LESOTHO INDEPENDENCE BILL

HC Deb 26 July 1966 vol 732 cc1581-633

Mr. Lee

I was quoting Adam Smith's assertion: To propose that Great Britain should voluntarily give up all authority of her Colonies, and leave them to elect their own magistrates, to enact their own laws, and to make peace and war, as they might think proper, would be to propose such a measure as never was, and never will be, adopted by any nation in the World. The Bill now before the House deals with one example of the constitutional transformation which Adam Smith told the world it would never see. It provides for the establishment of Basutoland under the name of Lesotho as an independent kingdom within the Commonwealth. In accordance with the agreement expressed in paragraph 10 of Command 3038, the Bill sets 4th October, 1966, as the date on which it shall become independent, and makes provision, on the lines of other independence Bills, for certain matters consequential upon independence. There has been a good deal of interest in the assumption by the Southern African territories of independence. Later tonight my hon. Friend will be introducing a similar Bill for the Republic of Botswana, and these two territories will achieve their independence within a few days of one another. They have some history in common, including recent constitutional progress, and in both cases the various stages in constitutional progress have been preceded by local constitutional commissions, and—in respect of independence constitutions—have been followed by constitutional conferences to discuss the details. Parliament has been informed of these matters in the relevant White Papers.

Concerning Lesotho, some criticism has been directed against me for what is called rushing them into independence. The Basutoland Government, and, until the last elections, the Basutoland political parties, would certainly not have agreed with this criticism. The independence constitution, which will be made under the Royal Prerogative following the passing of this Bill, will follow the recommendations of an all-party Constitutional Commission which was appointed in 1962. It was the aim of this all-party Commission to devise a constitution which … after a defined interim period of preparation might with minimum changes and maximum ease become the constitution of an independent Lesotho". Thus, that Commission's recommendations, in effect, did two things. They set out the terms of the Basutoland Constitution which came into effect in 1965, and they indicated that the provisions of that constitution should, with few changes, carry through to the independence constitution.

I will return to these points later, but 1 draw the attention of those who complain that we are rushing Basutoland into independence to a particular recommendation of that Commission, which was that the date for independence should be fixed at a year after the first elections under the new constitution. The elections under that Constitution were held at the end of April, 1965. That all-party Commission would not, therefore, agree that independence on 4th October, 1966, was being rushed.

This is not an isolated view. During my recent talks with the Paramount Chief of Basutoland he asked me clearly to understand that neither in his mind nor in that of anyone else in Basutoland was there any doubt about the desirability of independence. Hon. Members will be aware also of the various exhortatory resolutions that emanate regularly from the United Nations. In December, 1963, we were asked to provide for immediate independence for the three Southern African territories. Two years later the same request was made.

In June of this year, that is, after the long debate in Basutoland itself on the independence resolutions, the Committee of 24 again called upon us to fix an independence date for Basutoland; and even later than that, on 8th July, after hearing petitioners from the two Basutoland opposition parties the Committee recorded that a universal desire had been expressed that the independence of Basutoland should not be delayed. I do not think that in the face of all this demand and exhortation the United Kingdom could be accused of "rushing the territory into independence".

It has also been urged upon me that should call for fresh elections before independence. Those who are most vociferous on this point are, as one might expect, members of the parties who were defeated in this Basutoland elections of April, 1965.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lee

It is a habit of opposition parties. I have felt the same way myself at times.

When the Report of the Basutoland Constitutional Commission was discussed by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), with the all-party Basutoland delegation in the summer of 1964, the conference and all of the delegates, including the Paramount Chief, signed the Report. They were then drawing up a Constitution for a short defined period before independence, and that Constitution was to carry over—with a few necessary amendments—to independence. Elections were held about a year after the Constitutional Conference and, of course, after the interim Constitution had been promulgated, at which time, therefore, the Basutoland people knew precisely what they were doing. They were electing a Government which would carry them through to independence on the basis of a Constitution whose framework had been agreed in 1964.

The Basutoland National Party won those elections by a narrow majority. In the months that intervened before they came to London in June, 1966, with their request for independence, the Government there slightly improved their electoral position. In accordance with the agreements reached at the 1964 Conference they asked for independence on the basis of the Constitution whose framework had been agreed in 1964. My predecessor had in the 1964 constitutional discussions wisely insisted that a resolution asking for independence should be passed by both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament. In due course, such resolutions were passed, and they were brought to London by the Prime Minister and the Basutoland Government.

In these circumstances, there was no justification whatever for my insisting on fresh elections in Basutoland before independence, and, despite very heavy pressure from those who rightly or wrongly considered that they would gain if fresh elections were held, I declined to do so. I am certain that this decision was the right one.

A further matter which, though not very agreeable, I must bring to the notice of the House is the disagreement between the Basutoland Government and the Paramount Chief. My noble Friend Lord Beswick referred to this in the debate on 14th July, in another place. Hon. Members will be aware that, although the Paramount Chief signed the Report of the 1964 Constitutional Conference and, therefore, knew quite well what his position would be both in the present Constitution and in the independence Constitution, he has now taken up a position in opposition to his Government and has sought much wider powers than it was intended he should enjoy.

The House will, I am sure, understand the position if I say that one of the obvious changes that had to be made as between Basutoland's present Constitution and its independence Constitution was the withdrawal of the powers in relation to foreign affairs, defence and internal security which the British Government representative at present enjoys.

Among the things that were made clear in the 1964 Constitutional Conference Report were, first, that the British Government representative would be empowered to delegate his responsibilities in these matters to the Basutoland Government and not to the Paramount Chief; and, second, that under the independence Constitution the Paramount Chief would be Head of State with the powers, functions and privileges set forth in the Constitution itself.

Despite this, when the independence resolutions were being debated in Basutoland the claim was advanced that the Paramount Chief and not Basutoland's Ministers should inherit the powers of the British Government representative. Amendments to the independence resolution to have this effect were moved and were decisively defeated in both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament. Nevertheless, the Paramount Chief has persisted in what I must regard as a most unwise policy of opposition on this and other issues to the policies of the Government of Basutoland.

During the independence talks last month, I tried on three separate occasions to persuade the Paramount Chief to desist from a course of opposition to, his own Government which I knew would divide the Basutoland people and bring the great institution of the Paramountcy in Basutoland into such disrespect in the territory that its survival would become somewhat questionable.

Sir G. Nabarro

Is the right hon. Gentleman talking about Paramount Chief Jonathan?

Mr. Lee

No. The present Paramount Chief is the Queen's representative. Chief Leabua Jonathan is the present Prime Minister in Basutoland whose Government the Paramount Chief is opposing, quite contrary to his vows in this matter. I am now very much afraid that, if the Paramount Chief goes on in this way, the whole institution of the Paramountcy may well be brought into disrepute and disrespect in Basutoland itself.

It is a matter of very considerable regret that, since his return to Basutoland, the Paramount Chief has not followed the advice which I thought it right to give. I was particularly glad to note that in another place the noble Lord the Duke of Devonshire, who has knowledge of these matters, supported the advice which my noble Friend, Lord Beswick, had given to the Paramount Chief. I very much hope that this House, also, will agree that it was sound advice and that the Paramount Chief should follow it.

It is quite clear to anyone who has studied these matters that the status of the Paramount Chief was not only debated exhaustively in the recent debates leading to the passage of the independence resolutions in Basutoland, but was also discussed quite exhaustively by the Constitutional Commission in both 1962 and again in 1963. I felt, and I still feel, that I was on very firm ground in advising the Paramount Chief to accept the honourable position which his people wanted for him.

I felt sure that the support that at least one of the Opposition parties in Basutoland was giving him in his campaign for greater powers was, if I might say so, somewhat tactical support. Certainly, if those in that party came to power they would have no part or parcel in agreeing to that which they are now advising him to do.

I am still of that view. The Paramount Chief in Basutoland is in a very exceptional position. He has all the honourable functions of a constitutional monarch, and others, also. He, and he alone, is the person in whom their land is vested in trust for the nation. He exercises very considerable direct power, therefore, over land. He is at the head of the offices of chieftainship. There is in Basutoland an immense amount of respect for his office, and I would emphasise again my conviction that he is not serving the best interests either of Basutoland itself, or the Paramountcy, by persisting in the pursuit of policies in opposition to those of the Government of the day.

I should, perhaps, add that the independence Constitution was drawn up on the assumption that the Paramount Chief would accept the honourable position set out for him. If this assumption is belied, I think that it would be reasonable for Her Majesty's Government and the Basutoland Government to consult on what additional constitutional provisions might be necessary in the independence Constitution to ensure that the Head of State could not wilfully prevent its operation and maintain his position as Head of State.

I should like now to turn to the last point which I think has been worrying a number of people, and that is that Basutoland is still so weak economically that it will not be able to sustain its independence. This criticism is linked with the criticism that we have done virtually nothing to assist Basutoland's development, and that it is still possible, if we wished to do so, to make the territory less dependent on South Africa than is the case at present. That, broadly, is the kind of criticism that has been made.

The proposition that economic weakness is a bar to independence has long been outmoded. It is not, of course, a healthy state of affairs when an independent country depends on another country for financial assistance to meet its recurrent budgets. But Basutoland will not be the only country, by any means, in this rather sad state. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development told the House on 1st July that Her Majesty's Government had assured the Basutoland Government of their willingness to assist Basutoland to meet its needs in the fields of budgetary and development finance after independence.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

For how long?

Mr. Lee

We shall see for how long they need it.

It is absolutely untrue to say that we have in the past done nothing to assist Basutoland's development. Between 1961 and today the United Kingdom Government have provided for Basutoland in colonial development and welfare and grant-in-aid assistance the sum of £11 million. Going back further to the period when Basutoland's finances were not grant-aided, we find that the figure between 1946 and the present day is £13½, million.

