HL Deb 29 July 1964 vol 260 cc1100-20

2.52 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That this House takes note of the communiqué issued following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting of July, 1964. The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships may be wondering why it is that the Government have put down a Motion of this sort to be discussed in the last week of this Parliament. You may think it is an unusual course, since I do not think we have debated a Prime Ministers' Meeting since the days of the Imperial Conference. My noble friends and I have taken this course because we believe that the Meeting which has just ended was a highly important occasion, of great significance to this country and to the other countries who compose the Commonwealth, and the results which may flow from it can be of the utmost importance, not only to all of us who are members, but to many other countries throughout the world.

Your Lordships may perhaps find it equally surprising that a Foreign Office Minister should inaugurate such a debate. But even if you represent the Foreign Office you can be a Commonwealth man—and this, unashamedly, I am. There are, of course, many of your Lordships who have far greater experience of the Commonwealth than I have—notably, the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, who, I am glad to see, is once again taking part in our debates in this House. But, even so, I have visited most countries in the Commonwealth and lived and worked in one of them for three years. I welcome, therefore, this opportunity to introduce this debate and to reaffirm my faith and belief in the future of the Commonwealth.

Your Lordships will have read and will remember the pessimistic prophecies of commentators, newspapermen, and some politicians before the Meeting began. You will also remember the article in The Times about Conservative policy, in which the author, who called himself a Conservative, wrote the Commonwealth off in the most disparaging terms. We can, of course, discount a good deal of this criticism and pessimism, for reasons which will, no doubt, be obvious to the House. But, nevertheless, there was a good deal of genuine misapprehension that, with so many problems in the air—Southern Rhodesia, British Guiana, South Africa, and so on—this Meeting would prove the breaking point of the new Commonwealth. This has not been so. In fact, the very reverse has happened.

The Meeting showed unmistakably and clearly that its members saw value in the Commonwealth, wished to make it work and work successfully, and I shall, in the course of my remarks, have something to say of the suggestions which were made by various member countries to that end. The discussions during the Meeting were serious, frank, stimulating, but above all forward-looking. Far from wishing to weaken the Commonwealth or see it wither away, there was a heartening and unanimous desire to see it strengthened.

There is one matter on which all of us must be absolutely clear. The Commonwealth of 1964 is quite a different organisation, with quite different objectives, quite different problems, from that of 1944, when the first of this series of Prime Ministers' Meetings was held. In 1944, five Prime Ministers attended. They came from countries of preponderantly British stock, with a common ancestry, owing allegiance to the Crown, likeminded, having the same general outlook, both on foreign affairs and on the great international problems of the moment. When they met together, they met largely to concert their activities and to discuss their economic problems.

To-day, the Commonwealth is very different. We have republics side by side with monarchies; we have Presidents and Prime Ministers; we have peoples of African, Asian and European origin; we have countries which are committed to the cause of the West and those which are non-aligned; we have Hindus, Moslems and Buddhists and others, as well as Christians. We have one-Party States, as well as two-, three-, and four-Party States. We are now in fact a microcosm of the world, differing in many ways in our outlook and in our objectives.

Many people have asked whether so diverse an organisation could any longer serve any useful purpose. It seems to me that it is just because the Commonwealth is so diverse that it may in the future be of such importance to all of us and such a unique forum for the discussion of world problems. Each member is assured of a fair and sympathetic hearing; the discussion is completely frank; the goal is understanding. And on this understanding, something of real value can be built. The very different approaches to the same issues might be thought to be a source of weakness. But it could well become the Commonwealth's strongest asset. For if Commonwealth countries can co-operate fully in spite of their diversity, this would be a practical example of interdependence which the whole world will recognise. Frank discussion; understanding of other points of view; attempts to find acceptable solutions, not to impose them: this surely is the best approach to contentious issues.

