§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this. House do now adjourn—[Mr. Fitch.]
§ 10.31 p.m.
§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)I am sure that the Under-Secretary will understand why I ventilate this matter tonight. Last month the Secretary of State published a White Paper upon the Swazi constitutional proposals and this has caused anxiety to many people here who know the colony, which I hope the Under-Secretary will allay. He has been to South Africa and lately to the colony, and knows the place at first hand. He will also recall that in the 1950s he and Fenner Brockway, as he then was, and myself, raised colonial matters frequently, and I hope that he will not mind my saying that he was a good poacher then, and that I hope that he is a good gamekeeper now.
For the last 50 years the High Commission Territories have languished under the shadow of South African apartheid and the policies of Her Majesty's Government have dismally failed to further what I call the best interests of the people of what was known as Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. These were our Protectorates. Our efforts seemed to be limited to ensuring that the Africans in these places found jobs in what was known then as the Union. One might term the Territories "economic Bantus-tans". Today all three are very vulnerable to economic pressure from South Africa.
The Colonial Development Corporation has only had two schemes in Botswana and has had no schemes in Basutoland or Lesotho. It has done much more in Swaziland, which is wealthier than the other two former colonial States. Despite this, what I would call the modest recommendations of the Morse economic survey of some years ago have been shelved by successive Conservative Governments.
No one can criticise the attitude of Seretse Khama over the Rhodesian question, when one realises the vulnerable position of the economy vis-à-vis South Africa. Swaziland, however, is still in our charge and will become internally independent this coming year, and fully 170 independent, I understand, by the end of 1970. In some ways the position has changed since the 1950s when our policy was shaped by the Ambassador in Pretoria. Now we have a Queen's Commissioner and matters are directly under our control.
There are two unique problems. The first is that there is a most unusual alliance between the black African, the tribalistic chiefs and the white European industrialists. The second is the illiteracy rate which is one of the highest in the world. I am shocked and ashamed to see, in a pamphlet "Training of Teachers for the Commonwealth", that we have only one lady and two men in the United Kingdom as students from the Colony of Swaziland.
To go back a little, in 1881 we first guaranteed independence to the Swazi nation. In 1921, Sobhuza II took over the Paramount Chiefship. He is now 77 and is still there. It was not until 1961 that Her Majesty's Government took the first fumbling steps towards a constitution. In 1961 we had the first political party of a nationalist African movement, the Progressive Party, led by Dr. Ambrose Zwane, who was then seeking, as the people still seek today, universal adult suffrage, which, I feel sure, they will get in the new Constitution.
In 1963 the first constitutional conference was held. This got into such difficulties that the Paramount Chief himself did not like it. He petitioned against it and had his own referendum in the Territory. To show his power, he had a 99.9 per cent. referendum in his favour. Not even pre-war Germany or the Soviet Union ever got figures like this!
In 1964 we came to the first elections. Sobhuza and his Imbokodvo movement won all the seats they could possibly win. The reactionary whites, mainly South African settlers, organised in the United Swazi Association, led by Carol Todd, won all the seats they could possibly win in alliance with the Paramount Chiefs. The United African National opposition, despite getting 12.4 per cent. of the votes could not get even a single seat. It was widely alleged that the Swaziland National Council and the United Party of Carol Todd were getting funds and help for the South African Government and that voters were being 171 influenced. The tribal chiefs were swaying the peasants who held the land under the chiefs. Petitions were then submitted to the Nationalist Party which, if successful, would have unseated half the Legislative Council. They were not upheld.
There was discontent all over the country, in the urban areas and in the mining camps. At Piggy's Peak, where the big Havelock asbestos mine was located, the trouble was such that we flew down a battalion of soldiers from Kenya. I wonder whether they are still there. They may be.
The new government of Sobhuza soon asked for independence talks. A Committee was appointed under Sir Francis Loyd and in May this year it proposed a number of changes. Briefly, they are as follows. It was proposed that there should be internal self-government on the British monarchial pattern under our protection. Sobhuza II was to be King and Head of State. The lower House, or House of Assembly, would have a Speaker and 24 elected members, from eight constituencies with three members each, an additional six being nominated by the King. There was also to be an upper House, with a Speaker and twelve members.
