 1950, when it was decided to give this rebate. Ithink it is a fact that these cars come within the definition of cars liable to purchase tax.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the Government not agree that in fact these racing cars are prototypes, and that the reliability of the cars in which your Lordships come to this House every day is largely affected by the experiments which are carried out in this way?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thought my original Answer testified to the importance of these cars. I agree they are important.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the House any idea of

5
what the gain of removing this concession would be to the Government?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords: it will be about £30,000 a year off the Board of Trade Vote.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the amount of £30,000 has been set against the value of these cars for research purposes to the motor industry?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am not sure that that arises. It has been decided to stop this rebate. I have already said that the importance of motor racing to the industry is understood, and I have suggested that the motor industry will probably take that into account, too.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is this not perhaps another case for a pause for the moment?

ROAD HAULAGE RATES AND COST OF LIVING
2.45 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is likely to be the effect on the cost of living, and in particular on the price of fuel, food and building costs, of the proposal by the Road Haulage Association to raise haulage rates by 7½ per cent.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, road haulage rates are not included in the index of retail prices, and so the proposed change will not affect the index figure directly. Indirect effects cannot, I am afraid, be forecast because they will depend upon the extent to which additional costs are eventually passed onto consumers of the goods carried.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that this increase in road haulage rates is bound to have some effect upon the cost of living, and on the cost of goods consumed by many people, particularly for those with lower incomes? Is it not a fact also that at least 50 per cent. of the extra cost which is necessitated comes not from higher wages but from the direct action of Her Majesty's Government in the last Budget
6
of increasing the fuel tax and the road fund licences on these heavy haulage vehicles?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in answer to the first question, I do not think I ought to speculate upon what the possible results will be, since they cannot be forecast. We shall have to wait to see what happens. As regards the noble Lord's second question, the Government, of course, were in no way a party to this decision of the Road Haulage Association, and I am not in a position to say what were the factors they had in mind in reaching that decision. But I should imagine that the proposed increased rates are occasioned at least in part by the wage increases which are to come into effect in the industry on January 1.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, even without making any forecast as to the effect that this might have, that it is going to make any pay pause increasingly difficult when the cost of transport of certain essential items goes up by this quite considerable amount?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think I could agree about that.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say, if the Government are not a party to this increase, why they are not a pasty to it, when they seek most vigorously to be a party against any suggestion that there should be an increase in wages?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are not a party to this decision because they do not control in any way the activities of the Road Haulage Association.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, nor do they control the activities of the trade unions. Nevertheless, they seek to be a party to these decisions and to prevent any wage increases, but apparently they have done nothing whatever about this increase in the road haulage charges which, whatever the noble Lord says, is bound to affect end prices.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are not a party to the decisions of the Association, and they cannot do anything about the proposed increase in charges
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is it not obvious that a good deal of the make-up of the increased transport charge arises from what is called the "little Budget", from the imposition of new charges by the Government, and therefore the Government have some responsibility for it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I can only say again what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I do not know, and the Government do not know, for what reason the Association have come to the decision they have reached.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that, if the Government do not know, it is their duty to find out. They are finding out about proposed wage increases. The whole thing is that you cannot go on increasing the cost of living and expect a wages pause to continue. Why do the Government not accept the responsibility of going to the Road Haulage Association and discussing this matter with them?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think we are now going very much further than the original Question. I do not think I ought to make any sort of general pronouncement, in answer to a question like this, about the Government's attitude to prices.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, have not the National Coal Board put up the price of coal? Is not that a case on exactly the same footing?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION FUND PAYMENTS
2.49 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what increases the Foreign Compensation Commission are now authorised to make in the interim payment of compensation to British subjects whose property in Egypt was Egyptianised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Schedule to the new Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) (Amendment) Order, 1961, which was laid before your Lordships yesterday, provides for increased payments on all claims at the following rates:
on claims assessed at £5,000 or under: 90 per cent.;
on claims assessed at up to £50,000—that is, more than£5,000 but less than £50,000: £4,500 (that is, 90 per cent. of the first £5,000) plus 60 per cent. of the balance over £5,000;
on claims assessed at up to £500,000: £31,500 (that isthe amount allowable under the first £50,000) plus 35 per cent. of the balance over £50,000;
and on claims assessed at over £500,000: £189,000, plus 20 per cent. of the balance over £500,000. These increases apply to all claims established before the Commission, whether already assessed or to be assessed in the future.
Thus claims assessed at £5,000 or less receive a 20 per cent. greater dividend than before; and claims assessed at up to £500,000 a 10 per cent. greater dividend on the sum assessed over the first £5,000. The dividend on the amount by which an assessed claim exceeds half a million pounds is not increased but remains at 20 per cent. Nevertheless, your Lordships will see that in fact all claimants will benefit by the increased rates; those whose claims are assessed at £500,000 or more will receive an interim payment of £189,000, that is to say, £50.500 more than under the previous Order.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I hope I am in order if, before I ask a supplementary question, which I have here and of which I gave very short preliminary notice, I say what a pleasure it is that I should be addressing my noble kinsman for the first time in his high office, on this subject or any other. Whilst the increased payments provided for in the new Order in Council will be welcomed by a number of claimants, which mainly includes the large public companies whose property was Egyptianised, it is regrettable that it contains no provision of any assistance whatsoever for the great majority of unfortunate individuals whose property

9
was sequestrated, whose assets now lie blocked in Egypt, and who at best can only hopefully expect to receive a transfer of what amounts to £850 sterling. I must not make a speech, but I must quote just two examples.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILLEARN: It is so important, your Lordships really would like to hear it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD KILLEARN: I am going to go ahead until I am thrown out, because it is such an injustice. I will put it in the form of a question. Is the noble Earl aware that of two claimants, Mr. A and Mr. B, Mr. A has a claim for £50,000 in respect of property which has been Egyptianised or nationalised, call it which you like? Under this new Order Mr. A will receive £31,500, which is not so bad. Mr. B, who unfortunately has only sequestrated assets valued at the same amount, £50,000, can at present only hopefully expect to receive a transfer amounting to £850. That is a very considerable difference, a glaring difference. I know the noble Earl cannot give an answer off hand, but the difference is so glaring that one hopes and believes it is receivingvery serious consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am equally glad to reply to my noble friend, whether his observations are didactic or interrogatory. This Order, of course, applies to the compensation in respect of Egyptianised property or in respect of damage to sequestrated property, which has been restored but which suffered damage or deterioration while it was sequestrated. Of course, my noble friend is quite right in assuming that it does not affect the difficulties of those whose property has been restored under the 1959 Agreement, but who cannot get sterling currency out of Egypt.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I put this point to my noble friend? There is a total sum available of £27½ million under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. I think the Government would accept that. Is it equitable that one class of payment on the Egyptianised property should have what is in effect a priority over that to owners of sequestrated property?—because,
10
there being only £27½ million in all, by the time they are satisfied there may remain practically nothing for the owners of sequestrated property, and they are the ones who need the assistance most. What I would ask the Government is this. While I am sure that everyone is extremely grateful to them for the efforts they have made to try to meet these difficulties, will the case of the owners of sequestrated property, who have not been able to be satisfied because they have been unable to get the information to formulate their claim, be further considered, even if the £27½ million has already been paid out, mostly to the owners of Egyptianised property?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I hope I am right in assuming that the noble Marquess is now referring not to the general difficulty of getting desequestrated property released, but to the payments of compensation to those who have had their sequestrated property restored and who are entitled to claim for damage, because they are two quite different points. None of this £27½ million could be used to help the people who have had their property restored to them, and whose only difficulty is that they cannot get money for it because of currency difficulties. It can be used to pay compensation in respect of damage which was suffered by the property while it was held by the Egyptians. It is, I think, obvious that the formulation and assessment of these claims must take some time, probably longer than the assessment of claims for compensation for Egyptianised property. Certainly it is estimated that after the payments under this Order have been made in respect of claims already assessed and approved, there will still be a margin left in the fund. We cannot yet estimate the amount of these claims, because they take so long to formulate and to be assessed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: MyLords, I quite appreciate what my noble friend has said, that there are two points. But the position in respect of both of them is at present unsatisfactory. What I want to ask the Government is whether they will keep in mind the unsatisfactory position as regards both these two points; that is to say, the people who have not yet been able to formulate claims and, therefore, may

11
not come within the ambit of the £27½ million, and those who may have been satisfied or not satisfied but cannot get their money back to England. Those are the two difficulties facing the claimants at the present time. I understand that there is likely to be a debate on this subject in the near future. I do not wish to elaborate it any further, but these are points which are still worrying a great many people.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question is, of course, Yes. The Government have both the sets of cases in mind. I would just remind your Lordships again that the only class of case affected by this Order and by the Question on the Paper is what one might perhaps call—a smaller amount of money is involved —the claims for damage during the time in which the property was held by the Egyptians.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is there not a third class of British subject involved in this; that is, the 10 persons at least whose properties were desequestrated and whose properties have now been resequestrated by the Nasser Government under recent ordinances?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is quite a different question which has arisen in the last month or two. I do not think it arises out of this Question, and perhaps my noble friend would like to look at the reply given in another place on November 15. But, of course, the fact is we cannot give any satisfactory information about this until we have it, and we have not got all the information yet.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, another question has been raised and the noble Earl has been good enough to reply to it since it is all part of the same subject. As facts have been quoted in another place of 37 British nationals who have had their property resequestrated, will he bear that in mind and consider it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course, my Lords. But I do not think we can answer too many questions which do not arise out of the one on the Paper.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl will bear that in mind.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I just add something of which I presume the noble Earl is already aware, that under this recent enactment in Cairo the firm of solicitors who are looking after the interests of these unfortunate claimants have now been sequestrated themselves?

THE CONGO SITUATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS
3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the serious deterioration in the Congo situation, and of the attacks yesterday by President Tshombe on the United Nations and its Secretary-General, they will make a statement.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the situation in the Katanga has deteriorated in the past week. Incidents which have taken place have resulted in casualties on both sides. The Katangans are believed by the United Nations to be holding a number of United Nations servicemen and civilians, although they have only admitted to Her Majesty's Consul to holding one. The United Nations deny that they hold any Katanga gendarmes. Her Majesty's Consul has told Mr. Kimba on his own initiative that he hopes that any prisoners held will be released at once. Mr. Kimba, I understand, is acting in Mr. Tshombe's absence. He has since repeated this at the request of the United Nations. I have seen reports of Mr. Tshombe's speech in Paris on December 4, and I regret very much the nature of his intemperate remarks. There is a serious danger that a continuation of these incidents may lead to serious fighting. Her Majesty's Government will therefore continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Foreign Secretary for his reply. I take especial note of what

13
he says, and I am very pleased to see it: that the Government will
"continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them".
But with regard to this Congo situation may we have some idea as to what the Government's intentions are regarding the charges made by the recently resigned representative of the United Nations in the Congo against the British Government, the French Government and the Belgian Government, as well as, I think, the very intemperate suggestions about many British citizens in a later statement? As there is a very grave charge against the British Government for a breach of faith with regard to the implementation of the United Nations resolution, ought not the Government at once to make an official statement?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, one really cannot make official statements in response to every melodramatic statement which is made anywhere in the world. But I will just make quite clear what the British Government's position is in the context of what Mr. O'Brien said. The question of Mr. O'Brien's employment is purely one for the United Nations and for the Irish Government. They were his two employers. Her Majesty's Government are not concerned in the matter at all.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Congo has been made crystal clear in statement after statement, first by myself in the United Nations General Assembly debate; secondly, by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place; and, thirdly, by Sir Patrick Dean, our Permanent Representative in the United Nations. All of us have made clear that we believe that the use of force in the Katanga by the United Nations should be limited to preventing civil war and maintaining order; and that was included in the resolution of February 21. When the recent resolution went beyond that, we made it quite clear in public in the United Nations that we thought that was a mistake. Equally, we have never lost any opportunity in telling Mr. Tshombe and his Ministers in the Katanga that we did not believe that Katanga had any future as an independent State and that therefore he should come together with Mr. Adoula, the
14
Prime Minister, in Leopoldville, and they should work out between them a Constitution for the Congo, which would be broadly representative of what the Congolese people want. Those have been the only two activities which the United Kingdom Government have undertaken, and, I must repeat, we still think that the use of force beyond preventing civil war and maintaining law and order does more harm than good in the Congo.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged for the Foreign Secretary's very full statement. Of course, we knew of his original statement in the House at the time he made it, and we appreciated it, but it is a pity that an equally clear statement was not issued on behalf of the Government immediately these charges appeared in the Press. I think it is a great pity that that was not done. If still we have to put on the Foreign Secretary's statement an interpretation of what it really means, does it not mean this? If these charges that the British Government have been an obstacle, with others, to the carrying out of the United Nations policy in the Congo, as laid down by the United Nations themselves, are not correct, then Mr. O'Brien is just simply not telling the truth. And that is what I think is the position arising from the Foreign Secretary's statement.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary answers, might I say that, while we all very much welcome his assurance regarding the excessive use of force, there is, nevertheless, a broad feeling of surprise that this comparatively minor area of Katanga can be standing up against the whole strength of the United Nations and, to some extent, getting away with it. Can he assure the House that steps such as sanctions, or something on those lines, are being taken to bring the full force of world opinion against the Katanga into effective use?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary answers that, may I ask whether this House does not support the Foreign Secretary in his determination to seek peace and ensure it in the Congo, and whether the Foreign Secretary and the House do not think that it is not a case, or should not be, of the United Nations being against Tshombe, but that both sides, Adoula

