THE COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

HL Deb 29 July 1964 vol 260 cc1121-85

3.52 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD GLENDEVON

My Lords, in rising to make my maiden speech, I ask your indulgence. I do so particularly because I seek to address your Lordships earlier than I should have wished. But I hope that you will think it a not unreasonable objective to wish to surmount the ordeal of making one's maiden speech in the Parliament in which one has had the honour of being introduced, rather than having it hanging over one's head until another Parliament. Secondly, I hope that I may make a relevant contribution, having moved in a Commonwealth environment for the last year as Chairman of the Council of the Royal Commonwealth Society.

I must not enter into the controversial subject of whether or not this Motion should have been on the Order Paper, but perhaps I may be allowed to say, without controversy, that I always thought it not a bad thing for any Prime Minister, to whatever Party he belonged, to have nice things said of him by both Parties when he did things well. When I made my maiden speech in another place, I well remember congratulating the then right honourable gentleman, now the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the initiative he showed when he went to the U.S.A. on behalf of the Government.

If I were asked what I thought the Commonwealth Presidents and Prime Ministers had done at this Conference, I would answer in this way. They have shown faith in the Commonwealth at a time when it is most urgently needed, and they have given a lead for which millions have been waiting. This, as has already been said, is largely the answer to some deeply pessimistic assessments of the new Commonwealth which have been made lately. Reference has been made to the famous series of articles in The Times in which the Commonwealth was defined as a "gigantic farce"; and I also remember a Commonwealth statesman (I have rather forgotten who it was) being reported as saying that the Commonwealth was "running down". Even without the stimulus of this particular Conference these assessments would not have been justified, and for one reason in particular; that is, that the new Commonwealth is too young a creation for such assessments to be tenable. Of course this is a time of deep anxiety and foreboding in the Commonwealth, as elsewhere, but that is precisely why patience, the best of counsels, is needed—and patience, moreover, throughout the races of the Commonwealth.

I realise that there is frustration and difficulty in many minds. People have been asking "What is the point of the Commonwealth?". "What is its purpose?" This Conference of leaders of the Commonwealth has shown quite clearly what the purpose is, in a way which is not difficult to grasp. The prime purpose of the new Commonwealth is, I believe, the destruction of racial hatred. It seems to me that the Commonwealth is uniquely poised to carry out this task. The communiqué issued after the Conference described the Commonwealth as: an almost unique experiment in international co-operation among the peoples of several races and continents. Why "almost"? Surely there has been nothing quite like the Commonwealth in this context and for this purpose.

I believe that the secret is that over many generations it has evolved, country by country, in a pattern of racial co-operation, with Britain as the common denominator, albeit with Britain as the paramount power. Over the generations Britain accepted that the demand for emancipation must grow as political development increased. The wind of change was not a change of wind. No doubt in the great story mistakes were made, as in any great human experience they must be; but, taken all in all, the story, to which all Parties have contributed, is a noble one. India and Pakistan, in their age-old wisdom, show no complex about the story and no bitterness. For it was India which showed that the bridge was there when Mr. Nehru, whom the Commonwealth mourns to-day, chose for his country the Commonwealth, with its "healing touch", as he himself defined it. India, then, was the first test of the new Commonwealth.

Before I leave that point, I think your Lordships will understand if I pay a tribute to one who was a respected Member of your Lordships' House during those years, my father. Many of you will remember him as Viceroy and Governor-General of India for seven momentous years, from 1936 to 1943. Firmly, quietly, and without the least ostentation, he gave all he had in those years of peace and war to India.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

LORD GLENDEVON

It shortened his life, and he knew it; but he was not a man to count the cost when there was duty to do or service to give. Your Lordships will understand how proud I feel to pay this tribute to him from my place to-day, eighteen years after I came along from another place to stand at the Bar of this House to hear his speech on India, the last he was to make in public upon this great moment in history.

For the African leaders this is a time of immense difficulty. They know what their countries owe to the past, but it is not easy for them yet to tell their people. But the younger generations of the Commonwealth must understand that story if the full point of the Commonwealth is to be grasped. I hope that the African leaders can see, as I am sure they can, the great virtues of the Commonwealth links in Africa. I am sure they know that the Chinese are piling into Africa now in great numbers—and not entirely on behalf of the restaurant business.

My Lords, I referred at the beginning of my speech—and I shall not detain your Lordships more than a minute or two longer—to the fact that I had the honour to be Chairman of the Council of the Royal Commonwealth Society. This is a non-Party society; indeed, I see one of our Deputy Chairmen, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, sitting opposite. There we try to be constructive without being unduly controversial and, whatever limitations or disciplines that may sometimes impose upon one, it is not perhaps an altogether unsuitable background for a maiden speech.

In the weeks preceding the Commonwealth Conference the Royal Commonwealth Society called together some forty organisations representing a thorough cross-section of the country, to talk about the Commonwealth. In addition to our colleagues in the other loyal Societies, we had representatives of education, industry, banking, commerce, broadcasting, farming engineering, the law, accountancy, medicine, the arts, sport, publishing and so on, and a synthesis of the views expressed was published and sent to all the Prime Ministers. This was a declaration of faith in the Commonwealth and it made specific suggestions in the spheres of education, information and trade, for the closer forging of the links.

The conference did not hit upon the idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat, which I think is a brilliant one, but they did recommend something which I should now like to recommend to your Lordships, and I quote from the synthesis: a setting up in each country of a Commonwealth centre as a focus for attention upon Commonwealth affairs over the widest possible field. My Lords, what they had in mind was that somebody coming, for instance, from Australia to Nairobi would be able to ask where was Commonwealth House, and somebody going from Tanganyika to Ottawa could ask the same question. What was so impressive about that conference of all these different groups was the eagerness with which they all came together to discuss this vital question, and it was something extremely inspiring to have taken part in.

My Lords, it has sometimes been suggested that the Commonwealth will have to become a Commonwealth of what were once known as the old Dominions. Events, may make it so. I hope they do not. We should certainly be a great company, but an immense opportunity would have been lost and it would not recur. No, my Lords, there is a better chance than that. The leaders of the Commonwealth have lit the lamps. I pray that they will now go by their light.

4.3 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

My Lords, once again, unexpectedly and unsought, I find greatness thrust upon me in following another distinguished noble Lord in making his first speech in your Lordships' House. Whether or not I have created a record in following three maiden speeches in three consecutive speeches of my own in two days, I do not know, but I fancy that the noble Lord who has just spoken to us may have created an all-time record in being the first instance of sitting side by side with a twin brother as Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord who has spoken to us has reminded us of the tradition of public service in which he stands, and in which he has so splendidly himself taken his part. He brings to the help of your Lordships' House a wealth of experience, not only in politics but also in the service of the Armed Forces. We shall look upon his excellent and wise speech this afternoon as an earnest of the good things which are to come, for we look forward to hearing him very often in the future.

My Lords, it was with a very real sense of relief that many of us heard the news of the successful outcome of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. There had been, as we have been reminded, a number of prophets of doom who predicted that this would be the last Conference of its kind, and, indeed, that this meeting would herald the break-up of the Commonwealth as we know it to-day. In any case, there were so many issues of an explosive nature with which the Conference would have to deal that it seemed inevitable that there would be serious and deep-seated disagreement between the Prime Ministers. That none of these fears was realised is a matter of profound thankfulness.

The success of the Conference is encouraging evidence of the consolidation of the new character which the new Commonwealth is necessarily having to assume, as one part after another attains to independence and yet desires to take its place as a free partner in the Commonwealth. It may be hidden from many of us as to who was responsible for the major success of this Conference, but I have a strong suspicion that it was a considerable achievement on the part of our own Prime Minister. I am confident that the nation as a whole recognises how much it owes to him for this satisfactory outcome.

In my judgment, the most valuable and constructive sections, both of the Prime Minister's statement in another place and of the final communiqué, are those which deal with the strengthening and extending of what the Prime Minister described as, the collective will to increase our co-operation and contacts". The usefulness of the Commonwealth—indeed, it might be said in the long run its very existence—will depend upon the extent to which the member countries are able to build up, not only among the leaders but among the people, a spirit of mutual dependence, an understanding of each other's problems and needs and a readiness to make sacrifices in terms of materials and personal service in order that we may help one another. These things represent, of course, a world responsibility and not merely a Commonwealth responsibility. The Freedom From Hunger Campaign has done much to remind us of the claim of the whole of under-privileged humanity upon those more fortunately endowed. But as St. Paul has reminded us, while we have time, …let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. It is not a bad thing to start with one's own family and to accept that the Commonwealth has a special place in our responsibilities.

I am glad to think that the Churches have accepted the reality of their responsibilities. The Refugee Service of the World Council of Churches has up to 1964 moved well over 11,000 people to places where they can make a new start in life, and of these Australia welcomed 6,896 and Canada 506. Within the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Christian Aid in this country has contributed £121,800 for projects submitted by Commonwealth Governments and other agencies to the United Kingdom Committee of the Campaign. Indeed, there is a long list of projects accepted by the Churches of the Commonwealth to help in education, rural reconstruction, irrigation, training in nutrition, and so on in other parts of the Commonwealth.

But, my Lords, material laid by itself is not enough. It must be accompanied by personal service of a highly-trained professional character. In a little book by Mr. I. M. D. Little, a Fellow of Nuffield College, entitled Aid to Africa, and recently published by the Overseas Development Institute, the writer stresses that, as far as the economically less highly developed countries of the Commonwealth are concerned, far and away the most important need is technical assistance. The writer argues that if capital investment is to be wisely used, it must be accompanied by such skills. The writer notes: A country may be driven into making quite the wrong kind of development expenditures, simply because donor administrators have not absorbed the obvious: that education is investment and that capital is embodied in men as well as in machines, together with the fact that replacement of capital (including the recurrent expenditures necessary to maintain a given educational level) is as necessary as increasing capital". An experienced and well-travelled informant tells me that in West Africa recently these specific points were made to him time and time again by Ministers in African Governments, civil servants, expatriate industrialists. The provision of skilled technical aid is an essential accompaniment to the provision of capital.

My plea, therefore, to Her Majesty's Government is to undertake on a far wider scale than so far envisaged a campaign of education and assistance to encourage those with trained skills, of whatever nature, to see in the Commonwealth an opportunity, on a short-term or long-term basis, of exercising their expertise in the most profitable way possible. I would ask that this appeal should be addressed especially to the young people of our country. We are rightly pouring out an immense effort in training our young men and women in a wide variety of skills as teachers, in medicine, in science, in the service of the Church. This training may turn sour on those who have received it unless it is matched with the challenge of being put to use in self-sacrifice for the well-being of others. Our young people should be encouraged to work in other parts of the Commonwealth. They must be taught to go in the spirit, not of condescension but of humility, not as master to servant, not as superior to inferior. Indeed, we must try to rid ourselves of the mentality of our being the givers, others the receivers. The Commonwealth is a unity: the strength of one part belongs to the whole. The weakness of one part should be shared in partnership by all. When one part suffers, the whole body suffers with it.

My Lords, the very future of the Commonwealth depends upon our being able, now, to instil into the rising generation a sense of belonging to the Commonwealth and of accepting the responsibilities which go along with that membership. There are still in this country, in positions of influence, men and women who can speak of the Commonwealth in terms of their personal experience. This House has within its membership many who have been pro-consuls and who speak from their wide experience and knowledge. Elsewhere, many have served in various parts of the Commonwealth as their life's work. I think of the many of my contemporaries at the university who went, with a real sense of service, into the Indian Civil Service, the Sudan Civil Service, the Colonial Service. I think of those who served for long periods overseas in the Commonwealth in the Armed Services. These people to-day, to a large extent, keep alive in this country the knowledge and the spirit of the Commonwealth.

We must now look to the future. What is going to happen when this generation has passed on; when there is no longer a body of men and women in this country who can commend what the Commonwealth stands for from their personal experience? I foresee a real danger that the cause of the Commonwealth may become the victim of indifference because, in time, there will no longer be those who can speak from their own experience of the greatness of its opportunities. We must counteract this danger by devising means which will bring before young people, at the time when they are deciding upon their careers, the opportunity of service in the Commonwealth. Just as past generations have seen in the Empire and Colonial Services an exciting and worthwhile opportunity to a full and good life, so, under the changed circumstances of the future, we must present just as vivid an appeal, just as clear a call to service, within the family of nations to which it is our privilege to belong.

