THE COMMONWEALTH

HL Deb 05 May 1965 vol 265 cc929-48

2.49 p.m.

LORD CASEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information to give the House about their intentions in respect of seeking to create greater cohesion in the Commonwealth; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak as a Member of the Cross Benches, but I address you from this Dispatch Box by reason of the privilege that I understand is available to me as one who has been a Privy Counsellor for a number of years.

Some of your Lordships may recollect that, since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have spoken on Commonwealth matters on a number of occasions. I have also written a book on the future of the Commonwealth and have occupied appreciable space in the public Press on the subject, all with the object of drawing attention to the Commonwealth and the steps which I believe should be taken to achieve greater Commonwealth cohesion than exists at present. What I should like to say to-day is on this same subject. Inherent in my Motion is my conviction that everything possible should be done to create greater cohesion in the Commonwealth—to re-create some more recognisable common purpose in the Commonwealth, in the interests of the whole and of the constituent parts alike.

The constitutional emancipation of country after country of the Commonwealth, and their subsequent difficulties in adjusting themselves to life in the high-pressure world, must appeal to the strong countries of the Commonwealth, and particularly to the strongest of them all, Great Britain, which has played such an outstanding part in their evolution to the state of independence. I believe that all this must encourage us to come in and complete the unfinished business, particularly against the background of the past, I cannot believe that we shall divorce ourselves from the obvious moral and practical responsibilities involved.

Let me say at once that there will be no Party politics in anything I have to say to-day. Of all the subjects that come before this Parliament, or the Parliament of any other Commonwealth country, I hope and believe that the subject of the Commonwealth and its future, in particular, will be immune from Party political consideration. Indeed, this is borne out by the attitude of the Conservative Party, when it was until recently the Government of this country, and also by the attitude of Her Majesty's present Government. Before the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference Sir Alec Douglas-Home said: It will be Britain's task to try to give substance to the meaning of the modern Commonwealth in the modern world. He also said in another place: Britain goes into this Conference of Commonwealth countries with the firm determination to give the Commonwealth association new meaning and new life. Your Lordships will be aware of the series of proposals emanating from the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference, all designed in aid of the developing countries of the Commonwealth and for the cohesion of the Commonwealth as a whole. In the Queen's Speech on November 3, 1964, it was said: My Ministers will have a special regard to the unique rôle of the Commonwealth. They will foster the Commonwealth connection and provide collaboration in trade, economic development, educational, scientific and cultural contacts. Since taking office, Her Majesty's present Government have established a Ministry of Overseas Development, and a Prime Ministers' Conference has been arranged to be held in June. I can detect nothing of consequence that is inconsistent or conflicting between the proposals and attitude towards the Commonwealth of the last Government and that of Her Majesty's present Government.

In order that my Motion may be read in the perspective that I would wish, may I present, briefly, my understanding of the present position of the Commonwealth and the principal steps that have led up to it? The new phase, the present phase, of the Commonwealth began in 1947 when India became independent, which gave rise to the twin-birth of the newly independent countries within the Commonwealth of India and Pakistan. As we know, fifteen other Commonwealth countries have since trodden the same path to independence; so that the Commonwealth to-day is composed of the four "old" Commonwealth countries and the seventeen "new", with more to come.

The relationships between the four "old" and the seventeen "new" represent the series of problems in the Commonwealth as a whole to-day. The relationships between the four "old" Commonwealth countries — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—are very much as they always have been. The seventeen "new" Commonwealth countries are in varying stages of getting used to their relatively new-found status of independence, from India and Pakistan, which have been independent for eighteen years, to some of the African Commonwealth countries which have achieved independence in the last year or so.

I mention these periods of time because time is a factor in the matters I am going to attempt to discuss this afternoon. It takes some time to get used to independence which, when it happens, is heady wine taken in one quick gulp. From having been told what to do by an overlord for generations to having complete independence in all their domestic and international affairs is a very great constitutional and psychological step. So novel was the new state of independence that the first, and I think understandable, instinct of the newly independent State of India was to seek to make it clear to their own people and to the world that their independence was real and not fictitious. So in 1949 India became a Republic, with its own President in place of the Queen's representative, the Viceroy. This practice was followed in due course by most of the other newly independent countries, which appeared to assume that their independence, like that of India, would not be regarded as complete unless they became Republics. So "allegiance to the Crown" largely went by the board, except to the extent that the newly independent countries recognised the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.

