HC Deb 08 March 1950 vol 472 cc285-97

2.37 p.m.

The Secretary, of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker)

With permission, I should like to make a statement to the House. The House is already aware of difficulties which have arisen in the Bechuanaland Protectorate over the question whether Seretse Khama should be recognised as chief of the Bamangwato tribe. In September, 1948, Seretse married an Englishwoman. The marriage was disapproved by the tribal assembly in November, 1948, and again, though less decisively, in December, 1948; but in June, 1949, the assembly declared their acceptance of Seretse as chief, notwithstanding his marriage. This was followed by the withdrawal into voluntary exile, from the reserve, of the regent Tshekedi Khama and a number of leading men of the tribe.

In the Bechuanaland Protectorate succession to the office of chief is subject to recognition by the High Commissioner and confirmation by the Secretary of State. In the event of doubt arising provision exists enabling the High Commissioner to appoint a judicial inquiry of an advisory character to investigate and report to him. Such an inquiry was duly set up in this case and its Report was received in December last.

His Majesty's Government felt that it would be of advantage to discuss the matter with Seretse before reaching a decision. He reached London on 13th February. The subject has now been discussed at length in a series of meetings between Seretse, my predecessor, the Lord Privy Seal and myself. Seretse was accompanied by his legal advisers, whose attendance was facilitated by His Majesty's Government. We explained to him that His Majesty's Government viewed with grave concern the danger which recognition would cause to the unity and wellbeing of the tribe and the administration of the Protectorate. We impressed upon him that in this matter His Majesty's Government had to take into account not only their paramount responsibility for good government in the Protectorate, but also all the circumstances known to them. I put to him our view that in all the circumstances the best solution would be for him voluntarily to relinquish his claim to the succession. Seretse, however, did not see his way to accept our view.

It therefore remained with His Majesty's Government to settle the issue. They have decided, after most careful consideration of all relevant factors, that in present circumstances the High Commissioner must be instructed to withhold recognition of Seretse as chief, and that recognition must be withheld for a period of years. This period must be of such length as experience shows to be necessary for the disappearance of the present tendencies to disruption which threaten the unity and well-being of the tribe. In the view of His Majesty's Government the period required will certainly not be less than five years, and at the end of it the situation will be reviewed.

During this time Seretse will be required to reside outside the Protectorate and will be unable to revisit it unless special permission should be given. A suitable allowance will be paid to him to enable him to provide for himself and his wife while living outside the Protectorate. The decision has been communicated to Seretse and will be announced by the High Commissioner to the tribe as soon as a tribal meeting can be assembled.

While the chieftainship is in suspense Tshekedi, whose regency will have come to an end, will be required to reside outside the Bamangwato reserve, and will not be allowed to enter the reserve unless special permission should be given. For the immediate future the District Commissioner will continue closely to supervise the administration and will exercise the functions of the native authority. This is, however, a purely temporary expedient to meet quite exceptional circumstances. Steps will be taken to ensure that the- inhabitants of the reserve are again associated with the conduct of their affairs as soon as practicable, with the aim of giving fuller scope for popular opinion to make itself legitimately felt.

Responsibility for some of the duties normally performed by the native authority will, for the time being, be transferred to a small council of leading and suitable persons as soon as they are prepared to come forward and serve in such capacity; and other duties will be transferred to the council as soon as it displays competence and the interests of peace and good government permit. Specific instructions have been given that such a council should be formed as soon as possible.

Looking beyond the transitional period, His Majesty's Government will also explore every opportunity that offers to give the native administration a more representative character. This development is fully in accordance with His Majesty's Government's policy today of affording the people of the African territories for which they are responsible, a fuller say and more direct participation in the conduct of their own affairs.

Mr. Clement Davies

I deeply regret that the Government have felt compelled to arrive at this decision. One does not like interference in domestic matters of this kind between man and wife, especially when, quite obviously, questions of colour arise. But I am sure there are other matters about which, apparently, we are ignorant at present, and, of course, questions as to what may happen with regard to the tribe must be given fullest consideration. May I say that I want to reserve every right—

Mr. Speaker

Hon. Members must ask questions; we cannot debate the matter.