All this was demonstrated in the most encouraging way during the course of the discussion at the Meeting on the world political situation. Naturally, there were many different points of view brought to bear on the problems discussed, and the discussion was wide-ranging. It is all the more significant that in so many cases a common view emerged. Your Lordships will have read the communiqué and noted the passages dealing with East/West tensions, disarmament, Malaysia—the support for which we were all glad to see—South East Asia and so on. The Prime Ministers gave special attention to race relations, which they saw as one of the most important of the major issues of the day. They noted that, as a community of many different races, the Commonwealth is itself an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among peoples of different races and continents. They affirmed the belief of all Commonwealth Governments that it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The Prime Ministers felt it essential to devote a considerable amount of time to this important discussion on world affairs. It was, as is only appropriate, much the longest discussion on any one of the items before the meeting.

They turned afterwards to the question of the progress of British territories towards independence and membership of the Commonwealth. Under this item the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretary gave a general review of Britain's outstanding record in this field. He said that already more than twenty countries, with a total population of some 700 million, had achieved sovereign independence under British guidance. This is a process which is continuing all the time, and he referred to the arrangements already in train to enable a number of territories to achieve independence over the next few years. But, of course, future progress must depend on individual circumstances, and it was clear that no uniform pattern would fit the needs of all the present territories which are still dependent.

As is made clear in the communiqué, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the granting of independence, which is a matter for the British Government, and the question of admission to membership of the Commonwealth, which is a matter for consideration and decision by all Commonwealth Governments. Commonwealth Governments are very properly interested in the eventual membership of the Commonwealth of dependent territories and the conditions in which such membership may be granted. I am therefore glad to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, following the statement by the Commonwealth Secretary, it is recorded that the Prime Ministers of the other Commonwealth countries welcomed the progress of British territories towards independent membership of the Commonwealth.

Quite naturally, the question of Southern Rhodesia came up in this context. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pointed out in another place on July 16, the Prime Ministers did not discuss Southern Rhodesia's internal affairs, but simply the steps which might be taken to assist in finding a solution to the independence question which would enable Southern Rhodesia to take her place as a full member of the Commonwealth. Indeed, the communiqué records that the British Government made it quite clear that the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia were that Government's constitutional responsibility.

Your Lordships will also observe that the Conference communiqué recognises the fact that the authority and responsibility for leading our remaining colonial territories to independence must continue to rest with Britain, and goes on to record the British Government's view that the question of granting independence to Southern Rhodesia is a matter for decision by the British Parliament. I think it was fully accepted by the Prime Ministers that the final responsibility rests with Britain alone. During the course of the discussion the British Government re-stated its attitude on the question of Southern Rhodesia's independence, making clear their view that, as in the case of other territories, the existence of sufficiently representative institutions would be a condition for granting independence. As the communiqué records, the Prime Ministers welcomed this statement.

They also noted with approval our statement that we would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence, and they made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration. This does not, of course, mean that any of us wishes to threaten the Southern Rhodesia Government, or that we regard a unilateral declaration as inevitable. Far from it. Both we and the Southern Rhodesia Government continue to regard the independence issue as a matter for negotiation. The British Government have already said on more than one occasion that they hope there will be no question of a unilateral declaration. In view, however, of all the talk in Southern Rhodesia about a possible declaration, we have felt it desirable to point out to the Southern Rhodesia Government the consequences which we believe would inevitably flow from it, and why we think the results would be disastrous from the point of view of the future of Southern Rhodesia.

Various Commonwealth Prime Ministers naturally put forward their own ideas for resolving the current difficulties so that Southern Rhodesia could achieve independence at an early date. Some suggested an independence conference, which all the political leaders should be allowed to attend, with the object of seeking agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to early independence within the Commonwealth on the basis of majority rule. Some also stressed the need for the release of all the African nationalist leaders now under detention in order to prepare the way for such a conference. As the communiqué indicates, the Prime Minister said he would give careful consideration to all the views expressed by other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