15
and Tshombe, have their rights, and that the right thing to do is to try to bring about a solution which brings them together, not by suppression but by conciliation?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, could I please reply now, otherwise we shall get confused with too many questions. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I stated this many times. The objective which we all want to see, and which I take it most people want to see, in the United Nations, is a united Congo. I myself have made it clear that I think the obvious solution is a federal or a confederal solution that suits African conditions. What we have to do—but so far it has not been possible —is to make these African gentlemen come together to talk about the solution. The Katanga is not the only part the Congo in which there is a secessionist movement. There is a strong secessionist movement by Mr. Gizenga in Stanleyville; and, therefore, if United Nations policy is applied it must be applied all over, equally and fairly, and there must not be selection. But it is not for us, indeed, or the United Nations, to say what constitutional pattern the Congolese should adopt. This must be worked out by the Congolese themselves and must not be worked out, in our opinion, by force applied from outside.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, while recognising that the Congo is not viable without Katanga's being a part of it, it is not nevertheless the fact, or at any rate a view that can be sustained, that it would be better to build a new Congo around the only part of it in which there is law and order and viability rather than try to destroy that part and thus add to the chaos which exists in the greater part of the Congo?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have great anxiety that the situation in the Congo should not be made worse, and we have made it quite clear that we think the application of force in the way I have described was in danger of making it worse, and indeed has contributed to some extent to the deterioration of the situation. But I must repeat that the only satisfactory solution for the future of the Congo must be one worked out
16
by the Congolese themselves. I think this country could supply many able advisers who could help the Congolese in these matters. I wish it were possible that we could do so, and I hope somebody will be found who will be able to act as a go-between or a conciliator to help Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe to come together to settle the constitutional pattern.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that the Government are continuing in constant touch on this matter with the other African States who are members of the Commonwealth?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think it is any good concealing that from the earliest days when Mr. Lumumba began to operate there have been some differences within the Commonwealth. But there are Commonwealth meetings in the United Nations every fortnight, when the Commonwealth members meet together and these matters are discussed. I was present at one myself not long ago. I think everybody will feel that in the present dangerous situation all the efforts of the United Nations and the members of the Commonwealth who are concerned about this matter should be applied to pacification and conciliation, and not to the application of force.

TOXIC CHEMICALS IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STORAGE
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may now make a short statement which s as follows: The Report of the Research Study Group on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and Food Storage has been published to-day. Copies have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. This group of scientists has made a thorough survey of the considerable amount of research now going on into the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and food storage, with particular referenceto protecting human beings, farm animals, bees and the different forms of wild life against possible hazards.

17
The conclusions of the Report are that protective measures now in force are generally successful, but it affirms and spells out the need for more fundamental and applied research into various problems arising in this field. The Government accept the conclusions and intend to implement the Group's recommendations to the full extent of the additional resources which can be made available.
The Government are indebted to Professor Sanders and his colleagues for their helpful Report.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have not had an opportunity to study the Report. May I ask whether the Committee indicate what particular measures are successful, in view of the heavy destruction which was caused previously, or are they suggesting that the measures now taken to restrict the use of certain toxic chemicals at certain seasons of the year will be successful in the future?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Report, as noble Lords will find when they come to read it, summarises a number of ways in which additional work, and additional fundamental and applied research, are needed. They came to the conclusion on examining the evidence that, on the whole—I will quote the words again which I used in the statement:
"… protective measures now in force are generally successful …"
but that further research is needed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is there any proposal in this Report that statutory effect should be given by regulations to prevent or to minimise the amount of toxic chemicals getting into foodstuffs?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. my Lords. I think, with respect, it would perhaps be more convenient for the House if we could study this Report and its number of recommendations first. If noble Lords want to discuss it and debate it, I have no doubt it can be arranged through the usual channels.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I draw the noble Earl's attention to an article in the British Medical Journal of the week before last on this question, in which it states that
18
our knowledge of the toxic effects of many of these food additives, whether fertilisers or other materials added to the food to-day to preserve it, and so on, is very limited? In fact it is a most alarming article in which this authoritative paper, the British Medical Journal, warns the public consuming these foods that there is no authoritative Committee manned by people with specialist knowledge which can definitely say what is harmful and what is not.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid I have to confess to the noble Baroness that I have not read that report yet. Now that she has drawn it to my attention I am sure that the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council and the appropriate Ministers and I myself will study it with the greatestcare.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the complacency of the Committee would not be shared by beekeepers in this country?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think when the noble Lord has read this report he will not find it unduly complacent.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, will the Minister assure us he will not wait for a debate to take place in this House or in another place before his Department and that of the Minister for Science give urgent consideration to the need to provide fresh funds to carry out the extra research which this Report says is needed?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the provision of funds is always a matter to be considered in the appropriate quarters. I hope the House will accept what I have said: that the Government accept the conclusions and intend to implement there commendations to the full extent of the resources which can be made available.

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE (WESTERN SAMOA) ORDER, 1961
3.19 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the purpose of this draft Order-in Council is to continue to include Western Samoa in the Commonwealth preference area after she becomes independent on January 1, 1962. Western Samoa is at present administered by the Government of New Zealand under a United Nations Trusteeship Agreement. This Trusteeship Agreement comes to an end on January1st, 1962. The Western Samoan Government have asked the New Zealand Government to request us to continue to grant preferences, as we do at present. In return, the Western Samoans have agreed to maintain the preferences which they grant to us.
The preferences which we grant to Western Samoa are of real importance to her economy. Her main products are copra and cocoa. Over half her exports of cocoa and nearly half her exports of copra come to the United Kingdom.
The Import Duties Act, 1958, grants power by Order-in-Council to add the name of any country to those already appearing in Section 2 (4) of the Act as parts of the Commonwealth preference area. The draft Order-in-Council now before the House makes use of this power. This is the first occasion on which we have sought to make use of the Order-in-Council procedure to keep a country in the Commonwealth preference area after it has become independent. This is because whenever our Colonies have achieved independence, a separate Independence Act has been required and a clause has been inserted in such Acts to the effect that the country shall be added to those already listed in Section 2 (4) of the Import Duties Act. No such Act of Parliament is required for the grant of independence to Western Samoa. That is why we are proposing to use the Order-in-Council procedure. I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree that the draft Order-in-Council should be approved.
Moved, That the Commonwealth Preference (Western Samoa) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question—namely, is it the intention of the Government to consider the exports of Western Samoa in the course of the negotiations that are taking place about the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if this Order is approved and preferences are given to Western Samoa, they will of course be facts of our trade. They will undoubtedly have to be considered, just as all the other facts of our trade with Commonwealth countries or under other trade agreements must be considered in negotiation with the Common Market countries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUMMER TIME (1962) ORDER, 1961
3.23 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper. Summer time is fixed by the Acts of 1922 and 1925 to run from the Sunday following the third Saturday in April (unless that Sunday is Easter day, when it is the Sunday after the second Saturday) to the Sunday after the first Saturday in October. The Act of 1947, however, provided a procedure for varying this period in any particular year, and it is under that Act that this present Order has been laid.
The purpose of the Order is to continue for another year the summer time arrangements adopted this year, which received general assent in both Houses. This arrangement extended the normal statutory period of summer time which I have just mentioned by adding three weeks extra in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. Public reaction appears to have been generally favourable to this experiment. The Government have therefore decided to propose a similar extension for this coming year, 1962; so that summer time will run from March 25 until October 28. In the light of public reaction to this year's experiment, and also of any expressions of view which may be made by your

21
Lordships to-day or by honourable gentlemen in another place next week, we will consider whether some permanent modification of the arrangements laid down in the Acts of 1922 and 1925 should be made.
The chief merit of the modification on the lines of the proposals now put forward for next year would be that an extended period for summer time probably represents the best compromise as between the various interests which must be considered, and would bring the greatest benefit to the largest number of people in the country. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time (1962) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd of November last.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that most of your Lordships will welcome and approve this statement. But it would he of convenience if we could, as soon as possible, try to make this permanent. It is a little difficult to have this uncertainty from year to year, and now that we shall have tried it for two years, if the general reaction is a favourable one I hope the Government will consider introducing legislation or giving some indication that this is now an established practice.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, by "established practice" does the noble Lord mean the extension now proposed or permanent summer time all the year round?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I certainly appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but there are many hundreds of thousands of people who will take an opposite view, and I suggest that, in the course of this coming year, we shall be much clearer as to what Her Majesty's subjects would really like.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a third time, I should inform your Lordships that two noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave notice that they wanted to raise the question of aliens on the Third Reading. I hope it will suit the convenience of your Lordships if I move the Third Reading formally and then, after hearing what the noble Lords say, do the best I can to reply to their points. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, I had given notice that I would raise this point on Third Reading. After further consideration, and in view of a Bill which will be coming to this House at some time, I think it might be more convenient if I deferred any observations on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and on the general question of immigration until we have had this other measure before us. I therefore do not propose to take advantage of this opportunity.
3.28 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we said nothing on this subject on Second Reading because, on the appeal of Lord Silkin that the hour was somewhat late —it was not very late but it was somewhat late—and in view of the engagements that people had elsewhere, it was felt desirable not to proceed with it on that occasion. I myself do not think that we ought to let a Bill of this kind go forward without a word being said on it at any stage of its passage through the House. Therefore, while I am not going to be long, I think I should just say one word in reference to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. This Act and the orders made under it come before Parliament every year. We therefore apply to aliens and to the immigration of aliens a Parliamentary

23
check which is quite important and which no doubt is felt by them and by others as meaning that Parliament has under continuous survey their rights, if they have any, or the desirability of their being allowed into this country.
The Government have now announced, however, that so far as the immigration of Commonwealth citizens is concerned there shall be a five years' review period. All I want to ask is: why should we treat our Commonwealth citizens in this way when, every year, we consider the convenience of aliens? I am not asking for any better treatment for Commonwealth citizens. I am asking, what has decided the Government on this difference in treatment between aliens and our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth?
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I want to make one point —namely, that the present policy on the admission of aliens is much more stringent than is proposed for Commonwealth citizens under the Bill. I draw attention to one point in particular: that work permits for aliens are granted by the Ministry of Labour only if a job is available which cannot be filled by persons already in the United Kingdom, whether British or alien. I thought that that ought to be generally realised. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has drawn attention to the fact that there is a Bill in another place that contains a provision for the period of review, and of course it will be open to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to discuss the provision and what he thinks is the correct period when the Bill comes before us.
In view of Lord Ogmore's first remark about the general position, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if, in a few sentences, I give the general picture. I promise the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I will not be more than five minutes, but I think it is right that we should just take note of the position. In the year ending September 30, 1961, 1,787,566 aliens came to this country. Of these, only 2,984 were refused admission.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble and learned Viscount repeat the number who came to this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, 1,787,566 is the exact number of aliens who came to this country, and the number refused admission was 2,984.
LORD SILKIN: This would include tourists, would it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I am going to deal with that point, but I wanted, first of all, to put the general picture to your Lordships. I am told that the ratio of refusals to the total number of foreign arrivals is 1 in 552, and the percentage is 0.18 per cent. Again very briefly may I tell you of whom the 2,984 consisted? On employment grounds as having no permit for employment, there were 1,148; those with insufficient means and no permit were 466; those who came for residence —that is, for permanent settlement—but were ineligible were 440; stowaways were 141; those with no valid passport or travel document were 262; those with no visa, 56; those undesirable on medical grounds, 87; and miscellaneous undesirables, including aliens known to have a criminal record or background, 384. My Lords, if my arithmetic is right, the 384, who were refused on the grounds on which the discussion generally settled, were 1 in 5,000 or ·02 per cent.
Now, my Lords, I should like to turn to one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. He will remember that one matter that we had in mind was registration with the police. Under the 1960 Order there was a relaxation, and aliens accepted for permanent residence were exempted. At January 1 this year 405,000 aliens were registered with the police. By September 30 over 295,000 were so exempt, and the number who had to register with the police on that date was reduced to 120,000.
The noble Lord asked me about holidaymakers. Holiday visitors, tourists, et cetera, intending to stay for six months or less amounted to no fewer than 1,062,289, and visitors intending to stay more than six but less than twelve months were 3,799. Business visitors intending to stay for six months or less were 269,506, giving a total of 1,335,594. Of the holidaymakers, over 70,000 aliens travelled to the

