HC Deb 28 July 1950 vol 478 cc850-60

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

I wish this morning to draw the attention of the House mainly to the question of the revision of the Fijian Constitution. I say "mainly," because I understand from the Minister that he feels he will be able to say what he wishes in about 10 minutes only and that will give me about 20 minutes to try to make the case I wish to make. I therefore wish to spend the first few minutes in calling the attention of the House to the more general problems raised by the present colonial policy and then, later, to go on to the particular problems as they affect Fiji.

May I first say, however, that I believe it is generally felt in most parts of the House that opportunities for Colonial Debates are far too infrequent. I have taken quite a considerable interest in Colonial affairs, having had the opportunity, during the war, of visiting a number of Colonies. In spite of that, in the last 12 months, I have only had the opportunity to speak for one period of about 20 minutes and I feel that something has to be done to give hon. Members who take an interest in Colonial affairs more opportunity of debating these very important matters which are now arising. I expect many hon. Members have thought on many occasions of the. lack of opportunities in this House and have thought out various ways and means whereby more time could be spent in debating these matters.

It may be that a suggestion, which I can only touch on now, will appeal to my hon. Friend. That is, that thought be given to setting up a colonial council in the United Kingdom which would be representative and on which the elected members would sit for periods of, say, three years, where colonial debates could go on continuously in public. It could then be seen by colonial peoples that we are keeping their very real problems continuously under review and, at the same time, give them a feeling that, if need be, they can have a say themselves in those affairs in this country.

In previous Colonial Debates I have tried to indicate that I believe Colonial policy needs to be thought out afresh. I think that both in detail and overall, our policy has lagged behind the times. In last year's Colonial Debate, particularly, I made the point that Colonial policy had gone astray because it was tending to focus too much attention on political advance and not enough attention on economic advance. I believe that this year's Colonial Debate tended to focus special attention on that aspect of political policy. Unless each Colony is economically sound, it is not ready for self-government. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that Colonial policy might be summed up in a new motto. Instead of saying, "Self-government as soon as possible," they should adopt the motto, "Self-government as and when self-supporting" and then say, "We will do everything we can towards both these objectives, but we shall not pursue one without the other."

The fact that the Colonial Development Corporation has laid its plans and is forging ahead with the development of economic schemes throughout the Empire, is a proof that in some measure that is Colonial policy, but I do not believe it is stated emphatically enough, particularly in terms which the colonial peoples themselves can understand. Let them realise that the two things, political and economic advancement, are inseparable, and must go hand in hand. Some of the troubles that have arisen in West Africa, and in the Gold Coast and in Nigeria in particular, are examples of this policy of the Colonial Office, which fails to keep these objectives in proper focus.

I was in West Africa during the war, and I have taken special trouble to keep in touch with colonial conditions since by seeing as frequently as possible colonial officials who come back to this country on leave. I get from them this sort of opinion, "Press on with agriculture development, irrigation schemes "—which we have sadly neglected in Nigeria compared with what the French have done in their territory, near by—" develop forestry and the other natural resources and mineral resources first, and then, as the country gets on to a sound economic basis, develop alongside these economic developments the political consciousness of the peoples so that they can participate fully in running their own affairs." We realise, of course, that vast schemes of education need to be developed, but they cannot possibly be developed entirely at the expense of this country. The colonial peoples themselves must help in the organisation and financing of their own educational system.

It is significant that in Nigeria when one goes to such towns as Lagos, one sees that the Nigerians themselves are not, in the main, running even their own shops. If they have not got that feeling of responsibility for their own affairs, which takes initiative expression in terms of doing simple things like that of running their own shops, it is indicative that they are thinking far too much of political advancement and far too little of economic advancement. That is further shown by the fact that too many of the Nigerians come over to this country to study law and that far too few come across to get degrees in agriculture, engineering, and so forth, which, of course, are vital in order that they shall take up positions of responsibility in running the railways and in advancing better schemes and better methods of agriculture. It was, admittedly, a phrase of derision which Napoleon used when he said that this country was a nation of shopkeepers, but, in fact, therein lies the strength of this country, because it indicates that the individual in this country is for ever trying to take responsibility for running some activity which is in his own hands.

