HL Deb 14 July 1966 vol 276 cc209-22

3.35 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Lesotho Independence Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)

My Lords, this Bill makes provision for the establishment of Basutoland, under the name of Lesotho, as an independent Kingdom within the Commonwealth. In general, it follows the form of previous Acts under which other dependent territories have received independence, and it implements the agreement reached at the Basutoland Independence Conference held in London in June of this year. At that June Conference it was agreed, and the Bill makes provision accordingly, that October 4, 1966, should be the date on which the Colony of Basutoland should cease to form part of Her Majesty's Dominions. The Independence Constitution itself will be made separately by Order in Council.

There has been some controversy about the circumstances in which Basutoland independence will be achieved, and we discussed this matter in some detail in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Brockway. But I think it would be right if I again made reference to the doubts that have been expressed, and the House will probably agree that I should do it against the background of the history of that nation. Basutoland was annexed by the British in 1868. The action was then taken at the request of the Paramount Chief, Moshoeshoe the First, the founder of the Basuto nation, when his country was under extreme pressure from the Orange Free State. For four years, from 1871, the country was annexed to the Cape Colony, but, after representations from the Basuto people, this annexation was cancelled and the British Colony of Basutoland was established and administered under a High Commissioner directly responsible to London.

I think it is of some interest that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, can claim that his family's connection with this part of the world dates back from just about this time, about one hundred years ago.

The responsibility of the High Commissioner remained until August 1, 1964. Constitutional development in Basutoland was in fact slow, but in 1958, after some experience with limited elected representation, agreement was reached on a Constitution which embodied democratic features and which became effective in March, 1960. This1958 Constitution provided for an Executive Council and a Basutoland National Council with limited legislative powers. In 1962, at the invitation of the National Council, the Paramount Chief appointed a Constitutional Commission representative of all—and I repeat, all—the Basuto political Parties and of the Chiefs. That Commission, after exhaustive inquiry, reported in 1963, and its Report was adopted in February, 1964, by the National Council as a basis for negotiation with the British Government for a new pre-Independence Constitution which could, with the minimum of change, become the final Independence Constitution.

The next step was a Constitutional Conference held in London in April and May, 1964, at which agreement was reached on a Constitution on the lines proposed by the Constitutional Commission, but with the reservation of certain powers to the British Government during the interim period before independence This new Constitution was brought into operation on April 30, 1965. At the Conference in 1964 the then Secretary of State gave an undertaking 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) asked for independence, the British Government would seek to give effect to their wishes as soon as possible. This undertaking, I should add, 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". It was in full understanding of all the implications of that undertaking that elections were held to the National Assembly in April, 1965. There was no difference at all, of opinion or policy, on the issue of independence between the three political Parties which contested that election. Each of the three Parties advocated independence, and all had accepted the Constitution under which independence would be achieved. As the Memorandum, recently published by the two present Opposition Parties, the Congress Party and the Freedom Party, puts it, their constitutional struggle has been characterised by a oneness of purpose even though there were three political Parties in the country vying for power. This, it seems to me, is the basic fact which critics of this proposed step should consider. There was no difference at all between the political Parties about the desirability of independence. The difference was simply one as to which of the three Parties should, in the first place at any rate, achieve the right to form the first Government of an independent Basutoland. Subsequent differences as to the form of independence have been erected on that base.

It is true that the victory of the present Government Party, the National Party, at the elections of 1965 was a narrow one. Their overall majority over the two Opposition Parties was only two. It is accepted that this is a clear majority, but the critics argue that the 31 members of the National Party were elected on a minority vote. This, again, is true, although as several speakers emphasised when we discussed this previously, a Government on a minority vote is not an unusual feature in a democracy. It happens to be the position in this country at the present time. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that, if further elections were held, if the Opposition Parties were given a second try as it were, the position of the Parties would be reversed. Indeed, as I made clear on the previous occasion, if there has been a movement of opinion at all, the evidence is that it has moved towards and not against the present Government. Two by-elections were won by the Government Party, and one member elected for the Freedom Party has since moved over to support the National Party Government, whose majority has therefore been increased from two to four.