I do not regard that as the sort of constitution which we should support and I should like to state a few objections. Any democratic change would be heavily weighted against by the overwhelming power given to the King. Indeed, the White Paper following the constitutional conference, issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, confirms all these proposals. Appendix II of the White Paper gives chapter and verse for all these proposals except that concerning land. Most changes of any importance that might be desired for the future could be vetoed by the King. In fact, paragraph 33 of the White Paper would allow the King to dissolve Parliament.
Let us consider, for example, the nomination of six additional members of the lower House. What is the reason for this proposal? In the last elections the traditional parties behind the King swept the board. Why do we have nominations? I would have thought it was to make sure that minorities who do not win seats had some places in the House, 172 as against the majority who do win seats. The task and the duty of any constitution of this nature must be to lessen power at the centre and not to increase and to entrench it. Again why have a second House at all? In other African States there is need for it, as in Nigeria, where we have emirs and other traditional chiefs. There is need there for their representation, but where, as in Swaziland, the traditional heads of the tribes are themselves winning seats, why should they have power in the lower Chamber and also have representation in the upper Chamber?
Why should there be three-member constituencies? Why not single-member constituencies? I should have thought it better to have had not eight three-member seats but 24 single-member seats, particularly such seats for the urban areas where the black nationalist movement will have its strength in future, and where there will be union workers of all kinds, constituting a new force in this traditional society. These new men will want a voice in the Legislative Council in the future.
Again, the King can appoint the chief justice. He can appoint the judiciary. Why is this so? Why should not the Prime Minister and his Cabinet appoint them, as in other more advanced societies? Indeed, the King, through the chief justice, can if desirous, appoint almost 100 per cent. of the Public Service Commission also. I do not like this, and I hope that the Under-Secretary can answer satisfactorily these points.
Examining the land question, according to paragraph 57 of the White Paper:
The Swazi nation's land should be vested in the King.Since the land is economically and politically the most important element in Swazi affairs, this particular statement needs some clarification. Can the King and the Swazi National Council block in perpetuity all future decisions of the Prime Minister and his elected Cabinet—in two years' time, in 10 years' time? Land tenure in Africa and in Swaziland is of immense emotional and political significance. Some change in the system of land tenure is essential in the future.One thing the Secretary of State turned down when put to him by Sobhuza and 173 his National Council was on this matter of mineral concessions. It was proposed to the British Government that authority should be vested in the King for the granting of mineral concessions. This is in page 5, paragraph 10. What a carve-up if Sobhuza II, Carol Todd and the South African financiers were allowed to exploit the mineral wealth while the elected African national Government stood idly by. There is still some anxiety here; and I hope the Minister will please scan paragraph 62 where the matter of minerals is not designated as a major provision but simply as one of "certain important provisions". Paragraph 61(a) and 61(b) are a little bit at variance upon this, because if it is simply "certain important provisions" not entrenched, this can be later amended by a 75 per cent. vote in Parliament.
In the light of all this, I ask if the Minister will kindly say when a constitutional conference is likely to be held. I would hope, following the White Paper of this month, fairly early in the coming year.
When elections are held, would the Minister please think of appointing an independent commission of the United Nations to supervise the elections, because after the last electons there was great feeling; otherwise, a battalion of troops would not have been flown in by Her Majesty's Government to keep order. There was much Opposition discontent, and I hope that the same will not be allowed to occur in the elections of the future.
Lastly, I want to put to my hon. Friend one or two short questions concerning economic development. Compared with Lesotho and Botswana, this is supposed to be a wealthy colony. There are 270,000 Africans, mainly poverty-stricken peasants. The cash income of a homestead of five to eight persons is less than £26 a year, or 10s. a week. Over-stocking is endemic, and pasture management is poor. The poverty of the peasants is the major problem, for it is essentially a subsistence farming community, like all African States. Fewer than 8 per cent. of people are in the towns.
