HL Deb 21 January 1969 vol 298 cc913-22

3.33 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on the Meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The Statement is as follows:

"The conclusions of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, which took place from the 7th to the 15th of January, are set out in the Communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library. It will also be published as a White Paper.

"The House will perhaps expect me to say something about the background to the meeting, and about the main impressions anyone who attended it would be likely to derive.

"This was the first meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since September, 1966. Twenty-eight independent Commonwealth countries attended, five new member countries took part for the first time and Tanzania, which was not present in September, 1966, played a full part in this year's Conference. Of the 28 countries represented, 13 were African, 5 were from Asia, 2 from Australasia, 5 from the Western Hemisphere and 3 from Europe. Twenty-four of the 28 countries were represented by their Head of Government.

"There were some commentators who were prepared to write off in advance not only the meeting but the Commonwealth itself. The fact that so many Presidents and Prime Ministers were prepared to leave their pressing domestic affairs and preoccupations for a fortnight, to travel such long distances, and to play so full a part in the meeting, is—and I am sure I am speaking here for the whole House—an answer to the pessimists.

"Unlike the meeting of September, 1966, adequate time was devoted to all the main issues on the agenda. The time spent in formal session was fairly equally divided between four main subjects—a comprehensive review of the world situation, Rhodesia, a review of the world economic situation, and the development of specific measures of Commonwealth co-operation. In addition, the session which approval the Communiqué enabled Prime Ministers to supplement their previous discussions on these main issues. There was also, of course, the usual review of the Commonwealth's own domestic arrangements, including the Secretary General's Report on the Secretariat affairs, and the work of the Commonwealth Foundation.

"The debate on the world political situation, in which nearly every delegation took part, was of a kind no other forum would be likely to provide for a serious and authoritative treatment of international problems. While some might have expected the very size of the Conference to weaken the force and pointedness of the debate, the fact that contributions were made with such authority from every Continent of the world, the fact that of the 28 delegations so many were represented at. Head of Government level, the fact that it was so representative a gathering of so many races, in a multiracial setting, with wide diversity of political approach on many basic world problems—all these facts strengthened rather than weakened the quality of the discussion and the importance of the occasion.

"One difference I noticed from previous Conferences was the greater emphasis on regional problems—Australasia and other parts of Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, with particular reference to the Caribbean. For each Prime Minister it was as though he was given an angle on world affairs represented not by a world map centring on his own country, as we all instinctively tend to see it, but with each problem sharply highlighted from different geographical angles.

"Similarly, the debate on the world economic situation, while dealing separately with problems of liquidity and the liberalisation of trade in the general sense, also to a considerable extent dealt with the problems associated with development—including commodity policy—and with aid.

"The compelling need of the developing members of the Commonwealth for continued capital aid and technical assistance was eloquently expressed. The contributions being made by the developed countries, despite—for example in Britatin's case—the balance-of-payments problems, was generously acknowledged. More than I have known in previous Conferences, there were encouraging detailed suggestions about ways in which the developing countries could share with each other their expertise in dealing with the particular problems each had had, or was having, to face.

"The discussion on Commonwealth co-operation was in part at least a development of the three sessions we had spent on the world economic situation and it was here that we were able to review the network of personal, technical and professional relationships that give meaning to the subject under discussion.

"The House will expect me to amplify the reference in the Communiqué to Rhodesia. This debate was at a high level, penetrating and impressive and the contributions to the debate were expressed with a great deal more moderation than in 1966. This was I think welcome to us all. While we were sharply divided on this question, and while—I would not wish the House to be under any misunderstanding about this—a very considerable majority of the Commonwealth opposed various aspects of British policy, there was a genuine awareness of the difficulty and complexity of the problem. There was no difference on the fundamental objective of majority rule. There were considerable differences about the way in which it should be brought about.

"The House will be aware that a few delegations—and a smaller num- ber than previously—continued to urge that the problem should be settled by the use of force. I explained why in the view of the British Government, who have the ultimate and final responsibility for settling Rhodesian questions, the resort to war was wrong, impracticable and indeed, as I argued, dangerous.

"The Conference was fully informed about the 'Fearless' negotiations. My right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio reported on the discussions he held in Salisbury. I made it clear that the 'Fearless' proposals would remain on the table, however negative the reaction so far received from Salisbury.