So much, therefore, the demands for new elections before independence. Elections were held in 1965. They produced a clear majority. There is no evidence at all that the majority Party then elected to Government have lost support in the country, and there is no evidence that any useful purpose would be served by further elections prior to independence.

May I next deal with the position of the Paramount Chief as Head of State, an issue which created friction at the Conference in June of this year, and about which some play has been made, both by the Opposition Parties of Basutoland, by the critics who support them in this country and, unfortunately, by the Paramount Chief himself. I say, "unfortunately, by the Paramount Chief", since it is quite clear that, in his present position as constitutional Head of State, he is required to accept the advice of his Ministers and is clearly precluded from taking part in the kind of political propaganda in which he has recently been engaged.

In effect, the present demand of the Paramount Chief is that he should succeed to the reserved executive and legislative powers in the field of external affairs and internal security which the British Government had enjoyed under the pre-independence Constitution and which, under the Constitution now agreed, it is proposed should be vested in the Basuto Government of the day—or I should say, the Lesotho Government of the day. This provision, I should emphasise, is in accordance with the proposals drawn up by the all-Party 1962 Constitutional Commission, and I might perhaps quote from their Report. They say, in paragraph 65: No aspect of our work has given us more anxiety than that of devising the appropriate status for Motlotlehi."— that is to say His Excellency the Paramount Chief— 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. In regard to such basic matters as the choice of a Prime Minister, the dissolution of Parliament and the desirability of Motlotlehi's acting on Ministerial advice, we are firmly of the view that the Order-in-Council embodying the new Constitution should contain, in written form, the unwritten conventions of the British Constitution—as was done, for example, in the existing Constitution of Nigeria. Later in the same Report the Commission said: We gave much thought to the question whether additional exceptions to the British model could be wisely made in Lesotho. More particularly, we considered carefully whether Motlotlehi should be accorded discretionary executive functions in the field of external affairs and treaty-making, but we came to the conclusion that this would not be in the best interest either of Motlotlehi or of Lesotho. It is these views of the Commission, the all-Party Commission, which have been embodied in the proposed new Constitution. The fact is, therefore, that, in proposing that under the Independence Constitution the Paramount Chief should have the powers of a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty's Government have the authority of the Basutoland Constitutional Commission to which I have referred. They are proposals which were confirmed after debate by both Houses of the Basutoland Parliament, and, inasmuch as the status of the Paramount Chief was decided at the 1964 Conference, the assent of the Paramount Chief himself was given at that time, since he put his signature to the conclusions of that Conference.

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the support now being given by the Opposition Parties to the Paramount Chief in his claim for additional powers is a matter of political Party expediency and not one of principle. It would surely be expected that, if principle came into this at all, it would not have been possible for the Opposition Parties to have given previous support to the conception of a constitutional monarchy; and Mr. Mokhehle would not have written to the then Prime Minister of this country emphasising that it would have been inconsistent with the expressed wishes of the majority of the people for the Head of State to be other than a constitutional monarch.

Probably I might go on to say, in all fairness to the Paramount Chief, whom all would say is a charming person and who without doubt seeks to serve the best interests of his people, that he now has two choices before him. On the one hand he could continue his opposition to the present Basutoland Government and to the present proposal to establish an independent Lesotho on the basis of the agreed Constitution. If he insists on that course he will be breaking his Oath of Affirmation which contains a promise that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and govern the people of Basutoland in accordance with the Constitution. On the other hand, the Paramount Chief can accept the role of a Constitutional Monarch, bearing in mind the opportunities for service that are so attractively set out in the same Report of the Constitutional Commission from which I have earlier quoted.

In paragraph 66 of that Report the Commission—this is an all-Party Commission composed entirely of Basuto people—say: The reign of Queen Victoria is a classic example of how a capable Sovereign, strong of will and devoted to duty, left a profound impression on the Government of the day. In the words of Mr. Gladstone 'the acts, the wishes, the example of the Sovereign in this country are a real power. An immense reverence and tender affection await upon the person of the one permanent and ever-faithful guardian of the fundamental conditions of the Constitution' ". If the Paramount Chief accepts this role, which is his alternate course, he can render to his people the true service in the future that he has rendered in the past.

