CAB/128/27 17 February 1954, Cabinet Meeting; Mau Mau

7/29/2019 CAB/128/27 17 February 1954, Cabinet Meeting; Mau Mau.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cab12827-17-february-1954-cabinet-meeting-mau-mau 1/11

(c) crown copyright

Catalogue Reference:CAB/128/27 Image Reference:0009



THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HER BRITANN IC MA J ESTY^ GOVERNMENT

Printed for the Cabinet. March 1954

SECRET Copy No. 4 1

C.C. (54) C A B I N E T O F F I C E

9th Conclusions R E C O R D C O P Y

CABINET

CONCLUSIONS of a Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 Downing Street, S.W.1,

on Wednesday, 17th February, 1954, at 11 a.m.

Present:

The Right Hon. Sir WINSTON CHURCHILL , M.P., Prime Minister.

The Most Hoa. the MARQUESS OF The Right Hon. L ORD SI MONDS, Lord SALISBURY , Lord President of the Chancellor. Council.

The Right Hon. Sir DAVID MAXWELL The Right Hon. R. A . BUTLER , M.P.,

F YF E , Q.C., M.P., Secretary of State Chancellor of the Exchequer.for the .. Home Department andMinister for Welsh Affairs.

The Right Hon. VISCOUNT WOOLTON, The Right Hon. H. F. C. CROOKSHANK,

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster M.P., Lord Privy Seal.and Minister of Materials.

The Right Hon. the EARL AL EXANDER The Right Hon. VISCOUNT SWINTON,

OF TUNI S, Minister of Defence. Secretary of State for CommonwealthRelations.

The Right Hon. OLIVER LYTTELTON, The Right Hon. J AMES STUART , M.P.,M.P., Secretary of State for the Secretary of State for Scotland.Colonies.

The Right Hon. Sir WALTER MONCKTON, The Right Hon. HAROLD MACMILLAN,

Q.C., M.P., Minister of Labour and M.P., Minister of Housing and LocalNational Service. Government (I tems 10-12).

The Right Hon. PETER THORNEYCROFT, The Right Hon. Sir THOM AS DUGDAL E,

M.P., President of theBoard of Trade. M.P., Minister of Agriculture andFisheries.

The Right Hon. FLORENCE HORSBRUGH, The Right Hon. GWTLYM LLOYD-

M.P., Minister of Education. GEORGE , M.P., Minister of Food.

The following were also present:

The Right Hon. J . P. L. T HO M A S, M.P., The Right Hon. ANTONY HEAD, M.P.,First Lord of the Admiralty (I tems Secretary of State for War (I tems 7-8).6-7).

The Right Hon. LORD D E L ' ISLE AND The Right Hon. G E OF F RE Y L L O Y D , M.P.,DUDLEY , Secretary of State for A ir Minister of Fuel and Power (Item 5).(Item 7).

The Right Hon. Sir DAVID ECCLES, The Right Hon. IAIN MACLEOD, M.P.,M.P., Minister of Works (Item 5). Minister of Health (Item 10).

The Right Hon. SELWYN LLOYD, Q.C., The Right Hon. Sir L I O NE L H E A L D , Q.C.,

M.P., Minister of State (I tems 1-9). M.P., Attorney-General (Item 8).

45742-1 B



The Right Hon. P A TR I C K B U C H A N - M r. A. R. W. L ow, M.P., ParliamentaryHEPBURN , M.P., Parl iamentary Secretary, M inistry of Supply (I temsSecretary, T reasury (I tems 1-4). 5-6).

Fi eld-M arshal Sir J O H N H A R DI N G ,

Chief of the I mperial General Staff(I tem 8).

Secretariat:

The Right Hon. Sir N O R M A N B R O O K .

M r. G. M A L L A B Y .

Mr. R. M. J . H A R R I S .

C O N TE N TS

MinuteNo. Subject Page

I Parliament ... ... ... 71 2 Education ... 71

Teachers' Superannuation. 3 Egypt ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4 Four-Power M eeting 72

5 A tomic Energy 72

U ranium Supplies.

6 E ast-W est T rade ... 73

7 A rmed Forces ...Pay.

8 K enya ... ... . . . . . . 75

General China.

Detention of M au M au Supporters.

9 British H onduras ... ... 76

77

77

77

10 N ational F ood Survey ...I I Betting, L otteries and Gaming12 I nternational L abour Conference, 1952

74.



