COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA

HL Deb 26 July 1973 vol 344 cc2007-49

2.38 p.m.

LORD ALPORT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider should be the objectives before the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference at Ottawa. The noble Lord said: I should like to start by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I do not intend to cover some of the topics which he mentioned during the Order which we have just considered. I felt it right before we dispersed for the Summer Recess to invite your Lordships to spend a brief period of Parliamentary time in considering Commonwealth affairs. Within a few weeks the leaders of the Commonwealth—or, at any rate, those who feel themselves secure enough to absent themselves from their countries —will meet at Ottawa to continue the process of periodic consultation which was begun nearly a century ago. Looking back, I cannot help contrasting the Commonwealth as it is to-day with the Imperial Commonwealth of 25 years ago. It happened to fall to me, under the guidance of the late Captain Oliver Stanley, and with the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and Sir Winston Churchill, as leader of the Tory Party, to compile the Imperial Charter which was published in the late 1940s. This sought to interpret to the British people one of the basic principles of the Disraelian policy as transformed by wars, social and political evolutions, and by far-reaching technological change. Little or nothing of what was written in that pamphlet or book, which represented the policy of a major Party in this country at that time, only a quarter of a century ago, has any relevance, or any real relevance, to the present day, except perhaps for a somewhat tepid reference to Western European Union. Since then so many flags have been ceremonially lowered; so many defiant attitudes have been struck in the interests of emergent nationalism; so much has changed in the relationship between the various members of the Commonwealth, and indeed in the composition of the Commonwealth itself, that an observer might be justified in assuming that the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa represents simply another stage in the winding-up, decently, of a great historic institution which is no longer relevant to the politics and power structure of the modern world.

Institutions, like kings, can take an unconscionable time a-dying. Some, like that of Alexander the Great, have dissolved with the death of the genius who created them; others, like the Holy Roman Empire, have lingered on century after century until some new concentration of power and personality sweeps them out of existence, like the operation of a bulldozer on an historic building site. The Commonwealth could continue, sustained by sentiment and association from the past, until perhaps the end of the 20th century, or even longer, and then be decorously dissolved. Or, my Lords, we could at Ottawa in 1973 witness the start of something new. When historians come to assess the significance of the British Commonwealth they will, or I think should, apportion responsibility for its transformation, or as some would consider its dissolution, to two principal influences: to the United States of America and to Soviet Russia. Between them, not as accomplices in some international conspiracy, those two super-Powers achieved the withdrawal of British power from positions of influence and responsibility in the space of a single generation which had given previously stability and order to areas of the world of intense political volatility: to the Middle East, Southern Africa, South-East Asia, and the Indian sub-continent. They accomplished this, let me be frank, successfully, partly as the result of the exhaustion of the people of the metropolitan heart land of the Commonwealth after the blood-letting and the squandering of resources occasioned by two world wars.

I say all this in no spirit of recrimination. I believe that we in this country understand the inevitable flow of history and the natural changes which take place in the distribution on a world scale of political power. I sensed during a recent visit to Vienna that the Austrians were happy to be relieved of the burden of the Hapsburg imperialism. I think that we in Britain are to-day content, so to speak, to show our medals and leave others to shoulder the responsibilities of world government and order. But no one, certainly not I, underestimates the material power of the super Powers. But, apart from their manpower and their ability to crucify most of the rest of us in an atomic holocaust, I am less certain that Russia or the United States have to-day the moral capability which would entitle them to exercise successfully world leadership in the latter part of the 20th century.

I think there are certain spheres in world affairs in which the leadership could still be exercised by the Commonwealth of nations. I believe the responsibility for taking initiative in this field rests very much in the leaders of our own country here in Great Britain which still maintains a very close association with all the other countries of the Commonwealth. And this of course on this occasion rests particularly with my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Our membership of the European Economic Community is now an accomplished fact. There is no reason why any of our leaders should feel himself, as would seem to be the case at Singapore, on the defensive. We no longer have direct responsibility for more than a handful of scattered islands and archipelagoes. Only Rhodesia which is, to be quite frank, at most a peripheral problem, remains to trouble and disturb our overseas relations within the Commonwealth of nations.

To all intents and purposes, therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the way is open for a new initiative by Britain in Commonwealth affairs. It is of course possible that the Commonwealth Conference will get bogged down by some confrontation between Mr. Heath and General Amin or be forced to accommodate the Byzantine irrelevances of Maltese politics at the behest of Mr. Mintoff. It may be that the sole achievement of the conference will be to enable some of the least responsible and most insignificant members to strut and posture for a few days on a world stage. In such an event, if that is allowed by the leaders to happen, the value of the Commonwealth and of these conferences in the future will be very small indeed. On the other hand it might be, under the influence and inspiration of British leadership, that this conference could signify the start of something new; that Ottawa could be, as I have said, of the very greatest importance.

Let me therefore pose my question to my noble friend the Minister of State. What do the Government consider should be the objectives before the forthcoming conference at Ottawa? I hope that our representatives will not, as at Singapore, seek to emphasise the self-evident and accepted independence of Great Britain—as independent as any country can be at the present time—or slap down the critics of our colonial past and our present policies in the interests of our national ego. I hope the Conference will not be regarded as simply an opportunity for bilateral horse trading on such matters as immigration or compensation for the nationalisation of firms, or the price of sugar or soya beans. If this conference is to be of service to the countries which comprise the Commonwealth, and of significance internationally, I suggest that it must seek to show that those who are ranged round the conference table can rise above narrow nationalism and self-interest and seek to establish standards of conduct and behaviour on an international scale which commend themselves to the conscience of responsible people the world over.

The Commonwealth is better placed to do just this because it possesses in common certain ideas and institutions inherited from its historic past, which are embodied in and understood by this generation of its ruling cadres and which may not outlast the death and disappearance from the scene of this generation. I do not think that British representatives at the Conference should be diffident about the right of this country to take some new initiative or to propose some new initiative or the extent to which that initiative would be welcomed by other leaders of Commonwealth countries. I suggest that the objects of the conference should be to establish certain codes of conduct to which all the countries of the Commonwealth could conform in their relation with each other, however big or however small they may be. I suggest that these codes should seek to regulate relations within the Commonwealth in the first place, in the hope that, in time, they may become more widely accepted internationally as they are seen to be applicable and acceptable to the great cross-section of nations and races which comprise the Commonwealth at the present moment. I suggest that these codes should in the first place aim to revive and strengthen the security and the facilities for operation of Commonwealth diplomatic representatives and staff in all Commonwealth countries.

Secondly, I suggest there should be a code to regulate the activities of elements based in Commonwealth countries which seek to subvert and overthrow the régimes of other Commonwealth countries. Thirdly, as the Economist noted in an article last week, the terrifying power of the H-bomb and the escalation and destructiveness of conventional weaponry has produced a new form of warfare represented by the terrorist and the urban guerrilla to which none of the old principles, the old controls, conventions or whatever we call them, such as they were, now apply. I suggest that we should try to find whether it would not be possible to evolve a code between Commonwealth countries to control this form of political activism in the interests of order and security. I think this should apply in addition specifically to the hijacking of Commonwealth aircraft and piracy on the High Sea.

My Lords, there is one more form of Commonwealth co-operation that I would like to suggest. I think some Commonwealth agency should be evolved able to provide the organisation and with access to predetermined resources to help in a natural emergency, a drought or famine in West Africa, a cyclone in Bangladesh, a hurricane in the West Indies or a cholera epidemic in Sri Lanka. In this way I suggest the Commonwealth could contribute, as it is well equipped to do, both to order in the field of international relationships, which has broken down so drastically during these last years, and at the same time to the amelioration of human misery among some of the most vulnerable populations in the world.

My Lords, I think that Ottawa provides a special opportunity for British statesmanship. I cannot help getting the impression, and I hope I am wrong, that the Commonwealth is no longer a matter of serious political concern to Her Majesty's Government. There are President Bhutto's disparaging remarks of this week; there is the belief that Britain is so committed to Europe that she now regards the Commonwealth as a serious embarrassment. There is the serious allegation circulating in Commonwealth circles that the British Government made strenuous efforts to alter the time of the holding of the Commonwealth Conference in order to prevent it clashing with some sporting event in this country. I must make it clear that I hope my noble friend, when she replies, will be able to answer these allegations and give us reassurance on these points.