Many hon. Members know this territory, and know the nature of the problems that have faced us in it. I do not wish to minimise the problems in any way. Two-thirds of Basutoland is moun- tainous. Only about 1,500 square miles out of a total of 11,700 are suitable for arable cultivation. The nature of the terrain and the incidence of rainfall cause very heavy soil erosion, and the remaining third of the territory—the foothills and lowlands—has to support two-thirds of the total population in very overcrowded conditions. The density is about 650 persons per square mile of land suitable for arable cultivation. There are no mineral resources whatever.

Traditional attitudes over such matters as land tenure have discouraged the development of industry. At the same time, while all these difficulties have been present, there has been the pressure on educational facilities, on roads and hospitals to bring them up to acceptable standards, and to provide Basutoland with a Civil Service which can run the country when ex patriate officers leave. The territory is surrounded by South Africa. It is indeed a fact that in the overcrowded conditions of Basutoland a place is found in South Africa for large numbers of Basutoland workers. Its main products—wool, mohair and maize—are marketed in the Republic. If the Ox-Bow scheme comes to fruition its success will depend upon the amount of water and power which Basutoland could sell to the Republic. These are things that spring from its geographical situation, and whatever else we may do for Basutoland we cannot alter the facts of geography.

The Basutoland political leaders are perfectly well aware of these facts and are aware of the policies of the Republic. Hon. Members will find that in the 1964 Constitutional Conference Report the Basutoland delegation recognised the need to live at peace with their neighbours in South Africa and expressed their confidence that South Africa would likewise wish to live at peace with the people of Basutoland. More recently, the Prime Minister of Basutoland, at the conference last month, emphasised that no matter what Government are in power in Basutoland they must necessarily coexist with the Republic.

The Prime Minister refuted the suggestions that he would sell Basutoland down the river to the Republic. He said: The fears had been expressed that my Government will barter away our land and our freedom in some disreputable deal with the Republic of South Africa. These charges are unfounded and unworthy. Of course, no one can guarantee that any newly independent country will have an easy passage. The problem of guaranteeing Basutoland against aggression from without is sufficiently evident by a glance at the map, and in the 1964 discussions the Basutoland delegation made it clear that they were not seeking from this country an assurance of continued military protection after independence. At the same time, Basutoland will apply for membership of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.

The Basutos will thus enter independence with a full knowledge of their situation, and without any illusions whatsoever as to their position vis-à-vis South Africa. I mention these things not because I think that they—any more than anyone else—can, therefore, feel lulled into a sense of comfortable security. In this harsh world no country is an island secure to itself. Each must look carefully to its relations with other countries.

I mention this because I do not think that the insecurities of Basutoland's situation provide a justification, in the face of all the insistent demands both from within and without Basutoland, for denying them something which they dearly wish, namely, their independence, and which they are themselves prepared to take on in full confidence of being able to sustain it.

I wonder sometimes, when I read the criticisms that have been made, whether the rabid radicals who make them are saying that because Basutoland is surrounded by South Africa, and South Africa practises apartheid, therefore we must never give any kind of independence Constitution to Basutoland, but force it to be a Colony for the rest of time. That, surely, is the logic of the criticism I have read.

Before passing to the Clauses of the Bill I should like to add a word on the matter of aid in a rather wider context. I think that all would insist on the need for higher aid and investment by the developed world in the under-developed world. It is estimated that the need is for half as much aid again as is being given now. We may well ask where it is to come from.

The efforts of some of the developed countries are already bedevilled by balance of payments problems—and I hardly need mention that to the House tonight. A similar difficulty affects the United States, France, Britain, West Germany and Japan. They have all had balance of payments difficulties from time to time and no doubt will have them again hut, with the exception of France and Portugal, which is a special case, none of the developed countries is providing economic assistance amounting even to the 1 per cent, of the national income which it was hoped would be the figure reached in the "decade of development", as it was called, which the 1960s were planned to be. It was planned that this would be the allocation of most of the developed countries.

Sir G. Nabarro

Nonsense.

Mr. Lee

If the hon. Gentleman makes himself more acquainted with the facts, instead of revealing his crass ignorance, he will do much better.

Sir G. Nabarro

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lee

No, I will not.

Sir G. Nabarro

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lee

The hon. Gentleman can answer for as long as he likes.

At the beginning of the 1960s there was a feeling that, if we were to get advancement in the under-developed countries, at least 1 per cent. of the gross national product would be necessary from the developed countries for this purpose. The United Nations asked for that figure. The point is that the four or five big nations, ourselves included, are now expected to carry the whole of the burden of finding aid for the under-developed parts of the world. I am pointing out that, because of balance of payments difficulties in many of these nations, it is not possible for them to maintain that level and that, although aid as a figure may be slightly higher each year, as a percentage of gross national product it is falling in every nation.

I do not want to overdo this matter. But it is part of what I want to say about Basutoland within the wider context to those who believe that, in a period when the developed world is coming to a stage of new scientific revolution, when it can produce wealth far more rapidly and readily than ever before, we can provide means of improving the aid given to under-developed parts of the world. It may well be that the poverty gap between the developed and the under-developed countries is the greatest single problem facing us, either in war or in peace. It is a very serious issue and many developed countries which are doing practically nothing in this respect should be asked to play a part in contributing towards solving this terribly difficult problem.

I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members wish me to go through the Clauses of the Bill. They are common to this kind of legislation. The House is used to them. I hope, after what I have said, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and will send our good wishes and hopes for the future to Basutoland, together with our assurance that we will do everything possible to assist its people. In that spirit, I ask the House for a Second Reading of the Bill.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

I have recently made my views very clear on the important question of aid—it was on the Second Reading of the Overseas Aid Bill—and I find myself in close accord with what the Secretary of State has said about it. On the particular aspects of the needs of Basutoland for aid, no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will hope to say a few words.

We have seen in the world during the last two decades a massive movement towards national independence. Some of these changes have been won as a result of bitter and bloody struggles. More recently, we have seen power transferred to the new nations peacefully, willingly and without bloodshed. Unhappily, strife and bloodshed have all too frequently followed the transfer of power and a great many things are happening in Africa and elsewhere which cause pain and distress to sincere friends of the new nations.

Some are ready to criticise and say that because of this turmoil, this transfer was premature. I doubt whether it is right for us to be smug about recent upheavals. If we cast our thoughts back things like toleration, the rule of law, respect for property and democratic government are all plants of fairly slow growth in Britain and the gap between tolerance and intolerance is still dangerously thin, even today. Much more disturbing is the effect of recent events, especially in Africa, on thought in other parts of the Continent. Uppermost in my mind is not Rhodesia, but the country that we are discussing now, Basutoland, which is to become the independent kingdom of Lesotho in 10 weeks' time.

In the past, we have found it disturbing when certain territories demanded independence. It is even more disturbing, in a sense, when the offer of freedom to run their own affairs is resisted by such a party as the Basutoland Congress Party, except on terms which the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly in my view, has resisted. Earlier in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) at the Constitutional Conference in 1964. He pointed out that this undertaking had been faithfully carried out, elections had been held and resolutions passed in both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament.

There is no doubt that the majority in the Upper House, the Senate, was highly respectable. In the Lower House, the National Assembly, there was a majority of 32 to 28. If my mathematics are correct, this would represent a vote in this House of 336 to 294—a majority of 42, which the last Government would have considered extremely respectable. After his Government had prevailed in the last Parliament by majorities of a fraction of 1 per cent. on a number of occasions, the right hon. Gentleman, very properly, does not feel that he can snap his fingers at a majority of 7.3 per cent. Therefore, the plea for further elections cannot lie strongly in the mouths of parties, all of whom stood for independence during the elections last year, elections which were carried out in accordance with my right hon. Friend's undertaking and which produced a substantial majority in the vote for independence.

It was a great pleasure for me, during their recent visit to London, to meet not only Chief Jonathan and the leaders of the other parties, but also the Paramount Chief. As others have found, I found him a man of much charm and considerable intelligence. It is not for me to meddle in the economic politics of Basutoland, still less in those of Lesotho, but, like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been considerably disquieted by the alliance of this constitutional monarch with a political party.

A monarch, as we all have reason to know, can be the greatest force towards the unity of a nation, and the first need of Lesotho in the months and years after next October will be unity. Unhappily, a monarch can also be divisive and, having divided his nation, as history shows, a monarch may find himself destroyed by the forces that he has helped to create. All of us who hope for the future of this nation pray that unity and not disunity will be the aim of the Paramount Chief and I would like, sincerely, to emphasise and signify agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said on this occasion.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham gave the undertaking at the end of the Constitutional Conference in 1964, he coupled it with the assumption that when the time came conditions in Basutoland would be such as to enable power to be transferred in peace and order. This must be a matter of judgment. The move from dependence to independence almost always involves risks, and the question that we have to answer is whether these are outweighed by the dangers of further delay. My view is that such a delay, when all my right hon. Friend's requirements have been fully complied with, would merely add to the uncertainty and would be most unlikely to improve political stability.

When I met him—indeed, when I met all the leaders—I formed the clear impression in talks with Chief Jonathan and the other leaders in Basutoland that they were under no illusions about the problems that will face Lesotho after independence: its unique geographical position—I suppose that all geographical positions are unique, but some are more unique than others; the scarcity of natural resources, and the population density, which the Secretary of State mentioned, in such marked contrast to that in another country whose affairs we shall be discussing later tonight. Yet in all my conversations I found no pessimism for the future, given—and this is a large condition—the benefit of national unity.