1. T he Cabinet were informed of the business to be taken inthe H ouse of Commons in the fol lowing week.

The Lord Privy Seal said that the Opposition were delaying theprogress of the Committee Stage of the Housing Repairs and RentsBill; and, unless they could be brought to agree to a voluntary timetable, it would be necessary to apply a compulsory time-table providing for the completion of the Committee Stage by 18th M arch.If this course had to be adopted, the time-table motion would bedebated on the floor of the H ouse on 22nd February.

I n view of the approaching end of the Four- Power M eeting inBerlin, it would be necessary to grant the Opposi tion^ request for atwo-day debate on Foreign A ffairs. I t would meet the ForeignSecretary's convenience if this were held on 24th and 25th February,without any earlier statement by him; and every effort would bemade to persuade the Opposi tion to accept this arrangement. T heymight, however, press the suggestion that, if the debate could not beheld earlier in the week, it should be preceded by the issue of aW hi te Paper summarisi ng the results of the Berlin M eeting.

2. The M inister of Education reported that considerable opposition had developed among Government supporters to the Bill toincrease the superannuation contri buti ons of teachers. She had,however, addressed a meeting of Government supporters on thisquestion and she understood that many of those attending it werenow persuaded of the need for the Bill. She was satisfied that itrepresented a just and fair settlement, and that the G overnmentshould proceed with it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Bill was necessaryfor the purpose of limiting Exchequer liability on sound financiallines. T he only alternative was to ask the taxpayers to continueto pay £2-J mil lions a year toward the cost of teachers' pensionsbecause the teachers were unwi l l ing to pay their fair share. H erecommended that M inisters should continue to explain i nformallyto private groups of Government supporters the objects of the Billand the justif ication for it. H e would will ingly play his part in this.H e would hope that by this means the way could be prepared fortaking the Second Reading of the Bil l in the H ouse of Commonsearly in M arch.

The Cabinet—T ook note that the Chancel lor of the Exchequer and theM inister of Educati on would continue their efforts to rallysupport for the Teachers' Superannuation Bil l.

3. The Prime Minister drew attention to a telegram fromK hartoum (K hartoum Telegram N o. 28) reporting a speech madeby the Pri me M inister of the Sudan on the occasion of the anniversary

of the signing of the A nglo-Egyptian A greement. T he speech wasstrongly biased in favour of Egypt, and contained statements tothe effect that the Sudan would never consider herself free unlessthe Suez Canal was evacuated, and that Britain should realise thatthe time had passed for forcible occupation of other people's lands.T hese hosti le sentiments would be ill-received in this country.

T he C abi net-

T ook note of this statement.

- 1 B 2



4. The Minister of State said that the Four- Power M eetingin Berli n woul d be concl uded before the end of the week. I t wasalready clear that no agreement would be reached over Germanyor A ustria, but there was stil l a possibility of some agreement abouta Conference on the F ar E ast.

The Prime M inister said that, even though no decisions werereached, some advantage might accrue from the fact that there hadbeen no violent disharmony in the conduct of the discussions andno lasting sense of frustration at their conclusion. T he Cabinetwould wish to have an early opportunity of hearing the ForeignSecretary's account of the M eeting; and, if it were convenient tohim, the Cabinet might meet for that purpose on the afternoon of22nd February.

5. T he Cabinet had before them a memorandum by the L ordPresident (C. (54) 52) suggesting that the U ni ted K ingdom shouldtake a 50 per cent, share in the cost to be incurred by the U ni onM iniere du Haut K atanga (a Belgian Company) in respect of thecompletion of a treatment plant and further exploration work foruranium.

The Lord P resident said that the Belgian Congo was a majorsource of uranium for the Combined Development A gency (C .D.A .)and we provi ded 50 per cent, of the A gency's funds. W hen, early in1953, we had hoped to secure our urani um needs from A ustralia,the Cabinet had decided to l imit to 10 per cent, the U ni ted K ingdom'sshare in any further expenditure by the C.D .A . in the Congo. Ourhopes of meeting the bulk of our urani um needs from A ustral ia had,however, been disappointed and we were still dependent on thesupplies available to the C.D.A . M oreover, the Cabinefs decisionto limit our share in any further expenditure by the C.D .A . in theCongo had been taken under a misapprehension. I n fact, the U ni tedStates and the U ni ted K ingdom were each obliged by the terms oftheir agreement to pay 50 per cent, of new expenditure incurred bythe C.D .A . If the U ni ted States took more than 50 per cent, of theuranium mined, we were proportionately credited with dollars inthe dollar account supporti ng the agreement. I f we were to reduceour contribution in sterling below the 50 per cent., the only resultwould be that we should be debited by that amount in the dollaraccount. There seemed, therefore, no alternative but to continue tomake a 50 per cent, contribution to the cost of new work undertaken