4.16 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I am particularly happy that I should be the first from these Benches to have the opportunity of congratulating and welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, on his maiden speech—a maiden speech which was, as one would have expected, full of wise and good words, and full of balance and restraint. As noble Lords realise, speaking from this side of the House I have little regard for the hereditary principle, but, speaking as a farmer, I have a considerable regard for the importance of certain characteristics which can be transmitted from one generation to another. I think that in the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, we have a very good example of both those principles working very well. We certainly look forward very much to hearing more from him on this subject, which he modestly said he has studied for only the last twelve months, but to which I know from my personal experience he has given a great deal of thought both in that time and also for a very long time prior to that.

All of us who are taking part in this debate, and, I hope, many others, too, have read the communiqué issued after the Prime Ministers' Conference, and we listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had to say about it. There are many points in that communiqué to which I should like to refer, but it would take too long to go into them all, and I therefore propose to pick out only a small number of them. The first one to which I will draw your Lordships' attention, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred, is early on in the communiqué, where it is stated: The Prime Ministers affirmed their belief that, for all Commonwealth Governments, 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. My Lords, I think that we should not content ourselves with subscribing to thoughts and phrases of this kind, which, if one wishes to be unkind, one can dismiss as platitudes. What we should do now is to examine ourselves in this country and see how we are in fact measuring up to these high-sounding phrases, not only here but in other paragraphs to which I shall refer later. Because it is no good saying these things, whether we do it as individuals, whether it is done on occasions such as the Prime Ministers' Conference or elsewhere, if it is manifest to the outside world that we do not practise them ourselves; and I state, without fear of contradiction, that in this country we do not have a society where there is no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. What is more, our present Government have steadfastly refused to take any action which is open to them which could have made that possible.

Furthermore, the law of this country gives protection to people who do practise discrimination. As your Lordships know, it is a common practice in leases in this country, legal leases, which are enforceable by law, to insert a provision that the property in question may not be let to a person of a certain colour and, occasionally, of a certain race. There are other examples of this sort of thing which all who have paid attention to this problem know well.

While it is right that we should say such things as this in public utterances made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, it is nothing more than hypocritical, after saying them, to do nothing about it. If we are to prove ourselves genuine in these beliefs, as I believe we are, we must take the logical resultant steps and say that in this country in which we have the honour to hold the Prime Ministers' Conference we can at least give a lead in that sort of thing and show that we here can proudly lift our heads and say that there is in the United Kingdom no discrimination based on race, colour or religion. Until we can say that, I think others are fully justified in dismissing these statements as simply platitudes designed for public consumption, meaning nothing at home.

My Lords, let us move on to the matter of trade. There, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, we all welcome the fact that trade should be increased; but what have we in this country done about increasing it? He suggested that the picture, if looked at closely, was not very encouraging to the Commonwealth countries and not very flattering to ourselves. I do not want to weary your Lordships with many figures, but I think it is worth putting some figures before you so that it can be realised that when we say our trade with the Commonwealth countries should be improved—it has been declining—it is not just loose jargon but is supported by the facts. Before the war, in 1938, imports into this country from Commonwealth countries accounted for 34 per cent. of our total imports; that is to say say, just about one-third of our imports in 1938 came from Commonwealth countries. Ten years later, in 1948, that figure was raised to 42.3 per cent.: but in 1963, it dropped back to 32 per cent.—even less than it was in 1938. In so far as imports from Commonwealth countries are concerned, our record has been an unhappy one in recent years.

Now I come to exports to the Commonwealth countries; and the position is very much the same. In 1938, we exported 31.6 per cent. of our total exports to the Commonwealth. That rose in 1948 to 37.8 per cent. and has now dropped, in 1963, to 29.1 per cent. Look at it, perhaps, from the point of view of the Commonwealth countries themselves. What is the proportion of their trade with us? From 1954 to 1960 Commonwealth imports of manufactured goods from all sources rose by 50 per cent., but from the United Kingdom alone not by the same 50 per cent., but by only 13 per cent. And in the last two years, 1962–63, Commonwealth imports from all countries rose by 5.4 per cent.; but their imports from the United Kingdom fell by 5.1 per cent. Finally, I shall give some figures which many of your Lordships may have seen in this week's Economist concerning private investment in Commonwealth countries. The last three years given are 1960, 1961 and 1962. These figures are for investments excluding oil and insurance. In 1960, private investment in Commonwealth countries amounted to £160 million. In 1961, this figure had dropped to £125 million. In 1962, it dropped still further to £120 million. So, my Lords, once again, we have here an example of fine phrases which are not matched in any way by the actions of the Government over the past years.

It is the same when mention is made, as it should be made here, of long-term contracts, securities, and commodity agreements. What is the record of Her Majesty's Government in that? The long-term agreements which the Labour Government had with the Commonwealth countries for meat, wool and other things were all scrapped, and all that is left is the Commonwealth sugar agreement. This is a very valuable agreement indeed, and I do not denigrate it at all. It is something of great benefit to this country as a consumer of sugar, and not only of benefit to the Commonwealth. Surely, if we intend these words to have any meaning we must make up our minds that we must now put them into action and do something to show the world at large and the Commonwealth in particular that when we talk of stability, of more aid and more trade, we are, in fact, able to achieve it. This sorry record of the past few years is one to be pushed deliberately behind us, and in the future we must make things look very different and very much better.

I should like now to turn briefly to three of the countries which are actually mentioned in the Conference communiqué, countries which are full of problems and full of worries. The first of them, the smallest, is Swaziland. It is mentioned in the communiqué that Bechuanaland will soon be free to follow Basutoland and that Swaziland's new Constitution has now set her on the same course. That is true and it is good. But it is not enough simply to say we have now set Swaziland on the course to freedom and to leave it at that, and feel that we have discharged our responsibilities. Far from it! Our responsibilities are as great as, if not greater than, before; and the difficulties which will in the next few years, if not in the next few months, face both Swaziland and this country are immeasurably greater.

Many of the troubles confronting the Commonwealth to-day in our present Colonies and in former Colonies are due to failure on the part of the Government to think ahead for five or ten years. There is evidence in this communiqué to-day that Her Majesty's Government are refusing to think ahead and are going to load upon the next Government the problems which have been created by the present one. Swaziland, as your Lordships will know, is one of the High Commission Territories on the borders of South Africa, and it is closely connected with the problems of South Africa and the problem of apartheid. Your Lordships may also remember that during the period leading up to the new Constitution of Swaziland considerable advice was given to the King and his council by a certain lawyer in Pretoria as to the right lines of action he should take, with a view, eventually, to Swaziland's becoming part of the Bantustan idea of South Africa.

I have here a copy of this document. I have already on previous occasions read extracts from it to your Lordships. It is interesting to read it again now, some nine months later, to see how sound that advice was and how well it succeeded for the people who have followed it. It is now, therefore, worth looking at the final suggestions which are made in this document, this advice to the Party which now has a monopoly of the seats in the Swaziland Legislature. The final sentence says: Having won the election, as has now been done, having shown yourselves to be the strongest Party in Swaziland"— and it goes on to say: It will not then be a question of going hat in hand to the Socialist Government"— because it is assumed that by then there will be a Socialist Government— to beg for assistance for the traditional Swaziland. To the contrary, the King's Men will then go to London as the strongest political Party in Swaziland to call for the removal of all Colonial rule in Swaziland, which is one of the principles of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. That is what is going to happen. I am sure of that. And it is not wrong. Why should we be opposed to Swaziland's asking for independence, as other High Commission Territories have done?

But what is going to be our position when, having asked for independence and possibly achieved it, they then say that they wish to go in with their neighbour South Africa and become part of Bantustan? I am not suggesting that we should stop it by force. We can stop it by fulfilling our financial and economic responsibilities, so that it will be abundantly clear to the people living in Swaziland, and to the other High Commission Territories, that remaining part of the British Commonwealth will be to their advantage and to the advantage of everybody connected with them. But if we fail in that—and we show no sign of being aware of the problem at the present time—then it will be hard to hold Swaziland in the Commonwealth. It will be hard to prevent that country from becoming, like Transkei, part of a racial State, where apartheid is given an opportunity to work its worst.

Let us look at British Guiana, another of the problem countries mentioned. We are now seeing the strains which are being put on that country, and on this country and the Commonwealth, by the inactions and wrong actions of the present Government. There is no point in your Lordships having a debate on a subject like this and doing nothing but congratulate all those who are able to produce an agreed communiqué. That is a pleasant exercise for some, perhaps, but it will achieve nothing. It is only by pointing out the errors of the past, and trying to avoid them in future, that we can make any contribution at all to the real wellbeing of the Commonwealth in the future.

In British Guiana there has been a long history of unhappiness and unrest. Eventually a new Constitution and a new form of electoral process, entirely new in any part of the former Colonial Empire, has been introduced. We are now waiting for the elections to take place. The build-up to these elections does not give one any confidence that they will be carried out smoothly and without bloodshed. There has been terrible bloodshed there and it is continuing, and the economic life of the country is suffering as well. We can do nothing at this stage other than wait for the elections, but I hope that when they are over, whatever the result, the main African and Indian groups will realise that they cannot prosper if they are at each other's throats; that they cannot have a country where one Party or the other dominates, whether by a majority of the total votes of something like 5 per cent. or by a result based on proportional representation and which is again a narrow majority; that the prospect of one group taking over power to the detriment of the other cannot be to the advantage of either. And I believe there may be signs now that some of the more thinking people in both of these racial groups are beginning to realise that. We must hope that, in the months before the election, wiser counsels will prevail, and that after the elections, whatever the results may be, the leaders of these two main groups will realise that their future, and the future of their peoples, can rest only in full co-operation.

Finally, the most difficult and important of these countries is Southern Rhodesia. It would be idle at this stage once more to go over the reasons that have led up to the unhappy state of affairs in Southern Rhodesia, but there are still things which can be done by this Government at the present time to help the situation and to relax the tensions. I was glad to hear that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has been invited to come to this country and I very much hope that he will accept the invitation. But there is no use closing our eyes to the fact that at the moment the situation is very serious and that there is a real threat that there may be a unilateral declaration of independence. I think that all of us agree—and it is good that the Prime Ministers at their Conference agreed so unanimously—that that would be a disaster for Southern Rhodesia and for all Rhodesians, no matter of what colour they may be. The people there must remember that Rhodesia's future does not depend, any more than the future of British Guiana does, upon the supremacy of one race or another. It can depend only on the working together of all people who call themselves Rhodesians.

I remember that when I started farming some thirty years ago there were certain people among the farm workers and farmers who took the attitude that there was a struggle going on between the farmers and farm workers. The farmers had to resist all demands for higher wages, and the workers had to struggle for higher wages. That has now altered and everybody engaged in agriculture realises that, while we may have disagreements about how the profits should be shared, the industry and the people engaged in it cannot prosper without their working closely together. As a result, the agriculture industry has prospered. This is very much true of a country, and in Southern Rhodesia there can be no prosperity without the full co-operation of all the people—those who put money in the country, those who own land and those who work.

We cannot have that co-operation while there is this dichotomy between the races. It was good to see that the Prime Ministers at their Conference agreed that there should be no independence until there was majority rule. That is something we must stick to. I hope that no Europeans in Southern Rhodesia will be stampeded into supporting the demand for unilateral independence because of the fear that when the Labour Party gets into power things will be so much worse for them. In this, at least, a Labour Government would be at one with the Conservative Government in their refusal to countenance independence without majority rule. Europeans and Africans alike have a part to play and all must be given a chance to play it.

When we know of the tensions which exist there, it is unfortunate that there should be any exacerbation of the feelings which exist already. While I am happy about the recent visit of some African chiefs from Rhodesia, I was very unhappy when I read some of their comments about their acceptance in this country. I will only read two brief extracts to your Lordships, but they show the feelings with which these chiefs left this country. One of them wrote: We have concluded reluctantly that the way British Ministers have avoided us, or attempted to avoid meeting us, indicates that the British Government does not wish to see us and is unwilling to seek a satisfactory solution to our troubles. Another writes: It is therefore of great concern to us that, having arrived here to meet the Government, we have not been afforded an opportunity to meet the Government leaders. Why, when we came here to talk to them, do the British Ministers appear to be reluctant to talk to us? I hope that something can be done to make all leaders of African opinion, whether they be the tribal chiefs, the political leaders who are now in detention and who I hope will soon be released, Ministers of the Government or leaders of the Opposition Parties, realise that, whenever they come here, they can come feeling that Ministers in this country want to talk to them and to hear what they have to say; that there can be this full and free exchange of views, which is the only way that understanding can be arrived at and some of this tension removed.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this Conference was a success. I think he was right in saying that it was a success. Many fears were expressed about it at the beginning. These fears were expressed on all sides, in some cases, perhaps, by people who were ill-wishers, but also by people who were well-wishers. I think that, at the worst, one can say that one looked at this Conference as one might see, from an aeroplane or a helicopter, a large number of motor-cars converging on a dangerous crossing: one wondered if they would be able to arrive there and get across without an accident. They did so; and I believe that it was due to considerable skill on the part of the people who were responsible for the traffic arrangements that no accident occurred. But the mere fact that a lot of traffic is brought together at a crossroads and is got across without an accident does not make the operation a success. That, I think, is the worst that can be said about this Conference. It may not have achieved anything, but at least it avoided serious accident.