Now perhaps more than at any time in recent history there is, I suggest, a need for those who speak for Britain on the occasion of the Ottawa Conference to show that they appreciate historic values. If in Ottawa, preferably as a result of British initiative, the Commonwealth could receive a new meaning and purpose, I think that nothing could be better calculated to restore our confidence in ourselves as a nation, and to introduce a new and effective instrument of stability in a troubled world. If this opportunity is thrown away or diminished as a result of any failures on our part at this stage, I can only say that history tends to impose a very severe penalty on those who do not match up to the standard it demands. I can only pray, and I am sure that I have the whole House with me, that Ottawa will not reproduce the mistakes of Singapore but, on the contrary, will see the start of a new era of influence and usefulness in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations.

2.54 p.m.

LORD HALE

My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has just said. I saw with considerable pleasure his Unstarred Question on the Order Paper because I thought he had chosen a matter of the first importance which ought to be discussed in the House. I want to make only a simple, local, but, I think, important contribution. It almost adds to my embarrassment because he made so important a speech and so effective a speech, and one in which I think no man of goodwill could find a word with which to quarrel. He has made the occasion one of Parliamentary importance. I rise, not to follow him, because he has said what it is necessary to say and it would be an impertinence for me to try to dot the i's and cross the t's of a speech of that calibre, but to turn merely to local issues, an issue that effects an area about three times the size of France, and that is the position of the East African community.

Having decided to do that, I hesitated for two or three reasons. The first was that the number and complexity of the problems that confront this Conference are so great that I have a horrid feeling that the Conference may well be diverted, perhaps for too long, on issues which are highly controversial but not of great future importance. The Times, which was spoken of with the approval it deserves from the Liberal Party the other day as an authoritative newspaper—an observation which I was astonished to hear received with somewhat indecorous laughter from the Benches opposite, because all its mistakes are corrected in the Sunday Times once a week—was perfectly right, perhaps a little in the style of Sir Boyle Roche, when they observed that the French nuclear explosion cut no ice in Polynesia. They might have gone on in the same genre and said that the ice-cutting industry in Polynesia had been in the doldrums for some time.

However important this issue, and whatever its moral importance, the issues to which the noble Lord referred are the issues. Of course, one of these issues is the Yaoundé Convention, and without trying to make any political capital out of it or any anti-Common Market capital—because I remained seated firmly and uncomfortably on the fence over this matter—the conflict with France over the interpretation of the Yaoundé Convention is becoming a more grave one. It is a whole difference of opinion. The former French Colonies are in a singularly unhappy position at this moment. We talked at one time of making the Kalahari Desert flower and now we are seeing the Sahara Desert move southward like a glacier over lands increasingly devastated by famine. But the problems of East Africa are serious ones, and the importance of East Africa to the Commonwealth cannot be underestimated.

I hesitated whether I should refer to the position in Uganda. I do not know at this moment whether President Amin is going to the Commonwealth Conference. I do not think there is anyone in the House who can doubt the magnitude of the horror of the reign of terror in Uganda, but it may well be that no useful purpose is served at this precise moment by going into details. And the tragedy of the situation is that there appears to be at this moment no rival claimant. President Obote, I think, has rather talked himself out of the position, if he ever really occupied it.

The East African community is also a Common Market. It also has its own consultative Parliament at Arusha. It has to make decisions. It is faced with the same problem of different currencies. Let me say quite frankly that they are virtually valueless in this country. If one is lucky one can get ten shillings in the pound for Kenyan currency and with Tanzania nothing at all, because there is no market in Tanzanian currency. If you flew from Dar-es-Salaam to London you would find that when you passed Nairobi you could not use Tanzanian currency to buy anything on the East African Airways plane. The East African Airways is almost on the verge of bankruptcy. The union of the old Tanganyika and Zanzibar is increasingly one on paper.

There remain the two other problems. I want to say a word about the tribal problem. I claim no special knowledge of these matters at all, and there are many people in this House—perhaps not at this moment—who know a great deal more than I can ever hope to know on these subjects. However, it is often thought that the tribal conflict is something like it is in Kenya; a conflict of custom, of practice, and of habits. As it was in Zanzibar particularly, and as it is in Rwanda Burundi and as it was in Uganda, it was a conflict of the old feudal system. It was a conflict of the rural landowning, educated tribes and the ex-slave race, generally of Bantu origin. Of course in Zanzibar the ruling party, which is called the Afro-Shiraz, and which is constantly spoken of as of Persian and not of African origin at all, at least arrived in Zanzibar before the Norman Conquest, and therefore, after 1,000 years, they can claim some right to be treated as indigenous.

Yesterday The Times made some belated and rather confusing observations about the position of justice in East Africa. With our own troubles in Northern Ireland we have no right to pontificate on imprisonment without trial. I observed in the Spectator, which is generally a rather more enlightened paper than it used to be, some criticisms of the President of Zanzibar, President Junbe. Remember, of course, that Zan- zibar is a Moslem country, not Arab. One might even say it is anti-Arab. They emphasise very much they are religious Moslems and not racial Moslems. The union with the Christian country of Tanganyika presented problems. Perhaps at this moment the main island of Zanzibar is closer to Mombasa—not geographically, but in spirit—than it is to Dar-es-Salaam. The Spectator says that President Junbe has been involved in a great deal of very black deeds and very atrocious things since 1963, when they got their independence. It might be true. The position of the second in command is never an easy one, and he was second in command. But since the assassination of President Karume he has given new hope that this country, with its pretty black and controversial history, is facing a new future. He has spent some of the money that Karume assembled on the welfare of the people, on the provision of food, and the development of housing and the building of roads. I appreciated the courtesy with which I was received by him on the day when "The Thunderer" was saying that British lawyers take very little interest in trials abroad. However, I have perhaps diverted a little from what I had intended to say.

As regards the position of these three great nations, Kenya is very prosperous and there are more Europeans in Nairobi to-day than ever there were in the time of British rule, even if they are transients. President Nyerere—with a country more than half as big again as Kenya and one-and-a-half times the size of France; with refugees pouring over distant frontiers; on the whole, a slightly more backward people who have not quite come into touch with what we presume, somewhat boldly, to call European civilisation—faces almost insoluble problems, and everybody sympathises with him in his efforts. It is rather sad to read that the Colonial Development Corporation, or whatever they call themselves now, are spending money on building large hotels, with the usual addendum that these have not proved quite so profitable as was anticipated—which I have read somewhere about the Colonies for the last twenty years or so. But Commonwealth participation, Commonwealth understanding, Commonwealth tolerance, Commonwealth unity could do a very great deal to make this vast country, with its small population, continue with a united future; and I do not believe there are many problems which are more important at this moment in relation to the preserving of the unity of the Commonwealth.

I call myself a Francophile, and have been one for many years, but the continual clarity of the diversion and the divergence of our interest on almost every subject from that of France, is one of the problems which the Commonwealth and this Government have to face in the years to come. If one word can be said on behalf of those held in prison, it is very sad that in Tanzania Ali Muhsin, the former premier of Zanzibar, one of the distinguished men against whom no allegation has ever been framed, against whom no charge has ever been made, has been gravely ill in distant Tanga prison, on "remand" for ten years, and that that should be done under the rule of one whom my noble friend and I know and admire tremendously, and whom most people who know him believe to be basically a great Christian, a great statesman and a man who means well, but who is faced with problems which are almost insoluble.

3.9 p.m.

LORD PORRITT

My Lords, it is not my intention to delay your Lordships very long at this late stage in our Session, but I should like most strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his suggestion that the objectives of the Conference at Ottawa which is shortly to be held are matters of prime importance to this noble House and to the country as a whole. One can only regret that the time has not been available for the whole subject of Commonwealth relations to be discussed at length and in detail, for I should like to suggest that we have probably reached a turning point, and I would suggest a crucial turning point, in these relations, and that the outcome of the Ottawa Conference may well have a vital and an enduring effect—not only economic, but also political and constitutional—on the wellbeing both of this country and of the other thirty-two countries which now comprise the Commonwealth, and therefore, probably, of the world at large.

