HC Deb 15 June 1956 vol 554 cc1010-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

4.1 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I desire to call attention to the need for a close examination of the arrangements which have been made to resettle those Africans who have been dispossessed by the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme. I should like to emphasise that on this side of the House there is no objection to the scheme as such and, so far as I can understand African opinion, there is no opposition on the part of Africans either to the scheme. But there is deep-felt objection to the treatment which has been meted out to the Africans. Responsibility for that must be clearly placed on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. His responsibility covers those who live on the northern side of the Zambesi shore. It is due to him, and to him alone, that these people are losing their lands.

The people concerned in this migration are "British protected persons", and nothing can be done against them by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia without the consent of the Secretary of State.

Certain lands are held in perpetuity for the sole and exclusive use and occupation of the natives of Northern Rhodesia. If more than a hundred acres of those lands are to be set aside for public purpose's, or any alteration is to be made to the boundaries of a native reserve, the approval of the Secretary of State must be obtained.

In the case of native trust lands which are vested in the Secretary of State by an Order in Council of 1947, and set apart by definition for the sole use and benefit, direct and indirect, of the natives of Northern Rhodesia … the Governor must first receive the general or special directions of the Secretary of State before he acquires native trust land for public purposes. The responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman in these matters is clear. It is comprehensive, too; for it protects the African's interests, not only where they are directly, but also where they are indirectly affeted.

All the land within 200 miles upstream of the Kariba Gorge on the Northern Rhodesian bank of the Zambesi is either native reserve or native trust land. Article 33 of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland clearly lays down that African land shall not be acquired by the Federal Government otherwise than in accordance with the Orders in Council. Therefore, the responsibility of the Secretary of State continues after the establishment of the Central African Federation. Whether or not the Kariba scheme was the proper way of generating power which might have been derived with less upset from nuclear energy is now an argument without point.

The hard, cruel fact is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has decided that 30,000 Africans out of a total of 47,000—and that is an enormous proportion—have to be flooded from lares et penates to make room for this great new project. So, with their sheep; their goats and their cattle; their household chattels; their young; their aged, their sick and infirm; their shrines and totems; their hopes and fears; aided by the wheel, yet with long, arduous journeys and many a weary wait they will set out for their new lands.

What prospect awaits them? Will it be a fertile valley, or perhaps a plateau of instability which could be a much harsher reality? What about compensation for the mischiefs which will accompany this mass upheaval? I am told that £50 is the derisory sum that is offered to one chief for the loss of his shrines. It seems almost as if we were getting back to the good old days when Swaziland could be had for a case of gin. How different was the treatment meted out by the United States Government in a similar case to the Indian tribes who were dispossessed when one of their great hydro-electric projects was under way. As much as 600,000 dollars was given in compensation to one single tribe. We are offering £50 to one chief and denying the others.

Would it be too much to ask that a year's wages at more than normal rates, say £3 per month plus rations and shelter, or £3 10s.—a total of £42—should be paid to each taxpayer who is to move? If we take it that the taxpayers number one in five of the 30,000 who are to be shifted, the total amount involved would be £250,000. In considering that, we should remember that the men of the tribes will not be able to leave their homes in the first year to go to work. The sum which I suggest is a small part of the £120 million which this vast scheme will cost.

Moreover, it is, exceedingly important to establish the precedent, similar to that which is accepted among the white races, that compensation for uprooting Africans from their homes should be given. Remember that we sold Federation to them on the ground that it would bring social, political and economic equality with the white. Here is a simple precedent that we might establish that would guarantee our good faith when we were establishing federal Government.

I put some direct questions to the Minister of State. Is the land to which the people are to be moved of equal value with that which they are leaving? Is the soil good enough to support the people and their stock? Can we be assured that they will not be put on land so that overcrowding will be caused among people already living there, and, most important perhaps of all, will the tribal pattern be preserved in the new areas?

Do homes await these people in the areas to which they are being dispatched? Will voracious pests infect their cattle, or leopard and cheetah destroy them? Do baboon, monkey, wart hog and bush pig wait to menace their crops and perhaps imperil their food supplies? Here again, the answer depends upon the view which the Secretary of State takes of his responsibility. Can we be told without ambiguity by what methods these protected peoples will be guarded against the hazards which they are being compelled to face? It is no voluntary act of theirs.

Can we be told today what the height of the dam is to be? That is a most important question. We must be assured that the land which is being given to those who are being evicted is above flood level after the construction of the dam. We can have no such assurance until we know what height the waters will reach.

If we, on this side of the House, have doubts in our minds, they arise directly from the easy-osy manner in which this problem of resettlement is being treated. From current information, it seems that the lake will not be full until 1963 or 1964. In a letter to the former Secretary of State for the Colonies my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), from which I suppose I may quote, the Secretary of State says: This extra period will be invaluable for planning and arranging the moves. That is to say, there will be a totally unexpected grace of three or four years. We are now informed that these years are essential for planning, and we are told that at the very moment when 2,000 people are moving, not into the new villages, for no villages yet exist, but into the new areas.