The best that can be said—and I am prepared to say it—is that we now know that the Prime Ministers or Presidents of the Commonwealth countries can come together and discuss things; they can disagree, and go away with their disagreements, but still with the resolve to come back again. That is a great thing to have achieved. It is far better that there should be this realisation that it is possible to disagree with people, and to continue to disagree, but still to understand them and co-operate in certain respects, than to attempt to paper over the cracks and to produce a communiqué which shows that all is well but which in fact means nothing.

Therefore, I give to the Government their share of the credit, and to the other members of the Prime Ministers' Conference I give their share of the credit, for having achieved this result, which I believe has strengthened the Commonwealth. I hope that the Government will now realise that more is expected of them than fine words. I hope that they will take action where they can in this country on discrimination, trade and investment, and such action as they still can lake on these other High Commission territories—British Guiana, Rhodesia and the rest—in so far as they still have any power left. If they will show signs of that, we can chalk up one more small credit to this Conference, which has certainly helped many of us who believe in the Commonwealth to know that there is still good left in it.

4.44 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE

My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that this Motion has been put down and that this House has had the opportunity of discussing the Prime Ministers' Conference which has just been held, because, in my view, it transcends in importance any Imperial Conference that we ever had. I attended a great number of these, and they did useful work; but the decisions that emerged from them were not thought to be absolutely vital. This recent Prime Ministers' Conference, however, may well have been the turning-point in the world, because on what came out of it depended what was to be the future of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Was it go forward? Was it to increase, to maintain—and even expand—its influence and prestige in the world, or would it disintegrate and gradually lose its great force in the world?

To realise how vitally important this Conference was one has to think back into the past to what the British Empire has meant to the world in the years that have gone by. For something over a hundred years Britain kept the peace of the world, and, indeed, did more to maintain that peace and to develop backward countries, including (and it is interesting to remember this) the United States of America, and to advance the prosperity and well-being of mankind than any other country or group of countries has ever done in the world's history. We should bear this in mind when we are considering this problem.

Yet, unhappily, there are to-day some people who are almost apologetic about our past and the unrivalled colonisation we achieved in the world. But there are many countries to-day who owe their present position to Britain, in that this country brought law and order where chaos reigned. We aided their economic development and progressively brought them to the point where they could control their own affairs. There are, as I say, many countries who owe their present situation to what Britain did for them. And whenever it has been possible, independence has been freely granted to these countries. As a result of this, we have had the recent Conference, with the leaders of eighteen nations, all self-governing peoples and absolutely independent, coming together. That is surely something almost unparalleled in history.

But, my Lords, many people viewed this Conference with the deepest apprehension, feeling that we had gone too far and too fast in granting independence. They felt that the Conference itself would lead to quarrels, violent statements, bickering and every form of unpleasantness; that it would be the first step towards the disintegration of the Commonwealth and Empire. Happily, those gloomy prognostications proved groundless. The Conference was a success, and may prove to have laid the foundation stone of a closer co-operation between all the Commonwealth and Empire countries.

I should like to associate myself with the tributes that have been paid to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I believe that the success of the Conference was due in great measure to his leadership, as well as to the courtesy, the tact and the understanding which he displayed throughout the proceedings. At the same time, I think that a meed of praise should go to some of those leaders of the newer, more recently freed, and independent countries. They were in a difficult position. We all know what politics are, particularly in new countries, yet I think that in their utterances at the Conference, and also in their utterances when they went to Cairo, these leaders showed a restraint and moderation which must cause us the deepest admiration.

We have had this Conference, and it has been a success. But we all know how, when people are in an atmosphere of a Conference, they sometimes manage to get away without disagreeing. But one is always a little worried about the follow-up: whether what one has set out to achieve, and what all those attending have subscribed to, will in fact be realised when the acid tests come. I should like to review some of the problems which these new countries are up against, and to consider exactly in what direction they will go in respect of those very difficult and vital problems.

The first one, of course, is that the Government of a newly independent country are suddenly going to wake up to the fact that from now on they are responsible for the independence and security of their own country. At the beginning they will probably be very worried. They will remember that there is this great United Nations. Unhappily, they will soon find out that, certainly at the present time—although we hope that greatness may be achieved by the United Nations in the future, and that it will accomplish those things we want to see—there is no security for any country in simply relying upon the protection of the United Nations. So the country will then have another look round, because it will know that it is not strong enough by itself. Then, having had that look round, from my experience of international gatherings—and it has been a very considerable one—I think they will eventually come to the conclusion that there is nobody with whom they particularly want to link up, and that it would perhaps be as well to stick to this Commonwealth and Empire to which they belong.

The next problem they will probably run into is that they will all have a considerable pride in their new great nation, and will want to play a part in the world in these difficult times through which we are passing. They will discover very quickly that their own voice alone counts for nothing, and they will possibly link up with some other nations approximating to themselves. But they will find that they will not get far with that regional pact; and again, I think, they are going to be forced back to the conclusion that it is only by swinging the weight of this Commonwealth and Empire into the scales in regard to the question in which they are so vitally interested that they will achieve their objective. This again, I suggest, is an argument for their deciding that this British Commonwealth and Empire is not too bad.

The third point, of course, is on the development of their resources, and here there are many complicated questions. The first thing that is perfectly certain is that they will not have sufficient capital inside their own borders to carry out the developments themselves. I will not go into the questions that were discussed at this Conference with regard to the amount of capital a newly developing country can absorb, but I certainly hold the view very strongly that, if it is really wise development, then they can take a great deal of capital in these new countries. I believe that, as a result of this Conference, a considerable step forward has been taken. Great Britain has made a generous gesture towards helping in the provision of capital, and I think that will go forward well. I should like here to make one plea, and that is in respect of this provision of capital for the developments in these newly developed Commonwealth and Empire countries. Commonwealth and Empire co-operation will not be lost sight of, but it will be utilised for the purpose of approaching some of the great international organisations which are now in contemplation for the provision of development capital.

Finally, on the economic side, and the problem of raising the standard of living, I suggest that this matter went extremely well at the Conference. Of course these countries will need assistance in the shape of technical advisers. A great deal of provision is in contemplation for that, and I trust that all these schemes will go forward. I also trust that we shall not get into isolation as Commonwealth and Empire countries in approaching any of the schemes on an international basis, but that we shall co-operate and work together to link up what we are doing in this field of training technicians and scientists, and providing advisers to these countries.

My Lords, those are four points which the Governments of the newly independent countries must face when they find themselves up against the fact that they must do something. When they begin considering what they will do, I think it will be brought home to them that their best interests lie in continuing this co-operation of the Commonwealth and Empire that has been started so auspiciously at this Conference. From that, your Lordships will gather that I am somewhat optimistic that the Commonwealth and Empire will go on; that I believe it will even advance in prestige and influence in the world, and that it may in the future make an even greater contribution to world wellbeing than it has done in the past.

I am hopeful that that optimism may not be misplaced. After all, the optimism is not coming entirely from the fact that this Conference has been a success (that could happen and then things could go hopelessly wrong): it is derived principally from the feeling, now that this co-operation has started moving, that it will be in the interests of these individual countries to continue the co-operation and to come in closer together. Human nature being what it is, that must be the thing that mainly influences those who are responsible for running any particular new, young, independent country. There is nothing wrong in this. Why should they not? There is nothing that is going to hurt the Commonwealth and Empire if they are going to be governed by the self-interests of their country. I personally am a blatant example of it. For over forty years my governing principle has been to do whatever I thought was best in the interests of Australia, and I have not the slightest objection to any of them following my lead.

5.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, it is a very heartening thing to hear the voice of the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, with us on this great subject again. It is a great honour for me to speak after him, and I feel very happy in finding myself in close agreement with all he said to-day. I believe it is absolutely right that this Motion, or some similar Motion, should have been put down. My only trouble, if I may put it this way, with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is that he seemed to think it necessary to apologise that he, working in the Foreign Office, should speak first in this debate. I disagree with the noble Lord there. First, as the Leader of the House he carries all the burdens we can give him; but, secondly, I believe this is an integral part of our foreign policy. It is not doing the Commonwealth any good to put it into watertight compartments and pretend that it is nothing to do with foreign policy. It is.

It was good to hear the very warm welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave to this Conference. I think we very much appreciated it. I must say that I feel very sorry that the Socialist Party have been able to give only such a very cool welcome. There must be some inscrutable reason why they have done so. I should like to assure them that I believe that their interest in the welfare of the Commonwealth is much deeper than has been expressed in their words here to-day or in the other place.

I believe that the great virtue of this communiqué is that it has blown away a lot of cobwebs. There are those who have thought of the Commonwealth, on the one hand, as being a gigantic farce, and those who, on the other hand, have thought of it as the Ark of the Covenant. I do not think it is either one or the other. It is a living organisation in which we are deeply and personally concerned. In holding the Prime Ministers' Conference we are not, of course, holding a meeting of people who agree with each other. That is not what it is. The essence of this meeting is that it is a free, informal meeting of people who do not agree with each other; and that, in this world to-day, is probably of more value than simply a meeting of people who always agree and find themselves in complete concord.

I think we recognise that we are facing a new type of Commonwealth. We have no common political purpose; no common commercial or economic policy. There is, I think, an increasing tendency to take sectional interests. May I give one example of that? I personally rather regret that the phraseology of the sympathy and support for Malaysia was not more vigorously expressed. Suppose South Africa had taken similar steps towards Nyasaland as Indonesia has done towards Malaysia, I believe the communiqué would have been very much more strongly worded. I think the reason for that is simply the degree of sectional interest in different parts of the Commonwealth. Indeed, I think that is not wrong; I think it is right. Malaysia is extremely interested in Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia. Similarly, let us take New Zealand. She has a very big trade with this country which I think in some ways she has allowed to reduce trade she would more wisely carry on in the immediate area of her own country.

My Lords, the story of the last twenty years is the story of removing the hegemony of the United Kingdom from the Empire or from the Commonwealth—removing it, but at the same time retaining a lead among Commonwealth countries. I believe it is still much too Anglo-centric. The contacts of this country are, I think, joining the Commonwealth together much too narrowly and there is quite inadequate transverse connections between different parts of the Commonwealth. In fact, to be quite frank, I think that many parts of the Commonwealth are ignorant and in many ways completely indifferent to other parts of the Commonwealth apart from the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I think one of the most important points arising from this Meeting—and I believe it is absolutely true—is that it is recognised that the Commonwealth will not be held together simply by Prime Ministers; and the emphasis, which indeed was brought out by the right reverend Prelate, of personal service, is, I am sure, perfectly correct. There was a long list of points of contact between different members of the Commonwealth: trade, technical assistance, agriculture and natural resources; but perhaps most important of all was the range of professional services, medical, educational and others, on which contact can be made. Not the least contact, of course, is through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is through the full range of contacts in the different aspects of society that a real and living organisation will be made.

One omission from the communiqué which I wish to mention is a reference to the English language. This Conference could not have taken place as it has done unless all members spoke English. The Commonwealth will not continue unless English continues to be at least, if not the official language, one of the official languages. No doubt it will be included under the word "education", but I should like the English language recognised—and I hope one day that it will come to it; now may be premature, because many countries have their own local languages—as the Commonwealth language and greater steps taken to ensure its maintenance and purity.