25
United Kingdom for short holiday visits, using their national identity cards and the British visitors' card, under the special O.E.C.D. scheme. My Lords. I need not harp on the importance of over a million visitors. It is, of course, a vital part of our export trade. That is the general picture, and I hope I have said sufficient, but not too much, to show that on the figures—and I think this would be confirmed if I went into individual cases—the Act and the orders have been administered liberally and sympathetically. That is always the object of the Home Office and I am sure they will try to continue to do that. I think I have just taken my five minutes and no more, but I felt that I ought to give that picture in view of what had been said.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to call attention to the importance for the successful functioning of the Commonwealth of the fullest consultation between the member States; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion I must apologise for the enforced absence, through indisposition, of my noble friend Lord Attlee. I knew about it only two or three hours ago, and I may, therefore, not be as effective a substitute in moving this Motion as I should desire to be. We shall greatly miss, on our side at any rate, the knowledge and experience of Lord Attlee on all these very important Commonwealth questions, especially in regard to procedure and as to what is advisable or not advisable.
In talks I have had in recent weeks with my noble friend Lord Attlee, he has been exceedingly concerned, personally, about the situation and the prospects in certain aspects of Commonwealth affairs. We have to remember that we have seen not only a very remarkable expansion in the number of independent States in the Commonwealth in the last fifteen years, but also other States within the Commonwealth which have not yet been given independence but which have already made very large strides towards their own independence. At a time
26
when affairs in the world are particularly disturbed and when there are often hazardous circumstances, it is tremendously important, it seems to us, that we should have the best possible arrangements. While not expecting unanimity on every single issue, either from them or from ourselves, there should be the maximum possible amount of agreement, which would lead, in my view at any rate, to the proper place that the Commonwealth ought to take in the affairs of the world.
In the last few months we have been unhappy about the question of consultations between this country and the member States of the Commonwealth. Indeed, there have been occasions over the past few years when we have been equally unhappy. It would perhaps be pertinent to go back just a few years only and to think of some of the main occasions upon which this issue has been raised in the minds and felt in the hearts of members of the Commonwealth overseas. I go back, in the first place, only as far as 1956, and to the great issue which arose with regard to the action of this country, in conjunction with France, in the campaign which was undertaken in Egypt. There were remarkable evidences then, it seemed to us, that there was a very large amount of disagreement in the Commonwealth about the action then taken, and pretty good evidence that perhaps some of the best parts of the case which the Government might have had on their side at that time had not been fully understood previously, or put over to the individual Parliaments and the representatives of the peoples of those Dominions.
It is interesting just to think of what was the situation in the minds of the leading representatives of the Commonwealth at the end of that particular period, when Britain and France had to withdraw from the position in which they had become involved and had to accept the view of the United Nations leading up to the cease-fire.
I would not wish to take too long a time in giving all the instances, nor is there any need to do so; but although there was some agreement on the part of the Menzies Government (if I may distinguish it in that way) of Australia, the general reports of the feeling in Australia then were nearly all against

27
the attitude that this country had adopted, which they regarded as very serious indeed because of the danger at that time of its leading to a much wider and more harmful conflict. In going back over our information, I took particular note of what was the opinion as expressed in Canada. Mr. St. Laurent said, in a national broadcast on November 4 of that year, that
"the present crisis had strained at the bonds of the Commonwealth more than any event had since the Second World War."
That statement could be very much enlarged upon if I went into it in detail. It is also important to remember the opinion at that time of such a leading statesman as Mr. Nehru.
Then, although New Zealand had up to that time almost invariably given traditional support to British foreign policy, at that time they were undoubtedly seized of serious reservations. The late Mr. Holland, who was then the Prime Minister of New Zealand, submitted that several features of the situation were disturbing, and expressed the hope that
"there should in due course be a wider understanding of the considerations which have motivated Britain in her present action".
That seemed to indicate what we then submitted: that there had hardly been the proper amount of consultation between ourselves, called the Mother Country, and the growing numbers of the constituents of this great Commonwealth. When one considers what the results might have been if we had gone any further at that time without the support of at least the majority of the Commonwealth nations (and with insufficient backing, in consequence, of world opinion) to enable us to reach the goal that this country had set for itself, one realises that the disasters would have been almost unbelievable. And yet much of the difficulty could have been saved, I think, by adequate consultation before the event.
I move forward to the next incident that I have in mind, which is almost by way of being a contrast. I refer to the further difficulties that arose in 1958 in the situation in the Middle East. There you had two events: you had the American troops taking the occasion to invade the Lebanon for specific purposes; and, within a comparatively
28
short time, you had our own nation sending troops to the assistance of and to strengthen Jordan. All the records about that event which I have been through hurriedly this morning show quite clearly that there had been such consultations then, in 1958, as to get an entirely different reaction from the majority of the Commonwealth. In fact, practically all the members of the Commonwealth—not quite all: India was still dissident, but nearly all the other members of the Commonwealth—were able to express their understanding of the reasons for these very important projects, which were carried through, of putting American troops into the Lebanon and, later on, British troops into Jordan. Consultation at that time, therefore, seemed to be absolutely essential, and its value was proved, I think, by the actual results of that particular incident.
I come now to two later examples of the need for adequate consultation, and consultation in time. I come to the issue which has become so full of publicity and which has been the subject of as widespread and insistent a pressure group in this country, I should think, as you had over the independent television issue in 1952 and 1953; that is, the question of our entry into the Common Market. The reactions within the Commonwealth will, of course, have to be considered when the sum total of the result of the negotiations, which the Government persuaded Parliament to accept with a view to our entering the Common Market, is known. They will have to be sized up when we know exactly what those conclusions are. We do not know at the moment.
But, in the process of getting to the situation we have now reached, there surely has been far too little consultation, and very often what consultation has taken place has come about not in the kind of way that is appropriate in such a matter. After all, it has now been stated by Government after Government, by our own and by Dominion Governments, and by leading representatives of the six nations in the Common Market, that the event of our joining, if it occurs, will be an outstanding thing in history—in the history of our country, in the history of Europe and in the history of the world. Professor Hallstein said, for example, that even

29
the application of this country for admittance to the Common Market, into the E.E.C., is the greatest thing which has happened to them since their establishment. So there you are.
Now, in this matter you have a "mixed grill" to consider. You have the general economic affairs of the Six, the conditions in each of their countries; you have the general economic conditions in every one of the States within the British Commonwealth; you have our own condition at home as to the effect upon different classes of occupation and industry. That is the economic side. Then there is also the political side, something which is of fundamental importance to the whole of the Commonwealth, because it is quite clear from looking at the later speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers that in this application to enter the Common Market they are as much concerned on the political issues and the political effects as they are upon the economic question. I could suppose from the speeches of the Prime Minister which have been delivered from time to time on this matter, which I have carefully read, that when you are thinking of political questions you are thinking only of the possible build-up of an economic and political answer in Europe to the possible danger of an equally large, or larger, economic and political force in the north of Europe.
But is that the only great political issue likely to be connected with the Common Market? Surely, not so. We have had a tradition in this country for centuries that, if we could possibly avoid it, we would never be placed in a situation in which we should be tied in to the policy and politics of Europe from which we should not be able to extricate ourselves. It is true that, in spite of that tradition, we have not been able to exclude ourselves from three tremendous campaigns—the campaign against the French in the early part of the nineteenth century, and the last two great wars in Europe into which we were pushed or drawn, not only in my lifetime but in the lifetime of most of us.
But when you come to think of the conditions which are attached politically to this situation you can understand that members of the Commonwealth, some of whom I have talked to, are not
30
only concerned with whether Imperial Preference remains or not, or with who is to gain or who is to lose by the withdrawal of Imperial Preference, if that should come about; they are also concerned about the whole political basis of the future of the Commonwealth and its constituent nations as affected by any complete tie-up which takes place politically between us and Europe. Whether they are right or whether the Government are right, I am not here to say to-day. But what I do say is that it is clear to me that there has not been anything like adequate consultation, nor, very often, has there been consultation in time. How can we justify, for example, the visit that was announced of Mr. Heath to Europe to discuss in advance all these matters; and then, for weeks and weeks afterwards, Mr. Duncan Sandys, as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, making a torrent of visits around the Commonwealth to find out what the individual Governments were thinking? Is it not amazing, in these circumstances, that these talks of Mr. Heath, which commenced in April, were preceded by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in this country last March, when apparently this matter was never discussed officially at all?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think I ought to put that right out of the noble Viscount's mind, in case he makes more of it. A special meeting was held between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, to talk about nothing other than the Common Market.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to know that, or to be reminded of it, because it was certainly not in my mind as I was speaking this afternoon. However, I would say that nothing of that nature appeared on the agenda of the Conference as a matter which they would be prepared to discuss; that was not done. I think that is a very great pity indeed, and I stick to my view that, at any rate, there has not been adequate consultation in this matter. The feelings which have been created in the Commonwealth already on various items connected with the application have been, I think, quite sufficiently brought to the

31
public notice so far as they could be. If you look at the representations and the statements which have from time to time been made by Canadian Ministers —Canada being our oldest Dominion—I think there can be no doubt at all as to what the feeling has been. While at last the statement of Mr. Heath which was made in Paris on October 10 has kindly been allowed to come into the possession of the Governments of the Commonwealth, this seems to me to have been just dragged out of the Government and it has left a feeling in the Commonwealth that certainly is not helpful or conducive to the extension of the best arrangements within the Commonwealth.
From that matter, I now come to our experience with regard to a Bill which is now before another place—namely, the Bill to deal with immigration into this country. Here, again, I make the charge on this occasion—and I hope the Foreign Secretary will note it, and I say this deliberately—that there has been insufficient consultation with the Commonwealth with regard to immigration. Certainly this issue was not discussed at the last Prime Ministers' Conference. Here is a Bill which has been printed and is now under discussion in the British Parliament. I, in company, probably, with many other Members of your Lordships' House, viewed last night the programme "Panorama" on B.B.C. television, in which Sir Grantley Adams was interviewed on this question of immigration. Unless the Foreign Secretary can show later that it is not true, I suggest it was remarkable when he said that, as Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation, he was informed of this only when he was at Barbados on October 15—and then he was given very little information, or so I gathered from what he said. I think this is a very great pity and a very great mistake.
Let us think of the results that may accrue in the Commonwealth because of this. Whilst we seem to have regarded, almost with equanimity, the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth on the ground of their apartheid policy, we are now faced with an Immigration Bill, on which the Commonwealth was insufficiently informed and not adequately consulted in time, which was published first of all
32
under the cover of being quite general in application, covering also immigrants from Eire, but which now, as Sir Grantley Adams said last night, is clearly a Bill which remains only as a form of colour bar.
If anybody has any doubts whether that sort of feeling is confined to the West Indies alone, he had better look at the statement which was made this week with regard to this matter by Mr. Nehru. He went so far as to say that, if the Government proceeded with this Bill, then India will have to consider whether she will take action in the other direction by laying down limitations against the immigration of citizens from this country into India. Surely we should have proper consultation and agree on scheduling the actual points on which there may be disagreement, so that they can be gone into properly before anything happens. This seems to me to be a fundamental error.
I will not take any longer upon that point because I do not want to be too long altogether, but I want to say a final word with regard to the Congo. During Question Time we had a very satisfactory answer from the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, but I am anxious to have an extension of what he said in reply to a supplementary question. In dealing with the United Nations policy in the Congo, I want to know how far we keep in touch all the time with the African States. I want to know what are the views expressed to us by the African States on this matter and what is to be the proper application of the United Nations' decision.
I was immensely interested in the interview last night between a B.B.C. correspondent in Tanganyika and the Prime Minister of that country. In reply to a specific question on whether he thought that the United Nations' action in the Congo was right and whether they ought to have taken action against Katanga and Tshombe, he said, in effect, that the United Nations should do what the Congo nation desires. There is a Congo nation and the United Nations should support them in what they want to do for a free democracy in that country. If I gathered correctly the general view of the Foreign Secre-tary this afternoon, I do not think that he would be against that view.