"I also emphasised that, in accordance with the principles laid down by the British Government, the final decision which has to be taken must depend on the requirement laid down in the fifth principle; namely, that any settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. It was the main point of my argument that it is they who must have the last word, provided that we are all clear that they can express it in the right conditions. I made it clear that their future will not be decided except with their consent.

"The House will wish to know about two other issues. Discussion of the problem of Commonwealth immigration, and the related question of Commonwealth citizenship, took place mainly outside the Conference Chamber. It did not go as far as Her Majesty's Government would have wished. The question of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa—and it may be Central Africa—who have no close connection with this country inevitably proved difficult and delicate. My right honourable friends made the position clear in the terms in which the matter was discussed in this House last spring. We had to make it plain that our policy on equality of rights and opportunities for all who have settled amongst us, and for all who, under our laws, make their homes in this country, would be frustrated if a balance were not preserved between the rate of entry for settlement and our absorptive capacity. We intend to remain within the current ceiling for immigration for settlement, whether for Commonwealth citizens or for British passport holders who have no close connection with this country. I think our Commonwealth colleagues recognise that to press too hard on this matter might involve us in having to limit immigration from other Commonwealth countries. We propose now to seek bilateral discussions with the Commonwealth countries most closely concerned. We shall, of course, also participate in the studies of the wider problems of Commonwealth migration which the Secretary General was asked to undertake.

"The other question about which the House is so deeply concerned is the tragic situation in Nigeria. In accordance with the established conventions of Commonwealth meetings, and these conventions are right, there was no discussion of the Nigerian situation round the Conference table. But it was the subject of very many bilateral and multilateral exchanges outside the Conference Chamber, in hotels, at Chequers, and at an informal gathering to which I invited my colleagues at Lancaster House.

"The main concern of many Heads of Government was to mount a discussion between the official Nigerian delegation to the Conference and the representatives of Colonel Ojukwu who were in London last week. The head of the Nigerian delegation made plain to me, and to others privately, and to the gathering of 27 of us at Lancaster House last week, his willingness unconditionally to attend such a meeting with Colonel Ojukwu's representatives, if one were arranged under appropriate auspices. Despite discussions by British representatives and those of other countries with the representatives concerned, I regret that there was no move in response from Colonel Ojukwu's representative in time for talks while Chief Awolowo was still here. Nigeria's Commonwealth partners, the vast majority of whom, but not all of whom, have declared themselves against the secessionist movement, stand ready to help in any way any of us can, individually, through wider groupings or through non-Commonwealth groupings, such as the Organisation of African Unity, which number many Commonwealth countries among their membership.

"It was not within the power of this meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to solve the world's problems. It was within its power to examine those problems in terms of utter frankness, moderation and comradeship and to enhance—in a way that no other conceivable gathering could have done—the understanding of each of us of the problems of each other, and of the views of each other on every problem which we have to deal with in our domestic Governments and Parliaments, and in the wider international community."

3.45 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, the House will be obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, and I think noble Lords on all sides will share his pleasure in what was undoubtedly a successful conference—successful not only in the opinion of the Government but in that of at any rate those other participants to whom I have spoken. Before the Conference there was a lot of rather defeatist talk and writing about it and about the futility of the Commonwealth and how we should either leave it or break it up. I did not, and do not, share those opinions, and it is cheering to note how the Conference itself has refuted that view and the reasons for it.

I am glad, too, that the Conference remained informal and that the Secretariat has not become too strong. It must surely be a good and constructive thing that the Prime Ministers of so many and varied countries can, and do, exchange views at a conference of this kind. There is no other forum in the world that I know of in which this can happen, and I believe we should do well to do all we can to foster and encourage it.

3.47 p.m.

LORD WADE

My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for reading the Prime Minister's Statement. I agree that there is no sign of the Commonwealth breaking up, and I am glad that that is so. With regard to British passport holders, I note from the Statement that Her Majesty's Government propose now to seek bilateral discussions in the Commonwealth countries concerned. Does that mean that the attempt to get representatives of the countries concerned and the British Government together to discuss this matter has not proved practicable?

