Lords Sitting of 25 January 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

RHODESIA: REVIEW OF SANCTIONS
3.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether conclusions have been reached from the review of sanctions operated against the illegal administration in Southern Rhodesia with a view to making them more effective.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's review of sanctions is a continuing one. It would be undesirable to give the régime advance warning of any conclusions reached or new measures in view.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware, first, that the Prime Minister and other spokesmen for the Government have indicated that serious consideration is being given to making sanctions more effective? May I ask whether, in this connection, he would consider raising at the United Nations the issue that both South Africa and Portugal are not carrying out the decision of the United Nations in this matter, and that United Nations pressure should be exerted for this purpose?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make sanctions more effective rather than to extend them; but in regard to the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question, it is the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report to the Security Council on the progress
434
of the implementation of mandatory sanctions. It is the Security Council's responsibility to ensure that sanctions are effective.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords. But is it not a fact that the British Government are represented (and we are very glad to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, as that representative) on the Security Council? Therefore have not the British Government the opportunity to raise this matter at the Security Council, and not leave it to the Secretary-General?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the, United Nations is not one of my fields of responsibility. I am sure that your Lordships are delighted to see our noble friend Lord Caradon present and he will be speaking later. It is true that we are represented on the Security Council, but my understanding is that it is the responsibility of the Secretary-General in this matter.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, it would appear from the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just given that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to attempt to bring the Rhodesian Government to its knees through the operation of sanctions. That being so, would he take note of the following two things? First, that policy, of course, will make it quite unnecessary for Mr. Smith to bother about the emergence of any opposition in Rhodesia in his fight for survival. Secondly, with the increasing cost of sanctions to this country and the damage to our balance of payments arising both with regard to Rhodesia and from the ban on exports to South Africa, is it not likely that what the Government are doing is to make a second devaluation—which is already being talked about—almost a certainty?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, participated in a Division last night. It was a Division on an Amendment that deplored the alleged breaking of faith by Her Majesty's Government with friends in the Far East. The noble Lord will of course recognise that if these allegations were correct, at least they were made under a free Government by a free people who can speak

435
for themselves. We in this Parliament have a responsibility for some four million people in Rhodesia who to-day cannot speak for themselves. It is therefore our duty to see that the Rhodesians are brought back to legality and that there shall be an opportunity for genuine political advance for the peoples in Rhodesia.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, it would be a very good thing if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would apply that to other nations with whom he has dealings, where the inhabitants have no rights at all. But that is part of the double-talk that always goes on. Would the noble Lord take note again that from what he has said to-day there will never be a solution of the Rhodesian problem which will end in agreement, and that is a tragedy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, takes a more dismal view of human nature than I do. I believe that there will be a solution in Rhodesia, although it may take time. I will say to the noble Lord that if there are any double standards they lie with those who refuse to give the rights and privileges to these people who cannot speak for themselves.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, the Prime Minister—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Lord. I do not think that a request to "take note" really amounts to a supplementary question. I do not wish to be difficult, but perhaps the noble Lord would phrase a specific question, bearing in mind that he and my noble friend have between them rather contrived to widen the question?
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I shall, of course, defer to the new Leader.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the clear view of the Government that the continued imposition of sanctions is the best way to encourage moderate opinion to arise in Rhodesia?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is the only weapon that appears to be open
436
to use by ourselves at the present time. As the noble Viscount will know, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to leave the door open for negotiations, and if there were to be any approach by responsible persons, particularly by the Government in Rhodesia—the alleged Government—we should be only too ready to meet them.

NIGERIA: RECRUITMENT OF MERCENARIES
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My 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 what action is being taken to prevent the recruitment of British citizens as mercenaries for either side in the civil war in Nigeria.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware of any recruitment of this sort.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the fact that mercenaries go on either side for very high payment is one of the most immoral features of this immoral age? Further, is he aware that ex-R.A.F. pilots and others are now taking positions as mercenaries on both sides in the Nigerian civil conflict at salaries of £1,000 a month? The question I particularly want to ask is this. Would it not be possible to extend the Foreign Enlistment Act so that it would apply to Commonwealth countries as well as to countries outside the Commonwealth, which would prohibit this disgraceful recruitment of mercenaries in these wars?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I share my noble friend's dislike of the thought of mercenaries' intervening in this tragic war in Nigeria. On the other hand, while I have seen rumours of Britishers or nationals of ours fighting in one capacity or another in Nigeria, I have no clear evidence that this is a fact. In regard to my noble friend's suggestion about the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, the Department is giving thought to this. But I assure my noble friend that it is a very difficult and involved subject. I cannot offer any hope at this time that

437
we could enlarge this Act to cover the Commonwealth.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if I provide him with some evidence about British citizens having been recruited, Her Majesty's Government will give new consideration to this question?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should certainly be happy to receive any information on this matter.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether we are in communication with the forces in Biafra so that we may avoid in future the incident that occurred recently at Fort Harcourt when, on the rumour that mercenaries were being recruited from Britain by the Federal Government, a number of important British installations were burnt down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there are occasions when unfounded rumours cause injury to life and property, but there is no evidence available to me that there are British mercenaries involved on either side in Nigeria.
LORD OGMORE: I accept that, my Lords, I was asking whether we are in communication with the authorities, such as they are, in Biafra in order to try to avoid the results of any such rumours.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we certainly have a contact through our High Commissioner but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, this is a large country and the fighting is widespread. Therefore it is rather difficult to keep in full contact over the whole field.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but is there not a difference between this disgraceful rumour, absolutely unfounded, that British troops had been sent to Biafra and the recruitment of mercenaries by both sides among British citizens?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, since all the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, indicate neutrality as between the two sides in this horrible conflict, will Her Majesty's Government say
438
whether they are also neutral in this war?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Nigeria is a member of the British Commonwealth, and our whole attitude t3 this question is bound by that. We are neutral to both sides, but there is clearly a recognised Government in Nigeria.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I understood the implication of all these questions to be that it was wrong for British mercenaries to be on either side. I wonder whether that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government or whether, in fact, Her Majesty's Government have been helping one side only.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we certainly are not helping one side or the other, particularly in the field of this alleged recruiting of mercenaries
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I ask whether perhaps a little more than the necessary amount opprobrium is in danger of being attached to the word "mercenaries"? It may be worth remembering to keep the proportion right and to prevent too much heat getting into the matter, that the Gurkhas, some of the most honoured troops in the world, are in fact mercenaries of ours.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, but I do not think that in this House the Gurkhas are regarded as mercenaries. It is clear to my mind to what my noble friend was referring.

SCOTTISH HURRICANE DAMAGE: RELIEF MEASURES
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what measures of assistance they are considering to deal with the unprecedented damage caused by the hurricane in Scotland during the night of January 14–15, 1968.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the

439
Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a Statement in another place this afternoon, and I shall be repeating that Statement in this House at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the second, third and fourth Bills on the Order Paper are all Consolidation Bills, and if your Lordships give them a Second Reading they will go to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
3.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is unfortunately away ill, it falls rather unexpectedly to me to move this Bill—all the more unexpectedly since I had understood that on this occasion my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton was to masquerade as a Scottish Minister. Luckily the number of noble Lords who have their names down to speak is small. I think that if your Lordships turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, you will see the scope and importance of this measure. In order to save the time of the House, since we have a long day before us, it might be best if at this stage I sat down, because we shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has to say, and then my noble friend, Lord Hilton of Upton, who I am glad to see has returned, will be able to reply. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I have only a few words to say on this Bill in general terms. I am one of those who support the idea of tolls on bridges, tunnels and the like. I feel that in this country, where the density of traffic on our road system prevents the application of tolls to roads, there are positive advantages in raising tolls on bridges and tunnels. It has often occurred to me that if more of our bridges had been constructed by private enterprise on an economic basis, large sums of money would have been set free for the ordinary work of providing much-needed roads.
There is only one point to which I wish to refer. Clause 7 provides powers

441
to tow away vehicles stopped on the bridge, similar to the powers taken in the case of the Forth Road and Severn Bridges, but it is left open to the Secretary of State to fix the charge for this service by regulation. The estimated capital cost is put at £30,000, the annual operating cost being approximately balanced by the income from the charges imposed for vehicle removal. On the Severn Bridge the charge has been fixed at a £5 minimum—£5 for the first hour and £1 for every subsequent hour. I mention, in passing, that neither the R.A.C. nor the A.A. services are permitted to act upon the bridges. I understand that in the case of the Severn Bridge, where £10,000 has been set aside as the figure for this work, only £2,100 has been collected in the first year. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to turn over carefully in his mind whether this figure of £30,000 is right, and whether it would not be better to provide in the toll charges a modicum that would include the cost of this removal service. If a vehicle fails on the bridge, people should pay a penalty. But if £10,000 had to be recovered for the Severn Bridge, and a rate of £5 minimum brought in only £2,000, then it would look as if a figure of something like £25 a vehicle would be required to meet the £10,000 to be recovered on that bridge.
There is nothing more I want to say, except to ask the Government whether they will apply their mind to this point, and to the suggestion I made earlier: that the toll for the bridge should be an adequate one to cover all the services, except a suitable penalty for towing away a vehicle that may fail.
3.26 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we on this side welcome this Bill very much indeed. Those of us who live in Scotland are always grateful when we see more money coming from the source of London. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is unable to be here to introduce the Bill. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2. We welcome the flexibility which the Secretary of State has for compounding and arranging the seasonal fees, and especially the arrangements made to lower the fees at night to attract more traffic over this bridge. I hope that we
442
shall not see any temptation to "soak" the visitor in the summer by increasing the fees during that period.
Under Clause 4 we are told that this power to levy tolls is to be for 20 years. If the estimate of £7½ million for the cost of this bridge is correct, it might look as if the toll over this period would be 4s. a vehicle. I do not know whether that is so, but if it were the case I should like to ask whether the Government would consider making it more than 20 years, in order to make the toll more economic to the ordinary passenger. I know that on the Forth and the Tay, which I use a great deal, the toll is 2s. 6d. a passenger vehicle, and it might put people off if it were 4s. a vehicle here. I may be entirely wrong about that.
The only other point arises on Schedule 1, as to who can complain. The Renfrew County Council will, I hope, be looking with the authorities into whether the development which they are planning at Erskine for the overspill of the Glasgow housing scheme will not be cut off as an island by this new road scheme, because on the South side it will cut off a considerable segment. This will need to be looked at. That is all I wish to say, and, as I have said. I welcome the Bill sincerely. The opening up of this Burns country on the South to the Loch Lomond beauties of the North will be an enormous advantage to the industrial elements—that goes without saying—and will do away with the frustration of those who have had to wait for the Erskine Ferry.
3.29 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate, but I had the brief for my noble friend Lord Hughes put into my hands a few minutes before I came into the Chamber. I was consulting somebody from the Scottish Office to get a few hints on what I should say, and I did not realise that I was needed here. I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord for having given him such short notice.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I am sure that, in the circumstances, noble Lords will not expect me to reply in great detail

443
to the points that have been made this afternoon. But knowing my noble friend Lord Hughes, I am sure that noble Lords will realise that during some further stage of this Bill they will get very full replies to their questions. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who raised one or two points. So far as the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, on fees for removal is concerned, nothing definite has yet been decided on this. It is very early days yet, and this matter will be considered fully when the exact cost is known. The charges will meet only the cost of the removal service.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that was the question of Lord Ferrier.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry; I have the questions in the wrong order. But the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will know that he will get all the information that is necessary later on.
So far as the repayment over twenty years is concerned, again this at the moment is a proposal and it will have a great deal of discussion. The scale of fees cannot be fixed until the exact cost of the bridge is known and another traffic survey is taken near the time of the opening planned for 1971; and until consultations with other parties have been held it will not be possible to give a final answer to those questions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UNITED NATIONS AND THE SPECIAL AGENCIES
3.32 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER LORD RITCHIE-CALDER rose to call attention to Britain's role in the United Nations Organisation and the United Nations Special Agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and the United Nations Development Programme; and to move for Papers. The
444
noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. I deliberately made it a portmanteau Motion because it is such a long time—I think something like three years—since your Lordships' House debated Britain's role in the United Nations and its Special Agencies. I also wanted to remind your Lordships of something which is far too often forgotten: that is, that the United Nations is not just a political debating Chamber, or Chambers, of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Trusteeship Council, and so on. Over four-fifths of the personnel and the budget of the United Nations, of the organisation itself, is devoted to the positive purposes of economic and social improvement. The functional Agencies (and many more, incidentally, than those I have cited in the Motion) are wholly devoted to the purpose of economic and social improvement.
I am sorry that he postponement of the debate until to-day, in circumstances which I fully understand and which your Lordships certainly realise, has meant that many noble Lords with an intimate knowledge and a personal concern for the work we are discussing are, to their disappointment and mine, unable to take part in the debate. I must say, however, that I am very impressed by the stature and informed quality of those who are taking part in the debate, despite the circumstances. I personally feel that the postponement of this debate was most significant and was almost historically appropriate; it almost has a ring of destiny that we should be having this debate following the exhaustive debates on the cuts in Britain's commitments.
My Lords, this is the moment of truth. This, I suggest, is Britain's tryst with history. When the dust of recrimination settles and the hurt—I was going to say "pride", but I substitute "vanity", and nettle prejudice lose their smart, Parliament and people will come to realise that the world role of Britain, which has shed false illusions and historical inconsistencies in the second half of the twentieth century and also has shed commitments, will be greater, and not less. Its power will be the power of example, and its influence will have the force of wisdom. We may have lost the pomp, but we have come to terms with circumstance. We have come to terms with circumstance,

445
like my noble friend Lord Caradon—the last of the great Colonial Governors, forsaking the plumed hats and the epaulettes, to become, not the pall-bearer of the British Empire but the trustee of the heritage of that Empire, abandoning traditionalism, which is the trappings of a bygone age, but upholding the true tradition; which is remembered values. For me, my noble friend Lord Caradon is the embodiment of "the new man" in the changing world. Now I am rarely addicated to quoting Kipling, but when I watch our Minister in the United Nations I remember Kipling's If:
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you"—
and keeping his head, for example, even in the Committee of Twenty-Four, where one learns the hard way that gratitude is not the reward for good intentions.
The future of mankind depends upon the United Nations. It depends upon the United Nations not only in its present existence or in its present constitution, but as a part of the evolutionary process towards World Government. I would say that the functional Agencies such as we are discussing this afternoon are already the prototype of Ministries of eventual World Government. Some will say that it is an imperfect instrument. I would remind your Lordships that when we are discussing the United Nations we are not discussing a supranational organisation. The U.N. and its Agencies can be as strong or as weak as its member States make them, not just in reinforcing policies, nor in paying dues; nor in the national representation, like sending Lord Caradon as Minister and not as an Ambassador; but in the quality of the people released to become international civil servants, or even in more minor representatives for technical missions. The quality of the British people whom we send is part of our contribution to the work of the United Nations. If we expect the United Nations to give of its best, we must give it of our best; and we have not always done so.
I would call your Lordships' attention to the "Miscellany" in the Guardian of this morning, which ends up, a propos of the fact that there is at the moment under discussion a post to be filled of supreme importance in the United Nations, a post
446
which British representation has held since the foundation of the Organisation:
"Pathetically few applications filed in London have come from diplomats so junior that they don't even stand a chance."
I will not develop that theme.
There are faults in the Charter; of course there are faults in the Charter. There are faults in the machinery, grievous faults, as in the case of peace-keeping. Indeed, from my own direct and very close experience in most parts of the world I could cite many examples of the weaknesses and failures at working level because of the faults of the original Charter and the machinery we set up. But when the Charter was signed at San Francisco in June, 1945, only three of the signatories were in a position to suspect that they were legislating for a world which no longer exists. President Truman the late Lord Attlee and Lord Avon—only they, of all the signatories of the Charter, knew that the atom bomb was, on its way, the atom bomb which was exploded in the desert of New Mexico five weeks later.
The world changed, not just in terms of the military and the political consequences of the bomb, with which we are still wrestling and have been wrestling ever since, but because we were entering a new epoch which would make the politics of the past almost irrelevant. The younger generation of to-day, certainly from all my experience of my students and so on, realise that the relevant history of our times began in 1945. And we are not entering, and we were not entering then, just one new epoch, but a succession of epochs, each epoch as significant as the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution. We were entering into the atomic age, the computer age, the space age, and now the DNA age, As my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe and my noble friend Lord Mitchison reminded the House during this week's debate, British science led the way in the DNA age—deoxyribonucleic acid, with its code of the secret of life; the age of bio-engineering, not just the transplantations of organs or hearts—or, as I would call it, "surgical plumbing"—but of the manipulation of the inherent nature of living things, the most portentious development in the history of mankind. Four epochs,

447
telescoped into the lifetime of the people born since 1945, when the Charter was signed.
This I point out to your Lordships as a new time calibration by which the crash programmes have reduced the interval between the laboratory discovery and its spectacular use from centuries to decades, from decades to years, and from years to months. It is a time scale which makes classical diplomacy as archaic as sending heralds to Kubla Khan, or our financial system as out of date as cowrie shells.
I said this was the moment of truth. The truth, however brutal and unpalatable it may be to some, is that this country is caught up in world forces, which means that we are no longer masters of our own destiny. Nor are the so-called super-Powers masters of theirs. Nor the new nations experimenting with sovereignty. Classical finance and textbook economics no longer apply. Conventional diplomacy, skirting round the United Nations, no longer serves. Conventional force, even with implicit threat of unconventional weapons, cannot prevail. It settles nothing, whether it is in the dragged-out war in Vietnam or in the hung-up situation in the Middle East. Political doctrines can only temporise with, or bedevil, the new circumstances.
What are the compelling forces which have so altered the world that we have been struggling in this House in the last week, and in another place, to try to understand what it is that has hit us? The forces are the two great and simultaneous revolutions—the revolution of science and technology and the revolution of rising expectations. The second is the product of the first. The revolutionary expectations have come with the awareness of change through the universality of communications. The "winds of change", to which Mr. Harold Macmillan referred when he was Prime Minister, are etheric winds—they are radio winds.
My Lords, in the last twenty years I have been in most places in the world, mainly to see what the United Nations and its Agencies can do, or are doing, to meet the new challenges about which I am talking. I can assure your Lordships that there is no place on earth where the awareness of change has not penetrated.
448
The epidemic of freedom was spread by radio. Events in one country resonate in the council chambers of the United Nations, and discussions in the United Nations reverbrate in the remote places of Africa, Asia and Latin America, and even in the Arctic, where I spent quite a while with the Eskimos.
It is difficult to imagine that the founding fathers of the United Nations, who wrote in these fine phrases about self-determination and human rights, can have foreseen what would happen within twenty years. In 1945, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr—who, I am sorry is not in his place to-day, for reasons which I sympathise with and appreciate—became the first world citizen, because his appointment as Director-General of F.A.O. preceded the setting up of the United Nations itself, and he was therefore the first to take the international oath. The international oath foreswears all loyalties except to mankind. When I became his temporary adviser at the Famine Conference in 1946 I, too, took that oath, and I took it in front of the flag of the United Nations. At that time there were 52 member-States of the United Nations; today in the United Nations plaza, there are, I believe, 123. The new flags represent the fragments of departed empires.
But, my Lords, flags are not enough. Freedom is not enough. The morning after independence free people wake up to find themselves just as sick, just as hungry, just as poor, just as illiterate and just as miserable. Freedom begins with breakfast. Independence is an aspiration. What I am talking about are the expectations which are implicit in what we call "independence" and "freedom". Without the substance of freedom, which it is the purpose of the United Nations and its Agencies to provide, the expectations, that total awareness which I am sure exists throughout the world—the awareness of a better life—are frustrated.
I believe that at the moment there are some 35 countries now under military government. My Lords, generals are the official receivers in political bankruptcy—and I include some quite near here. When democratic Governments cannot deliver the goods and unrest follows, when the frustration of expectation becomes apparent, the military take over and the new-found freedom is put into pawn. Human rights—and I would

449
remind your Lordships that this is Human Rights Year—are cynically travestied. People are sent to Ionian Islands.
Some noble Lords may say, "That just goes to prove that the subject peoples were not ripe for self-government". That begs a lot of questions, but I submit to the House that it is quite irrelevant. I do not believe that procrastination, repression, apartheid or any other device can in fact withstand the winds of change. What is profoundly relevant is the growing disparity between the highly, developed countries and the developing countries, with all the implications of racial conflicts and exploitable frustrations. That is where the interfering powers come in—the exploitable frustrations. The rich countries are the heirs of the first Industrial Revolution. The poor countries had no share in that Revolution, except as the hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Science and technology, which in this context we are discussing to-day, dates back to James Watt's steam engine, produced industrial wealth. Industrial wealth produced more science and technology—produced education, research, and the means to transfer laboratory discoveries to the factory floor, to produce more wealth, to produce more science, to produce more wealth. It took Britain, the first and foremost of the industrial countries, 200 years from James Watt to achieve the Welfare State. It took the United States of America 100 years of technology to achieve the affluent society. It took Japan, with its commercial Sumurai, 80 years to reach its industrial prosperity of to-day. It took the Soviet Union 40 years of consumer denial and duress savings to put up Sputnik. The developing countries, two-thirds of the world's population, have to make a leap across the centuries. The quicksands of poverty do net provide such a springboard.
What I am saying now is basic to every problem of the next thirty years, and therefore my prime concern with the United Nations and with Britain's role in it is how to gear the scientific and technological revolution, and the revolution of rising expectations, so that they will mesh instead of rending the world apart. Of course I am concerned with the politics of the U.N.—deeply concerned. Of course I am passionately concerned with
450
the problems of disarmament. Of course I am concerned about racial tension, human rights, collective security and peace-keeping. But I submit that in the final analysis they are all determined by the nature of the new forces.
The political confrontation is no longer East and West; it is now inescapably North and South. I have been convinced since that rehearsal for Doomsday, which was the Cuban missile crisis, that the super-Powers, however much they may gesticulate, however much they send Polaris carriers hovering round the coast, will never engage in nuclear war as an act of policy. I put in parenthesis that I never rule out the chance of war by accident. Mr. Khrushchev said of the Cuban cisis, in what proved to be his valediction after the crisis, "People say, 'Who won?'. I say, 'Mankind won. Reason won'." This makes it all the more important that the Non-proliferation Treaty should succeed and that we keep other fingers off the trigger, and I think Britain should make resoundingly clear its renunciation of the independent deterrent. I know it is implicit in everything we ate doing; but I want to make it abundantly clear, and I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in suggesting that Britain should now acquit herself of the Polaris submarines.
If the cold war has become, at best or at worst, tepid, it is because the Soviet Union has graduated spectacularly as a scientific "have". As my noble friend Lord Rhodes pointed out yesterday, they have joined the prosperity club. The U.S.S.R. now talks the same language, the same technological language, as the technological tycoons, and in the space race behaves just as extravagantly and prestigiously as flamboyant America. The Soviet can scarcely profess comradely compassion for the suffering masses of the developing countries when it matches billions of roubles against billions of dollars on trying to get a handful of dirt from the moon, and when it diverts, as the space race unquestionably does, human ingenuity from the agonising problems of this planet.
The North—South confrontation is already made worse and made more ugly by the Vietnam war, which, whatever one may say, has all the reverberations of a racial war. It is against all the forces of

451
history in its contemporary meaning, because it is running contrary to the revolution of rising expectations, because it is running contrary to this universal awareness, which incidentally means that what happens in Vietnam reverberates in the streets of Detroit or Montgomery, Alabama. It is trying to enforce a solution by old-fashioned power methods while the United Nations stands helplessly by. The United Nations cannot intervene because its writ does not run in the Vietnam issue, because its peacekeeping powers have been paralysed or are insufficient, and because it cannot provide the table for which President Johnson is always asking—cannot provide it because Red China is barred from the U.N. and North Vietnam has no place.
The other great intimidating factor is that science has produced an avalanche of people. Through the intervention of medical science and the control of the massive killer diseases, the population of the world is increasing, and especially in those countries where the means of providing sustenance and material needs are the most meagre. It becomes all the more urgent that science and technology should make the means available for restricting the population increase and for increasing the standard of living, and I think this means that science should be made available, as we hope it will be, through the United Nations and the functional Agencies.
My Lords, we can provide the solutions. Of this I have no doubt whatever. I was the consulting editor of the l0 million words that came out of the United Nations Science and Technology Conference in 1963. The eight volumes of that Conference are a vade-mecum for the road we must travel. I wrote the first volume The World of Opportunity. If you read that volume and the other volumes you will see that the leap across the centuries is absolutely possible. We do not need even a fresh remit to science. We have enough science, we have enough knowledge—we should like a lot more for solving more problems more directly, but we do not need it. The problem is not lack of knowledge, it is lack of intention, and so far as the developing countries are concerned of course it is the lack of means. No country can lift
452
itself with its own bootstraps if it has not got any boots.
Even when they try to help themselves by their own efforts they are defeated. At the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—we are having a second one presently in Delhi—we saw that the rich countries were still being carried on the backs of the coolies. The developing countries, in terms of world trade, are still essentially producers of raw materials, as they were in the first Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, and they are dependent on those industrial countries, those wealthier countries which have moved into prosperity, for the equipment for their further development. We buy cheap and we sell dear. I am very glad from these Benches to pay a tribute to Mr. Edward Heath's contribution to the UNCTAD Conference three years ago. His was the most constructive and enlightened speech of the meeting. I hope that in our attitude to UNCTAD we still carry that message.
If developing countries cannot earn their way into the new world of opportunity we must give them aid—that is to say, we, the better off. But aid has a very sardonic meaning when, as we find in the World Economic Survey, that of the 9,000 million dollars provided from all sources to the hundred needy countries in 1966, 5,000 million dollars was borrowed to pay the debt charges on monies already borrowed. I repeat, five-ninths of all the money was borrowed for the servicing of previous borrowing. This is what I call "feeding the tapeworm". If you feed the tapeworm it grows and debilitates you. If you starve the tapeworm you starve yourself. If the country borrows, the debt charges grow; if it does not borrow the development stops. One of the things we have to do is to get rid of that confounded tapeworm.
My Lords, I believe that however well meant and well argued bilateral aid may be, the only ultimately effective aid is multilateral aid deployed through the United Nations and its Agencies. Under that, people can keep their self-respect. It is decontaminated aid, aid without strings, without any suggestion that "Codlin's your friend—not Short", and without any suggestion of charity. And it is far less wasteful, whatever anyone may

453
say. It is less wasteful because it is noncompetitive. Your Lordships are hardheaded. I hope that you will recognise and that the Government will continue to recognise, whatever the circumstances, whatever our difficulties, that aid to the developing countries is not charity; it is investment in world resources which we have to share and which we are going to have to share to keep ourselves going as an industrial nation, investment in future markets, and in a much more profound way investment in peace and stability.
In the long term—and thirty years, in which the world population will have doubled, is long-term to me—the productive and purchasing power of the developing countries will be of far greater importance to us than the short-term advantages, however they may appear to people, of the Common Market—taking in each other's washing. I need not remind my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, of that, because he wrote The War on World Poverty.
There is at this moment a great opportunity for the United Nations itself. It is implicit in a resolution which has been referred by the General Assembly to the ad hoc Committee. It is the Maltese resolution, and it refers to the seabed and the ocean floor underlying the High Seas. It seeks to reserve the bottom of the deep seas for peaceful purposes, and to see that the resources are used for the benefit of mankind. The deeps we are talking about—and they are the deeps—are outside national jurisdiction, beyond the limits either of the Continental Shelf or any offshore definition. I would describe this as the pact of inner space, just as we had the pact on outer space in which Lord Caradon had such a big hand; and this with the Antarctic Pact to which Your Lordships gave legislative effect through the Bill promoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the last Session.
What we ate talking about refers to the deeps, not to the offshore or to the Continental Shelf, which might be regarded as a territorial extension of any nation. The deeps belong to no one, and up till now no one cared. We know now, however, that there is wealth beyond a dream, though not, unfortunately, beyond the reach of avarice. This takes the form of mineral nodules, on the average about the size of a potato, but sometimes much
454
bigger. The first of these mineral nodules were brought up by the British Oceanographic vessel "Challenger" about a century ago from the depths of the Mantic, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The world-wide operations ten years ago of the International Geophysical Year, in which one hundred nations combined in what was, and still remains, one of the great co-operative scientific enterprises of all times showed that these deep-sea nodules in composition and extent are a major source of economic minerals.
These nodules vary in composition according to locality, but they include manganese, iron, silica, aluminium, calcium, mangesium, nickel, copper, cobalt, zinc, molybdenum—you name it, they have it. For example, in the South Pacific there are 200,000 million ton; of these potential minerals. They are rich in this particular area in nickel and cobalt. Modern technology, II insist, can devise means for their recovery, and I insist that they devise a means more cheaply than mining deeper and deeper into the land rocks for much leaner ores and for going down a few more miles into the Rand in South Africa to get gold, which, incidentally, is useless.
The pact we are talking about is absolutely necessary. The sea bottom must be demilitarised, because already there are intentions of using it for listening posts. And. I would remind your Lordships of what is meant when nations begin using things for listening posts: we had a rather alarming example this morning, over the U.S. ship "Pueblo". There are also discussions about using the sea bottom for nuclear missile emplacements. One can also see the perils to peace of a grab by unrestricted free-for-all for the enormous resources. I can foresee this as a repetition of what happened in Berlin in the 1880's, when the Powers who could do the grabbing grabbed the Continent of Africa. Jurisdiction must be vested somewhere and the concessions must be regulated. Although this is a most debatable point, and is going to continue in debate for a long time, I want to see the United Nations given the jurisdiction and the royalty rights. Even the most nominal royalty rights on the scale of the seven seas would set the United Nations up in business—United Nations Incorporated. It would relieve it of all