My Lords, I feel that perhaps I should declare an interest at this stage, because I was born and bred in part of that Commonwealth—at that time an Empire—and I am very conscious of the fact that, in to-day's terminology, I stand here with a certain definite immigrant status. Fortunately, in the past I have had personal experience of visits to most parts of, and to many countries in, the Commonwealth. That experience, of course, was greatly broadened during my last five years in New Zealand. But as a result of this knowledge I believe, a little more optimistically than does the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that we have reached the stage of a new (and I would emphasise the word "new") Commonwealth. The days of colonisation are history. The days of Empire departed during the last world war. But, in passing, I would venture to say that however much we may query, and probably rightly query, the methods that were used, the British Empire did more good for more people all over the world than any other institution in recorded history. The Empire faded because, as the result of two world wars and a difficult interim, Britain was neither strong enough nor wealthy enough to retain it, far less to maintain it.

The first war-time Commonwealth then developed, with its series of emancipations—so-called Independence; attempts, very understandable attempts, at self-expression, founded on national pride and the desire to establish national entities. This was essentially a divisive period, when the pessimists and the Jeremiahs confidently expressed their belief that the Commonwealth was finished. But what has happened in the meantime, my Lords? A good many things, but two facts I should like to put on record. In the first place, Britain has accepted the fact—and it has been generally accepted in other countries, not least by Commonwealth countries—that she is no longer in the first league of World Powers. Secondly, Britain has, for better or for worse, joined the European Economic Community. As a result of these two things I would suggest that in the Commonwealth the days of patronage are over: the days of partnership all lie ahead. Britain is now one, and admittedly the most senior one, of a group of equal partners.

Your Lordships may well ask: Partners in what? Only a few years ago some of the more senior and more forward-looking of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers decided that to co-relate the activities of the rather sporadic Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences there should be set up a Commonwealth Secretariat. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, rather suggested that there was no such central body. But there is now a central body, set up in London—not because Britain is the "leader of the gang", if I may put it that way, but because its communications systems and its geographical facilities were better than elsewhere. It is, however, worthy of note, as the noble Lord has pointed out, that the actual Conferences are tending to be held in other Commonwealth countries rather than in Britain—the last in Singapore and now in Ottawa, the 19th meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the first being held as far back as 1944 before the war ended. So I would suggest that a new concept of Commonwealth has been born and is developing faster than is generally recognised, certainly in this country.

I was amazed—and I would underline the word "amazed"—at what I saw happening in the South Pacific while I was in New Zealand. A series of small Commonwealth countries on their own initiative linked up with Australia and New Zealand to produce what they called a forum, a group of Commonwealth countries with common interests in such matters as travel, tourism, communications, air and sea travel, education, health and so on. But, even more astonishingly, in that short period of time they had set up a group which on an economic basis was already getting together with very definite results. This new Commonwealth that one pictures has no constitutional basis. It is simply a giant club, a colossal voluntary consortium which consists of the various nations in the Commonwealth at the moment. They are independent States but all interdependent. It is a matter of people; and, I would suggest, of people more than of politics; 900 millions of them, a quarter of humanity.

These people form a cross-section of the world: every race, every creed, every colour. They are united, if they are united at all, which is open to question, by a mutual desire to help each other and a basic belief that they can do so. After all, the very word "Commonwealth" means "comprehensive wellbeing". It is towards that goal that the new association is, I believe, setting out. This demands increasingly mutual understanding, trust and co-operation, but this objective is no longer a matter of airy-fairy principles that are so easy to enunciate and so difficult to implement.

The new Commonwealth, now that it has rid itself of the post-war series of multiple bilateral contracts of Anglocentricity which bedevilled and frustrated it in the post-war era, is becoming a hardheaded, practical, pragmatic association, the members being linked by the relatively small but highly efficient Commonwealth secretariat. This is headed by a Canadian with Ambassadorial status, with a New Zealander as his deputy, and has almost every country in the Commonwealth represented on the staff. The secretariat, which basically arranges joint consultations at all levels and provides international and Commonwealth information for its members, has quite recently associated itself with the Commonwealth Foundation which promotes exchanges in the professional fields and, within not much more than the last year, the Commonwealth Foundation for Technical Co-operation which does likewise for industrial, commercial and social interests. The very extent to which these facilities are increasingly being used is a good indication of their value to the Commonwealth members and the desire of those members to do something together.

Let us remember always that this is not an impoverished association of which we are speaking. One very much doubts whether it is generally recognised that the Commonwealth has more raw materials and greater resources than those of Russia and America put together. This is surely one of the most important aspects that should receive due emphasis at the Ottawa Conference, especially in view of Britain's new E.E.C. commitments, a matter which is bound to arise in discussion although, as your Lordships know, there is no set agenda at these meetings.

Time sadly does not permit me to go into the factors which link, if they do not necessarily unite, this heterogeneous, amorphous but nevertheless international society. These factors are of very great importance for the future not only to this country but one hopes for the development of world peace. They would to my mind include such considerations as the rÔle of the Monarchy, the influence of the English language, the adoption and the use of the British legal system and the enormous value throughout the Commonwealth as a whole of British knowhow in pretty well every field. In the Commonwealth, my Lords, we have a ready-made association of nations with no veto, where sovereign independence is assured, a global nonalignment that provides no one voice speaking for or against war or peace, which has no joint commitment but which, by fostering interdependence, while very naturally still paying due attention to national interests does much to promote international prosperity in trade, economy, education, health, culture and in social service.

I believe that qua Commonwealth we have come to the end of a chapter, but I would hope, optimistically, that we have also come to the beginning of a booklet. The new global experiment, if nothing else, which is exciting and stimulating and involves, nationally speaking, the enthusiasm of youth mixed with the maturity of experience, cannot come to fruition in a day or much longer. There are certain to be, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hale, many aberrations; there have in fact been such already. But surely can we not see the great potential for communal democracy in the Commonwealth as against Communism. One hopes, therefore, that in Ottawo this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has said, will show more than a perfunctory interest in the affairs of her other 32 partners. I can assure your Lordships from personal experience that this is, sadly, a fear of many of those countries—that the interest of Britain in their affairs is now perfunctory. I hope with him that she will again give a positive lead, as the senior partner, in constructive and practical ideas, and let it be known that her vista still extends over the great waters of the world as well as across the English Channel. In these distant fields and far flung lands, with a fresh and a sympathetic approach, I believe there lies a great potential for world wellbeing and for world peace.

3.24 p.m.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, I have been much moved by the speeches of both the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, on the subject of the Commonwealth. I propose to deal more with the developing world, the developing countries of the Commonwealth, than with the more affluent countries. This most important and urgent Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, confronts us with a major world problem of to-day—the huge inequalities between the rich and the poor nations. Her Majesty's Government would do well to start from the strong and firm statement made by Her Majesty the Queen on her recent visit to Canada when she said, I am Queen of the Commonwealth". The first objective of the Government could be a resolve to make this statement meaningful, and even practical. The speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Porritt, have guided us to this.

During the last Commonwealth Conference the Prime Minister showed little understanding of the feelings of the Commonwealth countries or their difficulties. He was affronted by their attacks and criticisms; and I can sympathise with him when I look back on my own reactions during my first six weeks as a delegate to the United Nations. It was an eye-opener and an education about the feelings of the less affluent peoples of the world; and we should bear it and grin, which is what I learned to do. I can recommend a short apprenticeship at the United Nations for politicians before they take part in any Commonwealth Conference in order to immunise them against the anger which the vulnerable countries feel against the stronger countries.

My Lords, the Commonwealth Conference is inevitably a curtain-raiser to all the problems of aid and development. As the Western World becomes richer as a result of advances made in science and technology, the poorer nations worry about their chances of getting fair shares. Our entry into the Common Market aggravated these anxieties, as does the continuing pattern of trade among the affluent countries where we see the richer countries showing indifference, competition and greed—which, after all, exists among human beings. Though member countries of the E.E.C. are aware of the dangers of a capitalised "closed shop", and though their record of aid to developing countries is not a bad one, their own institutions militate against the poorer countries. Most forward-looking economists are aware of the problems in the poorer countries of the world. The "unacceptable face of capitalism" is evident throughout the world—as shown, for example, in the protectionism which the E.E.C. member countries apply to their own agricultural products when such products (which are often primary products in the poorer countries) have to compete with them. That is why sugar and butter are the test cases.

