HL Deb 14 February 1967 vol 280 cc156-68

3.0 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I have to inform your Lordships that no Amendments have been put down to this Bill. The question therefore is that I report this Bill to the House without amendment.

LORD OGMORE

Before we move away rather rapidly from the Committee stage of this Bill, I should like to mention a matter which I raised on Second Reading and which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is always very helpful to us, promised he would look at. Or, rather, I do not think he actually promised that on Second Reading, but I am sure that in his heart he meant to promise it, even if he did not do so. It concerns the question I raised in regard to the possibility of conflict between Her Majesty's Government, who are responsible for external affairs and defence, and the Government of an Associated State, whichever one it may be, in the field of foreign relations.

Your Lordships may remember that I put the case—it was a rather extreme case, I must admit—of perhaps one of these Associated States (St. Vincent, or any one of the others) wishing to join with Cuba, and there being an immediate conflict, as indeed there would be, between Her Majesty's Government in this country and the Associated State. Cuba is an extreme example, and I mentioned it because it was an extreme example, but there may be other examples less extreme in that area, of non-British territories. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, rather "shot me down" on this point. He said I had not read some paper or other, to which he referred, and that there was nothing in the point at all. I felt that there was something in the point; and I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who has been, as I have said, very helpful and kind, that he is going to say a word on it now.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

As several noble Lords wish to speak on this Bill, I will go through it in the usual way.

Clause 1 [Status of association with United Kingdom]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

EARL JELLICOE

I hope that this is the right moment to raise a matter which has come to my attention only recently. Clause 1 deals with the appointed day, and the matter which I wish to raise is certainly one on which I hope that we may receive a satisfactory assurance from Her Majesty's Government well before the appointed day. I hope, therefore, that this is the appropriate clause under which I should raise this subject. It concerns the provisions for local government in two of the smaller islands which are linked with St. Kitts—that is, Anguilla and Nevis. Anguilla happens to be some 70 miles from St. Kitts, and it is therefore quite reasonable that there should be, as is found in the Report of the Constitutional Conference for St. Kitts, local government provisions laid down for this other island and for Nevis.

The provisions regarding local self-government for those islands are to be found in paragraphs 14 and 50 of the Report of the St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla Constitutional Conference. Paragraph 50 of the Report lays down that: The Constitution will provide that there shall be a Council for Nevis and a Council for Anguilla; that the Council for each Island shall be the principal organ of local government for that Island; and that at least two-thirds of all members of each Council shall be elected on the same franchise as members of the House of Assembly"— that is, the Assembly for St. Kitts as a whole.

There are two major Parties in these three islands. There is the majority Party, which rejoices in the name of the Labour Party and which secured 44 per cent. of the votes at the last election, and there is the minority Party, the People's Action Movement, which secured 39 per cent. of the votes at the last election. The People's Action Movement is, I am assured, despite its name, a non-Communist Party. There are two representatives of the People's Action Movement in this country at the present time. They have been able to come over as a result of money raised at a Party meeting last Saturday because of the grave concern felt in the two smaller islands, Anguilla and Nevis, that the local government provisions of the Constitution will not be honoured on the appointed day, on February 27. It is not for me to say whether or not their fears are justified: all I can do is to report these fears, and I shall be very grateful for any assurance which the noble Lord can give me.

These fears, as I understand the position, are as follows. In the first place, according to my information, they have not been able to secure any assurances at all from the Chief Minister of St. Kitts that the local government provisions are being prepared. Indeed, in answer to a letter which one of the representatives of the People's Action Movement addressed to the Chief Minister recently, he was informed that there were no proposals before him at this stage. This, if true, would certainly seem to be curious.

The second Main reason for their disquiet— and this, again, is only my understanding of the position and slightly contradicts the report that no preparations are being made for self-government for these two islands—flows from a meeting of the Executive Council just before Christmas at which a document embodying the proposed arrangements for self-government was discussed. At the end of that document there are to be found the words: The Central Government must retain the power to suspend or abolish an Island Council. If that provision is going to be incorporated in the local government arrangements in fact enacted, it would certainly appear to be contrary to paragraph 14 of the Constitutional Conference Report, which lays down that when the local government constitution is to be amended or abolished the matter should be submitted to the electors qualified to vote in elections in Nevis or Anguilla, as the case may be, to the House of Assembly and approved at the referendum by not less than two-thirds of the valid votes cast". That would seem to be quite a different procedure from the St. Kitts Government retaining the power to suspend or abolish an Island Council. There has been certain disturbance, I understand, connected with all this in the last week or so in Anguilla, directly stemming from disquiet on this issue.