by the C.D.A .The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that there was no

alternative to the course' proposed by the L ord President. H esuggested, however, that we should in addition make some tokenpurchases of urani um from C anada and conti nue to keep in mind thepossibi lity of future purchases from A ustralia. W e should not getourselves so far committed to obtaining uranium supplies from theC.D .A . that we no longer had the need or the resources to buy fromthe Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Secretary supported the views expressed bythe Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The C abi net-A greed that the U ni ted K ingdom Government should continue for the time being their participation in the CombinedDevelopment Agency, on the basis of a 50 per cent,contri bution towards new expenditure incurred by i t; butinvi ted the L ord President to arrange for some tokenpurchases of urani um from C anada and to keep in mind thepossibi lity of future purchases of uranium from A ustralia.



East/West

Trade.

(Previous

Reference:

C.C.(54)4th

Conclusions,

M inute 3.)

6. T he Cabinet considered a note by the Prime M inister(C . (54) 46) covering a report by a Committee under his Chairmanshipwhich had considered, in the light of the Cabi nets discussion on18th J anuary, the possibil ity of extending trade wi th countries in theSoviet bloc.

This Committee had agreed that, on the new strategic hypothesis

of a prolonged period of international tension without major war, itwould be reasonable that the restriction on exports to the Sovietbloc should in future be confined to goods of direct military valuetogether with some which, though not of direct military value, had asignif icant indirect mil itary importance. T he Committee had concluded that, if that principle were applied, the existing Embargo L istof Strategic Industrial Goods could be reduced from 263 items toabout 135. A ppendix I of their report contained a revised versionof this L ist comprising 133 items, on which full agreement had beenreached by all the interested Departments of the U ni ted K ingdomGovernment. T he questions reserved for decision by the.C abinetwere: (i) whether copper should be added to this L ist; and

(ii) whether there should also be added three further types of machinetool whose export to the Soviet bloc had been the subject of criticismduring the controversy on this question in 1950.

T he Cabinet first considered whether the export of copper tothe Soviet countries should continue to be prohi bited. I n favour ofthis course it was argued that copper was an important factor inmunitions' production and that the Soviet countries would be shortof it in war. I t would therefore be to our advantage to preventthem from building up a strategic stock of copper for use in war.I t was also argued that we should have a better chance of persuadingthe A mericans to accept our revised Embargo L ist if it includedcopper.

On the other side it was pointed out that the peace-time uses ofcopper were so numerous that it must be regarded as a basic industrialproduct. I ts continued denial to the Soviet countries would be moreconsistent with the earlier policy of seeking to hamper their generalindustrial development. There was a prospect of a substantialworld surplus of copper, which would make it easier for the Sovietcountries to satisfy their requirements despite any embargo bycountries in the Paris Group. If the embargo were li fted, sterlingarea countries could expect to secure a significant share of theexpanding market in Soviet countries; and much of the dealingswould be conducted through the L ondon M etal Exchange.

I t was the general view of the Cabinet that the balance of

advantage lay on the side of excluding copper from the revisedEmbargo L ist whi ch was to be discussed wi th the United Statesauthori ties—even though some concession might have to be madeto them on this point in the course of those discussions.

A s regards machine tools, it was argued that the three disputeditems (certain types of vertical boring and turning mills, large centrelathes and large planing machines) had no greater mil itary signif icancethan some of the items whi ch it was proposed to free from embargo.M oreover, two of these had hitherto been subject only to quantitativecontrol ; and it might prove difficult to persuade the other membersof the Paris Group to agree that they should henceforward be subjectto embargo. T here would be special difficulty in proposing theembargo of large planing machines, since machines for planingarmour-plate were already subject to embargo.

On the other hand, it was argued that these large machine toolswould be generally supposed to be required for munitions' producti on; and it was recall ed that they had been so represented byConservative spokesmen in the debate in the House of Commonson 18th September, 1950. Even though ci rcumstances had changedsince then, the Opposition were bound to charge the Government withinconsistency if they now proposed a revised Embargo L ist which did

45742- 1 3



A rmed Forces.

Pay. : .