Then, to hammer the nail home, India went a step further by way of declaring herself "unaligned", "uncommitted"—that is to say, not automatically bound to either the democratic or the Communist blocs, the two great international ideologies. This was followed by a phase of voting against Britain and most of the other old Commonwealth countries on many occasions in the United Nations. I have little doubt that all these actions were motivated by India's desire to make her independence crystal clear to her own people and to the world. It certainly did this; although her actions had the additional effect of making the Commonwealth appear to the rest of the world to be very largely a miscellany, calling it that, of independent countries, almost entirely without unity or cohesion. And so the status and influence of the Commonwealth as a force for good in the world's affairs very greatly declined.

I do not wish to appear to be unduly critical of what India did or of what other countries that followed India's lead did. It was not without logic or reason, bearing in mind the history of the past and many of the resentments which the past had generated. It is probable that many of us would have done the same in similar circumstances.

Now I believe we are in a period when the novelty of independence, and the desire to assert it on every possible occasion, is starting to wear off, at least in a number of cases. If I am right in this, I believe that if the old Commonwealth countries continue to demonstrate their understanding and helpfulness to the new, a new era of Commonwealth co-operative cohesion may well be possible. The international attitudes of many of the new Commonwealth countries are showing signs of becoming more understanding of those of the old. But I believe there are many things to be done by the old Commonwealth countries—of which Britain is the acknowledged de facto leader—in order to foster and promote more cohesion.

There are many differences between the conditions existing in the old and in the new countries, differences of race, religion, education, development, prosperity and of ways of life. People who live differently tend to think differently. Also, I realise very well that there are great differences between the conditions obtaining in the 17 new Commonwealth countries, and that each of them has a distinctive personality, so that normally it is not right to speak of them as if they were a uniform group. However, from the point of view on which I am speaking to-day, I believe that no great damage will be done by speaking of the new Commonwealth countries as if they existed as one group and as one whole.

The conditions of the past under which the new Commonwealth countries have evolved to independence have precluded any great degree of personal contact between the Governments and peoples of the old and the peoples of the new Commonwealth countries. I believe that this lack of personal contact represents one of the great problems, if not the greatest problem, with which we are now faced in the Commonwealth. We do not know them and they do not know us. With the obvious reservations and exceptions, I believe this is broadly true. It is common experience that one's individual, personal attitude of mind to other individuals or groups of individuals is instinctively that they are good or bad, dependent on our knowledge of, liking for, and confidence in, the other individual or group. It is only too easy to have a "bad" or, perhaps, a reserved attitude towards another individual or group of individuals, based perhaps on lack of knowledge, different politics, different religions or, perhaps much more often. lack of personal contact, from which lack of interest and warmth, misunderstanding, indifference and suspicion frequently stem.

That there is a lack of adequate personal contact between practically all the Commonwealth countries is, I believe, beyond dispute. What applies to us in our individual, personal relations applies no less to the relations between individuals who happen to comprise Governments and Parliaments—whether they feel at home with each other. Governments are not disembodied entities, but are composed of men with the same human feelings and attributes as individuals in ordinary, everyday life. Government policies and attitudes are framed by such individual members of Governments, and indeed of Parliaments, who frequently do not have the requisite personal knowledge of, and confidence in, the members of the other Governments with which they have to deal.

In present circumstances, as between the four strong, rich, developed Commonwealth countries and the seventeen poor, relatively undeveloped Commonwealth countries, there is a great deal that I believe needs doing, including the many things that come under the heading of Material Economic Aid, which of course costs a great deal of money and at the same time has an adverse impact on the balance of payments of the giving country. It is clearly dangerous, I believe, if not impossible, in these circumstances for much more money to be devoted to this economic side of aid to the under-developed countries, as it would put even more pressure on the pound sterling, and so I do not propose to advocate this at the present time and in the circumstances that exist. However, when it is possible to provide increased economic aid to the developing Commonwealth countries, I have no doubt that it should be done. But increased economic aid will probably have to wait until the British and other balances of payments improve, and perhaps until agreement on more liberal international financial arrangements is reached, in the light of continually increasing world trade. I sometimes wonder whether it would be within the wit of man to devise a system of international financial relations that divorced the cost of economic aid from rich to poor countries from its present impact on the international balance of payments. I am sure that the present-day inability to increase economic aid appreciably will be understood in the new Commonwealth countries, which would suffer if the pound sterling was still further menaced.