455
the nonsense about failing to pay peacekeeping dues, and would finance its development programmes.
I am not going to play into the hands of those who would argue against it by saying what in fact would be the arguments against it. I know what they are. The Great Powers do not want to see the United Nations as a power. I hope that Britain will not only vigorously support the pact, but will see that the jurisdiction is vested in the United Nations. Furthermore, just as we have, as proof of our earnest intentions, offered the United Nations logistical support for six United Nations peace-keeping battalions, I hope that in this case we shall, as an advanced mercantile nation—a nation of the seas, and above all, as a technological nation, as we have stressed in the last few days—help to prepare the way with the United Nations for the development of these seabed resources in the international interest.
Your Lordships will forgive me if my speech has been analytical and perhaps prophetic, rather than dealing with the past and present functioning of the United Nations and its Agencies. I hope those speakers who follow me will do so. My own experience, as one who has been for the last twenty years for the United Nations—and out in the field in many cases—but never in it, has been to see it in close-up and in detail. My concern in opening this debate has been to raise the issues not only of the present but also of the future, and to insist that Britain's role and Britain's interest lie in strengthening the United Nations and reinforcing the work of its Agencies.
No Power, however great—and here I follow my noble friend Lord Chalfont—can, in fact, police the world to-day. We are just fooling ourselves, and the super-Powers are fooling themselves to think otherwise. That can be done only by making the United Nations' peacekeeping effective and by collective security-demanded, incidentally, by the Charter, but never properly embodied by the founding fathers. No nation can, by patronage, endow world development, but Britain, from its vast experience, and to our industrial advantage, and not against self-interest, can make a greater contribution—and I do not mean just financial—than any other country that I know.
I have only one specific reference to make to our role in any Agency. It is by way of complaint, and I personally think it is a grave one. Our Government have insisted that their policy is based on the United Nations, and the appointment of Lord Caradon as a Minister and not as an Ambassador was proof of our intention, and of our belief in the United Nations. I should have thought, therefore, that our Government, above all other Governments, would jealously safeguard the principles of the United Nations.
One of the most important principles is that the functional Agencies should be protected against political pressures. According to that principle, the members of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation have been elected as individuals and not as Government nominees. They have been elected by the World Health Assembly. They are appointed for their professional judgment, and their loyalty is supposed to be absolutely to the Organisation. I understand that Britain has sponsored a resolution to be presented to the next World Health Assembly, by which, in future, the Board shall consist of Government nominees. I suggest that this is a sell-out, a piece of political gerrymandering which will absolutely destroy the integrity of the World Health Organisation. If the members of the board are answerable to their Governments, the political loyalties of the international staff will be equally put in question. The nationals with the Organisation, too, will have a divided loyalty.
I would remind your Lordships of a piece of past history of which my noble friend Lord Crook, as a member of the United Nations Appeals Board, is painfully familiar: the occasion when Senator McCarthy's myrmidons insisted on the dismissal of American international civil servants because they were "un-American". I may be exaggerating the risks, but I have no doubt at all about the betrayal of principle. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to reassure the House. My Lords, I repeat what I said at the beginning: that this is for Britain, and indeed for the world, the moment of truth. I believe that Britain will fulfil its historic destiny to have been the greatest Power and the widest Empire the world has ever known,

457
and to have invested both, and its best traditions, in a world system of Government. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having put down this Motion. He has made a very interesting speech which goes to the heart of his philosophy of world government and the late Lord Attlee, had he not been so sadly taken from us, would have liked what the noble Lord has had to say today. The noble Lord's unusually wide knowledge of the workings of international organisations makes him as qualified as anyone in your Lordships' House to speak on their administration. Indeed, a study of his numerous books (I think I am right in saying that he has produced some 28 and that another two are coming out in the next month or so) demonstrates, as indeed has his speech, how deeply he has studied these matters. I was particularly glad to hear the tribute which he paid to my right honourable friend Mr. Edward Heath for his constructive speech at the UNCTAD conference, and I should very much like to endorse what he said. He also dealt with a number of problems concerning science and technology in which I myself am deeply interested.
With all its shortcomings, the United Nations is the largest international organisation the world has so far seen—a world which communications-wise has now shrunk almost to the size of a pea. But we must accept that New York is, in a sense, already the world's headquarters, just as Geneva was, in a sense, before the war. At some time or another virtually every question is discussed, if not resolved, in New York, and no doubt the Special Agencies have played an important part in tidying up some of the world's social, economic, cultural medical and agricultural problems, even if the Organisation has not been conspicuously successful in its more political, peace-keeping or peace-making roles.
When I first read the Motion on the Order Paper I thought that the noble Lord would be dealing more especially with the Special Agencies; but it is clear from what he has said that he has been looking at the concept of the United Nations as a whole, including its political
458
work, and. I therefore make no excuse for referring to-day to its political role. As a young League official before the last war—I was for three years on the staff of the League's High Commissioner for Refugees—I always had the ideals of a world organisation at heart, and I still retain some of these ideals. I am therefore glad that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, our Minister of State in New York, should be here to expound his own ideas to us and to answer some of the questions which must inevitably be raised, and of which I have given him notice.
My Lords, whatever ideals some of us may have had in the past about the League and its potential role in the realm of peace-keeping, and indeed enforcing peace, it cannot be said that the League, or since the war the United Nations, have yet been successful in achieving the kind of collective security through an international police force which it was hoped originally they might establish. None the less, there is no doubt that under the leadership of President Truman the United Nations did to some extent play the part which they should have played in Korea, and also in Cyprus, and even perhaps at the outset in the Congo before the situation there went sour. But what can the United Nations do about Vietnam and the recent capture of the "Pueblo" by the North Koreans. Regrettably, I fear that this can be only a rhetorical question. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, agrees, I know, that the United Nations has never in fact had the kind of fire-fighting force it really needs, partly because its forces have been composed of national contingents which could always be withdrawn by the countries concerned.
More recently, in the peace-keeping field, there is no doubt that the prestige and potential of the Organisation have suffered severely as a result of the abrupt withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East in May of last year. We saw then, only too clearly, what the limitations of the United Nations were. None the less, we in Opposition thought that the Foreign Secretary's proposal regarding the appointment of a United Nations mediator, who would look for ways and means of bringing the two sides together, was very sensible, and we supported it.

459
The proposal bore fruit in the resolution which Britain successfully sponsored in the Security Council in November last, and led to the appointment of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring as the Secretary General's representative in the Middle East. We on these Benches have also looked beyond the immediate stalemate and suggested ways in which the international community, through the United Nations, could get to the root of some of the problems obstructing a settlement. For example, quite recently my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home supported a proposal originally put forward in The Times, for desalting plants in Israel and Jordan to be set up under international auspices in order to make possible a large-scale settlement of refugees. Sir Alec has also proposed a demilitarised zone on the frontiers of Israel. Morever, an imaginative scheme for the internationalisation of the Sinai Peninsula has been put forward by a Conservative Member of Parliament, and other Conservatives have described in some detail the part which the United Nations and its Agencies could play in clearing up the debris of war.
While the United Nations must have a role to play in many international crises, there have none the less been some problems which I believe it was wrong to refer to it. It clearly does the Organisation much harm to load on its shoulders burdens which it cannot reasonable be expected to bear. For example, in the case of Rhodesia, which has been fully self-governing since 1923, Britain was not constitutionally responsible to the United Nations for Rhodesian internal affairs, and by referring them to the United Nations the present Government have, I believe, damaged the Organisation. First, they persuaded the Security Council to find a threat to the peace where it was clear that no threat existed: for peace reigned at that time around the borders of Rhodesia and within the country itself. It was distorting the purposes of the Charter to encourage the Council to find that a threat to peace existed simply because of a country's internal policies—illegal as we all agreed U.D.I. was. But do not the internal policies of certain other countries, much greater Powers, constitute more of a menace? We do not interfere with them.
460
A similar situation arose over Aden. It was not until their decision in February, 1966, to abandon Aden that the Government started the attempt to shuffle off on to the United Nations part of the responsibility for Aden. It was even hoped that the United Nations would eventually solve the political problems there. But nothing of the kind happened. The United Nations Mission was unwilling to have dealings with the Federal Government, and the extremist leaders were unwilling to have any dealings with the Mission. This failure was easy to foresee. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, will be able to explain why the Government thought that the problems of Rhodesia and Aden should be referred to the United Nations at a stage when it seemed most improbable that the United Nations would prove successful in providing solutions.
I feel I should also make a brief reference to the Committee of 24 and the attitude of certain Asian and African countries in it. When rules are so flouted as to induce the deputy of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to say that that Committee had
"displayed a double standard and a lack of respect for impartiality";
and again on Aden that it had
"constituted itself into a Board of Censors",
it surely is time that the organisation should be reminded that its purpose is not dissension but conciliation and international harmony. In view of the abuse of this country in that Committee, and the diatribes which I heard with my own ears which come from the mouths of certain delegates, I sometimes wonder whether there is much point in Britain's remaining a member of that Committee.
In regard to South Africa, in view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last night I should like to emphasise that when my noble friend Lord Swinton spoke last night he was doing so at the request of the Party, and representing the unanimous view of the Party. He considers that last night's Vote fully endorsed what he said. I may add that, while the present Government appear to accept a United Nations resolution in regard to South Africa, they rightly do not do so in regard to Gibraltar, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something on that point. He realises

461
that it was raised last night, but I am afraid I did not myself give him warning until just now. However, I hope he may say something on it.
Having said all that, may I say just a few words about the Special Agencies? In the case of the International Labour Organisation, with which I worked closely when I was on the Refugee Commission before the war, it seems to me that this organisation is still doing a remarkable job. Working in collaboration with the Industrial Development Association, it is making a concentrated effort with particular stress upon industrialisation in developing countries, to improve economic, social and working conditions on an international basis. They have reorganised their office and decentralised their operations, which I think has been a good thing. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is going to say something this afternoon, since of course he is a member of the Governing Body of the I.L.O., whose 50th anniversary is to be celebrated this year. I am also glad to see that a committee, of which the Minister of Labour is chairman, and representatives of employers and the T.U.C. are members, has been set up to consider the form those celebrations should take in this country.
I would also think that a valuable contribution is being made by the World Health Organisation, and that the noble Lord may well be right in saying that its Executive Board should continue to be elected as individuals. The world presents almost insoluble problems to those Special Agencies, which are hampered by the population explosion, the complexities of individual faiths and Governments, and, in the case of the W.H.O., the knowledge that by providing the solution to one particular form of disease, with consequent longer life expectancy, they are possibly creating yet another problem through malnutrition. With the limited resources at their command, the World Health Organisation are undertaking a massive programme, and I suggest that their efforts merit our respect and full support.
The work of UNESCO, spread as it is over so many facets of life, is perhaps harder to assess, although this is an organisation which it is estimated will absorb some 110 million dollars during
462
the present financial year. In their publication, 20 Years of Service to Peace, I was interested to see that they have a section entitled "Dignity for All", and I think that when we consider that their efforts are to be seen in the fields of education for the illiterate, in the teaching of basic sciences and their application to development, in the social and human sciences, in cultural activities and in the problems of human communication, this sub-title, "Dignity for All", sums up their efforts very well.
If it were possible to achieve a Utopian world, all our needs might be catered for through the Specialised Agencies. Although we may criticise the structure of some of these bodies, I think we should do well to remember that many of the problems with which they are trying to deal are almost out of reach, and they do need our encouragement to continue their efforts.
The trouble is, of course, that staffs in these organisations cannot be recruited solely on merit. Each member country has to have a share of the available jobs. I am particularly concerned about the organisation of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which has been very adversely criticised, especially by the International Committee of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was a member. In another place the Minister for Overseas Development has said that the British representative at the F.A.O. had been instructed to endorse the need for changes in the structure of the Organisation, and I should very much like to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has anything to add to the Minister's statement in another place. Could he say whether the detailed plan on reorganisation for consideration by the F.A.O. Council has made any progress and what the Government's view is on the almost complete rejection of the proposals by Dr. Sen, who is the Director-General of the organisation? The Report of the Committee of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was Deputy Chairman was outspokenly critical of the way the F A.O. conducted its work. The control of the Organisation in Rome has been described as over-centralised, and its regional offices as having been deliberately weakened. Indeed, the whole of the staff work in Rome is said to have been buried under purely administrative tasks. I should

463
like to know what the noble Lord has to say about that.
I do not think that this is an occasion—we are covering a very wide field—for me to discuss the possibilities of reforming the U.N., although it is a subject in which many are interested. Sometimes these proposals look attractive at first sight but on inspection prove to be somewhat unrealistic. Nor do I think I should go into details of United Nation's diplomacy which might prevent armed conflict from breaking out, although the possibilities of such diplomacy could be even more important than the peace-keeping role. Some maintain that the Security Council and the Secretary-General should be more energetic than at present in pressing the parties towards negotiation, in appointing mediators or in suggesting compromises. I think something might be done about reorganising the Secretariat, and above all as Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in a remarkable speech at Oxford in November, the Secretary-General should be provided with a command structure which would ensure that a U.N. force carried out its job effectively and with authority.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is here now, I am not going to deal with one or two matters concerning disarmament, because I have spoken too long. But I fear that what this present Government have done has been mainly window-dressing, and I do not think they have achieved anything in disarmament to compare with the part which was played by my right honourable friends, Mr. Macmillan, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr. Hogg, on negotiating the Partial Test Ban Treaty.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Would he not agree that the British Government have played a very considerable part in formulating and negotiating the Non-Proliferation Treaty recently placed upon the table in Geneva?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Yes, my Lords, I accept that that is certainly a step forward; but I think that the Test Ban Treaty was an even more remarkable achievement. But I am glad to recognise what the noble Lord has done. Then
464
I should like to say something good about the Pact on Outer Space. I think that the Government's efforts in promoting it should be fully appreciated. I was intrigued by what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said about internationalising the sea-bed and the ocean floor on the same kind of basis. I agree with him that there is in the depths wealth beyond our dreams—not only minerals but also sufficient food to feed the under-nourished populations of the world. I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has to say about that subject.
We must all hope that ultimately we shall become one world; it is not only Left-Wing supporters of the United Nations who must have that objective as their ideal. The Labour Party cannot claim a monopoly of interest in the future of the Organisation. But we must be realistic about what the U.N. can effectively undertake. It is heartbreaking, no doubt, that the basic ideals on which the League and the United Nations were set up have not been realised. The U.N. is indeed a kind of "Heartbreak House". In the play of that name—one of the best which is at present running in London—Bernard Shaw says:
"… the world has a way of slipping through your fingers".
There are many other passages in that great play which are pertinent to conditions in Britain and the world to-day.
"Is this England or is it a madhouse?",
asks Captain Shotover.
"We blunder and muddle along".
And in view of his speech yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, will be interested to know that there is also a very interesting passage in the play about the duties of the captain of a ship in a crisis.
I am sure I am not alone on this side of your Lordships' House in saying that I have considerable respect and feelings of friendship for many who sit on the Benches opposite. I know that many of them question the policies which the Government are implementing. But, relating them to our present debate, I sometimes wonder whether they will eventually submit the situation in this country to the United Nations for solution, too! It would, after all, be in character for them to do so, since the present situation is obviously beyond

465
their control, as we learned in our debate during the last two days. I do not pose that as a question to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for the Government are, I think, fortunate in having him in their ranks, and we must all respect his undoubted abilities. But I do question some of the Government's policies in the U.N., especially, as I have said, in regard to Rhodesia and Aden, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to reply to the criticisms I have made in those cases as well as on the structure of the F.A.O.

SCOTTISH HURRICANE DAMAGE: RELIEF MEASURES
4.32 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene, apologetically, to repeat the Statement which my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton indicated, in reply to the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, would be repeated after it had been made in another place, on the subject of storm damage in Scotland. If I may make it clear, it is through no lack of confidence in my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton but in an attempt to recognise the importance of the subject that I have myself asked whether I might make this Statement to your Lordships.
My Lords, the Statement from my right honourable friend reads as follows:
"In the Statement which I made to the House on January 16 about the gale which struck Scotland early the previous day I promised to keep the House informed about progress in dealing with its effects.
"As the House will know, I visited Glasgow myself on January 17 to inspect some of the damage there; and on that date and again on January 22 I held meetings with a number of local authorities representing the worst affected areas. My ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Office have all visited damaged areas and have had useful discussions with the people concerned on the spot.
"Some 750 people (350 in Glasgow) are still in rest centre accommodation provided by the local authorities, while others are living with relatives and friends. A total of 796 families in
466
Glasgow are having to be rehoused as a result of storm damage or threat to their homes: up to yesterday, all but 61 of these had been offered alternative accommodation and 459 had been placed.
"The storm caused millions of pounds worth of damage to public and private property as well as to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Became of the widespread nature of the damage, it has not yet been possible for full assessments to be made by all the authorities and agencies concerned. Estimates indicate that local authority property, including housing and schools, has sustained damage which will cost some £9 million to restore. The present figure for private housing is over £7 million. Hospital damage is estimated at £130,000.
"Most farms in the severely affected counties suffered damage, some of it severe. A reliable estimate of the cost of repairing damage to farm buildings is not yet possible, partly because of the restrictions imposed on access to farms on account of foot-and-mouth disease. Only a small number of stock have been lost. Horticulture has suffered relatively more severely, because much of the Scottish glasshouse acreage is in the areas most affected.
"The damage to woodlands is at present estimated at about 30 million hoppus feet. This appears to be equally shared between the Forestry Commission and private estates. Arrangements for extraction and marketing will be considered at a meeting which the Chairman of the Commission is holding in Glasgow next Monday, when the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association and the timber trade will be represented.
"My own Department has provided help to local authorities with staff for the handling of emergency arrangements and with the provision of supplies from emergency stores. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has provided more than 9,000 tarpaulins for emergency roof repairs, and a further 5,000 will be delivered to-day, while the Ministry of Public Building and Works has been helping with arrangements for the supply of roofing materials. The Ministry of Social

467
Security gave immediate help in dealing with the welfare problems which arose in the aftermath of the storm. All three Armed Services have given help in the form of manpower, supplies and transport which has been greatly appreciated by the local authorities.
"Local authorities are dealing effectively with the necessary repairs to their own houses, but there are problems in securing rapid and adequate repair to privately owned houses, particularly tenements in multiple ownership, many of which have suffered very severe damage. I am therefore asking authorities to organise repair work not only to their own houses, but also to others so far as they judge this necessary to get essential work done quickly. Indeed many authorities have already done excellent work in this direction. Damage to tenement property is particularly widespread in Glasgow, and the Corporation and my Department are working out with representatives of the owners and contractors a scheme to ensure that necessary repair work proceeds rapidly.
"As regards finance, it is not yet possible to assess the extent to which damage generally is covered by insurance. But it is already clear that the costs to local authorities of the necessary repairs to property are likely to impose undue burdens on the local ratepayers in some of the worst hit areas. Where these conditions arise the Government will provide appropriate financial help to the authorities concerned, on a basis to be worked out in discussion with the authorities as soon as all the relevant facts are known. In the meanwhile, to deal with situations in which limited financial resources would otherwise lead to delay in proceeding with essential work, an immediate advance of up to £500,000 is being made available from the Civil Contingencies Fund to be drawn upon by local authorities as required.
"In addition, as already announced, arrangements have been made to deal urgently with applications for improvement grant for the restoration of fences and other fixed farm equipment. Similar arrangements have also been made to deal urgently with applications
468
under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. The forestry situation will be considered further in the light of next Monday's meeting."
4.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, which has been made in another place. We are very sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is unwell, and I am sure we all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having to take on this rather difficult subject at such short notice. The gale inflicted severe damage on farm buildings and woodlands in Scotland, and we are glad to know that consideration is being given to the difficulties of farmers and foresters; but, of course, much the most urgent problem is the large number of families in Glasgow and elsewhere who are completely homeless, living now in rest centres or with relations, and it is on that point that I should like a little more elucidation of the Statement.
The noble Lord said that, out of 796 homeless families in Glasgow alone, 735 had been offered accommodation and 459 had been placed. Does the word "placed" mean that they are actually in their new houses, or does it mean that they have been offered houses which are now under construction and, if so, approximately how long will it be before they are completed? With regard to the remaining 276 who have been offered accommodation, does that mean that they have just been given priority on a local authority waiting list for houses, or does it mean that they have been allocated specific houses which are likely to be ready for occupation at a definite time? I should also like to ask about the families who are not in Glasgow. All that the Statement tells us about those families is that about 400 persons outside Glasgow are in rest centres. Could the noble Lord tell us how many families outside Glasgow are in urgent need of rehousing, and what steps are being taken about it?
Finally, may I ask the Government to request the Scottish Special Housing Association—a Government body which was set up in 1938 and which has already built more than 60,000 houses in Scotland—to produce, if it can, emergency schemes to relieve the situation, if possible, by using the various methods of

469
industrialised building which does not put such a heavy strain on the available supply of conventional building labour and materials?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Hughes is not here to answer because he visited the area and I know how deeply involved and personally concerned he was in this matter. Very few people in England appreciate just how serious this disaster has been and the extent to which, in certain respects, emergency conditions are still continuing. It is partly that, as well as my lack of precise knowledge, which makes it impossible for me to give answers to the highly relevant questions that the noble Earl has asked. Clearly, we are still in a transitional stage with regard to the position. So acute was the emergency at certain times that there was even a temporary wireless network set up in Glasgow. Of course the precise figures are changing, but a number of people are being housed with relatives, and all one can say is that they are under cover and that emergency repairs are being made.
The noble Earl made some impotrant points, and I noted in particular his reference to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I hope he will forgive me if I merely say that I will convey these particular questions to my right honourable friend and at a suitable opportunity write a letter to the noble Earl. But it may be that the concern of the House is such that they would prefer to be given further information by way of question and answer in this House. There may be an opportunity of doing this next week.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not want to press the noble Lord, but I think my noble friend who put down the Question about this may want to ask one or two questions. I wanted to know what is meant by the "offer of accommodation", and what it entails. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to get further information on that matter?
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, as this discussion arises from a Question that I had tabled, may I join with my noble friend Lord Dundee in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making the Statement? I
470
am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a speedy recovery. Before I make one or two points on these matters, may I pay tribute to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and to the G.P.O. in the North of Scotland who have done magnificent work in restoring electricity and telephones. Although in some areas restoration is not yet complete, these bodies have done magnificent work.
The Statement makes the point that full details of the hurricane, and the damage caused, are not yet available because communications North of Glasgow, which were cut off immediately after the storm, have in many cases not yet been restored. But I would ask that in planning the ail and assistance which they propose—and which, at the moment, rather naturally, is directed towards Glasgow, because the information about Glasgow is more accurate—the Government should make their survey on a wider basis; because the severity of the damage from the, hurricane in many areas was quite unusual and went far beyond that normally associated with storm damage. I am thinking in particular of the destruction of small fishing boats, which might represent the livelihood of a family. I am not asking for an answer now, but simply that this aspect may be looked into. There was extensive damage to farm buildings, where in some cases barns were completely destroyed. Houses in the course of erection were destroyed, and cattle were either drowned in the floods or poisoned through eating the hemlock washed down in the storms.
4.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I just add to what my noble friend has said? While thanking the Government and appreciating the great help they are going to give, and while thanking the noble Lord for making the Statement, may I also draw attention to the remoter areas of the Western Highlands which have suffered great damage by the hurricane? I would point out that this is the second hurricane we have had in the last ten years. While I am appalled by the damage suffered in Glasgow, and fully commiserate with the inhabitants, the trouble in the remoter areas is that it is difficult for the householders or small owner-occupiers to get repairs done. I was wondering whether in this respect the

471
Army could help. Perhaps it would be possible to send a detachment of Royal Engineers to the Western Highlands to help in repairs to farm buildings. I should like the noble Lord to put that question forward to the right quarters.
I would also point out that Lloyd's will not insure against hurricane damage in the Western Highlands unless one is prepared to pay completely exorbitant premiums. I wonder if this is an opportunity for the Government, through the Highland Development Board, to set up some special insurance fund for the Western Highlands particularly (because it is the Western Highlands which gets the brunt of the hurricanes) by which householders, farmers and landowners generally—and I have to declare an interest here as a landowner—could insure against storm damage at a reasonable premium.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, it is clear from the Statement of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, that the magnitude of this disaster in Scotland is much greater than most of us had feared, or even imagined, and I should like to thank him for the encouragement he has given us, because it is clear that the Government are really taking this problem very seriously and grappling with it. Some years ago, when I was still the Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire, we had a similar disaster, though perhaps not quite so catastrophic, on the East Coast. It hit woodlands, more than anything else, rather than the towns. But these are acts of Nature which none of us can control.
The only thing I should like to say to the noble Lord—and I am sure he will agree—is that there are two things which are absolutely vital. The first is speed in assessing the extent of the damage, and where it has fallen, and the second is generosity on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly, but I did not wish to interrupt noble Lords in their short speeches, since it might have appeared that I was taking refuge in my position. I thought they were relevant and interesting. I am very sorry that I cannot give to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the information for which he asked. It is not available to
472
me, and I am not even sure whether it is available in London. I stress again that the situation is very fluid, and I have given the noble Earl all the information I possess. He may rebuke me for not having obtained this further information, but I do know that my right honourable friend has been collecting information about this problem as hard as he can. I agree that it is important, and I will try to see whether some later information can be made available.
I am grateful to noble Lords for what they had to say. A lot of the information for which they have asked is not available. I noticed what the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, had to say about the extent of the disaster. There are precedents as to the extent of compensation which can be paid in certain circumstances. Generally, in regard to fixed farm equipment, there are appropriate rates of compensation. I cannot at this moment give details, but I will certainly pass on the information to my right honourable friend, and convey the sense of the House in this matter.
I am relieved that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, drew attention to the second hurricane some while ago which occurred under a previous Government. Although no Government has yet been able to achieve it, I have no doubt that the time will come when there will be some degree of weather control. But that is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the United Nations may have something to say. I am not sure how far this would be relevant to the West of Scotland alone. People, including myself, who are aware of the violent weather that can occur would not ignore the fact that other areas have been struck by disaster. There was the East Coast disaster a few years ago which was of quite an appalling kind. None the less, it appears that there is no doubt (at least we have heard nothing to suggest the contrary) that the emergency services did go into action. Certainly the Armed Forces did. I understand that the Army provided craftsmen and other troops to assist in repairing and clearance work, not only in Glasgow but also in the West of Scotland. I am sure that the tribute to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will be appreciated.

473
My Lords, I do not think there is any further information I can give, beyond again saying that I will convey to my right honourable friend the feeling in your Lordships' House, which I hope that the public generally will appreciate, and repeating that of course the disaster did not occur only in Glasgow.

UNITED NATIONS AND THE SPECIAL AGENCIES
4.55 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CARADON): My Lords, before we return to the subject of the debate which was started by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, I should like to add one word to the references which have been made by noble Lords to the most serious damage which has occurred in Scotland. I was myself in Stirling a night or two ago, and I know very well the strong feeling that exists in many areas that the extent of the damage went far beyond the main cities. I cannot claim to be anything of an expert, except that, having spent ten years in the West Indies, I am an expert on hurricanes. I strongly support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dundonald, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, too. The essence of relief work is, of course, speed, and a combination of Government initiative and voluntary contribution. I have no doubt that this disaster will be dealt with in that way.
My Lords, in returning to our debate on the United Nations, let me at once express very sincere gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for moving the Motion. Some might suggest that after recent serious alarms and excursions, and with the many anxieties which now beset us nearer home, this is no time to turn to discuss Great Britain's role in the United Nations. On the contrary, I am sure that a review and reassessment of the contribution of this country to international affairs is not only opportune but urgently necessary. Now, more than ever, I suggest to your Lordships, we need to think of our national interest in the context of international co-operation.
I can escape only occasionally from the Parliamentary diplomacy in which I exist
474
in New York in order to pay my respects to this ancient House. I do not need to be told of the frustrations and failures of international negotiation: I spend all day, and often most of the night, among them. So what a joy it was to listen this afternoon to the speech by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder! I wholeheartedly agree with a great deal of what he said. As to his generous reference to me, I would only say that I regarded it as very right and natural that I should graduate from the school of colonial administration to the university of international affairs. To proceed from imperialism to isolation is to wither away, but to go from colonialism to internationalism is to live again.
We are all indebted to the noble Lord for the lead he gave us to-day. He certainly said some alarming things, but especially I think we should thank him because he spoke to us with confidence and hope for the future. Surely, at this time, more than anything else we need confidence and hope for the future. I would say that it was worth coming across the Atlantic to hear the speech of the noble Lord, and I shall return refreshed by his imaginative optimism.
I also listened with the closest attention to the wide-ranging speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I thought that occasionally he was slightly grudging in his recognition of the part which the international Agencies are taking. But we shall, I hope, be able later to follow him into the number of most interesting and important subjects which he raised with us. I have wandered for nearly forty years in the adventure—I would not say the wilderness—of overseas service, and I think it was well that our debate should be started by two noble Lords who have travelled the world so extensively and therefore are able to bring the force and authority of their wide experience to our discussions. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to endeavour later to reply to some of the points already made, and no doubt other questions will be raised later this afternoon.
I shall not attempt to comment now on the detailed points in the speeches which have been made, but perhaps I should answer at once one main criticism in the speech to which we have just listened. The noble Lord complained that on Rhodesia and Aden we should not have sought to

475
co-operate with the United Nations or to allow the United Nations any part to play. Let me assure him that we have never denied or shirked our duty to deal with Rhodesia or Aden or any other territory under our responsibility. But there is, as he knows, intense interest not only in the United Nations but in the Commonwealth, and indeed everywhere in the world, in the few remaining colonial issues. There is even more intense interest—rightly so—in racial issues.
We have consequently in the United Nations stated and defended our policies and taken the initiative in seeking support for our aims. What were those aims? In South Arabia to hand over to a Government with the widest measure of public support and in Rhodesia to find a solution just to all the people of the terrritory. In pursuing these honourable purposes we have judged it best not to ignore or flout international opinion but rather to influence and enlist it in our support. While, as I have said, we do not deny or shirk our responsibilities, we recognise that both in Arabia and Africa it is better in the long run to work for agreement and co-operation than to contest and oppose the views of the rest of the world.
The speeches to which we have already listened have shown us an obvious difficulty we face to-day. It is a difficulty which must arise whenever an attempt is made to discuss the United Nations. It is a difficulty which arises from the range and variety of United Nations activities. We who work in the British delegation to the United Nations must be constantly aware of the complexity and extent of those problems. Especially we are aware of them when the General Assembly and its seven main committees of the whole membership are in daily session, and when the Security Council may well be meeting at the same time. We face a resumed session of the Assembly soon on disarmament and perhaps on African and Middle East problems, too. Increasingly the activities of the United Nations are continuously in progress throughout the year.
The Security Council is meeting to-day to consider the question of the Pretoria trial of the South-West Africans. The Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme has been meeting
476
this month in New York. The Disarmament Conference continues now in Geneva approaching, we confidently trust, agreement on a Non-Proliferation Treaty—the third effort towards disarmament following the success first of the Test Ban Treaty and then the Outer Space Treaty. Next month the second UNCTAD Conference is to take place in New Delhi to deal with the vital issues of international trade and aid. In March the important legal conference on the Law of Treaties will meet in Vienna. In April, this being Human Rights Year, the World Conference on Human Rights is to take place in Teheran.
Meanwhile the Secretary-General is endeavouring to use his good offices to make progress towards a settlement in and over Cyprus. Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, the Secretary-General's Special Representative, is embarked on his all-important task in the Middle East—one of the most exacting assignments ever undertaken, and no man is better qualified by experience and character and outstanding ability to attempt it. These are our immediate preoccupations.
But there is no major problem, no tension, no conflict in the world which is not also a matter of concern and debate and negotiation at the United Nations. I must consequently resist any temptation to try to cover too much ground. If I endeavoured to do so my comment would necessarily be superficial, and I should impose unreasonably on your Lordships' patience. So I shall not attempt to-day to speak in detail on the Specialised Agencies. Each one properly deserves a debate to itself.
On human rights we are privileged to be represented on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Third Committee of the General Assembly, by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell. Her lively and vigorous eloquence is as well known in New York as it is here in your Lordships' House, and I very much look forward to hearing her speak to us presently. On questions of international economic development there is no one better qualified to speak to us than my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder himself, and I know that there are others with special knowledges and experience in such matters who are to speak to us later.