33
But how do you carry out the decision of the United Nations? It is perfectly true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that our aim is to seek peace within the Congo and to avoid a civil war. I do not exactly know what the functions of the United Nations are supposed to be in this matter, but I should feel much happier if I could be quite sure that Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and Sierra Leone, as well as the older Colonies in Africa, had really been consulted in this matter, which is so vital to them, with their racial position and their future still to be made, both constitutionally and economically, so as to raise the standards of their people and give them a higher level of social justice.
Everything seems to be affected by the procedure which is adopted. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Attlee, I have not gone over in detail, as I am sure he could have done, the action we took between 1945 and 1951 in arriving at the conferences of Prime Ministers of the Dominions, where many subjects were very successfully dealt with. Of course, these were by no means the only, though perhaps they were the most important, part of consultations with the Dominions. There are two obvious channels for this. There is the channel for dealing with all matters between individual States and ourselves bilaterally. There is also the channel for dealing with matters in the wide cockpit of the world, matters to be brought before the United Nations, where subjects can be decided either in the individual Commissions or in the Security Council or in the General Assembly. Are we satisfied that our procedure is right there?
I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary say that there was a regular procedure for the representatives of the British nation at the United Nations to consult with the representatives of other members of the Commonwealth. But how far does that go? With what strength can our views be expressed and maintained? Of course, there is the procedure through the High Commissioner and his office. He virtually acts as the ambassador of this country. I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us whether this is working out satisfactorily and whether it ought not to be specially examined, to see that the
34
machinery is large and efficient enough to cope with the expanding nature of the British Commonwealth. We want to see the Commonwealth not only expanded but grounded on the great principles on which we have tried to bring our Dominions into the highest and best democratic practice. I want to see that continued. Whatever other developments take place, I want the Commonwealth to become a third force in the world, because that would be bound to make for peace. justice and security. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all sorry indeed that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has been prevented by indisposition from being with us to-day. I trust that his indisposition will soon be removed. We feel a severe loss by his not being here, because he had an enormous experience in Commonwealth consultations. As I know from personal experience, he always took a keen interest in the fastest possible consultation before an event happened which concerned the Commonwealth. I would stress that we need not only consultation, but also consultation in plenty of time. We are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has had the difficult task of coming in at the last moment. We sympathise with him and express our thanks for the way in which he opened the debate.
There is no doubt about it, the Commonwealth is disturbed and confused. Many of us lately had an opportunity of representing the United Kingdom at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, the fiftieth conference of the Association, which took place fin the Royal Gallery and was opened by Her Majesty the Queen. To me, listening to speech after speech from the large number of delegates who attended, it was obvious that the decision to enter the Common Market had disturbed and surprised them. They all complained that they had not had sufficient notice and that the reasons for the decision had not been properly explained to them. I think it was a little unfortunate that some of our Ministers were unable to make early speeches at the Conference and thus possibly remove a lot of the doubts, but certainly

35
it occurred to me that those who were speaking felt themselves rather in the position of children whose parents they thought, for one reason or another, were going to leave them and were very upset and undecided about the whole thing.
To those of us from the United Kingdom who were listening it was, in a way, pathetic to realise that such old friends could ever have this feeling. I say this as one who was a keen supporter of the United Kingdom's entry into the negotiations. I am still a supporter of the Common Market, unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who is against it. It was, therefore, particularly disturbing to me that this should have been the case.
The other issue, which has come up later than this Conference in September, is the decision to proceed with the Immigration Bill. I am not sure whether these two measures are, in a sense, symptoms of or causes in the decline of the close Commonwealth spirit that we used to have; nor am I sure altogether whether the Government are innocent or guilty in the matter. But, obviously, whatever our views may be on the issues themselves, there has not been sufficient consultation in good time.
The allegations have recently crystallised in statements made by two prominent statesmen in the Commonwealth. The first was by Mr. Fleming, the Canadian Minister of Finance. He said of an article in the Guardian:
"Its statement that I knew almost the whole contents of Mr. Heath's speech on October 10' before I arrived in London a week ago is false in its entirety. I have never seen the speech nor received any briefing on its content apart from the summary which the British Government issued to the Commonwealth Governments on October 10. The statement that my advisers and I were taken through 62 main paragraphs of the Heath text, paragraph by paragraph' is not true. Even the suggestion that I was aware of the contents of the Heath statement when I saw Mr. Macmillan, apart from the authorised summary of it, is false."
These are very strong statements to make. Presumably the Guardian received their information from official sources or they would not have published it in such a categorical way: in fact, they did not withdraw as a result of that statement by Mr. Fleming, but the reporter stuck to the whole of his report. There evidently is a serious clash between Her
36
Majesty's Government, or the official views put out by them, and Mr. Fleming from Canada. It is particularly unfortunate in that, in my opinion, Mr. Heath's speech was an excellent one. I read it with great interest and I could not see anything in it from which I would dissent. In fact, it would have been first-class if we could have had Mr. Heath's speech at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in September; if he had led off with that, I am sure it would not only have calmed the feelings of the various delegates, but would have enabled the Conference to turn to other matters instead of having a long series of speeches on the worries over the Common Market, much of which was due to misapprehension of the likely effects of entering the Common Market. Why on earth there was this secrecy over this excellent speech, I cannot understand.
Another point is that it got to the Americans and eventually to the Press and was put out on an agency report before the Commonwealth received it. I fail to understand how anybody could be so naïve as to think that what was said at an international conference held in Paris, Brussels or elsewhere was going to be retained in secrecy. Mr. Heath has not had a lone experience in international affairs, we know, but surely his advisers could have advised him that nothing said at an international conference is ever secret. With dozens and dozens of people getting to know the text, it is quite impossible. I have no doubt that there were some who felt, as I did, that this was an excellent statement and wondered why it should be kept from the world. It seems to me very hamhanded or flatfooted of the British Government and their advisers to have kept this statement from the Commonwealth, so that they got it only in such a roundabout way, after so many others had already had it and considered it.
As to the Immigration Bill, which is the second subject on which this feeling of the Commonwealth has become crystallised, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, Sir Grantley Adams delivered a strong attack on the Bill over the week-end. He said that the first he knew of its being introduced was when Mr. Butler made a statement to that effect at the Conservative Party Conference. I must say

37
that that is an odd way of letting the Commonwealth know of the intentions of the Government on this matter which particularly affects them. I do not regard a Party political conference as being in any way a substitute for consultation and consultative machinery in relation to the Commonwealth. Sir Grantley Adams also said, according to a report in The Times to-day, that the Bill was announced on October 11, and his Government received the text of the Bill on November 16.
What are the causes for this failure to keep the Commonwealth informed? They can be only two. The first is a desire to keep the Commonwealth in the dark; or, alternatively, it is a lack of efficiency. My own experience of the Commonwealth Relations Office leads me to believe that there is unlikely to be any inefficiency. They have a long experience of getting out to Commonwealth countries information which affects them, and I should be most surprised if there were any inefficiency whatsoever on the part of the Commonwealth Relations Office. It is significant, I think, that the Under-Secretary for the Commonwealth is not replying to this debate to-day. The Foreign Secretary is to reply, and that would seem to imply that there has been no breakdown whatever in the machinery of the Commonwealth Relations Office. I am sure that is so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I ought to explain that I received an apology from the Duke of Devonshire. He explained that he had another engagement which was rather important; and we had not given very long notice of our Motion. So I do not think I ought to let my noble friend draw deductions from that.
LORD OCIMORE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, because otherwise it seemed rather odd to me that the noble Duke, who is actually sitting opposite at the moment in spite of his important engagement, should not be taking part in the debate. However, it was Government policy to keep the Commonwealth in the dark. That is the only conclusion to which we can come.
The first question to which I think we should like an answer is: why did Her Majesty's Government keep the Commonwealth in the dark? Why did they not give them the information to
38
which they were entitled? Quite frankly, I think the House, Parliament, and the country, whatever their political feelings may be, desire an answer to this question. I will not labour the matter, but simply hope that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary will give us an answer.
The second matter that arises on this question is that it shows once again the absence of proper machinery for Commonwealth consultation as a whole. There are no central arrangements for consultation; there are no organisations providing the central machinery for Commonwealth consultation; there is no Parliamentary body, even on the lines of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference, which can discuss problems of this kind, because the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference we held recently is not a Parliamentary Conference in any real sense of the word. It has not yet developed into a shape in which it could perform those tasks, though I hope it will do so in time. Why is there not some central machinery which might be able, as it were, to substitute for the present lack of information? I think the reason goes far back into history, and it is more than anything else because Canada was against any central machinery of this kind. Australia was always for it, and the United Kingdom sat on the fence. That is really the reason. If there are no such organisations, what does the Commonwealth become as more and more Colonies get independence and become independent members? Does it simply mean the weakening of the links of trade and defence, and just a dwindling sentiment? Many of us in this country, I must confess, are as puzzled as the Commonwealth at the way in which things are going and the lack of any real drive and central organisation in the Commonwealth field.
The position of the United Kingdom, whether in or out of the Common Market is, of course, changing fast. In relation to the other members of the Commonwealth and the outside world, our status has obviously changed materially since the end of the war and since we ceased to be an imperialist Power. The psychological and practical effects of this change are being felt in this country and abroad, and will be felt more and more as time goes on. I do not feel that we are considering them at

39
all, and it may mean that in a very few years' time we may find there is no Commonwealth left because no one has been doing anything to retain those links. I remember some years ago somebody saying that it was decided to do away with the British Council in some Commonwealth countries. That was the decision of the Government. I remember saying in your Lordships' House then, "You dare not do away with that sort of link in the old Commonwealth countries, in places like New Zealand and Australia. You cannot assume that fourth or fifth generations of Australians or New Zealanders are going to have exactly the same sentiment towards us as their grandfathers or great grand? fathers had." If you have flowers, you have to water them. If you have friendship, you have to keep it refreshed. if you have links, they have to be strengthened.
As to the new Commonwealth countries, their status is completely experimental. What happens? We grant independence to one of these countries, and before the ink is dry on the Charter of Independence they are plunged into the heady atmosphere of the United Nations. They are taken off to where they get stupendous receptions, and before you know where you are they are making inflammatory speeches, possibly against us, in the United Nations. They get into the orbit of the Afro-Asian Group or Middle-East Group, and there is no Commonwealth Group which can retain their allegiance and friendship. It seems to me a most extraordinary way to carry on a Commonwealth. You give all the tricks to your opponents, and you retain none in your own hands.
There is one further thing I should like to say. We are in an entirely new set of circumstances and a rapidly changing world. There are new adjustments to be made, and I feel that in this country and in the Commonwealth we have to study new methods of association and show more understanding and enthusiasm for the great ideal of the Commonwealth, which is being allowed to drift away through inattention and very often, I am afraid, lack of imagi-nation. I therefore hope that in the future we shall never again need to have a debate of this kind, but that the Government will see to it that what they
40
are going to do is fully appreciated and understood by our Commonwealth partners in good time, before they take any action.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we are all sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, with his great experience, was not here to introduce this Motion, and we are doubly sorry for the reason which keeps him away; but certainly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, was a most eloquent and informed substitute. There were various things with which I did not quite agree in his speech, and there was one which struck me as very odd. That was when he said that it had been our consistent policy to avoid any commitment on the Continent of Europe. He said that it was true that we had had to fight, or had fought voluntarily, in two world wars, but that was all the more reason why we were careful to avoid any commitment. That seemed to me a very odd observation coming from a noble Lord who was a colleague of Mr. Bevin in the Government which made the Brussels Treaty, I think it was called, which initiated N.A.T.O. If you can have anything more definite as a commitment in Europe than, first, the Brussels Treaty, and then N.A.T.O., I really do not know what it is.
This Motion says that we are all in favour of having the closest Commonwealth consultation. Of course we are. We can all subscribe to that. If the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had put down a Motion to say that we were all in favour of fine weather we should, I am sure, all equally agree. But what I think we can also do, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is to register with satisfaction that over the last thirty years Commonwealth consultation has got steadily better, broader, more continuous and more effective. In fact, so far as consultation goes, I do not think we have ever had it so good. And, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was himself always a most admirable practitioner of that consultation.
The Motion is not academic. It was intended—and it was plainly stated in the speeches—to be critical. I am bound to say that I do not think either of the speeches we have heard so far was quite fair, and it would be a great pity if a practice which has been consistently carried out by all Governments, whether

41
they were Labour Governments or Conservative Governments, were to be made a subject of Party politics. Some people talk as if the only effective form of Commonwealth consultation was the Commonwealth Conference. Of course, that is most complete nonsense. Consultation is, in fact, going on every day. There is daily pooling of information and exchange of ideas, and it is very important that it should be that way, because, contrary again to what a number of people outside seem to think—and, indeed, from what has been said, one or two people not outside—Commonwealth Conferences do not, and cannot, take decisions. Decisions must be taken by each individual Government responsible to its own Parliament. Therefore, we are very careful at Imperial Conferences, as a rule, not to record anything as a decision. Sometimes there are circumstances in which every Government has discussed matters in its own Cabinet and in its own Parliament and is in a position to express definite and firm opinions at a Commonwealth Conference. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—and I am sure anybody who has held the Office of Commonwealth Secretary would agree, as I am certain my noble friend Lord Salisbury would agree—that he is quite wrong in saying that it was only Canada, under Mackenzie King, who stood in the way of having some central organisation or central authority. Not one single fully self-governing Government in the Commonwealth would ever accept it at all.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what about Australia? Mr. Menzies, time after time, has suggested that we should have a central organisation.
LORD SWINTON: Really the noble Lord is quite wrong. During the time I was in office, I think I attended every Commonwealth Conference there was. I was present at every discussion where questions came up as to whether there could be a combined secretariat, and it was only the other day that for the first time we got to a combined secretariat, or whatever it is now called—
THE EARL OF HOME: Consultative secretariat.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: —which is being established.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if I might underline the noble Earl's point, it is now a consultative committee and not an agreed joint secretariat.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Foreign Secretary. I do not want to labour this point, but it would be a complete illusion to suppose that any Commonwealth country would look at anything which was a centralised executive or administrative authority, and anybody who knows the Commonwealth, with great respect, really knows that.
To say that is not to underrate the importance and the value of Commonwealth Conferences. But they are not at all easy things to arrange, as those of us who have had to arrange them know. It is extremely difficult to find a date that suits every Prime Minister. and, of course, the larger the number of independent members of the Commonwealth the more difficult that is going to be; and when they do come to a conference they can stay only a comparatively short time. It is almost impossible to get a Commonwealth Conference to go on for more than ten days, and therefore a full Commonwealth Conference is entirely unsuited for any long and detailed discussions. Where a Commonwealth Conference is of great value is where there is a broad and clear issue: for example, when we had the subject of the nuclear deterrent before the Commonwealth Conference in 1952 or 1953. There, with the hydrogen bomb having come into existence and the whole of the defensive strategy having to be reconsidered, was a perfectly clear issue, and it was invaluable to be able to discuss that at a Commonwealth Conference and to get very general agreement.
Another example was—and noble Lords opposite will remember because it was in their time as a Government—a question whether a Dominion which had declared itself a republic should be entitled to remain within the Commonwealth. There was a perfectly clear cut issue which was obviously suitable for discussion and decision at a Commonwealth Conference, and indeed it had to be decided there, because it was something which required the assent of all the partners, as all in that matter are equal partners. Broad objectives of foreign policy are another example. Those are very usefully discussed. Or,

