HL Deb 04 July 1928 vol 71 cc833-43

LORD OLIVIER rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Government of Kenya propose to remove the Samburu tribe from their present habitat in the Laikipia district, in order to assign that land to Europeans, and whether, in view of the Duke of Devonshire's statement (Command Paper 1922), that "if, and when," the interests of African natives "and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail," the Secretary of State for the Colonies intends to prohibit the accomplishment of this long meditated and discussed design; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question I have placed on the Paper is a very simple one; it only requires an answer "Yes" or "No." It is not a subject which requires any lengthy debate. I shall put before your Lordships the facts of the case and ask His Majesty's Government for the categorical reply, "Yes" or "No," which I invite in my Question. First all, I refer to Command Paper 1922 of 1923, which was issued by the Duke of Devonshire and in which he stated that in all our African Dependencies, including Kenya Colony, it was the duty of His Majesty's Government to regard the native interests as paramount and that in case the interests of the immigrant communities and of the natives should conflict the interests of the latter must prevail. That is a correct rendering, at any rate in substance, I think the noble Lord [Lord Lovat] will agree, of the proposition.

In the Colony of Kenya there are certain districts which have been marked off or assigned as native reserves and there are certain districts or provinces which have not been marked off or assigned as reserves. One of those provinces is what is called the Laikipia province, which lies to the north west of Nairobi. The northern part, which is the district with which I am concerned, lies to the north of the Aberdare Forest range, and is a pastoral country. At one time it was proposed to assign that country to the Masai tribe, but the Masai tribe never occupied any part of it. It was occupied by another tribe, the Samburu tribe. Before that assignation to the Masai tribe was carried out, the Masai were moved to another part of the Colony and the question of whether that country should be allotted to them or not dropped altogether. The Samburu tribe, which is a pastoral tribe, continued to occupy that country, and since that period they have occupied it without interruption and have very greatly increased the number of their cattle and flocks.

To the Report of the East Africa Commission, of which Mr. Ormsby Gore was Chairman, Mr. Linfield, a Member of Parliament, added a Supplementary Memorandum on some questions not dealt with in the Report, and I wish to quote from Mr. Linfield's Memorandum this statement:— I consider it essential that, in defining native boundaries, each tribe should be given sufficient grazing areas to enable it to keep a reasonable amount of stock. That is one of the interests of the natives that His Majesty's Government have regarded as paramount. Mr. Linfield went on to say:— I am afraid that the importance of this matter has not received adequate recognition in fixing native boundaries in Kenya in the past, and that even at the present time it is not appreciated. This is illustrated by the two most important conflicts between Europeans and natives regarding land in Kenya at the present time, viz., the controversies regarding the Yatta Plains and Northern Laikipia. That is the district now occupied by the Samburu tribe. The Europeans claim that these areas should be reserved for future European settlement but the Yatta Plains are claimed by the Wakamba and Northern Laikipia by the Samburu. It is not necessary to enter into the details of the controversies, but for my own part I am satisfied that if the Wakamba and Samburu are to have reasonable facilities for cattle-owning it is absolutely essential that they should be granted grazing rights over the Yatta Plains and Northern Laikipia respectively.

Mr. Linfield says that they should be granted grazing rights, for the present position is that no natives have any rights there whatever. The land is vested in the Crown and anything they are given is, legally speaking, given on sufferance. Therefore, their position as occupiers should be recognised by the Crown. Mr. Linfield goes on to say:— For a short period the Wakamba were allowed to graze their cattle in the Yatta Plains on payment of rent. Recently the privilege of leasing the area was denied to them, their stock was driven back into their reserve, and from 20,000 to 40,000 head died of starvation. That is what happens when you remove the native tribes from their habitat—20,000 to 40,000 head of stock die, and great starvation and penury is inflicted upon the natives.