477
As I have said, I would hope, with your Lordships' permission, to reply before this debate is completed to some of the questions raised. What I would ask to do now is to attempt a very difficult task. I am anxious to make a very general comment on the function and future of the United Nations Organisation, and I wish to do so with special reference to the interests and the role of our country.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has emphasised the importance of the economic activity of the United Nations. It is little known in this country, I find, that more than 80 per cent. of the men and money employed by the United Nations is engaged not on political discussion but on economic and social undertakings. The international community has created a working machine for raising the standard of living of those who live, in the Secretary General's phrase, in the "progressive misery of half the world." The World Bank and its associates, the Regional Banks, the U.N. Development Programme, the U.N. Industrial Development Organisation, the World Food Programme, all supported and supplemented by the work of the battery of Specialised Agencies, together represent a machine capable of a major attack on the degradation of world poverty. This is a new thing in the world, based on a new conception of international responsibility. The creation of this machine for international economic development is perhaps the greatest single achievement of the United Nations in the first two decades of the existence of the Organisation. The resources so far allotted to economic development are clearly wholly inadequate. But the means, the machine, for developments are already created.
There is moreover a growing realisation that the affluent nations can best assist the rest by international effort, by multilateral development, rather than merely by bilateral aid. The time will come, so I trust and believe, when, drawing on the experience already gained and making use of the machine already created, there will be a new international effort—on a scale so far not dreamt of—to make prosperity not the privilege of the few but an opportunity to be shared by all. So far the advance has been much smaller than we should have wished. But
478
the important thing is that a start has been made. Enough has been done to convince us that this is the way. Increasingly this is recognised, and if we want some evidence of that we can point to the fact that nearly forty countries have increased their voluntary contributions to the U.N. Development Programme for this year.
We welcome the efforts so far made in international economic development. We recognise its great potentiality. We are concerned to increase the efficiency of the machine. We look to a time when its resources and its impact on world poverty will be immensely increased. Meanwhile we admire the excellent contribution of the World Bank which was so early in the field, and also the pioneering work done by leaders like Mr. Paul Hoffman and Mr. David Owen of the U.N. Development Programme, and we support the Resident Representatives of the U.N. Development Programme with teams of experts already at work in a hundred nations of the world.
At the same time, we cannot fail to be constantly aware of how little has been done in comparison with the extent and the urgency of the need. The dangers of the world, so I would earnestly submit to your Lordships, are now so greet and growing so fast that we cannot hope to deal with them by the action of any one nation alone. They are so immense that it is only by concerted international action that we can hope to overcome them. This is the main contention I wish to put to your Lordships to-day. It is the argument which I tried to put forward in this House when I first spoke here three years ago. The contention is that the dangers of poverty and population and race are all one; that the greatest danger of all is that the division, the gulf, will grow between the overcrowded, discontented, hungry African and Asian people of the world—two-thirds of the population of the world—on the one hand, and the affluent, comfortable, complacement white people, on the other. This is surely the greatest danger of all, a danger which makes the religious or ideological differences of the past insignificant.
The consequent fear is that on these issues of poverty and population and race we of the white West will forfeit the respect and lose the leadership of the world; and if racial conflict starts in

479
southern Africa, certainly all Africa will be inflamed and the whole world involved. These are the dangers which most surely cannot be dealt with by one nation acting alone. They will be met and overcome only if we can join in a new endeavour in international co-operation.
We should not weep for the end of imperial power: we should welcome the beginning of international authority. When we look back we shall recognise that our finest achievement was not in making an Empire, but in ending it. The conversion of a subject Empire into a free Commonwealth is surely Great Britain's main accomplishment. I am proud to be able to boast in the United Nations that in less than a quarter of a century we in the British Commonwealth have enfranchised and brought into the councils of international co-operation a quarter of the population of the whole world. Now we must not look back in sadness to imperial power. We must not live in the past, but go forward eagerly to create international authority. With that main purpose in mind, let me endeavour to report what progress we have made in the United Nations since I first spoke in this House three years ago.
I put the failures first. Vietnam must come top of the list. Although the Secretary-General has himself throughout courageously sought to find a way towards a negotiated peace, we, the members of the United Nations, have so far failed to take any effective action to stop the war. This is indeed a grave reproach. The fault and the failure lie, of course, not with the United Nations Organisation itself, not with the Charter nor with the Secretary-General. A great deal of the fault can, of course, be traced back to the attitude of the North Vietnamese, who have constantly denied that the United Nations has a role to play in the Vietnam dispute. But a large measure of responsibility must also lie with the members of the U.N., and especially with those who have opposed and blocked discussion in the Security Council.
It is worth repeating that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the members of it. The failure over Vietnam is due to two other failures. First, there has been the failure to carry the membership with us in our contention
480
that we should do everything possible not to keep Communist China out of the United Nations, but to persuade the People's Republic of China to come in. This is not a Party issue; all Parties in this country agree about it. On that issue the vote in the U.N. has gone backwards in the past two years, and it is difficult or impossible, I am sorry to say, to see any hope of a better result while the Vietnam war continues.
The second main barrier to effective advance to international co-operation has been the continuation of the cold war between East and West. On that it is possible to make a more encouraging report. This year, for the first time, we had a President of the Assembly from an Eastern European country. Foreign Minister Manescu of Rumania filled this high and exposed office with distinction and admirable impartiality, and also with elegance and tact and good humour. This in itself, I suggest, is a welcome sign of better East-West relations. Moreover, in a wide range of issues effective, practical co-operation between East and West is now taken for granted. The co-operative work in Geneva towards a Non-Proliferation Treaty is matched by our work in New York. The Outer Space Treaty which entered into force last October was a notable achievement in itself, and in these matters in the disarmament field East and West are now often working together. In the last few days of the session which ended last month agreement governing rescue and return of astronauts and space vehicles was speedily and unanimously accepted by the General Assembly. Efforts are now being made to arrange a tripartite signature ceremony in London, Moscow and Washington during the next few days.
I have good reason to be grateful to Mr. Kutsnetsov, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, who has just spent three months in New York, for close and friendly co-operation with us on a number of important matters, including particularly the Middle East. It was the Russian decision to withdraw their resolution and vote for ours which enabled Ambassador Gunnar Jarring to go to the Middle East backed by the authority of a unanimous resolution. A few years ago we assumed that there would always be a monolithic Eastern Communist opposition to our proposals

481
in the United Nations. I now find that in discussion of many subjects with representatives of Eastern Communist States there is a wide range of ready agreement. I do not suggest that the main purposes of Soviet policy have changed. We should be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about future Soviet intentions. But these facts that I report are, I suggest, encouraging indications at least of improvement. I am far more concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the division between North and South on the combined issues of poverty and population and race than I am about the old-fashioned ideological differences of East and West.
My Lords, I said when I spoke here three years ago that no representative of this country had gone to the United Nations with a better mandate than mine. We have no reason to be ashamed of our record at the United Nations in the past three years. We have taken our full part, often a leading part, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council in the discussions of the Council—on Kashmir, on the Congo, on Cyprus, on Rhodesia and on the Middle East. We have defended our proud record of decolonisation. When we have been subjected to unreasonable attack we have stood our ground and vigorously replied. We have paid everything we owe. We have supported every United Nations' initiative, not least in contributing to the relief of the sufferings of the Arab refugees. We have pledged ourselves to provide logistic support for up to six battalions of United Nations troops. We have provided the largest military contingent to the United Nations force in Cyprus, and met the full costs of that contingent, and have, moreover, contributed at the rate of 4 million dollars a year to the cost of the whole force. And we are still continuing to make our contribution at that level.
We are firm believers in multilateral development aid, and among the first decisions of this Government were the decisions to increase our contributions to the United Nations development programme and to other United Nations Agencies, including, for instance, the High Commission for Refugees and the United Nations Children's Fund. Since then, in times of balance-of-payment difficulties we have maintained the general
482
level of our contributions in the entire range of United Nations economic and social work.
I think the House will understand that it is not possible in present circumstances for me to give, here and now, positive undertakings about our future contributions. Certainly we shall not be able in the immediate future to give as much development aid as we would wish. But your Lordships will have noted that we are maintaining the basic aid programme at its previous cash level. Moreover, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development made clear in another place on January 18, additional assistance for Malaysia and Singapore is to be provided, as well as some other assistance outside the basic aid programme.
We hope also to see the resources of the International Development Association renewed at the higher level most recently proposed by the President of the World Bank, Mr. George Woods, and we shall be prepared to make our contribution to that. We shall play our part in the forthcoming UNCTAD Conference, and although, of course, we must at this time have special regard to our present economic difficulties we shall, as we promised at the first UNCTAD Conference, aim to continue to provide 1 per cent. of national income in development aid and other capital flowing to the developing countries. And certainly it is our hope and our intention, by strengthening our own economy, to be able to do more in the future.
Moreover, we should not forget that when the United Nations faced grave financial problems owing to the refusal of the Russians and others to pay their share of the costs of the Congo operation, we, with the other good peacekeepers—especially the Canadians and the Nordic countries—came forward to pay our voluntary and unconditional contribution of 10 million dollars in order to help to rid the United Nations of its financial difficulties; and others have since followed that example.
Yes, my Lords, we have followed a positive policy at the United Nations. Our record is second to none. As the dangers increase, and as the days of imperialism give way, as they surely must, to international action, we need to

483
redouble our efforts to make the United Nations an effective instrument for keeping the peace and for dynamic economic progress. An effective United Nations was desirable before; it is now essential.
What we see in the world and in the United Nations is, surely, a slow, hard, painful transition; a transition from the old days of power politics and the domination of the world by a few great Powers and the balance of terror; a transition from those bad old days to a new era of international understanding and international co-operation, and, in the end, international order and authority. It is slow; it is hard; it is painful, and it is frustrating, I give testimony: and it is only just beginning. But I am convinced—and I hope that your Lordships are, too—of one clear conclusion. There is no other way to go, no other road to travel, except by the way of constant and persistent search for common ground and agreement. That is our daily and persistent endeavour at the United Nations, which is both the forum and the centre of international co-operation. I am further convinced that in the process of replacing imperial power by international order no country in the world can make a greater contribution than ours. Certainly no country in the world has a greater direct interest than ours in raising the level of world prosperity and of world peace.
My Lords, I would say one final word. I come home once a year to speak in the schools and universities of this country about our work at the United Nations. I have been so engaged during the past few weeks, before going back to New York. I shall go back greatly encouraged. Among people of my generation I find much doubt, much misgiving and much disillusion, a turning away in apathy, and sometimes in antipathy, from the troubles of the world. But I scarcely need to assure your Lordships that there is a very different spirit in the youth of this country. They are not seeking to escape. They are not anxious to go back. They are anxious to learn about the wider world. They are eager to understand other peoples, and particularly the peoples of the new countries and the new nations. They are ready themselves to go in a spirit of adventurous service. And in that spirit, which is in accordance with our country's
484
proud tradition of overseas initiative and enterprise, we can all rejoice.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether I am right in understanding that he will be answering some of the other questions I put to him, when, by leave, he speaks again, later on this evening?
LORD CARADON: My Lords, I shall seek the permission of the House to reply to a number of points which have been raised by the noble Earl and others which arise as the debate proceeds.
5.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, gave a memorable address to the local United Nations organisation in Norwich, he stressed more than once that the United Nations could achieve only what the member States and the citizens of those States would allow or expect it to achieve. I have once again listened to, and been greatly moved by, a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, this afternoon. I join with him in expressing sincere indebtedness to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for introducing this debate, and for the manner in which he has done so. I cannot imagine that any of your Lordships, or indeed any of the people of this country, would do other than wish to see the United Nations given every possible support to enable it to fulfil its purposes. And yet, although it would seem presumptuous of someone like myself to make an assessment, the United Nations does appear weaker today than it was. And so it is very heartening to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, of some of the recent achievements which have been made.
The right honourable George Thomson, then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, said in August last year to the Oslo Congress of World Federalists that
"the peak of United Nations peacekeeping was reached some years ago at the point the United Nations was engaged in the Congo and Cyprus as well as Kashmir and the Middle East. Since then there has been a decline. The practical prospects for action are now more limited than they were, when the concept was developed with such skill and foresight by the late Dag Hammarskjöld"
Any decline or any weakness in the power and effectiveness of the United Nations is a grave matter for mankind as a whole.

485
Last October U Thant published a report by 12 scientific experts in the field of nuclear physics (including Dr. Emilyanov of Russia, and Sir Solly Zuckerman) about the dangers of the present nuclear armaments race on which many Governments are engaged. It is the British Government's policy, faced with this sombre challenge to mankind's survival on this planet, to work with other Governments for a Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such a treaty, according to The Times, even if signed
"will not stop the great Powers embarking on new and costly phases of the arms race. It will not guarantee the non-nuclear Powers against nuclear threats. It will not be signed by China or France. It will not even provide any solid guarantees that signatories will keep the rules."
Indeed, apparently all it would do, according to The Times, is to
"provide that extra hit of trust and understanding from which other things would flow."
I would join wholeheartedly in saying that a Non-Proliferation Treaty is earnestly to be desired, and one may hope that, if it is secured, the consequences of such a treaty will prove more effective and less gloomy than The Times anticipates. But more than a non-proliferation treaty is needed if mankind is to be saved from U Thant's dossier on Death and Disaster.
In our present situation, the position of the United Nations, to which the right honourable George Thomson referred, is a matter of real urgency. If it is declining—and here again it is a matter of opinion—how is that to be arrested or reversed, or, to put it in a positive way, how is the United Nations to be strengthened in order to make it much more effective than it is at present? The United Nations Organisation would seem to have been considerably hampered in its effectiveness by certain features of its Charter, to which constant reference has been made—in particular, the present voting system, the requirement of unanimity among the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and the non-inclusion of the People's Republic of China. It is nothing short of tragic to learn that any attempt at a fundamental revision of the Charter at the present time would probably result in no Charter at all.
I should like to mention two particular ways in which I believe that a decline
486
of the United Nations influence could be reversed. The first is by substituting a sense of world community for international understanding or, since this is really a matter of the meaning of words, by interpreting internationalism in terms of world community, which in fact I believe to be the objective of the United Nations. Many people believe that greater international understanding will keep the peace, but will it? International understanding so often teaches people to recognise the differences between national communities without necessarily going a further stage of indicating the common ground upon which these communities can recognise each other's worth. National systems of education still tend to do this.
Even in sport—the Olympic Games, the World Cup—are we so sure that they help to keep the world together? One is disposed to say, "Yes"; and in the case of the Olympic Games if the influence of the International Olympic Academy should grow one would say, "Yes" with greater confidence. But it is a moot and debatable point. The insistence that every individual on this planet must have some kind of national label, and presumably a behaviour pattern to match, even when doing the same things, is about as nationalistic as to pin attributes of British nationalism on to the Almighty.
The nationalism represented by many United Nations Governments desperately needs to be balanced by some kind of encouragement of conscious loyalty to the human race as a whole—the recognition of the spirit in every man; that is to say, by a sense of world community and world citizenship such as will stress the similarities between the different families of mankind, and not only call attention to their differences. Until there is throughout the world a greater movement of thought and feeling, encouraging us to think and feel and act as members one of the other in a world community, the United Nations and other political institutions will inevitably not make the progress that they should.
The work of UNESCO was originally designed precisely for this purpose;
"to construct the defences of peace in the minds of men."
The success with which it can carry out this mandate depends, I would judge, in

487
some large measure on the extent to which it helps people to look beyond their national loyalties and national differences to their common heritage as human beings. But there is a second way in which I believe that the authority and influence of the United Nations can be greatly enhanced. This lies in the proposition so powerfully advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—the idea of the exploitation of the ocean floors for the benefit of mankind. And I should like to say something more in wholehearted support of what Lord Ritchie-Calder has said on this subject.
Now that the depths of the ocean floor beyond the limits of the Continental Shelf hitherto unexploited are becoming exploitable, there is the opportunity that this exploitation should not be parcelled out to the highest bidder or to the nation whose coasts are nearest, but utilised for the benefit of mankind. This is precisely what the men who have undertaken this deep-sea underwater exploration have themselves proposed. The World Underwater Federation, with a membership of 42 countries, and including Commandant Cousteau, Professor Picard and Professor Link, of the U.S.S.R., have claimed the ocean floor as trustees for mankind. They have, as it were, put an international flag at the bottom of the deep seas. This area of our planet, to which no country has as yet staked a claim, needs to be placed under international control. Otherwise the ocean floor could well provide a further incentive to national aggrandisement and to conflict, or could provide the opportunity for one nation's domination of the world.
There must indeed be some early international settlement about the resources of the ocean floor. The Parliamentary Group for World Government has recently set up a Committee to consider this matter which is of such urgent importance. One prerequisite would be a definition of the geographical limitations of the Continental Shelf, based on a geographical criteria and abolishing the loophole claims of the open-ended definition of the Continental Shelf in Article I of the Continental Shelf Convention 1958. This is a matter which will clearly cause some considerable difficulty, and I should like to read that first Article. It says:
"For the purpose of these Articles the term Continental Shelf' is used as referring

488

(a) to the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea to a depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas;

(b) to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the islands of coasts."

The other requirements for such a treaty have been spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, notably that exploitation of the ocean floor be regarded as a common heritage of mankind, that its exploitation be used for peaceful purposes only, and, as the Maltese Ambassador to the United Nations has proposed, that the needs of the poorer countries should receive consideration in connection with its resources.
If it be said that the achievement of such a treaty is quite beyond reasonable expectations, I would reply that the same argument might well have been used for the Antarctic a few years prior to 1959. After the war there was increasing tension over territorial claims in the Antarctic. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said when the Antarctic Treaty was debated in your Lordships' House:
"The genius of the document as I see it is that it has substituted the principle of the common peaceful user of the Antarctic for the older practice of scramble and grab in order to establish a proprietary title."
But there was an even more sinister danger so far as the Antarctic was concerned; namely, of its being used to harbour secret arsenals or for nuclear experiments. The fact that this treaty happened at all, that it bound together what would then, and perhaps now, be regarded as improbable allies, that the treaty has been honoured and implemented, that the legal complexities over the treaty and the subsequent Antarctic Treaty Bill were resolved, is at least a good augury. As with the Antarctic, so with the ocean floors there is an urgency arising from the danger in the near future of military installations being established under water by super-Powers. The precedent of the Antarctic Treaty, however, cannot be carried too far, for the Antarctic has so far not been regarded as a likely source of mineral or other wealth, unlike the ocean floor. In the case of the Outer Space Treaty exploitation is permitted to anybody and this is precisely what a regime for the ocean floor could not permit. If,

489
before the haphazard exploitation of the resources of the ocean floor develops deeply entrenched vested interests, it can be agreed to allocate these resources for the benefit of all mankind, this will not only remove a potential source of international danger but liberate resources which could establish the United Nations on a financially secure and independent footing. And I am not minimising the extremely complicated issues which would have to be faced in drafting such a treaty. It would need to provide terms for the ocean floor compatible with the differing conditions for the seas above it.
Since the whole discussion about the peace-keeping powers of the United Nations met with some opposition from the Governments of France and Russia, over the principles of payment for it, it is very possible they would now oppose anything that would give the United Nations greater financial independence. It is not certain that the other Powers, like Britain and the United States, would be willing to give the United Nations such a measure of independence either, since there have been lengthy delays in paying off our arrears, and there is still a balance to be paid. Our Government, I understand, have committed themselves to the principle of a permanent force, but always there seems to be attached the qualification" ultimately". I should be very grateful, when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, replies to this debate, if he would comment on this point.
In December, 1965, the Prime Minister said:
"We range ourselves unequivocably on the side of those who say that the United Nations must move forward with set purpose towards becoming a world authority."
If the United Nations can be built into a world authority, the policing role performed by this country during the last century, performed perhaps in a more faltering fashion by the Americans now, will for the first time in human history be put on a proper basis, a basis which should be more acceptable because more representative than any Pax Romana, Pax Britannica or Pax Americana previously provided. One recognises the natural reluctance of Governments to see the United Nations, or indeed any analogous extranational world agency, grow into a dominant authority. But unless all Governments are willing to surrender
490
some elements of sovereignty in the interests of mankind as a whole, the, future destiny of mankind on this earth will be in jeopardy.
5.45 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for initiating this debate and for the very generous breadth of his Motion. Although the Human Rights Committee on which I have served for the last three years is not mentioned on the Order Paper, I think I shall not be, accused of "gate-crashing" on this debate, because the Third Committee deals continuously with items that come within the province of practically all of the Specialised Agencies. Incidentally, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that we have in this House two distinguished predecessors on the Human Rights Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who served on this Committee a good many years ago.
I will speak briefly of both my disappointments and my hopes on this Human Rights and Social Welfare Committee. Observers from the Specialised Agencies sit in the Committee. This huge Committee is a Parliament now of 122 countries: 122 delegates plus their advisers. Its daily business is the drafting of declarations and conventions to promote human rights. During the last three years I have watched this Committee encroach more and more on the items before other Committees, such as the Political and Legal Committees. In fact it has begun to act like an overflow meeting from various Committees and it often tries to deal with matters outside its competence. Its Rules of Procedure seem so flexible as to be stretched or bent in any political direction. When I first arrived at the United Nations, though I was not so naïve as to assume that human rights could be divorced from politics, I was not prepared for the way they were saturated by politics. I felt that no great progress could be made in that direction. But over the three years the Committee has become more, rather than less, political.
I have found one more disconcerting thing in the Committee, its great weakness for drawing up declarations—and

491
here I must exclude the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is a really inspired document. These declarations are simply shopping lists of aspirations, and it is a kind of United Nations language, which I have called "Aspiranto". It is true that these declarations give the developing nations an opportunity of listing their aims and goals and hopes, as well as the chance to blame the more developed nations for their colonialism and racialism, which they say has held them back over the years.
I had come to the United Nations believing it to be, when pared down to the bone, an organisation created to promote understanding between nations and for mutual aid. I had thought that the British role was to work in the Committees and in the Specialised Agencies, and by example and effort to help spread more human rights around the world. We had, after all, a good record on decolonisation and were dedicated to the final dissolution of the Empire. But the role we sought and the role we were assigned looked very different to me in the beginning. The explanation was soon at hand. The United Nations is obsessed with colonialism and racial discrimination, because of Rhodesia and South Africa. These are the only human rights issues that the Afro-Asian countries are concerned with, and when you have been there in the United Nations for three years you can really understand why.
They have absolutely no interest in the kind of human rights that we in this country cherish—such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to leave one's country, or the right of fair trial. They ignore the lack of human rights in their own country. So it looks as if, so long as there is no change in Rhodesia or South Africa, our views will not be listened to on human rights in any Committee, and for the time being our role is a shrinking one. This does not apply, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in the Security Council. It applies simply in the Human Rights Committee. This attitude spills over to all the other Western countries though, in a maddening way, to my mind, the French are never
492
attacked for past colonial misdemeanours.
The achievements of the Human Rights Committee have become progressively less over the last three years. In 1965, the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was concluded, and although it contained one irrelevant anti-colonial article, it had strong implementation machinery by United Nations standards. In 1966, the International Conferences for Civil and Political, and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were drawn up and, though they fell short of western goals, they did set a certain standard for developing and emergent countries. I thought that we were too critical of them not taking into consideration the many years it took us to achieve our own strong human rights and freedoms. This Western criticism only won us suspicion and hostility during the debates.
Last year, in 1967, the results of the three-month session were very poor. Every one of our debates, whether on refugees in Africa, on the War Crimes Convention, on the Convention against Religious Intolerance, or on the International Human Rights Conference which is going to take place in April in Teheran, was channelled into an attack on Israel. The aftermath of the Middle East war engendered unbounded bitterness among the Afro-Asians, and this feeling was fanned into hatred by the speeches of the Soviet Union and her satellites.
The only document to be completed was the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. We scarcely had a bite out of the Convention against Religious Intolerance, and there were many wasted hours countering what to me looked like a determined attempt on the part of the Soviets to try to get an atheist's charter, a non-believer's charter, out of this religious convention. The draft of a war crimes convention, originally contemplated to overcome any statutory limitation for the round-up of Nazi war criminals, was so drawn out to include apartheid and what the Afro-Asians called "crimes against humanity", that the resulting document is simply legally meaningless, and I do not believe that any Western country will sign it.

493
We wasted hours on the debate on religious intolerance by the acrimony induced by the misguided request from both Israel and the United States to include a specific reference to condemn anti-semitism among all forms of religious intolerance. This had been tried two years ago and had failed, and had produced even greater hostility this time. We would have done better if we had allocated the many hours spent in political acrimony by dealing in greater depth with an item called "The world social situation".
Of course, much of what I have described helps to bring the activities of the United Nations into disrepute, among people who do not know about it. But, as I say, this is due mainly to the lack of understanding between the richer and poorer countries of the moral relationships as well as the economic relationships. People do understand a little about the economic relationship between the "haves" and the "have nots"; but they do not seem to be aware of the main things which poison relationships between the countries of the world to-day.
There is Rhodesia, still a bastion of colonialism. There is South Africa, a strong bastion of racial discrimination. They account for the depth of feeling, for the fears of all the Afro-Asian countries to-day, the fears that are generated in half the world. Knowing this, I was somewhat surprised by the cavalier way in which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, dismissed the ban on South African arms as unrealistic. I assure him that if he had spent three days in the United Nations he would have seen why it was quite unrealistic not to have banned arms for South Africa. I understand that the economic arguments are not simple, but are quite complicated. We trade, and should trade, with all kinds of governments.
All the same, this is a really terrible issue in the United Nations, and no one knows this better than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union have nothing to lose, for they do not open their doors to immigrants. The Soviet Union do not have 20 million negroes in their country. They have gone all out to get the sympathy of half the world by just repeating a condemnation of colonialism and apartheid in every speech they make in the United
494
Nations. They have won a complete propaganda victory from the West. They rant with moral indignation, and it costs them absolutely nothing.
To get back to Britain and the severe present limitations to our role in tire United Nations on human rights, as I have said this is quite different from the efforts and the successes we have had in the Security Council. Here, may I say that I do not think people, even here, realise the efforts that were made by our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in this issue. When they talk about our not having any influence in the United Nations, they have only to look to the latest British resolution, which was the first step towards the peace negotiations in the Middle East. However, it looks as if, in this century, the extent of a nation's civilisation is judged by the, way it treats its minorities and the way it rejects arty double standards in human dignity.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has spoken of aid. Like many others, I have for long thought that there must be a complete revolution in our thinking and attitude about aid to developing countries. I have recently read a remarkable speech made by Mr. George Woods, until recently President of the World Bank. This has completely reinforced my own thoughts on this matter. He said:
"Exceptional action on a sufficient scale has to be taken, otherwise 'stagnation, frustration, disappointed hopes, leaves the great majority of our fellow men hungry, restless and reduced to delinquent despair'."
These words are not from some Left-Wing Socialist; they are from Mr. George Woods, who has just recently left the World Bank.
Arms spending has passed the 160 billion dollar mark, so no one can say that the developed countries are poor. Mr. George Woods also says that the stories of incompetence, waste and corruption in developing countries when given aid are absolutely false, and he adds:
"We are living through a time of disillusion and distaste for economic assistance."
I believe that we could perhaps reverse the malaise we have reached in human rights by a more realistic look at aid in the world.
As for the argument which the Opposition sometimes makes, that now that we

495
have relinquished an empire and have stopped policing the world we have shed all power and thus influence in the world, I utterly refute it. It merely illustrates ignorance of what the United Nations really stands for. It is not just a replica or a mirror of power politics in the world. Neither Russia nor America, the greatest Powers, exert the greatest influence—one has only to look at the British exertions in the last few months to see that. The United Nations is an organisation in which small countries have a voice, and sometimes a very great voice, particularly on the human rights side. Jamaica and Senegal are both very strong on human rights, and the delegates from the Philippines in my Committee made the most trenchant speech on aid. We ourselves have a great deal to contribute and a great role to play in the future. We are the most mature nation about government. At its best, our education is still the best in the world because it really trains men and women to have independent minds. If and when the problems of Rhodesia and South Africa are eased and settled, we shall get back our strong voice on human rights. Until then, we shall go on being accused of wanting such human rights for ourselves and not for others.
6.02 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, it is now some years since I was a delegate to the United Nations, and therefore I have some hesitation in addressing your Lordships to-day in the knowledge that there are many here who have had far more recent experience than my own. I listened with fascination to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and tried to follow him in the technical and scientific spheres, but I am afraid I must just sit at his feet and not go into that side of matters as I am incapable of doing so. When listening to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I almost felt myself back in the General Assembly watching it at work his picture was so vivid and I recalled it so well. With regard to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Norwich, I cannot follow him to the depths of the sea; but when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I realised that the Third Committee had not really changed very much since I was there many years ago.
496
I should like to make one or two points based on general principles which, I feel, must always hold good and which I do not think have been touched upon in this debate so far. Unfortunately, the United Nations suffers from overenthusiastic supporters on the one hand and uninformed criticisms on the other. It seems to me to be the duty of those of us who have been there to try to preserve a happy medium. It is perhaps salutary to remind ourselves of the actual United Nations objectives by occasionally re-reading the introduction to the Charter, thereby recalling our goal and measuring soberly how far we have gone towards reaching it. With your Lordships' permission, I will read the first few paragraphs:
"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm a faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law"—
I want to stress that, as I shall be dealing with it—
"can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom".
We must not be too disheartened if we feel that we have fallen far short of translating those words into reality.
I am not one of those people who think that by changing the original Charter everything immediately can be put right. In fact, I myself think that any attempt at changing it would take so many years and there would be so little consensus of opinion that we should get nowhere at all. The spirit which uplifted those nations who signed the Charter at San Francisco in 1945 has, I am afraid at the moment, vanished, at any rate for the time being. I do not think that any alterations in the Charter would be for the common good unless that spirit which inspired those nations came back and pervaded the nations who are now members.
The noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said—and I entirely agree with him—that there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the members of it. I think that that is true. When I was at the United Nations there were only 60