43
again, where there is a clear common interest, like the stability of sterling. It was invaluable to have a Conference in 1951, where we were all agreed that to restore and hold the stability of sterling was vital and it was a matter of discussing how each of us could best give effect to what was common policy. But, my Lords, the least appropriate or effective use of the Commonwealth Conference would be where the subject involves a mass of detail and where different countries are interested in different subjects, or different aspects of the problem, or where their interests vary.
May I draw an example from my own memories? I will take the Ottawa Conference, which is often cited as an example of how one should do these things—and there is a great deal to be said for that. The Ottawa Conference lasted for six or seven weeks, but during the whole of that time I think there were only two plenary sessions. The whole of the business which was done at the Ottawa Conference was done in the negotiations, by discussions between the individual Governments and delegations. To particularise a little further, one of the successes, if I may humbly say so, of the Ottawa Conference was the fact that at that Conference all the Dominions and India extended a wide range of preferences to the whole colonial empire. But that was not done in a round-table discussion; it was done by a long series of individual meetings between myself and my colonial advisers, drawn from different countries and each individual Government, and, indeed, had been preceded by a very great deal of information which was exchanged before the Conference started.
I would say that the Common Market negotiations are necessarily of the same kind. Indeed, the Common Market negotiations are more complicated, and the details and interests are more varied. Therefore I would say it was essentially a situation in which each Commonwealth country must be fully but individually informed and consulted. From all the information that we have received—and no one suggests, I think, that the Government are misleading us, although, to my intense surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said (I think on further consideration he would wish to reconsider
44
what he said) that obviously Her Majesty's Government wished to keep Commonwealth countries in the dark; I cannot believe he really thinks that—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what I said was that there are only two reasons why I thought that they had not informed the Commonwealth in time. The first was inefficiency on the part of the C.R.O., which I did not believe was possible. The other was the fact that they wanted to keep them in the dark. If there is some other reason, no doubt we shall be told, which is one of the objects of the debate, as I understand it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord cannot get away with that sort of thing. He is either making a charge that the Government kept the Commonwealth in the dark or he is not. If he thinks he can throw out loose accusations of that kind and say he is merely a genuine seeker after truth, that really will not go very well in this House, nor be very well received in the Commonwealth. So far as I can see, the Commonwealth countries have for months past been receiving the fullest information. They are receiving it to-day. They are receiving it in London, in Brussels, in their own capitals.
Now a lot has been made of the issue of the text of the Lord Privy Seal's speech. I leave the Foreign Secretary to deal with what is the practice. But I think the common practice was followed, which probably Foreign Secretaries on that side followed at Brussels and in N.A.T.O. negotiations, the practice which is, I should have thought, common form in any discussion between Governments and certainly is one which I myself have followed in a good many negotiations.
But what was there concerning the Commonwealth that was in the speech and not in the summary? That is what I should like to know, because if there was something that was not in the summary and which was in the speech, then let that be pointed to. Both have been in the hands of Commonwealth members now for some time, and since the publication of the speech I have not heard of any single item, however small, which concerned the Commonwealth and which was contained in the speech

45
but was not contained also in the summary. When I have forgotten something which I have been told several times I am apt fractiously to say, "Nobody ever tells me anything"; and I seemed to recognise that technique once or twice in the present case.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have very carefully read the White Paper comprising the whole of Mr. Heath's speech on October 10, and I also saw the summary. Perhaps I am biased, but I would read into many of the passages which are in the White Paper things that the Commonwealth would very much have liked to know. I do not have it in front of me at the moment, or I would have gone through it with the noble Earl and shown him what I mean. Obviously if they wanted the full statement they should have had it at once. As the London Times said, it was ludicrous to keep it secret.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entitled to that opinion, but that is not the gravamen of the charge. Let me concede that what was agreed with the Governments with which Mr. Heath, the Lord Privy Seal, was negotiating should not have been carried out, and that the speech should have been published. Let me concede that. But the gravamen of the charge is that the Commonwealth countries were not told vital matters which were in the speech. I ask what was there in the speech which was not in the summary, and nobody yet has been able to cite a single example of any item. I shall be very much interested to hear what the Foreign Secretary says about that.
Of course, we are not taking the decision about the Common Market to-day; we shall not take the decision until the negotiations are over, and varying views may be held, and are held, about the Common Market. But I should have thought that, unless anybody regards the Treaty of Rome as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition regards the Church of Rome—a pitfall here and a downfall hereafter—we all agree that it was good business and right that the Government should enter upon these negotiations. Of course, the Government want to carry the Commonwealth with them. Obviously it is in their interest, to put it at its lowest, to carry
46
the Commonwealth with them and to keep the Commonwealth completely informed. And, frankly, in our hearts we all know that they will do so not merely from self-interest but from a deep feeling of concern for the Commonwealth and all that it stands for.
I would add only a word or two about the other charge which is made in connection with the Immigration Bill. I am not going to discuss the Bill at all; I do not think I should be in order or that this is the appropriate occasion to do that. The proper time to do that is when the Bill comes up. But the sole issue before us to-day is: were the Commonwealth countries, particularly those more particularly concerned, informed or consulted, or were they taken by surprise? I think it is fair to say this. Even at the time when I was Commonwealth Secretary, which is some years ago now, and certainly since, the countries have been told that if there was a great influx of immigrants here and some arrangement could not be made by mutual agreement, then it might be necessary to legislate, little as any of us liked the idea when I was a member of a Government, and little as I am sure the Government like introducing this Bill, though they no doubt feel bound to do so. Therefore, I cannot think it is fair to say that the West Indian Federal Government or the individual West Indian Colonies were completely taken by surprise.
Another thing which I think we must remember is that consultation does not mean consent. After all, no Commonwealth country has a power of veto over the others. If we are really to consider motes and beams in each other's eyes, one could go through a very long catalogue of legislation and administrative action by every country in the Commonwealth which we have not altogether liked ourselves. But that is inherent in what we used to call Dominion status, and what is full sovereignty. Obviously this is not a case at all like the issues raised by the Common Market. Here is no case of preferential agreements which have been in force for many years, of patterns of trade which have grown up. It is a situation which has developed remarkably in intensity in the last year or eighteen months.
It is also fair to remember this. There is not a single country—not one country,

47
I think I am right in saying—in the Commonwealth, whether it be a sovereign State or a Colony acting with the approval of the Colonial Secretary, which does not itself impose restrictions on immigration. I think that must be remembered; it is only fair. I do noi like having to have this Bill, but it is only fair to remember that. After having given the fullest information, and after having tried to get (as I believe the Government did, although I speak subject to correction) some sort of voluntary agreement, then, in the last resort, just as every other country in the Commonwealth has done, so this Government and this Parliament must do what it thinks right in the best interests of its own citizens. And, indeed, it may well be that in doing that they are serving not only the interests of the citizens of this country but the interests of the citizens of the other countries of the Commonwealth as well.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble Leader, with his usual vigour and clarity, made out the case, to my mind, that consultation with the Commonwealth at the present time was falling down. I certainly do not propose to go over any of that ground or to attempt to convince any of your Lordships who were unconvinced by him that this is in fact the case. All I would say, though, is that if you wish for a monument to lack of Commonwealth consultation you have only to look around you. You have only to look to Mr. Fleming, Mr. Nehru, or Sir Grantley Adams—all of them responsible statesmen, all of them respected, not only in their own countries but also in this country—and to read what they have had to say about this country and about our Government in the past few weeks. If that is not sufficient evidence of the fact that at the present time our consultations with important members of the Commonwealth are not having the success that they should have, I can think of no other evidence that can convince the doubters.
What, in fact, are these ties of Commonwealth that, we all agree, are of such importance to us? On what are they based? When one stops to think of it, one finds it a curious thing that there can be this amorphous group of
48
several hundred million people, of different races, different colours, different religious beliefs, different background and different stages of economic and cultural development, who are somehow held together in what we call the Commonwealth. Why is it that when a West Indian speaks of home you know that he is not referring to his original home in Africa? He is not even referring to the particular Island in the Caribbean where he may be living. He is in fact referring to England. Why is it that that is happening—or has happened in the past? I think your Lordships will all agree that it is because there is, or has been until the present time, this deep background of understanding, of respect and of appreciation of the problems which are facing all the different members of the Commonwealth—not always agreement, not always approval, but at least this understanding of and respect for the integrity of the other country, the other member.
It is that which has enabled the Commonwealth to survive up till now strains which have been put upon it, some of which have been pretty severe. But at the present time those strains are increasing in intensity, and this must be the time for us not to relax such invisible ties as hold the Commonwealth together, but to make sure that they are still further strengthened. What are the present strains? We have heard a lot about the Common Market. Clearly, that is one strain. I do not propose to spend time on that at all, but it does present a serious strain to the Commonwealth, having regard to the many conflicting interests which will have to be taken into account. Many people and many groups fear that their own way of life, their own standards of living, and their own personal profit very often, will be put in jeopardy by our entering into the Common Market.
Then there is immigration restriction. Again, as the noble Earl so rightly said, it is not a subject that we should discuss at this time, but it is, without doubt, one of the severest strains to which the Commonwealth has been subjected. The Congo is a further strain. It may be that we do not realise that sufficiently in this country; but in Africa—particularly in West and Central Africa—it is a problem where feelings run very high indeed. On top of

49
all that, we have the additional strain of the new-found independence of many former Colonies that have now become autonomous members of the Commonwealth, and the still greater number—we are all happy about this—which shortly will become independent. Those are the strains which we have to face to-day, and it is not by any means necessarily true to say that because up to the present time such methods as have worked for consultation in the Commonwealth have had the desired effect, they are the right ones or strong enough to stand up to these additional difficulties which are so rapidly coming upon the whole concept of the Commonwealth.
I expect several of your Lordships read in this morning's papers of a remark by Sir Grantley Adams concerning his interview with the Prime Minister. Quoting from memory, he said that the consultation he had with him, I believe it was yesterday, was rather like the consultation of a father with a boy who is going to have a flogging. I will not comment on that, but we can perhaps quite happily pursue this analogy of father and child, or rather of family, because there is no question but that in the old clays the relationship between this country and its dependencies, whether they were Dominions or Colonies, was very much the relationship of parents to growing children. Now the children are adult; there are a few adolescents, but none of them are young children. None of them are the sort that you can flog for the good of their soul, without any consultation.
To my mind, it is now much more the question (I am following to a certain extent an analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore) of an elderly parent who has decided to marry again—if going into the Common Market can be called a form of second marriage. I do not expect a parent—a widow or widower—to consult the children and ask permission whether he or she should marry a second time. But I do expect that if the father has the right sort of relationship with his children, if he has over the past years carried on this complete understanding and appreciation of consultation, when he does in fact announce to them his decision of a second marriage they will appreciate it, and, even though they may not like their future stepmother, at least will respect
50
and understand the reasons why the old man wants to marry again and will, so far as possible, give him their support. Surely that must be the type of relation. ship that we must aim to achieve with the Commonwealth.
In this respect, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the value of Commonwealth Conferences. I am quite sure that they have their place at certain times; but we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that this problem can be solved by every year, every six months, every five years, or whatever may be the span, gathering together twenty, forty or sixty, however many it may be, Prime Ministers with their retinues, sitting round a conference table and discussing great problems of State. That is not the answer to it. What we must have is continuous, almost daily or weekly, contact, at the appropriate levels between the Commonwealth and ourselves.
So far as the members of the Commonwealth who are no longer Colonies are concerned, we at least have the structure which enables us to do this. They have their High Commissioners here, and we have our High Commissioners in their territories. I cannot speak from any experience here. All I can say is that I sincerely hope that our High Commissioners are in constant touch with the appropriate members of the Governments to which they are accredited and are explaining to them daily or weekly what the problems are. I cannot help feeling that if that form of consultation had been going on correctly and properly and successfully, shall we say in Canada, Mr. Fleming would not have made the remarks he did about whether he should have seen Mr. Heath's speech or not. I do not know whether he should have the Lord Privy Seal's speech, nor do I think it is relevant to this argument. What is relevant is that the relationship between the Canadian Government and Her Majesty's Government in this country was so bad that this particular occasion was taken as an opportunity to make a great "song and dance" about something. Had our relationship with them been right, had they had that understanding and appreciation that they should have and that it is the duty of our High Commissioners