Aid by itself is never enough. Occasionally it is ill-used; and it is always bad for the morale of these countries when it is inadequate. The Conference in Ottawa should take as its main objective the stimulation of trade between developed and developing countries. The Commonwealth Development Corporation still continues to make a commercial success of its development projects. Self-interest, my Lords, is never absent in the dealings between Governments, but I would stress that our colonial experience makes us particularly well fitted to help the now independent members of the Commonwealth.

My Lords, I must repeat what has been said often: that development is a positive requirement of peace between nations—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. However one looks at development and aid, it rests on the moral involvement of the rich to help the poor. Now that we are in the E.E.C. we must try to harmonise with them. But if we abandon the Commonwealth we shall do so at our peril. We need the political will and the political leadership in the Ottawa Conference; and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his optimism about the potential of the Commonwealth as an influence for fairer shares in the world. I agree with him that neither the United States of America nor Russia can really give the leadership that we need in the world to-day, because the Commonwealth is still an association of different peoples, but a free association of peoples, not only those dependent politically on Britain.

3.30 p.m.

LORD GARNER

My Lords, I am sure it was right that this House should before the Recess take a look at the very important Conference to be held in Ottawa; and when I heard the eloquence and force with which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, developed his case, it made me proud to think that I had once taught him in school and that later we had both been colleagues in the same Service. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in the broad scope of the theme he developed; I would merely offer some modest comments, based to some extent on the experience I have had over the years at gatherings of this sort, on how the forthcoming meeting might be conducted. I should like to do so in the form of some don'ts and do's.

My first don't comes perhaps appropriately from these Benches and from someone who was previously a civil servant: that is, to caution against being over-ambitious; to caution against putting too great a load on the Commonwealth machine, a greater load than it can bear, because I think it is unwise to try to force an agreement on political matters. Some two years ago I was invited to attend the Commonwealth Economic Conference in Canberra. It was opened by Mr. Gorton, the then Prime Minister of Australia. He praised the work that was being done in education and commented that co-operation in educational matters was one of the things that the Commonwealth could do extremely well. He had then just come from Singapore, and he used these words, which I think have great validity: It is not realistic to expect 31"— it was then 31— diverse nations to be able to reach a consensus of opinion on highly controversial political issues. Nor is it realistic to assume that if they do reach a consensus it in any way affects those who are not part of that consensus. From my memory, it was not always so easy to reach complete agreement in what is now frequently regarded as the cosy, intimate association of the Empire feeling with the old Dominions, even before the war. How much more difficult is it to reach complete unanimity to-day.

My Lords, my second don't would be to advise against staging a confrontation In recent years, as we all know, the Afro-Asians made a massive move to exert pressure on Britain over Rhodesia, sometimes to put her in the dock, in the hope of changing what was settled British policy: I think one could even detect some sign that the British delegation were not averse to promoting some form of confrontation at the last meeting in Singapore. This, again, seems to me to be misguided, because to try to use the Commonwealth as a pressure group will only lead to the disruption of the Commonwealth. Attacks made on individual members can so easily boomerang, as of course the African countries themselves must realise. If this is the way things go at the Conference, this will only spell the end of the Commonwealth as we know it.

My third don't is to hope that there will not be excessive publicity, and that the Conference will not end, as it has done in recent years, in an absolutely monumental communiqué. I ask people to believe that the assumption is quite false that the greater the verbiage, the greater the feeling among public opinion the action and the depth of the discussion has been. I think the reverse is true. I well recall Sir Robert Menzies, when he used to attend meetings saying: " But why do we need a long communiqué at all? Why cannot we just say, 'The Commonwealth Prime Ministers all met and had an excellent discussion'?" That sort of line has very considerable merit, because it seems to me that there are great dangers in the way in which, over past Conferences, the publicity media have emphasised all the differences and played up the difficulties. And, of course, very seldom have they made any substantial comment on the things that have gone right and gone well. This has happened to such an extent that when I find there is no mention of a particular conference on TV or radio, then I know that an extraordinarily good conference has been held.

Now I should like to turn to something a little more constructive and put forward three "do's". First, I think we always ought to remember that the purpose of a meeting of this kind, as was suggested earlier, is friendly consultation and the achievement of practical co-operation. It seems to me absolutely splendid that these leaders of different countries, representing such different points of view and such diversity, can come together and learn each other's views and have a completely frank and relaxed conversation. I reject totally the idea that the Conference is merely an academic discussion or a mere debating chamber. I do not think that is the case at all. I believe that the less an attempt is made to bring things to a designed decision, the more the discussion itself can be in depth and achieve real value. It is here that I come very close to the main theme which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I agree with so much of what he said, and my only additional thought would be that in the light of what I have been saying earlier the merit of the Commonwealth association and Commonwealth gatherings is flexibility, informality, ease of discussion and so on. Therefore I should like to think carefully before going too far in codifying all the arrangements that we have among ourselves. On this question I understand that there was a meeting of senior officials in Ottawa some months ago when representations were made as to how future meetings should be conducted, probably with a view to meeting some of the difficulties that I have mentioned earlier. It would be very helpful to hear from the noble Baroness when she replies whether some of those ideas are likely to be followed.

My second "do", so to speak—and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, used these words—is that we should remember that the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of peoples and not merely a coming together of Governments. So often it is political matters that divide, and it is the contacts between individuals and the human relationships in the Commonwealth that bring us together.

That brings me to my final point, which is a practical one. One of the things which the Commonwealth does best, at any rate nowadays, is to achieve cooperation over a very broad field, though to a large extent excluding the strictly political field. What it is eminently well adapted for is to provide the sort of thing we see in the service of volunteers; in the extraordinary co-operation between universities, and indeed over the whole field of education, with the very substantial numbers of scholars there are and the extremely imaginative Commonwealth Education Scheme that has now been in operation for some ten years; in the activities of the Commonwealth Press Union; in technical assistance, and in all the other exchanges that take place. One further organisation I would wish to mention is the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We in this country are to have the opportunity of being hosts in September to a gathering of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which will show people as a whole how lively this body still is, and what value it performs. The relevance of this to the Ottawa meeting is that if Prime Ministers felt able to go on record recommending the C.P.A.'s work, and perhaps increasing the finance they make available, it would be enormously appreciated.

My Lords, I hope that you will pardon one final word from me. In 1956 I was appointed British High Commissioner in Canada. I presented my Letter of Credential, as is the custom, to the Prime Minister at that time, Mr. St. Laurent. I have heard to-day that he has just died. He was a great servant of Canada and, to my knowledge, a great friend of the Commonwealth. It is not for me to pay any final tribute, but I should like to express the hope that his spirit of courtesy (because he was a tremendously courteous and charming person), his spirit of understanding and conciliation, will be brooding over his old city of Ottawa while the Conference is meeting.

3.42 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for having initiated this debate with his Unstarred Question. I also express my appreciation of the speech which he has delivered. I am quite sure that he will have felt, as the discussion has continued, that it was well worth while initiating the debate. I have some experience of debates on Unstarred Questions and I do not remember one where there has been such a series of notable speeches as we have had during this discussion.

We had from my noble friend Lord Hale a moving description of the situation in East Africa, based on past and recent experience. We had from the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke with the authority of his post in New Zealand, a most noteworthy speech which indicated all the possibilities of the development of the Commonwealth. We had from my noble friend Lady Gaitskell a special plea on behalf of the poverty areas within the Commonwealth. Now, from the noble Lord, Lord Garner, with his high experience in the Civil Service, we have had some realistic estimates of the possibilities. I find it difficult to follow that series of distinguished speeches.

