FUTURE OF COLONIAL TERRITORIES

HL Deb 02 February 1955 vol 190 cc905-19

2.42 p.m.

LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to recent political developments in British Colonial Territories and to the need for a new policy in relation to their constitutional future, with particular reference to those Territories which, by reason of their lack of economic resources, their geographical isolation, or their multi-racial problems are unlikely in the foreseeable future to become independent members of the Commonwealth; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Motion on the Order Paper to-day is to enable us to stand back, as it were, and to examine the whole problem of the constitutional and political future of the Colonial Territories as a whole. As we all know to our cost, there is, unfortunately, in this country, far too little interest in Colonial Territories in the normal way, unless there is trouble in one of them, when very often people take almost too much interest in that phenomenon. Therefore, when a general Motion of this kind comes forward, there is perhaps a tendency to say, "Why discuss a matter of this kind? Why not discuss Kenya, or Malaya, or some other place in detail?" But that, in a sense, would be looking only at the obvious result of the infection, rather than examining the cause. I hope, therefore, that to-day we shall not get too much involved in discussion of the details of a particular Colony or Colonies, save in so far as they illumine the general thesis which we are considering.

As your Lordships will know, there are three kinds of Colonial Territories. The first is the type that can sustain independence within the Commonwealth—in time at all events. There are probably only three of those: the first is Malaya, the second Nigeria, and the third the Gold Coast. The second class of Colonial Territories is that where the countries concerned can sustain independence within the Commonwealth provided that they are federated with other adjoining or neighbouring territories. Examples of these are the West Indian islands, the Central African Territories, and the Borneo Colonies. But there remain in the third class some twenty-five or even more Colonial Territories which, owing to their geographical isolation, to their lack of economic resources or to their multi-racial problems, will not in the foreseeable future be able to sustain an independent position within the Commonwealth—a position which was once, but is no longer, called Dominion status. All these territories, including the third type, have the right to expect that they will participate in a sovereign Parliament, not only in domestic matters but also in wider issues, such as defence, foreign affairs and other matters of common concern between themselves and the outside world.

Until recently the trend of almost all thought in this country has been that all of the three classes of Territories that I have mentioned were striving towards independence within the Commonwealth: in fact, it is still the policy of the present Government that they should do so. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in a debate two or three years ago, used the expression that they were all climbing up the ladder. I asked him then what would happen when they reached the top, if they could not step off; did they balance like the man on the flying trapeze? We have not had any reply from Her Majesty's Government on that issue, and, in fact, it is only recently that anyone has done any real thinking on this point. It is quite unreal to imagine that St. Helena is in the same position as Nigeria so far as constitutional autonomy is concerned.

This lack of a real objective approach to the problem has, in my view, been harmful, because it has caused confusion of thought and lack of direction. Recently the problem was thrust under the noses of the Government by the approach that was made from Malta, and this was followed by the extraordinary solution that the Government have advanced for the problem, of offering that Maltese affairs shall come under the administration of the Home Office, which knows nothing about them, rather than the Colonial Office, which knows everything about them. I am glad to say that the Labour Party has recently, at all events, become much more realistic on this issue, and the statement on Colonial policy which was approved at the last Labour Conference in Scarborough says: Our aim is a multi-racial Commonwealth in which Britain and the former dependent territories work together as equal partners to the benefit of all. Larger territories will become independent States. Smaller territories may form a federation. For territories which are scattered and too small to stand alone, special arrangements will have to be worked out, in agreement with their people, for association with Britain in the Commonwealth.

So far as I am aware, that is the first official statement of any Party in this country to recognise the fact that, in all the circumstances, St. Helena is not like Nigeria. I congratulate the Labour Party upon it, because of course it has great repercussions. The Labour Party's analysis of the problem has been carried out in more detail in the excellent pamphlet which has just been issued called Facing Facts in the Colonies. It is a Labour Party publication, and I strongly advise those of your Lordships who are interested in the matter to obtain a copy of it, because, as the Manchester Guardian said in a leading article on Monday last, it bears every evidence of a realistic approach to this problem.