(Previous

Reference: .

C.C. (54) 8th

Conclusions,

inutc 3.)^

not include these parti cul ar types of machine tool. Such a chargev/ould tend to confuse the issue and to weaken the G overnmentsgeneral case for seeking enlarged opportunities of trade with theSoviet countries.

I t was the general vi ew of the Cabinet that in these circum-

stances the three types of heavy machine tool discussed in para-graph 6 of the report annexed to C. (54) 46 should be includedin the revised E mbargo L ist of Strategic I ndustrial Goods.

A s regards the tactics to be followed in presenting these pro-posals to the Uni ted States Government, it was agreed that therevised Embargo L ist should be put forward as the result ofapplying a new policy consistent with the new hypothesis of aprol onged period of international tension wi thout major war. I t wassuggested in discussion that it might be inexpedient to inviteM r. Harold Stassen, the D irector of the Foreign Operations A dmini -stration, to come to L ondon to discuss this question in person— bothbecause this might weaken the influence which he could exercise on

this matter in W ashington, and also because the subsequent negotia-tion of a new agreement in the Paris Group might be made moredifficult if it were known that it had been the subject of prior f[. jconsul tation between ourselves and the A mericans. The PrimeMinister said that he woul d prefer to put the suggestion toM r. Stassen and leave him to form his own judgment on both thesepoints.

T he Cabinet—

(I ) A pproved the revised Embargo L ist of I ndustrial Goods setout in A ppendix I of the report annexed to C. (54) 46,subject only to the addition of the three types of machine

tool mentioned in paragraph 6 of that report.(2) Agreed that it would be a reasonable policy in present

circumstances that the countries represented in the ParisG roup should henceforward be free to export to theSoviet bloc any goods save those included in theM unitions L ist, the A tomic Energy L ist and the L ist ofStrategic I ndustrial Goods revised in accordance wi thConclusion (1) above.

(3) Agreed that this revised L ist of Strategic I ndustrial Goodsshould be presented to the U ni ted States Government asthe result of applying a new poli cy consistent wi th the .new hypothesis of a prolonged period of international

g

f '

tension without major war.(4) T ook note that the Prime M inister would ascertain whetherthe D irector of the Foreign Operations A dministrationof the U ni ted States Government would be wi ll ing tocome to L ondon to discuss this matter in person with theU ni ted K ingdom M inisters concerned; and, if that could

. not be arranged, would consider by what other means we should seek to reach agreement with the U ni ted States Government on a new policy for extending trade with the Soviet bloc on the lines approved by the Cabinet.

(5) T ook note that the F irst L ord of the A dmiralty.would submit, to the Cabinet a separate report on the export of ships to

countries in the Soviet bloc.

7. T he Cabinet discussed the timing and presentation of theproposed increases in Service pay.

A s regards presentation, the M inister of Labour said that awk-ward comparisons could be drawn between the increases proposedfor skilled tradesmen in the Services and the increases claimed inthe current wages disputes in the engineering and shipbuildingindustries. I t was therefore important that the scheme should beso presented as to cause the least possible embarrassment to the



S i l l

K enya.

General China.(Previous

Reference:

C.C. (54) 8th

Conclusions,

M inute 8.)

Detention of

M au M a u

Supporters.

employers' representatives in their efforts to resist those claims. H ehoped that the Service M inisters would do their utmost to meet hisviews on the presentation of the scheme.

A s regards timing, the Cabinet agreed that the announcementof the scheme must be made before the debates in the House of

Commons on the Service Estimates. I t would be preferable that ageneral announcement should be made in the Defence Debate on2nd M arch, and that the detail s should be publ ished later that dayin the form of a White Paper. A n early announcement was madeall the more desirable by the partial disclosures which had alreadybeen published in certain newspapers.

T he Cabinet—

(1) A greed that the scheme of the increases in Service pay whichthe Cabinet had approved on 10th February should beannounced in general terms in the course of the DefenceDebate on 2nd M arch, and that the detail s should be

published later that day in a White Paper.(2) I nvited the M inister of Defence to consult with the M inisterof L abour on the terms of the general announcementand of the proposed Whi te Paper, with a view toreducing as far as practicable the diff iculties to which thisannouncement was likely to give rise in the settlement ofthe current wages disputes in the engineering and ship-building industries.