I believe that the Minister is right to go forward in the granting of independence. As he also said, he has had the support of the United Nations Committee of 24, who thought, quite clearly, that independence for the Protectorate should not be delayed. Disunity will bring no benefits to Lesotho. Its problems can best—indeed, can only—be tackled successfully by a united people. In hoping that the Bill will receive a unanimous Second Reading, I trust that all in Lesotho will unitedly seize the opportunity that will be theirs in 10 weeks' time.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary ended his speech on the rather wider note of the relationships, attitudes and problems of the developing nations to the developed nations. I am glad that he did, because it is at that point that I come into the debate. If this debate had taken place three weeks ago, I would probably not have had the temerity to address the House. During those three weeks, I have been at a conference of the World Council of Churches, in Geneva, where we had a representative collection not only of ministerial colleagues, but of lay colleagues, from every country in the world except China and Vietnam.

What struck me forcibly at that conference was the split, which is now palpably clear between the North and the South, in the developing nations at the frustration, the dejection and the despair of not having what the rich nations are constantly accumulating. As my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said, the gap is getting bigger.

To the developing nations, only one answer seems possible and that is why, in a Christian conference where people from all denominations knelt together in prayer, the talk in the groups and in the plenary sessions was all of violence. Indeed, there was a movement towards creating theological violence. That is the attitude of the people who have not. It is for them that I make this plea.

I listened to my right hon. Friend giving us his well-intentioned proposals and his bland assurances. I heard the cries of "Hear, hear" coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I noticed how well fed they looked. That is not the attitude of the developing nations and, in particular, it is not the attitude of the Africans. We must remember that what is in issue in our attitude towards Southern Africa is not the short-term prospects of this country and not even the short-term prospects of any hon. Member of this House of achieving some position to which he may aspire. This is the whole future of Africa, and that means the whole future of the world, because, if the lid blows off in Southern Africa, it will involve us all.

What we are considering today is not the short term effects upon our balance of payments, which will be ephemeral, anyway. It is what will happen to our children in 10 or 20 years if they have to take part in blood-shedding which we have engineered by any of our actions. It is against that background that the Bill ought to be seen. Will it really be a contribution to peace and stability in Southern Africa? I concede willingly that none of us can say with certainty what is the true answer. All that I can say is that I am filled with foreboding and reservations.

About the situation in Basutoland there is all the atmosphere of a sell-out to South Africa, whatever is said. The Government there were elected on a minority vote. It will be the first Government who have gone into independence from British rule with a minority vote. It is interesting to note that the Constitution which we are giving to the country —and it is first rate in its conception—cannot be changed unless a majority in a referendum say that it should be changed. Yet here we are giving a country independence where the Government have only a minority of the popular vote.

I agree that it may be that the minority parties are self-interested in asking for new elections, but the plain truth of the matter is that there is, at the moment at any rate, a deep split between the Government and the minority parties. It is a poor vehicle on which to launch the country into independence, when one recollects all the difficulties of the situation there which have been so graphically outlined by the Colonial Secretary. The people of Basutoland are surrounded by South Africa. Inevitably, they must be economically and socially subservient to the Union.

It is at this point that I make my plea, because they cannot hope for anything else unless we are prepared to guarantee their survival as a viable economic unit and as a viable state. So far, whatever the Colonial Secretary says, we have not done that. We have not given any more than an assurance that we will see that the grant-in-aid continues for the present, at any rate. This is a country with a £4 million budget, and it needs £24 million grant-in-aid from Britain to balance its budget. Against the background of South Africa, how can it hope to survive without her assistance?

It has been said that the Government there came into power because they received financial assistance from the Union. However true that may be—and there seems to be some evidence of it—it is certain that the party which came into power has links with the Union.

Sir G. Nabarro

When the hon. Member refers to "the Union", does he mean the Republic of South Africa? I support his argument entirely, but there is no longer a Union of South Africa.

Mr. Lyon

Yes, the Republic of South Africa.

It is against that background that one must consider the present situation. I grant that all the intentions are good, but good intentions have often paved the way to hell. That might be what will happen here. The intentions are good, because we have always said that we would launch the colonial territories into independence as soon as they were ready for it. We have always said that wherever it is possible countries should try to link themselves in association with their neighbours to make viable economic units.

But this is a totally different situation. Here is the Republic of South Africa committed to a policy of apartheid, and here is a small nation of 900,000 people which cannot, in present circumstances, be a viable economic unit, and must, therefore, ultimately become only a subsidiary Bantustan of South Africa. We must, if we can, try to avoid that.

I remember that 10 years ago Father Huddleston came back from South Africa with his story of what was going on inside the Republic. I remember the questions that were asked at meeting after meeting, "What can we do to help the people of South Africa? ", and the answer was, "Precious little". We might have been a ale to do something back in 1908, but who had the farsightedness to see it then? We might have been able to do something before the Republic became completely subservient to apartheid, but no one was farsighted enough. Can we say that that is the position today? Have we not been warned?

It is true that this Bill may have got so far now that we cannot draw back, that it would be wrong to deny Basutoland its independence, but what we can do is to give them the assurance of financial aid. It is this assurance that I want the Colonial Secretary to give us tonight before we give the Bill its Second reading.

10.47 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

I have not been confronted by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in this House since he sat on the Opposition Front Bench and talked on fuel and power matters. We were then locked in controversy on every aspect of domestic matters, and this evening I shall no doubt be locked in controversy with him again, because I do not give an undiluted welcome to the Bill, for a variety of reasons which I shall hope to expound to the House.

I infinitely preferred the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), which was completely realistic, to the pious aspirations of the right hon. Gentleman, who neglected to observe every practical, every economic, every financial aspect of this very difficult problem of Basutoland.

I sat observing the manners and particularly listening to the speeches in the Basutoland Parliament in Maseru a few months ago. I was the first British Member of Parliament to go to Maseru since Mr. Harold Macmillan called there on his way back from Cape Town after delivering his "wind of change" speech.

I claim no special knowledge of Basutoland, any more than any other African territory, but I am fully appraised of all the financial and economic aspects, and the possible implications, in a politi- cal sense, in the future. I do not quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman said about constitutional advance. It has always been my desire, in 21 years in public and political life in this country, to bring all our Commonwealth territories to self-government and to ultimate independence. I have always believed that economic self-sufficiency—I dislike the word "viability"—if not at the moment of independence, at least within the foreseeable future, is an essential ingredient of the granting of independence.

I shall not canvass all the constitutional history of Basutoland, which has been debated so fully in another place. I have read every word uttered there on this topic. I have listened to the symposium from the right hon. Gentleman this evening. I ejaculated, somewhat rudely—and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for my feelings getting the better of me for a moment—" Nonsense! "when he compared Basutoland with a Portuguese colony.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

My hon. Friend is technically wrong. The Portuguese have no colony.

Sir G. Nabarro

No. These territories are technically part of the mother country, but they are always referred to as Portuguese colonies. I refer to Angola, Mozambique and many other territories which are constitutionally part of mother Portugal but are always referred to as Portuguese colonies.

But when the right hon. Gentleman sought to compare—or to make some sort of analogy between—Basutoland and the near-adjoining Portuguese territory of Angola, across a strip of South Africa, he was talking the most utter nonsense. There is no analogy whatsoever between the two.

I am prepared to continue the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I think that I should read this evening the statement he made following the Constitutional Conference held in London in April and May, 1964, under his chairmanship. He said that he Undertook that if, at any time not earlier than one year after the new elections, the people of Basutoland, by resolutions of both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament (or in the event of disagreement between them, by a majority of those voting at a referendum) should ask for independence, the British Government would seek to give effect to their wishes as soon as possible. He made it clear that this undertaking was given on the assumption that, when the time came, conditions in Basutoland would be such as to enable power to be transferred in peace and order. Just about peace and order has been achieved ; not much more. There is a minority Government—as the hon. Member for York said. In many parts of Basutoland the people are utterly primitive almost as primitive as in the Southern Sudan, where they vote by signs. I doubt whether they were able to assess the constitutional niceties of the decisions being put before them, or whether the present constitutional proposals are tenable for any length of time, especially having regard to the attitude of Chief Jonathan.

I have quoted somewhat earlier information obtained from the Constitutional Conference held in London; let me say something of much more recent events. On 8th June of this year, when the Basutoland Independence Conference was opened in London—and the right hon. Gentleman omitted to refer to this—copies of the opening speeches by Chief Jonathan, Mr. Mokhehle and Mr. Edwin Leanya, of the Marematloue Freedom Party, were made available. It was clear that both opposition parties were strongly opposed to independence at present, on the ground that the necessary peace and order referred to in the report of the May, 1964, Constitutional Conference in London did not exist today in Basutoland. Mr. Mokhehle also argued that by giving independence to Chief Jonathan, Basutoland would virtually be handed over to South Africa.

That was the point inferred by the hon. Member for York. These two opposition parties between them command a majority of votes, in spite—I use this term metaphorically and not literally—of the rather crude form of general election held in Basutoland. Therefore, I doubt whether the pious aspirations of stable Government and early national unity in Basutoland uttered by the two Front Bench spokesmen are practical realities or possibilities. I have grave apprehensions about these matters.

I now leave constitutional matters and turn to what I believe to be much more important—the economic situation. I shall give precise figures, as the right hon. Gentleman neglected to do. He hoodwinked the House by his omissions—[Laughter.] The right hon Gentleman should not giggle—

Mr. Lee

I was not giggling.

Sir G. Nabarro

Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer not to be sedentary, but to intervene? I am willing to give way. [Interruption.] The rudeness of the right hon. Gentleman is unsurpassed. [Interruption.] Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I must ask protection against the right hon. Gentleman. Broad of beam and sedentary he is.

I will give the facts and figures which he omitted. Basutoland has a population of 733,000. The last available figure shows a revenue of £2½ million and the last available figure for expenditure is £4 million. There is a deficit on current account at the rate of £1½ million a year. If independence is to succeed, this deficit has to be underwritten for the foreseeable future so as to ensure stable government. I wonder whether any hon. Member would contradict that axiom. There cannot be stable government in an independent, emergent African territory unless there is economic self-sufficiency.