51
in the countries of the Commonwealth to foster and to bring about, the state of affairs concerning the speech of the Lord Privy Seal would never have taken place.
But there is a group of countries which do not come under this particular form of representation by a High Commissioner. They are the countries which to-day are Colonies and which shortly will become independent. Two examples of them are the West Indian Federation and the East African High Commission. I know that both those areas have their own Commissioner or High Commissioner in London, and I have every reason to believe that the relationships of those gentlemen with Her Majesty's Government are good and that they have, in a limited sense, the co-operation and the information that they should have. But it is only a one-way exchange. It is only in this country, in the capital, that there are these Commissioners or High Commissioners. When we come to deal with the territories themselves, we have nobody of an equivalent rank or position.
In the West Indies we have Governors and we have a Governor-General; similarly in the High Commission territories. There is a world of difference between the relationship of a Governor to the Government of a Colony, and the relationship of a High Commissioner or a Commissioner. If Her Majesty's Government wish to discuss with the Government, let us say, of the Federation of the West Indies on the possibility of immigration control, it should be done in Trinidad, it should be done in Port of Spain; it should not be done in London. It should be done with the Prime Minister of the Federation and with the appropriate Ministers—the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Commerce and the rest of them.
The Governor-General is not the man, his office is not the office, for that form of consultation. Because he is the representative of the Queen, he has to summon the Prime Minister to his residence for consultations, and that immediately starts them off on the wrong foot. What we should have there is some form of representative who, just as our High Commissioners, just as our Ambassadors and our Ministers do, can go to see the appropriate Minister in his
52
office and discuss the whole problem, so that the Governments of these countries are fully, and daily and weekly, in the picture. I sincerely believe, my Lords, that unless we change our administration with these new emerging countries we shall never be able to get that right form of understanding that is the only way of preventing the sudden flare-ups, disagreements and spates of ill-feeling which we have been having in the last few weeks.
My Lords, we cannot over-estimate the importance of the whole concept of the Commonwealth. I know that many of your Lordships have experience in Colonies and former Colonies, and I think that all of you with experience feel that it is in fact a very moving experience to realise the good will which we have been able to build up in those countries, in spite of our faults, in spite of our mistakes—and there have been many over the past generations. But unless we are able to adapt our form of consultation, unless we can get out of this habit of thinking in terms of the occasional high-level conference, and have instead a day-to-day understanding, we shall ruin, for good and all, that good will which has been built up over so many generations. Sir Winston Churchill at one time said that he would never preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. I am very much afraid, my Lords, that unless our methods of consultation with the Commonwealth are drastically altered and drastically improved, his successor, Mr. Macmillan, will find himself presiding over the dissolution of something far greater and far better—the British Commonwealth.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Earl Swinton, and express my regret that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has, through indisposition, been unable to move his Motion. I would express the hope, which I am sure is shared by noble Lords on all sides of the House, that he will soon be restored to health.
The debate this afternoon has been on the issue of consultation, with consultation taken to have the meaning which has hitherto been given to it by Her Majesty's Government, and I would

53
put it broadly under the headings of informing, discussing and exchanging ideas. Indeed, as Earl Swinton said, for the last thirty years that form of consultation has been improving, so that consultation has "never had it so good". But the question I should like to put quite briefly to your Lordships' House is this: have the Government by certain recent actions given a wider and more significant meaning to consultation? If such be the case, then their commitment to consultation in such matters as the Common Market is a larger one than has hitherto been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, within the definition of consultation that I gave a few moments ago.
I am going to submit, and I trust that I may convince some of your Lordships, that, arising from the recently proposed Malayan Federation arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have accepted a meaning for consultation beyond informing, discussing and the exchanging of ideas, and beyond the up until now accepted scope of consultation with a clear avoidance of any suggestion that the consultation carried with it a power of veto. Hitherto the consultations, such as they have been, with the Commonwealth on the European Common Market have come within the previously accepted definition.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not quite understand my noble friend's reference to Malaya.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: You will in a moment.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am just wondering if the noble Lord will make it clear whether he is talking of this as a bilateral arrangement between ourselves and Malaya, or whether he is talking about it in the context of consultation with all the Commonwealth countries.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would allow me to develop the argument, which is not an easy one to develop, but which I trust has some merits in it. My case is that the Government, by their bilateral arrangements with a particular Commonwealth country, can no longer sustain the previous interpretation of consultation, and that the Government are now a party to giving Commonwealth consultation a more important meaning,
54
because the Government have consented to the introduction of consultation as a piece of machinery for the executive execution of Government policy.
The proof is that the Prime Minister of Malaya last week cited Commonwealth consultation—and I use his words—as one of the major means of control his Government would exercise over the Singapore base, if Malaya and Singapore join in a Malaysian Federation. My Lords, there is a written agreement between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government which provides for less control over the base than the Malayan Prime Minister tells the Malayans he has got, and the Malayan Prime Minister relies upon consultation to fill that gap.
Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will remember the report in The Times of December 2, of the Malayan Prime Minister's Press conference. It was as follows:
"Britain, he said, would consult with Malaya if she wanted to use the base in the event of trouble in the area after sovereignty over it had been transferred to the Malaysia Federation, as a matter of 'courtesy' though nothing was written down about this.
"Asked to define consultation, the Tunku agreed that there was an element of consent on the Malayan side, but did not seem to think there had to be agreement on every point.
"Asked to define trouble, he thought that in the event of war in the area there was provision for consultation under the existing Defence Treaty."
My Lords, it seems to me that that makes it clear that in this particular case Her Majesty's Government are using consultation as an instrument for the execution of policy. I make no complaint about that, but I do suggest that Her Majesty's Government cannot double-think and double-talk in this matter of Commonwealth consultation.
We cannot say to one side of the Commonwealth, even if it be on a bilateral basis, that Commonwealth consultation has a greater meaning, and a meaning concerned with executive action, and to the other part of the Commonwealth that it has a lesser meaning. I submit that this interpretation of consultation means that the old definition is scrapped. I would suggest that this interpretation of Commonwealth consultation means trying to go forward, in agreement, to an agreed end. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said,

55
every Government is responsible to its Parliament, and each country has absolute power; but if we accept that consultation has a new sense of value, then I think we could say that it means trying to go forward to an agreed end. If agreement cannot be reached on major issues—and, of course, in many cases it cannot—just as in the industrial field, a difference is declared between members, and then we all know where we are.
My Lords, all this makes Commonwealth relationships easier on such big issues as the European Common Market. At least we should know where we agree and where we differ, and there would be no misunderstandings or after-accusations of bad faith. It seems to me that, by this new and wider interpretation of the meaning of consultation, the Government have now made an unanswerable case for more consultation before going much further in the Common Market negotiations. It seems to me that there is a case either for a ministerial meeting, or, alternatively, for a meeting of delegations from the Commonwealth—something akin to what my noble friend Lord Swinton referred to concerning the Ottawa Conference of 1932. Such a meeting would allow us to see where we agree and where we differ, where we could speak with one voice and where we could not. It would make more possible a Commonwealth voice to the Six on certain issues on which we are agreed, not a United Kingdom view with dissentient Commonwealth echoes. My sole purpose in putting forward to the House and to the Foreign Secretary that the Malayan case has in fact widened the previous meaning of consultation, is so that, with the great negotiations of Europe still lying ahead, we shall try to avoid the pitfalls that seem to lie ahead of us now if we do not get the Commonwealth into closer touch with us than seems to be the case at the present time.
5.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like first, if I may, to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in sending a message of sympathy to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been prevented by indisposition from moving this Motion on a subject on which he is so peculiarly fitted to speak. I hope that that indisposition
56
is slight, and that he will soon be with us again. In the meantime, if I may say so, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, proved an extremely efficient deputy. Indeed, I think that this afternoon there have been a number of very knowledgeable, authoritative speakers, and, all in all, I am sure we shall agree that the debate has been an unusually valuable one.
When I read the terms of the Motion which the noble Earl had tabled for discussion to-day, I must say that I was greatly intrigued as to what aspect of this vast subject he was proposing to tackle. Had he any complaints of the machinery which has been built up over so many years for consultation between the various members of the Commonwealth? And, if so, what were his complaints? About that, if I may say so, I did not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I thought he understated the efficiency of the machinery that exists. Indeed, so far as I know, there has never before been anything of its kind so elaborate and so complete in the whole history of the world. Even when I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office (which, I am sorry to say, is now nearly twenty years ago) there were no fewer than five normal channels of communication between Commonwealth Governments.
There was, first of all, the direct communication between Government and Government through what is now the Commonwealth Relations Office in London and the Departments of External Affairs in other Commonwealth countries. That was the main official channel, and through that channel immense numbers of telegrams passed, and I have no doubt still pass, every day. Then, secondly, there were the communications between Prime Minister and Prime Minister direct—a channel which, as Lord Attlee would know far better than I do, was used for matters of first importance, requiring personal consultation at the very highest level.
Then, thirdly, there were the verbal communications which took place with the Governments of the Commonwealth through the High Commissioners of the member States in the capitals of the members immediately concerned. That was the method that used to be used

57
(and, I say again, is no doubt still used) in cases of very delicate questions which were more easily discussed orally than through the more rigid channels of cables. Then, in addition to this ordinary, normal, day-to-day machinery to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, rightly attached so much importance, there were, and still are, of course, ad hoc visits by Ministers of one Commonwealth Government to another to discuss some topic which specially affected their own Departments. Finally, and in the way of being the most important of all, there are the periodic Commonwealth Conferences and meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, either to review the general state of the world with special reference to Commonwealth interests, or to examine jointly some special problem which affects them all.
This elaborate nexus of consultation, if I may so describe it, has grown up gradually over the whole of the last century, and it has been steadily elaborated and improved with the help of such modern inventions as the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the aeroplane and all these other inventions of modern science with which we are so familiar. I do not say that it is perfect, but it is pretty good and, presumably, at the present time it is in constant use. What I think preoccupies most of us is not any special defect in this machinery which I have tried to describe it is not the need to introduce some new channel of communication, but the absolute necessity, if relations are to be close and cordial, of using the right channel at the right time. There were certain junctures, of course, when the best methods of consultation were secret and informal exchanges of view between Prime Ministers or other Ministers. But there are other junctures when they will not meet the case at all, and what is needed is a meeting together of all Prime Ministers, so as to get their joint minds on some topic which affects every one of them.
There is no question, as I think Lord Swinton rightly emphasised—or there should be no question—at any such meeting, or indeed in any other circumstances, of a majority of members imposing their will upon a minority. That is not the way the Commonwealth has ever worked in the past, and I do not believe it could work in that way. It is the essence of the Commonwealth that
58
all the members—if I may quote the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926—
"are autonomous communities equal in status, in no way subordinate to each other in respect of their domestic or external affairs".
It follows, therefore, from that definition that no member of the Commonwealth family can be bound by the views of the other members. Each is free to come to its own decision on any question affecting either its domestic or its external policy. I felt bound to say that in view of certain passages in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
On the other hand, clearly if a member of the Commonwealth found itself in conflict with the views of all, or nearly all, the other members of the Commonwealth family, if it were contemplating embarking on a policy utterly abhorrent to them all and that policy were likely to strain almost to breaking point the bonds that hold the Commonwealth together, then, in a situation of that kind, no doubt the Government concerned, while maintaining entirely its freedom of decision, would wish to think extremely carefully before it advanced further on so dangerous a course. In such a situation, my Lords, in order to find out exactly where it stood, and in order to be in a position to put before its fellow members in joint conclave the conditions which had led it to the conclusions to which it had provisionally come, the member nation in question, I should have thought, might very well feel that a Commonwealth Conference or a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers was urgently required before it crossed the Rubicon and came to its final decision.
I suspected, when I read the terms of the Motion, that it was that particular aspect of common consultation that Lord Attlee had in mind to advance to your Lordships had he been here. It is certainly the aspect which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had in mind, and it is certainly the aspect which I, too, have had in mind. That is why I made bold to take up your Lordships' time for a few moments before we separate for the Christmas Recess. For, as we all know, over their application to join the Common Market and to accede to the Treaty of Rome the Government are

59
about to take a decision not only which is bound profoundly to affect the whole future of our own country, but which is considered by other Governments of the Commonwealth as likely also to lead to a sensible weakening of the bonds which have hitherto held the Commonwealth together.
I am not going to express a view this afternoon as to whether the Government are right or wrong. All I want to say is this: that in such a situation, if ever there is a need for a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, if not for a full-dress Commonwealth Conference, before the final decision is taken, then this is it. I know that the Prime Minister has already been at great pains to try to find out the views of the other members; that he has sent Ministers round to discuss the matter with individual Governments; and no doubt in many other ways he has tried to ascertain their attitude. But, my Lords, that is not at all the same thing as a Conference, any more than it would be the same thing in this country for a Prime Minister to consult individual colleagues on some important issue, instead of putting that issue before the whole Cabinet gathered together. It is the exchange of views by all members, the mutual exchange and moulding of views by all members, that is the essence of the Cabinet system, and at certain junctures (and this, I suggest, is undoubtedly one of them) it is the essence of the Commonwealth system too.
On this I am profoundly in agreement with what was said by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Probably my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will tell me that I am banging at an open door. Probably the Government have already taken that vital decision. If so. I hope he will feel able to announce it this afternoon; it will allay many of our anxieties. But if it is a decision which is under consideration but which has not yet been formally taken, I hope the Government are in no doubt in their own minds as to what their decision will mean when the time comes. If they fail to bring all the members of the family into conclave on an issue so fundamentally important to them all, it might, I am afraid, well strain the whole institution and deal it a
60
most damaging blow by alienating, above all, those older members of the Commonwealth, of our own blood and of our own traditions, who have always stood by us in past perils and to whom we owe our final salvation. Now, my Lords, even to risk that would be a folly—no, worse than a folly; it would be a folly which I believe this country would never forgive. I am not suggesting that it is a folly which the Government are likely to commit—I hope they will not—but it would relieve all our minds if they could announce their decision this afternoon.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for their expressions of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Attlee on account of his illness, and of regret for the fact that he was unable to make the opening speech. I can assure them that this message, which I am sure will touch my noble friend, will reach him.
It is not often that we on this side of the House—in these days at any rate, although in the past it was more frequent—are able to endorse a speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; but I think this is one of the examples of how sometimes, on important issues affecting the Commonwealth and our relations with foreign countries, there is a degree of common ground which transcends Party differences. The noble Marquess has put far more eloquently than could any of us, I think, the case for convening—perhaps I had better say "suggesting"; I will not say "convening", because it sounds authoritative—a Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers before the Government take the final decision whether to enter the Common Market. That is a plea which we have made on many occasions in the past. As the noble Marquess has said, if it is the Government's intention, as we all hope it is, to do so, we hope that this will be said publicly at the earliest possible moment, so as to allay the anxiety which is felt very generally at this time.
I think all of us, on both sides of the House and on both Front Benches, will