Mr. Sorensen

is the Minister aware that this matter is already having very grave repercussions in many parts of the world, particularly within the Commonwealth? Can he give an assurance that the statement, reported in the Press, that Seretse had been tricked has no foundation? Further, may I ask whether in this matter the Minister has had any communication from the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

If I might answer the second question first, we have had no communication from the Government of the Union nor have we made any communication to them. There have been no representations and no consultation in this matter. Regarding the question whether Seretse Khama was tricked into coming to this country, as he alleged in a statement which he made to the Press, I am glad that question has been asked because it was an entirely untrue and irresponsible statement to make, though I think that when he made it Seretse Khama was in a very distressed state of mind, as it was after I had told him of our decision. The truth is that we asked him to come to this country because we wanted to put to him that in the general interest, it would be wiser if he could agree to make a voluntary renunciation. No pressure was brought to bear on him. The question was put to him, and he, quite within his rights, decided that he could not make such a renunciation. We then came to our decision, which excludes him from the reserve and the territory. There is nothing to stop him going back. We cannot keep him in England; we have no power and no desire to do that. He could go back, and would then meet with the fact that he was excluded from the Protectorate. Had he not come to London we would have issued the same statement of policy and would have excluded him in the same way from the Protectorate, and he would, therefore, have been in the same position had he not come to London. He was not, therefore, tricked or in any way disadvantaged by coming here. Had he not come, he would not have had the advantage of discussions with us or of being informed of our decision, which would have been announced without discussion. On balance, he had an advantage in coming here.

Mr. Churchill

Could the right hon. Gentleman let us know the character of the invitation or summons that was sent to Seretse Khama? Was there in it any intimation that he might be forbidden to return to the Protectorate for five years? I am glad to hear that, apparently, he is free to return. Is that so? Can he return at any moment? Otherwise, quite apart from the large issues which are raised in this matter, and which I would not attempt to discuss at this time, the question I would ask is whether this chief is being treated quite fairly as between man and man. That is a point which causes some anxiety. To put the point precisely, was he aware beforehand that this decision might be given against him and that he would be the subject of this special regulation and restriction?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I should, perhaps, correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point. I did not say that he could return to the Protectorate; I said that he could leave England and could go back to the Protectorate where he would find that an exclusion order had been issued against him. But had he not come to London he would have been in exactly the same position. In that way, therefore, he was in no sense tricked by being brought to London. As to the character of the summons, which was the other part of the question, there was no summons, but an invitation both to Seretse Khama and his wife to come and talk this matter over with us. Seretse Khama accepted, his wife declined. In neither case was pressure brought to bear on them. There was no summons. He certainly knew that this decision—or something like it—excluding him from the Protectorate might be issued against him because he asked for a guarantee that it would not be. No such guarantee was given. He was certainly aware of that possibility, and, indeed, every chief or chief-elect knows it because it is inherent in the whole legal position there. The fact that he asked for a guarantee is proof that he knew this might he done, and no guarantee was given.

Mr. Churchill

Where would the exclusion order be enforced? Would it be enforced at the frontiers of the Protectorate or after he had re-entered the Protectorate?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

Technically, after he had re-entered the Protectorate. He would only have to put one foot across it. Technically, it is an exclusion order from within.

Mr. Churchill

Have we not, as it were, enticed this man to come over here to have talks on the whole question? Now that he wishes to go back is it not a fact that if he puts one foot across the border of his native land he is to be stopped by force?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

No, I cannot agree that we have enticed him. He would be in exactly the same position, as I tried to explain, had he not come. He would today have been excluded from his territory in exactly the same way. Had he flown back this morning he would have found himself in exactly the same position. He was not enticed here and has suffered no disadvantage by coming here.

Mr. Churchill

Surely he would not be in the same position until he gets back into his territory—in the exact situation he was in when he agreed to come to England.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

He would today be in exactly the same position—excluded from the Protectorate—whether in the Protectorate or in London. Had he returned this morning he would be in exactly the same position, irrespective of whether he had come to London or not.

Mr. Churchill

Will the Minister give full consideration to the point of honour which is involved? I am not trying to deal with the large questions at all. Will he consider whether it would not be better to allow this man to return to exactly the same position that he was in at the point when the correspondence took place, whatever are the Government's views, rights and authority in the matter?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I have, of course, found this a very difficult decision to take. There have been some very difficult problems, and I have done my utmost throughout to preserve honour between man and man in this matter. The decision as to whether he goes back is not for me but for him to make. I can neither keep him in England nor remove him from England. If he chose to go back he would be in the same position. He would find himself excluded from the Protectorate just as he would had he remained there. I do not think I can reconsider this matter. I can only reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given anxious consideration to the point of honour, as to other points.

Mr. Fenner Brockway

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very grave concern among all sections of our community at the fact that a colour bar, which influences certain quarters, has determined the decision of the Government on this matter? I want to give notice—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I am aware that that view is held. I can only say it has not been the motive in the Government's mind in coming to a decision.

Hon. Members

What is the motive?