I think I can add no more to this than to say that all the doubts that are expressed by my noble friend Lord Brockway, and by others in Basutoland, have been submitted, since the London Conference to the United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four. Those who follow these matters will know that, to put it mildly, the Committee of Twenty-Four is not predisposed to support the old colonial power of the United Kingdom. But after hearing petitioners from the two Basuto Opposition parties the Committee ended by adopting a consensus, from which I quote the following: Concern has been expressed in the course of the debate on the recent devlopments in Basutoland. However, a universal desire has been expressed that independence should not be delayed. Many members have expressed the hope that all the political parties in the territory should unite in their efforts to achieve common objectives in the good of their country… I trust that, for once, your Lordships will find yourselves in general agreement with the Committee of Twenty-Four.

May I now run briefly through the clauses? Clause 1 provides that the Colony of Basutoland shall cease to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions and shall become an independent kingdom, under the name of Lesotho, on October 4, 1966. Clause 2, by subsections (1) and (3), makes provision on the lines that we included in the Zambia Independence Act 1964. It preserves the operation of existing law of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and certain other existing laws. Clause 2(2) and the Schedule relate to certain U.K. enactments which require amendment to take account of the establishment of Lesotho as an independent kingdom within the Commonwealth.

Clause 2(4) confirms that nothing in Clause 2 has the effect of continuing in force any law which would limit or restrict the legislative powers of Lesotho. Clauses 3 and 4 make provision on the usual lines regarding nationality matters consequent upon attainment of independence. Clause 5 provides for appeals from Lesotho Court of Appeal (which will be established under the Constitution) to lie to the Judicial Committee. Clause 6 makes provision (on the lines of a similar section of the Zambia Independence Act) enabling Her Majesty to confer on the Judicial Committee jurisdiction for the purpose of disposing of Basutoland appeals to Her Majesty in Council that are pending immediately before October 4, 1966. Clause 7 permits Orders in Council or other instruments varying or revoking previous Orders in Council or instruments in consequence of the change of status of Basutoland. Clause 8 contains the Short Title and a necessary interpretative provision. It calls for no special comment. My Lords, these clauses are in line with the general form of previous Acts of Independence, and I trust that they will be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)

3.55 p.m.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining this Bill so clearly and for going into the rather unhappy political background of the affairs of Basutoland. He put the case very clearly. I want at once to state quite categorically that we on this side of the House support Her Majesty's Government in this Bill so that Lesotho will achieve its independence on October 4 this year. We support it for a variety of reasons, but not least because what is now happening is a direct result of the Constitutional Conference held in May, 1964, which was presided over by my right honourable friend the then Commonwealth Secretary. We believe that the conclusions which were reached at that Conference were right, and that the time has now come for Basutoland to assume its independence.

At the same time, we recognise that the political situation is uncertain, and that there are grave difficulties. It is my sincere wish that politicians of all Parties in Basutoland, the future Lesotho, will read and digest very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said. They are, to my mind, words of wisdom, and I hope that it will not be thought impertinent of me if I say that the Paramount Chief would do well to take the advice so wisely offered to him. For it would be a disaster for this emergent country should there be a real break between the present Prime Minister and the constitutional Head. We give full support to Her Majesty's Government on this Bill and in what they say about the country's future.

I have only one suggestion to put to the noble Lord, and that is to make quite sure that there will be no delays at this end in achieving the purpose of this Bill. I know that the Parliamentary programme in another place is very crowded and that we are approaching the time of the Summer Recess. I should like an assurance that time will be found for this Bill to go through all its stages in both Houses before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. If this were not to happen, it would mean that Lesotho would achieve independence before this Bill was on the Statute Book. It seems to me that that would be highly undesirable because, in a somewhat uncertain political situation, the fact that independence was not law would only add fuel to the possible flames of political uncertainty. If the noble Lord can give a categorical undertaking that the Bill will be law by October 4, we on this side of the House shall be very much happier.