The change from the Empire to the Commonwealth since the last world war has been one of the great transitions in history. When that change took place many of us regarded it as a great progressive and hopeful event. It has had great achievements; it has also had many disappointments. The first thing we ought to realise is that literally, looking at the Commonwealth, it is one of the most illogical associations of nations that exists in the world. It is composed of the old white Dominions and the new black and brown nations of Africa and Asia. Some of these nations have democratic Constitutions; others are autocratic. Some are Monarchist; others are Republican. Some are inclined towards the West; many emphasise that they are nonaligned; some probably have their tendencies towards the East. Some are at this moment negotiating association with the European Community; the Commonwealth countries in Asia are excluded. Some are definitely Socialist in purpose; others are capitalist and inviting the cooperation of the capitalist West. If one is thinking of any basis of association of nations on social, racial, political or economic lines, I can think of no association which has such little basis as that of the Commonwealth.

When I have said that, I believe the Commonwealth has at the present time not only a tremendous contribution to make to the world but potentially an even greater one. My first plea with the Government to-night would be that they should not allow this country to become so closely associated with the new European Community that its association with the Commonwealth becomes less. The first reason why I believe the Commonwealth to be of such great value is that it is the only association, other than the United Nations itself, which brings together all the races of the earth. This is quite extraordinary—not merely the white Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but the races of Asia, the races of Africa. That they should all be in an association is of enormous hope at this time when we must seek to end racial divisions. That hope has been greatly increased during this last year by the changes which have taken place in the Governments of Australia and of New Zealand. For the first time, these Governments to-day are speaking in terms which are identical with those of the peoples of Africa and the peoples of Asia in seeking to end racial discrimination in the world.

The second reason why I believe that the Commonwealth has great potential possibilities is this. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred in his speech to a declaration made many years ago by Mr. Winston Churchill and others, and indicated that it was now a little obsolete. At the Singapore Conference, with all its disappointments, a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was made, which I regard as one of the most hopeful Declarations on the kind of world to which we should be aiming. I am continually amazed, as I look at international declarations, whether it be the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations, the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations or the Lusaka Declaration of African Nations, and now this Commonwealth Declaration of Principles, at the nobility of language in which they are expressed. I propose to read (because many of us may have forgotten the terms) some paragraphs from the Commonwealth Declaration of Principles which were adopted at the Singapore Conference. The Declaration reads: We believe that international peace and order are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind; we therefore support the United Nations and seek to strengthen its influence for peace in the world, and its efforts to remove the causes of tension between nations. We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage. We recognise racial prejudice as a dangerous sickness threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. Each of us will vigorously combat this evil within our own nation. No country will afford to régimes which practise racial discrimination assistance which in its own judgment directly contributes to the pursuit or consolidation of this evil policy. We oppose all forms of colonial domination and racial oppression and are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality. We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere, and to further the principles of self-determination and non-racialism. We believe that the wide disparities in wealth now existing between different sections of mankind are too great to be tolerated; they also create world tensions. Our aim is their progressive removal; we therefore seek to use our efforts to overcome poverty, ignorance and disease, in raising standards of life and achieving a more equitable international society. My Lords, there has never been written, in connection with any group of nations, such ideals and such a picture of the pattern of the world for which we should strive as are contained in these principles adopted for the Commonwealth at the Singapore Conference.

I recognise at once that none of us is living up to those principles. They deal with peace; they deal with colonial domination and race relations; they deal with personal liberty, and they deal with poverty. I very much hope that as the Prime Minister goes to the Ottawa Conference he will take with him those principles laid down at Singapore and will seek to make the objective of that Conference, as mentioned in the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, the realisation of those ideals which are still not expressed in the lives of all our peoples.

My Lords, I do not want to go into detail. As I have said, they dealt with four issues principally. I do not see how the Ottawa Conference, representing nations in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, can fail to face up to the problem of peace to-day. I hope that as a result of those discussions there will be a real contribution towards peace in the world. Inevitably, colonial domination and racial discrimination will be raised—Rhodesia, Southern Africa, the Portuguese Colonies. The record of Her Majesty's Government in relation to those will cause some disappointment among our Commonwealth colleagues.

The next thing I want to refer to is personal liberty. I think those of us who believe in personal liberty have been perhaps more than disappointed by what is happening in nearly every Commonwealth country to-day in the imprisonment of political opponents for their beliefs; and I hope the issue will be raised very strongly at Ottawa. I hope we shall have the humility to appreciate that what has happened in Ireland does not mean we can be self-righteous as we raise this issue.

Then there is poverty, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke. I welcome the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Garner, of some permanent institution which can go to the aid of natural disasters when they occur, such as that in Bangladesh and in West Africa now. But if we are to deal with the problem of poverty in the Commonwealth we have to adopt much more radical methods than we have yet attempted. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they might make one proposal at the Ottawa Conference: that there should be an international convention dealing with the conditions of financial investment in colonial territories, similar to the I.L.O. conventions, a convention which should insist that when there is investment from this country and America, and other capitalist countries, there should be good living standards for the people (this is an issue which has arisen recently in South Africa and also in Commonwealth countries) and that there should be opportunities for the indigenous population to he able to advance, and to advance ultimately to management.

My Lords, the last point I want to make is this. I feel that the present reflection of Commonwealth association in organisations is terribly unsatisfactory. There is a conference once every two years which is simply ten days or a fortnight of discussion. Issues continually arise on which the Commonwealth ought to get together in conference. One of them is the problem of immigrants from East Africa. This is a problem related to India, a problem related to this country; there should have been a conference long ago representing these countries to deal with that problem.

Then I am disappointed by the Commonwealth Secretariat in London. It ought to be an organisation which is continually expressing the views of Commonwealth countries on great issues. It ought to be an orgainsation which is continually seeking co-operation between Commonwealth countries in their different issues. I hope, my Lords, that one of the results of the Ottawa Conference will be to make the Commonwealth Secretariat a real, creative, constructive instrument representing the Commonwealth in all its possibilities of advance.

4.0 p.m.

LORD ST. JUST

My Lords, I also should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alport, on his Unstarred Question, and also on his extremely clear and good speech. I suppose I have been fairly fortunate in my life. I have travelled across the world and visited a certain number of our Commonwealth countries. Even in my not all too long life, the change that has taken place within the Commonwealth has been quite extraordinary, and we have heard all about this in the debate this afternoon. But I believe it was obviously inevitable that that change should take place. The very fact that in a sense the world gets smaller through communications, and that the trading areas get stronger, was bound to produce a totally different approach to the Commonwealth. When I was last in Australia, about three years ago, their eyes were turned entirely towards America and also towards Japan. We find, quite understandably, that Canada, with their eyes at a trading angle, are turned towards America. But this still does not alter the fact of this amazing situation of a Commonwealth such as ours, which does exist, and I hope our position and the position of the other Commonwealth countries will not alter.

May I turn for a few moments to the volcanic state of Africa, which we have so often discussed in this House. I know Africa fairy well; I have visited it a number of times since the war. I have been deeply impressed by many of the emerging Commonwealth countries in the whole of the African continent. I am not trying to be sarcastic in any way when I say that I think many of these countries are just beginning to understand the real problems they are having to face, now that they are emerging as completely separate countries. I was extremely interested when I was in Kenya on the last occasion. I was staying about 80 miles away from Nairobi, and the Attorney General flew up to lunch with my host. He was a most eminent gentleman, called to the Middle Temple, and he was giving us a rundown on a Bill he was introducing into the Kenya Parliament the following week. He said, Are you by any chance going to be here for the next few days?", and when I said I was, he said, "Would you like to come and listen to this debate, because it will give you some idea of what I, as an African, have to face with my other African neighbours?". I said I should be exceedingly interested, and I went; and that brought home to me very strongly the very difficult problems they have among their own people within those countries. This is just as strong as their antipathy and, in a sense, dislike, towards the European. They are so deeply suspicious still of their own tribal people. Confidence will, of course, emerge; slowly, I feel, it will probably get all right, and one certainly hopes it will.

There is no doubt that when Africa does emerge as a reasonably united continent, it has the potential of being one of the balancing powers of the world, and I sincerely believe that the sort of problems we have discussed so often in your Lordships' House, the problem of South Africa and the Portuguese colonies, in time will be resolved. One must be optimistic and look ahead and say that this will take place. One wishes the best success to this future Conference. I am certain that as long as the heads of our Government show balance and imagination in their dealings with the Commonwealth—and I am sure that Sir Alec and the Prime Minister will—they will, in the end, bring this slow evolution into the right perspective.