My time is running out and I must pass to the immediate problem of Fiji. Just before I do so I should like to make this one comment: far too much notice has been taken by the Colonial Office of the dissentient and noisy sections of our colonial peoples as represented by the Ziks, the Bustamentes and the Nkrunas in the Gold Coast, compared with those taking a responsible attitude towards the advancement of the Fijian. I should like, in particular, to mention the Hon. A. A. Ragg, who has kept me fully informed of what is happening there. The Fijians themselves, from the evidence given to me, are, in fact, making comparisons between the political advancement that they are making and the political advances which are being made in West Africa. For example, we see that although the present Nigerian Constitution was set up in 1947, already the proposals are well in hand for a revision, and it seems from people who are watching the working of the present constitution that the only thing about it is that it seems to be working well.

In Fiji, the Constitution was last changed in 1937. The present position is summed up adequately, I think, in the letter which I received from the Hon. A. A. Ragg, dated 23rd April of this year. He said: The Governor has returned to the Colony after his visit to London to discuss with the Secretary of State constitutional and other matters concerning the Colony. At a meeting of the Legislative Council, held on 12th March, he informed the Council that: 'On the question of constitutional reform, both Mr. Creech Jones, before his retirement, and his successor in office displayed great interest in the discussions held and the views expressed by the honourable unofficial Members, during the November Session of this Council. Mr. Griffiths has authorised me to say that he has noted the upshot of those discussions, and that he proposed to take no action in the matter of substantial constitutional changes in Fiji until there is evidence that such changes are desired by the majority of the accredited representatives of public opinion in the Colony.' Mr. Ragg, in his letter, comments on that report by the Governor, by saying: With all due respect, I submit that as long as the system of nomination on the unofficial side of the Council prevails, there is no hope of an expression of opinion in favour of a more liberal Constitution as the nominated members with but few exceptions, have voted against revision. I do not know how progressive the present Governor, Sir Brian Freeston, is in his ideas. He may be trying to represent the desires and wishes of the Fijian people. I do not know, but I took the opportunity to discuss the Fijian position with Mr. Garvie when he came from Fiji on his way to take up his appointment as Governor of Honduras, and he gave me the opinion that the ideas expressed by the Hon. A. A. Ragg were sound, and that they should be listened to. I hope my right hon. Friend will take due regard of the opinions expressed by Mr. Ragg.

I have sent to the Colonial Office the very full papers that Mr. Ragg has let me have, and they show that the ideas that he is trying to express are widely represented. The first principle, I suggest, that the Colonial Office should bear in mind is that the interests of the Fijians must predominate. They were there many centuries before our claim to the islands and before either Europeans or Indians arrived there. We know that the Indians are in the majority. They have a population of 125,500, while the Fijians have 121,250. Yet it seems to me that the Indians have greater freedom and more democratic representation. The Indians were introduced into the Colony by us in 1879 to help in the development of the sugar industry, which is now the chief export. Undoubtedly, it is a fair claim that the Indians have to the political advances that they have made.

The Fijians are very fearful of the steadily increasing Indian population, which, they feel, is threatening the indigenous peoples. It is a very real fear, and, therefore, it seems to me that some special safeguard should be given to the Fijians.

An example of greater Indian freedom is indicated by the composition of the present Legislative Council. It consists of the Governor, who is the President, and 16 official members appointed by the Government, who, naturally, will be inclined to vote as he directs. There are five Europeans, three of whom are elected and two nominated by the Governor; five Fijians, all of whom are nominated by the Governor and who are chosen from a panel of suggested names put forward by the council of the chiefs. There are five Indians who are on the same level as the Europeans in that they also have three elected and two nominated members. This indicates that the Legislative Council is composed of 16 official members and 15 unofficial members and, therefore, the official members are always in a majority. This means that there is always a preponderance in favour of the status quo and that bears out the point made in Mr. Ragg's letter.