When I was speaking some months ago on the East African Commission, I had intended to refer specially to this question of the Samburu reserve as one of the points on which I thought our trusteeship for the natives was being, neglected. I did casually mention it, but I did not expatiate upon it, because I had seen a report and had been assured that Sir Edward Denham, the acting Governor of the Colony, had gone off in June, 1927, and had inspected the locality, and had come to a strong opinion that the Samburu tribe ought not to be disturbed in their occupation. Consequently, although I referred to it in my speech, I did not press the question, thinking that the matter had been satisfactorily disposed of. My attention has been called to it, however, once more, by the Report of Mr. Justice Feetham's Commission, in which this area is dealt with and in which it is proposed that the Laikipia district of Kenya Colony should be made one of the areas of local government. The Samburu territory is included in that district. What Mr. Justice Feetham's Report says is this:— We may, therefore, take the rural population of these districts as Laikipia. 250 Europeans, North Nyeri, 384 Europeans. Laikipia, though 3,113 square miles in area, has thus a far smaller number of residents than any of our proposed districts.

The total amount of land alienated to Europeans in Kenya Colony is 9,400 square miles, of which it is reported that 810 square miles are in beneficial occupation for agriculture and 3,900 square miles used as ranches and sheep farms, leaving nearly 4,700 square miles not being made use of at all by Europeans. Therefore, at least half of this enormous area, which has been granted to Europeans in Kenya, has not been made use of. I have pointed out the ridiculous lack of occupation of this Laikipia district by Europeans, and, as there are about 10,000 Samburu dependent for their livelihood upon the northern part of it, surely, if land is required for further extension of the European settlement, there is room in that 4,700 square miles still unoccupied by Europeans for the assignment of land to those who desire it. However, the matter was reopened by its being stated in a Kenya newspaper and in letters from correspondents that I have seen, that in December last the Governor of Kenya had gone up into this district, and on the return of the Governor from this district it was put about in the Colony—I cannot give any official statement but it was put about generally—that Sir Edward Grigg had decided that he would open this part of Kenya now occupied by the Samburu Tribe to European settlement, provided they could find water supplies in the desert areas to the north, to which the unfortunate Samburu would be shunted. That was the general statement in the newspapers of the country. Possibly my noble friend will tell me whether that report was made by the Governor or not.

I have seen recently in the Kenya newspapers reports that already expeditions of prospectors are setting out in motor cars to see what they call the new Promised Land, to prospect land as soon as it is opened, get the preemption of farms there and sell to newcomers. There has been a general expectation raised that the Samburu are going to be evicted in the interests of Europeans in a case in which their interest and those of Europeans manifestly are in conflict. The case is perfectly simple and perfectly uncontroversial as far as that is concerned. Questions have been asked in the other House to which only procrastinating and evasive replies have been made. A Question was asked by Sir Robert Hamilton in June, 1926, whether it was proposed to remove the Samburu tribe in Kenya from the lands now occupied by them. Mr. Amery said in reply:— Early last year the late Governor made a proposal that certain Samburu tribesmen should be required to evacuate a piece of country in Northern Laikipia which they had been permitted to use for grazing purposes. … I considered that the matter needed fuller inquiry and I requested Sir Edward Grigg to give it his attention on his arrival in Kenya. I am still awaiting his report. On April 30 last another Question was asked in the House of Commons, putting the point more definitely, and Mr. Amery replied:— I am aware that in December last the Governor visited the Northern Frontier province, including portions of the territory occupied by the Samburu or over which they may have roamed, but I am not aware that it is proposed either to alienate land from the tribe or to evict them. The Governor will report fully to me if and when any change in the present situation is proposed, and I see no reason to take any action in the matter at present. I do not know whether, in view of that reply in April, the Governor has now given any intimation to the Secretary of State, but, whatever intimation the Governor may have given, I think the facts I have stated are sufficient to establish the position that here is a case in which the rights of about 10,000 natives are in acute conflict with the interests of certain problematical future European settlers, who have not by any means shown themselves anxious to take up the vast amount of land already allotted to settlers.