4.6 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Alport—to whom I have made my personal apologies—for not having been here at the beginning of this debate. I was present at a meeting of the Central Council of the Royal Commonwealth Society, which I had to attend. I am glad to say that we unanimously elected the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, Vice-President. Therefore my absence from here was at least to some extent fruitful.

I imagine that most of your Lordships will have read the remarks of President Bhutto of Pakistan when he was here a few days ago, in which he referred to the Commonwealth. As reported in the newspapers, he made some very friendly, polite and, I am sure, sincere remarks about his relations with the United Kingdom, with Her Majesty's Government, and with the solution of the difficulties between the two countries, and naturally we were very happy to know of that. He went on to say, as reported, that he had no regrets about having left the Commonwealth, because he considered it a useless organisation based on sentiment and nothing else. That is a challenge from a responsible and leading statesman from a former Commonwealth country that we cannot ignore. I think the coming conference gives us a chance to refute that. It must be refuted not merely by words, of which there will be many, but by actual deeds, by concrete acts, which will prove to President Bhutto and to all others who doubt the value of the Commonwealth that there is something of real value in the Commonwealth and that it can achieve things which no other organisation is able to achieve.

I would suggest that at the present time there are three outstanding problems which confront some, or all, of the members of the Commonwealth, and where united action and discussion by the Commonwealth can be of value. I do not take them in any particular order of importance. The first I would deal with is the question of Rhodesia; inevitably and rightly that will come up at the conference. I first of all congratulate the Government on the stand that they are taking at the present time; it is a policy which I believe is absolutely right. I am happy that the Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office went out there, and I am also happy—and I do not say that there is any cause or effect here—that Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa are now talking.

But we must do more than that, and I suggest that there are two particular lines of action where Her Majesty's Government, the Prime Minister, can take a positive lead in Ottawa. The first of these is to propose that there should be a gathering together (or the formation, if you like to call it that) of something that might be called a Committee of Commonwealth Prime Ministers or their representatives to keep a watchful eye on developments in Rhodesia and jointly formulate policies within very broad outlines, depending on how things are moving. In other words, Rhodesia should no longer be solely the responsibility of the United Kingdom, though clearly we have a major responsibility in this. However, we should enlist the help, advice, wisdom and experience of other members of the Commonwealth, and particularly those members who are so closely associated and knowledgeable about Africa—countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Zambia, and possibly Canada and India, so that it will not be a solely African concern. The initial meeting of this body should be attended, if not by Prime Ministers themselves, at least by their senior colleagues—by a Cabinet Minister from this country—and there should be regular contact between the countries composing the Committee, and regular meetings between its members in order to follow up and exert continuing pressure of a constructive kind upon Rhodesia.

My second point with regard to Rhodesia is that Commonwealth countries themselves should be made aware of their responsibilities and their power in the matter of Rhodesian sanctions. We know perfectly well that this country bears the brunt of sanctions. There are certain instances of evasion even here, though they are not very large, but there are many instances of evasion in many other countries throughout the world. We do something to bring pressure to bear upon those countries, but in my opinion we do not do enough and we are not discussing this subject at the present time. But I am quite certain that the effect of the larger trading countries of the Commonwealth on the major offenders—Germany, Japan, Italy and so on—in this matter of sanctions would be of enormous value. If these other countries knew that the Commonwealth countries would take what steps they could to restrict their trade with any country which offended against sanctions, I believe that we should make very real progress. Those are two very brief points so far as Rhodesia is concerned.

The second matter that was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Brockway is immigration. Immigration is of great importance to us, as we know only too well, but it is of importance to other Commonwealth countries, too, both as receivers and as senders of immigrants. My noble friend made the suggestion, which I am sure he could have elaborated with very great profit to us, that there should be a standing committee of Commonwealth countries—again, of a high level—to keep under constant review the problem of immigration between all members of the Commonwealth whether they be immigrants to India from Kenya, or to this country from the West Indies, or wherever there may be problems and that we should on a Commonwealth basis discuss the many problems and difficulties and their solutions, and should not leave the problem simply as one which the recipient country on its own has the job of solving in different ways. It should be a joint Commonwealth effort.

Thirdly, there is the problem of poverty, which my noble friend Lady Gaitskell so rightly touched upon, and, in particular, the results of our entry into the European Economic Community. There is no need to reiterate to your Lordships my support for our action in that matter, but we cannot disguise the fact that our entry into the Community poses very great problems in the Commonwealth and places it under a very great strain both emotionally, sentimentally and severely practically. The problem of sugar has been dealt with satisfactorily up to a point, but there is far more to be done in this respect. This problem is tied up with the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy, with the whole question of aid towards developing countries, and so on.

We in this country and Her Majesty's Government, as the only member of the Commonwealth who is to-day a member of the European Economic Community, must make it abundantly clear that we cannot translate into real action all the great words which pour out from the mouths of politicians and others concerning help for underdeveloped countries, unless there is a genuine transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries; and you cannot transfer wealth from one person to another without the person from whom the wealth is being transferred making some sacrifice. That is something which we must make very clear to our European partners; and we must also make clear to our Commonwealth partners our willingness to do this. In other words, we must take the initative in Brussels in, I must not use the word "renegotiating", but in modifying the Common Agricultural Policy in such a way that the expressed desire of the Community to help the developing countries becomes a reality; and we must use the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference as a place where these matters can be discussed in all honesty and with complete frankness.

We must convince our Commonwealth partners that the mere fact that we have entered into the Community does not mean to say that we are turning our backs upon them, and does not mean to say that we are sheltering behind communal decisions in Brussels to enable us to forgo our responsibilities and our wishes with regard to the Commonwealth countries. We must convince them by our words and deeds in Brussels that we are determined to see that, as to the developing countries of the Commonwealth (and the other countries of the Commonwealth, too, to whom we owe so much, should not be forgotten) we act as their champions in the Economic Community.

I believe that if we tackle these three problems in a realistic and non-rhetorical way we shall have gone a very great way towards showing that President Bhutto's remarks about the Commonwealth are misjudged and unfounded; and eventually, who knows, when we have proved that, we may find—and I hope we shall—that Pakistan once more becomes a member of the Commonwealth.

4.18 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has, not for the first time, rendered a service to your Lordships' House and to the Commonwealth by raising this Question. My only regret is that, while it is very opportune since it is shortly before the Prime Ministers' Conference in Ottawa, it could not have been on a day when perhaps the House would have been more full. On the other hand, the service will be appreciated because the Lords Hansard is read in Commonwealth countries; and on some occasions I think they are read more fully and perhaps with more understanding than they are in this country.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway spoke of how illogical is the Commonwealth. How is it that this multitude of nations, cutting right across religion, race and colour, and political thought, still feel it right and in their interest to be banded together in a very loose organisation? I must admit that I find it increasingly difficult to explain the Commonwealth, particularly to my friends in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, spoke of the leadership required of Britain at the Prime Ministers' Conference. If I may say so, I rather preferred the views of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, when he spoke of the Commonwealth being comprised of equal partners. I feel that, while there needs to be some initiative by certain countries, the Commonwealth has a greater chance of succeeding in the political sense if there is a recognition of equal partnership. But the Commonwealth is held together perhaps more by the many and varied organisations than by the political interests. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke of the Commonwealth Secretariat. In a recent debate I spoke of the many varying organisations, many of them unofficial, which stem from and develop the internal interests of the people of the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that it is the wish of your Lordships that these should continue.

My Lords, I come to this debate refreshed. I mention it in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said about emerging nationalism. Nationalism in some fields has a rather dirty connotation. Some two weeks ago I was in the Bahamas to witness the Independence ceremony of the 33rd member of the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that there is always that moment of sadness when the Union Jack is lowered. I freely acknowledge that I shared in that feeling of sadness. But then, as on other occasions, one could not fail to be swept along by the surging enthusiasm of the new independent people as their emblem of independence is raised. So perhaps one has in one eye a tear of sadness and in the other a tear of joy. But I should not be particularly worried about this emerging nationalism. I believe that it is necessary if these developing countries are to be able to gear their own vitality to their own development. Indeed in some respects a little more nationalism of that sort in this country might well be to our benefit. The Prime Ministers' Conference may be a turning-point; but I suspect that it will not be. I think that a number of issues will be raised that will cause difficulties. Rhodesia, for instance, may be a temporary one. But, like my noble friend Lord Walston, I think that the views expressed perhaps more clearly in this House than in another place will see the Government through.