I would say generally that I urge all those in Basutoland to realise the fact that independence brings in its wake its own particular problems. We as a nation have played a most honourable role in bringing independence to the developing and emergent countries. But we cannot do it all. We have played our part, and it is now up to them. We sincerely hope that they will sink their Party differences in order to make a success of independence. They have grown up, and it is up to them to behave in an adult fashion. When I had the good fortune to attend Kenya's independence ceremonies. I was much struck by the fact that President Kenyatta made great use of a Swahili word "Harambee", which, freely translated, I understand to mean "Let us all pull together". This is a fine motto for the emergent and developing countries of Africa and Asia, and if I have any influence—though I fear. I have not—I would say to the people of Basutoland, the future Lesotho, that that is a word they should think about. Independence is worth more than Party factions. Let them all pull together so that they may play their full role in the world and in Africa. Certainly we on this side of the House wish them every success. May they surmount their difficulties, and be a prominent and responsible member of the community of nations!

4.0 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself I should like to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his very clear exposition of the whole underlying circumstances of this Bill, and, furthermore, for not trying to minimise in any way the difficulties. So often a new ship of State is pushed out from the Government Benches in what one knows to be rough and rocky waters, with no hint from the Government of what is likely to happen. But that was not the case to-day. I would support the very wise advice which was given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. One only hopes they will carry it out. I sincerely trust the Government will make known to the people out there both the noble Duke's words and those of Lord Beswick, because they are both men of experience. Unless they follow this advice, they may find themselves in difficult circumstances indeed, as I hope to show in a moment.

There have been many debates on independence measures in which I have taken part. This first one in which I took part was the Burma independence legislation in 1947, and we had then a most interesting debate on that Bill. It was before India; I think Burma was the first. I have taken part in every debate since then, and I never remember a case in which the difficulties on the political front have been shown to us so clearly. Occasionally they have been there but they have not been shown to us.

I think it was in Sierra Leone, when I went there for the Independence celebrations, I found that the Government had put most of the Opposition in jail. We had not been told that that was likely to arise before the Independence measure was passed. To-day we have been given a warning. The fact is that the political Parties and the Paramount Chief (not all the Parties, the minority Parties) have changed their minds. I met the leaders all personally in 1964, when they came over for the Conference, and they were then unanimous that they desired to have Independence. One gentleman I spoke to, the leader of a Party, made it quite clear to me that this was so. I asked him: "What is your Party's policy?" He said: "Do you mean our policy here or in Basutoland?" I was surprised to know that there was any difference. I replied, "Either", and he said: "Our policy over here is Independence to-day; our policy in Basutoland is Independence next year". So even two years ago one can see that there was a considerable desire for Independence all through.

The reason why they changed their minds—very largely, at any rate—was that they followed the British system, with the result that we, in minority Parties, usually find to be unhappy. In other words, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has quite fairly said, a minority Government there as yet. It usually happens. If you get, "One man, one vote", it is a natural consequence. As has been found in this country time after time with very few exceptions, if you have "One man, one vote", you get a minority Government. I believe that in this century there have been only two or three Governments where that has not been the case.

What the late Government did in Guyana, where something of the same situation arose, was that Mr. Sandys introduced proportional representation. I hope that if the Conservative Party come back with that in mind—if they ever do—we shall have the same thing here. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, there is a clear majority, but not an overall majority. I think that the Parties, having as it were, accepted a system on these lines, they must pay the consequences. If you agree to and acquiesce in a "One man, one vote" system, you cannot complain when it goes against you. You have just to put up with it for the time being, and you cannot change the rules. In other words, once the game is over you cannot claim a goal, if it is not in the rules.

As to the Paramount Chief, I think he is in the same position. He knew perfectly well—there is no question about it—that the position in Basutoland was going to be as it is now. He would cease to be a Paramount Chief and would become, in our sense of the word, a democratic ruler. Whether any African Chief really understands what this means, I do not know. A democratic ruler is surely a British conception which has grown up in our history. It seems to me very doubtful whether in his heart of hearts, he really understood what it meant. He agreed to it, and I really do not think he can object.