What if the dam rises more quickly than anticipated? We have no control over the weather. Will planning be tuned to meet such an event? Will the transfer of these African villagers still proceed in an orderly fashion, or will the rising waters be used as a means of speeding the departure of the tribes?

Says the Secretary of State, Once suitable areas have been located by study of the aerial photographs, then the ground parties can move in. If migration had to start in the middle of this month, the aerial surveys should have been completed long ago. In the last six months— says the Secretary of State proudly— 223 baboons, 20 monkeys and 9 pigs have been destroyed. Compare this with the Gambia Protectorate, an area of the same order of size as the portion of the Zambesi Valley which we are considering, where in the last five and a half years, under a Government pest-extermination campaign, 141,000 baboons 76,000 monkeys and 39,000 wild pig have been destroyed. How grotesque is the Rhodesian effort in comparison.

The scheme for the eradication of tsetse will take five years to complete, during which period cattle will be continuously moving in to feed the fly which we are seeking to destroy. That certainly does not look like taking the bull by the horns or time by the forelock.

We often wonder whether history repeats itself. This twentieth century Exodus would seem to say that it does. Rise up, and get you forth … and take also your flocks and your herds … And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in the clothes upon their shoulders. Such was the command to Israel when she was held in Egypt's house of bondage.

From a much lesser deity goes a similar edict to the tribes of Africa. But Canaan does not lie at the end of their trail. And whereas Pharaoh loaded the Israelites with gold and silver and precious stones, the Secretary of State for the Colonies offers fifty depreciated British pounds to one alone among the sons of Ham for the loss of his venerated shrines.

In that respect, history seems to fail to repeat itself. Nevertheless, it provides its parallels. The cotton growers of the new world needed slaves, and Africa provided them. The Makars of the old world need cheap electricity. Africa provides it. The tribal lands of her people vanish in the flood waters of the Zambesi. And the earth's greatest hydro-electric power station rises to take their place.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to see to it that our industrial advance is not once more at the expense of those too weak to help themselves, and to remember that the African of Northern Rhodesia is a British-protected Person and, above all, a human being.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

If the Minister will allow me two minutes of his valuable time, I want to put a question to him which I think has some substance. Perhaps he will cast his mind back to the debate a fortnight ago, and I should like to thank him now for telling us on that occasion that he or the Secretary of State intend to go out to this part of the world within a few months. I am sure that after he has listened to the moving and most eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), he will go better equipped and in a more sympathetic frame of mind to look at and listen to the Africans' case.

In our debates on Federation some three years ago, Lord Chandos, as he now is, assured us time and time again that he or his successors would stand for the Africans in this House and speak on their behalf against this leviathan, the Federal authority, which we suspected —and now we see it taking place—would take more and more land North of the Zambesi.

I have here a Government Notice No. 27 of 1956—Northern Rhodesia (Native Reserves) (Amendment) Order in Council 1955, which read The following Order by Her Majesty in Council is published for information. The object of the Order is to extend the definition of the words "public purposes" to include the purposes of a corporation controlled by the Federal Government.

We understood in the 1953 debates upon federation that we should have to see some land north of the Zambesi taken for hospitals, post offices, perhaps roads and laying of cables, and services of a specific nature, for instance, for communications. I feel that this Order goes far beyond that. I should like the Minister to look at it and to give an answer very soon, if not now.

Those of us in the House, and certainly the Africans in the Territory, who look at the speeches made in the debates on Federation some years ago are now most apprehensive that we are about to see the public corporations of the Federal Authority taking land. Once they are doing that and once the Order is introduced, no longer will hon. Members sitting on these benches be able to act on behalf of and speak in defence of African interests. These questions would be out of this House, out of our hands, and in the hands of people sitting in Salisbury.

I think this is the first step to erode away, eat away, and cut away the responsibility of this House to defend the interest of these Africans. I hope the Minister will look at this matter most carefully and give us some assurances as soon as he can.

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Hare)

I will certainly do as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has suggested, and will look at the points which he has just raised. I am glad that he has mentioned the fact that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or myself will be able to look both at the matters which we discussed a fortnight ago and at the points raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in the very eloquent speech to which we have just listened.

I was somewhat surprised to hear that in some of the newspapers of the Federation there was an indication that this visit was agreed to as a result of an invitation issued by the hon. Member for Rugby who opened the debate at that time. That, of course, is not true. We had made the decision two weeks before, and I thought it polite to tell the hon. Gentleman that the visit was intended. I was glad that he welcomed the news.

Perhaps I may now turn to the many important points raised by the hon. Member for Govan in the very short time which was at his disposal. I would like to start by thanking him for the very considerable courtesy which he showed me in intimating to me a number of the points which he would raise. That has very much helped me in providing what I hope will be a useful answer.