My Lords, there is only one area where things could go sour, if the Prime Minister and the Government are not very careful. I take it from the noble Lord, Lord Alport (and there have been other reports), that The Prime Minister does not intend to remain for the full period of the Prime Ministers' Conference. In my view, that would be a tragedy, not only for the Prime Minister but in terms of the Conference as a whole. If this were to happen it would be seen as a very considerable snub to the new Commonwealth. They would compare it with the undoubted warmth shown to the Prime Minister of Portugal when he recently visited London. So I hope there will be no question of the Prime Minister's feeling that there are other more interesting occupations than attending a Prime Ministers' Conference and that he will remain there and will see the discussions through.

My noble friend Lady Gaitskell spoke of aid and trade. This is a familiar theme from my noble friend, and I think that there will be no dissent from this House. Aid is essential but, above all else, trade is vital. Therefore we on this side of the House have always given careful consideration, following our entry into the E.E.C., to the proposals and arrangements, particularly for sugar. What we must bear in mind is the need to provide employment as much as providing in- come; for no amount of cash aid will replace or change the consequences of major unemployment in these sugar producing countries.

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garner, who spoke of the need for a permanent organisation to deal with emergencies and crises—natural crises—as they occur. I differ from him in only one respect: I feel that when these tragedies do occur they are of such severity that they are perhaps better dealt with by a permanent organisation of the United Nations than one of the Commonwealth. But if it was the intention and desire of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in unity, to proceed at the United Nations to see that such an organisation was set up I should be very much with the noble Lord.

He spoke of the need for not being too ambitious in terms of a conference. While I think that as a very well-respected Permanent Under-Secretary he may be right, in the sense that a little bit of cake is better than no cake at all, and that small achievements are better than no achievements at all, on the other hand there must be some star by which one seeks to guide the ship of state, or the Commonwealth as such. So I would not agree with him that we should not seek to find some common ground on the great issues which confront not only the Commonwealth but equally the world as a whole. My Lords, there are areas where I believe we could get agreement. Certainly the Singapore Conference—despite the very great dangers that were there as a consequence of the present Prime Minister and the understanding (or lack of understanding) of the Commonwealth—did produce, as my noble friend Lord Brockway said, a genuine statement of principle. The only difficulty, as he also said, is that it is very difficult for human beings to live up to the great statements of principle. Nevertheless, we could do a great deal more in moving towards those principles that were restated by my noble friend.

My Lords, I have spoken of sugar. I cannot help but feel that our optimism in terms of New Zealand and the consequences of British entry into the EEC is perhaps not as good or as bright as we once thought. I think that New Zealand is having a much more difficult time than we had hoped in adjustment in trade as a consequence of British entry. This, again, is a matter on which I hope that the Prime Minister will consult with his New Zealand opposite number at Ottawa. I cannot help but feel that this country did not do all it could have done in terms of the feelings of Australia, New Zealand and the general South Pacific countries on the dangers arising as a consequence of the French nuclear weapon. I would not have suggested that we, like the Australians, should put a ship alongside that of New Zealand, but, on the other hand, I think we could have been infinitely more forthright in our objection and condemnation of the pollution of the atmosphere in the Soutth Pacific by the French activities. If we had done so we could have given greater assurance to our friends in Australia and New Zealand that the Commonwealth, and our own particular links with them, are as strong as we in fact seek to make them.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, spoke with some doubt about the future of the Commonwealth and the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, spoke of the turning point. I have a very strong feeling that the links of the Commonwealth, fragile, brittle, and thin as they may appear to he, are a good deal tougher than we give credit for and a good deal stronger than anything that any government or any nation can impose upon them. I conclude with one comment. My noble friend Lord Hale spoke about President Amin of Uganda and his presence in Ottawa. If the President goes there I hope that it will not in any way provoke a confrontation between any of the States and Uganda. I believe that the Commonwealth Conference is of such importance that nothing should be allowed to place it in jeopardy. But it would provide an opportunity for the United Commonwealth to put its own immediate pressures on the President of Uganda. I hope that only good may come of that.

My Lords, this has been an important debate which I think will be read in many Commonwealth countries. We could send from this House a united message, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, would endorse, that in this country, despite the fact that we have entered the European Community, we still attach the greatest possible importance, not only to the political adhesion of the Commonwealth but also to the development of the economy and social life of its peoples. Because, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said with such great truth, it is only through development and social conditions that peace may be established. If that message could be conveyed to the leaders of the 33 Commonwealth countries in Ottawa, then I think that all the journeys to Ottawa will be well worth while.

4.32 p.m.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I hope very much that the Hansard report of this debate will be read and it will be seen what a great interest this House takes in the affairs of the Commonwealth as a whole. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alport on having seized the last possible moment of the last day of Parliament's sitting to raise in your Lordships' House, in a relevant way, the questions which are in our minds about the forthcoming Conference it Ottawa which is such a short time away.

I should like to start my remarks by giving a direct answer to the Question on the Order Paper. Her Majesty's Government consider that the objective before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Ottawa should be to achieve a frank, confidential, useful exchange of views on world issues which are of common concern. And all this, my Lords, among 32 nations of every race and creed who, I believe, despite their differences, have an undoubted affinity with each other. My noble friend Lord Alport asked whether Her Majesty's Government could not take a new initiative, but we have to remember that we are meeting with 31 other sovereign States. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and I very much welcome that fine speech by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who spoke more in the sense that the Commonwealth was meeting as equal partners in an informal and frank way. I am sure that the noble Lord is right; and may I say, referring to something that he said, that we discuss Commonwealth matters perhaps more often than he realises. We had a full-dress Commonwealth debate on May 9.

I feel that this Conference is of very great importance, and I am sure that M. Trudeau and all our Canadian friends will ensure, as our hosts in Ottawa, that we shall meet in a happy, informal way, which is the best guarantee for success. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Garner, in the tribute he paid to a great Canadian and a great former Commonwealth Prime Minister, Louis St. Laurent, who has only just died. He was well-known to my family. I think that all Canada will be sad that he has now passed on. He did a great deal for them.

We feel, my Lords, that the Commonwealth must, and always will, remain of great concern to this country because we believe it to be a stabilising force. There is no other forum in the world where countries with so many different backgrounds and differing experiences in development can meet together privately and be quite frank, and not have to explain themselves to each other. That, I think, is the greatest guarantee of its success. Of course it is true that there is a tendency, which has increased year by year, for countries to co-operate with their neighbours on a regional or continental basis. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, gave us one example, the South Pacific: but there is the Organisation of African Unity, the Association of South East Asian Nations and our own membership of the European Community. I suggest that this is natural and common sense for all these groupings. But it is precisely because the Commonwealth is representative of the major groupings in the world that the discussion in Ottawa is going to be so valuable, because it includes some of the largest and some of the smallest nations, from India, with her 550 million people, to Tonga with 90,000.

My noble friend Lord Alport said that he hoped that codes of conduct would be discussed at Ottawa. I think he was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who quoted in some detail from that striking Commonwealth Declaration which emerged from the last Heads of Government meeting in Singapore in 1971. I think it was a striking recognition of the unanimity with which nations which span six Continents and five oceans, of different race, language, religion and economic development, can together consider what are some of the most profound problems concerning the human race. Nevertheless, our different needs, as the result of differences in history and geography, create problems which we do not all share.

I suggest that the great problems of the world, which we share, are not necessarily going to be solved if they are discussed only among countries which hold identical views. That is why I think there is real value in a Conference such as this, and that is why the Heads of Government will not seek in Ottawa to reach decisions or to pass resolutions. I hope that there will be bilateral discussion. I think that these outside the actual conference chamber are some of the most valuable. I was greatly interested in Lord Garner's views on certain do's and don'ts, and particularly in what he had to say about the "monumental communiqué", with which I must say I am in considerable agreement.