The fact remains that, having stated the problem, we have to work out what our constitutional relationships with these various Territories shall be, and in order to do so we must look at the general political situation in which we have to work, realising that in some cases the stresses in the various Territories have been accentuated by the lack of a clear and realistic constitutional objective. During the period from 1945 to 1951, under the Labour Government, great political progress was made. The aim of that Government was to transfer power to democratic Governments in all the various Territories—and there are over forty of them in various stages of self-government. Some are approaching the final stage, as in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Jamaica, where an Executive Council is responsible to an elected Legislative Assembly so far as internal affairs are concerned. I am happy to say that since 1951, when the Labour Party went out of office, the present Government have continued that trend and they seem likely to continue to do so, at any rate so far as lies within their power.

Responsible self-government has, however, brought with it various problems. There are many but I will mention only two. The first is the problem of creating a public opinion that will sustain a Government in doing unpopular things like raising taxes to meet increased educational costs. This was a difficulty dramatically illustrated in the setback to Mr. Awolow, leader of the major party in the Western Region of Nigeria in the recent Federal elections. The second difficulty is the problem of creating and sustaining a parliamentary Opposition that will be parliamentary in its methods and whose rights will be recognised and respected by the Government. It is not always realised that it is easier to create a parliamentary Government than it is to create a parliamentary Opposition. This is a problem that is facing, for example, Mr. Nkrumah in the Gold Coast. In most of the emerging Colonies these and other problems have to be faced.

In this developing condition of affairs other problems have appeared or become accentuated by the lack of a clear objective in the constitutional field. In Kenya, for example, there is a multi-racial situation accentuated by the attempt by the same executive and legislative machinery to run an elected democratic system for the Whites and a Crown Colony or paternalistic system for the Asians and Africans. Large tensions have been set up as a result, and no solution has yet been found. One wonders whether a solution will be found along existing lines, or whether we should not consider the whole problem of these multiracial communities in a different setting and think afresh upon this very difficult problem. In British Guiana there was a danger of the new Constitution, based on adult suffrage, being subverted by Communist intrigue. The Government, as we know, suspended the Constitution and the Colony is now back to its early constitutional stages—in effect run by the Governor as an autocrat. But presumably a Colony which has experienced a far more advanced form of government cannot for long remain there, and we should like to hear what Her Majesty's Government propose to do in this matter, and whether there is a possibility of constitutional government being restored in the near future.

In the Gold Coast a most interesting situation has arisen, because there is a demand for federation in Ashanti, which, as your Lordships will know, is roughly in the middle of the Gold Coast Territory and is ruled by Sir Osei Agyeman Prempeh, whose ancestor gave Lord Wolseley a good deal of trouble in the nineteenth century, when he was called, no doubt correctly, "our only General"—some reflection, rightly or wrongly, on the military capacity of the senior officers of the day. It would be interesting to know how strong and widespread is the demand in Ashanti that the unitary system should be turned into a Federation. In my view, the demand largely arises out of the attempt by the Government of the Gold Coast, under Mr. Nkrumah and his Ministers, to do what this country tried to do before that Government took over political control—that is to say, to get the farmers to cut out those cocoa trees which were, or might become, affected by swollen shoot. That again is one of the difficulties experienced by emerging Territories of this kind, the difficulty of getting the public to assist the Government in unpopular measures. It will be interesting to hear the views of Her Majesty's Government on that question.

In Nigeria, as was mentioned in your Lordships' House in a debate on this matter some two years ago, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and certainly by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and myself, there is a danger that the rather weak Central Federal Government may prove too weak for the government of the country and that the Regions may prove to be too strong. Time will show whether or not that is so, but one would have thought there was a case for strength in the conditions of the modern world, at the centre, rather than on the periphery. It remains to be seen whether our forebodings will prove correct. In Cyprus, Enosis is supported by two surprising bedfellows, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will agree—by the Orthodox Church and by the Communists. That is the more surprising because, if Enosis were granted, presumably the Cyprus Church would be reduced to a subordinate position and the Communists would be liquidated; so that the leaders must pray, "Give us what we ask, but not too quickly."