8. The Prime Minister drew attention to a telegram from theGovernor of K enya stating that there was now some possibil ity thatGeneral China might be ready to arrange for a substantial numberof M au M au rebels to surrender under the condi tions of the amnestyoffer and that, if he were able to bring this about, this would justifythe commutation of his sentence. T he Pri me M inister expressed theview that, once negotiations had been opened with General C hina onthat basis, it would not be justif iable to execute the death sentenceeven if the negotiations failed.

The Colonial Secretary did not dissent from that view. H ehimself adhered to his original opinion that this sentence should havebeen carried into effect, despite any attempt by General China to

purchase his li fe by an offer to give information or to procure thesurrender of a number of his followers. But the exercise of clemencywas a matter for the G overnors discretion, in which he did notpropose to intervene.

The Cabinet—

(1) T ook note of these statements.

T he Cabinet considered a memorandum by the Colonial Secre-tary (C. (54) 50) recommending that more effective steps should betaken to neutrali se the passive supporters of M au M au and, inparticular, the large numbers of unemployed K ikuyu who had drif ted

into N airobi . H e proposed that the Governor of K enya should beauthorised to hold substantially increased numbers of these persons indetention and that, while under detention, they should be required toundertake Useful employment. This course had been recommendeddespite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach ofthe Forced L abour Convention of 1930 and of the Convention onH uman Rights adopted by the Council of E urope.

The Colonial Secretary said that, since his memorandum wascirculated, the legal difficulties had been further discussed with repre-sentatives of the other Departments concerned. A s a result i t wasnow agreed that breach of the two Conventions could be avoided if



British

Honduras.

(Previous

Reference:

C.C. (53) 70th

Conclusions,

M inute 6.)

the employment to be undertaken in the detention camps were insome way related to the emergency. I t was therefore proposed thatthe regulation authorising compulsory employment should containwords to the effect that any person detained in a special detentioncamp might be usefully employed in work which, in the opinion ofthe officer in charge, would assist in bringing the emergency to an

end. H e proposed to instruct the Governor to make the regulationin this form. I n these circumstances it woi ild probably beunnecessary to pay market rates of wages for work undertaken byprisoners in the detention camps.

The Minister of Labour welcomed this modification of the proposal originally put forward in C. (54) 50. I t would be much easierto defend this modifi ed plan if it were challenged at an I nternationalL abour Conference or elsewhere.

The Cabinet—

(2) A pproved the proposals for large-scale detention of M auM au supporters in K enya, and for requiring them to

undertake useful employment while under detention, onthe basis proposed in the discussion; and authori sed theColonial Secretary to instruct the Governor of K enyaaccordingly.

9. T he Cabinet had before them memoranda by the ColonialSecretary (C. (54) 56 and 57) recommendi ng the immediate publ ication of certain documents indicating that the leaders of the People'sU nited Party (P.U .P.) in British H onduras had sought aid fromGuatemala.

The Colonial Secretary drew attention to his proposal inC. (54) 56 that publ ication of the documents contained in A nnex Ato that paper and A nnex B to C. (54) 57, whi ch he recommended,should be followed by the immediate appointment of an enquiry intotheir authenticity and into other current allegations of links betweenthe P.U .P . and Guatemala. T he alternative course woul d be topublish the documents and awai t public reactions to them beforeinstituting any enquiry.

I n discussion there was support for the view that it would beprudent to take all practicable steps to establish the authenticity ofthe documents in question before they were published, and that anyenquiry which might be instituted for this purpose should not be

confined to that narrow issue but should extend to current allegationsof links between the P.U .P . and Guatemala generally.

The Colonial Secretary said that this course would be acceptableto him. T he Cabinet should realise, however, that such an enquiry,even if it could be initiated on a confidential basis, would be boundto become a matter of public knowledge before long.

The Minister of State said that the Foreign M inisters of L atin-A merican States were due to meet in conference in Caracas on1st M arch and there woul d be some advantage in deferring for aslong as possible any charges of interfering in the affairs of BritishH onduras which we might eventuall y find it necessary to bring, ifonly by implication, against the Guatemalan Government.

T he Cabinet—

I nvi ted the Colonial Secretary to arrange for an enquiry tobe held into current allegations of l inks between the P.U .P .and Guatemala, with particular reference to the documentsannexed to his memoranda, and to defer publishing thesedocuments until this was made necessary by the course ofthe enquiry.



National Food

Survey.

(Previous

Reference:

C.C. (53) 80th

Conclusions,M inute 4.)

Betting,

L otteries and

Gaming.