I need hardly say that the negotiations over independence are a matter of the greatest delicacy, and therefore noble Lords will not expect me to be able to go very far to-day in exploring the ways in which the question may be pursued to a final and satisfactory conclusion. Noble Lords will, however, know that Mr. Smith has been invited by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, to come to London and it is our hope that the question can then be very thoroughly explored. Discussion of the Southern Rhodesian issue at the Prime Ministers' Meeting was marked by great objectivity and restraint, even though this issue is one which arouses great feeling throughout Africa. I should add that many of the Commonwealth leaders made clear their concern at the apparent difficulties in the way of Southern Rhodesia's obtaining independence in the same manner and with the same despatch as have our former territories in Africa where often there were problems though they were, in each case, overcome. I would, however, draw attention to the call of the Prime Ministers for the exercise of moderation and abstention from violence, and to their belief that the best interests of all sections of the population lay in developing confidence and co-operation on the basis of tolerance, mutual understanding and justice. And of course, these are sentiments which noble Lords will wish fully to support. I might add that the restraint shown by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London has been reflected at the recent discussion of Southern Rhodesia in the Organisation for African Unity in Cairo where African Commonwealth Prime Ministers have, I understand, taken the lead in counselling moderation.

I am sure that one of the main advantages derived from the recent Meeting in London has been a greater understanding on the part of the Prime Ministers of the complexities of the Southern Rhodesian problem and of the good faith of the British Government in dealing with it. The credit for this lies largely with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

LORD CARRINGTON

The question of British Guiana was also considered. Their discussion was coloured by a sympathetic and constructive approach to the very difficult problems of that trouble-torn country. The Prime Ministers were concerned that political rivalries had led to disorder and interracial strife, and had prejudiced the attainment of independence. They expressed the hope that the political leaders of British Guiana would seek urgently a basis for collaboration which would serve to restore mutual confidence between the various races.

My Lords, on all these matters, some of them contentious, the traditional Commonwealth practice of a frank but good-humoured exchange of views was followed. There has sometimes been a tendency to denigrate the Commonwealth on the grounds that it does not operate as a unity and does not adopt decisions by a majority vote binding on all its members. Such a development would be quite inconsistent with the real' meaning of the Commonwealth association. This general desire to increase mutual understanding was given tangible form in the proposal that there should be a Commonwealth Secretariat. The Prime Ministers said in their communiqué that they were anxious that some practical expression should be given to the wish, which had been evident throughout their deliberations, for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments. The nature and functions of the Secretariat have not yet been defined, and Commonwealth officials are to consider the best basis for establishing it.

Some of the tasks which the Prime Ministers thought the Secretariat might undertake were, however, outlined as being, inter alia, to disseminate factual information to all member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies, both official and unofficial, in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields; and to help to co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, preparations for future Commonwealth meetings. I need hardly say that Her Majesty's Government extended a warm welcome to this proposal, not least because, as the communiqué says, the Secretariat will be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.

One theme running through the discussion of economic affairs, which took up some time in the meeting, and also of the new initiatives, which I shall come to in a moment, can be summed up in the phrase, "Trade, not aid". The argument went that in many cases external financial assistance was not the best way of helping countries striving to develop themselves. Interest instalments and capital repayments could put a heavy burden on their economies. The Prime Ministers of the developing countries therefore urged that they should be helped to help themselves: the best ways of doing so would be to secure better and easier access to the markets of the more advanced countries for their primary products, by the stabilisation of commodity prices, and by purchases of the products of these countries' new industries, which in many cases represented the only way of raising the standard of living.

It was recognised that this was essentially a world problem to be tackled by inter-Governmental action which will follow the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Her Majesty's Government's leadership and efforts on behalf of the developing countries at that Conference were the subject of a number of appreciative references around the table. The Prime Ministers reaffirmed their intention of working for a solution of these and other problems of the developing countries through the new institutions which will result from the Conference as well as through existing international bodies such as the GATT. There was, however, recognition that there was a special scope for the Commonwealth to make a co-operative effort in the field of technical assistance and in the extension of personal contact between the peoples of the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers therefore selected for further examination several fields of action in which they believed the practice of Commonwealth co-operation might be extended. It was emphasised that any new initiatives of this kind should not be in substitution for existing arrangements but should be supplementary to them. There were seven of these new initiatives, each of which deserves, I think, a very brief description.