As for mining, the asbestos companies are financed by South African capital, and the asbestos is exported by overhead cars to Transvaal. One mine alone sup- 174 plies 25 per cent. of the national revenue. The Swaziland Iron Ore Company is financed again by South African capital and is South African based. The first railway was built this year, but it carries iron ore only. Why is it that passengers are not allowed to be carried to Lourenço Marques or to any other outlets of the Territory?
The saddest feature of all is that over half the males of the rural society outside the towns are forced to work inside South Africa or in Mozambique or other territories. They send back something like £400,000 a year to their families, but that is no compensation to wives who have lost their husbands. The quicker that we get in technical assistance and more money to put the economy on a more balanced footing, the better it will be for family life in the Territory.
As regards education, the Department is lacking in funds. There is no adult education and there are only 130 pupils receiving technical education. Much more needs to be spent, particularly to train teachers and nurses. Nurses, especially, are wanted badly. I know that communications are important anywhere in Africa, but why is it that in past years, in this lopsided economy dominated by South African investment, railways and roads have had ten times the money spent on them per year than has been spent on education?
After the scandalous neglect of the past by Governments of the United Kingdom, I hope that we shall attempt to make up for it now. We have a short time in which to pump in both money and men. We have only got until the end of 1970. Let us do our best to make this a better shop window for the adjoining African peoples of South Africa and Mozambique.
§ 10.48 p.m.
§ Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)The House must realise two facts when debating Swaziland. The first is the strong loyalty to the Ngwenyama, the Paramount Chief soon to be the King. The second fact is the economic dependence of the country upon South Africa.
Hon. Members will recall that, in 1963, when the new Constitution was introduced, it was biased in favour of the political parties. I presented a Petition 175 to the House on behalf of the Ngwenyama to pray against that bias. This had no result. The Ngwenyama then had to decide whether to boycott the elections under the new Constitution or to fight them. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, he fought them and won every single seat.
We have before the House, after a great deal of research on the part of the present Government, a Constitution broadly agreed by all parties in Swaziland. I understand that there is only one major query, and that is as regards minerals. However, the Government have reached a fair compromise in Appendix II, Paragraph 58, where it is agreed that the power to make grants over minerals will be vested in the King but that he is to act in accordance with the advice of his Cabinet over the allocation of grants.
The Government have struck a fair balance. The Constitution has been worked out by the Swazis themselves. They have not even had to come to London to put their case to the Government. The Under-Secretary went to Swaziland himself. May I congratulate him on the results, and express what I am sure is the wish, from all sides of the House, that the new King and his people in their small but strategically important country in Southern Africa have a happy future as they move towards independence.
§ 10.50 p.m.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse)The citizens of Hull must be very proud to-night, because two of their Members, after a long day, have sought to take the attention of the House away from the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom to one of our Dependencies, Swaziland, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for initiating this debate. It is very important that we continue to take a direct interest in the affairs of these Territories for which we are responsible. My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions, and I shall do my best to reply to them.
I propose to deal first with the powers of the King. What we aim to achieve 176 in the new Constitution for Swaziland is that the King shall be a constitutional monarch, and that most of the political power will be clearly in the hands of the elected Ministers at the next election. This is the point which we have now established in regard to the control of minerals, which I think is very important to the future of Swaziland, this being such an important part of the future economic development of the country.
I want to take up one or two of the detailed points made in the debate because I think that my hon. Friend may have had a misunderstanding about the powers of the King, particularly in relation to the appointment of the chief justice. Under the new Constitution, the King will not appoint the chief justice. Up to independence, the chief justice will continue to be appointed by Her Majesty's Commissioner in pursuance of Her Majesty's instructions. The other judges will be appointed by Her Majesty's Commissioner in accordance with the advice of the chief justice until the Judicial Service Commission becomes executive, and thereafter by the King, but in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. It is therefore not correct to say that the King will have this extremely important power.
The question of the dissolution of Parliament was also raised. I think that it is interesting to refer to the other constitutions which have been arranged in the pre-independence period, like Basutoland, for instance. As my hon. Friend will see, this provision to which he objects is similar to the provision adopted elsewhere. It is the normal procedure. It is unusual for it to be used, but it is important for it to be there.