My Lords, what then of the future? If we cannot call the Commonwealth a unity, and we certainly cannot put a fear into it, what then are its major tasks? I should like to suggest two points. The first is to enable those individual members of the Commonwealth, by giving them all the guidance and advice we can, to provide popular and efficient Governments. Governments can be efficient without being popular, and indeed can be popular without being efficient. This is the task which lies before any new country. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, spoke of majority rule. I hope that we shall never adopt that. We do not rule this country by majority rule; we rule it by Parliamentary democracy. I think we should be unwise to suggest that other countries use a form of government we do not use ourselves. As indeed the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said yesterday: a majority has no more right to bully a minority than a minority has to bully a majority. Administrative training is one of the greatest contributions we can make, and I was delighted to hear that it is going to be carried a good deal further.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl would allow me to interrupt for a moment? I was in fact quoting from the communiqué and using its words, where it says: The object would be to seek agreement on the steps by which Southern Rhodesia might proceed to independence within the Commonwealth at the earliest practicable time on the basis of majority rule.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am aware of that, and the noble Lord will be aware that this is preceded by the words: "The view was also expressed". I was only saying that it was not the view of the British Prime Minister or all the other Prime Ministers. It was just a view expressed. I say it was a very poor view.

May I put one further point? I believe the supreme task of the Commonwealth—and here I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon—is in race relations. We are a multiracial community, and there is no bigger and more difficult task facing this world to-day than race relations. I believe they are very widely misinterpreted, and I completely disagree with Professor Carl Troll who, at the recent Geographical Conference in London, said that contact between the races of the world would lead finally to complete integration. That may happen in a million years' time, but it is an utterly irrelevant contemplation to us in this generation.

May I also add I should rather regret it. I enjoy meeting people of different races. I think this makes the world much richer and fuller. If we were all the same race I think it would be to some extent extremely dull. We stand for equality of the races, but we mean something rather narrow. It is really equality before the law and in administration. If we are going to make this into reality it has to go a lot further than that. I have been to a fair number of countries and I have hardly been to one where there is not either patently or latently a considerable racial problem. It is not simply a question of Europe; it is in almost every country of the world, and I think it is fairly true to say that in recent years it is getting worse, not better. There are perhaps reasons for it, but I believe that is so. In Singapore there is extraordinary racial tolerance and complete absence of discrimination, but somebody—I do not know who—seems to me obviously to see political advantage in setting one race against the other. It is always very easy to do that.

I do not think this problem is purely an economic one. It is true that economic differences are very often the occasion for disputes. I must say that I think there is in human nature a basic suspicion of all other races. We may regret that, but I believe that in fact it is the case. I do not pretend to know the answer, but I believe it is a task which we can set ourselves. I would only say this: I do not think either legal non-discrimination or economic non-discrimination is adequate unless there is a basic respect for human dignity. Nothing fires racial animosity more than lack of human respect and nothing disintegrates racial hatred more than the realisation of mutual respect. And it is, I think, human dignity which I would regard as even higher than human rights. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, talked about the acid test of what comes in the time ahead, and of course that is what matters. Do we go through with them and do the other members carry through on these lines? I like to look on it as a tree, growing steadily. This is a moment in time in the growth of that tree, and I like to think that this has been a healthy year's growth.

5.15 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON

My Lords, I should like to begin by admitting that I was one of the people who, before this Commonwealth Conference began, viewed with deep apprenhension what it might result in; and it is therefore with greater delight that I am able to pay a public tribute to the outstanding success that was there achieved. I am sure that our congratulations are due to all the members of that Conference, but I am equally sure that each one of those members would be the first to say that the major part of the success of that Conference was due to the superlative tact with which the Chairman guided and led the deliberations.

I do not propose to take this opportunity of going into any detailed discussion of the various sections of the communiqué. I feel that this is not the occasion, even if one felt disposed to make a comment which was not entirely in agreement with it, for that is not the purpose of this debate, as I see it. I want to look mainly at what is represented by the general tendency and movement of the decisions of this Conference, to have one brief look at the organisation which it is suggested should be set up, and also to have a brief look at the major problem facing this world, which has been recognised by them.

To begin with, to take one look at this idea of a Secretariat, consultation of an informal and intimate character has, as we all know, been part of Commonwealth affairs for very many years now. The desire for a Secretariat has from time to time been expressed, but has not been a popular one. Now, however, as has been said to-day, a new Commonwealth is emerging. I think it would be fair to say that in the beginning the members of the Commonwealth were bound together by ties of sentiment and common tradition, strengthened, it is true, by enlightened self-interest. But to-day, with the new Commonwealth, I think it would also be fair to say that enlightened self-interest has taken the major position, is the main bond which unites "men and women of many different races and national cultures" (to quote the communiqué) in an appreciation of the value of mutual co-operation. Their major interest, I suggest, is economic, the raising of the standard of living of the backward peoples of this world; and with that raising of the standard of living is inexplicably inter-mixed this question of racial relations.

It will be interesting to see what eventuates concerning this organisation, and the position and powers of the Secretary-General and his staff. One contemplates the difficulties the United Nations has had, which have tended to make it a forum for the ventilation of sectional interests, for high-pressure lobbying and for giving such interests all the propaganda value of world-wide publicity. There is also a danger which the United Nations illustrates: that it has begun at times to seem to be an organisation where many members spend their time minding everybody's internal business except their own. In that way the United Nations can provide a warning of the need for clarity over the powers which may be given to this Secretary-General and the Secretariat. And it is also a warning for watchfulness against the operation of Parkinson's Law in that organisation.

To follow the lesson taught by experience in the United Nations, just as is proposed for the Commonwealth, the United Nations Organisation was mainly intended to channel the efforts of individual members into action for the benefit of mankind. It has had remarkable success in all its social and economic work, but the same cannot be said of its intrusions into politics. Of course, the new Secretariat will be a quite different affair from the regime of the Commonwealth Relations Office, which is a British Government Department responsible to a British Minister, and under the watchful eye of the Treasury. The new Secretariat, staffed and paid for by all Commonwealth countries, with probably a non-British Secretary-General, would obviously be a very different sort of body; and, as it developed, if it did not strictly confine its activities to economic and social problems, its happy relationship with the United Nations, or even with some of its own members, might be jeopardised.

I mention these points, my Lords, because I suggest that the Secretariat should not be modelled on either the United Nations or even the Organisation for African unity—to which many members of the Commonwealth went, in order to attend the meeting in Cairo—because in that Organisation emphasis is being laid upon the development of political power at the centre; and I suggest that there is an immense field for profitable endeavour for the Commonwealth organisation without touching politics at all. So it is hoped to avoid some of the prejudice and the emotion which have at times disfigured the bigger organisation, the United Nations.

To mention one point, it was interesting to see that at a meeting of the Organisation for African Unity it was decided that Mr. Tshombe, the Prime Minister of the Congo, should not be invited to attend, because they did not like him. It was left to a member of the British Commonwealth to point out that, if this was not interference in the domestic affairs of a member State, he did not know what was. It was most interesting to see that that reproof should have been conveyed by a member of the Commonwealth.

I turn to the last thing about which I want to say a word or two. That is, the main tendency, as I see it (and I think the proportions have been got right in the Commonwealth communiqué), the importance of economic and social matters; and especially the question of feeding the growing population of the world. Recently I have been reading a most interesting article published by the Royal Bank of Canada entitled, "A Hungry World". In that, they have gone into some of the terrifying details of what will happen if this matter is not given prior importance. There are millions of people in underdeveloped countries whose only aim is to keep alive, staving off death to-day for another dead to-morrow, and wringing subsistence from their environment with their bare hands.

The West believes—and it is obvious that the Commonwealth countries also believe this—that in its own interest it must do something to cope with this awesome problem of poverty and hunger. If other freedoms are to be cultivated, it is first necessary to create freedom from want. All the infectious ideologies take hunger as a weapon. The best answer to the world's agricultural problem is the development of food production where it is needed. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who referred to the extremely impressive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale, a week or so ago in this House, in which he emphasised the immense importance of agriculture and how highly intelligent efforts must be made not merely, as has been said, to provide money or even men, but to do a great deal more than that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the reading of that speech of Lord Howick of Glendale ought to be made compulsory for every Member of this House. The essentials of production are land, labour, capital and organisation. But people in the underdeveloped countries must first be educated to use these things and inspired to want what they will provide. Once more we come back to the old point: that expenditures for education constitute one of the most effective forms of development assistance.

Dr. Trueman, the Secretary of the Canadian Freedom from Hunger Committee, warns us that we must not allow our attention to what is going on in the major part of the world, affecting two-thirds of the world's population, to be distracted by the banging of the fists on conference tables, by the blast of rockets from launching pads, and by the building of walls dividing nations. He says—and I quote him: What I hear is the babble of millions of children's voices in schools, where no schools previously existed; the lapping of water in new irrigation channels; the sound of millions of better ploughs moving through the good earth, and the lowing of healthier cattle on a thousand hills. Hundreds of millions whose forbears patiently accepted lives of misery are involved in what is, and has been, called "the revolution of rising expectations." What has been, up till the past quarter of a century, a distinct dream has now become a passionate demand.

The historian, Arnold Toynbee, has expressed the hope that this age will be remembered because it is the first generation in history in which mankind dared to believe it practical to make the benefits of civilisation available to the whole human race. That is the sentiment enshrined in the concluding half of the communiqué of the Commonwealth Conference, as I see it; and that owes a very great deal to the inspiration of our own Prime Minister.

5.28 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, it has been my good fortune to visit most of the Commonwealth countries regularly each year on business. And by the way, journeys of that kind are the royal road to knowledge of the Commonwealth, and maybe of service to it, for those people who, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester said, were not born soon enough to be Colonial civil servants or Pro-Consuls. So I thought I might say a word or two about some of the problems of trade as they are affected by the rapidly changing conditions in the Commonwealth countries. If I do that I may have to declare a business interest now and then; and in doing it, I should not like to be thought to minimise the importance of the other aspects—the political aspects, the defence aspect, and the cultural aspect.

However, I shall stick to the trade aspect, because that will take me all the time that I am entitled to ask the House to give me. After all, the Commonwealth as it stands represents a commercial interest of the greatest importance to this country and, indeed, to all the other countries in the Commonwealth. What is more, commercial intercourse and trade represent the day-to-day realities of Commonwealth co-operation and on the friendships or the antagonisms which arise from that a great deal of political development or otherwise will depend.

Of course, it is perfectly true that some of the older Commonwealth countries, like Australia and New Zealand, have a growing manufacturing potential and are engaged on diversifying their export markets, in my view quite rightly. Therefore, it is perfectly true that those countries are less dependent on the United Kingdom than they were a generation ago; but I doubt that that really is a matter for regret, and I think that it is better so. The volume of trade in those directions is still very large in-deed, and let us hope and pray that it will remain so. And, of course, our Commonwealth trade, however beneficial or otherwise it may be to the Commonwealth—and I think that it is extremely beneficial—is, economically, absolutely vital to this country. It is absolutely vital that we should engage in it and should obtain a proper return on our investments and our commercial enterprise abroad.

I was not going to say very much this afternoon about the problem of trade in the older countries. That was all discussed very fully two years ago at the time of the Common Market proposals. While those proposals have not come to fruition in the expected sense, they have none the less had the effect, especially in Australia and New Zealand, of directing the attention of people to those countries, to other markets which hitherto they had barely explored, such as those in the United States, in the Far East, and to a lesser extent on the Continent. All that has been completely to the good. It is a very good thing, for example, that New Zealanders should have found alternative outlets for their mutton and dairy produce, as opposed to having a moan every time the English have not sufficient appetite to eat all that they happen to send over in a particular season. But the much more important problem, certainly in relation to this last Conference, has been to secure the continuance of trade on modern and sound lines with those Commonwealth countries which are newly independent or which are about to become so. This must be done bearing in mind that the Conference in Cairo, the Organisation of African Unity, may become an economic counter-attraction. I profoundly hope not; I think not; and it would be a bad day if it did.

Our interests in relation to Commonwealth countries are three-fold. We have our fixed investments, such as mines and plantations—things like tea, rubber and sisal. We have our present export position in regard to capital and consumer goods, in which our position, certainly in the newly independent Commonwealth countries, has hitherto been absolutely dominant. I shall come back to that in a moment. Then, of course, there are the usual invisible exports like banking, insurance and shipping, in which again we have hitherto held a completely dominant position. To take fixed investments, those who manage them are faced at the moment with two main problems, the problem of management in the countries concerned and the problem of taxation. The management problem arises because there is a steady and growing demand for the employment of nationals of the countries concerned in responsible management positions. That is quite right: it has to be accepted and has to be dealt with. But the physical possibility of, say, Africanising a plantation in Kenya is governed by the pace at which proper management can be produced.