What I have said does not mean that nothing more can be done than is being done at present by way of helping the developing Commonwealth countries, and at the same time helping the cohesion of the Commonwealth. There is an important and potentially fruitful field which, I believe, has had inadequate attention and which might be called Aids to Mutual Understanding between the old and the new Commonwealth countries, which is much needed and which would not add appreciably to the pressure on the balance of payments of Britain or of any other Commonwealth country. In fact, I believe that it would take a very considerable increase in material economic aid to be the equivalent of a reasonable improvement in the personal relationships between the old and the new Commonwealth countries.

Now let me seek to identify and deal with what I have called aids to mutual understanding, on which I would presume to lay stress to-day. As the name that I have applied to this form of aid implies, the various things that can be done under the heading of "aids to mutual understanding" are designed to enable the peoples of the new Commonwealth countries to get to know much better the peoples of the old; and vice versa; to create mutual understanding and tolerance through contact, and to generate mutual interest, confidence and warmth. In effect, what I am suggesting might be described as a public relations effort on the grand scale.

Some of the means that I would suggest should be employed are these. First, there should be a considerable increase in the numbers of individuals from all Commonwealth countries who are invited to visit other Commonwealth countries for a significant period of time, chosen for their ability to inform their own countrymen, through the medium of their speeches and their writings, on their return to their own country, of their impressions of the countries they have visited. Politicians and journalists in particular, I believe—but not, of course, exclusively—would produce the most significant results in this regard, by reason of their professional capabilities for observing and making their observations known to their own countrymen on their return. I have called such individuals opinion-formers.

In Australia—I think ten or twelve years ago—we started the policy of inviting such selected individuals from other Commonwealth countries to come to Australia for an appreciable period of time, and I believe with good results. The policy has also been adopted—possibly before it was adopted in Australia—in Britain and in other Commonwealth countries, although I think in no case on a sufficiently widespread scale. I would put a large increase in the numbers of "opinion-formers" high on the list of things to be done under the heading of aids to mutual understanding.

Then comes the re-creation of the links between professional individuals and associations in all Commonwealth countries. Practically all the professional associations that are now widespread throughout the Commonwealth started in Britain a great many years ago, and then proliferated by the creation of branches in practically all the Commonwealth countries. As time went on, and in the process of growing up, the branches in other Commonwealth countries became autonomous and the links with the parent associations in Britain became tenuous or non-existent. The proposal made at the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference for the creation of a Commonwealth Foundation is designed to attempt to re-create the links between all the professional people and associations in all parts of the Commonwealth—that is, medical, legal, engineering, accountancy, architecture and a great many more. This admirable project could be described as an extension of the project of what I have called "opinion-formers" on the professional level.

There is another subject on which I have spoken on several occasions in your Lordships' House—the highly important subject of population pressure, and the need for more scientific research in Britain directed towards the evolving of a contraceptive method suited to the needs of the overcrowded Asian countries, to enable them to reduce the road block standing in the way of their achieving a higher standard of living in their own countries in the future. I like to think that this subject was meant to be included, although not specifically mentioned, in the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference proposal for a Commonwealth Medical Conference to be held in 1965, as it was said, "to pinpoint the areas where help was most needed". Indeed, I find it impossible to believe that any such Medical Conference with these terms of reference could avoid giving high priority to this subject.

Then on the educational side come the proposals, emanating again from the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference, for training in public administration for citizens of other Commonwealth countries, with the suggestion that an institution to this end might be created in one of the new universities in this country. Also from the 1964 Prime Ministers' Conference came a proposal for an increase in capital aid to higher education; and, again, an expanded programme of joint technical assistance projects to promote and assist development in the developing Commonwealth countries. However, I will not dilate on this last Prime Ministers' Conference project as it would seem to me to come within the scope of economic aid, with an impact on the balance of payments. However, if it can be done, it will be most useful, as one of the greatest needs of the developing countries is in respect of trained technical personnel.

The Commonwealth Development Corporation has done significantly useful work in promoting developmental projects in many Commonwealth countries. I believe it is true to say that the operations of the Commonwealth Development Corporation have produced no burden on the British balance of payments, but it has, on net balance, been of positive help to the balance of payments, and also, on net balance, no burden on the Budget, as the capital drawings from the Treasury are repayable to the Treasury. For this reason I venture to include the operations of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the list of things which could, I believe, with advantage, have the scope of their operations broadened and widened by Her Majesty's Government in the general interests of the developing countries.