In the absence of that self-sufficiency, and for a limited period, the deficit must be underwritten. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say this evening, in clear and unmistakeable terms, that the British taxpayer will meet the deficit for all foreseeable future?

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nabarro

I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel).

Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say, in clear and unmistakable terms, "We propose that the taxpayer shall subsidise the people of Basutoland by a minimum sum of £13 million a year for all foreseeable time in future. Probably, the deficit will grow."? That would have been truthful, implicit and easily capable of understanding. I should not have quarrelled with him if he had said so. I merely dislike subterfuge on the part of Ministers. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is giggling again. He giggles overmuch on these serious matters.

If we do not do it, who will do it? Not the United Nations—oh, no. But South Africa—oh, yes.

Let me go back to first principles. To be certain that I have not mistaken any single fact, I sent to the Library of the House for these two large volumes-to make perfectly sure that I had the geographical situation of Basutoland correctly. I have not approached Basutoland by every road into the territory, but I have travelled on the road from Pretoria to Maseru. That is the customary road to travel when approaching Basutoland, but there are other routes. Basutoland is totally surrounded by South Africa and in the event of South Africa being hostile to Basutoland the only entry into Basutoland would be by air. Now that South Africa has established, before the International Court at The Hague, its suzerainty in respect of South-West Africa—

Mr. Alexander M. Lyon

Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds, will he accept a minor correction? That is not exactly what was decided at the International Court. I agree that this is the impression which is going about in Africa, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not add to that impression. All that was decided at The Hague was that the proper authorities had not brought this case before the International Court. I wish that Her Majesty's Government would ask the United Nations to do that.

Sir G. Nabarro

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, and subject to my catching Mr. Speaker's eye later tonight or early tomorrow morning, I will endeavour to contribute to the Second Reading of the Botswana Independence Bill, which impinges much more directly on the South-West Africa problem than does this Bill.

I was saying that South Africa has, in my view, strengthened its position by what appears to be the outcome of the International Court's ruling at The Hague. Basutoland is surrounded by South Africa and is utterly lacking in self-sufficiency, economically and financially. I believe that the British handing over power in Basutoland will lead to the as- sumption of suzerainty over Basutoland by the Republic of South Africa within a few years. Indeed, I believe that if we could end apartheid, and if there were genuinely satisfactory racial relations in South Africa, then, on geographical, economic and financial grounds, the correct home for Basutoland would be within the Republic of South Africa.

I recall that when I sat on the benches opposite, when Mr. Fenner Brockway was the hon. Member for Eton and Slough and sat on these benches and when the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) also sat on these benches, no one was so inflamatory in speeches in the House and no one attacked Tory Ministers more viciously than they did when they thought that there was the least suspicion of Her Majesty's Government relinquishing their protectorate powers in respect of Basutoland and when they feared that the Protectorate might fall within the suzerainty of the Republic of South Africa.

But here tonight, with the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place on the Government Front Bench, the Government are doing what he and his hon. Friends roundly condemned when they were in opposition. I repeat that I do not give an undiluted welcome to the Bill. I am fearful and apprehensive about the future of this territory if immediate independence is granted. I would much prefer it to continue as a British Protectorate, but with internal powers of self-government on domestic matters alone for at least another five years, certainly until better progress can be made economically.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, in a way characteristic of the subterfuge throughout his speech, talked about developing water power in Basutoland. Yes, of course—like developing the Snowy River hydro-electric scheme. Tens of millions of pounds of investment wanted; a 15-year project in the north-west of Basutoland to provide the water power. I know that it is some time in the future, but who will provide the money? Not Britain. Britain is living today on borrowed money. Why should we borrow money from bankers in Zurich and Frankfurt and elsewhere to give it to Basutoland? Are we morally or financially justified in doing so? I doubt it. But then, the right hon. Gentleman's strong point was never a balance sheet.

I find much that is offensive in the Bill. I shall not vote against it, unless I can find colleagues—from both sides of the House—to vote against it with me. If I could find another Teller to go with me, I would vote against it, because I think that it is misguided and premature.

I fear that within three years of my apprehensions being voiced this evening, they and the apprehensions of the hon. Member for York, will prove to have been well-founded. The hon. Member's speech was not as violent as mine, for he is a gentle character in every sense of the word, but his apprehensions were similar. Therefore, if he would like to tell with me, as a demonstration of our apprehensions, I shall instruct him how to do it. I have never been a Whip, but I have voted against my party so many times that I know how to line up as a Teller and do the job. If the hon. Member likes to tell with me, I shall register in the Division Lobby my apprehensions concerning this territory.

I hope to catch your eye again later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to return to the same principles in relation to Botswana, where I hold those principles to be correct even more strongly than I have been able to voice them in the context of this Bill.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

I do not want to be too harsh on my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary when I say that I was amazed at the certainty with which he spoke this evening and the severity with which he criticised what he called radical critics who had raised some doubts on the present political situation in Basutoland. I do not want to be too harsh on him, because I know that he is carrying out a Cabinet decision which was arrived at before he came to his present office.

But as my right hon. Friend has arrived there so recently I am all the more surprised at the certainty with which he spoke. I am equally surprised that the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, for whom I have had a high regard for many years should have joined with equal certainty in approving the kind of procedure that is now envisaged.

I wonder how much time the right hon. Gentleman has spent examining the situation in Basutoland, how he has derived his knowledge of the various views that the opposition parties are at present holding on future independence, whether he has compared those views with what they might have said in 1963, and whether he has investigated the reasons they might have had for changing their mind.

I should, first, like the House to consider the changed situation in recent years in Basutoland. For many years it has always been expected that at some stage Basutoland and the Republic of South Africa—it was hoped that it would be a liberal-minded Republic in favour of the equality of man—would be a haven for some of the Protectorates if they wanted to join in and take part in the economic development of the Republic on equal terms. But, ever since the establishment of the abhorrent regime which is now in power in the Republic, it was quite natural that many people would have to reconsider their original views and position.

Anyone who has been to Maseru, anybody who has discussed with members of our Administration there the details of the financial provision for which they have asked over the years and which they have been denied by successive Governments, will understand why economic progress has been so painfully slow in Basutoland. In past years, our administrators will say, when they discussed this problem the expectation of joining with the Republic was always one of the main stumbling blocks to their demands for better financial provision from this country. There was a reluctance on the part of successive Governments to provide the necessary money for development because they did not think that it was necessary on account of the expectation of a different kind of longterm political future for Basutoland. The result of this long-term neglect has been that some of the economic potentialities of the Protectorate have not been developed.

When I was there in 1963, a number of people were talking in terms of independence. But my right hon. Friend is taking the case far too easily when he says that the principle of independence is overriding and that, compared with it, no ether consideration can be of real importance. That is far too easy a position to state and to defend, as he well knows. Of course, it is true that the present President and leader of the main opposition party would have said in 1963 that he was in favour of independence at an early date. Which national movement in any African or Asian country did not take that position? But a lot has happened since then.

In 1963, I discussed with the present leader of the opposition party and others the potential dangers which might develop if independence were rushed. I was not known as a Member of this House who was opposed to independence movements in various African countries. I was known as a Member who, with many others, including Fenner Brockway, now Lord Brockway, and hon. Friends now in the Cabinet and on the Front Bench, supported the claims to advancement and independence of many African countries. But one cannot be blind to the fact that there are other factors now which provide an adequate basis for reconsideration.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington should not make life so easy for himself. From his knowledge of what is going on in that part of the world, he ought to have some understanding of the position of the leader of the main opposition party in changing his mind. A man who never changes his mind is acting irresponsibly if he is in a position of responsible leadership.

As I see the situation, there are two main dangers, and the Government ought to give an adequate answer about them before we support the Bill tonight. The first danger arises from the political tie-up which already exists between the present Prime Minister and his party and elements in the Republic of South Africa. While it could probably be proved that other parties in the last elections received support from abroad, and while this is one of the dangerous elements in the situation which we must not overlook, it is true, and not denied, that the present Government received financial assistance from the Republic of South Africa during the last general election.

This means that there are already certain potentialities in the future political development of Basutoland which might give too much dangerous influence in Basutoland to the Government of the Republic. In this situation, it is quite right for a large number of people in important political positions in Basutoland to feel great apprehension about the future.

It has been said by my right hon. Friend and others that the present position has been arrived at as a result of undertakings given by the previous Government and that the present Government and my right hon. Friend are only carrying out a policy which had been enunciated by the previous Secretary of State. This is no good reason at all for not looking at the situation again in the different position of today. There is no automatic carrying over of Cabinet decisions and enunciations of previous Secretaries of State into present policies and present positions.

I have supported the Government on previous occasions when they have refused to carry out a policy enunciated by a previous Secretary of State and in this case the policy would not be a useful one at the present time in the changed circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give an undertaking that they will watch the political situation in Basutoland after independence and that they will see to it that we retain a continuing interest in the military security and independence of the former Protectorate.

It is too late to carry forward the argument about the Bill itself. I do not believe that at present there is any hope or chance of the Government changing their mind and holding another general election before the Bill becomes law. I therefore concentrate on what I believe to be practical politics and demand from the Government an assurance that they will retain for the United Kingdom a security interest in the independence of the people of Basutoland.

If it be argued that this may be difficult to accomplish, I would suggest that for a number of years to come we will be in a special position, even after independence, in our relations with Basutoland. We have always accepted that we are in a special position in relation to the Federation of Malaysia. This is common ground between both sides of the House. Therefore, what I am suggesting, and asking assurance on from the Government, is not new or revolutionary.

Sir G. Nabarro

If the hon. Member does not get the assurances from the Government tonight—and he is asking for them in almost identical terms to those which I used—what does he propose to do? Does he propose to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Mendelson

I said that I think it far too late to demand another general election or reconsideration of the procedure which is being advanced. I do not believe that that is practical politics at this stage. What is practical politics is to seek to persuade the Government to give the assurances which I am demanding.