My Question is a perfectly simple and definite one—whether, having regard to the fact that here is a conflict between the interests of the natives and the interests of an immigrant race, His Majesty's Government are going to adhere to, or whether they are going to depart from, the assurance given by the Duke of Devonshire that in such an instance the interests of the natives should be paramount? To clinch the matter I am going to read a short extract from a speech by Sir Edward Grigg in the Legislative Council on May 27 last. He said that if the Crown vested the native lands in a Board of Trustees it would abdicate from the most essential of its duties with regard to native welfare. It would say in effect to the native of the Colony: 'You cannot trust the King or his representatives, but you can trust these half-dozen gentlemen, these independent trustees, whom the King has appointed under this Ordinance.' For myself, members of Council, I would never be a party to so abject or so false a declaration in the name of His Majesty. Abject it would be, for how could the Crown declare its incapacity to safeguard native rights in this one all-important particular, and still expect to retain the confidence and prestige necessary to the supreme authority in a British Colony of mixed races? I can assure Sir Edward Grigg that I fully agree that it is most important to retain confidence and prestige.

Sir Edward Grigg went on to say:— It will be said, I know, that the word of Governments has been pledged in the past and not been fully kept. I am aware, sadly aware, of that; the word of the Government was pledged in the Masai Treaty and to the Nandi tribe. We also gave our word to the Wakambe tribe that they should have a certain reserve and we turned them out. Those are cases in which the word of the Government was definitely broken and everybody in Kenya was perfectly aware of that. I want to know whether the Government are going to take the responsibility of saying definitely in this case that they will set the matter finally at rest by establishing confidence, that in this case native interests will be paramount. I beg to move.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (LORD LOVAT)

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised this question and I do not think that I shall have any difficulty in dissipating any reasonable objection, if I may so term it, to the action of His Majesty's Government in Kenya. I would begin by saying that I absolutely deny that there is any conflict of interests over the area named. I would go on to say that as far as we are able to find out, the area that is allotted, and will be permanently allotted, to the Samburu tribe is amply sufficient, not only for their wants at the present time but for any possible development that we can see in the immediate future. I would like to say, too, at the outset that the Samburu tribe do not belong to that region at all. They have come down from the shores of Lake Rudolf. They are a wandering tribe. They wander over an enormous tract of country and for the Government to say that a tribe 10,000 only in number, wandering about in little bands of fifty or a hundred, should have an area of millions of acres set aside for them is surely denying the possibility of making the proper use of the land, which the Government naturally wishes to make.

As the noble Lord has quoted Sir Edward Grigg, may I quote what he said, I think only a week before the speech from which the noble Lord quoted. On May 18, Sir Edward Grigg, in a speech to the Legislative Council, said:— The African must never be deprived of the use and benefits of the land secured to him by this Ordinance, nor denied the opportunity of growth as a free, self-respecting, responsible and industrious member of the State, who contributes according to his full capacity to the framing of all policy that affects him. For his progress and welfare, security for his land is the main essential. Security means that the more conservative elements in native society will be free to live and develop gradually through a steady evolution of the tribal system which is most suited to them. It also means that the native population will be free to choose between industry and their own reserves and labour for wages outside, so that they cannot be forced to labour outside their own lands by indirect economic pressure. I think that this settlement is surely one that will be welcomed by the noble Lord who has raised this question. Surely it is an indication of the will of His Majesty's representative out there.

Let me go into the detailed facts of the position. I think it will hardly be denied that there must be limits within which a wandering tribe must be content. It would be impossible if, for instance, the Samburu numbered only 1,000 instead of 10,000, that they should be given an area half the size of Scotland. Let us look at the actual facts. Let me say in this connection straight away that there is no one who has spent more time during the course of his Governorship in travelling over and visiting these rather out-of-the-way parts of the world than Sir Edward Grigg. He is trying to push on survey work and has done a great deal of travelling himself. On his authority, and after full consultation with the Secretary of State here, it has been resolved that 500,000 acres shall be definitely reserved for the Samburu in the area referred to; that a middle area of 600,000 acres shall be left open for further consideration when the possibilities of the remainder of the Samburu country have been more adequately explored, but meanwhile the Samburu will be permitted to use this area too; and that an area of 850,000 acres is to be available for alienation to Europeans, having full regard to the equitable allocation of water, salt licks and so on along the boundary separating it from the middle area.