The proposal for the setting up of a Commonwealth Secretariat clearly has potential for creating greater cohesion in the Commonwealth, depending on its eventually agreeing terms of reference and on the calibre of its personnel. The encouragement of more visits around the Commonwealth by Parliamentarians of Commonwealth countries, presumably under what I have said about opinion-Parliamentary Association, clearly comes under what I have said about opinion formers on an important level. To enable old and new Commonwealth countries to get to know one another better and to understand each other's way of life better, I believe that all available publicity media should be employed to a greater extent than is done at present—and by that I mean the Press, radio, cinema and television. I would also hope that more money might be made available to the British Council for the teaching of English, as well as increased production of low-cost books in English for circulation in the developing Commonwealth countries, for both of which there is a great demand.

My Lords, I have given no more than a selection of the directions in which I believe aids to mutual understanding might be pursued with advantage. There are many others that time does not permit me to deal with. The twin purposes of each of the matters I have ventured to mention are: first, to provide a useful and required service to the developing Commonwealth countries; and, secondly, to promote personal contact on a variety of levels between old and new Commonwealth countries, so that greater understanding and greater cohesion in the Commonwealth can be achieved.

The implementation of many of these proposals would mean considerably more air travel about the Commonwealth by individuals whose air fares would have to be paid or subsidised by Governments, which would entail some financial burden on the budgets of Commonwealth countries, although not on their balance of payments. To Commonwealth countries with their own Government-owned airlines, this will represent not much more than taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Most international airlines operate at something well short of 100 per cent. utilisation, and the present unused seating capacity could be put to this most useful purpose of helping to create more cohesion in the Commonwealth. If we are to bring home to the developing countries of the Commonwealth the fact that we are interested in them and that we seek to create a genuinely co-operative Commonwealth, I think we can do no less than something on the lines of these several matters of which I have endeavoured to speak.

I remember very well when the late noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in the course of the debate on the Indian Independence Bill in 1947, said: People are interested in those who are interested in them"— which I believe is a great truth. The same noble Earl said also in the course of the same debate: … and nothing so much predisposes men to understand as the consciousness that they are understood."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 150, col. 837, July 16, 1947.] All this, I believe, has increasing relevance at the present time, particularly as regards India and Pakistan by reason of the fact that their independence is now eighteen years old and a new generation has arisen in those countries which has not known or had contact with the British in the pre-independence period.

What I have endeavoured to speak about to-day cannot, of course, be brought to full fruition by Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain alone, and I can only hope that the other old Commonwealth countries also will play their part. I believe that the purpose of seeking to create greater cohesion in the Commonwealth is clear, in particular diplomatic cohesion in the international field. If the Commonwealth countries speak on international matters with something more closely approaching one voice, our influence in world affairs will be very much more powerful than when differences in attitudes are apparent. As an example, I find it most difficult to believe that Indonesia would have attempted offensive confrontation against Malaysia if it had been realised that, by so doing, they would be confronting the whole or the greater part of the Commonwealth galaxy, and not just a country very much smaller and less powerful than themselves.

While realising the regrettable problem represented by the situation that unfortunately exists between India and Pakistan at the present time, and also the problems that exist in some other Commonwealth countries, yet I do not believe that any of these matters militate against the implementation of the matters that I have ventured to speak about to-day. Personally, I am not aware of any really basic policy differences being involved. The criticisms about colonialism and imperialism have clearly outlived reality. We are all intent on survival, which in a troubled world is very much more likely to be achieved if we can attain to a significant degree of diplomatic cohesion in international matters a common purpose, rather than continue to be largely an association of individually independent States.

In addition to the much-needed material aid from the old to the new, there are important considerations of heart and mind, on which I have ventured to lay stress to-day. Perhaps I might be allowed to remind your Lordships of something that was said by the late and very much lamented Sir Winston Churchill. He said: The Empires of the future will be the empires of the mind.

If priorities were to be objectively observed, I believe that this matter of seeking to create more co-operative cohesion in the Commonwealth would have a high place, and it should not, I believe, lose this high place by reason of any difficulties that may be imagined in seeking to achieve it. I believe we should not be content with the lowest common denominator. In seeking to promote more cohesion in the Commonwealth, it goes without saying that there cannot be any hint or suggestion of compulsion. If it does not come about with the willing co-operation of all or most of the constituent parts, it will not come about at all. My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for having taken up so much of your time, but I could not put what I had to say on this, as I believe, important matter in any shorter terms. I beg to move for Papers.