To take, for example, something I know a little about, the tea industry, one can now get Indian tea assistants for plantations in India. One cannot yet get African tea assistants in Africa; they hardly exist at all. Private enterprise in those countries has had to wait until the output of the agricultural colleges has caught pace with the demand in the Government agricultural services. I mention that as a practical problem which only time and goodwill will solve.

Then, again, the products from our fixed investments, whether they be mining products or agricultural products, have to be produced at prices which are competitive when they reach the markets for which they are destined. This cannot be so if in the countries concerned wage rates are forced up beyond a certain point, or if taxes are forced up beyond a certain level, or if ill-advised exchange control regulations are imposed. All these things not only will prevent the investors from getting a proper return on their capital and therefore deter them from investing any more money than they can possibly help, but also in the countries concerned will have the effect of killing the geese which are laying the golden eggs. There again is another major problem. Both the things I have mentioned have undoubted attractions, attractions which cause people to want to be in too much of a hurry. This applies particularly to politicians who are newly arrived in power. It does not matter where the politicians are or what race they are, they probably behave in the same way. Here is a problem again which only good will and patience can solve.

I should like now to look for a moment at the export problem, particularly in regard to capital goods because those are the difficult ones, remembering that the buyers are almost invariably Governments or Government organisations in the country concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned a moment ago that the volume of exports to certain countries had gone down. I have no doubt that the figures he quotes are absolutely right, but one of the reasons for this is that a great amount of the dealings between this country and Colonial Governments abroad has been processed through the Crown Agents. This has resulted in a completely "closed shop" for British goods. There again one may regret that the figures have gone down, but I do not regret for a moment that that sort of trade is no longer a "closed shop". I do not think that it was right for the countries concerned, and I doubt very much whether it was good for us. Whether it is or is not does not matter, for that is the state of affairs now and we have to meet it. Tenders put out by the Crown Agents are not now restricted to Commonwealth or United Kingdom firms. They are free to all comers, and therefore in this country the would-be exporters to those countries must take a new look.

We must be able to meet in fair and open fight the other industrial countries of the world which are competing with us, the Germans, the Americans and everybody else. We must compete in a variety of directions. We must compete, as the right reverend Prelate said a moment ago, in technical advice where the order really originates; we must compete in design and delivery, and in service as well as in price. We are also in this country faced with another feature. The competition from foreign countries in large and complicated problems often appears by way of a consortium. The consortium offers a convenient package deal to the country concerned. I do not honestly think that we have been very good in arranging the same sort of consortium under the same conditions, and we may have to do a good deal more about that if we are to make a worthwhile offer, say, to an African or a Far Eastern country on a really big project such as a railway, a hydro-electric installation, or whatever it may be.

None of these projects will come our way unless we can produce financial terms which match those which foreign countries are going to offer. If we do not produce the right financial terms we shall not only lose the particular order that we may be talking about but we may lose our goodwill for many a long day, because once the competitor gets in he is very hard to get out again. I think it is in those directions that the Government can contribute, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, indicated just now.

The noble Lord talked about many things as if they were the province of the Government, which I should hold they are not; they are the province of private enterprise. But I would agree with him that many of the matters surrounding financial plans are, indeed, the province of the Government. For their solution they depend, nominally and officially, on the Export Credits Guarantee Department; in fact, on certain faceless men in the Treasury who stand behind them. It may well turn out that, if we are to get our share of these worthwhile orders and keep our proportion of exports up to the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and I think is right, some more adventurous thinking may be needed in those directions—not that the thinking has not been a little more adventurous lately; I think it has, but perhaps not far enough.

The same thing, I think, applies to a considerable degree in the invisible exports, like banking, insurance and shipping. Here I want to say that the decision to allow Overseas Trading Corporations has helped a very great deal in this respect. Unfortunately, permission to recognise them does not cover the whole field, and for a number of reasons with which I will not burden the House now—but I declare an interest—I think that to extend the overseas trading corporations principle to banking and insurance would be a step of very great importance indeed.

This leads up to something which is very important. I think that a great deal of the future of the Commonwealth as a unit, certainly of its future as an economic unit, is dependent on whether or not these countries decide to remain in the Sterling Area, as I certainly hope they will. And this is the important time, as my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne said just now, when all these matters are in a critical phase in the newly-emergent countries. The achievement of political stability in those countries means infinitely much, not only to them but also to all of us here. If once it is lost it will be hard to regain, and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne will have been right when he said that this last Conference may have been the turning point of history. Certainly, in the almost unthinkable case of Commonwealth countries leaving the Commonwealth for other blocs or alliances, the amount of economic loss, leave alone any other kind of loss, would be almost unthinkable, in whichever direction one cares to look.

So, my Lords, against this background which I have tried to sketch very briefly, one can see how much at this time we need good will, mutual understanding and patience, as my noble friend Lord Glendevon put it; and here may I add my tribute to him for a most delightful and important maiden speech. This patience will have to be displayed by everybody, if damage is not to be done on what I should think to be an absolutely frightening scale. To my mind, it has been a matter for untold good that the Conference should have been held, and should have been held in such a way that not only the official interchanges took place but that a unique forum was provided for all concerned, and their advisers, to discuss matters off the record, without commitment and without rancour.

My Lords, from our own standpoint at home another thing is vital, and that is that the good will and the common thinking achieved at the Conference should be followed up, both here and in other Commonwealth countries, by the High Commissioners and their staffs. Those people must be men of really high calibre, and their staffs, as well as themselves, must be chosen for their powers of working sympathetically with the Ministers and the officials of the new countries. To do this a great many of them, who will have been brought up in old Colonial Office ways, will have to change their thinking, adapt themselves and conduct themselves in ways which would have been unthinkable ten years ago.

Then there is the question, which I think is a very important one, of political contacts with the new African Governments. I should like to stress the immense contribution which is being made, and which has been made, by those High Commissioners who have had political experience and been members of Governments in this country, and who have gone out to perform those immensely important tasks. We all know who they are. That work needs to continue. I think it needs to continue in parallel with the day-today official work of the Commissioners' staffs. The importance of political contacts with these new heads of State ought not to be lost sight of.

So, to the outsider like myself, it seems that this Conference has been an outstandingly successful one, not merely because of the achievements published in the communiqué—and I agree with what many noble Lords have said—not merely because some of the crises which were expected in the Press did not materialise, but even more because one step has been taken, a step in transition, if you like, but also in the maintenance of economic continuity and practice; and, therefore, also a step towards continued economic progress by all the countries concerned.

5.48 p.m.

LORD ALPORT

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to join with other speakers this afternoon, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, upon his maiden speech. It was, I am sure your Lordships will agree, a very proud and proper thing to be able to pay a tribute such as he was able to pay to his late father, and I am sure that had his father been alive at the present time he would have been equally proud of his son on this occasion.

My Lords, I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, should start the Oppo- sition's contribution to our debate by alleging that the Motion which was moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon was, to put it bluntly, an Election ramp. I am sure that the noble Earl is as well aware as we are that the Commonwealth problem, the subject of the Commonwealth, is not in fact a matter which affects the outcomes of Elections one way or another. It has not done so, I am sure, for very many years. But even if there was any connection in the mind of the Prime Minister between the Election and the Conference, he would surely never have proposed this Conference at this particular time if he had thought of it in that context at all. It was a risk, and a calculated risk, which he took and which has been acknowledged by noble Lords on both sides of the House.

The object of taking that risk, as I have always understood it, was to try at this particular point of time, quite regardless of the political fortunes here in Britain, to emphasise that the Conference, so far from being a farce or a fading dream and vision for the people of this country or people overseas, offers in its completely new form a prospect of advantage and hope for the future to the statesmen and peoples that make up the Commonwealth. Therefore, I am quite certain that any idea that on this occasion we on this side of the House, in supporting my noble friend the Leader of the House in this Motion, are concerned with the Election is an unfair accusation against us. The truth of the matter is that it would have been wrong had we allowed the occasion of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to pass without marking here, in this country, in Britain, our appreciation of the contribution which was made to its success, not only by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister but, as others have said, by all those who took part in it.

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to confine myself to two points. One refers to what was regarded as the most difficult of all the problems that faced the Prime Ministers on that occasion, the problem of Southern Rhodesia. I am very glad to have the assurance of my noble friend the Leader of the House that in fact the internal problems and policies of that country were not discussed at the Conference. I have always thought it very dangerous to the future of Commonwealth deliberations if the principle that Prime Ministers do not discuss the internal affairs of member countries were ever breached. Indeed, I am quite certain, if I may draw this analogy, that one of the mistakes made in the United Nations has been to allow the internal affairs of member countries to be discussed there, and to depart from the wise provisions contained in the United Nations Charter, Article 2(7). But this has not been done in the case of this Conference. All that was done, so far as I understand it, was to discuss the effects of the situation there upon the Commonwealth and upon the membership of the various countries concerned; and that was obviously a right and proper subject for discussion.

As was made quite clear at the beginning of the Conference, the Southern Rhodesian issue was not going to be allowed to disrupt the fabric and associations of the Commonwealth. That was made clear publicly, I thought (and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me) with very great courage, by the Prime Minister of Kenya and others in that initial television interview. It is widely believed in Rhodesia at the present time that not only are their affairs the football of Commonwealth politics, but also that their affairs are used as a football by political Parties here in this country. I have already said, and I hope you will agree with me, that I do not believe for one moment that the issue of the Constitution in Southern Rhodesia will affect the Election here, or Party fortunes, one way or another when the next Election comes. It is therefore possible and proper, I should have thought, to take a view of the situation in Southern Rhodesia at this present time, and to initiate a line of policy with regard to the situation there, which will conceivably help to end the present position of stalemate and difficulty which certainly exists at the present time. I do not think that a statement of policy on the matter need wait for the months that separate us from the Election.

I feel—and this is a purely personal view—that some of the difficulties in which we have found ourselves with regard to the developments that have taken place in Central Africa over these last years, have been due to a reluctance here to take the initiative in setting out certain positive lines of policy at a sufficiently early stage to enable us to keep that initiative in our hands and not allow it to pass into the hands of others. There is no doubt, from such information as I have received, that so far as the general public in Southern Rhodesia are concerned they believe that there is little alternative between the present position in which they find themselves and a unilateral declaration of independence in due course. My Lords, this is simply not true. It is not true that there is no alternative or no third course possible in handling the problems of that country.

Perhaps I may go back to the Constitution which is at present in being in Southern Rhodesia. The assumption upon which that Constitution was based was that over a period of time, over the period of these years, the economic situation in the territory would enable an increasing number of Africans to qualify to exercise the vote fully. Expansion of education, on the one hand, and economic opportunity, on the other hand, would combine to bring, over a reasonable period of time—the estimates differed between five and fifteen years—a number of Africans into the full enjoyment of suffrage, and thus, by a healthy, reasoned and stable course, ensure a constitutional development in the territory which would make it possible for Africans and Europeans to enjoy together political responsibilities and opportunities. It was, I believe, a fundamentally sound attitude to constitutional development in the context of Southern Rhodesia.

However, the Constitution that exists at the present moment makes that expectation difficult to realise. There is, as we know, economic stagnation in Southern Rhodesia, There is, and has been, and will continue to be on the present course, increasing unemployment, not only European, but principally African. The chances of more Africans qualifying, either educationally or by property qualification, in order to exercise the vote, and therefore to produce that balance between European and African which was the aim of the present Constitution, are frankly becoming dimmer.

I believe, as I have said, that that Constitution was a good one. I believe that in the process of time—and a reasonably short time—had prosperity and stable conditions continued in Southern Rhodesia, it would have produced the results and the ends at which it aimed. I feel, therefore, that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned here in Britain, we have a duty to try lo ensure that that Constitution does work in accordance with the original plans and purposes. That can be done, in the first place, only by trying to help materially with the maintenance and extension of the educational opportunities open to the African population. I believe that an effort, a generous effort, on the part of this country in that respect—to help, in the first place, with the development of secondary education; in the second place, with the provision of administrative training for Africans; and, in the third place, with the extension of opportunities for professional training for Africans in Southern Rhodesia which their own resources may not be able to provide—would go far to ensure not only a wider understanding of the practicality of the existing constitutional system but also, in the eyes of the world, Britain's good faith in carrying out the experiment to which it set its hand when the Constitution was inaugurated some two or three years ago.