How, therefore, can a change ever take place? The only thing which does seem to be happening is that we are inviting the very troubles which have forced progress in West Africa. We are inviting the rise of dissident forces and rioting. In fact, in 1948 there were troubles in the gold mines which are only symptomatic of what might well develop if we fail to take notice of the desire for political progress at present being expressed.

The Fijians are selected by the Governor from the panel of chiefs and this puts them at a special disadvantage. In addition, the Fijians are subject to orders made by the Tikima and provincial councils, and this, of course, means that the Fijians are under double control. It has been suggested in the Report that was put before the Legislative Council by the Governor, when he returned recently, that there is no popular decision in favour of a change in the Constitution. I do not see how there ever can be with the present set-up. The chiefs, the officials, the Europeans in the main and the Indians in the main are likely continuously to prevent the right desires and wishes of the Fijians from being expressed on the Council because, to some extent, that would tend to go against their interests.

The Colonial Office seem to take very little notice of the expression of opinion of responsible Europeans who are out there. Let it be put on record that the Indians in Fiji did not even fight in defence of the British Empire in the last war, whereas the Fijians and the Europeans sacrificed both blood and treasure in the common cause. For that effort alone I believe the Fijians have won a recognition of their right to greater responsibility for their own fate. In the council papers put before the Legislative Council in 1949 the suggestion was made of what requirements might be made and I would quote them to sum up my remarks. The wording is: There shall be an Executive Council for the Colony and the said Council shall consist of the Governor as President; four ex officio members, viz., the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Financial Secretary, and the Secretary for Fijian Affairs; three elected members of the Legislative Council, one European, one Fijian and one Indian, to be chosen by the Governor from a panel of six composed of two members from each racial group and any other person or persons as an extraordinary member or members as the Governor may require to assist him in the Administration;". Then, even more important, for the representative Legislative Council: There shall be a Legislative Council for the Colony and the said Council shall consist of the Governor as President, four ex officio members "— the same as the Executive Council— 12 official members appointed by the Governor, five European members elected by the European electorate "— completely, without any nominated members— five Fijian members, elected by the Council of Chiefs, and five Indian members elected by the Indian electorate. Even this, in the opinion of many people, does not go far enough. Why should the Fijian people themselves be put at a disadvantage, compared with the Indians and the Europeans?

On the other hand, this was an agreed proposal, but it is so mild in its request that I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he give to the people of Fiji a definite reassurance, if he can, by suggesting it would now be appropriate to reconsider the whole situation with a view to at least adopting this proposed revision; and that, at a later stage, when there is some greater democratic expression for the Fijian people, a further amendment might be produced which would give the Fijian people themselves the same opportunities to express their opinion as the European and Indian section of the population.

12.7 p.m.

The Minister of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Dugdale)

In the short time at my disposal I do not propose to cover the same ground as my hon. Friend, because he strayed into Nigeria, and, I think, the Gold Coast, and various other places some considerable distance from Fiji. I would only say that, in general, we are seized of the importance of the economic developments of the Empire; and the Colonial Office is just as aware of its importance as is my hon. Friend. As he mentioned himself, among other things we have set up a Colonial Development Corporation, with a capital of no less than £100 million, which will play a very important part in this development.

The picture given by my hon. Friend is not altogether correct, and I will give the facts as we know them. In September, 1948, the Governor agreed to set up a committee of unofficial members of the Legislative Council to make proposals. This committee was presided over by none other than Mr. Ragg, the gentleman about whom my hon. Friend has been speaking. I might add that there were six members, two of whom were Fijians. Their recommendations were, first, that the official majority on the Legislative Council should be retained. Second, that the Fijian members of the council should be elected direct to the council by the Council of Chiefs without reference to the Governor—that was a change—and the four European and Indian nominated members should, in future, be elected—

Mr. Cooper

rose—

Mr. Dugdale

I have so short a time left that I cannot give way.