First of all, there was the proposal that development projects might be identified and launched in individual countries which would be actually implemented by various members of the Commonwealth acting bilaterally in close collaboration and contributing whatever resources—in men, money, materials and technical expertise—they could most appropriately provide. Examples of the kind of project in mind are the improvement of agricultural production; the development of natural resources through extension services, training and research; and the enlargement of professional and technical training. Her Majesty's Government undertook to make a substantial contribution to projects of this kind, and other member Governments expressed support for the objective of the proposal. It was agreed that further consideration should be given to the basis on which such a programme might be established.

In the field of administrative training the Prime Ministers considered that there might be advantage in making arrangements which could include the formation of a new Institute in this country, to provide facilities for specialised training and research for senior administrators concerned with administrative and development problems. They agreed that here again further consideration should be given to it. In the field of education, the Prime Ministers expressed appreciation of Her Majesty's Government's offer to increase by £5 million a year the capital assistance which they are already providing for higher education in developing Commonwealth countries, both independent and dependent. They also wished success to the Third Commonwealth Education Conference to be held in Ottawa in August. They decided in principle that in the field of medicine an effort should be made to promote further Commonwealth co-operation on very much the same lines as the initiative launched at the first Commonwealth Education Conference. The work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association came in for appreciative references, and the Prime Ministers recorded their support for the valuable work it is doing. Her Majesty's Government said that they would be prepared to increase their contribution to the Association if other Commonwealth Governments would do the same.

The Prime Ministers recognised that one of the strongest links between the peoples of the Commonwealth was that between professional organisations. But they felt that even more could be done in this direction, and they liked the idea of the establishment of a Commonwealth Foundation. This Foundation could be administered by an independent Board and financed by contributions from Commonwealth Governments, although support from other quarters would also be welcomed. The fund which the Foundation would administer would be used to extend interchanges between Commonwealth organisations in professional fields. At the initiative of the Canadian Prime Minister there was also a discussion of the ways in which Commonwealth countries could co-operate in support of current plans to establish a global system of satellite communications. The Prime Ministers agreed that further consideration should be given to ways in which technical assistance could be provided to the developing countries in this field, particularly as regards the establishment of ground stations and interconnections in Commonwealth countries. All these ideas are to be studied further, and a meeting of the Commonwealth Liaison Committee has already been held under British chairmanship. I think your Lordships will undoubtedly agree that in sum these proposals will make a most valuable contribution to furthering a spirit of co-operation between Commonwealth countries and increasing beneficial contacts between their peoples.

This, then, is what the Meeting achieved. Reports from all Commonwealth countries show satisfaction with the success of the Meeting and the terms of the communiqué. This meeting of Prime Ministers may well be a turning point in the future of the Commonwealth. Of course there may be great difficulties ahead, but we have indeed made a start on this new association. Heads of Governments from eighteen different countries thought it worthwhile to come to London to exchange views on all the topics which are of importance in the world to-day, on Communism, on the cold war, on Africa, on economic affairs. There was no subject which was not fully discussed.

Men as different as Sir Robert Menzies, Dr. Nkrumah, President Ayub, and Tungku Abdul Rahman sat around a table and expressed their points of view. Perhaps each one learnt something from the others. Perhaps those who were most certain that they were right on any specific issue went away with the idea that, though they were still right, there was another side to the question and that the man who expressed the opposing point of view was sincere and honest. At any rate, all these eighteen Heads of Government have wanted to strengthen our association, partly of course through self-interest—and why not?; there is nothing discreditable about that—but largely, I hope, because of the more important and fundamental issues involved.