61
agree that, as The Times newspaper said last Friday,
"full and frank consultation is an axiom of the Commonwealth relationship."
The Times went on to say in the same leader—and I think we shall part company with the noble Lords opposite at this point—that on two issues, the Immigration Bill and the Common Market negotiations, the Government had been accused of breaking the rules and that the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Gaitskell in another place had not disposed of the argument. We on this side of the House agree with The Times in its strictures on the Government, and I shall do my best to support the case made out by my noble friends Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and Lord Walston.
Before I do so, however, I should like to emphasise two things. The first is this—the special and unique importance of consultation and the exchange of information at this stage in the development and expansion of the Commonwealth. This is a point made by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and I wish to follow him by enlarging a little upon what he said. The second is the necessity for this country, as the oldest and most experienced hand in the game, to set an example in the punctilious performance of this duty.
We know, of course, that among the old Commonwealth countries consultation and the exchange of views, the use of all the five channels to which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred in his speech, which might have been a text-book exposition of the machinery of Commonwealth consultation, have come to be regarded as a settled practice; but sometimes I think that we are inclined to forget that most of the present members of the Commonwealth are new countries which have to learn from their own experience the value of this consultation to them in carrying out their own policies. This applies equally to the other British territories when they become independent, as many of them will in the near future, and join the Commonwealth as full members.
Perhaps I can speak with some special knowledge of the attitude of these new Commonweath countries, as for three years I was close to the Prime Minister of one of them and watched, with the greatest interest, his dealings with Commonwealth
62
neighbours. And the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, was in a position to do the same thing while he was in Australia. First of all, we have to remove distrust and suspicion and replace them by trust. There is a deep suspicion that the old colonial masters do not really mean to treat you as a friend and equal. That suspicion, I am sure, is unfounded but the fact that it is unfounded does not mean that it is not real. We can get rid of this suspicion and win the trust of these countries only by showing that we trust them absolutely. It is for us to show this by never failing to communicate with them and to consult with them before we decide to do something that affects their welfare and national interests. If we withhold information which they regard as important and adopt a policy, such as restricted immigration, without consulting fully our Commonwealth partners, we shall inevitably lose their trust.
Nor should we forget that communication is a two-way stream of traffic. We shall not be consulted or informed by those whom we ourselves do not consult or inform. Let me say at once that I am not accusing the Government of failing to keep Ghana in the picture. The noble Earl opposite was at the Commonwealth Relations Office at the time, and I can only say that so far as I could see his performance in that respect was impeccable. But, surely, when the Government know how well the system works and what excellent results it can produce, there is even less excuse for not working it as it should be worked. I am certain that the remarkable response of Dr. Nkrumah, which I will show in a moment, was due to the fact that he felt that nothing was being withheld from him and that he was consulted whenever consultation was required. It would surprise many people who do not regard Dr. Nkrumah as a friend of the Commonwealth to know how often he used the many channels of communication between Commonwealth countries. It is true that he liked to inform his partners of decisions in advance rather than to consult them before these decisions were made, but he did at least inform them about every decision of importance affecting the Commonwealth.

63
The Economist, which is usually a well-informed and reliable newspaper, is quite wrong when it says, in its issue last week, that the Government of Ghana did not inform Britain when it announced its union with Guinea. I was in Accra at the time, and Dr. Nkrumah told me that he had sent a telegram to Mr. Macmillan, which is, of course, information at high level about matters of vital importance, and had communicated with other Commonwealth Governments through their High Commissioners in Accra. I was particularly impressed by the frequency with which Dr. Nkrumah consulted Mr. Macmillan by letter. This exchange of letters between Commonwealth Prime Ministers, to which I am sure my noble friend Lord Attlee would have referred, is one of the most important links between Commonwealth Governments and Commonwealth leaders. This was certainly due to Dr. Nkrumah's high personal regard for Mr. Macmillan. I cannot imagine so intimate a relationship between Mr. Macmillan and Sir Grantley Adams. That is just part of the damage done by the Government's handling of its immigration policy.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl has just made a very interesting statement; but what does he mean by it? Why cannot there be so close an association between Mr. Macmillan and Sir Grantley Adams?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am only judging by what Sir Grantley Adams said yesterday, which is public knowledge and which the noble Lord must have read in the Press this morning or heard last night, if he saw "Panorama" on the television programme.
There is another aspect of life in these new Commonwealth countries which is important. We do not like the personality cult in politics here, but conditions in these new countries are very different. In most of them, the man at the top is not just a political or Party leader as he is in this country, but the founder of the nation, with the power and the permanence that this achievement is bound to give him. And that is why man-to-man relations between the Heads of Government is of greater importance to-day than ever before in the history of the Commonwealth. Such a
64
relationship is a product of mutual confidence and trust. It takes time to build up and it can easily be destroyed it either man feels that the other man has let him down. This expression of being "let down" was used by Sir Grantley Adams yesterday in speaking of his treatment by the British Government and Mr. Macmillan. I regret deeply that the Prime Minister of the West Indian Federation feels that he has been let down by the Government. I regret deeply that his personal relationship with the Prime Minister here is not the same as it is between him and most of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers and as it is between Mr. Macmillan and other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
It is just because the nurture of trust and regard, by confiding in our Commonwealth partners and asking for their views before decisions are taken, is the lifeblood of the new Commonwealth that we are entitled to take the Government to task for any lapse from the high standards to which we are accustomed and to press for an assurance that such lapses will not occur again. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough referred to these lapses in the course of his speech. I would deal with only two of them—namely, the most recent that have happened in connection with the Immigration Bill and the Common Market negotiations.
In both cases it seems to me that the West Indies have had a particularly raw deal. We all know that the West Indian territories are entirely dependent on the special treatment they receive in the British market for their sugar and other agricultural products. If this special treatment is withdrawn, their economy will collapse. British Ministers were sent to other Commonwealth countries, including the Central African Federation, to discuss the economic difficulties they would face if Britain entered the Common Market, but no Minister went to the West Indies until after there had been some degree of complaint. It was only then that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was sent out to discuss this threat to their economy.
In the case of the Immigration Bill, not only was no Minister sent out from here, or invited to London from the West Indies, but, according to Sir Grantley Adams, there was no consultation with

65
him at all. No doubt Her Majesty's Government will not agree with Sir Grantley Adams as to that, but surely the fact that he considers he was not consulted is itself an important and a deplorable fact. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government can feel satisfied with their own performance if they cannot convince a Commonwealth Prime Minister that he has in fact been consulted. Mr. Macmillan argued in another place (this was the argument The Times found to be specious. and I am bound to say I agree with The Times) that other countries do not consult us about their immigration policies; and that argument was repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. But surely two wrongs do not make a right. Moreover, this Bill will affect the lives and the livelihoods of people in the West Indies to a much greater extent than any Bill or Order restricting immigration into a Commonwealth country has affected, or is likely to affect, people living in the United Kingdom. Nor can it be said that the constitutional status of the West Indies precludes full consultation about matters that are vital to them. The West Indies is on almost exactly the same constitutional level as the Central African Federation, and no one has ever complained that Sir Roy Welensky is not consulted by the Government.
If Her Majesty's Government really wish to repair the damage they have done to our relations with the West Indies, they should drop the Immigration Bill pending the fullest possible discussion of its legislative proposals with Sir Grantley Adams and any other Ministers whom he may wish to bring with him to London. I wish that this matter could be discussed in a less partisan atmosphere, because I am quite certain that, if it were regarded in a cool, detached way, from the view of Commonwealth relations, and if Party aspects could be ignored, the Government would find a lot to be said for withdrawing the Bill, not necessarily for good, but postponing it until the people most affected by it could be brought to a point where they could either accept it or, if they still did not agree, could be convinced that they had been fully and thoroughly consulted about it. I still hope—because in this House we can perhaps discuss things in a more detached way than they do in another place—that the Government may
66
consider seriously whether they cannot postpone the Bill pending further consultation and discussion with the representatives of the West Indies.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I, like all those who have spoken already, am very distressed that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is unable to be here and has not, therefore, opened the debate this afternoon. He, of course, has all the qualifications for doing so. It was during his tenure of office as Prime Minister, as the House will recall, that a great leap forward in Commonwealth relations was taken—namely, the emancipation of the Indian subcontinent. So no one could have had a better right to be heard on this subject. But I am glad (and presumably the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, chose the wording of the Motion together with his colleagues) that the Motion is in its present terms, because I agree with all those who have spoken that the cohesion and influence of the Commonwealth in the world depends on the continuing and intimate consultation between its members. I remember Mr. Menzies expressing what is, I think, the common ambition of all those who take part in these affairs. In one of his pungent phrases he said,
"One text should be boldly printed in every department in London, New Delhi, Canberra and other seats of Government: Will any decision I contemplate to-day affect some other nation of the Commonwealth; and, if so, have I informed and consulted them?'."
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who so adequately filled the place of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was very careful not to claim that his Party had a monopoly of the virtues so far as Commonwealth consultation was concerned, although I thought the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Walston, got very near to it. But let me assure them that we are as jealous as they of the good name of Britain in this question of Commonwealth consultation.
I think I might usefully, at the beginning, remind your Lordships—because there seems to be a great deal of doubt about it—what is the latest model of the machinery of Commonwealth consultation which we all have at our disposal to work. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Swinton that it is the permanent

67
machinery which is much more important than the ad hoc conferences that are called together from time to time, although, of course, they have their part to play. I will not go further back than the Montreal Conference in 1958 which I attended. Out of that a pattern of Commonwealth consultation very clearly emerged. It was decided then that the financial officials of all the countries of the Commonwealth should meet twice a year, once in the spring and once in the autumn, and that the meetings should be followed by meetings of the Finance Ministers; and the whole of that, comprising both the ministerial meetings and the official meetings, was embodied in a committee called the Commonwealth Consultative Council.
As your Lordships will no doubt remember, Her Majesty the Queen very generously put Marlborough House at the disposal of the Commonwealth in order that that should be the centre in London of the meetings of the Commonwealth Consultative Council, whatever form they should take, either ministerial or official. So in the spring and in the autumn the officials and the Ministers meet and review the whole economies of all the Commonwealth countries. Therefore, there are at most—and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will take particular note of this—only about five months of the year when, on the economic side of things, the officials or the Ministers are not actually sitting in session; and between those meetings there is a very elaborate arrangement for exchange of visits and of information.
When I was Commonwealth Secretary, I remember the Leader of the House here asking me whether I did not think I should get into trouble because I was so often in the Commonwealth and so little in this House. That, I think, is a complaint which is going to be made about my right honourable friend the present Commonwealth Secretary. Always there is one or other Minister in the Commonwealth Relations Office circulating round the Commonwealth and exchanging visits and views.
I happened to extract from the Commonwealth Relations Office the number of messages that had gone to and fro in the month of October, which was the
68
month in which, in particular, the Common Market discussions were taking place and we were approaching a negotiation. There flowed out from the Commonwealth Relations Office 3,202 messages, and there flowed in 1,694. Then, on top of that, of course, we have the Commonwealth High Commissioners here in London and out in the field, and I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, thinks his noble friend Lord Listowel was doing for five years in Ghana. I can tell him. He was sitting on Mr. Nkrumah's doorstep telling him the view of the United Kingdom and reporting to us the view of the Ghana Government. If any Commonwealth Secretary tried to put a cork on information, he would find twelve very effective corkscrews round the next morning to extract out of him information which they wanted.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? I think I made it clear that, so far as the Commonwealth non-Colonial countries are concerned, I have no experience, but I thought everything went satisfactorily there. It is in the matter of the countries which are still under the Colonial Office, and therefore have no High Commissioners, that the trouble to-day arises. I am speaking of the present situation rather than the semi-distant past.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course if the Governor is in full control, the Governor is the man who is informed and consulted. If there is a sort of halfway type of Government in association with the Governor, then the Prime Minister of that Government is informed and consulted. So I do not really think, although we must always improve our machinery (and I will look at what the noble Lord says), that there is a foundation for his anxieties there.
Then, of course, superimposed on this permanent machinery, which is developing and evolving every day, we have the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers which now takes place, on an average, every eighteen months. There they make a complete review of the situation within the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's external relations. Then, of course, it will be well within your Lordships' recollection, for instance, that at the last Commonwealth