I should therefore like to bring this matter to your Lordships' attention before we pass from this Committee stage, and I should like to ask the Minister who will be replying whether he has any information about the position; if he has any information about the reported disturbances in Anguilla; if he can assure me that the local government provisions provided for or foreseen in paragraph 50 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference will in fact he brought into effect; and if it is his information, too, that they will be in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14. I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to give me these assurances. I apologise to your Lordships' Committee for trespassing on your time on this matter. It may appear to be a relatively small point affecting two very small communities, but to me, at least, it seems extremely important that before this legislation is approved, we should be satisfied that it is completely watertight, whatever the size of the communities concerned may be.

3.10 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the full and fair way in which he has put forward the fears which are undoubtedly held by certain individuals. I entirely agree with him that though we are talking of very few people in a very small part of the world, nevertheless, for these individuals in that part of the world this will be an important matter. The noble Earl has every right, and indeed a duty, to raise the matter in your Lordships' House. At the same time, I hope that he and other noble Lords will appreciate that I am in something of a difficulty myself. The noble Earl is asking for an assurance, not about the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government, but about the possible actions of other people in another part of the world: namely, the Government of one of the communities about to become an Asociated State.

The position at the present time, as I understand it, is that the Government of St. Kitts have every intention of implementing the provisons of the Constitution mentioned in Clause 50 in the Conference Report; indeed, my understanding is that the necessary implementing legislation has already been drafted; that its terms will be published within the next few days, and that in due course it will go before their Parliament in St. Kitts. However, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has now raised certain other matters, a refinement of this point, arising out of what is set out in Clause 14 of the Conference Report. I must confess to the noble Earl that I have not had an opportunity to check on this particular point, but I will certainly get the information which is necessary before I can give any assurance, and probably I can deal with it at a later stage of the Bill.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his careful reply on this point. Clearly, I must leave it at that for the time being. But I would remind noble Lords that, while it is quite true that we are dealing with islands which in a very short space of time will acquire this new status of association, yet at this moment the responsibility is ours, and no one else's. I hope that before we pass on to this stage of association, Her Majesty's Government will assure themselves that the provisions of the Constitutional Conference are going to be honoured, not only in the spirit but also in the letter. I think that the spirit is most important of all in this context.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that probably before the next stage he would be able to give me further information on the specific point regarding paragraph 14 of the Constitutional Conference Report which I put to him. I hope very much that he can undertake to telegraph forthwith so that we may have the full information on this particular point on Third Reading, before we pass this Bill. I also hope that it will be possible for a Minister of the Commonwealth Office to see the two representatives of the People's Action Movement who have come over to this country. I know that they have come at short notice. I know, too, that they have been seen by an official, but it seems to me, in view of the gravity of their fears, that it is only right they should be seen also by a Minister. I hope that this can be done before this Bill comes to us for Third Reading.

LORD BESWICK

May I say that I am not trying to escape any responsibility in this matter, and I agree that until this Bill becomes law we have a continuing responsibility in these matters. Nevertheless, the fact is that the physical action to implement the constitutional provision mentioned in this clause is required, not from Her Majesty's Government, but from people in another part of the world. We have been assured that they are in process of legislating to the required effect. We have been given assurances to that end. The noble Earl now asks whether this particular legislation incorporates certain words. On that point I cannot at this moment give a definite reply, but I will find out and let the noble Earl know. I certainly intend to find out the information before Third Reading.

LORD BROCKWAY

I think that probably I am in order in saying something on this clause. This is the first occasion when, in a British sphere, Colonies have been accepted on the basis of association. Before we pass this Bill I think that we should pay tribute to the Dominion of New Zealand, which set the precedent in this matter. I have been present at Conferences called by the Colonial Office when these problems were discussed, and where the example given by New Zealand over the Cook Islands was generally recognised. I do not feel that we should pass this Bill without paying our tribute to the example which the Dominion Government of New Zealand has set in this respect.

This new principle now being applied to our Colonial Territories, whereby we remain responsible for foreign affairs and defence, but yet at the same time give them the right to self-determination and to become completely independent, is an advance in our treatment of the Colonial Territories, the importance of which should be recognised, and for which we should pass some tribute to the Government of New Zealand which set the new pattern we are now following.