497
members, and in those days they were still carried forward by the hopes of the Founding Fathers. Now there are some 122 nations, all clamouring to be heard in their own interests; and I think we must therefore assess what practical steps can be expected of the United Nations in the light of this development. It does not at the moment look so much an instrument of world government as an instrument of education in international relations. There is no doubt as to the usefulness of the ablest representatives of many nations coming together in New York to discuss matters in open forum.
May I say here, as a member of the Opposition, that one cannot always approve of appointments made by the present Government; nevertheless, they have chanced very lucky in this House, both in the appointment of our new Leader and in the appointment of our representative at the United Nations, Lady Gaitskell. The Government have also recognised a point which I have always stressed: that there is tremendous value in continuing representation at the United Nations, since personal contacts and relationships count for a great deal there. It is only in the second and third year that one can reap the benefit of the foundations one has laid in the first year. Personally, I am sorry that the custom of sending Parliamentary delegates out to the United Nations has been dropped and that, instead, short visits have been introduced. I believe that a strong political representation is essential if a country wishes to make an impression. I believe that foreign delegates listen more readily to Parliamentarians than they do to civil servants, however eminent; and I say this without, I hope, taking away from the immense services which some noble Lords in this House have given to the United Nations.
Though we may be depressed at the lack of success in any particular session—and from what we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, the present one has not been very successful—we must not forget the good work which is going on in the various permanent branches all round the world, some of which have already been mentioned. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned the expense which some of them, such as the F.A.O., run to unnecessarily. Indeed, I would say, in passing, that unless the finances of the United Nations
498
are taken in hand shortly and firmly dealt with, there is a danger that the institution may crumble. We have learned that we cannot live on debts; neither can the United Nations. It may be that some of those countries which have not paid up as they should are Machiavellian in their hopes that in the end, the finances will crumble the United Nations.
Also, I have a feeling that there is a weakness in the staffing of the United Nations due to the too great regard for geographical distribution rather than to appointing the right man for the job. It may be that now that we have apparently decided to stop being one of the great Powers we shall have better luck in achieving more representation on the staff of the United Nations because there was always opposition to having too many great Power members on the staff.
But there is a special branch of the United Nations' work to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention. I think it is generally conceded—it is perhaps a platitude—that good government the world over is based on sensible laws accepted by general consent and properly enforced. Here lies the real weakness of the United Nations. We talk a lot about world government, but until we have good government the world over—or at least in the majority of nations—with respect for international law, we shall be crying for the moon and, indeed, we may even get the moon sooner. To my mind, world government at the present moment is the ideal of the escapist from his own home troubles.
It has always seemed to me that we have never made enough of, nor given its proper place to, the International Court at The Hague. That has not been mentioned so far this afternoon. We have twice had recourse to it. Once we lost and once we won, but each time we have cheerfully accepted its decision It is a great pity that other nations have not made more use of it; for instance Spain over Gibraltar. Perhaps she did not because she thought she did not have a very good case.
If we could strengthen international law—and I believe that this must come before world government—if we could persuade nations to argue their cases as interested parties, not on the rostrum of the General Assembly in New York but before carefully selected and elected

499
eminent legal experts at The Hague, there would then be some sense in trying to establish an international observer and police corps. I do not believe in an international military force at this stage—it would be too dangerous—nor do I think it is realistic to think that the great Powers would agree.
Is it not an irony of fate that, now we have decided to quit as the world policeman and have been pressurised, too soon perhaps, from some of the regions of the world by certain nations who have only themselves to blame if they now find the world a more dangerous place, we are being pressed to stay? How fortunate it is that recently, at the time of the Sicilian earthquake tragedy, we still had a base in Malta from which to help. We immediately despatched the whole of our Mediterranean fleet—four ships—and the presence of the British sailors at a moment of terror for the population there was of the greatest possible comfort. I think one should congratulate the Admiral on his prompt assistance. Also, how about our fire brigade action at the moment in Mauritius?
I think it will be thousands of years before the influence of Great Britain will no longer be felt in the world. We do so underestimate ourselves. May I tell your Lordships of a personal experience? We were digging out the garden to make a tennis court, and we found a small Roman tear bottle. I have often asked myself whether that tear bottle belonged to a wife or mother of a Roman legionary who had been recalled to Rome and perhaps had died in some foreign parts. Then, when the Romans left us, our island split and fought for many years until finally it emerged as the United Kingdom.
It may well be that when we have relinquished our policing there will be splits and racial conflicts in the world. And one must say this: if only the United Nations had been ready now to step in, that might be avoided. However, as the Charter stands the United Nations can exercise a degree of control and mediation only with the consent of the nations involved. Indeed, a government can in the long-run rule successfully only with the consent of the ruled. This consenting attitude is what we must foster. But we must not put on the
500
United Nations tasks which it cannot carry out. It is when we ask the impossible from immature institutions that we must inevitably be disappointed. As was said, the United Nations will only be as good as the representatives sent there.
To sum up, I should like to suggest that progress should really be on these lines. The moral principles which inspired the Charter must be restored at the United Nations. We must not hesitate to reprove the United Nations when she falls (I do not know whether it is a male or a female) below those standards. We must engender and strengthen the understanding of international law and demand that it be respected and used. Greater recourse must be had to the Court at The Hague. We must foster the setting up of an international police force which will ensure, if necessary, that the decisions of the Hague are carried out. There must be penalties for nations in breach of their commitments. By going forward on these lines, I can see a great future for the United Nations, and I should like to see our own contribution outstanding in its history.
6.18 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I would join with those who have spoken previously in thanking my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for putting down this Motion, and for the excellent speech he made. He and I have been connected with the United Nations over all the years, from the day in 1950 when I first went there with "Ernie" Bevin, when there were 33 nations, to the much more difficult and terrible days with 125 nations.
I am very glad to follow the two noble Baronesses both of whom, because I am there every year, I have seen at work in the Third Committee. Indeed, as my office is near the Third Committee meeting room, I see Lady Gaitskell sitting there every morning and afternoon, because at the United Nations, as anybody who works there knows, there is a tremendous habit of people turning up late. So I see Lady Gaitskell sitting there on time, as the British usually are, hoping the others will turn up so that they can get on with the work. Of course, I also see my noble friend Lord Caradon, who is now on the Front Bench, striding through the corridors and going to make speeches; and, perhaps even more

501
important, at times sitting in an office drawing up some of his drafts which might help to bring a better purpose to the Organisation.
It is to pay a tribute to the Organisation, despite all its difficulties, that I rise. I know that there are newspapers which suggest that the existence of the United Nations should by now have produced a world of contentment and peace. That is a good dream, but the reality is a long way from being just around the corner. It really never could be that. The creation of this body in 1945 did not change the peoples of the world; it gave a new opportunity. One cannot judge the United Nations entirely by whether permanent treaties have been reached and whether war has been outlawed: it must be judged by the total picture.
We are always reading of the failure of the United Nations to do this or to do the other; and it is true that there are failures. But the United Nations family is like the rest of us, so far as publicity is concerned. If I were discovered in the bedroom of some strange lady, I might make front-page news. My happy marriage does not. It probably never will, except that perhaps in four years' time I might merit two lines in the list of golden weddings. That is the nature of things about publicity, and it is particularly true of the United Nations. The frustrations and failures catch the headlines of the world Press. We ourselves are all inclined to forget the smouldering which is there and which is stopped from being fanned into fire because it is quenched by the United Nations fire brigade. Rumours and possibilities of wars—wars which started small but which might have become general—have been averted by the United Nations Organisation, and the facts have hardly been realised by the average reader of the Press in this country.
I want to address your Lordships particularly for a few minutes on the United Nations Agencies and their particular funds, with special reference to the United Nations Development Programme, a programme designed to alleviate human suffering, because I am sure it is there that the fundamental job of laying the foundations of the more prosperous and secure world community of the years to come lies. I know that the work is not
502
proceeding fast enough. The noble Lord on the Front Bench would not think it was; nor would anyone else. But it can only be geared to the resources that are made available to it; and, as the noble Baroness has said, the financial resources are running down. Some people do not make their contributions to the funds, and certainly many do not pay their fair share. We in this country, however poor we may think we are, bear our full share financially, and in human endeavour, in all the work of the United Nations and its Agencies.
There are many temptations to be sidetracked by disbelief and by frustration at what is not immediately achieved when one goes into committee, but patience and perseverance are essential; and those, I am sure we all agree, are two of the qualities brought by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, to his job. The first essential, surely, is adhering firmly, without reservation and with good will, to the Charter, to which the noble Baroness referred. Too often, I am afraid (and that became clear from some of the things that the noble Baroness sitting next to me said), some nations fail to stick to the principles of the Charter. They see a way to an immediate thing of value to themselves, probably only propaganda-wise, and, imbued with their own selfish endeavour, they try to take short cuts. But there are no short cuts in a world where hunger, poverty, despair and illiteracy are still the dominant features—as they are in a large part of the world.
Hunger, starvation and malnutrition will remove from this world in the next few years many more people than the dropping of the largest atom bomb. We know nothing to-day of the spectre of hunger, and of seeing children die at a young age because of malnutrition. But the fact is that in many countries half the children born each day die before they reach six years of age. They die, not only because of lack of medical treatment but because, when they suffer what we should regard as ordinary childish ailments, such as measles, they have not the background stamina, having lived a life of undernourishment. As to those who do survive—what of them, my Lords? One in three of them will never know a life that has any reasonable hope; and when they grow into adult life they will be lucky if they reach 40

503
years of age; and they will get to that age with permanent chips on their shoulders.
It is conditions of this kind that we are breeding in the men and women of to-morrow—a dissatisfied, restless and probably ruthless population. The millions of children in the exploding population who survive will become the millions of adults of the world in the next few years. Therefore when we deal with children to-day we are dealing with those who are going to grow up, not only having suffered while they are young but permanently influenced by the way in which malnutrition has left their mental as well as their bodily condition. This same group of people who explode into the world in the population explosion could lead the world in an explosion of a different kind.
No one nation, no small number of nations, can hope to solve this kind of problem on their own, but I am proud to believe that our own country bears its own, very fair share and full part in the job we do. What is more, it has done so, whatever Government has been in power, since the Charter was adopted, for the United Nations work, it is true to say, knows no bounds of Party, of race or of creed. We in this country are the third largest contributor to the central resources of the United Nations fund to which I referred, the Development Programme. I am glad to say that when we look at our history we can see how we have stepped up, year after year, all that we have done. We started by giving 3 million dollars in 1959; it went up to 8 million dollars in the next three years and to 10 million dollars in the next two; and I am glad to see that we are now finding 11¾ million dollars.
At the same time, my Lords, let us not forget that we are one of the great recipients from this fund. The present programme earmarks 4½ million dollars for six projects in British non-self-governing territories; and since 1950 expert assistance and fellowship awards, amounting to another 4½ million dollars, have been given for British non-self-governing territories. So this is a great two-way traffic. The sum provided from 1950 to date by this programme for the experts amounts to no less than 71 million dollars; and during the last ten
504
years equipment valued at over 3 million dollars was purchased in the United Kingdom for projects. Then, at the beginning of the year we had orders placed in this country amounting to 17 million dollars for projects to cover seventy-six countries and territories; and at that date we can proudly say that we had no fewer than twenty-three consulting firms in the United Kingdom engaged on thirty projects, again at a cost to the programme of over 3 million dollars.
My Lords, these are substantial figures of benefit to us, coming back to us as one of the big payers. What is more, I think we can be proud of the fact that we provide no fewer than 1,022 of the experts serving in these projects all over the world—projects covering matters of great variety, from animal husbandry to housing, water resources, electric power development and the like. I was glad that mention was made of David Owen when the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, spoke. He is a great British international civil servant who is in charge of this fund, and many of us are glad to claim him as a friend.
As recently as the 11th of this month there was a meeting of the Governing Council of the thirty-seven contributing nations—I think my noble friend Lord Caradon mentioned that—dealing, this time, with the assistance to seventy-one developing countries at a total cost of 228 million dollars. That means we have now 873 projects in all parts of the world with a total cost of 2,107 million dollars. But, of course, the programme needs more help; and particularly so as regards agriculture, food and education; and the programme itself must link up with the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Whatever criticism there may be of some of it—and, incidentally, the gentleman to whom reference was made has now left the F.A.O.—the truth is that the F.A.O. has averted famine and alleviated malnutrition in several regions of the world.
Mention has been made already of the "exploding population." As time goes on, the world grows shorter and shorter of food; and, unfortunately, it is in the nations that are short of food that the population growth is greatest. The F.A.O. have been taking a look at grain—and this is one of many subjects—to see where we are going in the next few

505
years. The developing nations needed 450 million tons in 1960. By 1980, they will need 750 million tons. That is an increase of 300 million tons—and 300 million tons is equal to the entire present production of grain in the whole of Europe and of North America. That is the kind of thing that this programme, and the others, will have to face in the course of the next year or two.
Grain harvest improvement is only one of the many things which the F.A.O. will do. Its own work must fit in with that of the World Health Organisation—and I have little doubt, since the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, is down to speak, that he will be saying something about W.H.O., whose work in respect of disease in the same countries links up with that of the F.A.O. Before the night is out I hope someone will say something more about UNESCO. They come in for criticism too often. One thinks of the criticism that people offer of the big schemes to stop dams from being built because the water will cover up old monuments. But UNESCO'S work is much more important than that. They are dealing with the illiteracy which goes hand in hand with famine, scourge and disease. There must be regard to education.
My Lords, I did not want to say much more than that when I rose; but I am going to say one or two things about a subject which I did not know was to be raised. I knew nothing of the facts until I heard my noble friend Lord Ritchie Calder refer to the proposal to change the method of appointment to the Board of the W.H.O. This causes me to offer a comment as one who is elected, and has been for 17 years, by the General Assembly. I am astonished to hear of the proposal that any professional body of that kind should be appointed in the way that is suggested in this draft resolution. I am even more surprised to be told that one of its sponsors is the United Kingdom. I am going to withhold judgment until I have had the chance later on of hearing my noble friend Lord Caradon tell us what it is that has caused the Government suddenly to undertake this thing. For immediately people are appointed like this, the whole nature of a professional body changes. They are no longer the people the world has elected; they are the creatures of a Government.
506
That is not only bad for the Board itself; it is bad for the staff. Staff of organisations of this kind ought to be dealing with people who are reaching human judgments based on professional standards. If every time one of the members of the Board goes to one of the staff to ask him to do a bit of work the member of the staff thinks that the Board member is coming in as a creature of a Government to "twist his arm", the whole morale of the organisation suffers, as does its efficiency. I will have none of it, unless I hear some very good explanation. I hope there is one; although I must say at the moment that I cannot think what it is.
My Lords, I have taken the risk of boring you by quoting a number of facts and figures. I did so deliberately because I think the time has arrived when the public and the Press should understand that there are these jobs to be done to get the world going towards its goal. Slow though it may be, it will be done irrespective of Party, race or creed. I make no apology for ending with a quotation which inspired me, although I am not a member of the Roman Catholic faith. It comes from a magnificent statement of Pope John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra. I think it is a relevant thought on which I could end to-day:
"The solidarity which binds all men, and makes them members of the same family, requires political communities enjoying an abundance of material goods not to remain indifferent to those political communities whose citizens suffer poverty, misery and hunger, and who lack even the elementary rights of the human person. This is particularly true, since, given the growing interdependence among the peoples of the earth, it is not possible to preserve lasting peace if glaring economic and social inequality among them persists."
That is it, my Lords. Work without spectacular political agreement, work without anything which is good front-page news, is going on inside the United Nations, its Agencies and its programmes, all the time: a great and real job of work, trying to make the world better for some people to live in and to work in, in the hope that those people, when their environment has improved, will be better citizens, better able not only to enjoy life for themselves but to make a contribution that, in the end, will lead us to the kind of goal we have in the world.
6.37 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for introducing his Motion and for the very comprehensive way in which he did so. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if some of my remarks are no more than an echo of what he said. The noble Lord raised issues of profound international significance, the satisfactory resolution of which is fundamental to the eradication of the extremely serious discrepancies in material wellbeing which exist within the world community.
I am less intimately acquainted with the activities of the United Nations Organisation than several of the previous speakers and, therefore, my remarks will be of a rather more general kind, concerning the impact of the progress in science and technology on the developing countries, the kind of difficulties in which they find themselves and the kind of help which I believe we in this country must be willing to give in greater measure than we have yet done. It has not been mentioned earlier to-day, but I was greatly relieved that the Ministry of Overseas Development survived so well the economies in expenditure which were announced last week; although I hope that the Ministry will take advantage of this opportunity to re-assess sonic of their priorities.
I do not think any of your Lordships will wish to take issue with me when I say that we in this country are an extremely fortunate and privileged people. There are only about 55 million of us in a world population of over 3,500 million, and although difficult to quantify, I should not be wrong in saying that the income per capita in this country is at least ten times as large as that of the developing countries of Africa, Asia and South America. During my lifetime, my Lords, the standard of living, the conditions of employment and the availability of amenities for the general public have been transformed. I think that perhaps we have been among the most favoured beneficiaries from the progress of science and technology, and we may well say that this is justifiable because we have been a major contributor to this progress.
The history of our national contribution to scientific research has been outstanding by world standards. It was the
508
native wit and inventiveness of our engineers which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution and sustained it over a long period. But now, regrettably, we have cause to be anxious lest we may be lagging behind some other industrial countries in our ability to exploit technologically and economically the potentialities of recent scientific progress. I hope, on the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, your Lordships' House will be discussing this matter later in the Session.
In my opinion, the justification for this anxiety is to be found less in a possible adverse effect on our own standard of living (which I, and I am sure your Lordships, would wish to avoid) than on our ability to increase the help we are giving to the developing countries; and, in this and other ways, to continue to exercise the broadminded influence in international affairs for which this country has a special responsibility and, I believe, a special talent. The problems to be faced (they were touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder) reflect in varying degrees the state of unbalance which characterises the world situation; unbalance in the kinds and abundance of fuel and mineral resources; in the availability of water for irrigation and power purposes; in climatic conditions and population density; in dependence on agriculture or degree of industrial development; in capital resources; in the state of educational development, and not least (and this I am sure lies at the root of many, if not most, of U.N.O.'s difficulties) in the restraints imposed on the developing countries—and indeed on ourselves—by the traditions, the institutions and the social order which has been inherited.
Every country, therefore, must evolve its own approach to the resolution of these problems; but to be optimistic the resulting diversity affords great opportunities for international collaboration in the resolution of problems which, as has been said often to-day, are becoming increasingly matters of common concern. It is not sufficiently appreciated by the general public in this country how readily the developing countries are being affected by scientific and technological progress; consequences to which their attention is being directed intimately through the world developments in telecommunications and air transport.

509
During a visit to Africa some years ago I was told, and I do not think that it was meant as a joke, that the transistor radio had replaced the umbrella as a status symbol in Central Africa. Whether or not this be true, the fact is that the native peoples of these developing countries are being brought into close contact with the conditions and standards of life in countries such as this, and in the way we behave, bad as well as good. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, they are being taken, within a few years, through evolutionary phases which have been a matter of gradual progress for us, and for which, generally speaking, they are educationally ill prepared. No wonder the powers of adaptation of the peoples of some of these countries are being overstrained. After centuries of marginal existence these peoples have learned that poverty is no longer a necessary attribute of life. Increasingly they are seeking the eradication of want and the fulfilment of individual capacity; and we particularly, but Western Europe as a whole, have been basically responsible for this evolutionary situation both by example and by sermon. It leaves us with a heavy responsibility.
My Lords, the burning question is, how to ensure the attainment of a better distribution of world wealth in face of the population explosion to which reference has been made. Surely the basic approach to the solution must be an educational one. I think that tribute should be paid this afternoon to the contribution which the United Nations Organisation and its Agencies have made to this problem outstandingly, I believe, though not exclusively, within primary and secondary schools.
In a speech which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made to the General Conference of UNESCO in 1960 when he was Minister of Education, he referred to the wide differences in the educational provisions throughout the world as the greatest and most dangerous of all the international inequalities. He said that it was quite useless to talk about making an unbalanced economy viable, or about making any nation capable of sustained progress when the foundations had not been laid in the primary and secondary schools. My personal experiences, about which I should like to speak a little, within the developing countries have not
510
been at the level of the primary and secondary schools but at those of the universities and the technical institutes, with particular reference to the production of qualified scientists, technologists and engineers and their technical supporting staff—of the men needed to ensure the ability of these countries to take advantage of the aid being provided for them through U.N.O. and other agencies; men capable of interpreting, and then exploiting the technological achievements of more advanced countries and men hopeful of initiating new scientific and technological progress of their own.
I appreciate that the discussion to-day is about U.N.O. but I think that we ought not to ignore other agencies which also have been making substantial contributions in these fields. Based on advice from, for example, the Inter-University Council and the Advisory Council for Technical Education in Overseas Countries, the Ministry of Overseas Development has sponsored invaluable help to, for example, the Colombo Plan in these respects. This help has taken the form, not merely of finance for university and technical institute buildings and equipment but, more important perhaps, the provision of staff members to initiate teaching work and to sustain it while native staff was being educated up to the necessary level; and to sponsoring for education and training in this country carefully selected young people who are to establish the spearhead of the country's ability to exploit technological possibilities. Under the Colombo Plan (this is in supplementation of what was said a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Crook) over 600 experts have spent short and long periods in the Asian countries covered by this Plan and suitable training facilities in this country have been provided for over 5,500 men and women. In addition to this it is now standard practice where art individual firm in this country becomes responsible for a major project, such as building a new factory or an electricity generating station, for the contract to contain a requirement that the firm shall provide training facilities for a selected number of native people who will later become responsible for the operation of the project. Many hundreds of men and women must have been catered for in this way.

511
In addition, as many of your Lordships know there are at present over 70,000 young people following courses in our universities, technical colleges, colleges of advanced technology, teacher-training colleges and elsewhere, who are not supported by their respective Governments but are self-financing. They nevertheless are making claims upon our resources. I was one of those who deeply regretted the Government's decision of some months ago to increase the fees for this category of student. But I regard as more serious the difficulty which many of these young people are experiencing in supplementing their education by appropriate training, industrial or otherwise, in their special fields of interest. Being an engineer I have particularly in mind, of course, those who need training in industry or within public utilities.
The Ministry of Overseas Development and the Ministry of Labour quite recently issued a pamphlet entitled Industrial Training for Overseas Nationals. Regrettably, this scheme is limited to young people sponsored by their respective Governments, and there are large numbers within the 70,000 I mentioned who are not so sponsored and for whom it is proving extremely difficult to obtain satisfactory training facilities. The degree of disappointment, disillusionment and frustration of which I am aware is going a long way to destroying the good will to which I feel we are entitled as a result of the educational facilities which have been made available to them.
Some large industrial concerns, particularly in the electrical industry, have traditionally provided training facilities for quite large numbers of overseas students; and not only Commonwealth students. I think it is not unfair to say that over and above their desire to contribute to the national provision in this respect they have had the foresight to appreciate the possibility of advantageous returns in orders from overseas. Having spent much of my life in a large industrial company I have seen that many orders have their origins in these training schemes. Unfortunately a large number of our small and medium-sized undertakings, and our public utilities, have so far not been as willing as they should have been to provide comparable training facilities.
512
In my belief small firms and public utilities are probably much more relevant to the present situation in the developing countries than are the large manufacturing concerns. Unfortunately, this unwillingness or inability reflects the fact that they have not as yet provided adequate training for the young recruits from our own country. But obviously this will soon be corrected through the implementation of the Industrial Training Act. Regrettably, so I understand, the industrial training boards have not felt able to treat overseas trainees as qualifying for refund of grant to the sponsoring companies on the same basis as for home trainees. This means that there is no financial incentive to firms to cater for trainees from overseas unless they have a commercial interest or obligation in respect of them. I should like to appeal, if I may, in your Lordships' House to the small and medium-sized companies of this country, and to the public utilities, to take much more seriously than they have so far done their national obligation in this respect.
May I now move to another aspect of the overseas situation which is causing me considerable concern? This is the brain-drain of qualified manpower. I am particularly interested in scientists, technologists and engineers who go from the underdeveloped countries to the relatively highly developed ones. We shall be discussing this subject later on in the Session, again on the initiative of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We have cause to be concerned about the brain-drain of qualified people from this country, notably to the United States, but taken in relation to their resources of qualified manpower and to national need for its services the developing countries find themselves in a much more serious position. Let us not be in any doubt that this country has been one of the major beneficiaries of the brain-drain from the developing countries.
In 1966, some 1,650 professionally qualified scientists, technologists and engineers from the Commonwealth, mainly from the developing countries, were granted immigration vouchers to work in this country. I believe the loss of these people to be extremely serious, and I do not think that the solution will be easy to find. Certainly a solution cannot be found by unilateral action. If, for

513
example, this country were to impose severe restrictions on the entry of qualified people from overseas, while allowing a continuing and increasing drain of qualified manpower from this country to other parts of the world, notably to the United States, this could work only to our disadvantage.
I think that this reflects a world situation which, unless it is dealt with effectively, could lead to a serious situation within the developing countries and nullify the benefits which would otherwise derive to them. Therefore I was extremely pleased by the recent statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that international organisations should carry out basic research on the magnitude of the drain of highly qualified manpower from the developing countries, should study the countries and individuals concerned, and the motives for, and should examine the implications of the development of the drain and the remedial measures taken in some countries to deal with it.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I express the hope that in seeking to stimulate and strengthen our economy the present Government and their successors, of whatever Party, will make clear to the general public that a major purpose of this strengthening is the need for us to give increasing help to the developing countries, whether it be through the United Nations Organisation and its Agencies or through such plans as the Colombo Plan. Failing which, I think we shall make less than our essential contribution to the eradication of the imbalance in the standards of living to which my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder referred. I should like to think that the general public might want to do this for altruistic, humanitarian reasons; but probably this is too much to ask. In that case, they would be wise to do so on the ground of self-interest, and I would not mind if the Government presented it to them on this basis, for I am sure that it will profoundly affect the degree of our participation in world trade a decade or more from now.
In my recent Presidential Address to the British Association I made a few remarks which perhaps I may be allowed to read and with which I hope your Lordships will be in reasonable agreement. As I mentioned earlier, my special interest is
514
in the field of science and technology. I said:
"Our scientists and technologists have become not only the guardians and guarantors of our national economy, but also the agents of a new diplomacy in which much more than an expanding export trade is at stake. They will have an increasing part to play as advisers and teachers in the progress of the developing countries, and must not only carry conviction as experts in their respective scientific and technological specialities, but must also gain respect as ambassadors of broad and sympathetic vision, sound judgment and unassailable integrity".
Having expressed the hope that this country will find it possible to give increasing financial help and, even more important, to provide ample qualified helpers I should not be content to finish without stressing the importance of ensuring, through our advisers to UNESCO and other similar bodies, that the projects which are initiated are well conceived and well enough conducted to ensure effective progress to the objectives that we have been talking about this afternoon, because I think the history of some of these Agencies contains examples which have not been ideally directed to these purposes.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in introducing this long and comprehensive debate my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder indicated that this was the moment of truth, and further, more explicitly, the moment of truth inasmuch as the juxtaposition of this debate happens immediately after the long debate on the cuts yesterday and the day before. I think he felt that it was almost providential. I believe that if this is so—and I am inclined to believe that there is a precise and particular moment, which is now—then in no particular field is this more apposite than in the field to which very little reference has so far been made, but about which I will venture to talk for a little while, ignoring all the other fields. I refer to the field of disarmament.
But before I embark upon that, I should like, quite briefly, to say, "Thank you" to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for the breadth and sweep of his vision, and the comprehensiveness of his own position. If I, faintly pursuing, was not able to follow and appreciate the subtlety of some of his innuendos and allusions I assure him that I shall read and appreciate his speech with the greater

515
alacrity in Hansard, and I shall speak with considerable circumspection in the knowledge of how much more he knows about the topic than I do.
I should also like to thank most heartily my noble friend Lord Caradon for the hope which he engendered; and it will not be necessary for me to say to a fellow Methodist that hope is not only a pleasurable enjoyment, but also a peremptory moral duty. But I shall also speak with considerable circumspection in his presence, because if I refer to some of the affairs which have to do with disarmament, I do so as one who is not expert in this field. And perhaps that is not a disadvantage when I would proffer two, to me, quite satisfactory reasons for selecting this particular field in such a debate as has been going on in your Lordships' House to-day.
In the summer of 1959, in the General Assembly of the United Nations there was passed by unanimous consent the proposition that the most important of all the matters with which it had to deal was the question of general and complete disarmament. I believe that is exactly true. Of all the other things that occupy the United Nations, the issue of disarmament is more contingent to our welfare and more ultimately important than any other.
The second reason is that, so far as I am aware, when the matter of the United Nations is discussed, particularly among young people, if they associate it at all with anything relevant they tend to associate it with the problem of peace and the issue of disarmament, rather than with the other matters upon which they may be—indeed, they are—intelligent. For them it is a simple proposition: what will it profit us in the modern world if we have a Welfare State, even with the warts or cuts, if we have an amplified system of education that is blown to pieces by nuclear weapons? If that happens, there is little advantage in all these various amenities. Though this is an oversimplification, I think it is a valid introduction to the question which for them is paramount: is the United Nations capable of offering real and substantial hope in the field of peace-making and, in particular, in the realm of disarmament?
516
Looking over the last few years, I tend to discern three or four peaks rising above the mists of non-success in this field, and I will advert to them. In 1963 I was much cheered, as I am sure your Lordships were, with the ban on testing which, though it was partial, was to a certain extent effective and gave hope of future and more effective bans. I regarded that as an achievement, and it filled me with a certain amount of hope that the way was not completely blocked.
Then, in 1965, the 18 Nations Disarmament Committee was particularly charged, as I understand it, with the preparation of a Non-Proliferation Treaty. By last year—in August, I think it was—there was a break-through, as I understand it, in that both the U.S.S.R. and the United States tabled identical resolutions (omitting Article III, to which I will briefly advert in a moment), indicating that they were in substantial agreement as to what this Non-Proliferation Treaty should be. And only a few days ago Article III was concerned with the difficulties of examining peaceful nuclear development so that it might not be later prostituted to the use of warfare. This particular problem, with the ancillary problem of whether Euratom or the 18 Nations Disarmament Committee should deal with it, has now been solved, and there is, as I see it, no bar to the expression in treaty form of non-proliferation. This, to me, is a great advance, if only it is going to be tabled, as I hope it will be.
Further, in February, 1967, there was a great advance, in Latin America at any rate, in the tabling of the Treaty for a nuclear free zone in that part of the world; and indeed it may occur. This country has been the first, as I understand it, to give its approval and to accept responsibilities under Clauses 2 and 3 of that tabled Treaty. This does not amount to the Kingdom of God in immediate proximity, but it does mean, it seems to me, a reasonable hope that in the matter of disarmament the United Nations has been, and is, tending to make genuine and effective progress. And I sincerely thank God for it, because, as I say, though I am not a youngster any more, I have ample evidence of the way in which young people are seized of the significant world in which they live—perhaps not all of them, but a great