I move to another consideration which concerns the people of the Republic itself. Anyone who has been to the border areas of the Republic will know of the problem of political refugees. This is a serious problem. On this, I am certain that I can enlist the sympathy and support of the two Front Bench spokesmen. Anyone who has been to the border area will know that the situation concerning the police is far from satisfactory.

The special branch of the South African police have a habit of ignoring the frontiers of the Protectorates so that a number of people in any one of the Protectorates have a sense of uncertainty about their safety and security. There have been cases where these people have been abducted or illegally arrested. When I was in the Republic our embassy honourably intervened on behalf of a citizen of the Republic who had been illegally arrested. This is a problem which is very serious.

I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to give us, also, an assurance that the rights of refugees from the Republic to go about their peaceful business—and very careful limits are put on their activities in the Protectorate at present—will not be done away with in future. I invite my right hon. Friend to tell the House before we pass the Bill what assurances he has received from the Prime Minister of Basutoland, before independence, on the continuation of a liberal policy to be applied to these refugees.

A further problem is involved here. Quite clearly, the chance of building up the Protectorates to their full economic potential has been missed, but we ought to see to it that they are given the best possible opportunities to work their independent position against the background of the economic possibilities within their own territories. We shall later be considering a Bill having to do with another territory where the economic potential is greater, but where the danger of interference is also present. In this case, would my right hon. Friend tell the House, before we pass this Bill, what plans the Government have for giving future economic assistance that would help in building the political independence of Basutoland after that country has become an independent State?

Basutoland will be a member of the United Nations. Quite clearly, one of the possible answers to my request will be that it will then be up to the United Nations to provide the ordinary security that it has to provide for all other countries. That is the ideal state we all hope to reach—we all look forward to a situation in which the United Nations takes effective charge of all these problems—but we know very well that Her Majesty's Government are supporting, and participating in, a number of policies —as, for instance, in the case of the Federation of Malaysia—where the United Nations is not yet in a position to do the job itself. It is, therefore, essential that before we pass the Bill the House should be told what this country is prepared to do in these respects.

I do not want to delay the House any longer. Quite a number of hon. Members who are here, and others, share my view on this matter. This has nothing to do with the position of the Paramount Chief, and it should not be confused with his particular interests. The Paramount Chief has his own point of view on the constitutional position. I met him when I was out there, and I had a long interview with him again when he was in London. It is for the Government—and this is a matter of judgment—to assess whether his particular demands are justified at the present time. But the fact that he may also have been moved in his attitude, to some extent, at any rate, by fears for the future independence of his country, should not be immediately dismissed as a possibility.

I do not want to say anything that might exacerbate the position in Basutoland, or anything that might make agreement among the political groups out there more difficult, but I urge that if the Paramount Chief is partly guided by his apprehensions of encroachment from the Republic: hat part of his argument should be given serious consideration. I hope that later we shall receive answers to these questions.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Richard Hornby (Tonbridge)

1 have listened with much interest to the speeches made from both sides of the House. One needs to weigh one's words carefully when the lion of Kidderminster lies down with the lamb of York.

Sir G. Nabarro

My hon. Friend has made a bad blunder—Worcestershire, South, please.

Mr. Hornby

Worcestershire, South, my memory goes back.

It is certainly true, as has become obvious from the speeches which have been made, that the House does not give an easy and undiluted welcome to the Bill. There are anxieties which have been expressed in all the speeches to which I have listened, anxieties which were also expressed to me personally and to other hon. Members during the recent constitutional conference by members of the opposition parties and by the paramount chief. Nevertheless, the question before the House this evening is: do we wish to delay the Bill and do we think that by doing so we can improve what is not an ideal or perfect situation, as few situations at the difficult point of take-off in any of these developing countries are perfect?

Secondly, are o there any additional commitments that we wish the Government to undertake at a time when they are proposing to grant the request for independence? One needs to emphasise that we are answering a request for independence, which was stated in the conference of 1964. Since then, although certain conditions may have changed, it is still true to say that a different Government have noted that the conditions demanded during the 1964 conference have been met, namely, a majority in both Houses in Basutoland. One comes back to the question: is one likely, with all the doubts that have been expressed, to be helping the delicate situation there by delaying this Bill tonight?

Three main questions have been raised. One is the question of national unity. Secondly, there is the question of poverty and financial dependence, and, thirdly, the larger question of propinquity with South Africa. Those are three questions to which we must pay some attention. I do not believe that the cause of national unity would be served by delay at this point of time. Certainly, that national unity is not perfect nor complete for reasons which have been expressed. Still less would it be perfect or complete if now the British Government were to turn back in their tracks and say, "Despite the request made by all parties in 1964, we cannot now grant the independence which has been asked for." The dangers which would then ensue of a divided nation would be greater, not less, than the difficulties which are present now.

On the question of financial dependence and poverty, granted that this is so to a fairly acute degree in the country, surely we have by now accepted the principle of obligations on developing countries continuing after the stage of protectorate or colonial status. Surely this is something which we have to continue to accept. My hon. Friend questioned—and it is a fair and proper question—whether it is morally right that Britain at a time of strained finances should ask her own people to devote any resources to the people of Basutoland after independence. My answer, and I hope that he will agree, is that it would be wrong for Britain to seek to solve her own financial problems by contracting out of obligations which all the developed nations have accepted, and must continue to accept if we are not to see a deteriorating situation, particularly in places such as Southern Africa, where the under-developed nations come dangerously in contact with one another.

Then we come to the question of the propinquity of South Africa. For all my disquiet about and dislike of many aspects of South African policy—and I hope that the House will not think I am inclined to be unduly favourable towards it—I do not think that it is a part of the South African Government's policy to wish to extend South Africa's frontiers, which would involve an extension of the imbalance between black and white in the area.

Sir G. Nabarro

That might be a statement of good intentions—I do not dispute that. But in view of the repressive policies of the kind practised in South Africa today, has it not occurred to my hon. Friend that there would be a substantial number of refugees perhaps seeking asylum in Basutoland and that that would be a continuous cause of friction which might ultimately lead to the absorption of Basutoland? This is a highly political matter and my hon. Friend should not neglect that possibility.

Mr. Hornby

I do not neglect the political dangers. I think, however, that one should also admit that there are dangers of infiltration into Basutoland whichever decision we take. If we were to hold back on the present position, I believe that it would be a signal for considerable infiltration of another kind which equally might produce precisely the same dangers of which my hon. Friend and I are aware.

While we recognise the lack of national unity at present, the financial needs of the area, the dangers of infiltration and unrest, it is better that the Bill should go forward. As I emphasised, I believe that we should in this case, as in others, continue to do our best to play a major financial part in developing the resources of this area.

Finally, and perhaps regrettably—and I would like to explain my reasons—I do not think that, at the point of independence, when the full issues of independence have been raised, it is necessarily right for Britain to give complete defensive commitments regardless of all the consequences that that might entail. One puts the pros and cons of independence before it occurs; one listens to the requests for that independence and when, regardless of the isolation that may occur, those requests are proceeded with, and recognising that circumstances may occur in which Britain certainly might want to play a part, I do not believe that there is an obligation on one sovereign State to enter into a total and final commitment with another State which has elected at that moment for sovereignty.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

The Secretary of State will recollect that, when the independence talks in London were in progress recently, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), Lord Rea and I came to see him because we were concerned about the way in which the talks seemed to be heading. I must say that, when we left him after listening to all the difficulties and explanations which he gave, we were left with the impression that we were all getting somewhat involved in some kind of irreversible progress, completely undesirable although irreversible.

It may be that the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was too ineclectic in its scope. Perhaps the present Government thought it could not go back on an undertaking given by the previous Government and had no alternative but to proceed with this Bill; or that perhaps, we should have no alternative but to pass the Bill which is now before us.

In the face of all this, I think that we should express our regret that this state of affairs has brought us to this particular point. As an hon. Member representing the Liberal Party I can speak with some feeling about minorities and minority Governments. Throughout the political history of this country at least, we have usually had minority Government, but it is equally true that we have come through a very long period of development with a highly sophisticated political system.

We have now arrived at this state of affairs, but it is odd that, although in the case of Guyana a proportional system of representation should have been worked out, this desirable system was not available in the case of Basutoland. Had it been, and had the will of the people as shown in the recent elections been the same in percentage terms, then a coalition Government would today be holding power in Basutoland. They had only 42 per cent. of the votes, but with proportional representation they would have had the number of seats represented by that percentage in Parliament. A strengthened coalition would have sought independence.

That would have been a very different situation, but, given that that was not to be, it is essential now that the three parties should try to achieve as close a unity as is possible. We in this country have had coalition and national Governments in the past, not always successfully, but they have always arisen in times of national emergency. What we have to realise is that what is facing the Basutos after independence is also a national emergency; it is nothing less. I have never criticised the "new" countries for having one-party government. In Kenya, there was a democratic Government and Opposition system to start with, but it ended with a union between K.A.N.U. and K.A.D.U., and ending up with a system like this in something of a national emergency is perhaps inevitable.

It is, perhaps, also not a bad thing, and in the present situation I hope that it may be possible for the Paramount Chief to devote some of his time to his constitutional position. I hope that Prime Minister, Chief Leabua Jonathan, may make some conciliatory gestures towards the opposition for some kind of political unity to be possible. Other-wise, I think that the future may not be particularly happy for the Basutos. I hope that it is something which can go out from this House tonight. One reason why I advocate what I have just said is that it is essential for us to have some firm assurance from the Government about maintaining the economy of the Basutos.

That people of Lesotho would be in a stronger position if they were to act in the united manner that I have suggested to obtain such assurances, backed by many hon. Members from both sides of the House. What we have to look at when we consider the figures given by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the amount required to maintain this country's budget in the manner to which it has become accustomed in the past, without allowing for any expansion or serious capital investment, is the fact that it is a fairly small sum.