3.18 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for allowing me to speak at this point, in order that I may keep an unavoidable engagement; but I shall hope to return before long.

I am extraordinarily grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the noble Lord, Lord Casey, for having given your Lordships the opportunity this afternoon to discuss a subject which is always one of such interest to your Lordships' House as a whole, and to many noble Lords in particular. There is perhaps a tendency, which the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has done much to redress, to think of the Commonwealth in somewhat material terms and to ask the question: What use is the Commonwealth to Britain? Surely, my Lords, a much better question to ask would be: What benefit is the Commonwealth to the world?

What is important is that there are now 21 independent Commonwealth countries who chose to join the Commonwealth association and continue to belong to it. These countries are of an infinite variety. Between them they illustrate every possible difference of race, religion, culture, regional interests and stage of development. They form, in short, a representative cross-section of the world of to-day. They were initially brought together by the chance of history, and the ties which give cohesion to their association are essentialy informal and often intangible.

My Lords, I have stressed this variety because it points to a way in which the Commonwealth can give a lead. The Commonwealth association shows how such large differences between individual countries and their peoples can be bridged. But the strength of the intangible ties must not be overlooked. They are, after all, numerous. I have already mentioned shared traditions and standards. Each Commonwealth member country followed more or less the same road to independence: this is illustrated by their recognition of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Each of them has had points of close personal contact with this country stretching over a period of many years. I know that in the professional field the links are particularly close. No doubt other speakers in this debate will call attention to further instances of intangible ties of this kind. They are of the utmost importance, because they can serve so well as the solid foundation for the bridge which one hopes to see constructed.

The major problems of the world today are implicit in three objectives: the pursuit of peace, greater friendship between peoples, and the pursuit of economic well-being. It must surely be one essential aim of the Commonwealth to seek to lighten, by co-operative effort, the burden which these major problems impose, and sometimes, if opportunity offers, to show the way to the world as a whole. The Commonwealth has always sought to promote peace. The Commonwealth initiative on disarmament arising from the Prime Ministers' meeting of 1961 will no doubt be remembered. Friendship depends on understanding; and understanding depends upon personal contact, as the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has already made plain. The Commonwealth has a built-in advantage of the numerous personal contacts at all levels which have been established over the years.

Development to keep pace with population increases and to raise the standard of living is, of course, essential for economic well-being. The Commonwealth has an admirable record of mutual effort in this field. One need point only to the Colombo Plan, which was originally both a Commonwealth conception and a Commonwealth initiative. It is therefore in the interests of all of us that every effort should be bent on steps to strengthen the Commonwealth. This is a continuing process which ought to be a keystone of the policy of each successive Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has rightly said, this is something which far transcends Party affiliations.

The present Government are anxious not only to encourage existing efforts but to consider any new ideas which may be put forward, and to implement them if it is within the limits of our resources to do so. It was in this spirit that the Labour Members of Parliament gave a very warm welcome to the initiatives which emerged from the 1964 Prime Ministers' meeting. The Government are determined to bring as many as possible of these imaginative proposals to fruition.

My Lords, what more can we do? I suggest that there are three directions in which we might best concentrate our efforts. We must give the maximum economic assistance which we can afford; we must seek to strengthen the machinery for Commonwealth consultation and co-operation; and we must encourage, wherever possible, as Lord Casey has rightly stressed, personal contact between the peoples of the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, there are sometimes limits to what we can do. As the noble Lord has himself already suggested, with regard to assistance to the developing countries of the Commonwealth the present difficulties are obvious. It is true that financial aid is not the heaviest burden upon our balance of payments, but, clearly, both it and oversea investment represent some additional strain on our economy. In present circumstances, both the total amount we can give and the types of aid we can offer must therefore be related to our current economic problems. But within the limits of our resources we are nevertheless anxious to do as much as we can, since we realise that our help is so vital to the developing countries of the Commonwealth.

The limitations on increasing personal contacts also often derive from financial difficulties. There are a great number of voluntary organisations, working in many different fields, whose job it is to develop and strengthen contacts at a personal level between the peoples of the Commonwealth. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of these organisations and to the zeal and enthusiasm which they are devoting to this fine objective. But it is an expensive business moving people around the world, and it is with this in mind that the proposal for a Commonwealth Foundation to administer and to assist in exchanges between such organisations is now being examined by Commonwealth Governments.