LORD WILLIS

I should like to reinforce the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. There is a very strong feeling about this matter. Since it is a question of the spirit and the letter, as the noble Earl said, is it not possible for the British Government to insist that, before this Bill becomes law, there shall be suitable legislation passed guaranteeing the freedoms that have been outlined in the Agreement which has been made? Otherwise, if this House passes a Bill and the Bill becomes law, we may be in a position in which there is no guarantee that the required legislation will, in fact, contain the words or the necessary legalities that are required. It seems to me that this is a matter on which we ought to insist that the British Government take the strongest possible line for the protection of minorities.

Clause 1 agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

The question is that Clauses 2 to 9 stand part of the Bill.

LORD OGMORE

With permission, I should like to speak on Clause 7. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has put Clauses 2 to 9 which would block me out, and I want to speak on Clause 7.

LORD BESWICK

If I may, I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised a matter fully and very properly. I had not replied to him immediately because I thought it more appropriately came on Clause 7.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I apologise to your Lordships, but it is a little difficult for me sometimes when I have not had notice that noble Lords wish to speak.

Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Power of Her Majesty to make laws for associated states]:

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD OGMORE

I apologise to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees for not giving him notice, but owing to "the exigencies of the service" it was not possible for me to do so. I will now, if I may, put the point to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, which I put earlier on when we thought we should not have a Committee stage at all, and I should like to ask him to be good enough to reply.

LORD BESWICK

The noble Lord asked me on Second Reading whether the Associated States could engage in a customs union or so arrange their tariff affairs that they made an economic arrangement between one island and another. I gave him a reply which, although accurate so far as it went, did not completely cover all the contingencies which he had in mind. I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing me with this opportunity of giving in more detail what the position is in this field.

It is one of those cases where internal matters overlap with external matters. The internal affairs of any Associated State will be entirely a matter for the Government of the Associated State, whereas by the Bill which we are considering external affairs will be a matter for the United Kingdom Government. But there are certain areas which can be for either the one or the other. What I said was perfectly correct, that the actual decision as to whether a matter relates to external affairs will be for Her Majesty's Government to determine by certificate. However, the tariff policy of an Associated State should be primarily a matter for that State, though of course it must be conducted in conformity with existing international obligations. I think that the noble Lord had this point in mind. If a local decision to seek a customs union or a free trade area is made, obviously external affairs will be involved, but under the new relationship we shall not in the name of external affairs assume a responsibility for deciding that the Associated States should pursue a policy of entry into a customs union. It is in that sense that I meant that it was entirely a matter for the States themselves, and for that reason that I mentioned as an example the agreement already reached between Antigua, Barbados and Guyana.

As for the question of the United Kingdom deciding by certificate what matters relate to external affairs, we intend that everything should be done by consultation and agreement, and although in the last resort we have the power to legislate where in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it is necessary to do so in the interests of their responsibility for defence and external affairs, I should not like anyone to think that the giving of a certificate was an automatic matter or that such responsibility as Her Majesty's Government would have in relation to a customs union could be got rid of by means of a certificate. An example would be one of the States contravening GATT. We could not get rid of that international difficulty by issuing a certificate.

I should like to reiterate that while in the Bill it is correct to say that there is no need to mention anything about a customs union because it is not an appropriate matter for legislation, nevertheless if the Government of an Associated State wish to proceed with a customs union or an arrangement of tariff affairs in conjunction with other islands, it would be a matter for them, and the question of a certificate and of interference from us would not arise.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying the position.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Provisions for terminating status of association]:

On Question, whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?

EARL JELLICOE

This is a point which I should have mentioned on Second Reading, but your Lordships will recall that we were going rather fast because we were about to listen to Mr. Kosygin. We all hope that this new formula of association will last. I think that it is a happy formula, and I personally hope that it will last. Nevertheless, the drafters of the Bill and those concerned with the constitutional conferences were right to envisage the possibility of termination, because it is that which gives this new system its flexibility, and indeed its ultimate freedom.

I am concerned about one point in Clause 10. Paragraph 23 of the report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference says that the Secretary of State undertook not to terminate the association from our side without giving six months' prior notice, without a further conference, and without obtaining the specific approval of Parliament. What worries me about Clause 10 is that there is nothing in it about the six months' prior notice, the further conference, or the specific approval of Parliament being obtained. I should like to ask the noble Lord why these three important safeguards are omitted, especially when on the other side of the coin—that is, possible action taken by the associated islands to terminate the association—detailed provisions are laid down in Schedule 2. It seems to me odd that detailed provisions are laid down for them and not for us. All that is said about termination by the United Kingdom is a brief reference in Clause 10(2).