The impression has got abroad among those willing to criticise this country in instances such as this that what we are now seeing is some kind of conspiracy to get rid of a little-known, far-off territory with a small population which is possibly something of an embarrassment to us. I do not believe that this charge is correct; I do not believe that the previous Conservative Government were, and the present Labour Government are, involved in a deliberate conspiracy to rid themselves of an obligation. But I think that that charge could stick unless we make it clear that we are maintaining the moral obligations which we have towards Lesotho.

When we consider that the sum involved is about £2 million, and relate it to the present Budget, and when hon. Members on both sides seek firm assurances from the Government Front Bench, then we have to look at this in the context of the Government's total policies. I was a little disturbed at that section of the Prime Minister's recent statement referring to cuts in military and civil aid, as though this was one and the same thing, and so unspecified that he did not really know what it would mean. Without dealing with the merits of the policy, a Government who decide that they have a world role, that they can spend £200 million a year maintaining an east of Suez role, will find it very difficult to refuse £2 million, one-hundredth part of that amount, in retaining a responsibility towards a small country such as Basutoland.

It would be a disgrace if the House were simply to let the Bill go through without demanding these assurances. Tempted as I am to join the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, it is too late to vote down the Bill—

Sir G. Nabarro

I did not suggest that I wished to vote down the Bill. What I was seeking, and so, I gather, are many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, was some means of extracting or extorting from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the deficit in this country's Budget will be met by the British Government over the next few years. Unless it is met is it possible to achieve unity in Basutoland?

Mr. Steel

I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman in this matter. What I am saying is that I believe that the Front Bench must have been impressed by the arguments advanced from both sides of the House, and that it would be a disgrace if it were to go out that the House simply passed the Bill with a few kind words and good wishes and nothing more, and then went on to pass to another subject and another country.

I hope, in all seriousness, that the Government will give us the assurance that we are prepared to accept our responsibilities adequately in giving independence to Basutoland.

11.44 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I must admit that I am here to speak on the next Bill that we are to consider, and that I did not intend to intervene in this debate. Having listened to the debate, and having intervened in a debate on the territories about 18 months ago, I must say that I am very worried about what we are doing tonight. I do not usually criticise, except in a muted way, the Front Benches of either side of the House, but I do criticise both Front Benches equally over this matter. This is not a party political matter; it is a matter of how to deal with our international obligations. About 18 months ago I said of the territories for which we were still responsible that those about which we must be most careful in granting independence were the territories which were surrounded by South Africa.

The Front Benches, on both sides—my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) was a Minister in the Conservative Government—try to dress this up as though it is a great liberation movement. Really, it is simply getting rid of our responsibilities. It is rather like a man releasing a sheep from a pen surrounded by wolves and saying that he has given the sheep its independence, well knowing that it will be torn to pieces within five minutes by the ravening wolves surrounding it.

Basutoland is surrounded by South Africa. South Africa's policy is entirely the opposite of that for which anybody in this House stands. What will happen when this country gets its independence? Independence, I ask the Secretary of State, for what and from what? Does the Minister have any assurances from the South African Government? Does he have any built-in safeguards? I know that this is a continuing policy, and, therefore, I am not criticising simply the present Minister. I am just as much criticising my right hon. Friends. What will happen to this country when it gets its independence? Will the people in that country develop as free, independent citizens of a proud independent nation?

We in this House know, if we cut away the cant about independence and liberation, that Basutoland, having got its independence, will be put into satrapy with South Africa. Nearly every person in that country will depend upon South Africa for his living, his income, his future and even his freedom. We know it, but we are not prepared to say so bluntly on the Floor of the House. Whatever the elections in Basutoland may mean, the Bill means that we are handing over the future of that country so that it is much more likely to be dominated by the politics of South Africa without the protection of the United Kingdom as a counterweight to those policies.

If, therefore, there is to be any chance of a future for the country when it is independent, we in this House have a duty and a right—but the words I have used are far too inadequate—by our financial provisions to guarantee that when the country gets its independence, its prosperity will begin to grow and, therefore, its people will not be subservient to and will not be the satellites and the serfs of the South African community that surrounds it.

Have we taken any steps before we pass the Bill to get an assurance from the South African Government that there will not be interference in the affairs of this country? We know that political parties have a top strata. They have a lot of bemused voters who vote. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is nodding, but the reason he is supporting his Government is that a lot of bemused voters stood for what he stood for.

That is how, in a developed country, democracy works. In Basutoland, however, the top strata is a far more important element in the country's affairs than it is here, because the bottom strata do not know the dangers and the problems and they vote according to how their chief or their guide tells them to vote. Therefore, there is the problem that the political parties want independence. I very much doubt whether, if a referendum were taken from the mass of the people in Basutoland, they, knowing the dangers, would be as keen on independence.

Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone that the pass has been sold. We are faced with a Bill granting the country independence. All that we can do is wish it well. However, I think that we have the right to demand from the right hon. Gentleman a clear indication of the financial support that the British Government will give to the country once the Bill becomes law. If necessary, and if the hon. Member for Penistone and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) are willing to support me, I am prepared to divide the House.

If we do not give financial support we are selling into servitude a group of defenceless people who are surrounded by a nation which holds entirely opposite views. The only safeguard that we have is to make certain that the financial provisions are such that the country's prosperity can begin to grow.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

Speeches of all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have referred to two leading persons in Basutoland. The first is the Prime Minister, Chief Leabua Jonathan, and the second is Constantine Bereng Seeiso, Moshoeshoe I, Motlotehi or Paramount Chief.

I know Basutoland fairly well and can claim a friendship extending over many years with both these men. As many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have already said, I believe that the future of their country may well depend on their remaining together to work the Constitution which this House is about to pass.

I would like, first, to deal with the problems of the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) talked about a minority Government. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pointed out, not only have there been a number of minority Governments in this country from the point of view of votes for many years, but the present Government are a minority Government in terms of votes. So I do not think that we can really use that yardstick on this occasion.

Then there are those who say that because, since the general election last year, the Basutoland Congress Party and the Marematlou Freedom Party have made a coalition they together represent 45 per cent. of the votes as against the 41.6 per cent. of the National Party. Again, that is not a tenable suggestion, because all my information leads me to believe that the Marematlou Freedom Party only supports the Congress Party in its present stand that the Paramount Chief should have greater powers. I do not think that the two parties agree on any other issue and that, therefore, this coalition is one of political expediency on a very narrow point.

Again, it is notable that the leader of the Marematlou Freedom Party, Dr. Seth Makotoko, has failed to call an annual conference this year, perhaps because he realises that his stand in the coalition is not too popular with members of his party.

Then again, we have to consider the Senate. It is composed largely of chiefs, who are obviously the traditional supporters of the Paramount Chief. Only recently, 17 of those chiefs have come out against the Paramount Chief on the question of his powers. I understand that 17 out of 22 have written to the Secretary of State to say that they do not agree with the Paramount Chief about the powers that he demands should be transferred to him when the sovereignty for Basutoland passes from Her Majesty. That is actually the basis of the quarrel between the Prime Minister and the Paramount Chief.

Speaking again from personal experience, I believe that the Prime Minister, Chief Leabua Jonathan, wants good relations with the Paramount Chief. He himself comes from the royal family. He has already given examples of his willingness to work closely with the Paramount Chief, soon to be king, in agreeing against the advice of his own party to continue the Privy Council which the Paramount Chief wishes and has agreed to the entrenchment of land and the whole system of chieftainship in the Constitution, which again was against the advice of quite a large number of the Nationalist Party. Chief Leabua has demonstrated by these acts that he wants to do his best to work with the Paramount Chief. I hope, therefore, that these two men will come together and decide to work in cooperation for the good of their country.

I have always felt, and have said so both publicly and privately, that the National Party and the Marematlou Freedom Party, the traditional party of the Paramount Chief, were far closer in aims than the Basutoland Congress Party. The Congress Party has traditionally been anti-chief. In fact, it opposed the granting of increased power to the Paramount Chief in the general election last year, and now I suggest that it is merely walking back and becoming an ally to the Paramount Chief for political expediency.

It is perhaps often thought that in Africa the party in power at the time of granting independence is likely to remain in power rather longer than it would under the old colonial system, and this, I think, is what dominates the minds of politicians in a country just approaching independence.

It is clear that not only at the 1964 Conference did the Congress Party demand and put its signature to a demand for independence, but that way back, in 1962, two years previously, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and I were representing this country on two different Committees of the United Nations—

Sir D. Glover

And very ably, too.

Mr. Wall

—and I had to endure two days of speeches from the members of the Basuto Congress Party, who read all 61 pages of this document, they then stressed their demand for immediate independence for their country. It is perhaps of interest to note that one gentleman who presented these demands on that occasion, now a member of Parliament in Basutoland, was one of the two members who went to the United Nations Committee of 24 last month and got a rather dusty answer from that august Committee, which took the view that as they had been asking for independence they should have it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will not divide the House tonight. It would be most unfortunate if they did, because the interpreta- tion placed on this in Basutoland could lead to violence.

On the other hand, hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed certain defects in the Government's proposals, some of which I should like to take up. I hope, for example, that the stress laid on aid tonight will be listened to in Basutoland, and will be listened to by Her Majesty's Government.

Sir D. Glover

I have no intention of dividing the House, provided that the Minister gives a clear assurance to the House about aid.

Mr. Wall

That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will give us a clearer assurance on aid than we have had so far.

We have heard a lot about the Paramount Chief and his demand or what appears to be his demand, for power, and, therefore, it is fair to examine briefly what he has asked for. I think that the House will see that in the circumstances of Africa today, though it is not possible to accede to them, they are not wholly unreasonable requests.

His view is that the Head of a State in a small independent African State today needs effective power. He points to the common form provisions which exist in monarchies in Europe such as those in Sweden. Norway, Belgium, and Greece. They do not exist in this country, because we do not have a written constitution. He maintains that in these European monarchies executive authority is vested in the king, and the king appoints and dismisses ministers, confers promotions in the armed forces, declares war, signs treaties, and so on.