I have mentioned these difficulties not as excuses for inaction but rather for the purpose of identifying the limits within which we have to work, so that our efforts and those of the other Commonwealth countries who are equal partners in this great enterprise can best be directed to the benefit of the Commonwealth. This bring me to what we are now doing. I propose to deal with some of our activities; Lord Taylor will tell you of others.

First of all there are the initiatives, which I have already mentioned, stemming from the 1964 Prime Ministers' Meeting, particularly the proposals for a Commonwealth Secretariat, a Commonwealth Foundation and a Commonwealth Medical Conference. Your Lordships will recollect that the origin of the proposed Commonwealth Secretariat lay in a desire for closer and more informed understanding between Commonwealth Governments on the many issues which engaged their attention. It was thought that this could best be achieved by some continuing machinery, the main purposes of which would be to disseminate factual information to member countries on matters of common concern, and to help to co-ordinate the preparations for future meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and other Commonwealth Ministerial meetings as appropriate. It was felt that the Secretariat would serve as a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth.

Senior Commonwealth officials have subsequently met in London in order to work out the proposal in more detail, and have produced a most valuable report, which is now under consideration by Commonwealth Governments, although all of them have indicated that they are prepared in principle to support the Secretariat. Many of the details will, of course, require careful study, and there are some aspects which are not entirely easy to deal with in correspondence. The task of reaching agreement between 21 Commonwealth countries is in any case, inevitably, a lengthy process, but it is our hope that final decisions can be taken by Commonwealth Heads of Government when they meet in June. The Government have already indicated that they fully support this proposal and are determined to do everything possible to assist in the formation of the Secretariat, since they believe that it will have a task to perform which will be of real value to the Commonwealth as a whole.

With regard to financial aid, what I have said about the limitations on our present ability to support and increase the level of our aid to the Commonwealth should not be allowed to disguise the very considerable effort we are already making. In 1964, our total bilateral aid, including technical assistance, was £174 million. Of this, the independent Commonwealth (excluding, of course, the old Dominions) received £108 million or 62 per cent. If our aid to the dependencies be included, the total Governmental aid flowing to the Commonwealth as a whole was £154 million, or 88 per cent. of the whole. The independent Commonwealth received 60 per cent. of our capital and recurrent financial aid excluding technical assistance, and 72 per cent. of our technical assistance programme. Again, if the dependencies be included, these figures increase to 88 per cent. and 92 per cent. Since the present Government came into office about £20 million of new capital aid has been pledged to developing Commonwealth countries, and the technical assistance programme and the operations of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (now empowered to make new investments in Commonwealth countries which have become independent since 1948) have continued.

The other initiatives stemming from the 1964 Prime Ministers' Meeting which I mentioned lie in the field of personal contact, and before dealing with them I should like to repeat that the Government are anxious to encourage contacts of this kind at all levels. As Lord Casey has pointed out, this is one of the most promising directions, having regard to our present problems, in which we can seek to promote further Commonwealth understanding and co-operation. We are very glad, for instance, that it has been possible to arrange a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government to be held from June 17 to June 25. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find time to suit the convenience of all 21 of them. We look forward to this opportunity of a valuable exchange of views and personal contact with Commonwealth leaders.

The proposal for a Commonwealth Foundation is another imaginative idea which is designed to build upon the already extensive links between professional bodies and people throughout the Commonwealth. Here again, a number of the details of how the Foundation should operate still remain to be worked out, but it is the hope that it will come into being as a result of decisions reached at the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Meeting.

It would be cause for great satisfaction if the Commonwealth Medical Conference which is to meet in Edinburgh in October could repeat the success of the first Commonwealth Education Conference, which laid the foundations for a major new Commonwealth co-operative effort in the educational field. We do not as yet know whether the same opportunity will arise in the medical field, but we shall certainly try to find out. It will not—nor could it in the time available, without prejudice to its other business—go into detailed questions of medical practice or programmes of research. There may well be opportunity for useful exchanges of views on medical matters of this kind outside the meeting, but the main purpose of the Conference will be to seek ways of increasing Commonwealth co-operation in three main fields: public health and the planning and organisation of medical services; medical education and exchanges of qualified practitioners: channels for the exchange of information on medical subjects and methods of improving consultation.