My Lords, here it seems there is an opportunity to create a bridge between races and religions and continents, and we are at the centre of it. Without our initiative, I do not believe the Commonwealth can grow in stature and survive. We, the British, must put every effort into making it succeed. One of the main reasons why the meeting was successful—and I think everybody in this House will agree with me—is that the Prime Minister, who all of us here know so well, was in the Chair and set the tone for the meeting. It would not be too much to say that this was a personal triumph and widely recognised as such. The Prime Minister has a very wide experience of the Commonwealth. For five years he was Commonwealth Secretary and has an understanding and regard for it which he has clearly demonstrated throughout his political life, not least earlier this month. My Lords, if we can follow his example in his enthusiasm and belief in the Commonwealth, we can build something as great, as useful and more lasting than anything the British people have ever done before. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the communiqué issued following the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting of July, 1964.—(Lord Carrington.)

3.20 p.m.

EARL ATTLEE

My Lords, I was a little puzzled at first to know why this Motion had been put down. As the noble Lord opposite said, it is quite unusual. We have never done this after previous Conferences. The noble Lord tried to explain it by the great importance of the occasion—and it was a fairly important occasion. It was the first time we had had Asiatic members, and the first time we had a republic represented. But it was not all that unusual. I think it is setting an undesirable precedent that we should have a discussion of this kind on the Conference of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The Prime Ministers are all equal. This is not the action here just of a British Government; it is the action of a number of Governments.

I confess that it seems to me that we had to wait until the last part of the noble Lord's speech before the object came out. The object was to give a boost to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Apart from a few platitudes, the rest of the speech was a mere statement of what we can already read in the communiqué. I think it deplorable that we should have this debate, particularly as we know that the Prime Minister of this country has said that every action is dictated by Election considerations. It is perfectly clear to me that this is no exception. I had hoped that, attending the Commonwealth Conference, the Prime Minister might have got away from being a political propagandist and might have gone purely as Prime Minister.

It has not been the custom—and I have attended a good many meetings before—to announce who presided. We are told that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom presided. He had no prescriptive right to do so; it might have been anyone. It has not been a habit to announce this, and it has not been a habit to use Commonwealth Conferences for the personal advertisement of Prime Ministers of this country. I think it is most regrettable. The last thing I want to see is Commonwealth Conferences made a Party issue, and that is exactly what is being done.

My Lords, the other main purpose is a more creditable one; it is to show that the Party opposite have some interest in Commonwealth affairs. I hope it means that they have given up the heresy of the Common Market. I myself have always believed that the future of this country—and I still think that it is a great country—depends on its membership of the Commonwealth and not on its position as an offshore island of Europe. It is also, perhaps, useful to repudiate the views of "A Conservative"—so I understand, a thin disguise for an eminent late Minister of the Conservative Government. Otherwise I do not think it is a good thing. I am very glad to welcome the success of the Commonwealth Conference, but it is not due to any one man. It is an achievement of all the Prime Ministers and it is greatly to their credit. I should not wish to monopolise credit for any one of the Prime Ministers.

When we turn to more detailed points, some, of course, are just extensions of what has been done previously. For instance, the noble Lord made great talk about co-operation of various kinds. He seemed to have forgotten the Colombo Conference and what was done there. It is only an extension of that. I think there is at least one specific point, the creation of a Commonwealth Secretariat. I think that ought to be a useful advance as a centre for all the Commonwealth, provided we are sure that it is indeed a "Commonwealth" Secretariat, not something provided by Britain for the Commonwealth but something controlled and built up by resources from all the Commonwealth. For the essential thing about the Commonwealth is that it is a multilateral union of equals. No one is predominant; no race, no colour, no wealth or anything. That is its value in this a distracted world.

I do not know whether any special consideration was given to a matter which has engaged my attention at times; that is, the provision of a Commonwealth force. All the Prime Ministers sympathised with Malaysia, which is faced by contiguity with two of the greatest surviving imperialists, China and Indonesia, and it is, I believe, up to every member of the Commonwealth to do all they can to defeat these attempts by Communist China or, still more pressing perhaps, by imperialist Indonesia to invade a sphere in which they have no shadow of right whatever. I hope that, however this happens, particularly in the case of Malaysia, we shall be found standing side by side with our Commonwealth members.

