§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the Executive Board of UNESCO recently passed a resolution barring Portugal from attendance at two international conferences to be held this summer under the auspices of the Organisation.]
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, the Executive Board members who supported the resolution argued that the success of the international conference on public education and the World Congress of Ministers of Education on the Eradication of Illiteracy, which was vital to the proper execution of UNESCO'S programme, would be endangered by Portuguese participation. The British member of the Board voted against this resolution and challenged its legality, on the grounds that it was an attempt for political reasons to deprive a member State of UNESCO of its rights according to the Constitution of the Organisation.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord opposite for his reply, may I ask him this further question? Is he aware that there is universal education in the Portuguese overseas 105 territories, and that in the African provinces particularly, which I happen to know personally, education compares favourably with that in all countries South of the Sahara, other than South Africa and Rhodesia? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether the time has not come to take energetic steps to put an end to discrimination on political, racial or other grounds, by international bodies whose whole value seems to depend upon their universal character? This applies to UNESCO, to the World Health Organisation, to the International Labour Organisation, and all other international organisations from which attempts are continually being made to bar the Portuguese or South Africans. Will Her Majesty's Government take up this point at the next session of the United Nations; and would they perhaps consider raising it, even if only informally, with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers during their present stay in London?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, with regard to the last question of the noble Lord, I will certainly see that his suggestion is passed on to my right honourable friend. With regard to the earlier part of his question, I would merely reiterate the fact that we made our position, which is quite similar to that of the noble Lord, abundantly clear in the debate on this matter. I personally share his views concerning discrimination on all these matters, and in our voting against this resolution I think we showed exactly where we stood.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, does the noble Lord call to mind the scriptural injunction:
Nation shall speak unto nationand another one which states:Meet thine adversary in the way"?If the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government have any sympathy with this view, will they do what they can to see that exclusion from international bodies is not a policy to be fostered, or even countenanced, by Her Majesty's Government, seeing that friendly relationships, understanding and culture all arise out of contacts between human beings?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I well recall the scriptural passages which the noble Lord has quoted, and also certain others, concerning who is one's brother, and what one should do to one's neigh- 106 bour, which perhaps certain countries should remember, as well as these other injunctions.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the Minister say whether any other members of the Executive Board supported the British delegate in voting against the resolution?
§ LORD WALSTONYes; in addition to the United Kingdom, five other countries voted against it—Brazil, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan and the United States.