We have a reponsibility, too, to help to ease and get going again the economy of that territory. In a very short time, in a matter of weeks now, that other great overseas country, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) will become independent. And of the many burdens this country has had on its shoulders over these years, the last, or biggest, with the possible exception of British Guiana, will be Southern Rhodesia. I am sure your Lordships will agree that after the tremendous record which this country and this Government have had of constructive work in the development, political, economical and cultural, of overseas territories, this, the last of the challenges, must be met generously and constructively. In those circumstances, I do not believe that we need wait until after the Election before tackling the Southern Rhodesian problem. I believe that along the practical lines I have suggested some progress can be made; and I believe that progress along those lines is progress in the spirit of that development which we hoped to see for that territory right from the time when self-government was first accorded to it in 1923.

My Lords, the second point I should like to mention to-night is that I am quite certain that, so far as the Prime Ministers are concerned, and so far as the leading public men in the various Commonwealth territories are concerned, the Commonwealth is a living and meaningful thing. But it will not have a profound influence over the lives of the people who form the great proportion of the Commonwealth unless it has some significance to them, and, in particular, since we are concerned only with our own people here in Britain, unless it has some significance to the people, and the young people, of Britain. I find myself, curiously enough (because we disagree on other points), coming very close to the thesis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in last week's debate. I can see an alarming increase in the Commonwealth and more especially outside it—certainly in Europe, and perhaps, for all I know, in the American Continent and elsewhere—of that nationalism which we in our generation have assumed will never trouble us again. My experience of the Council of Europe makes it clear that nationalism is now once again, twenty-five years after the beginning of the last war, a factor that is assuming dangerous proportions.

We in the Commonwealth have based the whole of the approach to constitutional development to independence upon nationalism. We have accepted it, although we have sometimes tried to control its less desirable and destructive elements. But there is in the Commonwealth, in the new nations that have been created, a strong sense of nationalism. What I feel was so significant about this last Conference was that there was apparently less of a feeling on the part of the leaders of these new nation States that they had at all costs to safeguard their own national status and prestige. Therefore it seems to me—and the point may have already struck your Lordships—that the real aim and object of this new Commonwealth, which is different from everything we knew in our youth and which we were brought up to work for and to understand and study, can be to provide a doorway, as it were, from the narrow confines of nationalism, as interpreted at the present time, which has caused so much damage in the past, into a wider international concept which would strike not only the idealism of people of this country but also the idealism of people overseas.

There is a danger at the present time of nationalism, in its old sense, returning to be the curse of another generation, just as it has been a curse of ours. We in this country understand proper patriotism and proper feelings of nationalism, in its narrow sense; but the excesses of nationalism are something we must avoid at all costs. They exist and are growing at the present time. It may well be that the purpose of the new Commonwealth will be to ensure that there is a group of countries, consisting of peoples of different races, powerful, liberally-minded and dedicated, who can bring to a new generation an understanding of the importance of the international point of view and thereby save another generation from the excesses and disasters of the narrow nationalisms which have plagued our Continent in the past.

6.7 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think we were all overjoyed and relieved to find that the Commonwealth Conference, about which so many dire prophecies had been made, went off so well. I feel certain that the Prime Minister "himself, with his charm and instinct for guidance, must have played a very big part in that result. I want first of all to make a plea on behalf of some of the new African States. Some say we have conceded self-rule too soon and that they are not ready. But ready for what? We start a Parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model and then we leave. What proportion of the peoples of the globe are at the moment, or have ever been, ruled by this particular form of Parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model? My Lords, remarkably few.

It is not surprising that after we have gone our ex-Colonial territories find they have not reached that advanced stage of political sagacity and wide toleration required for the successful working of the Westminster model. It does not mean that if the Westminster model does not suit you and that you do not suit the Westminster model, you are incapable of self-government. Actually what we have left behind in Africa is being rapidly adapted to something much more complete and more suitable to local conditions. This looks like taking the form of the one-Party State supporting the rule of the strong man. This is Parliamentary rule of a sort because Parliament continues to exist. It means merely that the professional Opposition does not get elected. The system is probably more democratic than in those countries where Parliament never gets elected at all.

Now one-Party, strong-man States have, as we know them, certain very grave long-term dangers; but we must remember that almost invariably they start well, whether in Europe or in South America. The strong men have been almost universally held as a great success for the first few years of their rule. With our great political experience, we can at least try to point out the dangers and the hope that in the long term they will not eventuate. I hope that we can create rather more understanding of the problems than seems to exist at present. Because ex-Colonial Parliaments diverge from the Westminster model, that does not mean that they are necessarily heading for perdition. It more often means that they are heading for a simpler form of government, much more suitable and much more efficient in their hands than a more sophisticated system would be.

Our system is based on toleration of your opponents, and it takes generations to create such toleration. It is well known that other people do not necessarily have it. A certain author went for a picnic with the Jagan family, and a negro on a bicycle who went past shouted some abuse at them. Dr. Jagan's remark was, "It is only in England that you learn to be polite to your opponents." I hope that our representatives in these new countries will not look down their noses at a bit of autocracy or panache in the new rulers. We want men who will be in the confidence of the new rulers, play with them, eat with them, drink with them, and they will then have a better chance of being able to give timely advice, without appearing to be officious, than if they are of the stiff, old colonial-rule style of the past.

All these countries are on a well-trodden path. In the last century, the colonial territories of Spain and Portugal became free in Central and South America. Some of them had an almost wholly African population, some of them a very large African population. In the last hundred years or so these countries between them have committed every conceivable form of political, social and economic blunder, as they would be the first to admit, and from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn the monuments of these mistakes are apparent. The African States cannot say that the warnings are not there. The problem is how to bring them to their notice. This is matter which I think should have the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

I understand that there is to be some sort of staff college for the civil servants from these territories. Staff colleges where the students receive lectures on colonial administration from ex-colonial administrators are worth while, educative and salutary. But we also want lectures about the systems of government that have been tried out by ex-colonial territories and all the things that have been found wanting. We do not want to turn this college into giving an Oxford degree course in the systems of government of the Greeks and the Romans. Let us concentrate on events nearer in time, such as the events in Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Venezuela.

It is probably in the economic field that the new rulers will be tempted to their worst mistakes, and I would commend to them the excellent advice given by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. It is in this field where we should be expected to give a great deal of help. I fully agree with the slogan, "Trade, not aid." The Colonial territories complain that the more they grow the less they receive. As your Lordships will be aware from an article in the Financial Times to-day, the unfortunate tobacco growers in Southern Rhodesia have grown a fantastic crop, with the result that they look like ruining themselves.

It is possible that commodity agreements can be made, such as we have done for sugar, but the great thing is to try to find entirely new markets. New markets are gradually created in the old industrial countries of Europe as the standard of living rises. We want a few more bananas and oranges and other tropical products. But if we want a real breakthrough, we have to go behind the Iron Curtain, where they cannot afford to buy any of the products of the tropics at the moment. If we could get the Russians eating bananas—they are starting to buy tropical sugar—we should begin an enormous increase in the consumption of tropical goods. The snag, of course, is that Russia has to sell goods in return and the Russian goods are not of great attraction, in either quality or price. Moreover, they are accompanied by the suspicion of subversive propaganda on a large scale. There is a minor field, which I commend to Her Majesty's Government, in getting the countries of Europe to stop taxing coffee as a luxury drink. This would make a great difference to almost all the tropical countries in the world.

I share some of the apprehension of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the increase in synthetic substitutes for the natural products of these countries. If I were a cotton grower in a semi-tropical country, I should not view with equanimity the idea of the biggest man-made fibre producers in this country buying up the biggest group of cotton spinners. My noble friend Lord Bridge-man spoke of communications. Of course these are vital, but I do not think that he made the point that the populations of these countries are increasing at such a rate that communications will be required for that reason alone, because the people will be spreading over the country.

In Africa, in particular, I regard the economic and political problem to a large extent that of creating a slightly moneyed middle class. At the moment that does not exist. This is the exact opposite to the East, where often the problem is to try to ease the middle class of some of their ill-gotten gains. Once we have a moneyed class in Africa it will then be possible to find local capital springing up, which will make general economic development much easier. Finally, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their magnificent handling of this Conference.

6.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I should like first to join other noble Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, on his maiden speech. Some of your Lordships will remember with affection the noble Lord's father, who took an active part in the work of the House before he went to India. I think that he was mainly interested in agriculture. I remember some awkward moments, when I offered him a lift from the House in my mini-car and he had considerable difficulty in disentangling his legs, which almost got tied up in knots as he got in and out of my car. But those noble Lords who remember the noble Lord's father will appreciate the tribute he paid to him. Indeed, we hope that the noble Lord, continuing this great family tradition of service to the Commonwealth and to this House, will often be with us again in debates to come.

I should also like to say, following in this respect what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, how glad I am about the return to our debates, after a long interval of time, of the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne. Again, many of us remember the comparatively old days when the noble Viscount never missed a debate on the Colonies or the Commonwealth, and was always a prominent figure. He is now, I suppose, one of the greatest living elder statesmen of the Commonwealth, and we always listen with immense respect and interest to what he says about the Commonwealth. I must say that I found his speech this afternoon to be the finest Commonwealth speech I have listened to, here or elsewhere, for a long time.

The tone of this debate has shown, I think, that even within three months of a General Election, your Lordships can discuss the Commonwealth in an objective spirit and without regard to considerations of Party interest or advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the House, when he opened the debate claimed that he was "a Commonwealth man", and that was his reason for introducing a Motion on the Commonwealth, in spite of the fact that he is a Minister at the Foreign Office. Of course, we all agree that the noble Lord is a good Commonwealth man But so are we all good Commonwealth men, to whatever Party we belong; and we judge the value of this Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference by the contribution it has made to the welfare of the Commonwealth.

Listening to the various speeches, I noted that the emphasis was different, and the approach of noble Lords to the Conference was different, because of their own particular interest in the Commonwealth. To me, the most encouraging feature of the Conference was the Commonwealth-mindedness of the leaders of the new Commonwealth countries, and the value they obviously attach to the Commonwealth relationship. Here I agree completely with everything that was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne. He paid a most eloquent tribute to the moderation, restraint and willingness to compromise of the leaders from the new Commonwealth countries, and said that this was equally conspicuous here and in Cairo.

We must remember their point of view: they take a very strong line because they feel deeply about colonialism and neo-colonialism. There was a danger that their very strong convictions might have caused a rift between them and the leaders of the old Commonwealth countries. But nothing of the kind happened. On the contrary, the outstanding achievement of the Conference, the setting up of a Commonwealth Secretariat, was due largely to their initiative and their support. It is indeed remarkable, when one looks back over past years, that this proposal for a Commonwealth Secretariat, which has been turned down again and again, because it was said that this meant the domination of Whitehall, was in fact put up by the new Commonwealth countries. It is quite evident from what has been said from both sides of the House this afternoon that we all welcome the fact that these new Commonwealth countries are just as anxious as the old ones for closer co-operation within the Commonwealth in this and in other directions.

We also welcome the growing influence of these new countries on the rest of the Commonwealth. I suppose it was the first time in the history of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences (my noble friend Lord Attlee will tell me if I am wrong) that a British Prime Minister has had to tear up the agenda and start again because his agenda was not approved by the new members. I think there can be no doubt after this Conference that the Commonwealth is, not only in theory but in fact, an association of equals and that this country is no longer primus inter pares.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that we are too "Anglo-centric"; and I agree with him. But I am not sure that what the noble Earl said was consistent with a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he said that "we are at the centre of it", referring to the Commonwealth. How dangerous these metaphors about the Commonwealth are! I hope the noble Lord was not suggesting that we are at the centre and that the other Commonwealth countries are more distant from it. I cannot help feeling that we have to be extremely careful about these metaphors, and that even the most distinguished Members of the House can be led astray if they are used a little carelessly. I even wonder whether the metaphor about the "Commonwealth family" is quite appropriate. Usually I think it is slightly inappropriate, because we cast ourselves for the rôle of mother, or of older brother or sister. If we use this metaphor, we must, mentally, at any rate, regard all members of the Commonwealth as identical twins, neither more nor less intelligent; neither more nor less beautiful; neither younger nor older than any of the others. Seriously, I think we must look on all members of the Commonwealth as equal in importance, but naturally different in their national characteristics and their national resources.