517
proportion, as I understand it. They are extremely afraid and extremely full of foreboding about what happens if, indeed, we make our progress to nuclear war, either by intention or, as my noble friend Lord Snow pointed out so cogently, by accident.
That is the hopeful side. I think it is necessary to face also the other side, and I, for one, am extremely disturbed at Mr. McNamara's speech, made, I think, in September, 1967, on the antiballistic missiles system which, at least in a limited degree, is in progress or in process in the United States. I wonder whether your Lordships would allow me, without impertinence, to remind myself and perhaps your Lordships of what it means, for it turns reason upside down and is a further process in the general programme of "Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad".
The inter-continental ballistic missile system, or the anti-ballistic missile system, is one in which enormous sums of money will be invested in the attempt to protect the great cities, both in the U.S.S.R. and in the United States of America, from bombing attacks of intercontinental ballistic missiles by a ring of anti-missile missiles. One could proliferate this particular argument. But the point is that as this defensive measure is taken by one side so it requires, in order to maintain the mutual deterrence of terror, an offensive measure to be taken by the other side; and inasmuch as the U.S.S.R. or the United States undertakes a defensive anti-missile system, so the other side will be compelled to undertake the production of missiles to counteract the effect of the antimissile system itself.
This, of course, is complete lunacy, and everybody outside a lunatic asylum would recognise it as lunacy. But it is part of the inevitable lunacy of the arms race, and I, for one, think—indeed, I am sure—it will have certain very deleterious effects. One of them is this. If indeed the United States embarks upon this new hideous adventure it will require to test the new weapons, and therefore the Test Ban Treaty—even a partial ban treaty—will be in jeopardy; and I take it that the same will apply over the other side of the world. Furthermore, it will put into considerable perturbation those countries which have looked at the Non-Proliferation
518
Treaty as a measure of their own increasing security, because included in it (here I put myself under the direction, and maybe the correction, of my noble friend Lord Caradon) is the assumption, though it is not written into the Treaty, that as other countries are dissuaded from taking this hideous weapon, so those countries which have it will make representational, and sometimes quite definite, decreases in their arms capacity. It is precisely because this has not happened that in fact the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think, will be in jeopardy. Therefore I find it impossible to balance these two sides of the triangle.
But I would now revert, if I may, for a moment or two, to what my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder has claimed to be "the moment of truth". I am very glad to be able to think—in fact to know—that Her Majesty's Government have already responded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty; have already indicated that they are prepared to accede to the propositions included in, I think, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Latin American Treaty; and therefore no one can blame them for lagging behind in their efforts to support these genuine processes of peace-making. But if there is to be any real contribution to peace-making in the light of the new and much more menacing antiballistic missile programme, it behoves some country to make such a declaration in fact of its intentions to reduce its armed forces, so as to persuade those not now in the "nuclear club" to accede to and to support the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I think it would be unreasonable—and I speak as a pacifist, and this is, if you like, a utilitarian argument but a sound one—at this moment to expect that either the U.S.S.R. or the United States of America would appreciably reduce their armed forces. But I think that some country—and I should like to think it will be our own—will do precisely this thing. I do not underrate the moral and psychological impact of such a unilateral experiment, and I only hope that it will be undertaken.
I am reminded, on the highest authority, my Lords, that if you are going to lose your soul it is very apposite that you secure the world in the process; for that is the obverse of the New Testament Gospel. What bothers me is that

519
there are those who are so criminally negligent that they lose both at the same time. I do not think that that is an exact description of what is happening over the cuts in military expenditure in this country, but I am bound to say that, so far as I understand it, any exercise in war-time activities sooner or later is a pollution of the soul. And in our particular reduction of our armed forces we have not the credit which would accrue to us if we had done it simply for the reason that we were overwhelmingly desirous of supporting the purposes of peace throughout the world by fulfilling our obligations and setting a new standard. Though this may sound idealistic, I make no apology for that.
I wish that this country would at this time nail its particular defence cuts to the mast of peace-making—and constructive peace-making; for then I believe that those cuts would be a new order of competence and authority. If out of this particular debate it can be seen that this country has a new and a greater opportunity than before of registering in the new atmosphere of a nonproliferation world, and indeed a world where the possibilities of free nuclear zones are yet to be seen—if this country were prepared so to act, and so make a response, I, for one, should be very false to the cloth I wear if I felt that it would go unheeded either by those who practised it or by those who saw the influence of it.
7.17 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, only the other day the President of the United States had a meeting with his Commission on Civil Disorder, which is to report to him in July. I quote from Mr. Alistair Cooke's latest "Letter from America":
"The President let them talk and talk, all it seems to the point of crime and rebellion in the cities; and at the end of a couple of hours, when somebody said, 'Our main problem is …' the President said, 'Excuse me, our main problem is this: we have about thirty-two years to save this country and lots of others from being strangled by the human population, from the diseases and the pollution and the shortage of food and the hopeless overcrowding of cities that will stretch for two and three hundred miles. This is the main problem'."
My Lords, I propose to confine my remarks to this problem, and to go on
520
with a few background figures which I have taken from the U.N. Demographic Year Book. Say the world population today is 3,500 million, increasing now at the rate of 170,000 net per day—and this increase, of course, will snowball so that the world population in A.D. 2000 will be over 6,000 million. To-day 72 per cent. of the earth's inhabitants live in the underdeveloped countries; let us call them that. In these regions, the underdeveloped regions, 41 per cent. of the population are under the age of 15. The percentage of those aged under 15 in the developed countries is 20 per cent. The present birthrate in the underdeveloped countries is 40 per cent.—roughly double that of developed countries. At the present rate of growth the world population will double in 30 to 35 years; Europe's in 115 years; North America's in 45 years; the U.S.S.R's in 41 years; Oceania's in 33 years; Asia's in 31 years; Africa's in 30 years; Latin America's in 27 years; Central America's in 25 years. If these figures are broken down by countries, the following countries will double their population in 20 years: Ceylon, the Philippines, Jordon, Kenya, Ghana, Morocco, Nigeria, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico. It is estimated, at the present rates, that the United Kingdom population will double in 100 years.
To give an instance of what can be done in an Eastern country, Japan's figure is now 70 years, whereas Federal Germany's is a doubling in 60 years. To give any more figures than these in a speech I think would only be confusing and quite unnecessary when so many of your Lordships are well aware of the position. But I trust that your Lordships will agree that I have said enough to illustrate the justification for calling the population explosion a world crisis. Of course this position has been brought about by death control; the death control established by the medical, the pharmaceutical and the chemical advances of the last two or three decades.
I beg your Lordships to give the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, leave to address the House again. In the first place, I am looking forward to hearing the answers to some of the questions I am going to ask, but in any case it is such a pleasure to listen to him, whatever he says. He will be able to give the latest information

521
from the United Nations as to what is being done. I must admit that I am not quite clear about it myself, nor are some of the authorities in this country, but I imagine that the chief channel through which the United Nations gives assistance is through its Special Trust Fund. Both the United States of America and Britain have said that they will support that Fund, but both of them have still to say how much they will give. Sweden has given 200,000 dollars, Denmark 100,000 dollars. But to turn to the opening words of Lord Ritchie-Calder's Motion, may I say what is Britain's role here and what it can do?
I feel that first of all a reference must be made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is now a massive organisation. This started in the U.S.A. some years ago, more or less on a shoestring. However, in recent years there have been striking financial developments. In my view these developments were "triggered off" by the Vatican Council's indication of a modification of Rome's approach to the subject of family planning. The U.S.A. and Sweden made, or promised, contributions to the Federation running into millions of dollars almost forthwith, and on top of this the Victor Fund, promoted under the will of the late Alexander Victor, now supports the Federation with very large sums.
The Federation has the support of the United Nations Organisation and of many of its branches, including the World Health Organisation and the F.A.O. It is worth quoting the words of the latter body's Director-General:
"The ever-mounting tidal wave of humanity now challenges us to control it or to be submerged, along with all our civilised values".
The Director-General of the F.A.O. ought to know, because recent harvests have been disappointing and the recent population growth rate is already outstripping food production. The office of the I.P.P.F., as I will call the International Planned Parenthood Federation for brevity, is now established in Regent Street in London.
We can now come to the question I posed: what is Britain doing? Right at the beginning, when funds were short and when London was only a branch of the Federation, a successful appeal was made for £250,000 to put the effort on its
522
feet. The noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who cannot be here to-day, much to his regret, was responsible for that, and it is as chairman of the Scottish offshoot of this organisation that I speak to-day, quite apart from my own personal concern for the very poor—"the suffering masses", to use the words which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, quoted. The word which I like best is the Hindustani one, the Gharib-log. I personally have always had a passionate concern for them, and have some measure of experience in these matters in the East, besides which I am the fourth generation to have interests of this sort in the Orient.
The static income of the United Kingdom campaign now, thanks to this Fund and thanks to something like 230 covenants, is about £10,000 per annum. One-fifth of that goes to the British Family Planning Association and four-fifths is retained by the I.P.P.F. Of course, large sums have been contributed by individuals to make this up, and in 1965 Oxfam gave £11,600 to the campaign, and so on. Scotland has chosen to give what I might call "hardware". A mobile family planning clinic from Scotland has already gone to Ceylon, and a mobile cinematograph vehicle and equipment paid for entirely by the Aberdeen branch will shortly leave for India.
The completely changed circumstances of the I.P.P.F., which derive from sudden access to substantial funds, have brought about the change which is in the process of taking place in this country, and it may be that we shall have to change not only the Federation's role but possibly Britain's role in the matter. It may be that our energies should now be turned to the training of personnel rather than the contribution of funds or the supply of hardware. When I say that, I do not mean only the training of personnel in this country for service in the backward countries, or the training of personnel from the backward countries in this country, but probably a combination of them all. This may well be the role which will make the best contribution to a solution of the problem, although this remains to be worked out.
Some people are tempted to lose heart about the possibility of stemming this tide; others, like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the noble Lord, Lord Caradon—and I myself am one—believe

523
that with energy and skill the tide may yet be stemmed. Food, especially protein production, can be increased in supply. Waste can be reduced. The amount of waste in countries with termites and other vermin is too colossal to calculate. Communications can be improved. From my knowledge of India and Pakistan, I am a great believer in village communications. The simplest means of communication makes a large contribution to the ability to feed the people.
As for recent action, the big event of the I.P.P.F. in 1967 was the Eighth International Conference in Chile, of which the main effect has been the growing interest in family planning throughout Latin America. This has largely been caused by the fact that the Conference involved itself in the health aspects of family planning, particularly in view of the extremely high rate of illegal abortion which is prevalent throughout Latin America. It is worth noting that family planning is an essential part of health service, and as such it seems to be much more acceptable to politically conscious Roman Catholic Latin American countries, and more effective in promoting family planning than any ideas about population control.
Talking of family planning, the most dramatic advance in recent years has been "the pill", which now is used so much that it has quite passed its experimental stage, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, will say when he comes to speak of the W.H.O. But is it the pill that has started the downward turn in the birthrate in this country? Personally it was news to me when I read that:
"the differences between the Government actuary's 1965 predictions for the Department of Education and Science and the actual birth rates show just how easy it is to make a hash of baby forecasting. From 1965, instead of the expected increase, the birthrate has been falling at an increasing rate. Why and whether this means smaller, or simply deferred, families, or perhaps the result of the war years low birth rate a quarter of a century ago, these are matters of quite hideous complexity. But it requires no very profound calculation to work out from these figures how many children will be entering school five years later. From 1970 to 1972 at least each year's entry will be smaller than the one before. In 1972 there will be nearly 80,000 fewer five-year-olds than the Department would have expected.
Some of the above, of course, will simply ease the pressure on over-busy primary
524
teachers and over-crowded primary schools. But the rest will free resources that could be used, beginning now, to deal with some other deficiencies in the school system."
I mention that in passing only because the situation in Scotland is the same; namely, that the trend in the birth rate in this developed country, this conscious country alive to the situation, is in the same direction.
My Lords, I have gone on long enough. The subject is such a vast one that I could go on and on—India, Pakistan, successful efforts, Japan, and so on. What, I ask, and what I feel we must ask ourselves, is to be Britain's role? Britain has signed, with the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, the Declaration on Population Growth and Human Dignity and Welfare of the United Nations, in which occurs this paragraph:
"We believe that the population problem must be recognised as a principal element in long-range national planning if Governments are to achieve their economic goals and fulfil the aspirations of their people."
I feel that the thanks of the whole House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. This debate may lead to defining what Britain's role is to be in this particular respect; namely, that of supporting the international planned parenthood campaign. Of one thing I am sure: the dreadful menace of the population explosion must be appreciated by every man and woman in this country. How are we to ensure that they do know, that this is realised, that thinking in every line of life should be adjusted to recognise the problem that this presents? Only when the danger is fully grasped and boldly faced by the whole world can the success which I believe is assured be achieved.
7.34 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I, in a first sentence, say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that I have listened to his speech with the greatest sympathy. He might be encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, in his opening speech, indicated that the population problem was one of the most urgent in the consideration of the United Nations. If I may say so, I hope to end with a series of constructive proposals which will include the issue of population which the noble Lord has introduced.

525
I am going to try to be brief to-night, partly out of sympathy with your Lordships, who have had an exhausting week, partly from sympathy with the Officers of this House, partly from sympathy with the staff of this House and partly from sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who, at this moment, should be addressing another important meeting. I say that I will try to be brief, but my experience has always been that when a speaker begins by saying he will be brief he is very long indeed. But at least I have torn up half my notes and I hope that will assist.
I want particularly to look at the United Nations from the point of view of the change which has taken place within it, in its character and indeed in its functions, by the large number of the new emergent nations that have entered since it was formed. I think the United Nations has gone through three stages and is entering a fourth. The first stage was at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 at the end of the world war, when, as often at the end of wars, there were idealistic hopes as to what would be realised. There was then unity among all the nations which had taken part in the war against Fascism, and Governments which were sympathetic to them. There was the climate of new democracy in the world. In those circumstances we had two Declarations which I believe are immortal. One was the Charter of the United Nations itself and, secondly, and subsequently, there was the Declaration on Human Rights.
The second stage of the United Nations was a reaction to that, when division and disillusionment came. It was the period when the unity of sentiment at the end of the world war changed to that of the conflict between America and Soviet Russia, between East and West. And in that period the temper for common purpose by the United Nations for the benefit of the world became subordinated to the division of the two great power blocs. There was a third, very deep-rooted, change in the United Nations when the new emergent countries entered it. At the San Francisco Conference there were only three African Governments in the United Nations—Egypt, Ethiopia and Liberia. Since the world war we have had the colonial political revolution, beginning with the recognition
526
by this country of the independence of India and Pakistan and Ceylon and Burma, spreading all over the Asian and African Continents and in the Caribbean, so that now the number of member-States of the United Nations—52 at the San Francisco Conference—has reached 125. That great development has been mostly by the entrance of the new nations.
Why do I say this has meant a difference, not only in the character but even in the function of the United Nations? It has had three very considerable effects. The first is subjective to the new nations themselves. They have won self-respect; they have won a sense of liberation in belonging as equals to an international community, and they have gained a sense of security. It was well expressed by Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia:
"For us, the small, the weak, the underdeveloped, there is nowhere else to go. It we turn to one or the other of the major power groups we risk engorgement, that gradual process of assimilation which destroys identity and personality. We must look to the United Nations."
The first factor is that the new nations gained a sense of identity and personality in the world in becoming members of the United Nations.
The second effect, which was tremendous, was that the big-Power domination of the United Nations ended. It had been the scene of the conflict between the two great giants, the United States of America and the Soviet Union; but, with the entrance of the new nations, the automatic domination by America in the United Nations ended, and that inevitably meant a great change in its altitude and in its decisions.
The third change that came from the entrance of the new nations to the United Nations is, I think, the deepest of all. It not only changed the psychology within the General Assembly, it changed the actual functions of the United Nations Quite naturally, the new nations cone centrated upon the demands for the extension of self-determination over the world, for national freedoms and racial equality. In urging this, they were at first strongly opposed; they were opposed on the ground that the United Nations Charter gave sovereignty to the Imperial Powers over their colonies, and that therefore questions like the struggle

527
for national freedom and issues like racial relations were outside the sphere of the United Nations.
I was a Member of another place when those issues were being decided. I am wrong in saying that they have been decided; the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, delivered to-day indicated that, in Conservative minds, they are not yet decided. We had ten years ago the conflict between the two paragraphs of the Charter of the United Nations, the first declaring for self-determination, national freedoms and racial equality, and the second declaring that the United Nations must not intervene in the sovereign affairs of member States; and that was regarded as applying to the empires which member States occupied. We have largely now won that victory. The United Nations appreciates that the right of peoples to their national freedom, the right of self-determination, the right of racial equality throughout the world, are absolutely fundamental to any international order, and that the United Nations has the right to intervene in those respects.
I believe we are now passing to a fourth stage in the functions of the United Nations. It has begun. It has begun by the United Nations itself taking responsibility for dealing in a concrete way with the problems of population, of poverty and of peace in the world. I am urging, in conclusion, that if the United Nations is to fulfill its functions to-day it must extend these small beginnings until the United Nations becomes the international authority in all these respects.
Let me begin with the problem of the population explosion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has referred. It is quite true that it is absolutely decisive for the future of the world. If the population of the earth increases at the present rate, before the end of this century more people will die of starvation than if the hydrogen bomb fell. The difficulty here is that many of the countries which are Catholic would be opposed to the United Nations taking action for family planning. I think that even the Catholic view of this problem is now being reconsidered, but there may be Catholic countries in the world which will not accept United Nations' assistance not
528
only in material aid but in technical personnel.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I know India. I was born there, and have been there recently and I have seen the efforts which are being made to deal with the problem of family planning. Necessarily, however, they are very meagre in comparison with the need. In my view, while the United Nations may not be able to give help to those countries which are Catholic dominated, it should be giving the utmost possible aid to countries like India and many countries of Asia and of Africa which are seeking to deal with this problem. I want to see the United Nations itself participating in the solution of the problem.
The second problem in which I should like to see the United Nations functioning in a vastly bigger way than it is now doing is that of poverty. This is linked with the problem of population. As we look at the world to-day, there are two great areas for the production of food which could meet the danger of hunger, not merely the present problem of hunger but the greater problem of hunger in the coming years. Those two areas are the sea-bed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred, and the deserts of the earth. I say only this in respect of the proposals for the seabed. I hope that the United Nations will take direct responsibility for the ownership of the oceans which are outside territorial waters; that they will take direct responsibility for their development, and for the production from them of the mountains of food which lie there untouched. I should like to pay special tribute to the representative from Malta, one of the developing countries—Mr. Pardoe—who initiated this proposal before the United Nations.
The second area I want to mention is the deserts of the world, which comprise one-seventh of the area of the earth. Everybody knows that deserts can be made fruitful. Underneath them are lakes and rivers, and if this water is brought to the surface those areas can be made fruitful. I first really appreciated that fact when I read the book written by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, Men Against the Desert. They can be made fruitful now, and I want to urge that in this next stage of United Nations development—and this is much

529
bigger than any of the proposals at present before the F.A.O.—the United Nations, representing the peoples of the earth who wish to see this problem solved, should become directly responsible for the development of the desert areas.
My third suggestion is this. Recent events have indicated that the United Nations should have a police force to keep peace in the world. I will not extend this point, but, as we have realised this week, the time has passed when Britain can be the policeman of the world. In fact, no one nation should attempt to police the world. If there is to be an international police force at all, then it should be under an international authority like the United Nations.
The final suggestion I would make is this. The United Nations should have the direct function of aiding a number of the smaller countries which, as they move towards self-government, are not in a position to establish a viable economy. There are scattered about the earth to-day 30 small islands whose populations are seeking self-government. Almost immediately Nauru, which has been administered by Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom, will become independent. Its population is 3.000. Is it to become a member State of the United Nations? There is the more fantastic problem of Pitcairn Island, which also is moving towards independence. Its population is 88. What is to happen to these small islands, seeking the status of independence which obviously are so utterly unable to maintain themselves? Some of them may become federated; some are too isolated even to become federated.
Membership of the United Nations is not only a matter of privilege and of rights, but also involves obligations and duties which these very small populations could not be expected to fulfil. I want to suggest that these small islands—and there are nearly thirty of them still in the British colonial system—should come under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. We at one time had a trustee system, but they will not wish to be regarded as wards of a trustee council. Therefore I ask my noble friend Lord Caradon to consider the suggestion of establishing a Committee for
530
the International Association of Self-governing Islands, so that they might be given technical aid, economic aid and advice about administration; so that they might have the sense of becoming self-governing and at the same time have some association with the authority of the United Nations. They may not be eligible to become member States of the United Nations, but I should like to see them participating in its Agencies in all their activities. If the United Nations will now pass to this fourth stage—that is to say, the stage of not merely being a debating forum and of intervening in a rather cautious way, but of becoming an international authority with direct responsibility for dealing with these problems—then the United Nations will move forward to much bigger and greater things even than the contribution which it has so far made.
7.57 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, at the outset I wish to joint with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on a most remarkable, brilliant, fascinating and imaginative speech. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for his distinguished speech, which gave us a sober assessment of the current status of the United Nations and its Special Agencies, and their potentialities for the future peace and welfare of the world One thing that struck me forcibly was that throughout all the speeches to-day there has been no element of controversy about the fact that it is in our own enlightened self-interest, despite our present difficult circumstances, to continue to support to the utmost the work of the United Nations and its Special Agencies.
My special interest, of course, is in the World Health Organisation. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, told us, we are living in a shrinking world. The truth is that to-day no country is so far in time from another that it is not exposed to the diseases which may occur in those countries, Every plane that lands in this country, every ship that docks here, may bring with it a carrier of a grave infectious disease which might spread in epidemic form in this country. We have had experience in this country within recent years of smallpox, and cholera is even now close to the gates of Europe.

531
How do we protect ourselves, and what role does the World Health Organisation play? It plays the most important role by its international quarantine regulations, to which most Governments adhere; and if disease breaks out in a country, then the World Health Organisation immediately radios every country in the world telling them of the outbreak of infectious disease. It also immediately flies out to the affected area the specially skilled personnel, and the equipment and medicaments which may be necessary to control the disease. In addition, it publishes weekly an international epidemiological report, which gives us in every country the facts about what is occurring throughout the world. That is why we are often warned of the coming of an epidemic in this country of, for example, influenza. These International Sanitary Regulations are reviewed regularly—in fact they are at present being reviewed. But what the W.H.O. is trying to do is not simply to have quarantine at ports and airfields, but also now to have it on railways and on inland waterways, wherever there may be considerable movements of population.
But, of course, international quarantine is not the only measure which the W.H.O. takes; nor, indeed, is it anything more than a holding measure against severe infection. For lasting protection we must seek to eliminate disease at its source, and this means—and this is the W.H.O.'s main aim—the eradication of foci of infection in endemic areas. As time is passing rapidly, I shall quote only two examples. The first is smallpox. Despite the fact that we know how to control smallpox, there are still 100,000 cases of smallpox reported annually to the W.H.O. The disease is endemic in South-East Asia, in Africa and in South America, especially Brazil. Some countries have struggled successfully against smallpox. In 1962, Burma initiated a national campaign of vaccination so that by 1966 no cases of smallpox were recorded in Burma. But, of course, smallpox persists, and the W.H.O. has launched a world-wide campaign for its eradication.
One must recognise that there are, of course, difficulties. First, one must have an effective vaccine, which means that in
532
the Tropics it must be stable, it must be freeze-dried and it must be of a sufficiently high calibre. Secondly, there are difficulties of transport; and there are great difficulties of surveillance in some tropical countries. But there are new tools: for example, there is a new method of administering vaccine by a jet instrument which can vaccinate 1,000 persons in one hour. This is now being used in Brazil and in Africa. Of course, the W.H.O. undertakes the emergency supply of vaccine and of skilled personnel to any country which may be threatened by an outbreak of smallpox in its neighbourhood.
Take, secondly, malaria. Vast sums of money are spent on controlling malaria, and as a result millions of lives are saved and millions of man-hours are retrieved. We know that malaria can be eliminated. After all, in this country malaria was very common in earlier centuries—indeed, until the 19th century. But it was virtually eliminated, except for an occasional sporadic case in this country, towards the latter end of the 19th century. In the United States thirty-five years ago there were thousands of cases of malaria. By 1946–47 the disease had been eradicated from that country.
In 1955 the W.H.O. undertook a worldwide eradication scheme and 12 years later in 1967, half the population of the world which had previously lived in malarial areas was now protected. Ninety per cent. of the population of India was protected. In some countries, such as Ceylon, malaria was completely eliminated. But it still persists in Africa, in South-East Asia and in South America, and the W.H.O. is endeavouring to eliminate this disease. It fights on because it knows that prevention costs less than cure. Perhaps I may just quote very briefly one example of this.
In Greece, before 1950, £500,000 was being spent each year to purchase quinine—the amount used was in fact one-fifth of the total world's production of quinine—for the treatment of malaria. In 1956 they instituted a campaign to control the malarial swamps; they destroyed the mosquitoes with D.D.T. and gammexane, with the result that within a few years malaria had been completely eliminated. Not only were there no deaths, but a great deal of fenland was reclaimed and the productivity of labour

533
in Greece was doubled. Those are two examples of what the W.H.O. has achieved—not all that it wants, but still very successful in considerable measure.
But the Organisation still has major problems, and they fall under two heads. The first is to improve environmental health in developing countries. No-one who has seen the primitive sanitation and methods of sewage disposal in some of the developing countries can be surprised that one in four hospital beds throughout the world are occupied by those suffering from water-borne diseases—typhoid, cholera, dysentery and bilharzia. The W.H.O., of course, prefers clean water and proper sewage disposal to paying for medicines, and so it plans in many countries to build public health departments; to staff them at first with consultants from the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., but hoping later so to train the native personnel that they can take over. It sends out consultants for other purposes.
It also has fellowships which can be gained by natives of a country, so that they can travel to other countries and improve their knowledge of preventive medicine. Your Lordships may well have seen in this morning's Times, that the W.H.O. has given a large research grant to the University of Aberdeen for a world problem, which is to record and monitor the side-effects of drugs, so that we shall be freed from any recurrence of a hazard such as thalidomide.
The second problem is that health needs hands. We speak of a shortage of doctors in this country when we have one doctor to 1,000 of the population. But there are many areas in this world which have one doctor to 50,000 or more of the population; and they are even worse off for nurses and dentists. So the W.H.O. plans medical and nursing training, and for the purpose makes available consultant staff and equipment and other facilities; and here again the long-term aim is staffing by natives. This has happened in Makerere, Ibadan and elsewhere. If Governments cannot solve their own problems they can come to W.H.O. for the help of consultants in special fields. They will then undertake, with the resources of W.H.O., to try to solve the problem, or at any rate launch a demonstration which will help the natives of the country to solve it. And again, of course, it attempts to introduce the simple approaches and
534
techniques which will solve the problem for them.
My Lords, I have mentioned only, say, half a dozen enterprises of W.H.O. Those of your Lordships who know the work of W.H.O. will know that in 1966 it supported over 1,200 enterprises, of which some 242 were directly concern ed with the United Kingdom or its Colonies or the Commonwealth. This leads me to one important point which I wish to make, and that is the financing of W.H.O.
As your Lordships know, like all other Special Agencies of the United Nations W.H.O. is an independent body, and it raises its own funds. It has four main sources for what is called its integrated international health programmes. The first is its budget, which it receives regularly by direct contributions from the member States. This is on an agreed percentage basis, and the total income under the regular budget is about £23½ million a year, of which this country donates about £1½ million and our Commonwealth another £1½ million, which is a fair proportion considering our size. The second source is technical assistance from the United Nations Development Programme and from the Pan-American Health Organisation. Together, they contribute about £11 million. The third source arises from joint venture; with UNICEF, the United Nations children's organisation, to the extent of about £7 million; and then there are some voluntary health contributions which amount to about £2·7 million. So the total budget is about £45 million.
In the 1968 programme and budget, which has just been printed, there are listed, in a small supplement to that budget, some 500 projects for which Governments have requested support, and these have been initialled by the regional officers of W.H.O. But, alas! there is no money for them. They would cost about £5 million. Therefore, W.H.O. is trying to improve its resources. It is not standing wringing its hands and asking, "What is Britain doing today?" it has decided to establish W.H.O. Foundations in major countries. They are established in the United States, in Canada, in Switzerland, in Ceylon, in Japan and in the United Kingdom, and I have the honour to be chairman of this latter one. These will work under a Federation of W.H.O. Foundations established in Geneva; and