I do not want to repeat what has been said in the communiqué, but, as I say, I welcome the new Secretariat. I think it is perfectly right to say that trade is much more important than gifts. And that makes one ask why it is that, under the present Government, Commonwealth trade has declined. There has been no attempt on the part of this Government to show interest in or sympathy with Commonwealth trade. They have hankered after every other sort of trade; they have preferred to send ships to Spain rather than to India as a measure of their devotion to the Commonwealth. That is so. I daresay they are now trying to catch up; they may think it is a good Election point to show some interest in the Commonwealth. But I would rather they did it by deeds and not by mere speeches in this House. I have a great belief in the Commonwealth. I should like to congratulate all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers very warmly on their achievement. I look forward to increased growth in the Commonwealth, and I hope that there will be constant Conferences. I think it is a useful communiqué, but perhaps it is just as well not to try to probe into who did this and who did that, but to accept it as it is.

3.29 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I say that I was delighted with the success of the Conference, and I was very pleased indeed to see the terms of the communiqué. I must say that, in reading the terms of the Motion to-day, I did not get any impression whatsover that this was an electoral, propagandist campaign. I took it on its face value, which was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this was to be a recognition by this House of the success of the Conference and, as the noble Lord clearly and plainly said, of a signal defeat for all the "Dismal Jemmies" in his own Party as well as in other Parties—and their numbers are great—who only a very few months ago were crying about the end of the Commonwealth. This was very popular in Whitehall, Westminster, Parliament and elsewhere. It was, I think, the reason for Lord Carrington's Motion, and I was very pleased indeed that he put it down, so that we who believe in this Commonwealth and work for it year in and year out can to-day express our thanks to all the Prime Ministers, including our own, for the work they have done.

EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, perhaps I might point out once more that there never has been a debate of this kind in either House of Parliament ever since the Imperial Conference was done away with and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference set up for the wider areas of the Commonwealth. No Government have ever introduced it. So we can escape the implication that my noble and respected friend has made to-day.

LORD OGMORE

The answer is that there should have been such a debate. The two noble Earls are quite entitled to their opinion, as everybody else is. That is my opinion. It is long overdue. The fact is that we have taken the Commonwealth far too much for granted. I am very pleased that we are having this debate to-day, and I hope that whoever that anonymous gentleman, "A Conservative", is, he will join the rest of the Jemmies and we will throw the whole lot into limbo and go on as we should have always been, real stalwarts of the Commonwealth.

One of the facts of the Commonwealth Conference was that the new States took over. That was a great thing. There were only four of the old Commonwealth Prime Ministers there. It was the new States, African and Asian, which were in the majority, and there was a completely new breath of fresh air blowing through the Conference and its deliberations. After the usual kind of platitudes we get at the end of the Commonwealth Conferences, here for the first time is a real communiqué which says the Prime Ministers have tackled these great problems and not only tackled them but passed resolutions, and they have told us what those resolutions are. This, to my mind, is a great step forward. This House has always been interested in the Commonwealth, and I hope that after similar Conferences in the future we shall always have debates in this House about them.

The Conference discussed problems and commented upon them. And what a wide range of them there were!—race relations, the international situation, Test Ban Treaty, Geneva Disarmament Conference, Malaysia, China, problems between India and Pakistan, United Nations, Cyprus, the remaining colonial territories, Southern Rhodesia, British Guiana, South Africa, Portuguese colonial territories, and aid to and trade with the developing countries. They made a series of constructive proposals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to-day, and which we welcome. And I specially welcome, as one among many others who have been pressing this in your Lordships' House for many years past, the proposal to establish a Commonwealth Secretariat. I think this is a great step forward and I hope it will soon be put into effect.

I want to comment on only a few of the matters which I think need perhaps a word or two to be said upon them. As to aid and trade, I welcome the reference in the communiqué. On aid there is really nothing I have to add to the remarkable speech made in your Lordships' House on June 24 by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale. I believe that everybody in Parliament who is interested in this field should read that speech. It was most comprehensive and had everything in it. In that debate on June 24 he said everything which I could say, and he said it much better than I could, and there is nothing I have to add.