While such solidarity as was shown at the Conference between the members of the Commonwealth is absolutely essential, it is no less essential that the Commonwealth should not become an exclusive inward-looking group of nations. I was therefore particularly glad to see the references in the communiqué on the Conference to the United Nations. It is difficult to find something that has not been talked about in the course of this debate, but here I think I am breaking fresh ground, and I should like to say one or two words about where I think the Commonwealth might play an even bigger part in the work of the United Nations.

I feel that there are two directions in which the Commonwealth could make a really big contribution to the effectiveness of the United Nations. One is by strengthening its peace-keeping machinery, in order, as the communiqué puts it—and I quote: to reduce the degree of improvisation required in an emergency". I am sure your Lordships would agree that a fire brigade should be able to operate immediately, instead of having to wait to go to the fire until a number of different authorities have agreed to supply men and equipment. But that is not the position of the United Nations at the present time. This difficulty of delay in securing agreement was illustrated by the recruitment of the United Nations force that was sent recently to Cyprus. What is needed is an international force which can go immediately to wherever it is required. The Scandinavian countries have already set a fine example by earmarking contingents from their own national armed forces which are training for this purpose and are available to the United Nations whenever they may be required. I hope that one of the results of this Conference will be that all the Commonwealth Governments, possibly through this new Commonwealth Secretariat, will explore and discuss together the possibility of supporting an international force of this kind.

The second way in which I think the Commonwealth could strengthen the United Nations would be by bridging the gap between the rich and the poor nations—really, if I may put it in this way, leading the battle against poverty and want in the Parliament of Man. I think that would be a great rôle for the Commonwealth to play. The United Nations, of course, is often divided by differences, arising from views on colonialism and on economics, between the North and the South, between the rich and the poor nations; and we have often found ourselves, as a Government, in the embarrassing position of being in a minority, with the majority of our Commonwealth friends on the other side. The Commonwealth should be able to bridge these differences, because it is a combination of North and South, rich and poor nations: as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, very well put it, a microcosm of the world. Here is an opportunity for the Commonwealth to take a leading part in helping the United Nations to make a success of the trade and aid programmes in its development decade.

May I give one example, something which I think is worth considering? Why should not the Commonwealth offer to accommodate in a Commonwealth capital the new trade organisation which the General Assembly of the United Nations will set up this autumn? Why should not this new organisation of the United Nations have its headquarters in London or, perhaps, in New Delhi? New York, Paris, Rome and Geneva all accommodate important headquarters of the United Nations and its Agencies. But so far there is not one United Nations headquarters in a Commonwealth capital. I hope that that is an idea which the Commonwealth Governments will consider.

I think that everyone in the course of this debate has welcomed the new piece of Commonwealth internal governmental machinery, the Commonwealth Secretariat. It will undoubtedly serve a useful purpose. We have to refrain from commenting on it at the moment, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, told us, its nature and functions have not yet been defined, and a Committee has been appointed to go into the whole matter. Nevertheless, I hope that one point will be considered very carefully when the new Secretariat is in process of preparation; that is, that there should be no duplication of the work now done by the Commonwealth Relations Office as a channel of information and communication between us and other Commonwealth Governments. If there were such duplication it would be a dreadful waste, and in the course of time it would probably kill the Commonwealth Relations Office because it would no longer have anything to do.

I see plenty of scope for the Secretariat without trespassing at all on the ground now occupied by the Commonwealth Relations Office. I hope that that is clear in the minds of those who have been appointed to do this job. Above all, I think it is a good thing that preparation of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences, ministerial conferences, and communication between different Com- monwealth countries, as distinct from this country and other Commonwealth countries, should be the responsibility of the Commonwealth and not of this country. I think that itself is a tremendous step forward.

But there is a gloomy side, too, and I do not think we should try to escape from it. We cannot disguise the fact that there are serious differences of opinion within the Commonwealth. These are recorded in the communiqué, and the most serious, perhaps, concern policy in relation to Southern Africa, particularly Southern Rhodesia and South Africa. These differences of opinion and policy must be carefully watched. They are still a threat to the unity of the Commonwealth. Everything possible should be done to narrow the gap between us. So far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned, I would say only this—and here again I shall say what other noble Lords have said on both sides of the House. I hope that Mr. Smith will change his mind and meet the Prime Minister soon—because, according to reports, he has expressed the view that he does not want to meet the Prime Minister. And I hope that, when this meeting takes place, the Prime Minister will succeed in persuading him to drop the idea of unilateral independence, and to arrange another constitutional Conference.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that Mr. Smith has been fully informed by the Government of the consequences to his own country of unilateral independence. That is an excellent first step. But, my Lords, surely that is not enough. There is something else that is of equal importance; that is, that Mr. Smith's own people in Southern Rhodesia, his own supporters, and the whole electorate in Southern Rhodesia, should realise the consequences that an illegal course of action would entail for them and for their country. I hope, for example, that they will study the public statement made at a meeting in Salisbury this month by Sir Robert Tredgold, a former Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia, about the legal consequences of a unilateral declaration of independence. There are other things that should be noted by the electorate in Southern Rhodesia. There is the agreement between all the Commonwealth countries not to recognise a Southern Rhodesian Government set up in this way. The African Commonwealth countries, of course, have gone a step further. At the Cairo Conference, they said that they would recognise an African Government in exile. The absolutely disastrous consequences of these decisions of policy for Southern Rhodesia should be recognised, not just by the Government but by all the people of that country.

The one final request I have to make to the Government is this—and here again, I follow in the footsteps of another speaker, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I hope that the decisions taken at this Conference will be adequately followed up. If the Commonwealth is to reap the benefit of the Conference, and to reap all the fruits of its work, then its decisions will have to be followed up over a long period of time. I hope that the Government in this country will play their full part in seeing that these decisions are followed up with the utmost speed and efficiency.

6.36 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, it is with really exceptional pleasure that I rise to reply to this debate. I have listened to all except one of the speeches, and I find myself in almost total agreement with everything that has been said from all sides of the House. It has also been a debate remarkable for the distinction of its speakers.

I should like to join with everyone else (at the risk of possibly seeming impertinent, for he in a former senior colleague of mine) and offer my warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, on his maiden speech. It is not only a source of satisfaction to all of us on our side of the House to know that we shall have his support for many years to come, but I think it will be of satisfaction to noble Lords on all sides of the House to know that in him we have, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who leads the House, yet another true and good Commonwealth man who will add his wise counsels to Commonwealth affairs as and when they are discussed in this House. It has been a great Commonwealth occasion, particularly with that remarkable con- tribution by the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne.

I think it only fitting that the last major debate on external affairs to be held in this House during the lifetime of this Parliament should be a debate on Commonwealth affairs. I, of course, have no doubts as to the outcome of the next Election, but it is reassuring to know—and it will, I feel certain, bring great comfort to all our friends throughout the Commonwealth who read this afternoon's debate—that, no matter which Party comes to power, the cause of the Commonwealth will be the mainstay of its policies.

The last thing I wish to do is in any way to strike a sour note in winding up this debate, but I must confess, with all respect and humility, that I was a little distressed by the perhaps slightly sour note struck in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in opening for the Opposition. He talked about the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences as being fairly important occasions. Surely, my Lords, they are much more than that. I was only sorry that the noble Earl was not in his place when the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, gave his opinion of the importance of the meeting that has just been concluded. This, I think, put it in its true perspective.

With all respect, I think it is doing less than justice to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and, indeed, to the Government as a whole, to think that this debate was held for narrow Party advantage. Of course, it was not. It was held at the very end of this Parliament to show, and to re-emphasise, the great importance we attach to the Commonwealth and to its future. Having said that, I think the balance was more than redressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and indeed by that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, so I think that on this issue we can all rest happy that we are all united in our belief in the Commonwealth and in the way ahead.

If I may take a number of points that have been raised—I am not sure whether I should cover them all or not, because if I do we shall be here for a long time; if I do not I do not wish to show any discourtesy to any Member—the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and other noble Lords talked about the Commonwealth Secretariat. All have welcomed this. I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, expressed some anxiety lest it should be merely a lobby for the British point of view concerning the Commonwealth, as opposed to a totally neutral Commonwealth body helping every country. I can assure the noble Earl on that. I have no doubt that the new personnel for the Commonwealth Secretariat, when they come to be chosen, will be seen to reflect all shades of opinion of the Commonwealth. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we are just one of equals, and I am sure that we shall see there is no special distinction and no special British element in the Commonwealth Secretariat, and that it will preserve the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole.

One apprehension I had before this debate started was that some misguided noble Lord might express the view that has been expressed, not in Parliament but in fairly responsible circles outside, that the formation of a Commonwealth Secretariat would mean that the Commonwealth Relations Office would cease to have a vital rôle to play. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have agreed that the rôle of the C.R.O. must continue and that the creation of the Commonwealth Secretariat makes no difference to its role. It is obvious, because the Commonwealth Relations Office exists not only to promulgate good Commonwealth relations, but also to put forward the views of Her Majesty's Government. That is one thing the Commonwealth Secretariat should not do. It will exist to represent the Commonwealth as a whole. As I see it, the rôle of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Commonwealth Secretariat are complementary to achieving good and happy relations throughout the Commonwealth. Indeed, it seems to me that to suggest that the creation of the Commonwealth Secretariat would mean that the Commonwealth Relations Office was no longer necessary, would be the same as saying that the Foreign Office ceased to be necessary when the United Nations came into being. That seems to be, if not an exact analogy, one that is very similar.

I should like to turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, which, as always, was an extremely helpful contribution. It was good, though not unexpected, to hear his forthright support and praise of the Conference and the fact that, if there was a fault concerning this debate, it was that we had not had similar debates in the past. He returned to his question of the Judicial Committee and I am glad, as he is, that a number of newly independent countries are not, at any rate for the time being, cutting this very important tie of Commonwealth relations. He knows that I agree with him. But I would just say this regarding appeals to the Judicial Committee. One must appreciate the difficulties they pose for newly-independent countries because, although responsible people know how totally independent the Committee's judgments are, this procedure can be misinterpreted by people who do not wish the Commonwealth well as some smear on the total sovereignty of the newly independent countries, and it can be said that by this link they are still tied to us in some way or other. We know it is not true, but mischievous people do misrepresent it. One must therefore be slow to criticise countries which do cut this link, because one must realise the special difficulties that these appeals pose.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also made a point about the delays in delivery of naval craft to Malaysia. I would say this to the noble Lord: that we have had no complaints from the Malaysian Government that these deliveries are not up to schedule.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, Tunku Abdul Rahman expressed that view last week in public and has expressed it in public previously.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I have not seen the Tunku's latest complaint, but certainly prior to that we have had no representations from the Malaysian authorities that these supplies are falling behind.

My Lords, I should now like to turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, which has rightly received tributes from all over the House. Also, as a Minister who has been in Commonwealth Relations Office for some time now, I would pay a warm tribute to his work as Chairman of the Royal Commonwealth Society. He has done marvellous work. Certainly the ties of Commonwealth have benefited from having him there, and we all hope and trust that he will be there in this very important rôle for many years to come. He talked of one of the great troubles within the world and said, as has been said several times, the Commonwealth being the world in microcosm, that one of the great difficulties in both the world and the Commonwealth is racial troubles. Another great trouble is that which has again been alluded to by a number of speakers—the gulf in living standards between the developed countries and the developing countries. These two problems of racialism and bridging the economic gulf will keep men of ability, foresight and wisdom occupied for the remaining decades of this century.

My Lords, the Commonwealth, owing to its composition, has the opportunity to become a forum, an opportunity which it has taken, where these two great issues can be threshed out to the mutual benefit not only of the Commonwealth but of the entire world. These problems are, of course, the concern of the United Nations, but the deliberations of the United Nations cannot, at any rate in the foreseeable future, establish the intimacy and, above all, the privacy of Commonwealth meetings. Statements in the United Nations receive the widest publicity and those who make them have to consider the reaction they will cause both in the country of the speaker and in the world at large; but Commonwealth discussion is "off the record", and leading statesmen throughout the world, whether African, Asian, European or coming from the Caribbean, whether aligned or non-aligned, not only can say what they really think but can also explain in confidence their own problems and their own domestic pressures and how difficult it is for them to take what would appear to people with other views a reasonable attitude. Thus, the talk can be far freer and franker than it ever can become in the United Nations.