However that may be, there is a strong movement for Enosis. One gets different views on how strong it is, but obviously it is strong and it is made so particularly by the fact that the inhabitants of Cyprus have a Greek culture, while throughout the 150 years of our control there has apparently been no attempt to give this British Colony a British culture. Why everybody has spent money to give them a Greek culture it is difficult to fathom. Here again, what does one offer them? Under our system they are presumably to be offered, eventually, independence within the Commonwealth; but can an island like Cyprus ever become independent in that sense? Ought it not to fall into the third category of Territory which I have mentioned, a Territory which will be unable to stand on its own feet as an independent member of the Commonwealth? I feel that the problem cannot be solved along existing lines. We do not seem to be making progress on the present basis, and a fresh examination and a new plan are needed.

In Malaya the Alliance, which is the main nationalist party, has had overwhelming support in the municipal and State elections, and will undoubtedly have the same volume of support in July, when the first Federal elections are to take place in the constituencies which were drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and his Committee. The noble Lord seems to have done a very good job in this field. Although I am closely in touch with Malaya, I have had no complaints whatsoever from there—indeed, there has been every praise of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and his colleagues. But in Malaya, for the first time in history, something hitherto thought impossible has occurred; that is to say, the Malays and Chinese, under the leadership respectively of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who is the son of the late Sultan of Kedah, and Dato Sir Cheng-Lock Tan, a very distinguished Chinese, have joined together in a political association and have formed an Alliance which, as I have said, is sweeping the country. Undoubtedly, after the elections the Alliance will be asked to form the new Government of Malaya; and when the new Government comes into being they will be faced with a troublesome problem vis-à-vis the terrorists, and, as a result, a serious economic situation. Unfortunately, the Communists, although usually purporting to act in the name of freedom and nationalism are, in fact—as we have seen in Indonesia and Burma—great enemies of new, young nationalist Governments; and, so far from trying to help them in their problems, they do everything they possibly can to wreck any success that might be achieved in the country over which the new Government is attempting to rule.

I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government two questions. What is the security situation north of the frontier in Siam? Your Lordships may have seen in various newspapers, particularly in the Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph, fairly recent reports of a big concentration of Communists, with barracks and training grounds—it is even suggested with airfields, though that, perhaps, is not true, but certainly with many other facilities needed by airmen—just north of the frontier with Malaya and on the road between Malaya and Bangkok. So, quite apart from the internal political situation in Malaya, there is the danger of having this large Communist force sitting on the lines of communication. There is also danger in the present situation in South East Asia of having a formation of Communists plotting at the rear, as it were, of one of the front lines against Communist aggression.

The second question I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government is even more important. Will the United Kingdom and the United States stabilise the economy of Malaya when the new Government comes into being, not only by giving military and technical assistance but also by securing a proper long-term marketing arrangement for tin and rubber? I feel certain that in this matter Her Majesty's Government will be fully desirous of assisting in every way they can. The villain here is not Her Majesty's Government at all but the United States. From my own experience of trying to get them to assist in stabilising the marketing of the two main products of Malaya, rubber and tin, I know how difficult they can be. They ought to be realistic in this matter. Malaya is our last chance in South East Asia—indeed, one might almost say, in the Far East. If Malaya goes Communist we can roll up the map of democracy in Asia, particularly in South East Asia. But there is no need for Malaya to do so at all. It depends greatly on whether the Western world, and particularly the United States, is wise enough and unselfish enough to take the necessary steps to help the forthcoming new and struggling Nationalist Government to preserve the country for democracy, and at a tithe of the cost, a fraction of the cost, that military equipment would mean to the United States if Malaya were over-run. Indeed, it would be only a fraction of the cost of the military requirements now being met by the United States in regard to Formosa and the offshore islands.

I suggested at the beginning of my speech that a new relationship between the United Kingdom and the Colonies was urgently needed. I have suggested to your Lordships before—it is one of the solutions which the Labour Party will be considering, and it is mentioned in the Labour Party's pamphlet which I have already described—a Grand Council, that is to say, a federal body for the United Kingdom and all the Colonial Territories which desire to join with the United Kingdom in it. I would remind your Lordships that, legally, at the present moment we are not only all British subjects; we are also all citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. So there is nothing strange in the legal conception, though, of course, we have no legislative conception to back up the legal conception which we already have put into force and which was carried through in 1948, during the period of office of the Labour Government.