Another professional field, that of law, in which I naturally take a great personal interest, has been seeing a good deal of Commonwealth co-operative activity. I am never sure how many of those who are not lawyers appreciate the extent to which law is undoubtedly a factor of common interest to Commonwealth countries, and one that helps to keep the Commonwealth together. Even to-day, if one goes to India, one finds that Indian lawyers know much more about certiorari cases than I do myself, partly because they go into certiorari rather more than we do. But certainly anyone who knows India, or, as I have done, has attended meetings of African lawyers from all parts of Africa, cannot fail to be aware how strong is this common link of the same law between us.

A course for Commonwealth Government Legal Advisers arranged by the Commonwealth Relations Office, which I am told was most successful, has recently been completed, and it is hoped to hold another later this year. Only last week there was a conference, convened by the Inns of Court Executive Council and the Council of Legal Education, designed to establish what course of practical training for Commonwealth barristers qualifying here would be of most benefit to their countries when they return home to practice. The conference was attended by representatives of most of the independent Commonwealth countries and from a number of our dependent territories.

Another manifestation of Commonwealth consultation and co-operation in the legal field is the Commonwealth Law Conference which is to be held in Sydney next August. We have these Commonwealth Law Conferences every five years. The last one was in Canada, the one before that was here, and I well know how much they are appreciated by the lawyers who attend them from all over the Commonwealth; and, if I may say so, how much we learn from one another. The Conference itself will be followed by a brief gathering of Ministers of Justice, or their equivalents, from Commonwealth countries. I shall be attending the Conference myself, and hope to take with me a good representation of our Judiciary and our legal profession, including the Lord Chief Justice and the Attorney General. I am looking forward to this opportunity of practising what I have been preaching.

I have already had the opportunity to examine the agenda, which I note is particularly full of considerations of various forms of law reform (including the question of Law Commissions), and also a question in which I think a great many Commonwealth lawyers are interested; that is, whether, even now, it is too late to constitute what would be a real Commonwealth Court, manned by all the greatest judges of the Commonwealth to which all members of the Commonwealth, perhaps, including ourselves, could go on equal terms.

My Lords, the list of personal contracts of this kind at all levels which we are doing something to encourage is indeed so lengthy that the problem becomes one of selection. My noble friend Lord Taylor will be telling your Lordships of a number of other instances, and I myself want, in conclusion, to mention only three more. First, in the field of sport we welcome this year the New Zealand cricket team to this country, and we shall soon, I hope, enjoy another visit from that happy band of entertainers, the West Indies Tourists, who have done so much to popularise both cricket and the West Indies in this country.

The first Commonwealth Arts Festival is to be held in Britain from September 16 to October 2. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously consented to be Patron, and activities will be concentrated in four main centres—London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff. The Government, who strongly support the Festival, initially gave a guarantee against loss for the Festival of £80,000. But such has been the response from the rest of the Commonwealth in offering appropriate participation that the Government will now seek Parliamentary approval for an increase in the guarantee to £130,000. Most Commonwealth Governments have agreed to participate. They will pay the costs of getting their artists and equipment to Britain. Costs in this country will be met by the organisers. Arts to be covered include the theatre, music, dancing, painting, sculpture and children's art. The organisers of the Festival hope that it will be the first of a series, and will provide in the field of the arts the sort of link which the Commonwealth Games provide in the field of sport.

Finally, it would not be right to end without reference to the Churchill Memorial Fund. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government have agreed to contribute £500,000 to the Fund, and this sum, together with whatever is raised from the public's response to the appeal (donations are still coming in, and we have no idea as yet what the eventual total will be), will be largely devoted to this very cause of enabling more people to learn about the Commonwealth at first hand. Other Commonwealth countries have launched similar Funds which will be devoted to much the same purpose. I am told that the response, particularly in Australia, has been magnificent.

If the outcome is, as it must be, that the peoples of the Commonwealth are helped to get to know one another better and the strength of the Commonwealth association is thereby enhanced, there could surely be no better tribute to that very great man.

I hope that your Lordships will not think me presumptuous if I remind you that in one part of the Commonwealth a General Election is just about to take place. Your Lordships may feel that perhaps in those circumstances, where almost anything said in this House is apt, however wrongly, to be thought to be said with a view to influencing the Election, it might be in the interests of both our country and theirs if that fact were borne in mind. I venture to hope, as one who has a great interest in that country and belief in its future, that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous on my part merely to remind you of that fact. May I conclude by repeating my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Casey, for having given us the opportunity of discussing this very important subject this afternoon.