(Previous

Reference:

C.C. (54) 8th

Conclusions,

M inute 10.)

10. T he Cabinet had before them a memorandum by theM inister of F ood (C . (54) 42) on the question whether, beforepublication of the N ational Food Survey's A nnual R eports for 1952and 1953, the Government should announce special measures to helpfamilies with three or more children.

The Minister of F ood said that these A nnual Reports, whichwould become available during the course of the present year andwhich he would be pressed to publish without delay, would showthat the nutritional position was generally satisfactory and, inparticular, that there was no ground for anxiety about the diet ofold-age pensioners. T hey would, however, reveal a deterioration inthe nutritional standards, as reflected in consumption of calciumand protein expressed as a percentage of need, of families with threeor more children, which accounted for 20 per cent, of the populationand about 40 per cent, of schoolchi ldren. T his deteri oration had notbeen halted by the increase made in 1952 in family allowances. Whi lehe had no specifi c proposal to make at this stage, it was for con

sideration whether the Government ought not to be ready with plansfor helping such families, for example by increasing the amount ofmilk supplied free to children in schools.

The Minister of Health said that the evidence available in hisDepartment— for example, the weights of children entering the Stateschools— tended to confirm that there had been some deteriorationin the health standards of children belonging to larger families. I tseemed desirable, however, that the problem should be examined ingreater detail before specific remedies were considered and it mightbe found convenient to refer it for such examination to the interdepartmental standing Committee on M edical and Nutri tional

Problems.The Minister of Education said that, when these Reports were

published, the Government were likely to incur renewed criticism forhaving raised the price of school meals.

I t was the general view of the Cabinet that several aspects ofthe problem required closer investigation. F or example, did consultation of three thousand households every quarter constitute anadequate basis for Government action in a matter of this kind? W asit the case that family allowances were proving inadequate or ratherthat they were not spent on objects of the kind for which they wereintended? D id the decreased consumption of calcium and protein

in larger families reflect under-nourishment of children or of parents?T he Cabinet—

(1) A greed that publi cation of the N ational Food Survey R eportsfor 1952 and 1953 should not be delayed on account ofthe points raised in C. (54) 42.

(2) I nvi ted the M inister of Food and the M inister of Health toobtain the comments of the inter-departmental standingCommittee on Food and Nutritional Problems on thefindings of those Reports on the nutri tional standards oflarger families and on the points raised in the C abinefsdiscussion; and to report further to the Cabinet on this

question in the light of the Committee's comments.

1.1. T he Cabinet again had before them memoranda by theH ome Secretary (C . (53) 317 and C. (54) 41) on the recommendations made in the R eport of the Royal Commission on B etting,L otteries and Gaming (Cmd. 8910).

The Home Secretary said that this matter had lost its immediateurgency as M r. G. R. M itchison, M .P., had now indicated that hedid not intend to proceed wi th his M oti on and resolution on thesubject, which were down as Second Order for 19th February. On



\o the other hand, the subject was bound to attract public attentionbefore long owing to the need for an enquiry into the state of theL eeds Pol ice Force, whi ch had become seriously corrupted throughthe prevalence of illegal betting in that city. H e would, therefore,welcome early authority from his colleagues to explore, in informaldiscussions with Opposition leaders, the possibilities of promoting a

solution to the problem in an atmosphere as free as possible fromParty controversy.

The Cabinet-A greed to consider the H ome Secretary's memoranda(C. (53) 317 and C . (54) 41) at their meeting on24th February.

I nternational 12. T he Cabinet had before them a memorandum by theL abour M inister of L abour (C. (54) 25) seeking authority for the issue of aConference, W hite Paper declaring the G ov ernments atti tude to three Conven

1952. tions and three Recommendations adopted by the InternationalL abour C onference in 1952.

The M inister of Labour said that he was proposing ratif icationof one Convention, acceptance of one Recommendation, and rejectionof the remaining two Conventions and two Recommendations ontechnical grounds. T he general effect of his proposals wassummarised in paragraph 3 of C. (54) 25. T hey would not involveeither legislation or additional public expenditure.

The Cabinet-A pproved the proposals in C. (54) 25 for dealing wi th theConventions and Recommendations of the I nternational

L abour Conference, 1952, and authorised the M inister ofL abour to present these proposals to Parl iament in a WhitePaper.

Cabinet Office, S.W.1, 17th F ebruary, 1954.

Documents

CAB/128/27 17 February 1954, Cabinet Meeting; Mau Mau