535
we have been given a most generous grant of some 400,000 dollars by the Kellogg Foundation to provide seed money for these W.H.O. Foundations for a period of three years.
There can, I think, be little doubt, certainly from my personal experience, that one of the major ambassadors for peace and good will in developing countries is providing them with the means, in personnel, in equipment and in medicaments, to relieve their suffering, to prevent disease and to promote health. So that, although this is a somewhat inauspicious time, the Foundations hope that they will attract generous gifts, for all of us stand to gain from the promotion of health overseas. Where health is concerned, no nation is an island unto itself.
8.16 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: My Lords, I join with your Lordships in thanking my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for initiating this debate, and I apologise to him for not being in my place when he opened it. I am sure he will understand the commitment that kept me away.
Within the United Nations family there is one Agency for which the trade unionists of the world have a great affection. We of course support the work of the United Nations, the mother Agency, and what is done by all the Agencies, but the I.L.O. is in special favour among the workpeople of this country and other countries, for reasons which I shall explain. I have a personal interest, because since 1960 I have had the honour of being an elected member of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. Indeed, I have been going to Geneva for 14 years, at first as adviser to the British workers' delegate, my late friend Sir Alfred Roberts. Of course, I am very much involved in the work of the I.L.O. and am very sure of the importance of that work.
Perhaps for that very reason I am a little sensitive, but I feel that the work of the I.L.O. is not well known in this country or in the other countries of the world. I know, for instance, that most farmers, and indeed most people, know something about the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I know that most doctors are familiar with the World Health Organisation, and that most teachers could
536
give you a lecture on UNESCO. But so far as the I.L.O. is concerned there seems to be a vacuum. This may be because most of us receive our information through the Press and the radio and television, and, to be quite honest, the I.L.O. does not always have the dramatic impact which the other members of the United Nations family have. An old and experienced trade union journalist friend of mine once described the I.L.O. as, "Worthy, but not newsworthy", and I think he was about right. For that reason, I am glad that this debate is taking place, as it allows me to say a few words about the I.L.O. I would mention, too, that in 1969 the I.L.O. reaches its fiftieth year of life, and extensive arrangements are being made to celebrate that anniversary, both in Geneva and throughout the world. I hope that we in this country shall play our full part when the time comes, and that this event will do much to increase knowledge about, and give publicity to, the work of the I.L.O.
The United Nations family contains a number of Agencies, but the I.L.O. is unique in two respects. First, it was established in association with the old League of Nations, and is the only Agency of the League which survived the Second World War. The second point of uniqueness is that among United Nations Agencies it is the only one which has a tripartite structure. I believe that this second fact explains in great part the first fact: that it has survived the Second World War because it is firmly based on this tripartite, democratic structure. For that reason it has always been healthy, since its discussions and deliberations are taken after full and uninhibited discussion by the representatives of Governments, employers and workers.
The trade union movement played a large part in bringing the I.L.O. into being. Both before and after the 1918 Armistice, organised labour pressed for the creation of permanent machinery for the adoption and enforcement of international labour legislation; and at an international allied trades union conference in 1916 a clear call was made that the Peace Treaty should contain labour guarantees proclaiming the national and international rights of labour. As a result, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 it was decided to

537
set up a Commission on international labour legislation composed of Government representatives and of representatives of management and labour. From these beginnings the International Labour Organisation was born.
The Preamble to its Constitution clearly outlines its objectives, and a few words from that Preamble are worth reading. It says:
"Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; and whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation, to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required: as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of the workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organisation of vocational and technical education and other measures;
"Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries;
"The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, and with a view to attaining the objectives set forth in this Preamble, agree to the following Constitution of the International Labour Organisation."
The Constitution contains provisions for the tripartite conference of member-States once a year. The member-States send four delegates to the Conference: two Government representatives, one employers' representative drawn from the most important employers' organisations, and one workers' delegate. A number of advisers are also taken; and it is interesting to note that where a question concerning women is on the agenda it is a requirement that among the advisers there shall be at least one woman. The work of the I.L.O. is dictated by Conference, organised and controlled by the governing body. The governing body is comprised of 24 Government representatives, 10 of whom come from the States
538
of the greatest industrial importance, 12 employers and 12 workers.
It is quite impossible to cover fully the work and achievements of the I.L.O in the time I can permit myself this evening. It would be unfair to the House. I can only briefly point out that largely the work falls into two categories: first, the traditional function of the I.L.O. for which it was established, the creation of international labour standards; and, second, addition to that important work which still continues, the assistance given, particularly to developing countries, in the field of technical affairs. The I.L.O. does a tremendous amount of work in this direction. I ought to say, I think, that a Convention is an international Instrument and it is fully debated by two meetings of the technical committee of the Conference and can only be confirmed by the Conference by a two-thirds majority.
Of course, this ensures that there is sufficient flexibility within a Convention to enable it to be ratified by a suitable number of States. There has to be this flexibility. It is a requirement, for instance, to take into account local climatic conditions, the degree of organisation of labour in the countries concerned, and so on. It is interesting to know that over 3,300 Conventions have been ratified since 1919. I think it is also interesting and a matter of some pride, to be able to say that the United Kingdom have ratified 65 Conventions. Only France, with 79, Belgium, with 66, and Italy, with 66, have exceeded the number of applications undertaken by this country. So the I.L.O. does give hope to the whole world, and to the developing people of the world in particular, because the fact that a Convention is there gives them a target to aim at, even if at the moment their country has not ratified it.
My Lords, I turn briefly now to the other side. The work in the field is of tremendous importance. I would say in this connection that the budget of the I.L.O. continues to increase because costs continue to rise and we want to expand our work. The total of the 1968 budget is 24,836,091 dollars. I have the job of leading for the workers' group on the financial committee of the I.L.O. I am going there on February 6 to what is called the budget session. I have to

539
negotiate hard with the Governments in particular, but also with the employers; and I so often feel frustrated because of the difficulty of extracting enough money from Governments to enable us to expand our work as we would wish. I have been somewhat heartened by what I have heard this evening, but I hope it is understood—I know we have difficulties in this country, as they have in the U.S.A. and elsewhere—that I would plead with the Government of this country, as I plead with the Governments of others, to be generous in their attitude to the I.L.O. to enable it to complete its work.
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in the sense that I would have said much more if I had had the time and had it been courteous to do so. I realise that it is not. I have, I hope, been able to say a few words about the I.L.O. in which I and my colleagues believe so much. I would add one word. There is another important aspect of the I.L.O. It is the one place in the world where employers, workers and Governments sit down and negotiate together. It is a place, too, where we do not have to talk politics, we do not have to use the platform for propaganda purposes, wherever we come from in the world, whatever our political background. It is done—and I regret it—but, on the other hand, here we are dealing with practical matters of concern to the people of the world, things that are really outside this kind of ideologically political approach. Because it builds a bridge between nations and between people, I believe the I.L.O. to be one of the most important, if not the most important, place in the world. Certainly, it is a most important agency of the United Nations' family.
8.30 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, at this late hour, after three late nights, I propose to be very brief. I should like first to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the wonderfully impressive exposition, backed by his intellectual attitude, of his experience and the wonderful amount of knowledge which he brought to his views on this subject. I made one or two notes when the noble Lord was speaking, and one was that when we of the Colonial
540
Service handed over the Flag, we did not hand it to the United Nations but to separate nascent nations; and I very much doubt whether they, having appreciated that freedom, would be prepared to surrender it completely to the United Nations, however attractive that organisation may be made.
The noble Lord referred to the need to re-write the Charter of the United Nations, which no doubt is quite true. He dismissed the authors as having legislated for a world that had passed away. That is very true, of course, but they were also people who thought it worth while to die for views which have now, perhaps unfortunately, passed away—or many of them have. Another thing which struck me was what the noble Lord said about the oath rejecting all loyalties except to mankind. My Lords, I could not accept that as a desirable thing. I believe that one's first loyalty, particularly if one is in a Government position, is to the people of the country concerned, and only secondly to mankind. There is a good deal of logic in that view, because if you do not look after your own people they will not be in a position to help mankind; you are merely qualifying them for the ultimately desirable thing.
My Lords, I was brought up on the principles of Lord Lugard, which were: in the case of a Governor, first the people of the country of which you are temporarily in charge, and then mankind. I have never lost the feeling that that is the right priority. I also believe in the motto:
"Grant I may need no aid from men,
That I may aid such men as need."
My Lords, I believe that an enlightened nationalism (though that also perhaps is not a very popular view to-day) is the greatest force for progress in the world, and I should regret seeing the United Nations' entering in any way into political power. The less they have to do with politics, the better.
I was much impressed with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said about the proposal that the seabed and all the wealth hidden there should be reserved for the benefit of mankind. That is one of the many idealistic views which, if you bring them down to industrial facts, would require a great deal of expert management and capital expenditure,

541
which I hope would not be the job of the United Nations. We talk a great deal, and there has been a great deal of talk to-night, about the future. I believe in taking care of the present, in which case the future is apt to look after itself.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, say, among other things (and may I at this moment interrupt myself to say with what great pleasure I listened to him, as I have done for many years past, and the eloquence which becomes him so much whatever the subject with which he may be dealing), that 80 per cent. of the resources spent on the Special Agencies were for international economic development. I was delighted to hear that, and I can only say: Long may it be so! I happen to have strong views on the subject of the role of the United Nations in the world and the desirable limitation of any attempt to give the United Nations increasing powers as an embryo World Government, whatever that may mean.
At this moment I should like to mention (this is the one discordant note in the roans of praise poured out this evening, but it is just as well to get the balance straight) that the United Nations is not always right and not always very creditable in what it does. I would refer to the disgraceful treatment meted out by the United Nations to the South African Government over the question of South-West Africa. It was, I thought, particularly undesirable because the only hope of a happy future and better conditions of living for the people of that territory, the only hope they have ever had in all their history, is a continuation of South African government. The question also of the British Government's treatment of South Africa was dealt with last night, when a vote was taken; so there is no need to say any more about it.
I do not wish these views in any way to obscure my respect for the United Nations Special Agencies which in my opinion represent the most laudable activities, and about which I have no special contribution to make in this debate. To my mind, Her Majesty's Government should give all possible support to such activities which, after all, are aimed at making the world a better place in which to live. But this is a very different matter from the aspiration
542
to build behind and above that barricade of good works a sort of infernal machine, with the ultimate power of a world dictatorship. I regard that as a dream which would rapidly develop into a nightmare, and my excuse for making even these few remarks in this debate is the ominous evidence already present of a desire to interfere in the domestic affairs of certain nations under the false plea that they are dealing with a threat, a menace, to world peace.
If I have interpreted their aims rightly, the Special Agencies are based on the willing consent and co-operation of the nations to whom their aid is extended, without any strings of political power attached. And the success of the activities of the Special Agencies can only be hampered by those who aspire to impose world rule upon reluctant mankind. It is not an inspiring sight, in my view, to contemplate men pontificating about human rights at the United Nations Headquarters: men who often represent nations in whose home countries there is such an absence of freedom of speech, thought and action as would be calculated to bring tears to the hard eyes of the Statue of Liberty. I wish the Special Agencies every possible success in their work.
There is another point which has not been mentioned to-night—that is, that all the real power of to-day surely rests outside the United Nations in the hands of the two super-Powers. Moreover, the voting organisation of the United Nations is, to say the least, a curious system. One man, one vote, may or may not be a good idea, but I think that one nation, one vote, makes very little sense outside a debating society.
The excursions of the United Nations into world affairs have up to date had a rather large proportion of failures. The most noticeable has been the Congo. The world has generally been governed in its various countries by small cliques, powerful well-knit groups at the centre of power. I can only say, Heaven forbid that we should deliberately try to create such conditions with a world background with no means of dismissing a group that we cannot control in these circumstances! In human affairs we ignore at our peril human nature. But human nature does not change. I remember some years ago talking to the late Sir Charles Darwin

543
about the book he wrote, The Next Million Years. I asked him why he had called it The Next Million Years. He said, "I called it that because in no period less than a million years would any change in human nature be perceptible". I think that one cannot leave out human nature, however big an idealist one may be.
Originally the ideal democracy was a system whereby there was to be the least possible interference with local and individual liberty. We are doing away with that with our passion for centralising power and authority, but that can be limited under an electoral system. In my view, if we have a world government, we inevitably breed a dictatorship and a world of virtual slaves with it. Whether the United Nations will grow into a world order or collapse into chaos is open to anybody to express a view about. Prediction is perilous, but I see no enduring values which could make such an organisation beneficially develop into a government of mankind. Perhaps that is the feeling that makes some men want to conspire to break up the world and remould it nearer to their hearts desire. Of course, the trouble is that they may smash it, and there will be no rebuilding it. They would need a United Nations, but possibly it would not be there.
I have no doubt at all that outside the pressure groups in the United Nations there are idealists who are anxious to build this perfect organisation of government to maintain peace on earth. But I think that they ought to remember the story of the king who planned to build the most beautiful palace on earth, but who on digging the foundations found the ruins of a palace which had been built by a former king, on each stone of which was inscribed the lines:
"After me cometh a builder.
Tell him, I, too, have known".
It is very ambitious to think that we can build an organisation which will stand all the tests of time. No man can foresee what the United Nations may or may not develop into. I do not wish to deny that the United Nations has done a great deal of good, especially through its Special Agencies. What it can do in future to help in bringing peace, order and happiness to the world may be very great, but one thing I am sure it will not
544
bring—it will not bring in a World Government.
8.46 p.m.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, the hour is late and it is difficult to attempt to comment on the wide range of speeches made. I have found them fascinating, and I am greatly tempted to pursue a number of matters which have been raised. I must resist that temptation, however, and I am sure that noble Lords will fully support me in that resistance.
I would say, first of all, that I was delighted to be able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, speak. He was one of the most distinguished colonial administrators of his generation, and I, in a humble way, followed him in a number of territories and sought to build on the solid foundations which he had established. I am sometimes a little surprised to hear and read his speeches in your Lordships' House, and I look back to the days when in a number of territories he introduced some very progressive Constitutions. When he eventually left our Colonial Service, full of honour and distinction, he was wise enough to join my Party. I am sorry that he is now on the other side of the House, and it seems to me that many of his observations dim somewhat the brilliance of a record which those of us who served after him so admiringly remember.
I shall not attempt to follow him into a number of the matters which he raised, but perhaps I may take one as an example. The noble Lord spoke of one country, one vote, but to suggest that the United Nations is based on one country, one vote, is a delusion. It is not based on reality. Power in the United Nations, as we know, rests not with the General Assembly, capable only of making recommendations. I would claim that every country, even a small country, has a right to be heard. Power is concentrated in the Security Council and is further concentrated in the hands of the four veto-carrying Powers. I would certainly say that the frustrations and failures of the United Nations are not due to the small nations' expressing their opinions by their speeches and their votes: they are due most certainly to the great Powers.
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with the United Nations except the

545
members. Naturally we think that it is the members who do not agree with us, but I dare say that there are various views on that. I myself consider that the principle of the Charter, by which all nations shall have a right to speak and right to vote in the Assembly, whereas they have no power to make decisions in regard to world security, is sound, and I would defend that right. People who speak about weighted voting in the Assembly and about the variation of the Charter are first of all not going to achieve their purpose, because there is not going to be any major change in the Charter in the foreseeable future; and secondly, I think they would be misguided to attempt it.
I was greatly delighted that we could finish this long debate, which must touch on so many different subjects, with two authoritative statements from two noble Lords who are probably the best qualified men in the world to speak on their subjects. It is well that we should be brought back at the end of this debate, in which we have covered so much ground, to listen to the discussion which has been carried for us to-day by the noble Lord who speaks to us about the World Health Organisation and the noble Lord who speaks to us about the International Labour Organisation. I think that at the end of the day we wanted a reminder that the family of the United Nations is engaged on practical, essential and progressive work. We could not have listened to two better speeches in this stage of our proceedings. I greatly appreciate what the two noble Lords said.
I think all I can do at this stage is to take maybe the headings that stand in my mind and say a sentence or two on each. But there is one subject on which I feel an obligation to reply possibly at slightly greater length, because several noble Lords have spoken with great passion on it. It is a subject of which I will admit I was ignorant when I heard them speak, but I should like them to listen to the explanation which is provided, and I should like them at least to think it over. I would not expect them to accept immediately what I say, but I would ask them to think about it and we will discuss it at some subsequent time.
I refer to the question of the World Health Organisation Board. Your Lordships
546
may remember that my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder dealt with this, followed strongly by others, including my noble friend Lord Crook. I must say that it is a great delight to me to see my noble friend Lord Crook here. We have certain people who are, I might say, monuments in the United Nations, who we feel are part of the Organisation, and we should expect the noble Lord to come to New York as he goes to Geneva regularly doing the work for which he is greatly respected throughout the whole organisation, because we know him to be a man of absolute integrity and absolute fact. He supported, too, the case put to us on the World Health Organisation Board.
It is perfectly true that the United Kingdom are among the sponsors of a resolution. I look, first of all, to see whether our company was respectable, at the other members of the sponsoring group, and I am bound to say that they do not seem to me particularly reactionary or misguided: Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Argentina and the United States of America. If we are wrong, there are several others who are wrong with us.
The resolution makes a proposition. I should explain that the existing provisions of the World Health Organisation constitution, whereby members of the Executive Board must be persons "technically qualified in the field of health", remains absolutely unchanged. The Board's qualifications to take decisions on medical matters on technical grounds will therefore not be impaired in the slightest. The Board's constitutional duties remain completely untouched. The sole change proposed is to add the privilege that the members of the Board represent the Governments by whom they are designated. In practice, the members of the Executive Board, who are senior civil servants, and sometimes Ministers, already reflect their Government's views when political, administrative or financial considerations are at issue. By the way, the United Kingdom is not a member of the Board. We hope that it may be very soon restored to the Board, and we shall be represented when that happens in exactly the same way as we were before, and by the same man, Sir George Godber, the

547
Chief Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health.
The point of the Amendment is that it strengthens the authority of the Board when dealing with such matters, and brings the World Health Organisation constitution into line with the other major Specialised Agencies, whose Executive Boards or Governing Councils are composed of Government representatives. This is appropriate, since the Boards have increasingly to deal with matters relating to financial and administrative practices and the programme of co-ordination. At the same time, the World Health Organisation will be changing over to the more efficient and economical system of biennial instead of annual budgets. This is the right moment, therefore, to make clear in the constitution that the Executive Board remains available as the continuing organ in which Government views can be made known between Assemblies.
We do not see why the proposed change should lead to greater national or sectional pressure being put on the Director-General than hitherto. Moreover, the system whereby members of Executive Boards or Governing Bodies are Government representatives exists in the other main Specialised Agencies and has not destroyed the integrity of their international stance. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords, who obviously feel very strongly about this matter, and who are cerainly free to raise the matter with me again if they wish, will realise that the change proposed is to bring the World Health Organisation, for reasons which on the face of them seem to me to be sound, into line with the practice in other Specialised Agencies. I do not think it would be regarded as a disgraceful act, or that it would justify perhaps the strong language that I have heard from behind me in the course of this debate.
I will turn to deal more shortly with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, on the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I would seek to summarise the situation which I do know, unlike the particular matter of the representation on the World Health Organisation Board, which was not familiar to me before it was raised. On the question of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Dr. Sen, one of the great men I would say of our generation, who has
548
been in charge of this organisation for a long period, has rendered magnificent service. But I think that we in this country remember him particularly perhaps for the "Freedom from Hunger" campaign which he inaugurated and in which our country took a leading part in the world. We all respect Dr. Sen.
But there came a time—it often happens in organisations—when, after the first twenty years it was necessary to look again at the whole structure of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The task was wisely undertaken, I think, by an independent board, of which Sir John Fletcher-Cooke was the deputy chairman. A very thorough job was done. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that Dr. Sen, at the end of his period of office, disagreed with some of the proposals which were put by the board. What is the sensible thing to do? To allow the new Director-General, Dr. Boman, of the Netherlands, who is to carry responsibility in future years, to work with the special committee established which is to report in October of this year. And the changes will not be introduced until next year. I think therefore there is nothing very revolutionary or surprising about this. At the end of an era led by, as I say, a man of outstanding ability it was necessary to review. The review was carried out to make the changes. They are not being made in a hurry. Our own policy is fully reflected in the decisions so taken, and our own representative has played a leading part.
I must say here something about the most fascinating subject of the deep-sea bed. I dare say that if this debate is remembered at all it will be remembered as the seabed debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder most warmly again for having brought this subject to our notice. I am not going to comment on it in detail now. As your Lordships know there was established in the last Assembly a Commission to undertake a review of all aspects of this question. This country is represented on that body, and we will play our full part, most certainly, bearing in mind the considerations that have been mentioned here in this debate.
We sometimes hear sneering reference—not here, of course, but elsewhere—to the smaller nations of the world, and the

549
suggestion that it is only the great nations that can make contributions in matters of great consequence. I like to go back in my mind to the remarkable enterprise and initiative shown by Ambassador Pardoe of Malta in the last Assembly—one of the most striking things that has been achieved since the United Nations was established. He had a small delegation of probably not more than three senior officers in the New York office, without the backing of a great Government and opportunities of research behind him. He brought up a subject which was not popular. There were various considerations. People were not altogether happy that it should be brought forward. The Ambassador of Malta insisted that it should, and then with great skill and persuasion he convinced all concerned, including the Soviet Union—which is not easy—to go with him on the definition of the terms of reference of the body he wanted us to set up. He carried it through, and in the end obtained a unanimous vote, 99 to nil, in the General Assembly. That is a magnificent example of what can be done, and it may well be that in bringing this matter to the notice of the international community and insisting it should be carried through—it does not go through merely by insisting; you have to work for it—and getting a unanimous vote, one man of a small country has been able to alter the whole prospect of the world. I make no further comment, except again to express my admiration for a small country and a brilliant Ambassador.
We can spend a lot of time talking about population, and on this subject I listened to what was said by many noble Lords, including, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I agree with him. I myself went to the Population Conference in Chile, and indeed made the opening address. It was a breakthrough, as the noble Lord suggested, because this was the first time that such a conference had been held, or could be held, in Latin America. It was much to the credit of President Frey that he should be prepared, with a certain amount of attack directed at him, to allow this world-wide conference to meet in his capital. I would not attempt to say more about the whole problem, which has been very well brought before us this evening.
I would just say this. I had the privilege on Human Rights Day, December
550
10, to speak for 17 nations in the Economic Council of the United Nations. Those 17 nations were that day signing the Population Declaration. Your Lordships will remember that on Human Rights Day last year 12 nations, not the most powerful in the world—India and Yugoslavia, I remember, were among them—signed a Population Declaration. I think it is one of the historic documents of the world. They pledged themselves and their Governments to work for the purposes of an amazing document, not yet sufficiently known. The following year 17 Heads of State on Human Rights Day, December 10 last, including our Prime Minister, came forward to sign the Declaration. I was privileged to speak for the 17 nations, including the United States of America. Now, therefore, there are 29 signatories, representing a third of the population of the world, who have pledged themselves to a Declaration which I believe will be famous in history. So we have made some progress. I have no time to go into detail, but I believe that all the machinery of the United Nations and its Agencies is gradually being brought into operation to have an effect on this which, I agree, is certainly one of the most urgent problems, if not the most urgent problem, in the world.
I will say one word on organisation. Several matters were raised about reorganisation of the United Nations Secretariat. A major reorganisation is just being undertaken. The Secretary-General found that having 23 or 24 under-secretaries, all with direct access to him, does not work—naturally, it does not. He is now providing that there shall be 11 under-secretaries, who will have the senior positions, and then there will be the second rank of under-secretaries. It is a new organisation, fully approved at the last Assembly and now being put into effect. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder that the article which he read in this morning's Guardian is not accurate. I will not accept the fact that in the senior hierarchy of the United Nations there should not be a British representative; and I have no reason to think there will not be.
There is one other point I must make to correct a misapprehension. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, in a speech which to all of us who work in

551
the United Nations was full of wisdom and the knowledge that comes from having served there, said we had dropped the process of Parliamentary representation in our delegation. That is not so. I am glad to be able to assure her that, on the contrary, far from dropping Parliamentary representation, we now have a stronger Parliamentary representation than we have ever had before, including myself as Resident Minister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. We have had also the very great benefit of a Member of the other place who has been carrying the great load of the Fourth Committee on colonial questions through the last Assembly, and to whom I owe a great debt. He has done a very fine job for us. He is a Member of Parliament who has been prepared to go for three months, without a break, to New York, which is not easy, as many of your Lordships will know. So, on the contrary, we are very anxious to maintain our Parliamentary representation and, if possible, to increase it.
I should also like to say that it is not actually true that all the recruitment is delayed and prejudiced by geographical distribution. In, for instance, the United Nations Development Programme, which is, I think, the biggest single effort of the whole U.N., the selection of experts is made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of nationality. Incidentally, I would say that our country provides for the expert assistance of the United Nations a greater number, a greater proportion, than any other country in the world.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I was thinking of the central staff.
LORD CARADON: I think in the United Nations Central Secretariat it is so. But, as I say, it is not so otherwise, to my certain knowledge, because I served under the United Nations Development Programme. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that the reform of the United Nations Charter will not happen. The Russians are perfectly frank about it. They say that we were lucky to get it in 1945 and we probably should not get it now, and we had better make the best of it. I do not complain about the Charter.
552
We can make the Charter work, of course. If there is the will to co-operate, almost anything can be made to work, but if there is no will then nothing will work. It is unreal to think of abolishing the veto. If we do that, no super-Powers will be in the Security Council, willing to hand over their powers to a committee, when they have a vote of one. This is an essential part of their contract and it will be maintained, and all we can do about it is to work day by day to try to get a better understanding. I think there is now a better understanding between East and West and, God willing, we shall one day have a better understanding between North and South.
I must also make some reference to Lord Ritchie-Calder's terrifying picture of the aid going to the tapeworm and not to the developing countries. The noble Lord knows very well, but I should like to say to your Lordships, that the main reform we have made in the past two or three years in our overseas development aid from this country is that the greater part of our loans are now made interest free. I am glad we can claim to lead the world in giving our aid interest free so that we do not have to ensure that our money is not going to feed the tapeworm.
I was struck by the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. Although we work together day by day and see each other every day in New York, unfortunately I never hear her speak because we work in different places. I am happy to have personal confirmation of the high opinions I have heard from everyone else about her speeches. When she got halfway through her speech I was concerned—was she attacking the whole concept of the United Nations? Of course she was doing nothing of the kind. What she was doing was to show us that if we are unable to deal effectively with the problems of race they will poison everything else, and if we cannot deal with that problem I do not believe there are any other problems in the same category. Indeed, they are all wrapped up with the problems of population and of poverty.
Regarding the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I will merely say, on disarmament, that in the United Nations disarmament can proceed only step by step, from the Test Ban to the

553
Outer Space Treaty, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to the Latin American Nuclear Ban. That is the way to proceed. If there were no progress I should be alarmed, but there has been progress, and we hope it will not be long before the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a fact.
I was asked especially to say something about Gibraltar and the deplorable resolution passed in the Assembly. The reasons for that vote were various and many of them were quite irrelevant to the issue of Gibraltar, but it was some comfort to us that a number of Commonwealth countries stood boldly with us. In close consultation with the peoples of Gibraltar, we did not hesitate to condemn the resolution in forthright terms. In all our policies we have sought to be guided by the sound principles of the Charter: that the interests of all the people should be paramount. That is the principle which guides us, and with more than 750 million of the people in the Commonwealth now in independent countries the principle has been tested and tried and found to be sure and true. It is a principle which we have declared and which we have sought to carry out without discrimination, as much in Rhodesia as in Gibraltar, as much as in any other country for which we have had a colonial responsibility to discharge.
I should like to make one reference to the subject of the new nations, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I was interested in what he said and, in passing, on the question of what the Secretary-General calls the "micro-States". We do not want to see smaller countries enter the United Nations. I believe there is to be, as the noble Lord suggested, some new thinking, as to how we can deal with these 30 to 40 small territories round the world which maybe do not wish to become members of the United Nations. The island of Naura does not wish to come to the United Nations, although they are now independent. This is a separate problem. I am glad the noble Lord has drawn attention to it. We are pursuing consideration of it. I would say, in passing, that I think the whole United Nations system draws its strength and value from the fact that the great Powers now no longer can have it all their own way; they have to consider and win the support of the general membership. That is an important development.
554
That is the part to be played by the new nations. Although I say the power of veto lies with the four Permanent Members, no Permanent Member can get any positive proposal approved unless he carries the Afro-Asians, Canadians and Danes, the other members of the Council.
Finally I would say this. I like controversy. I do not think we should be afraid of making this a matter of Party controversy if necessary, but I do not believe there is any great need for it. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, quoted Sir Alec Douglas-Home and what he has said from time to time. I worked with him when he was Foreign Secretary and often sat through long meetings of the General Assembly at his side, and there is no one for whom I have a higher personal respect. Sometimes I think he adopts a somewhat belligerent tone which is misleading as to his intention. I read his speech in Oxford the other day and I could find little to object to. He made a speech at Berwick which was interpreted as an attack on the United Nations. I do not think he intended it to be. As we work in New York in a delegation led by Members of this side of the House, I should hope we can feel we carry the support not only of one Party but of this noble House.
9.16 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships. I want to say "Thank you" to everyone who has made this debate a very remarkable occasion. We have covered an enormous amount of ground, as one could have foreseen from the scope provided by the Motion. I should not like to think that I should end this debate with the one discordant note I have ever struck with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. I still do not accept the retreat from the principle. I am going to leave the last word in this debate with a man for whom I have the most profound respect, one of the greatest international civil servants who ever lived, Dr. Brock Chisholm, the first Director-General of the World Health Organisation. The World Health Organisation has been uniquely fortunate in all its Directors-General. This is what he said—what I call his "farewell to the old guard", his valedictory to the organisation:
"The Executive Board, to be able to fulfil its highly important role as technical adviser

555
to, and executive organ of, the Assembly, is composed of members responsible to the Assembly alone, not to Governments or to any other bodies. In most instances the Board has lived up to its responsibilities. Many members have scrupulously honoured them, occasionally even in the face of heavy pressure of religious and political groups. Others"—
meaning members of the Board—
"on the other hand have on occasions clearly represented special interests, regional, national or other—and a very few have appeared to be acting under instructions or external pressures. Any such failure of members of the Executive Board to recognise their exclusive responsibility to the Assembly represents the greatest possible threat to the integrity of the organisation".
This I endorse, with the kind of enthusiasm with which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, was apparently reproaching it.
"It is absolutely essential that the Assembly should be able to feel complete confidence that the advice which it receives from the Executive Board is based on technical considerations and entirely free from national or group interest of any kind of degree. Nothing short of complete world-mindedness is acceptable in any member of the Executive Board."
Those are Dr. Brock Chisholm's views, and I leave the last word with him. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

MILITARY AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT
9.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the present methods and results of procurement of military aircraft. The noble Earl said: my Lords, may I start by saying, particularly owing to the lateness of the hour, that I consider it something of a compliment that the Leader of the House should be personally replying to this Unstarred Question on the procurement of military aircraft. May I take this opportunity of adding my congratulations on his recent appointment.
As the noble Lord will probably recall, this Question has been on and off the Order Paper ever since last November, and although a good deal has happened since that time, and I and my noble friends Lord St. Oswald and Lord Caldecote, have had to re-write our
556
speeches at least twice to keep up with events, I greatly hope that to-night the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be even more forthcoming than usual when he comes to reply, for the subject of military aircraft procurement is, as he well knows, causing the deepest concern and despair to the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry.
The frequency with which policy changes are made, and cancellation after cancellation of projects are announced, not only has undermined the confidence of those concerned with procurement in Britain, but has literally shattered the confidence of our potential customers abroad. The hard truth to-day, with this record of cancellations over the past few years and the vacillation of British policy on the future of the British aircraft industry, is that I believe the position has been reached where no country is prepared to risk its own security by placing an order for a British military aircraft project only to find that it is later cancelled.
One of the chief weaknesses in the present system of procurement, as I see it, lies in the process from the time the strategic and tactical requirement of a military aircraft project has been laid down by the Royal Air Force and their advisers, to the time that that project reaches its production stage. During this intermediate stage—and perhaps I should advise the House that I take my information from the Zuckerman Report of 1963, and from various friends in the industry—the full specification of the project is threshed out by committee after committee of civil servants, by experts after experts, and now by Government Department after Government Department.
Whereas one welcomes the thoroughness to which every project is subjected before large sums of public money are committed, the weakness of the process appears to lie in the appalling lack of decision during this period and, of course, arising from this lack of decision, the long and irritating delays in time. Also, there is the tendency for the specification of the project to be so enlarged and complicated in committee that ultimately it proves too expensive for the contractor to produce and is cancelled.
How one streamlines and improves this process, while retaining the safeguards for the public purse, I do not pretend to answer to-night; but what is obvious, even to an outsider like myself, is that unless the process is drastically streamlined British projects in the future will suffer the same fate as those in the past, and the public purse will continue to pay out large sums in cancellation charges. I believe it is urgently necessary for the Government to correct the faults that seem so apparent at the present time.
Many of us over the last few weeks will have read a number of leading articles in the Press on the cancellation charge of military projects. It is an interesting fact, and not, if I may say so, a political point, that the Minister of Defence has broken a number of records since he has been in office. During his three years he has cancelled five major aircraft projects and will, after the settlement of the F.111 charges, have dipped into the public purse and paid out well over £300 million in compensation, and there is not even a single altimeter to show for it. Secondly, the Minister has produced more White Papers and revised White Papers than any previous Minister; and, lastly, he has put his shirt on two horses, the A.F.V.G. and the F.111, both of which have failed to complete the course. It is not, I think he would agree with me, a proud record.
But the latest cancellation is to my mind the most damaging of all. It is, of course, the F.111. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, himself stated last Tuesday, not only is this a body blow to the pride and effectiveness of the Royal Air Force, and not only will it cost this country an enormous amount in dollars on cancellation charges, but, even more important, it will cost the country in the future a sum that can never really properly be evaluated. It is the future American orders that British aircraft firms might have won but for the feeling of prejudice which might arise from this cancellation. This feeling of prejudice could well spread both in the military and civil markets.
There are four questions I should like to ask the noble Lord to-night on the cancellation charge of the F.111. First, can he give us an estimate of the likely total cost of the cancellation, bearing in
558
mind the terms of the cancellation clause in the original contract? Secondly, will these charges be reduced? Because at the time of cancellation the performance of the aircraft had not reached anywhere near the stage of the guaranteed performance. Thirdly, before the cancellation took place was Australia consulted as to whether they would like to take on the British order, as they had no fixed ceiling price in their own contract? Finally, was the figure indicated last night by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, of £4·3 million per aircraft the total estimated cost of the aircraft, or was it a good deal less?
I should like briefly to turn to the military projects which have so far escaped the Government guillotine. I should like to ask the noble Lord for more information about the Harrier. This brilliantly designed aircraft has suffered, in my opinion, from the unaccountable delay of the Government to announce a firm order for the Royal Air Force. Instead of placing a firm contract, the Government have, as I understand it simply given the financial go-ahead for production. Such action, in my opinion, not only loses the chance of valuable publicity for the Harrier, but it the eyes of potential buyers abroad it must seem that if the British Government are not themselves prepared to place a firm contract, then the likelihood of cancellation must be "on the cards".
I should like also to ask the noble Lord about the British V.G. project, in the light of Mr. Healey's television interview last week. The noble Lord no doubt will recall that Mr. Healey seemed to indicate then that our future security would rest in the mid-1970s largely with our American friends giving us protection with their long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft. This, anyway, was the gist of what he said. Would the noble Lord to-night confirm that, if we can find no partner to join us with the V.G. project, we are prepared to go it alone? If not, what is the Government's contingency plan for equipping the Royal Air Force for a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft when the Canberras are phased out? I should also like to ask the noble Lord, if he has time, to give information about the Jaguar and to say whether or not the project is proceeding satisfactorily in relation to time and cost.