I see that the Secretary-General is to undertake a study of Commonwealth migration. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give some indication of precisely how that is going to be tackled. Finally, I should like to raise one general point. Has there been any discussion, either at the Conference or outside the Conference, on the possibility of achieving a common body of laws relating to human rights throughout the Commonwealth? It would be of great value to the Commonwealth it that could be achieved.

3.49 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, for his forthright statement. I was personally interested, as I am sure the House was, to have his personal confirmation of the views of those he talked to about the success of the Conference. Certainly those of my colleagues who participated in this Conference and to whom I talked were indeed pleased, and not least by the nature of the personal relationships that were established. Noble Lords who have taken part in gatherings of this kind will realise that this in itself represents an additional bond and an extra strength that may be brought to the Commonwealth. I am sure the House is gratified by the feelings that have been expressed, and that there has been this strengthening, though of course we should make a mistake if we were to assume that there are not many real problems and differences; and I have mentioned some of them.

I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches. I do not know whether I can answer his questions specifically. On the point with regard to the Commonwealth Secretary-General's inquiry, I may say that he took soundings of Commonwealth countries in advance of the meeting. He has become involved in this, and can obviously do some useful clearing of ideas on the matter. This is a very difficult and in- tractable problem. It is one that we have debated and one on which all our consciences have been rather severely torn. I do not think there is much more that I can usefully say, beyond saying that we have noted it and that if there is further information I will give it to the noble Lord.

On the interesting suggestion about a common body of laws, particularly in relation to human rights, this is not a subject on which I would express a final opinion. But of course, there has been a great deal of activity at the United Nations, and the International Conventions on Human Rights are there for people to ratify and honour. Obviously, there are many ways of strengthening the rule of law as we understand it, and some of the informal contacts—the sort of contacts that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has with Commonwealth lawyers—contribute to this. But I have noted what the noble Lord has said.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the existence of the Commonwealth Secretariat represents a very considerable strengthening of the whole fabric, by preparing the ground for such Conferences as this to face the awful stresses and strains which seem to be typical of the present day?

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I have not enough direct experience to answer that point. I know that before the Secretariat was set up there were those who had doubts as to whether this was the cheapest and best way, but I think that Mr. Arnold Smith's personal achievements, and the work of the Commonwealth Secretariat, have obviously justified it, and there is further work for it to do. Certainly it was the wish of the members of the Commonwealth that it should be used.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, might I, as a former Commonwealth Secretary, say that it seems to me that the most useful result of the Conference is to underline the fact that it is a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers for consultation and not to take decisions. It is a very brittle instrument, and if the majority of the members tried to enforce decisions on the minority I think it would break down altogether. It seemed to me that, even more than last time, the Conference moved in the direction of consultation, and I think that is a satisfactory development.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, I wonder whether I may supplement the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, with regard to Mr. Arnold Smith's initiation of negotiations, in a general sense, on Commonwealth migration. I know that none of us wants to interfere with the internal arrangements of any member of the Commonwealth, but on a recent visit to Australia I was very struck by the fact that in Australia one rarely sees a black face. I wonder whether my noble friend could say whether any discussions have taken place, particularly with the Australians and with other parts of the white Commonwealth, with regard to this aspect. The Australians are almost screaming for immigrants from places like Britain and so on, and even from the Continent of Europe, but they seem to have dug in their heels with regard to coloured immigration. I was wondering whether any influence had been used with countries of that kind to see whether they could do anything to relieve the burden and whether this matter was discussed at the Conference.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am sure the whole House accepts the wisdom of the noble Marquess's remarks about this being a consultative body; and of course it does gain strength through mutual understanding because it has no power to impose solutions.

I think that my noble friend Lord Royle's question is of a kind that behoves me to treat with very great care. I think he is putting it from the standpoint of trying to relieve the problems of this country rather than seeking to advise Australia what she should do. On that basis I can only reply by saying that such consultations as take place in the Commonwealth Conference are necessarily, and perhaps wisely, confidential.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, may I make a comment on the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about International Law as between Commonwealth and other countries? In 1966 the Third Committee, the Human Rights Committee, completed and passed two international Covenants, the Civil and Political Covenant and the Economic, Cultural and Social Covenant. When those two Covenants have been both signed and ratified by, I believe, 35 countries, it will be possible for the Committees to be set up; and these are very substantial Covenants for International Law.