He believes that in his capacity as Head of State he should succeed to the reserve executive and legal powers in external affairs and over internal, security, which today the right hon. Gentleman enjoys, on behalf of Her Majesty, under the present Constitution. He agrees that these powers should be transferred to the Prime Minister, but he thinks that the Head of State should have the right to step in and assume these powers if an emergency arises.

It is clear that there is some justification for these thoughts of the Paramount Chief. After all, he looks over to Bechuanaland and sees that the traditional Paramount Chief is to become an executive president. He looks to Swaziland and finds that the Paramount Chief is not only king of the Swazis but the real leader of a political party which enjoys unanimous support. So he finds political power vested in his opposite numbers in those two other High Corn-mission Territories.

I do not think that we should feel that this young man is being too unreasonable. But history is against him. The development of political parties in Basutoland started virtually before he came on the scene as a young man, completing his education in England. The situation in Swaziland does not exist in Basutoland for many reasons with which I will not bother the House. If we pass this Bill we introduce a Constitution which makes the Paramount Chief a constitutional monarch. I wholly agree with the Secretary of State that in the circumstances, in spite of his misgivings, he should agree to accept this position.

But I ask the Secretary of State whether the Paramount Chief has signed the Constitution. As I understand, it comes into force through an Order in Council. Has he agreed to it? Does he have to sign it? What happens if we introduce an independence Constitution and when the country is independent the Head of State refuses to sign Bills?

Mr. Frederick Lee

In 1964, the Paramount Chief signed issues which were accepted as the principles upon which they were going into independence. At the last conference he was not here as a delegate of any description. He is now the Queen's representative. Those who were competent to sign the 1966 Report did not include the Paramount Chief. He was here purely as a distinguished visitor, to look at the situation. There was no point in saying that he had any kind of status which would give him the right to sign. If he had agreed to sign, as a guesture, I would have been happy, but he would not.

Mr. Wall

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, but it does not answer my point. The Paramount Chief is to become King and Head of State. As I understand, he then has to sign Bills passed by his Parliament under the Constitution. What hap- pens if he refuses to sign those Bills because, after independence, he says that he still disagrees with the constitution? It is important that the House should consider this. It would be disastrous if this issue were to come up only after independence.

Mr. Lee

We must take into account the fact that when he becomes Head of State he takes vows to carry out the Constitution. I expressed a little apprehension tonight because he has taken vows which, quite frankly, are not being carried out.

Mr. Wall

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point. He is saying that if the Paramount Chief assents and takes the vows under the 1966 independence Constitution he is committed by those vows to uphold the Constitution, and, therefore, the crisis would come—if there is to be one—at a time which I take would be prior to independence.

I want to turn briefly to the Constitution itself. Can the Secretary of State say when it will be introduced? When shall we have this Order in Council? Can he say something about the problem of entrenchment? He will be aware that these concern the question of the Head of State, land, franchise, the powers of the National Assembly and the Senate, a state of emergency, human rights, and changes in the constitution. The Paramount Chief wants these important matter entrenched so that these issues can be altered only by a referendum of the people plus a two-thirds majority in each House of Parliament. In the White Paper accompanying the Bill this is provided for in a rather different way. Some of these entrenched clauses are entrenched by referendum and others by a two-thirds vote in each House. Why is there this slight difference? Is there any particular technical reason'? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could deal with this question.

The Paramount Chief wishes to keep the Privy Council. He thinks it of use to advise him. The Prime Minister has conceded this wish, but we read again in the White Paper arising from the Constitutional Conference in Basutoland that the Privy Council is to consist of the Head of State, the Prime Minister and, as I understand, one representative nominated by the Head of State on the advice of the Prime Minister. I suggest that that might be a little difficult if the Prime Minister and Head of State do not exactly see eye to eye.

I now come to the question of South Africa. It is clear that hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House realise that dangers are inherent in independence, particularly in a territory which is wholly surrounded by the most powerful military and economic State in Africa. Yet independence is wanted by all political parties in Basutoland. This has even been confirmed and is wanted under the existing circumstances by the United Nations Committee of 24.

A number of hon. Gentlemen have expressed great fears that South Africa might take over this small soon-to-be independent African State. But we must recognise the facts of both geography and economics. Geographically, Basutoland is wholly surrounded by South Africa and economically is wholly dependent on it. I hope—I would ask the Secretary of State to confirm this—that there will be no defence agreement with independent Basutoland. Any such agreement would be useless, because we could not honour it, and, therefore, we should not have one.

It is clear that South Africa could take over Basutoland without having to move a single soldier. All she would have to do is put up tariff barriers against goods from Basutoland and refuse to take Basutoland labour in South African mines, Where about a third of the adult male population of Basutoland work at some time in their lives. I believe, however, that these fears are groundless and that South Africa will help independent Basutoland to the maximum of her ability.

The Prime Minister of Basutoland has held up the Ox-Bow scheme, which is of immense importance to the future of Basutoland and is part of the great Orange River Scheme, until after independence, because he feels that he will get a better deal financially from South Africa than from this country. I believe that South Africa will use the High Commission territories as a step to better relations with the independent African States. Whatever we may feel about the application of apartheid—I agree with those hon. Gentlemen who have said that the application is wholly wrong and stupid —the theory of parallel development is a tenable theory.

It is rather like Communism. In theory, Communism is very like the original Christianity: it is its application which makes it so evil. The same applies to apartheid—

Mr. Mendelson

We have known for a long time that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. May I ask him not to confuse his view with the view of the Front Bench of the Government which I support, who take a completely different view? The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself.

Mr. Wall

Perhaps. It is not my duty to express the views of the Government Front Bench, but it seems that we reach the same goal by different means. I believe that history will show that South Africa will have even better relations with these three small African States which are within its economic orbit after independence. I believe that it will demonstrate clearly its desire for good relations with these three to obtain better relations with the independent African States to the north.

I will refer to some of the practical dangers of independence. I have said that Basutoland is indefensible and have asked the right hon. Gentleman to state clearly that there is no defence commitment of this country with independent Lesotho. How will Her Majesty's Government and this country be represented in independent Lesotho? I hope that there is no question of repeating what was done in the past and having an ambassador in South Africa representing us in Lesotho, or anything like that.

Finally, there is the question of aid, which has been emphasised by many hon. Gentlemen. The aid to be given to independent Lesotho was referred to in a Parliamentary Answer on 1st July. A study of that Answer reveals that we are undertaking to give both budgetary help and development help, but no sums are mentioned. The only sums referred to in that Answer are £50,000 for the next stage of the Ox-Bow scheme, £123,000 in connection with electricity development, and a much larger sum—£402,500—to cover Basutoland's share of the compensation to British civil servants who will eventually lose their jobs when it becomes independent. We should have a more definite commitment to financial aid for independent Lesotho than was contained in that Answer.

Sir G. Nabarro

The figures my hon. Friend has quoted from that Parliamentary Answer of 1st July are largely in respect of capital investment and special compensation. They have no relation whatever to the deficit on current account, which is running at about £l½ million a year and which is a very much larger consideration.

Mr. Wall

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising this point. The Secretary of State will recall that the Morse Commission investigated what should be done for the three High Commission Territories prior to independence. I believe that it stated that about £7 million should be expended on those territories prior to their becoming independent. Has that sum been spent? I doubt it, and I suggest that these territories have been the Cinderellas of successive British Governments. I must, therefore, acquit the right hon. Gentleman of personal blame in this matter.

As these territories become independent, I hope that attention will be paid to the remarks of hon. Members on both sides or about the need for adequate financial help, particularly for the development of agriculture. This is especially important for Basutoland, for while one likes to see industries developing in these territories it will probably be a long time before they are developed on a reasonable scale in Lesotho. There is some mineral development there, but the main hope lies in agriculture and I hope that we will be generous in our financial help.

I pay tribute, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to the Queen's Commission, the Speaker of the Basutoland Parliament and all the British civil servants who have made independence feasible. They have served their country well and I am sure that the leaders of all the political parties in Lesotho will agree with that statement. Relations between our two countries have always been excellent and I believe that independence will reduce the stesses and enable Lesotho to cooperate more closely with the greatest economic power in Africa today.

To do so, and to maintain its own strength, independence and integrity, Lesotho will require national unity and a strong Government. The people of that country have already demonstrated that they appreciate this in the decision of the Constitutional Committee, which specifically refused to divide power between the Prime Minister and the Paramount Chief. I hope that the Paramount Chief will accept this decision of his own countrymen, his supporters and his loyal subjects. Much depends on whether these two men—the Prime Minister and the Paramount Chief—can work together. They must work together for the future of their nation.

I believe that independent Lesotho will set a great example in race relations to the rest of Africa. I hope that these brave mountaineers will overcome the difficulties inherent in independence and that Lesotho will live and prosper as an independent State and as a member of the Commonwealth.

12.14 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on his maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench. He speaks with great experience on these matters, and we look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.

I endorse what he said in his closing remarks, particularly the tribute he paid to the civil servants who have served Basutoland for many years. All concerned must be grateful for the work they have done. I also endorse much of what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, although I violently disagree with him about the position of the Paramount Chief.

The position of the opposition in Basutoland has been inconsistent and, I believe, rather stupid over the question of independence. As has been pointed out, Mr. Mokhehle and his friends were signatories to the unanimous report of the Basutoland Constitutional Commission in 1963. The report laid down the basis for the constitution of Basutoland before independence and the constitution of Lesotho after independence. Mr. Ntsu Mokhehle signed it, as did others who have since spoken against the constitutional provisions which we ask the House to accept. They signed the report because at that time they thought they would win the elections which were due to take place at the beginning of 1965. It was only after those elections that their attitude began to change.