My hon. Friend complained about the size of the constituencies, but it was our thought that this compromise was the best one for Swaziland, bearing in mind that if the constituencies are too small there will be a tendency perhaps for certain of the candidates to attempt to get votes by unorthodox means. This will be avoided if the constituencies are as large as has been suggested, although in a small country with 120,000 electors they will still be extremely small constituencies. There will be eight of them, returning three for each constituency. This was a compromise between the various proposals which were put before 177 us, and I must say that when I was in Swaziland I found this proposal to be generally accepted, apart from one or two of the minority parties, which, even on a percentage assessment, received very small support during the last election.
My hon. Friend raised the queston of the control of minerals, and I am grateful to him for referring to this. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for congratulating us on this decision. It was not an easy decision to reach, particularly as feelings were very strong on this subject, but I am satisfied that the Swazis, in their own good sense, will realise that this is the best solution for the long-term future of Swaziland, and is not something which is best just for the period of the last few years before they reach independence. It is good sense—as I think most Swazis will realise, on reflection—that the Ministers who are elected as a result of a democratic franchise should have clear control over the granting of mineral rights, rather than having a confusion of power in this respect lying between them and the traditional authorities.
Having used this provision in the Constitution for the next few years before independence they will probably decide to use it in the period afterwards. As my hon. Friend said, it is clear from paragraph 63(c) that this provision is subject to amendment by the Members at a joint sitting of both Houses, provided they obtain 75 per cent. of the votes cast. It is therefore not one of the most entrenched provisions, but in my view it is most unlikely that the Imbokodvo will move to amend under this provision.
I was extremely impressed by the quality of the politicians in Swaziland. In the last few years they have developed a political organisation which reflects an overwhelming majority of the Swazis. In free elections, as the House knows, they obtained about 85 per cent. of the votes cast. We must recognise that the Imbokodvo has overwhelming support. I was interested by the statesmanlike way in which the men who will be the future Ministers of Swaziland are conducting themselves at this time.
§ Mr. James JohnsonDoes not my hon. Friend accept that a party which polls 12½ per cent. of the votes and is particularly dominant or important in the urban 178 areas at least deserves some representation in the House?
§ Mr. StonehouseI believe it will have the opportunity, if it contests the eight seats being arranged, to obtain a fair chance of election in those constituencies.
I was very impressed with the way in which the present members of the Executive Council are approaching their tasks, and I have every confidence that whoever wins the next election will be able to help Swaziland in the important period before independence.
That brings me to the question of education and economic development. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the question of schools in Swaziland. In my view this area has been badly neglected in the past. I was very shocked when I saw the facilities with which many of the rural schools had to cope. It is essential that a very high priority should be given to the provision of better educational facilities. I heard, on the part of industrialists in Swaziland, a cry for more educated young men whom they could train for skills in various jobs. There are many opportunities for young men in the development of Swaziland, provided they have an opportunity of getting the basic education, and it is our hope that this will be available to them in the coming years.
Economic development depends to a large extent on the improvement of agricultural techniques. My hon. Friend was right in talking about overstocking, and the failure to use the land to the best advantage. I hope that the new agricultural college at Malkerns, which I had the pleasure of seeing during my visit, will do a good job in training not only young men, for careers on the land, but also some of the established farmers. This school has been set up with funds from the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and Oxfam, and it seemed to me that they are well placed now to give a fine stimulus to the development of efficient agriculture in Swaziland.
I had an opportunity of going to some of the rural parts, where new schemes have been developed to help the Swazis improve the land. If these pilot schemes can be extended to the other parts of Swaziland they will help to raise standards enormously. The Swaziland irrigation scheme, which is one of the 179 responsibilities of the C.D.C., is another example of what can be achieved. Here, in the low veldt, as a result of irrigation from the Komati, a whole area of land has been developed for the growing of citrus and rice, and many Swazis have been established on plots where they are able to achieve very high incomes, with the supervision of their techniques. The future of agricultural development in Swaziland can be a very bright one.
The development of other industries and mines in Swaziland will also be extremely important. I went to the 180 Matsapa Industrial Estate, near the airport, where there has been a most encouraging development. A spur of the railway has been built to this estate, and it will provide a nucleus for very efficient industries——
§ The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at one minute past Eleven o'clock.