Sir Herbert Williams

Is this the first time that any British Government has imposed a colour bar in any part of the British Empire? By what statutory authority does the right hon. Gentleman exclude a British subject from any particular part of His Majesty's Dominions?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

In reply to the second part of that question, the Foreign Jurisdiction Act gives us complete control over the people who live in the Protectorate. There is no doubt about our legal rights to do this. It happens to come technically under that. If the hon. Member looks up the Act he can satisfy himself on that. There has been no colour bar imposed in this matter. The Government have not considered the question of mixed marriage as such. Seretse Khama and his wife can live in England or anywhere else they like without any let or hindrance. It has only become a question because of the fact that he was the next chief of his tribe. It has not become a question of itself, and we have not considered it as a question.

Mr. Driberg

Can my right hon. Friend explain where Seretse can now go to rejoin his wife, with whom, presumably, he would wish to be at this time?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

In general, he can live where he likes outside the Protectorate—in Paris, London or anywhere else. With regard to the question of the immediate future of his wife, who is due to have a baby in a few months time, I told Seretse Khama that I would fly his wife to London, with all medical attention, and give her full medical attention here if he and she consented. There was no truth in the allegation that I had threatened to have her removed. I said she would not be brought unless both he and she agreed. He told me this morning he did not want to agree to that. I then made it clear that we were going to arrange for him to go back to Lobatsi so that he could take part in the hearing of a legal case about his property. We would arrange the date in such a way that he could be there before and during his wife's confinement, and she could be brought there so that they could be together. It is a small journey and there are good medical facilities. I have made it clear that when the case is finished, and the confinement is over, we shall have to enforce our exclusion of both Seretse Khama and Mrs. Khama.

Sir Peter Macdonald

Is there any precedent for having deprived a chieftain of his chieftainship? Can the Report on which the decision is based be placed in the Library of the House, so that we may acquaint ourselves with the circumstances?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I think there are precedents for this, but, whether there are or not, there is no doubt we have a legal right to do what we have done. I would not like to publish the Report. It was at the discretion of the High Commissioner, as instructed by myself or my predecessor, whether or not he should set up this inquiry in the first place. The Report is advisory. It is only one of the many factors we have had to take into consideration in coming to our decision. It would give a disjointed appearance if this one factor of those we have had to take into account were made public. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be pressed to make the Report public.

Mr. John Lewis

As it has been made clear in the statement that, for a period at least, there is to be direct Government rule, would my right hon. Friend say what form of government he contemplates for the future and what administrative changes he has in mind?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I am very glad that the hon. Member asked that question. It throws a light on another aspect of this very difficult problem. We are going to set up direct rule in the immediate future, because there must be authority in this reserve. But the instructions issued are that, as quickly as possible, a council of Africans in the reserve shall be set up, so that they can have progressively transferred to them powers in their own affairs. Secondly, we are to take steps for the increasing participation of the people of the Bamangwato reserve in their own affairs. It is not generally known that the Bamangwato tribe proper, of which Seretse is chief-designate, are only 18,000 in number and that they rule over 82,000 other subject peoples. We intend to devise steps to—I do not know whether to use the word "democratise"—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Mutualise."]—draw these 82,000 people, who are, at the moment, excluded from controlling their own affairs, into a share in the control of them.

Sir Ian Fraser

While noting that the South African Government has not been consulted and has not expressed any opinion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that 99 per cent. or more of the Europeans who live in South Africa, of all races, and probably the overwhelming majority of the Bantu, who are capable of understanding this matter, would not be sympathetic to mixed marriage? Is he aware that mixed marriages are illegal in South Africa and offensive to the whole of the population there in our sister country, and also in the territories adjoining South Africa? In those circumstances, will he agree that this factor, vitally affecting public opinion in our sister country, must be taken into account?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

There is, of course, opinion of that sort in the Union and some other territories, but it has not been taken into account by the Government. It would have been improper for us to have taken it into account. We had to take our decision, to the best of our ability, in the interests of the future of the tribe.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

My right hon. Friend, in his original statement, said that where there was a doubt as to the succession there was a process of a judicial advisory tribunal and a Report was made. Will he let the House know whether, in that Report, the legal position of Seretse as chief of the tribe was confirmed or not?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

For the same reasons that I have asked the House not to press for the publication of the Report, I think I should decline that information.

Mr. Leslie Hale

Is it not a fact that Seretse Khama is the grandson of Khama and that it has never been disputed that Tshekedi was the regent? Does this report really mean that Seretse has been excluded from the whole Protectorate while Tshekedi has only been excluded from the country of the Bamangwato? If so, why this differentiation? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of making a forthright declaration that there is no intention of going back on the agreement of 1895 that Bechuanaland will remain under the direct control of the Crown, and that there is no question of departing from that decision?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I can certainly give the last assurance. I am also aware of the heredity of Seretse Khama and Tshekedi. It is true that Seretse Khama will be excluded from the entire Protectorate and that Tshekedi will be excluded from the reserve only. The chief reason is that we are satisfied that if we do keep Tshekedi out of the reserve and lay certain conditions upon him about not interfering in any way in the affairs of the tribe, that will not in any way endanger peace and order, whereas Seretse's presence in the Protectorate might cause trouble from that standpoint. Tshekedi will be excluded for the same length of time as Seretse. He will be under the same prohibitions about interfering with the internal affairs of people there; that would be a condition of exclusion. If that were offended against in any way we would have to think about it.