69
Foreign Ministers' Meeting a Commonwealth policy on disarmament was evolved and registered with the United Nations. This was a joint act subscribed to by all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I wish, and believe, that we shall be able over a wider field in future to arrive at common policies in that way.
Of course, I could add to the list. For instance, we co-operate now over the Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme. The Commonwealth sits in permanent co-operation on that scheme. We co-operate in the United Nations, as I mentioned to the noble Viscount at Question Time. I have been at these meetings. I was at one the other day, when we talked in particular about disarmament and about the great problems arising in Europe. Then again, in this country there is sitting at the present time, assessing the economic prospects of the Commonwealth, what is known as the Commonwealth Economic Committee, presided over by the most distinguished late High Commissioner for Pakistan, Mr. Ikramullah. So there is a great variety of Commonwealth consultative machinery actually at work.
Now I should like to relate this machinery as it exists to the particular problem raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others—to the particular problem of the Common Market. I should like to give your Lordships the timetable of consultation on this particular question. Of course, when I was in the Commonwealth Relations Office, almost two years ago now, we were talking with the Commonwealth High Commissioners and had regular meetings about the European Free Trade Area which came to nothing. But let me go back not very far to tell your Lordships this. So far as the European Economic Community goes—that is the Common Market—the Finance Ministers met in the autumn of 1960, over a year ago, and they were given in detail the Government's views at that time, and invited to prepare their own views for the British Government's consideration. The officials of the Commonwealth met in May, 1961, in the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council, and that meeting of the officials was followed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in the same month.
70
There was a special meeting, as I told the noble Viscount, where it was arranged that the Prime Ministers should meet the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Following that again, the two Ministers most concerned, the Commonwealth Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal, and, in addition to them, the Minister of Labour, toured the Commonwealth explaining the Government's views. Again, there was a discussion on the Common Market among the Finance Ministers when they met in Accra in September. Just before the Lord Privy Seal made his famous speech of October 10, the representatives of seven Commonwealth countries, including that of Canada, were here and were given a fortnight in London in which they were briefed on the approach which the Lord Privy Seal was going to make, and asked to give any of their views. All the time, of course, the High Commissioners were reporting backwards and forwards. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, call that keeping the Commonwealth in the dark? I have never seen a more elaborate programme of consultation at every stage extending well back over the year.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not understand this assertion on the part of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary. These allegations have been widely made by distinguished members of the Commonwealth. The whole purpose of the debate here is to get the Government's answer. They need not become heated about it. No one will be more delighted than I if they have a perfectly sound answer to the allegations made, not by me but by Commonwealth statesmen.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am pleased the noble Lord is glad, because he did not seem to be going to be glad when he made his speech; he did not obviously expect to be.
Now perhaps I may turn to the other matter. I think that on the main scheme, in regard to this consultation over the Common Market, it has been carried through in the spirit and the letter for more than a year now. Perhaps I might respond at this point to the question which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked: that is, whether at some stage of these Commonwealth consultations about the Common

71
Market, and during the negotiations, there might not be a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I will remind him of what the Prime Minister said on July 31 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 645 (No. 159), col. 933]:
"I have made it quite clear, and so have my right honourable friends; if at some point it were thought desirable to have a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, at the right moment, probably when the negotiations had reached a certain stage before any final decision were put before Parliament and the country, then I can only say that I would be the first to welcome such a meeting."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only ask: if who thought it desirable?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, obviously this is a matter which must be discussed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers themselves. They will decide upon what form of meeting there should be and if it should be a full Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. I think that is right, and I think the noble Marquess will agree.
May I now turn for a moment to immigration? My noble friend Lord Swinton said he remembered consultations going on about immigration when he was Commonwealth Secretary. Well, they continued when I was Commonwealth Secretary. We were constantly in touch with the Commonwealth on the question of Commonwealth immigration, and we constantly made clear to every Commonwealth country, including the West Indies, that unless we could agree on a voluntary system of control then we were bound to take action.
There is a limit to the population that this country can hold, and we made that clear time and time again. And I remember we made an agreement—for which I and the Government were very grateful—with India and Pakistan for a voluntary control of immigration. Indeed it has worked fairly well, although there have been difficulties with Pakistanis because they cannot understand the English language. But the trouble was, of course, that the West Indies could never agree to a voluntary scheme—I am not saying whether their reasons were good or bad. But as they could never agree, they were told, quite plainly, that the only alternative would be some measure of control.
72
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that no Minister had been to the West Indies and discussed these matters. But the Prime Minister went. He was there in March, and the Prime Minister did discuss this question of immigration and gave a warning that it might be necessary for the British Government to deal with the matter unless a voluntary scheme could be agreed. You cannot do better than send the Prime Minister in a matter of this sort. And I do not think Sir Grantley Adams really said he was not consulted. What I understood him to say—and I am subject to correction—is that he was not consulted as to form and detail. Now Sir Grantley Adams and all West Indian Ministers must have understood over the years past that, unless there was a voluntary scheme, we could not continue in definitely to take ever-swelling numbers of immigrants, not because they are bad citizens or anything of the kind, but because the pressure of their numbers creates social and economic consequences which may have ill effects on the Commonwealth countries themselves.
It was the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who said, I think, that this is a Bill we all dislike. I dislike it thoroughly. We have resisted it, put it off, postponed it as long as we possibly could. Nevertheless, rather than have a swelling increase of immigrants beyond the numbers we can take, we have felt we were. bound to tackle the position now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I just say this, because there seems to be some misunderstanding about whether or not Sir Grantley Adams considers he was consulted and what he was consulted about? I do not know whether the noble Earl heard what Sir Grantley Adams said on the "Panorama" programme on the B.B.C. last night, but I listened to it, and no doubt other noble Lords were listening, too. He was asked a question whether he was consulted about the Bill. He said he was not consulted.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not know if it is profitable to carry on the discussion here, but I thought he said he was not consulted about the form of the actual Bill. I may be wrong on that. Perhaps we can see the exact text of what he said in a day or two's time. Therefore I would say, taking

73
these two matters together, that Her Majesty's Government will always consult to the fullest possible extent. But Commonwealth consultation cannot be a substitute for British policy, nor can it be an excuse for the British Government's avoiding decisions. That it cannot.
My Lords, we have been talking about both these issues for years, both on the Common Market and on immigration, and we felt it was time we must declare our minds. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has a very good memory, but, like that of all good politicians, his memory is selective. He reminded me that he was discontented at the amount of consultation at the time of Suez and one other occasion. Unfortunately he jogged my memory, which can be selective too, and I remember, because it is now in the wind, the case of the recognition of Communist China. If I am not mistaken, Lord Attlee was Prime Minister, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough was in the Government, Mr. Bevin was Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Gordon Walker was in the Government, too. Mr. Bevin did not consult the Commonwealth before he recognised Communist China, although the interests of the Commonwealth were deeply involved. The reason he gave was that there was a divergence of opinion within the Commonwealth and he did not put it on the agenda of the Colombo Conference to which he was about to proceed. He announced it just before he went.
Then Mr. Gordon Walker said this: "If an attempt is made to get everything written down and agreed to and understood what the Government of every nation is committed to, the result would be to drive us further apart rather than to unify us. It would force the nations of the Commonwealth to emphasise their differences. The result would be we would get further apart." Well, I will not delve further into the Socialist record, but I suggest that the noble Viscount might remember that one of the best known Commonwealth inventions is the boomerang.
Of course the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, does not like the Common Market. I am not saying he is wrong; he is perfectly entitled to that view. He would have been perfectly entitled to use this Motion as a
74
stick to beat the Government, just because he dislikes the Common Market, and I thought one or two of his colleagues were in danger of doing the same thing. That is all right, but I am not going to fall for that device. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Common Market or the merits of the immigration policy on a Motion which is about Commonwealth consultation. If we are going to discuss those things there must be Motions put down to that effect.
Let me make clear what we are doing and the limits within which we are operating. We are negotiating with the Six. This country, and this country only, is negotiating with the Six; and we are negotiating to see whether we can achieve membership consistent with our obligations both to our E.F.T.A. partners and Commonwealth friends. I defy anybody who reads the Lord Privy Seal's speech to sustain the charge that we did not put Commonwealth interests right into the forefront of the speech which he made in Brussels on that day; passage after passage was as explicit in this respect as any speech that has beep given to Parliament in the last few months.
Why did he then not circulate the speech to the Commonwealth in its entirety before he made it to the conference in Brussels? Of course he could have done so, but if he had then what took place in Brussels would not have been a conference. It would have been a public debate. But it was a conference, and his speech was a conference document. So, observing the proprieties of the conference, he kept the speech in its entirety in the conference; and he told the Commonwealth every single thing which interested the Commonwealth in the speech which he made. I want really to ask your Lordships, because a good deal has been made of this, how you can carry on a conference if every document is to be public property? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, are experienced negotiators. Did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, circulate all the documents of the Potsdam Conference to the Commonwealth countries? Of course not. They were conference documents. And so it is that I am going into a conference on Berlin—
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I put this point? I do not think

75
that the Potsdam Conference is parallel to this particular conference, because the complaint was that the document, the full speech, after it had been delivered, was not sent to all the Commonwealth countries. Surely you are not going to compare sending a document to a Commonwealth country with sending a document to a foreign country. We talk about the family of the Commonwealth, and I should have thought that if you circulate a full speech to the Commonwealth, as a private document, it would satisfy everything said by the Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF HOME: You must, I think, if you are going into a conference, protect the documents of the conference as conference documents. You may extract as much as you like from them, but the actual documents must be conference documents. I am going into conference, I hope, on Berlin, which vitally affects Commonwealth countries; but is anybody going to say that the documents in that conference must be circulated verbatim? Of course not. That proposition has only to be stated to be seen to be absurd. Therefore one must adopt the procedure, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, that you maintain the conference documents as conference documents and you tell the Commonwealth everything which concerns them in another document, which you circulate in confidence to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers or Governments as the case may be.
I must say I am very much concerned about this business of publicity surrounding conferences. There is now a highly organised and intense hunt for publicity which is in grave danger of prejudicing the chances of negotiations, for instance over Berlin, ever starting at all. All negotiations involve concessions. Concessions in this and every case have a very high political content. How can a deal be made if each item of the bargain is publicly paraded out of context, out of time, and emotion deliberately fanned? This fever for publicity at any price is a most serious obstacle to international understanding and agreement and therefore to peace. Therefore, I hope that everybody in the country will give most serious consideration to the danger involved in what I
76
think is a feverish, almost hysterical, hunt for publicity at any price. It can do grave damage.
But I accept this Motion and the wording in it, and I accept nearly everything that has been said in this debate. I will give two absolute assurances on behalf of the Government: that the machinery of consultation within the Commonwealth will be used to the full, both in the letter and in the spirit; and that so far as the Common Market negotiations are concerned the Commonwealth will be informed of every issue which emerges and which affects them. If we cannot circulate the actual documents—and I have explained why we cannot do that—nevertheless the Lord Privy Seal and the Government will see to it that Commonwealth Governments, individually and collectively, are informed. These negotiations are very complicated; they affect great industries in this country and British agriculture. There are certain things one Commonwealth Government does not want another one to know at a particular time, although it may be agreeable later on. So there must be a certain amount of discretion used. But I can tell the House that it is the intention of the Government to use Commonwealth consultation, both in this case and all others, wherever opportunity offers.
6.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have helped to make this discussion so interesting to-day, and I shall convey very carefully the expressions of sympathy which have been expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary for the detail in which he has answered the debate. I am not going to argue with him all over again; I am rather tempted to make another speech, but I really must not do that. But I want to say this to him on his final point about the danger of over-publicising matters of this kind which are going to be the subject of a conference: I have never sought in this matter any such publicity. That is not the object of this Motion; it is not from that point of view that we have asked for the debate.

77
What we have asked for is to have consideration of the general theme of this Motion, because statesmen of every member of the Commonwealth have grumbled about the limited extent to which their Governments have been informed or consulted. In fact one of the real troubles of to-day is that before even Foreign Secretaries can get together to discuss, there is such publicity upon television and by radio and cable communications in the Press that very often the issues are rather spoiled before they meet to consider what decisions should be made. That is not what I am asking at all. What I am asking is that when you are going, as the prominent member of the Commonwealth that you are, to make a final decision on something of vast importance, there should be adequate information and consultation—both information and consultation. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seized upon a particular point along this line when he put it to us this afternoon.
I would say, if you want to raise my hackles a hit about either the Colombo
78
Conference or China, that I think you have on the whole agreed at least with the political decisions made, because you have never cancelled the recognition of China de jure and you have at times done your best to see that the Colombo resolutions were implemented. So I am not going to wear sackcloth and ashes about those two decisions. Nevertheless, Mr. Bevin did consult people who were concerned in the Commonwealth about it—I know because I was in it with him—and we had the advantage of the support of the principle by certain Ministers within the Commonwealth; people who would support it to-day if the mattes came up again.
I am very much obliged for the answer. I shall read the speech of the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, with very great interest, and I am quite sure that if we are still not satisfied on any point about the details we shall come back to it again I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.