To many of us 500,000 acres does not mean much, but it is roughly the area of Westmorland, and that area will be reserved for a body of 10,000 natives who are purely pastoral and do practically no agricultural work, but roam about in bands of one or two hundred. They will have an area equal to the whole of Westmorland to roam over. In addition there will be a middle area equal to about one-half that of Lancashire. Each of these bands practically represents a group of families, and you will be creating—perhaps quite rightly—an arrangement by which 100 families will occupy in course of development an area of this enormous extent. But this is not the end. Apart from this, there is a large tract of country to the north and east to which, I understand, they could have access with other tribes, should further provision be necessary. Surely this constitutes a sufficient possibility for the development of a relatively small number of natives. It is pointed out that, if progress is to be made and if anything is to be done for the betterment of stock and of pasture, the Samburu must be weaned from their present nomadic habits.

Only recently a Commission under the chairmanship of that very distinguished scientist, Dr. Orr, has been inquiring into the possibility of securing the advantage of the natives themselves in the way of bringing them more closely together in order that the grasses may be maintained to the best advantage for those who are at present pursuing extreme forms of nomadism. Surely there must be a limit, having due regard to our desire to carry out in its entirety the principles laid down in Command Paper 1922, a point at which you can no longer say that individual tribes shall have their interests regarded before the general interest of the development of the country. Surely there is no conflict between Europeans and natives. The native is not only assured of his position to-day, but he has a sufficient area reserved for him to provide that in the distant future he will have enough land over which to roam. It is submitted that for a small body of 10,000 natives, with something like 100 headmen among them, an area the size of Westmorland, added to the other area that I have mentioned, is surely enough, not only for the present but for a somewhat long future. I do not know anything of the knowledge of Mr. Linfield, to whom the noble Lord referred, nor, I am afraid, as it is not my Department, can I follow him into the other accusation that he made—

LORD OLIVIER

Mr. Linfield was a member of Mr. Ormsby-Gore's Commission.

LORD LOVAT

I know who he was and what he reported, but I do not know what knowledge he had of this area. The present Governor, assisted with the best advice that he can command, makes the definite statement that in the journey that he made he was astonished at the fertility of a great deal of this land to the north, and I understand that he is actually setting out to-day on a further course of investigation as to the suitability of this great tract, which obviously cannot be surveyed in weeks or even in months. In conclusion I should like to say that the Governor has no wish to take away from native tribes any land to which they have a fair claim or which may be required for their reasonable needs and that, in the examination of any proposals, the Secretary of State will not fail to keep constantly in mind the interests of all the native tribes concerned. I would submit to the noble Lord who has raised this question that a line of policy such as Sir Edward Grigg has clearly indicated in his address to the Legislative Council, and the action that he has taken in his administrative work during the last two years, suggest that it is extremely dangerous to criticise at a distance settlements which are in process of going on and which are being made with full knowledge and a full determination to carry out the decisions contained in Command Paper 1922, which has so often been mentioned to your Lordships.

LORD OLIVIER

My Lords, the statement of the noble Lord clears up the situation very considerably. The reports in the Press and the policy that has been hitherto indicated suggested that the Samburu were to be removed from this territory. The noble Lord has made the very satisfactory statement that what is considered by the Governor to be a sufficient area for them is actually to be delimited and marked out. That is practically an establishment of the principle for which we are contending, and this Statute practically implements the promise of the Government that the native interests should be regarded. It is also satisfactory to learn that there is to be an intermediate belt. I can only rely upon the assurances of the noble Lord, and upon the assurance of Sir Edward Grigg, that first of all the Samburu are not to be driven north into the desert.

The noble Lord said that 500,000 acres were to be allotted to the tribe. I do not know whether the noble Lord is a grazier himself, and whether he thinks that that amount of pasture for a tribe with about 110,000 head of cattle is a sufficient allowance, but at any rate it is an attempt at a reasonable allowance. I accept the statement of the noble Lord that the Samburu tribe are not to be evicted from their present reserves, but that a line is to be drawn granting them sufficient pasturage, and access to supplies and to salt licks, as a satisfactory statement, and one which I am sorry it has taken so long to elicit from the Secretary of State. Hitherto questions asked in the other House have failed to elicit any information, and only now on this question have we got this statement, which I am glad to say is, so far as it goes, and taking it as intended to be sincerely interpreted, a satisfactory statement. Consequently I have no need to press for Papers, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.