On trade, I entirely agree, if I may say so with great humility, with the Prime Ministers. But on trade I would add that what the Commonwealth needs above all is a continuous and expanding development of world trade, in which the developing countries must have a fair share. The barriers to their products by the rich countries must be removed and swept away or reduced as much as possible, and artificial substitutes—and this is one of the greatest curses to their trade—for their main products should not be made with the aid of subsidy by the richer countries. One example among many is the beet subsidy in this country, in opposition to the sugar countries.

I want to say a word about Commonwealth defence and, in particular just now, about Malaysia. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not touch on this, but I want to say a word about it because it is very much in my mind. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers gave "sympathy and support" to Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of Malaysia. in his efforts to preserve the sovereign independence and integrity of his country and to promote a peaceful and honourable settlement of current differences between Malaysia and neighbouring countries". The first thing that has happened as a result is Tunku Abdul Rahman's visit to Canada. Only this morning it appears in the Press that the Canadians have offered Tunku Abdul Rahman a large number of military aids and equipment and trading missions and the rest; and, as a result, The Times said that Tungku Abdul Rahman was pleased with the Canadian assistance to Malaysia's efforts to preserve independence. He added that it was being given not because of treaties but because both countries belonged to the Commonwealth. The Daily Express, in setting out the various aids and assistance and military equipment, reports the Tunku as saying, What a wonderful thing our Commonwealth is!". Here is another immediate fruit of the Commonwealth Conference and the spirit that was engendered there.

Malaysia looks for action now. Malaysia needs more troops and equipment. Malaysia is the sole bastion against Communism in that area. To think that Soekarno is a bastion against anything is utterly ridiculous: he is just a paper tiger, no more than that. Indonesia has 100 million inhabitants and a Communist Party of 2½ million members. Soekarno of course is very largely under their control: he can do nothing unless they accept it. Without Malaysia Communism will sweep through the whole of that area, and it is essential that we give the Tunku and his people every possible assistance, in my view now, not in years to come, but now. This is a most urgent matter. For island war and jungle war Malaysia needs equipment urgently, especially fast torpedo boats and helicopters.

The Tungku has complained at the delays that have been caused by reason of the fact that these torpedo boats, ordered years ago in this country, have not been delivered. As to helicopters, the numbers he has had have been woefuly insufficient. And it is largely a question of helicopters in the jungle; they can cut down enormously the struggle and toil and the number of troops required. As to troops, I feel that mobility is the great quality to-day. And this applies not only to Malaysia but to Commonwealth defence as a whole. In last Wednesday's debate, the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 260 (No. 104), col. 675]: The centre of gravity of turbulence in the East-West conflict has shifted from Europe to east of Suez, and our country, Britain, is committed to fight against Indonesia to protect the integrity of Malaysia. In my view, if I may say so, the noble and gallant Field Marshal is quite right. There is no doubt at all that the shift of emphasis in the conflict has now gone over to the East, and I believe that our policy as a country, and the policy of NATO, must be to take into account this shift of emphasis due to the ideological disputes between China and Russia, the tension in the Middle East and in South-East Asia and the emergence of so many new countries.

So far as the NATO Parliamentarians' Conference is concerned, the Political Committee, of which I am Chairman, is now studying this whole question. It is well known to us, and we have it under consideration at this moment. What the Council of Ministers is doing I do not know, because, unlike our deliberations, theirs are usually kept fairly secret. But I just wonder whether it is necessary to keep 55,000 troops continually in Germany. It may be that if they could stockpile all their equipment we could make more troops available both to Malaysia and to other centres of the Commonwealth where they are needed at short notice.