May I also ask, in parenthesis, a further point, on which I think the noble Lord can give me an assurance? I noted that this procedure was agreed at the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference, and also at the Constitutional Conference for Antigua and St. Kitts, but there is no mention of it in the reports of the Antigua Constitutional Conference. Perhaps that: was merely because it was the first of the series and this matter did not come up. The Minister in another place was able to assure the other place that the same procedure would operate for Antigua if necessary, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would reaffirm that assurance.

LORD BESWICK

I am obliged to the noble Earl, particularly because he was kind enough to give me prior notice that he was going to raise this point. It is true that we gave an assurance to the four Windward territories and St. Kitts that we would not terminate the association without giving six months' notice, and these assurances in their respective cases are embodied in the relevant Conference reports. As the noble Earl invited me to do, I confirm that this assurance also applies to Antigua and that he is right in speculating that the reason why it is not embodied in the Conference report is that it was not raised at that Conference. It did not become an issue, and therefore, naturally, did not appear in the report. Subsequently, Antigua raised this question and they have been assured, both verbally and in writing, that the assurances given to the others apply equally in their case.

The noble Earl also asked me why these assurances are not embodied in the Bill. That is a fair question. I think I may say that had there been any demand that this assurance should be included in the legislative provisions, it would have been included. But there was no insistent demand that it should be embodied. The fact is that the representatives of these various territories—and they included both the Opposition Party and the Government Party of the day—were quite content that there should be given an undertaking in the Conference report (with the exception of Antigua's, whose position I have just explained) which, as the noble Earl knows, was signed by all the parties concerned.

There is possibly another reason why they are not actually embodied in the Bill, and that is that the possibility of termination by the United Kingdom was considered not simply as an act, but as part of a situation which would arise. The assurances were given in a threefold form. First, there was the assurance that six months' notice should be given. Secondly, there was the assurance that in the event of this happening—and I gather that the noble Earl, like myself, hopes that it will not arise—not only would there be the notice, but a conference would be held at which the economic and political implications arising could be discussed. It was agreed, again by all parties—and I should hope that it would be agreed by the noble Earl—that an undertaking to hold a conference is probably not best embodied in a piece of legislation; but mention of it is included in the Conference report. Thirdly, there was the undertaking that if Britain terminated the association unilaterally the necessary legislative procedure would come before the British Parliament. If the noble Earl looks at subsection (2) of Clause 10, I think he will find that the provision there covers the third part of the package undertaking.

I might also say, because it is partly relevant, that in the case of Antigua we were also asked for an assurance that our legislative powers in respect of defence and external affairs would not be used in order to amend, suspend or revoke the Constitution of Antigua. That assurance was not only given, but is embodied in the Defence and External Affairs Agreement which will be signed by Her Majesty's Government and by the authorities of Antigua.

I agree with the noble Earl, as no doubt do other noble Lords, that this is a complicated matter. There is a report of the Conference which has, as we accept it, binding effect. There is also a Bill. There is a Constitution which will be put into operation by Order in Council. And in the case of Antigua there will also be this Agreement covering certain matters in connection with defence and external affairs. If the other Associated States want a similar agreement to that which we propose to sign with Antigua, we shall be happy to accede to their request.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the full explanation he has given. He paid me the compliment of saying that I had asked a fair question, and I think he has given, so far as it goes, a full and helpful answer. I should be the first to agree with him that it would have been probably inappropriate for a Parliamentary draftsman to try to write into the provisions of Clause 10 the provision relating to a further constitutional conference. I am absolutely with the noble Lord there.

I am still somewhat puzzled, however, why it was thought necessary to set out the very detailed provisions for termination on one side—and the provisions are detailed, as a glance at Schedule 2 will show—but we have not been prepared to lay similar obligations on ourselves or, at least, to spell out in legislation the important provision of six months' notice. I should have thought that, even given the noble Lord's explanation, this could well have been done. But certainly at this stage I do not wish to press the noble Lord further on the point.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, may I just say this? I can understand the noble Earl being puzzled about this point. Frankly, I cannot see why it was not put in the Bill. But the demand was not made and therefore it was not met. I hope, however, that nothing he has said will indicate that the assurance we have given is any the less binding because it is not in the legislation.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.