Mr. Churchill

May I return to the very simple point in which some of us on this side are interested, namely, the question of whether he was enticed over here under false pretences or not, and whether he will be restored to his previous position? Where is Mrs. Khama at present, and where was she at the time when Seretse Khama took leave of her? Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that Seretse has a right to go back to that very place and meet her at that very place before the Government take any further action in the matter?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

At the time when Seretse Khama left, his wife was in Serowe, the capital. I have had a telegram today that says she has moved a little way down the railway line to a place which is still in the reserve and which has certain facilities that she needs. I could not give an undertaking that Seretse Khama could go back to the reserve to meet his wife. There are obviously very grave difficulties about peace and order at this critical moment, but he can go back, and we will arrange it, to Lobatsi, which is near at hand and which happens to be a place where there are the medical facilities needed and where he can be joined by his wife. It is not far away. I am sure that is no imposition. Should Seretse Khama change his mind about his wife being brought to London, our offer, of course, still holds good.

Mr. Churchill

It is a very disreputable transaction.

Mr. Wyatt

Is it true that Seretse Khama was never shown a copy of the Report of the inquiry to which my right hon. Friend has referred? Would my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter about its publication, because if the Report is not published the only conclusion that will be drawn throughout large parts of the Commonwealth will be that a colour bar has operated? The other reasons will never be given.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I have given other reasons in the statement that I made; it is rather lengthy and I hope hon. Members will read it with care. It is true that Seretse Khama was not shown a copy of the Report because, as I have said, it was one of the many factors that we had to take into account in the very careful inquiries we made, including, I may say, the recall of our High Commissioner for the better part of a month so that we could discuss it with him in great detail. It is for the same reason that I do not want to publish it that it was not shown to Seretse Khama, because it is merely one of a number of factors that we had to take into account.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that it was untrue to suggest that any of these questions raised by my hon. Friends about mixed marriages and so on, and the opinion of white people in South Africa on that subject, had been discussed at all in this matter. Can he give the assurance that none of that was mentioned in the Report?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I would not like to say anything one way or the other about what was in the Report. What I can say is that this factor of the desirability of mixed marriages as such did not enter at all at any point into our minds, apart from this connection of this man and his chieftainship—not the question of mixed marriages as such—and we are not passing judgment upon the question of mixed marriages. It is, of course, a legitimate marriage and we are doing nothing whatever, nor would we wish to do anything, about that at all.

Captain Duncan

In view of the fact that this decision may lead to disorder in the country, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is adequate force in the country to maintain law and order? If reinforcements are necessary, will he give an assurance that they will not come from the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I hope that this decision will prevent disorder that might otherwise have arisen. We have taken the precautions that have seemed necessary to us in the circumstances.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Could the Secretary of State tell us what exact payment is to be made to this gentleman and whether it is to be paid by the Colonial Office?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

It is certainly not to be paid by the Colonial Office. The details of payment are still to be discussed with Seretse Khama. The offer I made to him, and which he can accept or not, as he wishes, was that he should be paid £1,100 a year. But I would sooner not answer detailed questions until I have seen him again on this matter, which will be in a day or two.

Mr. S. Silverman

Whether or not it is desirable to publish the Report of the judicial inquiry, would my right hon. Friend explain how it can be right to withhold the result of that inquiry from a man who was the principal witness and who is principally affected by it? How can it be right to withhold the Report from Seretse himself?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

All the evidence before the court was in public, and Seretse Khama was represented throughout. He heard, either himself or through his representatives, all the evidence given on both sides. The conclusions and arguments in the Report, on the other hand, are. purely advisory to the High Commissioner and myself. Seretse Khama knows and has at his disposal all the evidence given, including his own.

Mr. Silverman

Does not my right hon. Friend see that the fact that all the evidence was in public and can be read by all the world is a reason for publishing the Report and not for withholding it?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

That would be a valid argument if this were a court. This is a body giving an advisory opinion to a Government that has to take a decision of policy in this matter.

Mr. Speaker

I think we should get on with Business. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Brockway

On a point of Order. May I give notice, Sir, that I intend to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment?

Mr. Sorensen

Arising from that point, may I express the difficulty in which some of us find ourselves? We were hesitant to say that we would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and when we saw you rise, Mr. Speaker, we remained in our places, thinking that we could go no further in the matter. Do we now understand that the matter will be raised on the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker

There will be a chance of debating it on the Adjournment whenever the opportunity arises.