We have to become air-minded, and not be railway-minded or even wagon-minded. General Norstad, whom I remember hearing at NATO a year or two ago, expressed the opinion that what was required was a stockpiling of equipment with plenty of fast aircraft available to take troops from their mother country to the danger spots, in Europe or elsewhere, at short notice. In the speech he made to us Parliamentarians he instanced the fact that only two years or so ago, when there was a threat to Berlin, American troops were flown from Omaha to Frankfurt, in Germany, in twelve hours. After the warning the whole movement was completed in twelve hours. Within twelve hours of leaving their normal bases and locations in Omaha they were driving tanks and using various equipment which had been stockpiled in Germany. I believe that General Lemnitzer has the same views—at least he has not expressed any to the contrary.

I am wondering whether that should not be our thinking in Commonwealth defence—namely, not to have vast numbers of troops stationary in various places, but to have stockpiles of weapons in various places, such as Singapore and Bonn, in Germany, with numbers of fast aircraft in which troops can be moved to the places where they can pick up the equipment. This would enable us to be much more mobile and assist the Commonwealth wherever it is needed. That is why, when the question of the ten Super VC 10s came up the other day I pressed the Government to order them. There are only ten aircraft involved: we are not talking about a thousand aircraft—I feel almost ashamed to mention this. These VC 10s are fast aircraft. If we had them it would mean we should once more have a sufficient supply of fast aircraft available for transporting troops quickly. It is no good having aircraft which are committed in other ways. The Chief of the General Staff and the Cabinet must have a pool of fast aircraft always under their hands.

I may say that the original VC 10 order specified a jet transport for operations over Eastern hemisphere routes, with the ability to operate at high altitudes and under high temperature conditions, and into airfields with limited runways. Although they were not specified for Commonwealth defence, could anything be more suitable than this aircraft to suit those specifications? It is true that the Super VC 10s have a bigger "boost", but that was the original specification for this aircraft. I would put in a plea at this time to the Government to look again seriously at the problem and to order them now—to act boldly, because "too little, too late" has in the past spelled the knell of so many British Governments. To-day, we have not got time, even so much time as we had in the past. It is no good preparing to fight the last cold war over again.

I want now to say a word or two about the small territories. There is a reference in the communiqué to these territories. I think it depends on what territories were being considered, but the communiqué gives a good idea of the position: namely, that about twenty of these small territories have populations of under 2 million in all; only two of them have more than 100,000; several have less than 10,000 and one of them has only 90 people.

What is the future of these small territories? On February 2, 1955, I put down a Motion in your Lordships' House to discuss this particular problem. I called attention: to recent political developments in British Colonial Territories, and to the need for a new policy in relation to their constitutional future with particular reference to those Territories which, by reason of their lack of economic resources, their geographical isolation or their multi-racial problems are unlikely in the foreseeable future to become independent Members of the Commonwealth. I put up a plan to your Lordships on that occasion. Perhaps it was not a good plan—there were many who said just that in the debate—but at least it was a plan, and nobody else put up a plan. In the last nine years Her Majesty's Government have not put up a plan. In the debate, Lord Lloyd, who was replying for the Government, said that Her Majesty's Government were "wrestling with this" problem, and "fully realised its importance". All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government must have lost the match long ago, because we have heard nothing whatever of any solution to it in the last nine years. It is about time we did, because the problem is still there and it is not getting easier.

I am glad that the new States are coming over towards accepting the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am quite sure that the noble Duke expected me to raise this matter. I have raised it for several years past. Lately there has been a change. I am glad to say that Malaysia accepted it, in a rather new form. Quite recently, Malawi, Zambia and Malta have also accepted the Judicial Committee. I have asked him to do this before, but I will ask him again now, whether he would use his good offices to persuade the Judicial Committee to become peripatetic, to move around a little, to have more members from the Commonwealth countries other than our own, and to have younger members.

On this score, I should like to welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice Wilberforce as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary: first, because he is a most able man; secondly, because he is comparatively young; thirdly, because he is a direct descendant of the great liberator himself—Wilberforce, the friend of Pitt. I am sure that he will be a great asset to the Judicial Committee. There is nothing else I want to say to-day. May I once more congratulate, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my noble friends, all who were concerned with the Conference, and may I welcome its communiqué?