This Grand Council would consist of representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament and the Legislatures of the various Colonies. It would be advisory to start with, but would, no doubt, become legislative, with its own executive, later. It would control defence, foreign affairs, common services and common economic matters. Every country in the Grand Council or the Federation evolving from it would, of course, have domestic self-government. On the economic side, it would obviate difficulties such as are now being experienced, I am told, by Her Majesty's Government over G.A.T.T. The Labour Party will undoubtedly consider this suggestion with others which have been or will be made to it. Of course, no decision has been taken, or will be arrived at for some time. But it is necessary. I think, for your Lordships and others to consider this course as well as other courses which are open. Some are mentioned in the pamphlet to which I have referred, but some are not.

But apart from the one I like and which I have advocated to your Lordships on many occasions, there are other courses, and I might briefly describe them to your Lordships so as to be quite fair and not just put up one and neglect all the others. One suggestion is that the present Parliament here in Westminster should become a Commonwealth Parliament, the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom being transferred to another body. Another suggested solution is that the Colonies might have direct representation at Westminster, as in the case of Northern Ireland, and as is done in France. I do not think that many of us would like that very much. I think it would be rather cumbersome. A third course is that representatives from the Colonies might sit in the House of Lords but not in the House of Commons. This idea, strangely enough, has a rather wide measure of support in some quarters, but I do not think it would solve any real difficulties, though it would be delightful to have distinguished Colonials here, and, no doubt, from time to time they would make important contributions to our debates. But, as I have indicated, I am against that suggestion; I do not think it would really meet the problem, but I would rather have it than nothing.

A fourth alternative is that the Colonies might be transferred to neighbouring Dominions—if there were any neighbouring Dominions which would have them. There are two objections to this course. First, it is just transferring the problem, in a sense, and something would have to be done about it by the Dominion if a number of Colonies were transferred. Secondly, there would be difficulties in certain cases over questions of citizenship. Your Lordships will soon have a Bill before you, if it passes another place, which will throw an interesting light on this problem—I refer to the Bill to transfer the Cocos Islands from the United Kingdom to Australia. That is a very small matter, for there are only 300 Cocos islanders, and those Islands can hardly be compared with some of the vast Territories we have to consider, which altogether have a population of 65 millions. But the problem of even these 300 islanders can be very acute, as your Lordships will see, unless these matters are cleared up in another place, which I doubt. When that subject comes before the House, no doubt we on this side shall have something to say on that score.

Finally, the Colonies may be put under an international organisation, such as the United Nations. At first sight this seems a good idea, but if it is going to be the eventual outcome I hope there will be some better organisation than Committee 4 of the United Nations to look after them. I should think that few Territories would want to leave their association with Britain for association with some of the characters who sit on Committee 4, but it may be so; we shall see. In all these solutions there are good points and bad points, and the same applies to the one I have put forward. I do not suggest that mine is perfect: there is no such thing as perfection in this world. What your Lordships, the Government, the Labour Party and the public here and in the Colonies have to decide is what is the best solution in the circumstances and which of the various courses open to them is the best. But I beg your Lordships to realise that this is an immediate problem. It cannot be left very much longer, because many of the Territories are going to begin chafing at the collar, and we have to do something about the matter. So long as we eventually arrive at the best solution, I am sure that is all any of us want. None of us is so bound to any particular solution that he will insist upon it if a better solution is put forward. In my view, in this, as in other matters, it is either federate, or disintegrate.

We must realise that with these Islands, of 50 million people, and the Colonies, with 65 million people, we could become a powerful and important federal body, an element in world affairs. Providing it were done, as it would have to be done, purely on a voluntary basis, such a federation would be not only a powerful element, but one which the rest of the world would come to look upon with great respect—I do not mean for its economic, military or any other force or potential; I mean for the example that we should give to the world of people of so many different races, different colours, and different religious persuasions, living together and working together in amity and in concord. I beg to move for Papers.