The only major change they recommended was that the Fijian members should be elected directly to the council, by the Council of Chiefs without any reference to the Governor. That is an important point, but what happened later? There was a meeting of the full Legislative Council, and the unofficial members of the council said that they favoured leaving the Constitution exactly as it was; and the members of the council who voted in favour of it included all five Fijians. There was not actually a division called because, so certain were all the members that they wanted no change, that they agreed to it by a show of hands without even calling for a division, which they have called for on a number of other matters. So, our information is that there is, from the Legislative-Council, no desire for change.

My hon. Friend says that it is not representative of the people of Fiji. I maintain that it is. The council of chiefs sounds as if it were a body which was entirely undemocratic, but that is not so. It is largely elected by secret ballot by the provincial councils. They, in turn, are elected in the same way by the village councils. Therefore, there is a system of elections starting with the village councils and going to the provincial councils right up to the council of chiefs, and for elections to that council there is a secret ballot. That being so, I think I can say that the system of the council of chiefs is comparatively democratic. It is not a body composed entirely of chiefs who have arrived there merely by virtue of some mysterious rite about which nobody knows anything. The greater number of them have been elected. They say that it is wise that there should be no change. The Fijian, Indian and British members also say that.

It can, therefore, hardly be said that there is a great demand for a constitutional change. The speech of my hon. Friend was not calculated to provide a calm atmosphere in Fiji. He referred to the fact that there had been riots in the past. He spoke of bitterness between Indians and Fijians. I do not think that that bitterness exists, and I certainly think that it is the worst possible thing to try to stir it up if it does not exist. If the House will bear with me, I do not think that I can do better than to read part of the speech made by the senior unofficial Fijian member of the Legislative Council. It is a remarkable speech, which shows the attitude which the Fijians adopt to these matters more clearly than any Englishman could express it. This is what he said: Your Excellency, in this country we have three communities: the European, devoted to his own affairs; the Indian, jealous of his rights; and the Fijian, steeped in traditional ideas. Though there are powerful elements of conflict in our society, for 20 years we have worked peacefully together on this council. We often had differences, but we have settled them as friends and not as enemies. There is in this council no racial bitterness. During this period we have made great progress, especially during the post-war period when other countries were going through political and economic storms. All this we have done under the existing constitution which was framed to accommodate the different racial outlooks and temperaments. We are now facing a new development plan in which we will be required, each of us, to give of our best and to make sacrifices. I therefore ask the European and the Indian members to go forward together with us on the present Constitution on the elective and nominative system until we have carried through the work we have so willingly shouldered. I make this plea backed by the strength of political facts in the Colonial Empire. In no other Colony is there the peace, the good will and the cooperation that we have in this Colony. Under the Constitution as it exists now, I maintain that, far from there being any need for a sudden examination of this matter, it is better that we should wait until there may be a demand—if there is in future, because all things change—for a change. While the Constitution works as it does now, with the very great success evidenced by this Fijian speech, I think that it would be unwise to make any alteration. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have important developments with which to deal in the economic field. We will pursue these matters to the utmost. In the meantime, we trust that the Fijians, the Indians and the British in Fiji will continue to work together with that good will which they have shown in the past.

Mr. G. Cooper

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the person whom he quoted, and upon whose speech he largely based his case, is somebody who, at one time, was extremely progressive, but, later, got to a responsible position which may well have caused him to be more silent than he would otherwise have been? Would he also bear in mind that when I quoted from the document, I was quoting from the actual report of the special committee set up by the Governor?

Mr. Dugdale

I hope that my hon. Friend does not mean that if he were appointed Colonial Secretary he would suddenly lose all his idealism and become dead from the neck upwards.

Mr. Cooper

That is an unfair comment.