After a meeting such as we have just had, the leaders of the Commonwealth go back to their respective countries—and, as we all know, the Commonwealth occupies approximately a quarter of the world's land surface and contains approxi- mately a quarter of the population; there is no quarter of the globe where there is not a Commonwealth country—and can talk in confidence and pass on to their neighbours, wherever they be, what was the consensus of opinion of the leaders of a community that bestrides the world. They can say: "Britain is difficult over this particular point because they have pressures here and pressures there. It is difficult for Malaysia to take this attitude because of certain pressures and difficulties". So the true facts and true background, as opposed to attitudes which are taken up on public forums, can be explained and got over and gradually percolate through to the countries of the world.

One day, let us hope, the leaders of all the countries of the world will be able to meet in similar circumstances to those in which the leaders of the Commonwealth meet to-day—but that is in the future; possibly in the distant future. In the meantime, I regard Commonwealth meetings, Commonwealth exchange of information, whether it be on the lines of promoting peace, the means of settling racial conflict or of bringing the standards of living of the underprivileged ever closer to those of the wealthy countries, as not only fulfilling an immensely important rôle in themselves but also as being a pilot scheme for future world co-operation. One day, perhaps, the Commonwealth will not be necessary, but that day will not come until the relationships between the other countries of the globs are the same as they are between the countries of the Commonwealth to-day.

A number of speakers have touched on the question of our contribution and our responsibilities to the other countries of the Commonwealth. I was particularly struck, as I am sure all Members of the House were, by the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chester. At the risk of being frivolous, as this was his third speech, I should like to congratulate him on the way he keeps his form, and I wish he could transfer it to some of our batsmen. He talked about how we could help the developing countries and, above all, the rôle of youth in this field. I agree very strongly, and I feel it is not beyond our wit somehow to convert what has become the rather perverted high spirits and the spirit of adventure in young people into a sense of purpose to serve people less fortunate than themselves.

However, let the case not go unspoken of what we really do in that most splendid of all voluntary organisations, Voluntary Service Overseas. Compared to the Peace Corps it is small, but it is expanding rapidly. May I give some figures? The House will know that Voluntary Service Overseas is divided into two halves: school-leavers finishing secondary education, and graduates who have just finished university. In 1963 we sent out 250 graduates and 300 school-leavers. This year the number of graduates has increased to 500 and the number of school-leavers has increased to 370. Next year, 1965, the numbers of graduates will be doubled to 1,000, while the number of school-leavers is still under discussion. The Government are now paying, or will in the future pay, rather more than half the expenditure, but the rest comes from voluntary organisations.

I would say two things to the critics who say that this is too small. First of all, I think it is very important that this work should be voluntary, and if it grows too quickly I think it would have to be taken over by the Government and cease to be voluntary, and this would be a pity. Secondly, I think it is in the interests of the developing countries themselves that V.S.O. should not grow too quickly; it would be all too easy for the standard of those who volunteered and were sent out to be lowered, and it is true to say that in the sometimes rather delicate political conditions that exist in the developing countries one bad chap alone could undo all the good done by others in that particular territory, quite apart from ramifications elsewhere. Of course we want it to grow and it will grow, but if we are to keep the high standard we must keep it voluntary, and we cannot wave a magic wand and get tens of thousands overnight. I would take the opportunity of paying tribute to all those who work so hard and have done so much to make this movement a byword in voluntary service.

The noble Lord, Lord Walston, as usual, made an extremely interesting and well-informed speech. I should like to deal with what he said about trade, although to a certain extent this was covered by other speakers afterwards, particularly by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, was critical that Commonwealth trade, both on the import side and on the export side, was dropping. Commonwealth trade is a complicated matter, and this is not the occasion on which to go into it at any length, but I would make one generalisation which I think is fair. The pattern of trade which was established in 1932 in Ottawa has changed rapidly, for many reasons; and not least because many countries are now trying to diversify their economy and we are growing far more food than we used to. Before the war, Australia sold five times more wheat to us than to Japan. Now, they sell twice the amount to Japan that they sell to us. That is one example of the way the pattern has changed.

On the question of our exports, there are two main points I would make, although one could make many others. The first is one to which my noble friend Lord Bridgeman alluded. On independence, these countries can go and trade where they like, whereas prior to independence they were virtually tied to British goods. It would be less than human nature—and it would not be desirable—if they did not feel: "Now we are our own masters, let us go and see what we can do with Germany and with Japan and with the United States. "That is human nature, and right from their point of view.

The phrase "enlightened self-interest" has been mentioned more than once in this debate. This presents a challenge to our exporters. I am sure they are aware of it—and if they are not they should be. At the vital moment at midnight, when the Union Jack is lowered and the new flag is raised, a vital change comes over the country. If our exporters do not realise this, it is time they did. The second reason is that we have led the field in encouraging developing countries to diversify their economy and go in for industrial development. We are great exporters of industrial goods, but as these countries build up their own industries our selling to them is bound to become harder. Those are two of the difficulties that go some way to answer the arguments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.

With regard to Commonwealth imports to us, I think the main reason they are not larger is that, by and large, the great weight of Commonwealth imports to us are foodstuffs and raw materials. Owing to the fact that our population is increasing comparatively slowly, and because we already have an enormously high consumption of food and raw materials, it is difficult for us to step up the figure substantially. There is the further fact that, owing to the spur of necessity during the war, our own food production increased and we have never gone back to pre-war conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned Swaziland. On Swaziland I would say this: that these are early days. The election was on June 24, if my memory is right, and I think it far better at this stage to let them settle down and to express the hope, which I have every reason to believe will be fulfilled, that the newly elected Ministers will co-operate with officials and see that the path is set fair for Swaziland, as it is in the other two High Commission territories.

With regard to Southern Rhodesia, my noble friend the Leader of the House went fully into this, bearing in mind that it is a very delicate situation, and I hope the House will not wish me to go any further into the constitutional side of the matter. I think my noble friend took it as far as is possible, with discretion and wisdom, at this stage. I confess that Lord Walston's criticism about the Chiefs who came to this country rankled slightly. No one would deny, I believe, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has in recent months had an appalling burden of work to bear—more, I think, than anyone should be asked to do. But in spite of that he interviewed a deputation of Chiefs on two separate occasions when the affairs of Southern Rhodesia were discussed. He entertained them socially himself, and I and other junior Ministers also visited them. I do not wish in any way to "crack up" my Office, but I feel that in this particular case these Chiefs were given reasonable treatment.

I have talked of the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, which was an inspiration to us all; of how right he was, and how much wisdom we learn in listening to his words, and I agree with his statement that we need to look forward and not backward. It is a change in the Commonwealth. The days of Empire are over and the days of the new Commonwealth with us. Let us listen to what this great Commonwealth statesman said and learn from what he said.

The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk made, as one would expect, an extremely intelligent and well-informed speech. I am sorry he is not in his seat to hear what I have to say, although it is quite brief. He talked about the need for Commonwealth links, and particularly of the need for unofficial links. This is something of which we in the C.R.O. are deeply conscious. We have done all we can to encourage unofficial links, whether they be of the professions, of politicians or of sportsmen; and it is to give encouragement to those bodies that the Commonwealth Foundation is to be set up. This is one of the constructive, forward-looking proposals mentioned in the communiqué.

It will have reasonably small beginnings, but it is there to further and to help any idea that will link the Commonwealth more firmly together; and I am sure that these unofficial bodies, which are vital to the conception of the modern Commonwealth, will be substantially helped in the years to come by the setting up of this Foundation. This is, perhaps, a trite thing to say, but we must remember that the Commonwealth is bound together by a multitude of threads, and not by one large rope. I cannot remember sufficiently my history, but in this connection there must be many analogies. I would say that one million threads can bind more tightly and more securely than one rope; and that is, I think, the end at which we should all aim.

I do not want to keep the House longer than your Lordships would wish, but I should like to say a word about the speech of my noble friend Lord Alport. Not only is he a friend, but I have the good fortune to occupy the seat which he used to occupy. I was particularly struck with what he said about the Commonwealth Meeting showing that it is becoming a meeting that counsels moderation. A striking feature was not only the success of the Meeting itself; not only the highly successful communiqué which gave written proof that the counsels of moderation had triumphed, but also the fact that, when the African Members of the Commonwealth went straight to the O.A.U. conference in Cairo—a conference which must have had a pretty heady nationalistic atmosphere—it was noticeable to anyone who read the deliberations of that Conference how the feeling of moderation created here persisted in the quite different atmosphere to be found in Cairo. I am sure that not the least thing for which this recent Conference will be famous is that it showed the triumph of reason and moderation over violence and extremism.

I come now to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I always regret that I am precluded by conventions of the House from calling him as I should be glad to do, "my noble friend." As is so often the case, in what he said I found so much to agree with him. He made two remarks that I thought particularly important. One was that we in the Commonwealth must get away from this idea of this country being in the centre. Noble Lords may have heard this remark before, but it is an analogy with which I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot claim credit for inventing it. If you look at the Commonwealth as a wheel, it is the case that in the old days the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the Commonwealth was that we were the hub and they were the spokes. That has now changed; and, keeping to the analogy of a wheel, I would say that we are all part of the rim, and there is no individual hub and no individual spokes. I am sure that everyone would agree that that is the difference, and that is what we want to work for. I agree, too, that the analogy of the family is a most dangerous and misleading one, because it implies a father or a mother figure, or both, or at least an elder brother concept. But as the noble Earl so rightly said, we are all equal.

He also spoke on ways in which we can strengthen the United Nations. There I found myself in complete agreement with him. I know that what he had to say about an international peacekeeping force would find a quite strong echo in the hearts of Canadian statesmen, and particularly Mr. Lester Pearson, the Canadian Prime Minister. This is a cause dear to his heart. He has taken the initiative several times in this field, and in that particular field the Commonwealth has its champion.

My Lords, I have talked for long enough. I should like to sum up what I feel the meeting stood for and what it meant. I believe that history will show that the 1964 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting proved to be an outstanding landmark along the road of Commonwealth evolution. Noble Lords have paid tribute to the part played by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. All Prime Ministers have played a part in making it the success it was. I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord who said that we must be deeply grateful to the Prime Ministers and representatives of the developing countries who did not have an easy time and who have got their own pressures in the background for what they achieved.

At the same time it is only fair to say that our Prime Minister was the initiator. It had risks, in that the Conference might have failed and he was the Chairman. I should just like to show that this view, of taking pride in what our Prime Minister achieved in the Conference is shared not only by members of his Party. I should like to quote what Sir Robert Menzies said in a television broadcast on his return to Canberra. Among other things, he said: Everybody, I think, at the Conference regarded his contribution"— that is, the contribution of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister— to the Conference, and to the result, as quite outstanding. I think it very proper that this should be said. That comes from a totally outside source.

The modern Commonwealth came into being when first India and then Pakistan chose to become republics but to remain within the Commonwealth. That, I think, is a fact that future historians on the Commonwealth will mark as the vital turning point. I am only sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not in the House, because it was during his Premiership that this great turning point in Commonwealth evolution took place. These far-sighted and statesmenlike decisions by India and Pakistan were followed by others in the intervening period, and have made the modern Commonwealth possible. In terms of history it is still a new conception—less than twenty years old. It is, I think, unique.

These first few years have had their anxieties; but surely these were inevitable. There is always difficulty and problems when putting into practice some great new conception. Call them what you like, but there are always growing pains or teething troubles. The modern Commonwealth in these early days has had its mockers and its Doubting Thomases; but then, after all, were there not many people who said that the world was round rather than flat? So I do not think we should worry too much about the scoffers.

The achievements of this Meeting, as set out for all to see in the communiqué, have confounded the doubters. As for the mockers, I would only say that, "He who laughs last, laughs longest". There must have been many red faces when the communiqué was published—not least that imposter to whom others have alluded, the absurd, anonymous, so-called Conservative who contributed to The Times. He, indeed, skulking behind his veil of anonymity, must have rued the day he sought to apply the words" gigantic farce" to the edifice of the Commonwealth. The only farcical thing was what he had to say about it.

The modern Commonwealth is, as I say, under twenty years old, but it is fair to say that the 1964 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting was an event to celebrate the Commonwealth's coming of age. To those who say that you cannot come of age until you are 21, I would say that the Commonwealth is a particularly strong and virile organisation, and it has beaten that particular gun by several years. I am sure that as a result of the debate to-day and the extraordinarily high quality of speeches which have gone into it—and, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to thank noble Lords for making so many worthwhile contributions—we have added one more thread to Commonwealth understanding and unity. Those of us who are Commonwealth men will go away in the Recess, knowing that the cause of Commonwealth stands firm.

On Question, Motion agreed to.