3.15 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON

My Lords, I find some initial difficulty in dealing with the Motion on the Order Paper. I have listened with deep interest, as I always do on Colonial subjects, to the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Motion, but I do not find it possible to follow the tangled skein of his ideas. In the time at my disposal it would hardly be possible for me to give, in detail at any rate, the reasons why I do not agree with many of those ideas, but, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to indicate in a general way the principles which I think ought to guide these matters and which, if they were accepted, would in themselves provide an answer to most of the questions asked by the noble Lord.

I realise how easy it is to fling off bright ideas on these subjects and to leave it to somebody else to work them out in some practicable scheme. I do not say this in any disrespectful way. For instance, the idea of a Grand Council of Empire, which the noble Lord mentioned, is an attractive idea on paper, but the more one comes to examine it, the less practicable it would seem to be. A Grand Council of that kind, even if, to begin with, it were only advisory, would need an enormous secretariat. If we want an example of what can happen over a matter like that, let us take the relatively small instance of the Commissioner General's Secretariat in Singapore. That has grown like a disease and is an enormous body now, employing a great many people, probably considerably more, in fact, than the Federal Government are able to employ at their headquarters.

I do not think that the establishment of a Grand Council is a practical idea, apart from the fact that in this country many of us who make these suggestions are apt to overlook the fact that the people who would decide whether a Grand Council was a good thing or not would be the people of the Colonies themselves. I have nowhere seen any indication that the idea of a Grand Council would be anything but futile, unless, as the noble Lord said, the idea was that it would slowly grow into something more than an advisory body. It is more than likely, with the present temper of opinion throughout the Colonial world, that it would be regarded as a device for retaining in this country authority which we were nominally relinquishing. I think that all ideas on that line are really in conflict, basically, with the principle of self-government, of educating the Colonial peoples to be able to run their own affairs, necessarily with the right to secede when they reach a certain point, if they are big enough.

As I have said, I do not propose to go into the details, but I made one or two notes, as the noble Lord went on. I feel that there is one detail to which I must make a brief reference, and that concerns Kenya. I am not going to say anything else about Kenya to-day, because there is to be a debate on Kenya in your Lordships' House next week. However, I cannot allow a statement to go by which apparently implies that Kenya could be classified with the minor Colonies which would have to be retained in some special relationships with this country because of the insolubility of the racial question. I, and many people who have served in the Colonies, do not admit that the racial question is insoluble. Most of us suggest that it will be rendered more difficult of solution unless it is left very largely to the people on the spot to work out a way in which they may get on amongst themselves amicably. Other than to make that demurrer, I do not wish to make any further reference to Kenya to-day.

The idea of a Commonwealth Parliament seems to me singularly unattractive, apart from being unpractical—the idea that we should pick up our own Constitution and scatter it to the winds of Wales, Scotland and England, in order to have a Commonwealth Parliament which would deal with Commonwealth problems, whatever they may be or however they may be dissociated from the problems of England herself. I cannot see that that will be either possible or desirable. I think one can generalise too much on these subjects. Our general policy, as I understand it, is to promote the development, social, economic and political, of the Colonies and to accelerate the day when self-government may become possible. I know it is hard to control the pace, but the essence of our policy, surely, is to give them the ultimate choice of remaining inside the Commonwealth or of going outside it. We hope, I suppose, to convince them that in the world to-day no country can stand alone; and we hope, also, to convince them that it is to their own self-interest that they should remain with us.

Malaya has been mentioned to-day, and I suggest that there a nation has not yet been formed, and a too premature acceleration from this country of what may be a promising development may easily retard that growth of a nation there which we hope to see. Nationalism in the Colonies is growing increasingly resentful of tutelage and suspicious of exploitation, and things like that. In many Colonies it is true that the ingredients of sovereign power are not there and never can be there. I suggest that it is most important that we should take our general policy of leading them on the way to self-government and apply it ad hoc to the conditions of each Colony. Surely, it is not possible to lay down a general plan for all the Colonies, attractive though it may look on paper. For instance, to quote one aspect, you cannot equate Africa and Asia in the political sphere or in any other sphere. In Africa we are dealing with people who have not the ancient culture, and who have not made the contributions themselves to the progress of humanity which nations in Asia have done. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense of anybody, but I am endeavouring to state what is an accepted fact, merely to show that we cannot apply one set rule to all parts of the world.