559
Further, could the noble Lord confirm if there has been any escalation in the cost of the Phantom project?
The policy of the Government on military aircraft procurement vitally affects the British aircraft industry. This great industry, which is one of only three aircraft industries in the world capable of actually designing and producing sophisticated modern aircraft, has suffered tremendously from Government policies in the past. Cancellation of projects has caused a severe loss of confidence among potential overseas buyers. Now, the industry is faced with a Government policy of collaboration often with European partners one-tenth its size. Experience of collaboration over military aircraft projects, with the notable exception of the Jaguar, has not been a happy one. Problems of design leadership, and even problems of mutual trust in the partners, occur. I hope very much that in future the Government will see it as their clear duty to give the industry every encouragement and to safeguard their interests, particularly their interests in regard to design leadership, when collaboration is arranged. I hope also that they will not only seek European collaboration, but also international co-operation with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It has been estimated that over the next twelve years the potential market for military aircraft in Europe alone is over 6,000 aircraft, and I hope that to-night the noble Lord will re-affirm the Government's support of the aircraft industry in winning a share of this market.
The procurement policy of military aircraft for the Royal Air Force l as never somersaulted so many times as it has in the last three years, and although it may be argued by the Government that the Royal Air Force are, and will be, equipped to meet their commitments, it must seem to many people that it is, in fact, the commitments that have been tailored to meet the equipment. The Government's policy on military aircraft procurement is not a happy one, and tonight I do not envy the noble Lord in his job, particularly as an ex-Minister for the Royal Air Force, of trying to defend this unworthy policy.
9.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in accordance with our usual custom I
560
must declare an interest in the subject of this debate, as I am connected with an aircraft company. It is very tempting, in debates of this kind, to use them to pay off old scores, to climb on hobbyhorses and to make Party points. But I will do my best to resist all those things because this is not in any way a petty matter, nor is it a Party issue.
Some people might think that this was a rather inopportune moment to debate the military aircraft procurement problems. I do not think so at all, and we are greatly indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for instigating this debate. For I believe that this is a really serious national problem and also, as I hope I shall show later, a European problem. I agree wholeheartedly with the comment made about two years ago by the Plow-den Committee, when discussing the problems of the industry. They said:
"We cannot afford to admit defeat in this particular industry, while hoping that solutions will be found in others. Rather we must seek a solution here which may also have more general application."
That is as true now as it was when that Report was written.
I should like to spend a few moments on looking at the past, for it is from there that we must learn the lessons for the future. Following the very substantial rearmament at the time of the Korean troubles, there was a period of tremendous enthusiasm for new projects. The development work-load increased rapidly, and little or no effort was made to estimate the capacity of industry as a whole to meet that load. The first danger signals of bad planning arose, and in Government and industry the estimators and the cost controllers were overwhelmed by the technical enthusiasts. All this resulted in rising costs and long delays, and there followed a time, which might be called the period of the search for solutions, which was perhaps ushered in by the 1957 White Paper. It diagnosed correctly that there were unhealthy trends, but it prescribed the wrong remedy and very nearly killed the patient.
Then in the early 'sixties there were the first big mergers in the airframe and engine industries. They rightly demanded the formation of stronger units, and these were formed on very sound principles. Those mergers were carried through by agreement, on the promise of better planning and a steadier work load. There

561
was at that time rising confidence in the industry and in the Services. There was a determination to profit by past errors, and there was, apparently, a growing appreciation of the importance of cost. But the scene, unfortunately, was still dominated by technical enthusiasts. At that time, for instance, the specification and so the cost of the TSR.2 was allowed to escalate. Performance, in fact, was still paramount.
I think we can say that that phase continued until about 1962, and then we entered what might be called the age of indecision, of vacillation and wasted opportunities—an age which extends, I am afraid, to the present. The Conservatives failed at that time to take decisions till far too late in many important areas. They set the bad example of beginning to buy large quantities of aircraft from the United States when they ordered the Phantom, and this "Rake's progress" of purchases from America has been continued by the present Government. But to be fair, and to the credit of the Government and Party of noble Lords opposite, they have set an example in taking the first steps for effective European co-operation in the co-operative development of military aircraft. So much for the past.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt my noble friend, but the fact is that the Anglo-French variable-geometry project was not set in motion by the present Administration at all. It was set in motion by Mr. Julian Amery, when he was Minister of Aviation.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I accept that correction, but I think it is fair to say—one gives credit where credit is due—that the Jaguar is the first really effective co-operative military aircraft project. We must be fair in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, there are many complex issues involved in this, and we must avoid the temptation to go into too many details. However, there are a few broad conclusions which we can draw from the past. First of all, there are three undeniable facts. Nowadays, virtually any specification of performance can be met if sufficient money is made available. This is a new factor in the last 15 years. Since money is not unlimited, the specification
562
must be limited to control the expenditure. In other words, the performance, the time and the cost of any aircraft project are closely linked together. You cannot give equal priority to cost and to performance at the same time. In the past, performance and time were paramount. Now, I believe, we have to make cost and time the first considerations.
Secondly, my Lords, the period from conception of a new aircraft to its delivery into service is some seven to ten years. The basic political cycle is, unfortunately, only four to five years, with very considerable perturbation at shorter intervals. Because this is very often not appreciated, apparently, many wrong decisions are taken, and many valuable resources are sorely wasted by attempts to alter development policy to fit in with short-term changes in political thinking. Thirdly, the development of any airborne vehicle, such as an aircraft, is of a different order of cost and difficulty from any other engineering project. There are many reasons for this, which we have not time to go into to-night. There are reasons of space, weight limitation and the very complex systems of engineering involved. Because of the very high cost and the difficulty, if we are to get good value for money, these considerations demand long production runs; and this points to the great advantages of European co-operation in these expensive projects and, perhaps even more important, the acceptance of market size as one of the prime considerations when the specification is being determined.
I believe that these three factors account for the vast majority of the difficulties that have beset us since the war in the procurement and development of military aircraft. The ability of the British aircraft industry to meet the specifications that have been demanded from them, is not, I believe, in question, and I do not think that any industry has a better record of producing first-class aircraft than the British aircraft industry. The trouble has all too often been that the specification has been wrongly drawn.
Those, my Lords, are in my view some major points in the diagnosis of our problem. What, then, is the cure? I think we must first appreciate that the most effective combination of design, development and production experience

563
rests in industry, and that it is industry which can achieve the most cost-effective solution to the Service's problems. I believe, therefore, that if we are to exploit to the full this knowledge and experience in industry the problems of the Services should be given to industry at the earliest possible stage. Do not give industry a specification which is half-way towards a solution of the problem. Give industry as early as possible the problem that the Service wants to solve. Tell it the cost limitation on development and production; and give it the freest possible opportunities to exploit its experience. Do not hamstring it by saying that it may not have this or that industrial partnership, whether national or international. Tell it clearly what time-scale is required; and allow it—indeed, encourage it—to take full account of export potential. I believe that if that were done we should get much better value for money; industry would be completely involved in the project from the start, and they would be able to put forward the most economic and effective way of solving the Services' problem.
Secondly, let the Government do their long-term planning; let them order equipment on the best information available on what the requirement will be when the equipment goes into service. Let there be no question of cancellation in the future, provided that the specification is being met. Resist the temptation to abandon any project for reasons of short-term political expediency or re-assessment of a requirement many years ahead which may well alter again back to the original requirement.
Thirdly, as I have already said, to ensure value for money spent on very expensive developments, it is essential to ensure that there should be a long production run. It is very doubtful whether the British home market will ever be sufficient to achieve that. It is therefore of great importance to encourage a greater and greater European market. This is not at all easy to achieve because, unfortunately, every country wants to develop its own aircraft in each field, and this leads to excessive European competition. If that goes too far then, in my view, the European aviation industry will be killed stone dead, and by 1980 it will be totally dominated by the American industry.
564
It is true that, ideally, each European specification would be met by a single country with the other countries buying from the producer. This has been found to be impracticable in the past, and I do not believe that we can get to this situation in the near future. Thus we have to go (and have gone successfully in the case of Jaguar) to co-operative development by two or more countries with the hope that other countries will buy in large numbers. The objective, of course, must be to make such collaboration as efficient and effective as the development would be if it had been carried out by a single company. But however effective development is, it will be pretty useless if there is no market for it at the end of the road.
My Lords, I believe that it is of tremendous importance that the Governments of European countries should accept the principle that European-developed products should have some priority in meeting defence requirements. Some people will say that to achieve that state of affairs is totally impossible before we get together as a single European political unit. If that is true, then I am afraid that the prospects for a continuing, viable and independent European aviation industry are bad—because we are not going to get together politically in Europe within the next, I would guess, ten years. Time is not on our side. If we do not get together within a short time to avoid excessive European competition we shall lose a very large part of the market, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested was of the order of 6,000 military aircraft. We shall lose a large part of that market to the American companies.
If that happens, I believe that we shall have taken an irretrievable step towards the domination of the European aviation industry by America. I would urge the Government to take the initiative in calling a conference of European Governments to look into what can be done to take a further step forward in agreeing common European specifications for military aircraft. I believe that if they did that they would be surprised at the response they would get. It may be said that industry ought to take the initiative in this respect. Already this has been done to a large degree. A.I.C.M.A., the Western European Aviation Trades Association, has already had a number of

565
meetings and has set up working groups to investigate what can be done to improve the efficiency of European collaboration and to investigate other similar matters. But in the long run, of course, Governments are the customers for military aircraft, and all these activities will be of little avail unless the Governments can agree on common specifications for European military aircraft.
My Lords, I believe that it is of great interest to this country, and to Europe as well, that we should solve this problem of the efficient procurement of military aircraft. If we fail, we shall fail in the civil field, too. Europe will lose the important advantage of a stimulating, growing and exciting technological industry, in which Britain is very well equipped to play a leading part and earn her just and valuable reward.
9.46 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, after the previous two days of long and, for the Government, punishing debate, I intend to say very little of what could be said on this subject. Moreover, I am, if possible, even more reluctant than usual to rub salt into the wounds—partly self-inflicted though they be—of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Many on this side of your Lordships' House who count themselves as warm friends of the noble Lord had reason to be proud of that friendship on Tuesday, when he bore himself with a dignified humility rare in our political breed. I hope that he will take my congratulations on his promotion to his new office as read.
Having said that, my Lords, I must also say that one of the less desirable political phenomena of our epoch is the inexpungible smugness of the Secretary of State for Defence. It was once said of a leading politician that he had a great deal to be modest about. Mr. Healey has nothing whatever to be smug about. Seldom can any senior Minister have handled his stewardship more deplorably in three-and-a-half years. I understand than, in a broadcast earlier this week he excused himself for his repeated contradictions in policy by implying that when it came to breaking pledges he was merely a cog in the machine. My Lords, if that be so he is a very slippery and poorly engineered cog, not able to obtain any real purchase on the driving parts of the machine
566
of Government. I understand that in the same broadcast Mr. Healey also said:
"I learn more as time goes on …"
It must be the most expensive tuition that any British subject has ever been given at public expense, utterly eclipsing any saving to be made by the postponement of the higher school-leaving age.
The Labour Party, when in Opposition, taunted and growled at what they called our squandering of money on projects later cancelled. Government supporters still refer sneeringly to £84 million spent on Blue Streak. Yet Blue Streak is to-day serving the technological purpose of this Government as part of the experimental satellite launcher—par: of their handsome inheritance from the previous Government. Their squanderings, their cancellations, have been gargantuan. According to figures given a little earlier by my noble friend, which I shall not repeat, within weeks of taking office they had scrapped £195 million-worth of endeavour on TSR.2 and £2l million-worth on P.11–54—to name only two out of the products included under his figure. They have since been cancelling, or failing to provide, the replacements for what Conservative policy would have provided had the Conservative Party remained in Office. The Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, once the core of Mr. Healey's air defence policy, fell through seven months ago. With my noble friend, I should like to know to what extent and in what manner this project is being carried forward without French participation. Together with my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, I was dismayed by the innuendo that this project was not going very well and might be dropped.
I should also like to know what the cancellation costs will be for the F.111K, the Chinook helicopters and the 10 cancelled Buccaneers. Could the noble Lord also tell us whether these costs are included in the advertised savings announced by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, or whether the savings will be reduced when the cancellation costs are paid—as they will have to be paid. In truth, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said earlier when he put down this Question, before the Recess, there was a good deal more to say about

567
aircraft procurement, because a good deal more aircraft were apparently being procured.
One way of avoiding the sort of searching and no doubt discomfiting Questions put down by my noble friend is to cancel all weapons. We know that there is a strong body of the Government Party which would like to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House, with his new power and strength within the Government, is aware of the extent to which we rely upon him to protect what remains of our defence, both in men and in weapons. We count upon him to do this so long as the present Government remain in office. He could then count upon us, and in particular upon my right honourable friend Mr. Enoch Powell, with an easy mind.
9.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the course of this debate has only confirmed to me the total unsuitability of Unstarred Questions when in the hands of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, for his kind remarks. If I reply in kind to his later remarks, I am confident that our friendship will not be damaged. I must confess that I was very shocked.
I am going to address most of my remarks to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, because I think that it is a waste of time to talk to the other two noble Lords. When the noble Viscount made a very innocent remark which might smack slightly of praise of the Government, that drew the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, furiously to his feet.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Misplaced praise.
LORD SHACKLETON: I know that it is intolerable to say anything in praise of this Government. I had thought that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, put down this Question with the desire to obtain information and that I should not be called upon, in his words, "to defend an unworthy policy". I would say to the noble Earl, as I have said before, that this is not a suitable subject for an Unstarred Question. On the last occasion he said that he had got into trouble because he went outside the terms of the
568
Question. But I understand that an Unstarred Question, like any other Question, is designed primarily to obtain information, although it does give rise to a debate. I think that this is a matter which your Lordships' House will have to consider more closely. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because it will enable me to say something about the procurement of military aircraft. And because I thought that this Question was put down seriously for information and not for Party political purposes, I will do my best to answer his points.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, this Question was put down seriously. I thought that I asked some serious questions, and I hope the noble Lord will give me serious answers.
LORD SHACKLETON: Most certainly. Until I heard the noble Earl, there was not going to be a single word of Party politics in my speech. I shall try to follow the standard set by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote—and I hope that this will not cause trouble for him. Of course, things have advanced since the noble Earl read the Zuckerman Report, which was published in 1961 and not in 1963. If he was two years out of date in that, it is not surprising that he is two years out of date on the developments that have happened in recent years.
I should like to say something about methods. This is a subject to which, as an Administration, we have paid great attention, and I must make clear that the previous Administration, dissatisfied with the results, had understandably also paid attention to this. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, gave a description of the changes and the vacillations, and I must confess that since my time as a Minister I have been extremely sympathetic to previous Governments. But it is true that the aircraft industry has suffered as a result, and as one of those who believe in the importance of the aircraft industry, I am very anxious to say something about the procedures which are now yielding very much better results.
The procedures which were in force when we took office had stemmed from the recommendations of the Zuckerman

569
Committee, which reported in 1961. In April, 1964—and let me make clear that this was in the last days of the previous Government—a group of senior officials from the Ministries of Aviation and Defence were appointed to review how these procedures were working in practice and to examine the whole field of development cost estimating and control. They went most thoroughly into this subject and studied the practices both of Government and of industry, because clearly there was a need to improve the understanding and co-operation and to achieve greater efficiency. Case studies were conducted for the group in individual companies by industrial consultants, and we received throughout the most willing co-operation from industry. I should like to pay tribute to industry for the co-operation that we received. As a result, much valuable information was collected which had not been previously available.
The Group reported at the end of 1966. Their report contained a number of important recommendations. Some of these referred to organisation and training within the Ministry of Aviation—now the Aviation Group of the Ministry of Technology. We have accepted these recommendations, and are now implementing them. We accepted the Group's recommendation that more attention needs to be paid to the training of those concerned with project management, which has been steadily growing up as an important procedure. I remember taking part in some of the discussions. It is a very interesting field, the horizontal organisation versus the project management approach. But there is no doubt that the project management approach is the right one, and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecott, would endorse this. We have instituted a two-weeks' residential course in project management techniques, and all members concerned with this vital job are going through the course as quickly as possible. It is also attended by industrial representatives. It is clear that the efforts put into this training are already having a considerable influence.
The Group endorsed the principles of project management as laid down in the Zuckerman Report, but came to the conclusion that too little emphasis had been placed on the project study phase
570
of a development; that is to say, on the phase of project definition before proceeding to prototype acquisition. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, will, I hope, agree that this is the crucial stage (I listened to what he said on certain aspects, and will deal with them) in which plans and estimates are drawn up and on which approval for full development is based. The Report recommended—and we have accepted this—that before full development is authorised there should be a more extensive project study, including a full investigation of new techniques to be employed. This has two objectives: first, to identify major technical obstacles earlier on, when there is still enough flexibility to make design changes; and, secondly, to ensure that the main programme consists principally of engineering development; which can be more reliably programmed and controlled than research work.
Nobody knows this better than the British Aircraft Corporation and the noble Lord himself. This approach has important implications for industry and we have had discussions with the S.B.A.C. and the Electronics Engineering Association about the implementation of the Report's recommendations. Here again, we are very grateful for the full co-operation we have had from these bodies.
The rephasing of the work resulting from the extension of the project study will not increase the overall development time-scale. Indeed, we may be able to reduce the very long time that it now takes to put a new idea into service because we shall be able to go ahead with greater confidence. We believe also that these new procedures will enable us and contractors to have increased confidence in the estimates produced at an early stage of a project. Thus there will be greater opportunities for incentive contracting during development, and in this way we shall be working towards one of the aims of the Plowden Report.
The investigation also showed that, while some companies have installed effective cost-control systems, and are employing advanced management techniques (and the noble Lord will realise it will be embarrassing if I say his company had, and did not mention those who had not, but we are thinking particularly of the major companies who are very well

571
ahead), there remains a need to set out in definitive form the principles which should normally govern the management of complex development projects. To meet this need a Handbook of Procedures based upon the Group's work has been drafted. This and the Group's Report, following the discussions which we have had with industry, are now being prepared for publication.
The Handbook of Procedures is not intended to be mandatory but to recommend standards of best practice. Many firms already have systems which meet these standards; and one has watched the development, the original network analysis, critical path analysis, working up to Pert techniques and refinement of those techniques, which are fascinating and again involve, especially when it comes to costs, extensive use of computers. It is quite an exciting thing to see how these aspects of new technique under good project management, under good management, do succeed. Many firms have systems meeting these standards and we hope that as many more contractors as possible will adopt them.
More recently—and again this arose from the Plowden Committee—we have had the Elstub Committee, who are going further into the whole subject and to recommend measures to improve the competitive efficiency of the industry. The Ministry of Technology and the aircraft industry are each represented by four members, and there are also two independent members, in addition to the chairman. The Committee are making good progress. They have been very active. They have had 20 meetings, some of them at factories of the major airframe and engine companies, and there is evidence coming, written and oral, from outside bodies; and they are employing consultants. I am afraid it is too early as yet to report on this, but I have discussed and found out something about it, and we are very hopeful that it is progressing well.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that, is he satisfied that these new procedures will avoid the appalling delays that tend to occur at the end of studies before full development is put into practice?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I appreciate that here questions of Government policy, and the whole question of Government, may be a factor in those delays. But I have noted the point. It is no use going ahead and then having a very great delay in placing the orders. This is a matter that I will deal with in relation to the Harrier. I think the noble Viscount will not want me to deal at length with some of the other aspects of this problem of the equality of information, which is a matter we have discussed before and on which talks are going on. We understand that there are two points of view in this, and we hope that they will come to a satisfactory solution.
I was interested in the further point the noble Lord made with regard to what I should have said was a little bit of a simple approach, of saying to industry, "You do it". I do not think we should be able to go as far as he wants. There is a heavy responsibility in these matters. But, none the less, I think that, as cooperation develops and there is better understanding, we shall in fact succeed a good deal better than we have done in the past. It is of course a fact that we have succeeded a good deal better, and in this matter I am not seeking to make a Party point. I am not trying to claim the credit for this Government, although I think one could; and indeed if I followed the tone of the other two noble Lords I think it would be appropriate to do so. But I am trying to take this seriously and I should like to discuss the three legs of our military aircraft programme policy, and try to give the noble Lord some of the answers to his questions, although I am afraid I did not understand them all.
First let me deal with the projects which we are doing on our own; secondly, those that we are doing in collaboration with France; and, thirdly, our purchases from America—in which, of course, they are incorporating large amounts of British equipment, particularly in the case of the Phantom. Dealing first with our national developments, there is the Harrier, the world's first vertical take-off close support aircraft. It is a further development of the P.1127 which, as your Lordships know, has been flown previously as the Kestrel by the tripartite squadron. The performance of this aircraft, both in vertical take-off and landing, and in short

573
take-off and landing, is really remarkable. It opens up a whole new concept of close support. I am glad to say that the development programme is going well. Seven of the aircraft are already flying, and the programme is well within the costs and time scales estimated over 2½ years ago. Sixty of these aircraft are being ordered for the Royal Air Force, together with ten two-seaters. We also believe that this aircraft—and this is something in which I have been extremely interested—will sell widely abroad. A year or two ago there were doubts about this, but recent most encouraging events suggest that there are now real prospects with regard to this aircraft.
The noble Lord asked me whether a contract had not been placed for the Harrier. Contractual negotiations have been in progress for some time with Hawker Siddeley Aviation for the development and supply of this Hawker 66 Harrier aircraft. Meanwhile—and I know this may sometimes have a hollow ring to noble Lords, but I am absolutely sure this is so—the company has all the contractual cover they need to press forward with the programme. Agreement has practically been reached, but we are still some way apart on price, and surely it is right that this should be properly negotiated. But I want to stress this, because I think it is important, when we have good prospects and some successes to talk about, that we should do so, in the interests of the industry and of this country.
There are some other main national developments. First, there is the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance aircraft. On this occasion I will refrain from making the old joke about the obsolescent aircraft it is replacing. This is a development of the Comet, using the Spey Mark 250 engine. It will be the most advanced strike aircraft of its kind for this particular role. There are many other national production programmes—Lightnings, Buccaneers, Wessex, Wasp and Sea King helicopters. I will go on to the new aircraft in a moment. These aircraft have achieved good export sales and are providing valuable employment and foreign exchange for the country. Military aircraft exports totalled nearly £70 million last year, and we are very confident (although I agree it is dangerous to be confident) that the new
574
programmes which we have authorised will achieve equally good and indeed, we hope, better export records in the future. Let me make clear that this is to the credit of the industry as well as the people who work in that industry.
I now turn to the second leg of our programme, that of our collaboration with France. Before I do so, I should like to say again how much I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who stressed the importance of getting European countries together for the production of new military aircraft. It is not, of course, as well he knows, quite such a simple matter, however obviously desirable it is, but it is the right policy, and that is our purpose. Again, he has made this suggestion of a European Conference and he has reinforced his arguments. This has been suggested before, and it has been the opinion of my right honourable friends that it was premature; and I ask the noble Lord to believe that this was a decision based on their judgment. But, none the less, I will convey to my right honourable friends what the noble Lord has said. His presidency of the I.C.M.A., which I believe he has just completed and which we all know he carried out very successfully, gives him the right to express opinions on this subject. I would say again that conferences are not much good unless you prepare the groundwork.
I would now say a little more about co-operation with France on military aircraft projects, which started in the middle of 1965 and represented a step forward of enormous significance. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald—although he need not have been quite so enraged with his noble friend—that I ant prepared to acknowledge that some of these ideas developed under the previous Government. I am very anxious to preserve fairness of approach, notably lacking from the noble Lord. Following the agreement with the French in May of that year, and as a result of two-and-a-half years' intensive work between the Governments and the industries concerned, we have reached the point where we can begin production of the Jaguar strike/trainer aircraft. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord mentioned that it was an old aircraft. There have been many ideas on the drawing board and some quite advanced studies, but the fact is that it has been

575
further developed, and now B.A.C. have made significant improvements to the original designs. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, can confirm this.
A very important supplement has now been signed between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the French Minister for Defence. As noble Lords know, there are to be 400 Jaguars—200 each. The first flight is due to take place this Spring, and it is really great evidence of the success of the development phase and of the faith which the two Governments have in the project that the production agreement has been signed for so many aircraft at such an early stage. This really is satisfactory progress within the space of two-and-a-half years.
We had hoped that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would join us and the French in the programme. This was one of the matters discussed between the Secretary of State for Defence and the German Minister of Defence. The German time-scale—and this, again, is the problem that has bedevilled us so often in Europe and in NATO—does not admit of a tripartite coproduction programme. But we still hope that the Germans will manufacture the Jaguar under licence. It is worth noting, since I am trying to give this picture of a successful industry producing saleable products of use to our own Service and exportable, that it is already being developed and produced in five versions for us and the French—the British and French strike versions, the British and French trainer versions and the French naval version. Equally, versions could be developed tailored to the German requirement. We hope that this may become a symbol of successful European collaboration.
I would just say something very briefly about the helicopter package. This is going well. Co-operation between Sud Aviation and Westlands, and Rolls Royce and Turbomeca is working well. The first project is the SA.330 which has an increased payload and is air portable; the second is the SA.340 required for communications and basic training. Then there is the Westland WG.13. The design lead in the airframe is being taken by Westlands, whereas in the case of the others it is the French. But, of course,
576
the development and production is equitably shared between us, and we and the French are developing and producing some £200 million worth of helicopters. This is a partnership which we hope will project far into the future, and certainly as far ahead as we can see. I might just mention that in all these projects, wherever possible, we are employing fixed incentive price contracts at every stage of the programme.
Noble Lords referred to the variable-geometry strike-interceptor aircraft. As your Lordships know, the French felt obliged to withdraw from this project in the middle of last year, for financial reasons. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked what we are now doing in this field. The position is that the project study at B.A.C. (Warton) is continuing, and the design team is studying variations in costs, complexity and time scale, so that we shall be able, we hope, to interest other countries with a similar requirement. It is most impressive to go to Warton. I wish that many of my colleagues in all political Parties could visit Warton and see something of the work and the enthusiasm. But I am sorry—I do not wish to mislead noble Lords—that I can make no undertaking about this. I can only express my personal hopes. We are having talks with other countries to see whether there is scope for collaboration in the development and production of an advanced combat aircraft, whether employing variable geometry or not, for the mid-1970s and beyond.
I cannot answer the noble Earl in regard to his perfectly fair question as to what is the replacement of the variable-geometry plane, which has been described as the core of our aircraft programme. Clearly, there is going to be hard thinking and hard work on this, and certainly talks are going on, in particular with the Germans, on this. We think that there might well be a substantial market for this sort of aircraft, and certainly the Ministry are giving full support.
Let me turn, quite briefly, to that part of the programme which has been most disputed, the procurement of aircraft from America. I will not repeat what I said about the F.111 and the extent of the blow. But I think I must say something about some of the figures of cost.