With the rapid growth of membership of the Commonwealth, which has, after all, quadrupled over the last fifteen years, it has without doubt been difficult to preserve the intimacy which has been the envied feature of former Commonwealth gatherings. But I understand that there is a genuine wish, freely expressed, to try to capture the traditional Commonwealth style, and I am sure this will be found again at the Ottawa Conference: this is certainly what is in the mind of our host M. Trudeau.

Bangladesh has joined the Commonwealth since the last meeting, and so, indeed, have the Bahamas. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that, despite the sadness of leaving us, the excitement of independence, and a united independence, was something good to see. I think there will be a special welcome, therefore, for Sheikh Mujib and Mr. Pindling. Among those attending for the first time will be General Gowon, whose recent visit here gave us very great pleasure. There will also be the New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers, who will be attending for the first time. I am quite certain they will give us very valuable contributions.

A large number of Commonwealth countries will be represented by their Heads of Government, but not all. The Prime Minister will lead the British delegation. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that there were many discussions about changes of date for this meeting. It was very difficult indeed to try to get one date that would meet the convenience of so many people. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I cannot say now whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will stay all the time: I think this will depend very much on the progress of the Conference itself—and it is of course a fact that members come and members go according to the particular interests of the time. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be there, and he will be attending his eighth Heads of Government meeting. Noble Lords have referred to the visit to Canada of Her Majesty the Queen who has been invited there as Head of the Commonwealth and Queen of Canada. She will be there in Ottawa during the early part of the Conference.

I cannot speak to-day about the agenda for the Conference because this has not yet been settled nor will it be until the Heads of Government actually meet. The discussions between Governments and the Commonwealth Secretary-General (to whom I am so glad that tributes have been paid this afternoon) are meanwhile confidential. But I think one can make certain forecasts based on the interests one has found from visitors here or as one has gone about the Commonwealth. There are also the interests that one already knows.

There has been a major change in the world political scene since the last meeting in Singapore—and this has been referred to by many noble Lords—in other words, our entry into the European Communities. While I believe that certain political problems will be discussed, such as Uganda—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hale—and Rhodesia—referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Walston—I do not myself believe that political questions will hold the stage. I believe this Conference may well concentrate on economic questions, such as, for example, Britain's role in the Commonwealth now that we have joined the E.E.C. We shall make it perfectly clear that in joining the European Communities we hope that in time this will enhance our strength and therefore our ability to be of greater use to the Commonwealth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, spoke in particular of the developing countries, as did my noble friend Lord St. Just in speaking of Africa, together with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I should like to refer to the debate which is taking place in Brussels while we are here now. Twenty developing Commonwealth countries who are eligible for association to the E.E.C. under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession are taking part, together with the existing would-be Associates and a number of other African countries, in the opening meeting of negotiations for a new Convention of Association. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development is attending this conference on behalf of the United Kingdom. The proceedings began yesterday with a statement made on behalf of the Community by the President, and I am making arrangements for copies of that to be made available to your Lordships. The Community's statement in no way prejudges the contents of the new Convention of Association and this, I would suggest to your Lordships, is very good. The statement says that the contents will obviously depend on the wishes of the developing countries concerned and of course on the normal give and take of genuine negotiation; but the Community far their part have suggested that a Convention should include free entry for the bulk of the exports to the developing countries, subject to special arrangements for agricultural produce. They have not settled the question of whether the Community should in return seek trade reciprocity from the developing countries. It is good that the Community have not yet reached a final view on the trade structure of the new Convention because they await the views of their negotiating partners and they will take them into account in further internal deliberations.

The Community also made it clear that they do not seek in any way to suggest that the Commonwealth countries have to make a choice prematurely between the different options that will be open to them. That, too, is good. The Community have stressed that they want to embark on negotiations on the basis of a single model of association. We think that this is right, because it will afford those developing countries which enter into the new association the maximum advantages in trade and aid, and because it will encourage moves in Africa, the Caribbean and South Pacific towards regional economic unity. For those countries, however, who might wish to base their relations with the Community on a different model association, the second and third options under Protocol 22 will remain open; but no date is specified when the developing countries must choose.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I have been very interested in what the noble Baroness said about discussions at Brussels. Does she agree that there is the most extraordinary unity between African countries, Caribbean countries and the countries of the South Pacific in the proposals they are putting forward? Can we expect the British representative to be voicing the views of the Commonwealth in these negotiations?

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR BELHELVIE

My Lords, we have said many times that we will help the Commonwealth in any way that we can. As everybody knows, one of the striking facts is that there is a difference of view, for example, over reciprocity. We have said that we hope this question will remain open for a genuine negotiation. This is what has happened in the first statement from the Community. I think this is very good. Perhaps I should make plain that this was an opening statement on behalf of the Community. Today, and possibly tomorrow, those countries who are there will make statements on their reactions to the opening statement. There will then be time for further reflection by the Community, because the real negotiation as such does not start until probably the third week of September. During that time the Commission must take into account the views of those who are at the opening meeting. It must put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers, and the Council of Ministers must decide on a negotiating mandate which will be the first negotiating mandate. This has not yet been decided. The fact that so many questions, such as reciprocity and whether there should be a final date for joining, have been left open, is a good sign of the influence that Commonwealth countries, perhaps even Her Majesty's Government, might have exercised.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether it is true that 43 African countries have refused to give preference to E.E.C. exports? I read that in The Times.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

No, my Lords, that is not so. Nineteen countries are already associated under the Yaoundé II Convention. That Convention arranged that reciprocity should be given; but it is not mandatory and many countries do not give it. But some do and they like it that way—for example, Senegal. Of the Commonwealth countries who are eligible for association, the majority of these, if not all, would prefer not to have a definite arrangement on reciprocity, and these number roughly another 19; so it is not the big figure that the noble Baroness suggests.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to sugar, and I should perhaps mention in the context of the Community that the Commission have put forward proposals relating to the Community's future sugar policy. These will form the basis for negotiations to fulfil the Lancaster House Declaration of June, 1971, in respect of sugar from developing Commonwealth countries. I need hardly say that of course Her Majesty's Government stand by that Declaration.

I have spoken in some detail about the Protocol 22 negotiations because it is absolutely topical—it is happening now, at this minute—but I should like to make it clear that we attach equal importance to the Community's relations with other developing Commonwealth countries, and in particular the Asian Commonwealth countries. Their circumstances are of course rather different from the others, and, as noble Lords will be aware, they were offered different arrangements for ordering their trade relations with the enlarged Community. Annexed to the Treaty of Accession, as noble Lords know, is a Declaration of Intent by which the Community undertook—and I quote: To examine with these countries such problems as may arise in the field of trade with a view to seeking appropriate solutions. Of the Commonwealth countries that are covered by that joint Declaration, India is already negotiating with the Community. She seeks special arrangements to deal with the particular problems affecting her in trade in jute and coir products, and I understand these negotiations are nearing a successful conclusion. Then, negotiations have also begun for a commercial co-operation agreement between the E.E.C. and India. Malaysia, Singapore and Shri Lanka are also preparing for negotiations, and I should like to say here that we will do our best to help them in any way that we can.

My Lords, I think I should not speak so long on this last day, but I should like to thank all who have spoken in this important debate. I said at the start that our membership of the European Community does not mean a turning away from the Commonwealth, and our belief that this is so is borne out by the Declaration at the Summit Meeting in Paris last October that Europe could remain—and I quote: failthful to its traditional friendships and to the alliances of the Member States". Her Majesty's Government are determined that this should always be so and welcome the Commonwealth Conference at Ottawa as a means to that end.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

My Lords, I apologise for speaking. I did not come into the Chamber before because I did not want to be tempted to speak; I had not put my name down. But I should like to ask a question that is worth asking when this Commonwealth meeting takes place. There is one country that we have now recognised; namely, North Vietnam. South Vietnam is receiving a lot of attention. I wonder whether some attention could be given by the Commonwealth Conference to the possibility of aid towards North Vietnam, which I know very well and which I know needs it. It is worth getting on the Record that we think about it now that we have recognised it.

BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE

My Lords, these are problems which go very much wider than the Commonwealth as a whole. I said in my speech that the Agenda is not finally fixed. But if the Heads of Government read all that we have said, no doubt they will take account of it.