I suggest that perhaps the noble Lord has been a little led astray. Many of his recommendations seem to me to betray a study of the French system. The aim of French policy has been totally and utterly different from the aim of British policy. The aim of French colonial policy has been to bring the alien within the fold of French culture and social institutions and to centralise all real power in the metropolis of France. The Frenchman visualises the French colonial empire as an extension of metropolitan France. Control is at the centre. It is true that colonial participation through the metropolis is, on the face of it, there. Some of the older French colonies have representatives who sit in the Chamber of Deputies in the manner the noble Lord suggested, and the French Chamber can, and does, legislate for the colonies. All legislation passed by the Chamber is not applicable to the colonies. It has to be applied by ministerial decree, in very much the same way as, for instance, as recently as 1943, when I went to Nigeria, the North of Nigeria was governed by the Governor's Decree. The North had no representation in the Nigerian Council in that day, and legislation passed by that Council was or was not applied to the North over the signature of the Governor of Nigeria. That system has gone far away now, and we have no wish to go back to anything on a larger scale which would be similar to that discarded method.

I need not go into further details about the French system. There are, I know, in the offices of the Minister of Colonial Affairs in France important constitutional committees possessing powers; but those powers are wielded by people in metropolitan France with very small colonial representation. The system, in fact, as worked out there, amounts to committee government; and responsibility in the last resort, of course, rests with the people of France, just as in the last resort responsibility for our Colonial government rests with the people of Britain. But, as I have said, the aim is utterly different. There is all the difference in the world between a merger in which the metropolitan country and the colony lose their separate identities and a system which visualises a separate national existence for colonial territories. I need not go into the other details which that kind of system must imply, which is an inspectorate with powers derived from the centre, not from the Colonial Government, and so on.

The French have not even been successful in this system, the outline of which has been suggested to us as something which we might conceivably follow, and the number of native subjects who have been willing or able to qualify as full French citizens has not come up to French expectations. But the point is that individually and collectively, even in the French colonies, with all the pressure that has been brought to bear, cultural and otherwise, the colonial people have resisted this assimilation, and there is no question today, if one thinks it out, that it would be the negation of the policy which we have all accepted of fitting these people for self-government. I fully appreciate that self-government in the sense of being independent completely is not a possibility for small islands, or for Gibraltar, or even Malta or Cyprus, but they have every qualification really for managing their own affairs, in that they are small enough for the management of those affairs to be dealt with by their small local assembly, or whatever it may be, and they will not be liable to the terrible overloading of public business from which this country is now suffering. I suggest that Parliament does not want to add to its responsibilities. If it is to remain efficient, it needs, surely, to distribute some of them, as indeed we shall be doing as the Colonies grow able to manage their own affairs.

I suggest that in many Colonies the retention of political control by the British Government is for a time—it may be for ever, in some small cases—a necessary insurance against economic collapse. But those instances do not admit of being brought within the compass of one set scheme and a set of rules. I suggest that the only practicable way of dealing with the Colonial Empire is to have the general principles which we have already accepted and to leave it in that position—that the responsible Government in this country from time to time applies those principles to local circumstances which arise and endeavours to reach a solution which will satisfy the local people as well as the people of this country. It surely is the essential point that the people of the Colonies should get something that they understand and something that they want, trust and appreciate. Nowhere in the world has our standard of values been accepted completely by the Colonial people. They pay lip service—I do not mean that in any derogatory sense—and they accept nominally these values, but in fact the standard of values in this country has been worked out on our own background and has not been accepted either in Africa, Asia or anywhere else. So in planning their future I suggest that we have to bear that in mind; and we probably cannot do better than stand by the policy which is now the policy of this Government, and apply it from time to time as necessity arises.