What I consider is a matter to which we should also give some consideration, as it may affect us very much in the future is the position of Basutoland, or Lesotho, right in the middle of South Africa—an island in a sea of Dr. Verwoerd's South Africa. I spoke to the leaders of Parties when they were over here and asked them about this. I said: "Is this going to embarrass you in any way? You will be a black country right in the middle of Dr. Verwoed's South Africa? How do you feel about it." None of them seemed to worry. In fact, one said to me: "I think we shall do very much better than the British have done with Dr. Verwoerd and his Government, and we shall get on much better than you. We do not worry about it at all." Let us hope that that will come to pass.

These people are a rather difficult people. They are hill people, and they are horsemen to some extent. My own experience, as a member of the Board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, has been rather unhappy with them, in two respects. First of all, it is difficult to get a title to land from them. This is quite common in a tribal society, but they are very chary about giving titles to land. This affects economic development. You cannot get people to go and spend large amounts of money putting down factories and works if they cannot get any title to the land. It was one of the great objections to Lord Bute in the old days in South Wales—I mean the Lord Bute of many years ago—that he failed to develop Cardiff and South Wales as he should because he would not give freehold titles. The Basuto seem to have taken a lesson from the old Lord Bute; in fact they are much worse, because he would give short leases, and as a rule they will not give any at all. That is one lesson they have to learn, or unlearn.

The second experience I had is that it has been very difficult indeed to get development measures through the Legislative Council there. Our experience on C.D.C. was that years ago we offered a loan of £200,000 to increase the generating capacity of Maseru power station which would enable the country to start a programme of rural electrification. Year after year the Government was quite unable to get the necessary measures through Parliament out there, and the result has been that no £200,000 has been granted to them and the rural electrification scheme has not gone on. I hope that under the new system it will be easier to get legislation through on these lines. I take it that we are to give them a "golden hand-shake" as they leave, as we do most countries, and I hope it will not be spent on Cadillacs, Mercedes, and Odeon-type Embassies. I will not say any more about this, because the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, always makes a comment when I say it. I say it every time and hope they will read it. They never read the debates on anybody else's independence, so if you say it only on one occasion it probably does not get through.

I hope, too, that we shall not see flying into London Airport one rather wobbly aircraft of the Royal Lesotho Airlines. That is another status symbol in these days. Aid money is sometimes applied to having a State airline. Lesotho or whatever it may be, and they have one aircraft, or perhaps two, which fly at an enormous expense into London Airport so that the flag can be flown there—the Royal or Republican whatever it may be—and you get a few old, secondhand aircraft, which stagger around Africa. That is called an airline. Usually they are very wasteful, and as they usually spend aid money on it I think we have some stake in the matter.

The basic development of Lesotho, I suggest to your Lordships, must be, as in most of these cases, an agricultural development. In this regard, I hope that Lesotho will not follow the bad example of some other countries in Africa who are now cutting off from the expatriate companies, or expatriate technicians, the opportunity of returning and repatriating a fair proportion of their earnings. This is fatal, because they will not get technicians to go out there and they will not get people to invest in Africa. They will not get the C.D.C. to invest in their countries if individuals or companies are not allowed to repatriate a fair proportion of their earnings to this country.

I would ask just one question of the noble Lord. He said nothing about defence, and so far as I am aware there are no defence forces in Basutoland. There is no Lesotho army or air force, and one hopes that it will not be found necessary to have one. But I was surprised to see in the Press this morning a statement that some of the noble Lord's Party are urging us to enter into a sort of blanket overall defence commitment, not only with Lesotho but with Swaziland, Basutoland, Zambia and one or two other places, guaranteeing them assistance in defence troubles, invasion or anything of that kind.

One must realise that what were the three High Commission Territories are surrounded by other countries—particularly this one, which is in the heart of South Africa—and it would be quite impossible for us to make good any defence agreement which we came to. If we made a defence agreement, we should only be misleading the unfortunate people with whom we made it. In the normal way 1 would not have raised this question, but, as I say, this statement appeared in the Press this morning. I have no doubt the noble Lord has seen this item, and I hope he will try to dissuade his colleagues from entering into anything like this. I have nothing else to say. I wish the Kingdom of Lesotho every success and happiness in the future. It has a lot of problems, as we all have—we no less than anyone else—but, as I say, I sincerely hope that the country will have a happy and successful future.