It would have been wrong for this country to turn upside down the pledges that had been made in 1964, and since, that if Basutoland asked for independence by resolution in its own Assembly we would grant it on the basis of a constitution that they themselves had worked out and unanimously agreed among themselves. I believe—and here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman—that if we were to delay independence on those terms because we were giving in to the objections of the parties that represent the minority in the Assembly—let us talk about them as the minority, because they are a genuine minority—we should create more trouble in Basutoland and would not add one iota to the unity which must be achieved there, to the need for which every speaker in the debate has paid heed.

I want to answer some of the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice. First, representation of the United Kingdom will be by High Commissioner and will have nothing to do with the Ambassador in the Republic. There will be no defence agreement, because none has been requested.

The entrenchment provisions are clearly laid out on pages 20 and 21 of the Report of the Basutoland Independence Conference, 1966, Cmnd. 3038. From these, the hon. Gentleman will see that there are some specially entrenched provisions, such as the position of the Paramount Chief, human rights and freedoms, reserved land, and so on, which need a complicated procedure before they can be changed, namely, that they must be submitted to a referendum and that there must be a majority of the votes cast.

There are other provisions, for instance, those concerning the Assembly and the Senate and franchise, which do not require that complicated procedure and which can be changed if there is support of two-thirds of the members of the House when a Bill is introduced. There are therefore various depths of entrenchment. These points are clearly explained in the Report.

Mr. Wall

The point I was making was that in his submission the Paramount Chief asked that these points should be entrenched both by referendum and two-thirds majority. As the hon. Gentleman said, some are entrenched one way and some the other, but nothing is entrenched by both methods.

Mr. Stonehause

We do not think that that is needed. Provided the essential requirements of the constitution concerning the State, the position of the Paramount Chief, and human rights and freedoms, were specially entrenched in this way, it would be sufficient.

There are points on the position of the Paramount Chief on which I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I assume that in his speech he was expressing personal views and not speaking for the whole Opposition. The Paramount Chief's demand really means a division in the transfer of responsibility to Basutoland at independence.

The Paramount Chief has been asking that in certain circumstances, in what has been called an emergency, he should have special rights. Who will determine what is an emergency and when it exists? If the Paramount Chief decides, all the power is in his hands. It is wrong for anyone to lend support to the idea that we should transfer power to a Paramount Chief who should be the constitutional Head of State rather than to those politicians who have the majority in the Assembly.

Seretse Khama is no longer a paramount chief. He is no longer a tribal chief. He has won his spurs in democratic elections. That is the difference in Bechuanaland, and there are also fundamental differences in Swaziland, which I do not want to go into now. But it would be wrong to give the impression that the Paramount Chief in Basutoland was asking for a similar position to that of Seretse Khama or King Sobhuza in Swaziland.

Mr. Wall

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making this point. I must have made my point rather badly. I was trying to put to the House and explain the Paramount Chief's thoughts in the context of Africa today. I was not agreeing that those thoughts were correct. The Opposition believe that these residual powers transferred to Basutoland when it becomes independent should not be transferred to the Paramount Chief but vested in Parliament and the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stonehouse

I am glad to hear that explanation. That is the position we take. We think that the reserve powers should be transferred to the Prime Minister and his colleagues and that the Paramount Chief should have the position of constitutional Head of State. This, after all, was the view of the Constitutional Commission which reported in 1963, which, as I have said, was unanimous. I shall quote the words, because this whole question is important: No aspect of our work has given us more anxiety than that of devising the appropriate status for Motlotlehi. After much thought and lengthy deliberation we have come to the conclusion that if Cabinet Government is to work in Lesotho, Motlotlehi must be accorded carefully defined powers … we carefully considered whether Motlotlehi should be accorded discretionary executive functions in the field of external affairs and treaty-making; but we have come to the conclusion that this would not he in the best interests either of Motlotichi or of Lesotho". That was the unanimous decision of the Commission, and that is the position to which we adhered during the constitutional talks here. It is to be regretted that the Paramount Chief is not prepared, apparently, yet to accept that clear decision. What he is asking for is a division in the transfer of sovereignty. It could only lead to discord and uncertainty, and that would, I think, be quite wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the point: should we add to the prospects of unity and peace and order in Lesotho if we delayed the Bill tonight? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that we shall not add to the prospects of peace and order in Lesotho if we hold up the Bill. To do so could only lead to discord and uncertainty, and it would delay the date by which the people of Lesotho can together tackle the essential problems of economic development.

I turn now to the very moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). The whole House was moved by what he said, and I know he speaks with feeling having just come from a conference at which the question of the gap between the newly developing countries and the industrial States was raised. I agree that this will be one of the biggest problems in the next few years, and our civilisation will be judged by the way we approach it. But, surely, we must give the developing countries the tools to help themselves. We cannot act as latter-day paternalists. We must help them to help themselves, and independence is one of the tools, one of the ways of inspiring them to work harder. It is also one of the ways in which they can go out into the world and get more assistance to help their economic development. Independence delayed would hold back the prospect of Lesotho helping itself in its essential economic development.

This is why I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude to the Bill. On reflection, he will, I am sure agree that the Bill will help the people of Lesotho to move ahead more quickly in economic development.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I will accept that provided that the Government will give the financial help to let these people help themselves. When are we coming to that crucial point?

Mr. Stonehouse

I shall come to that, but I want first to deal with another point which my hon. Friend raised. He said that the minority parties in Lesotho were, of course, self-interested, but we should none the less reconsider their case for new elections before independence. This process can go on and on for all time. If minority parties, having lost elections, can always demand new elections before independence is allowed, we can go on and on. The fact is that all these parties fought the April 1965 elections on the platform of independence. There is, therefore, a difference between the situation in Lesotho and that in some other countries where there is disagreement about the principle of independence. They were all agreed about it.

Therefore, they should all accept that, whichever party has a majority in the Assembly, that is the party which should lead the Lesotho into independence.

My hon. Friend referred to the economic subservience of Lesotho to the Republic. I think that this is accepted by all speakers. It is accepted by me, and my right hon. Friend and I are conscious of the fact that a large number of people from Basutoland work in the Republic and Basutoland depends on it for its imports and exports and for its customs income. These are economic facts which we cannot ignore, but would it be right in these circumstances to deny them for all time their independence to run their own affairs?

I was very interested when the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) came into the debate. I thought he was going to be a bull in a china shop, and 1 was right, he was. He made some pungent points and demonstrated the most extraordinary alliance between himself, Mr. Mokhehle and his party, and the Paramount Chief, who apparently all agree that independence should be held up for a few more years. I cannot see that the hon. Member was consistent in the matter of economic aid. He wanted an assurance on the one hand that the deficit would be met and on the other questioned whether we would be justified in giving money to Basutoland which we could not afford.

The question of economic assistance was raised by a number of hon. Members. The figure of economic aid in terms of grant-in-aid was £2,350,000 last year, and this year will be £2,750,000, which is a substantial sum. I want to give an assurance that the fact of independence is not going to change in any way our attitude to providing this sort of assistance.

It was made clear in a reply of 1st July that the Minister of Overseas Development is in continuing touch with the Government of Basutoland and these discussions will continue and will result in substantial amounts of assistance being provided from Britain. I think that it would be wrong, however, for me to try to anticipate the detailed amounts and give precise figures which will be arrived at as a result of the talks between the Ministers concerned.

Mr. David Steel rose—

Mr. stonehouse

No, I must get on.

Sir G. Nabarro

The hon. Member—

Mr. Stonehouse

I am not giving way, and if the hon. Member will only resume his seat I will get on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) referred to four points and suggested a tie-up between the Prime Minister of Basutoland and, as he put it, "elements in the Republic". I agree that some publicity has been given to this, and I think that we must accept that Chief Lealua Jonathan is a realist and realises that he must coexist with the Republic.

I would refer by hon. Friend to that speech of my noble Friend Lord Brockway in another place on 14th July. He said: I accept entirely that Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister of Lesotho, is opposed to the policy of apartheid in South Africa; and I do not expect Lesotho, under his premiership, to enter into any association with South Africa which is likely to lessen the opposition of the Lesotho people to the apartheid system within South Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 276, c. 231.1 I think that that is the position of the Prime Minister. He made this very point in the final speech which he made to the constitutional conference when he made clear that it was his intention to withstand any intrusion from the authorities in the Republic. He also said that it was his intention to build up the economic strength of Lesotho and make it less dependent on the Republic. I believe that Chief Jonathan is the sort of man who will be able to give Lesotho the lead in this direction that it needs and that we must accept his assurances on these subjects and not be led astray by certain extravagant things that have been written in the Press and said outside this House.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of the military security of the Protectorate. We have had no request from the Prime Minister for any assistance to be provided, and, as my hon. Friend will recognise, there are many logistic problems involved in providing any such guarantees. Indeed, I would ask him to bear in mind that if we were to make provision for so-called military security at this stage, in advance of independence and at a time when there is peace and order in Lesotho—and we all hope that it will continue, that there will be no violence, and that no comments made or Press articles written will give any encouragement to anybody who wants violence—there might be a danger of encouraging the very violence we want to discourage.

Turning to the question of political refugees, Basutoland will be in a very difficult position in its relationship with the Republic, but I have no reason to doubt that the Government of Lesotho will give political asylum to genuine political refugees. For further assurance on that point, I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 22 of the 1966 Constitutional Conference Report, where he will read: The Basutoland Government Delegation assured the Conference that the Government of Lesotho would not sponsor legislation or treaties affecting extradition unless it conformed in its terms to the practice of civilised nations. I have already given assurances on future economic assistance, and I hope that, in view of my reply, my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members who have raised doubts about the Bill, will now see fit to give it their unanimous support. We hope that from this House —even including the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—will give a unanimous message to the people of Lesotho: "Despite all your problems, we wish you well in independence after 4th October."

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee this day.