577
I must confess that I totally fail to understand the noble Earl's calculation of £4·3 million. Did he say £4·3 million?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, was simply quoting what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said last night, when I think he quoted one hundred aircraft—saying that if we bought one hundred aircraft it would cost us £430 million. So I divided accordingly.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course we are not going to buy one hundred aircraft. But, whatever weird calculation the noble Earl may have made (and many people have been making these rather weird calculations) the fact is that my noble and learned friend was referring to the cost of the programme over the whole period. This includes supports, spares, United Kingdom research and development, running costs, air crews, petrol, oil and lubricants. I am sure that when the noble Earl buys a car he does not, in calculating its cost, add the price of the petrol over the next ten years. It has been most notable in all our discussions on this that there is a great danger in calculating in this way, and I shall be glad, the next time the noble Earl puts down an Unstarred Question, to give him a little help on the financial side, because I assure him that his assertions are wrong. I am sure he would not think it right to include, for instance, the pay and the cost of training of the pilots of the aircraft, expensive as this may be.
LORD ST. OSWALD: But if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor chooses to pick a high figure in order to demonstrate what a huge saving is being made, surely it is open to my noble friend to use that figure to demonstrate the cost it would have represented.
LORD SHACKLETON: If my noble and learned friend is explaining the cost of a programme over a period, it is no good just doing simple sums and translating them into the unit cost of the aircraft, including the cost of petrol, oil, spares, and so on. It was not, of course, the intention of my noble and learned friend to mislead. He was giving an indication of the total savings, not the cost of the individual aircraft. I should be very happy to pursue this matter with both noble Lords at a later date.
578
What I cannot say—and I have no intention of saying at the moment—is what the cancellation charges are. I must say, first of all, that I still believe it is a fine aircraft. Secondly, we are about to embark on negotiations on the cancellation charges, and I ask noble Lords to believe that, although the estimates have been fairly given in the totals, it would not be in the public interest at the moment for me to go into those particular costs.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there was one specific question that asked; namely, have the estimated cancellation charges been set against the advertised savings?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes; I assure the noble Lord that they are included in the general pattern. They are estimates, but they are to the best of my knowledge as accurate as we can get them. I an almost certain that I am right on this, but if by any chance I have gone wrong I will immediately let noble Lords know.
The noble Lord also asked about the effect on our offset contracts. This is a complicated business, and I give to the noble Lord that the cancellation of the F.111 is damaging in that respect. But of course, it is not related merely to the F.111, but to all our expenditure for American weapons—Polaris, Phantom, Hercules—against the expenditure in the United Kingdom. But I take the noble Lord's point, which is perfectly fair, and I should not wish to go into more detail about this matter.
I should like now to turn to the Phantom, the only major aircraft which was ordered by the previous Government. This is one aircraft, I fear, where costs, as is made clear in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, have gone up. We have discussed this before. It is a very fine aircraft, but there is no doubt that the Anglicising which was decided by the previous Government has greatly added to the cost. The noble Lord probably has not had time to read the last report of the Public Accounts Committee, but he will find it all dealt with there. As I myself read it only recently, I should not like to go into this matter now. The main increase is partly the reduction in numbers, although the total number we are ordering for both the Services is slightly more than the ones which

579
were originally ordered for the Royal Navy only; and there is the great problem of matching British engines and equipment with American airframes. It would seem so simple to Anglicise but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, would confirm the costs somehow seem to mount.
I do not think I would go very much fruther beyond saying that the aircraft is promising. The development programme has been subject to some delay, but the first aircraft are expected to be delivered to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in March and April this year and they will be steadily coming off the production line.
I will not go into further detail about the C.130. Again, we know that this is coming steadily on. I agree with the noble Viscount about the importance of cost-effectiveness. I think I have already partly dealt with this aspect, but I am sure we shall have to look further at this question of closer contact, particularly in the formulation of operational requirements. I have heard this so eloquently argued by members of the aircraft industry, and I am hoping that now what was in the first instance just a gleam in the eye of a research scientist or an airman will result in working much more closely together. Of course, there is very good co-operation now, and I hope that the noble Viscount will confirm this. I was very impressed by the extent to which the Air Force servicing people work right in the factory, influencing design in small ways with regard to servicing.
I had intended to end on an entirely non-Party note. I hoped that we should recognise that the Air Force is certainly going to have some very fine aircraft, notwithstanding the loss to which I have referred. The great bulk of their programme is intact. But I really must say something to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I really cannot again go over those dreary debates we had about the cancellations of previous aircraft. The most important thing is that the Royal Air Force are now getting a number of advanced aircraft years sooner than they would have done if we had stuck to the aircraft for which the noble Lord's Government argued.
Also, I really do resent his reference to my right honourable friend the Secretary
580
of State for Defence. He says that he did not hear the broadcast. If ever a man was talking honestly and truly on that occasion, facing very difficult music—and I happened to see this broadcast—it was my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is certainly not for me to defend him at great length, but I have a very high regard for him. I know that he has been heavily involved in a number of very difficult decisions, which all of my right honourable and noble friends have had to take. Perhaps I will attribute this charitably. It is after dinner, the noble Lord was upset by one casual remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. But I must say on this burning rhetoric of his, in which he used words like "inexpungible" or something like that, that I really think it would have been much better if he had not written that.

RHODESIA
10.27 p.m.
LORD ALPORT LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether there has been any initiative from Mr. Smith Which might indicate a wish to resume negotiations for a settlement since the Commonwealth Secretary's statement on Rhodesia on December 12, 1967. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking your Lordships for the opportunity to ask this Question, in accordance with your procedure. I have no knowledge as to what the Answer may be, but if, as I assume, there has been no sign from Salisbury of a wish for further negotiations since Mr. Thomson's return, I am taking this opportunity to set out my reasons for thinking that an initiative should be made now.
Since I returned from Salisbury and the visit I paid there at the request of Her Majesty's Government, I have done my best to avoid public comment on the Rhodesian problem. I do so now only because I do not think much time remains before the final break takes place between Britain and Rhodesia. If anyone has anything to say which he believes may be practical and beneficial, I conceive it to be his duty to speak up now—and even now it may be too late.
On my return to London in July, I made a long verbal report to the Prime

581
Minister and the Commonwealth Secretary. I see no reason to alter my appreciation of the situation as a result of what has occurred subsequently. I am a witness at first-hand of the strong desires of people of all races in Rhodesia—I believe a majority of people of all races—for a negotiated settlement with Britain; a settlement which must involve give and take on both sides but which would accord, on the one hand, with the principles accepted by both Parties in the United Kingdom, and which would, on the other, contain proper safeguards for the future of their country as the stable and civilised community which Rhodesia represents to-day.
When U.D.I. took place, I thought and said that there could be no agreement between the Rhodesian Front régime and any British Government. I now believe, as a result of "Tiger" and of the strong impressions which I received in Rhodesia last year, that an agreement could be reached which would be acceptable to Britain and which would have the support of a majority of all races in Rhodesia. Your Lordships are well aware that, as in the "Tiger" document, the problem falls into two main parts: agreement on the terms for a future Constitution and agreement on the means of a return to legality.
Although, like everyone else, I was disappointed at the outcome of the Commonwealth Secretary's visit to Salisbury last November, it did in fact achieve one very important result: it isolated the points of disagreement on the Constitution which then and to-day stand in the way of progress towards settlement. Those points are three in number. The first, and by far the most difficult—a breaking point, so far as the British are concerned—relates to the composition of the Senate and the Legislative Assembly and the representative character of the blocking quarter (that is, the 25 per cent. of the members) who would have the power to stop the passage of legislation designed to be racially discriminatory or to prevent the gradual enlargement of African political rights. Mr. Smith maintains that this quarter should comprise Chiefs and elected Africans. The "Tiger" proposals ensured that, quite apart from the existence of representatives of the Council of Chiefs in the Senate, the blocking quarter would consist of members, whether themselves
582
African or European, who were for the most part elected by and responsible LO the African population.
My Lords, the whole of our experience of political reality in Africa, and indeed in Asia, and the recent precedents neighbouring countries to Rhodesia, like Malawi and Botswana, support our point of view. Chiefs have an important part in the life of the tribes over which they preside. Their office may have an almost mystical significance. They have administrative responsibilities and a minor judicial role; but they are not regarded in Africa as a whole as being the political representatives of their people. I think it is extremely significant that Sir Seretse Khama, whose hereditary chieftanship was far more important and influential that any Rhodesian chieftan, relics nom not on traditional but on elected status for political leadership in Botswana. The same applies to Chief Leabua Jonathan in Lesotho vis-à-vis the traditional position of Moshoeshoe III. I can think of nowhere in Central or Southern Africa where the Chiefs are regarded as being fully representative politically by Africans who may nevertheless regard them and their offices with great respect.
If they—that is to say, the Chiefs—aspire to act in this capacity, the capacity of political representatives, then let them offer themselves as candidates for election to the Senate or to the Legislative Assernbly, as has happened elsewhere in Africa. By adding elected status to their traditional role their prestige would be immensely strengthend, and I know at least two Rhodesian Chiefs who would make admirable members of the Legislative Assembly. If there is to be a settlement between Britain and Rhodesia, ii must be one which can mobilise the confidence of thinking Africans as well as safeguard the interests of other races in the country. It means having what is now called "credibility". The British Government would not be doing a service to Britain or to Rhodesia if they agreed to the inclusion of a piece of constitutional mechanism which throughout Africa would be regarded simply as a device to prevent 4 million Africans in Rhodesia from achieving over a period of years, perhaps over a full generation, what any reasonable man would regard as being their legitimate political aspirations.
On the other hand, the inclusion of a blocking mechanism against discrimination does not mean that it operates in such a way as to procure the premature transference of power from European into African nationalist hands. I accept, and I think Rhodesia would be right to accept, that no British Government wishes this to happen. Equally, I believe—and I think that the Rhodesians would be right to believe—that whatever may be the composition of the membership of a post-Independence Rhodesian Parliament, the blocking mechanism should be in the hands of the elected element which is representative, for the most part, of the African majority of the population. The composition of the Senate and of the Legislative Assembly, and the precise nature of the blocking mechanism is still, I think, a potential subject for negotiation in the light of the latest talks between Mr. Smith and the Commonwealth Secretary. I suggest that these negotiations should be held now.
My Lords, the second matter raised by Mr. Smith in his talks with Mr. Thomson was the whole principle of cross-voting. This is no occasion on which to go into the complexities of this constitutional device. I merely say that it is important to the long-term future of Rhodesia—which on Mr. Smith's own admission must one day move towards majority rule—that the Europeans and Africans who during the next ten, twenty or fifty years comprise the membership of the parliamentary institutions of the country should learn to look both to its black and to its white citizens for support. It should be remembered, in Rhodesia at any rate, that the founding fathers of Rhodesia believed in this principle; and I personally believe that it is more important to the white minority than it is to the black majority in the context of modern Africa. Here again is a matter for one further attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. There is, I believe, scope for agreement and compromise.
Thirdly, Mr. Smith objected to the proposed system of appeals against discriminatory legislation to the equivalent of a Rhodesia Supreme Court and, subsequently, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which was included in the "Tiger" document. Personally, I do
584
not believe that in this present day and age a system of constitutional appeals from an independent Commonwealth country to the Judicial Committee is an effective or acceptable safeguard for political rights. On the other hand, I should have thought that the majority of Rhodesians, proud as they are of their own judicial system, would have agreed to constitutional appeals being heard by the equivalent of a Rhodesian Supreme Court. If they have had some inspiration from the political evolution of the United States, then there is a precedent which no-one need be too proud to follow. Again, here is a matter in which compromise would be possible, not involving the abandonment by either the British Government or Mr. Smith of the really important elements in the policies which they have so far advanced. The completion of agreement on the Constitution is, in my view, an essential first step towards any substantive settlement.
My Lords, in the case of these three features of the original "Tiger" agreement—or proposals, if that is what Ms. Smith prefers to call them—there is room, I submit, for sincere negotiation involving some give-and-take on both sides. I believe that if no further attempt at negotiation were made now, public opinion in the not so distant future would condemn, for a want of statesmanship and generosity, the party to this conflict which refused to make or respond to a new initiative.
Now, my Lords, let me turn to the second part of the "Tiger" document, which is in fact actually Part III though there is no disagreement of the principle enshrined in Part II. Part III deals with the process of a return to legality. A great deal has happened since the detailed provisions of the return to legality were discussed on H.M.S. "Tiger". It is my personal view that the procedures proposed then can now be greatly simplified without abandoning in any way the principle which formed the basis of British policy. Indeed, I think that the simplification is highly desirable, if any agreement about a return to legality is to be understood and not suspected by the average European Rhodesian to be a trick.
Mr. Smith indicated to me last July, and has now announced publicly, that

585
he intends to hold a general election this year. I believe that to symbolise a return to legality for the purpose of this election Mr. Smith should make his request for the dissolution of Parliament to Sir Humphrey Gibbs. He would thus recognise the constitutional position of Sir Humphrey as Her Majesty's representative in Rhodesia. I do not believe that Mr. Dupont would allow his personal interest and position to stand in the way of an acceptable and workable settlement, or of the recognition of the position of a Rhodesian of long standing like Sir Humphrey Gibbs who is universally admired by members of all Parties, here and in Rhodesia.
My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that under the 1961 Constitution a period of up to four months may elapse between the dissolution of the Rhodesian Parliament and the holding of a subsequent election. During those four months it would be possible to give an opportunity of registering to anyone who would be entitled to vote in accordance with the 1961–62 franchise legislation. If the African elector failed to register inside this period then, frankly, the responsibility must be his.
There should also be appointed during this period, a Commission, chosen from the Privy Council and appointed by the British Government, on an analogy with the Cobbold Commission, to carry out an assignment for which it would have two clear and straightforward terms of reference: first, to report to Her Majesty's Government as to whether the election had been conducted in such a way as to reflect fairly the views of those registered and entitled to vote; and secondly to ascertain the views of those, being citizens of Rhodesia, who were not qualified to vote under the 1961–62 franchise legislation.
It would be for the Commission to decide whether any continuing censorship, or system of detention under emergency powers, or the use of any intimidation by political Parties, prevented the results of the election from fairly reflecting the real opinions of the European and African electorate. Equally they would, under the second term of reference, be responsible for giving effect to the British Government's Fifth Principle. I know that their task would be difficult, but I am
586
quite certain that Her Majesty's Privy Council in Great Britain contains men and women with experience and integrity which would enable them to face and fulfil this task with objectivity and success.
During this process I envisage that there would be no relaxation or intensification of the sanctions system, and so far as Rhodesia was concerned there would, I assume, be no modification of its claim to independence.
At the end of this process—that is, when the results of the election were available and the Commission had reported—one of two situations would exist. On the one hand, if the result of the election was in favour of the Constitution agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian régime, and if at the same time the Commission had reported favourably, then steps would be taken forthwith by Britain to lift sanctions. And since a new situation would have arisen, Britain would proceed immediately to seek release from the NIRMAR obligation as a preliminary to the formal recognition of Rhodesian independence. If, on the other hand, the electorate in Rhodesia failed to endorse the Constitution and the Commission reported adversely in accordance with either of its terms of reference, then sanctions would continue and would be intensified, and there would be nothing, apart from force, to prevent a second phase of illegal independence from being instituted or the situation from moving inexorably to what would be both for Britain and for Rhodesia the bitter end.
I have no doubt that this would involve the declaration of a republic, the eventual withdrawal of Sir Humphrey Gibbs and the cutting of all ties with Britain. It would also mean the continued outlawry of Rhodesia in the international field. If this is what must be the end of this unhappy episode, then so be it. But I believe that along the lines I have sketched lies a chance—a real chance—for both Britain and Rhodesia of achieving an honourable solution which would avoid what both—the Rhodesians in particular—have good reason to dread.
I do not want your Lordships, or anyone else, to suppose that I have any inflated ideas about the influence that

587
someone like myself, a private citizen, can bring to bear on the achievement of the solution of a complex and emotionally highly charged problem. But I believe that if there is the will here in Britain and if there is the will there in Rhodesia, a settlement along these lines would be possible.
I have said in a recent article in the Rhodesian Press, which curiously enough was not censored, as I have said in broadcasts to Rhodesia, that the initiative to break the present deadlock should be taken by Mr. Smith. I understand, however, the Rhodesian attitude to this sort of situation pretty well. They do not psychologically find it easy to take such an initiative. I say, therefore, that even if there is no sign from Mr. Smith in Salisbury, then Her Majesty's Government should make the next move for the reopening of substantive negotiations without delay, it being clearly understood that this is not a sell-out by Britain or a cave-in by Rhodesia, but an attempt—a last attempt and a genuine attempt—to reach an honourable settlement of a problem which, in my opinion at any rate, unless it is solved, cannot fail to end in tragedy.
10.48 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes. I think that my noble friend Lord Alport has rendered an immense service tonight. I agree with every single word he said. I am on my feet only because I was in Rhodesia recently—in fact, I got back only four days ago. I saw Sir Humphrey Gibbs. I was careful not to see any politicians and that they did not mind. I was staying with a cousin of mine in a farm 80 miles from Salisbury, miles away in the background of Rhodesia. I am bound to say that the farmers were more concerned with the drought than with the economic crisis. And this I must say to your Lordships: I found no racial tension at all. We were in the back of beyond, but I was told, and believed it and did it, that I could go out at night anywhere I liked, with absolute, total personal safety. That is the position there.
Economic sanctions as they are at present being applied will not bring down
588
Rhodesia. Her Majesty's Government thought that they would. I think Her Majesty's Government are mistaken, and probably they are coming round to that view now. These sanctions as at present applied are a ceaseless irritant, driving us further apart from all the people of Rhodesia—not only white, but coloured. The proposal that I made in the debate the day before yesterday is that the sanctions should be called off. They are "no go"; they are no good. Rhodesia is being driven into the arms of South Africa as a result of the sanctions themselves and also as a result of our embargo on the export of arms to South Africa for the defence of our own shipping as well as their own defence. It could result in the creation of a South Africa which would be hostile to or separated from us, and could bring infinite damage, politically and economically, both to South Africa and to ourselves.
I say, therefore, and here I echo my noble friend, Lord Alport, that I think it would be wise to call off the sanctions, and then—and to this I attach immense importance—state our terms and proposals for a political settlement much more specifically than they have yet been stated. I would base them, of course, on the "Tiger". I would give them in much more detail. You cannot settle everything on a battleship or a cruiser in 24 hours. I would not impose a time limit. The one mistake that the Prime Minister made on the "Tiger", in my view, was the imposing of this time limit. I think that really got Rhodesia's back up. They should have time to consider in detail the proposals that we have to make, and then, if necessary, to negotiate about them. I am sure that this is the last chance, but I believe with my noble friend Lord Alport that a solution and settlement could be achieved now. But it really is the last chance. The alternative is to see the Rhodesians not being beaten by economic sanctions, but driven more and more into the arms of South Africa, and a kind of cold war between ourselves and South Africa as a whole.
My Lords, do not have any illusions. A settlement is desired tremendously in Rhodesia by the whites and by the coloured people equally. They all want to see a settlement of this problem. There was, to my mind, no doubt about that. I did not talk to the politicians, I talked

589
to the chaps, which is much more important. I talked to the farmers, to the businessmen and to everybody that I could get hold of, and I am sure that they all passionately desire a settlement. I also think that there is still an immense fund of good will for this country in Rhodesia. After all, they fought gallantly and valiantly for this country during the war. But if this business goes on, if these sanctions go on—and they are causing a good deal of hardship to Rhodesia—it seems to me inevitable that we shall drift apart to a point at which no settlement is possible.
I therefore beg Her Majesty's Government—and I agree with my noble friend Lord Alport that it is for them to take the initiative—not to miss this last chance of stating quite clearly, and in more specific terms than they were stated in the "Tiger", the terms they would be prepared to accept, and also that they are prepared to give the Rhodesian Government time to consider these terms and to clear up any obscurities that may remain. My Lords, I feel very strongly about this, because I feel the sands are running out and that this may well be our last chance, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said.
I said much of this the day before yesterday. Of course I may be wrong; I do not know. But I dealt at least with a subject which is not unimportant. My speech was "killed" stone dead by the Press, for the first time in over forty years of Parliamentary life. Now if I thought that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for that I should be quite happy,—
LORD SHEPHERD: We are not as strong as that.
LORD BOOTHBY: —because I could have a "bash" at them. But I know very well that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible in any kind of way. And I say, quite sincerely, that the Press, who are always talking about the de-dine of Parliament, are more responsible for that decline than any other organisation in this country, for the disgraceful way in which they report the debates in both Houses of Parliament. I would much rather have had my speech smashed altogether, as I did, than have it massacred, as the speech of my noble friend Lord Gladwyn was massacred in The Times the day before yestreday.
590
I do not want somebody up in the Press Gallery to pick out half-a-dozen sentences which have no relevance to the main theme of a speech, and none to each other. That makes bad worse. I am old enough to remember the old days when Parliamentary reporting in the Press was good; the days when Sir Colin Coote was political correspondent of The Times. I would much rather have a sketch of a Parliamentary debate written by an intelligent man who knew what it was all about than these little snippety sentences which have no relevance to each other or to the general theme of a deba.:e and which make nonsense of the whole business. And I say to the Press that if they are complaining about the decline of Parliament, it is very largely their own fault, because their reporting of Parliamentary proceedings in both Houses is an absolute disgrace to this country.
Well, I do not know 'whether I am in time to get that into the Press, but I hope so, because they deserve it. The reporting of the Parliamentary debates is disgraceful, and that is the main reason why Parliament has—in their opinion—declined. They write pompous leading articles saying that we count for nothing and then they make such a mess of our debates that they are bound to bring down the repute of Parliament all over the country. Here we have had a very brief debate to-night, but Lord Alport's speech was of supreme importance. Will they report it? I doubt if they will report it at all. If they do, they will take three sentences out of his speech which have no relevance to each other, and then expect the public to understand what has been said.
But I say to Her Majesty's Government, with all sincerity, that I believe that if they take the initiative they do have a last chance—and I think it is the last chance—of a settlement with Rhodesia which will be agreeable to both sides; and I have considerable authority for making that statement, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may perhaps guess the source. I think there is a real chance left if Her Majesty's Government will take this initiative. I very much hope they do, because Rhodesia does not want to break with this country; but if we go on like this she may be compelled to do so and have no alternative.
10.59 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I take my noble Leader's hint that even an Unstarred Question is not an occasion for general debate. I appreciate that at this hour it is for me to say extremely little, and also to say I am immature enough not to know that any Questions could lead to debate. Also at this hour it is too late to talk at length on a subject which, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Boothby, is of supreme importance. I, too, have been in Rhodesia in this day and age—within the last ten days on Rhodesian soil. I think that one should simply say that one noted that it was expressed in Her Majesty's Speech that a settlement with Rhodesia should be come to. I feel that most earnestly. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I saw most of the senior members of Mr. Smith's Cabinet. I have paid previous visits to Rhodesia, but in a week in Salisbury I had, as it were, a week at university, with everybody, including Mr. Smith, speaking very openly and at length, and I do not think people would speak at length to an extremely back Back-Bencher unless they thought it was relevant to do so.
As Lord Alport's Question specifically mentions the Commonwealth Secretary's Statement I should like to report the Salisbury view of his visit. I gather that Mr. Thomson made a very satisfactory impression in Salisbury, but after all, although it is only 15 hours' flying at 650 miles an hour, it is in the Southern Hemisphere and misunderstandings can easily happen. What has worried Mr. Smith, and perhaps Mr. Dupont, particularly is that they understood (and I am only expressing what they said to me) that on leaving Salisbury neither Mr. Thomson nor the Rhodesian Government would say anything further without consultation, either by telephone or by personal meeting. In a sense they regard Mr. Thomson's Statement of December 12 as a sort of disclosure—and the word "disclosure' was said in a mood of nearly meaning betrayal. I know that is just their side: and the other side, obviously, is that the Rhodesian Prime Minister himself was going about, saying that there were extremely few differences between the Mother Country and his Government, which of course is not true either.
592
The main worry, which I completely share with Lord Alport and Lord Boothby, is the great risk of the two countries as such drifting apart, and that it is terribly late in the day—one must have the faith not to say "too late". I felt a very great good will towards the Mother Country. It is not a quarrel with Crown or country but, let it be plain, with a succession of Governments—not just with this Labour Government; and my personal view, for what it is worth, is that we should accept them without any interim period.
It may well have been thought at the time of U.D.I. and when sanctions were imposed—in fact I understand that is the only reason why mandatory sanctions have been imposed—that such a country forms a threat to world peace. Who can say that that is true of Rhodesia after two and a half years? Here are the people in their offices, the equivalent of Whitehall; here is a sensible régime which feels lost and discontented, as indeed so many of us do in the Mother Country, and I personally feel that the ball is in our court. The "Tiger" talks broke down, and it is up to the British Government to say specifically what they are prepared to do and to settle for. After all, the Rhodesians are only just you or me gone overseas, the great percentage of them post-war settlers, and in this family quarrel I think we must show all the tolerance we possibly can.
11.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I recognise the importance of this occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, who has opened this discussion, went with the good will (and more than the good will) of our Government, to Rhodesia and has reported back; and what he has said tonight must be taken in a very serious way. Therefore, in my comments upon it I want to be as responsible as I can. I find it a little ironical that we should be having this debate, which I believe is of great significance between this country and Rhodesia, with five Members on the other side of the House, five Members on this side, and one Cross-Bencher. But despite the small attendance, after a very heavy week, I have no doubt that every word that is uttered in this debate tonight is going to have some significance so far as the solution of this problem is concerned. Therefore, I am going to speak very carefully.

593
The second thing I want to say is this. I do not suppose that any one of us wants the situation between Southern Rhodesia and this country to persist. Certainly those who take the view which I hold recognise that if it goes on without a solution there will be a tendency in Southern Rhodesia itself to move more towards the South African system of apartheid, which we all deplore, and that there will be a tendency in Southern Rhodesia to extend still further the system of segregation and suppression and potential apartheid which has unfortunately been in its recent legislation. And none of us want that.
Thirdly, I think all of us recognise that the situation in Southern Rhodesia itself is not only dangerous for Southern Rhodesia, but dangerous to the nature of a white and black conflict which could spread over the whole of Southern Africa with appalling results. Therefore, every one of us, whatever our view may be about the Southern Rhodesia situation, will want to find a solution of this problem.
I want to say at once to the noble Lord that I should like to see this issue submitted to the people of Rhodesia itself, and I welcome the proposals which he made upon these lines. But if this issue is to be submitted to the people of Rhodesia there must be a lifting of the present restrictions on freedom of speech and the rights of political parties in Southern Rhodesia; and there must be a release from detention and imprisonment of the leaders of the African parties who have been suppressed. Otherwise, any presentation of solutions to the peoples of Rhodesia will be unreal, because of the censorship of the Press, because of the restrictions on free speech and the restrictions on political organisations which are there. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to recognise that I am trying to find a solution of these problems, which I believe depends on a decision by the Rhodesian people. But if there is to be a decision by the Rhodesian people it must be under free conditions in which they can express themselves.
The fourth thing I want to say is this. It is not only Her Majesty's Government who are now involved, and it is not only the illegal Smith régime in Southern Africa. The whole of the Commonwealth is involved. A most definite promise has
594
been made to the Commonwealth countries and, therefore, if we are thinking of new proposals which are to be made to Southern Rhodesia, it will be most important that one has the confirmation of the other member States of the Common-wealth to which we have given pledges.
The last point I wish to make is this—and, believe me, though I hold strong views on this question, I am trying to speak in a responsible way. We have had a debate to-day on the United Nations. I will tell your Lordships the greatest impression which was made upon me by that debate. It is that in this country we may be seeking a solution of problems which may be very real in the political context within our own nation, but are quite unreal in the context of world opinion. We had the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who indicated to us that on the Commission which is dealing with human rights almost everything that is urged by a representative of this country is rejected be cause they feel that we are not standing for human rights, particularly in relation to Southern Africa.
One of the great nightmares of these latter years of my life, in the light of what I have been struggling for through my years, is that there may be an appalling racial conflict in Southern Africa. While I would make almost any contribution to prevent that, I say that we must be most careful at this moment that we do not take steps which may seem to bring an easy and early solution of these problems but which, in actual fact, will only arouse greater problems in the future, because we shall have lost the confidence not only of the people of the Continent of Africa, but of peoples all over the world who believe in the principle of racial equality.
11.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would first of all express the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure that of all Members in both Houses, for the services that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, rendered to Africa, to Central Africa in particular, for some weeks last year in his efforts to provide a glimmer of light in regard to a reconciliation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Rhodesia. I say "reconciliation between the Governments"; perhaps I should correct that and say

595
"between the Parliaments", for in the end this is a matter for Parliament. I stress this point, since I am conscious that in my own Department, which I have joined only recently, I have a responsibility to see that the voice and the will of the people of dependent territories is clearly expressed when constitutional advance is involved. It is not for us to impose progress; it is for the people to accept it voluntarily.
I could answer this short debate in three ways. I could restate the Government policy in this matter. In fact, I would in practice be restating the Conservative Government's policy, that of the previous Administration, since in broad outline their policy is identical. I could restate that policy, but I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served this evening in the context of what we are seeking to-day. The position is well known and Parliament has endorsed it. I could seek to answer all the very detailed and thoughtful points, or points of considerable importance, put by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. At this time of night, and in view of their importance, I think that this would be unwise. I intend to look at them and to read them in detail. I express the hope that men and women, politicians or ordinary men in the street in other countries, will read those words with care and thought, and will accept the spirit which clearly lay behind them and which, I believe, is in all our hearts
596
in this matter. If those words could go out from this House, then I hope that that will be possible.
I will leave it there, my Lords, but I will say that we have made it abundantly clear, particularly in the last Statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary on his return from Rhodesia, that the door is not closed and that we in this Government—and I believe that this is the will of Parliament—will not close that door. Whether we can take an initiative, in view of the previous initiatives—particularly the one which followed the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Alport—is a question to which we shall have to give serious consideration. I am convinced, knowing my colleagues, that if there was a genuine glimmer of light, whether it be through officials or Ministers, it would not be the will of Parliament that Her Majesty's Government should not seek to approach that light and to turn it into something we all wish to see. Therefore I hope that the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, to-night can become a subject of debate and thought amongst Members of Parliament in other Parliaments apart from ours, and also among officials and Ministers. I give the noble Lord my assurance that we, for our part, will look at his suggestions with the greatest seriousness and sympathy.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eleven o'clock.