Perhaps I could say that there is a clear distinction between the definition of responsibility in the matter of the scheme between my right hon. Friend and the Federal Government. The Kariba scheme, as a technical project, is the responsibility of the Federal Government, as is also the health of the workers employed on the project. I must emphasise that there are two aspects of the scheme—the wages of African workers and their working conditions—which are, in a sense, a joint responsibility of the Northern Rhodesian Government and the Federal Government because, as the hon. Member pointed out, this scheme is being carried out in the two areas divided by the Zambesi. The remainder of the points which he raised are the responsibility of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and, therefore, of my right hon. Friend. I should like to try to deal with those as thoroughly as I can in the time available to me, although I may not do so in the exact order in which they have been put to me.

The height of the dam is, according to present estimates, likely to be between 1,570 feet and 1,590 feet above sea level. The factors affecting the height are physical and financial. The hon. Member will realise that the height of the dam as eventually determined will influence the size of the lake created and hence the amount of land available for resettlement. With regard to the amount of land available. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance there is no anxiety that insufficient land will be available even if the lake turns out to be a good deal larger than is at present expected. It is hoped that this land will be fertile land —that is what the Government are looking for—and there should be no question of any of the people who are being resettled being moved out of the valley up to the plateau.

So far as we can see, the planning of the resettlement will fit in with the phased development of the scheme itself. I should hate to accuse the hon. Member for Govan of being Irish, but there was a little inconsistency in what he said. He said that he approved of the scheme but he also deplored the fact that as a result of the scheme so many people have to be resettled. Having approved the scheme, one inevitable result is that large-scale resettlement is required.

Mr. Rankin

Perhaps I expressed myself somewhat inadequately. I pointed out that there was no opposition, either on this side of the House or, so far as I knew, amongst the Africans, to the scheme in its technical aspects and the necessity for it, but that to the consequential treatment of the Africans in carrying out the scheme there was rooted objection. That is a different matter.

Mr. Hare

We cannot have the scheme without the results of the scheme. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no African objection to the resettlement scheme.

So far as Northern Rhodesia alone is concerned. the present estimated expenditure for this resettlement scheme is approximately f2–1- million. It is very difficult to give a precise figure, but as planning progresses a more exact figure will certainly emerge.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about compensation. I would point out that anything which he, his hon. Friends, or hon. Members on this side of the House may say will certainly be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend. The position in regard to compensation is that Africans in the area have been told that money, or some other form of compensa- tion, will be available in cases of proved need arising out of the resettlement. I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned, we shall ask the Northern Rhodesian Government to examine individual cases with great sympathy.

Mr. Rankin

Is there not agreement to the principle of compensation?

Mr. Brockway

Does that mean that compensation is not to be given as of right, but is to be given under a means test, if need can be proved?

Mr. Hare

It means that each individual case will be examined according to the particular need or hardship which has arisen.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) spoke very eloquently about the ravages of animals and disease. As to the eradication of tsetse, the Department of Game and Tsetse have put into operation a scheme to eradicate tsetse from the two infested areas, and pickets have been set up to prevent the carriage of fly from those areas into the cattle lands. The Department is confident that in the five years assigned to the scheme it will be completely successful in its object of ridding these areas of tsetse. As regards the ravages of the baboon, steps have already been taken to establish a game warden, with assistants, who are in action and who will be strengthened as the need arises.

On one or two other matters, with which I should like to deal, such as winter crops and modern clearing techniques, perhaps I might write to the hon. Gentleman.

During the last nine months, the Northern Rhodesian Government have given the very highest priority to their responsibilities under the scheme. They regard it as a test for the far-sighted efficiency of their administration. I am quite certain that they will be able to provide the additional staff which will be needed to cope with the full details of the scheme, and they have that one hundred per cent, in mind.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the first moves which were being made. As he probably knows, only one group of people is being moved in the immediate future, and it has not been necessary to choose more than one site, As to any difficulties in allocating land, each village will be assigned its land with due regard to the amount of grazing and agricultural land required. This was, I think, a point about which the hon. Gentleman felt very keenly. Allocations will be made in accordance with local custom, and with the assistance of the chiefs and their advisers.

The hon. Gentleman wished to know about the numbers of cattle and other livestock involved. I am told that, according to present estimates, 9,000 head of cattle and 15,000 of small stock will be moved out of the area. As far as water is concerned, extensive surveys have been made to determine the water potential of the ground.

I would end, as I started, by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the very sincere and eloquent way in which he raised this whole matter. I have endeavoured to cover most of the points he raised. However, I am sure he knows me well enough not to hesitate to get in touch with me if there are any other matters on which he needs further information.

Mr. Rankin

While we are grateful for the reply which has been given, so far as it goes, we must, nevertheless, pursue this important matter in whatever other ways we possibly can.

Mr. J. Johnson

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm his statement that there is no African opposition to this resettlement scheme? Is it not a fact that Mr. Nkumbula and the African National Congress have attempted to hold meetings at Gwembe and elsewhere and have been denied access to this area, which will in future be flooded?

Mr. Hare

There is no African opposition from those affected. There may be opposition from politicians, but that is a very different matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock.