HC Deb 24 November 1955 vol 546 cc1765-86

Order for Second Reading read.

9.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill has already passed through all it stages in another place. I hope that, with the permission of the House, I may be permitted to speak for a second time in the course of what I imagine will not be a very controversial debate. I fear that a few observations on the second occasion are necessary because of the absence in the United States at the meetings of United Nations of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

The Bill deals with the fortunes and implements the wishes of our fellow- countrymen in the Leeward Islands, in those lovely romantic islands of Antigua, St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla, Montserrat and the Virgin Islands. The main purpose of the Bill is to abolish—that sounds rather a rough way of putting it—the Colony of Leeward Islands, established by the Act of 1871, and to provide that in future each of the four Presidencies of the Colony shall become a separate Colony.

Many hon. Members will have visited these romantic islands. I am afraid that as Secretary of State I must confess that it has only been my pleasure to go, so far, to Antigua and St. Kitts. I trust that before my term of office is over, I shall be able to repair that omission and visit the other territories—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."]—I hesitate, on a matter of that kind on which I really cannot see any element of controversy, to introduce one on this occasion.

I hope that our fellow countrymen in all these territories know that their welfare is very dear indeed to our hearts. With a very ancient association with Great Britain dating, in the case of St. Kitts, from 1624, Nevis from 1628, Antigua from 1632, Montserrat from the same year and the Virgin Islands a few years later, we have had three to four centuries of close association with each other. Perhaps I might make one reference which is really outside the scope of this Bill, and say that those who have visited Antigua and seen the wonderful beauty of English Harbour, will wish every success to the English Harbour Appeal designed to restore to its former glory that splendid and historic place. I hope that anyone who feels able to subscribe to that appeal and who has not yet been able to do so, will get in touch with the Appeal Fund.

The present federal constitution of the Leeward Islands, under which the four Presidencies are grouped together to form a single colony, dates, as I have said, from the Act of 1871. That Act established a Federal Executive Council and a General Legislature which has power to make laws for the Leeward Islands or any part thereof on certain subjects specified in the Act and on any other subject declared by the Legislature of a particular Presidency to be within the competence of the General Legislative Council.

When that Act was passed in 1871, it was hoped that it would be the prelude to wider federation. For example, it was hoped it would be, in particular, a first step, to be followed by the federation of the Windward Islands and the federation of the Windward and Leeward groups. But this first step was never followed by the second or third steps owing to the strength of the opposition in the Windward Islands. As a result of this, the limitations of the federal authority which had been set up—temporarily as it was then thought to be, and with the extent and fashion it took—the limitations of this temporary authority in 1871 have prevented it from developing into a strong and economic form of government.

In recent years the unpopularity of this federation in the islands has been steadily growing and I think that all hon. Members who follow these affairs closely will know that some time ago the General Legislative Council passed a unanimous Resolution asking the Government to ascertain what action was necessary, and thereafter to take appropriate steps to bring an end to the Federation of the Leeward Islands.

Since then a new factor has entered into the situation. It has become very clear that it will smooth the way to the federation of the West Indies, on which I know all parties in this House are united, if there is this initial act of de-federation, which some hon. Members who may not have been following the affairs of this Colony for some time may appear to be a little difficult to follow.

It was agreed at Antigua Bay, when the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) was the Colonial Secretary, and went out there in person, and later at the London Conference, that the Colonies concerned should come into federation as separate units. I have inherited that Agreement, and I believe it to be a wise one, and so I have pleasure in commending this Bill to the House. I do not believe the financial consequences of the abolition of the Federation will be anything but negligible. I am very ready to go into details about any of the Clauses of this very simple Bill in reply to any hon. Member who may wish to ask about them. There will be further stages which will give us an opportunity to deal in detail with any particular point.

If I do not now go over the Bill Clause by Clause it is not because I am not quite ready to do so—I will readily do so if, after I have been questioned, points still arise—but because I do not believe that it raises either any controversy or much difficulty. I therefore commend it to the House as it stands. I know that in all our consideration of it, the wider issues of West Indies federation are ever-present in our minds. I hope, on an occasion more worthy of the importance of that great issue, to be able to make a proper statement in regard to the present situation relating to West Indies federation, for I do not believe that there is any matter affecting the welfare of the British Commonwealth at this moment that it is more important to discuss properly. I am very ready to deal with any points which hon. or right hon. Gentlemen may raise.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

This is probably the first instance of de-federalisation in the British Empire or British Commonwealth of Nations. Can the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the effect of this constitutional operation upon appeals from this Colony to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Certainly, but that was just the sort of point that I should have been prepared to deal with later. In order not to delay hon. Members, however, I would just say that those rights under the Bill remain the same, but instead of a Colony of the four Presidencies appealing as one unit, each will appeal separately and each will have precisely the same rights in the future as the Federation had in the past.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

I always feel envious—and I use the word in its better sense—of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the House who have had the very great pleasure of visiting some of the islands in the Caribbean. That pleasure has so far been denied me, but I hope to repair the omission to some extent in January, when I shall have the pleasure of visiting Jamaica to attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

All those who come back from these islands do so deeply impressed, indeed, thrilled, by the romantic beauty of the islands—but they also come back appalled by their poverty. It is this combination of romantic islands, with their romantic names and romantic history, and the very serious problems that confront their people in seeking to raise their standard of living and remove that poverty, which presents us with a dual challenge.

The Bill comes before us with the unanimous request of the representatives of the people concerned. It would ill become us, as a House of Commons, to refuse to carry out the universal wish of the representatives of the people of the Leeward Islands that this step should be taken. We shall therefore not divide—indeed, we shall support the Second Reading. At the same time, it does somehow seem a little incongruous, and to some extent regrettable, that the Bill which de-federates these islands, which have worked together since 1871, should be introduced on the eve of what we all hope will be the completion of the task, begun so many years ago, to establish a Caribbean federation and Caribbean dominion.

However, I gather that it is their wish—and since it was agreed earlier that they should join the Caribbean federation as separate islands, the Bill will to some extent facilitate the coming into being of that federation, or at least the association of these islands with it. None of us wants to raise any doubts on the question whether the Caribbean federation will come into operation, but we cannot completely dismiss from our minds the possibility that it may not, and, if it does not, we shall have here a number of very small islands, separated from each other, not over-rich in resources—indeed, some are rather poor in resources—and unable to stand on their own. In a sense, therefore, the change provided for in the Bill will be a retrograde step, unless it is merely the beginning of further steps towards federation with other Caribbean countries.

If by some mischance, which we all hope will not occur, the Caribbean Federation did not come into existence, we should find that instead of a number of islands joined together for the purposes of government, there would be very small territories indeed separated from one another. However, let us hope that the Caribbean federation will come into being. My doubts about the timing of the Bill arise from wondering whether it could not have been left until it was more reasonably certain than it is now that a Caribbean federation will come into existence. However, let us hope for the best.

There is one point that I want to put to the Secretary of State which was also made by one of my noble Friends in another place. One of the areas affected is that part of the Virgin Islands which is associated with the United Kingdom. So far, the people have not expressed a desire to join the Caribbean federation when it comes into existence. Indeed, I think the evidence is to the contrary. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will—as I am sure he and everybody else are doing—give serious attention to what is to happen to those of the Virgin Islands which are associated with the United Kingdom when the federation comes into existence and those islands will then stand on their own. Their future must be considered very carefully indeed; and perhaps on some other occasion, but not on this one, we may give consideration to their position.

I have read, as I expect many hon. Members will have read, a very interesting supplement published by The New Commonwealth containing a very interesting article about the islands with which we are concerned this evening. The writer pointed out that those of the Virgin Islands which are associated with the United States of America—and I think I am quoting his actual words—" have shoals of dollars showered upon them." He goes on to contrast the dollars showered upon them with the lack of provision of aid from this country. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, the Colonial Office and our good friends in the West Indies, will give very serious consideration to what is to happen to the Virgin Islands when the Caribbean federation comes into existence, and those of the Virgin Islands associated with this country stand on their own, because those Islands are affected by this Bill.

I desire to put two questions to the Secretary of State on the Bill itself, and I am sure that if I leave before the end of the debate, I shall be excused, because I have to travel to South Wales tonight, and must catch a train. The first question is this. There is provision in the Bill for emergency powers, and those provisions are very complicated and very difficult for a layman to follow. Are these new powers, or only those which applied under the old constitution? Do these provisions confer more or less power, or are they exactly the same? The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to me to make clear what are the precise powers invested in the Governor in the new provisions of this Bill.

My second question is in regard to the economic aid from the colonial development and welfare funds. Does this Bill make any difference to the grants that have been made to the islands, and if it does will arrangements be made to continue them? I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman something about the extent of the help given from these funds to Colonies of this kind.

If we assent, as we do, to the Second Reading of this Bill, it is in the hope that this de-federation will be followed very quickly by the wider federation, and that the wider federation will make sure that the day is coming when a new Caribbean dominion will take its place as an equal partner with us in the Commonwealth.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Surbiton)

As one who was fortunate this summer to be a member of the Parliamentary delegation to these islands, I endorse heartily what has been said by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) about enthusiasm for the West Indies. When we came back this summer we were all enthusiasts for the West Indies and were anxious to do what we could in our small way to improve their position.

I support the Second Reading of the Bill. This House seldom has a chance to discuss the affairs of the West Indian Colonies, and still more seldom the affairs of the small group of Leeward Islands. I hope I may be allowed to say a few words about the progress that they have made in recent years. It is relevant to do so on the Second Reading of the Bill, when we are discussing the de-federation of the Leewards and determining their ability to manage their own affairs. The people there are tremendously and touchingly loyal to this country, and I know they do appreciate it very much when we in the House of Commons take an interest in their problems and show it by sometimes discussing those problems.

Although they are cursed in the Lee-wards by recurrent droughts which are very unhelpful to their almost entirely agricultural economies, the Islands are making wonderful progress, particularly in the case of Antigua, with their peasant-holding and land development schemes, and in Antigua and St. Kitts with the provision of new and much better housing standards, though there was certainly room for improvement. Politically, their advance towards self-government has been even more remarkable than their social advances. The strikes and riots of a few years ago have given place to a remarkable stability. The agitators of yesterday have become the responsible political leaders of today. They are working in very well with the officials and are doing their very best for their own islands. This tremendously encouraging pattern of political evolution is indeed common to all the Caribbean Colonies, with the unfortunate exception of British Guiana.

This Bill to de-federate the Leewards, as my right hon. Friend himself said, may at first sight seem a curious prelude to the wider West Indian federation which is envisaged and which we all hope may come very quickly. In fact, the Leeward Island federation has become unpopular in these Islands, and they are unanimously in favour of de-federation of the Leeward group because they feel they can more easily enter the wider West Indian federation as separate units than as a federation within a federation.

Their position after the passage of this Bill will be exactly the same as that of the Windward Islands. In fact, there will be four separate Colonies with one governor. This system works well in the Windward Islands and should work equally well in the Leewards, where, as far as I can judge from my short visit, they seem to be rather more advanced politically, economically and socially than in the Windward Islands.

The four main reasons why we should support the Bill are, first, that the islands themselves wish it. Secondly, that the loyalty of the people is essentially to their own island. Their loyalty to the Crown is unquestioned, but I was most struck, too, by their intense local patriotism for their own island. It is, I am sure, an island loyalty and not, so to speak, a Leeward loyalty. That is perhaps not surprising when we realise that geographically the islands are widely separated and therefore there is no particularly obvious reason for much communal spirit between them.

The third reason why I support the Bill is that the federal structure for such a very small group is top-heavy and probably rather unnecessarily expensive for the size of the unit. The fourth reason is that defederation of this group will make the accession of the islands to the wider West Indian federation rather more simple and straightforward. For all those reasons, I support the Bill.

I would reinforce what the right hon. Member for Llanelly said in asking his question about the Virgin Islands. I am sure we shall not receive from my right hon. Friend the answer which I believe was received by a previous hon. Member —I do not know when it was—who was putting some questions to a predecessor of my right hon. Friend about the Virgin Islands. The Minister, apparently, was a little evasive and did not seem to know much about the Virgin Islands. The hon. Member pressed him and questioned whether the Minister even knew where the Virgin Islands were. The Minister, who perhaps had more presence of mind than geographical knowledge, replied, "I may not know the precise position of the Virgin Islands, but I am quite sure they are a long way from the Isle of Man." I hope that will not be thought an unsuitable story to tell in this House. I want to know, as the right hon. Member wanted to know, the exact position of the Virgin Islands under this Bill.

I did not go there when I was in the West Indies this summer, but I heard—what, apparently, the right hon. Member also heard—that there is a certain amount of reluctance in those islands to join a West Indian federation. They have their own special relationship with the American Virgin Islands which they fear might be prejudiced if they were to join a West Indian federation. Presumably, as part of the Leeward Island federation, the British Virgin Islands would have been brought into the West Indian federation whether they liked it or not. I do not know, but as separate Colonies under this Bill the position may be different. I should like to know if my right hon. Friend can indicate what he proposes in regard to these islands in the context of West Indian federation?

Subject to that very small query, I think the Bill is necessary and desirable and I hope that it will have a smooth and speedy passage to the Statute Book.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

I suppose it is inevitable that any of us who has had the privilege of visiting the Leeward Islands should on an occasion like this try to air his knowledge, however brief the visit may have been. I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) because his visit was two years after my visit. My sparring partner on the occasion of my visit to the islands was the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall). Hon. Members, knowing his size and weight, will know what I mean when I say "sparring partner". We had a very happy time there.

I do not want to throw cold water on the debate, but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions: of a different character from those which have been asked already. I suppose that very few people in Britain—never mind hon. Members of this House—have ever undertaken the sea voyage between Antigua and Montserrat, as the hon. Member for Bodmin and I did in the good ship "Monica" of 120 tons, which, I understand, has happily been replaced. I am quite sure that it will add to the safety of the people who use that passage that another boat has replaced the "Monica". I shall not trespass on the time of the House to give a full description of that crossing—with a mixed cargo of human beings, animals and all kinds, of merchandise in very rough seas—but I can assure hon. Members that it was something to remember.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can help me. My difficulty is to know how an island like Montserrat is to manage as a complete entity in an administrative sense without an association with the larger islands like Antigua. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is perfectly satisfied, for example, that the medical services is an island like Montserrat and in the Virgin Islands are quite adequate.

I remember very well travelling back on that same ship between Montserrat and Antigua with a local man who was suffering from a broken arm. It had been roughly bandaged and he had to go into Antigua to hospital to have the bone set. I am wondering exactly what the medical services in the smaller islands are like. Are there sufficient hospital facilities in Nevis and in the Virgin Islands, as well as in Montserrat, when they have their separate administration completely apart from the island of Antigua?

There is another point. Montserrat has no lighting except by oil. I remember our boat at night being guided into the small harbour by the headlamps of cars owned by the better-off residents of the island. That was the only way in which the boat could be lighted into the harbour. Even the jetty or pier was not strong enough to have a 120-ton boat tied up to it. The only electrical plant I saw in the whole of the island was attached to the abbatoir refrigerator.

Anybody who has been in that part of the world will obviously want to ask, What about transport? The transport between the islands is deplorable. Montserrat does not have a piece of level ground on which an aeroplane can land. I saw no sign of helicopters while I was there. The sea passages between the Leeward Islands are appallingly poor.

I should have thought that the administrative separation of these islands would have tended to make transport worse rather than better. Will the enthusiasm of the people out there to deal with transport be better when the islands are separated than at present? The Bill deals with the separation, consequential provisions, emergency laws, the courts of law and the variation of Orders in Council, but what does it do about health, pensions, insurance, transport and general welfare?

I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Surbiton in expressing doubt about the necessity to do all this at a time when West Indies federation is about to be accomplished. I am not as satisfied as my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member about this. Surely, in the federation discussions, it would have been possible for each island to be represented without separating them.

My final point is the same as that of each of the previous speakers. What will happen to the Virgin Islands, which are the only ones so far not to agree to federation? Will they be allowed to contract out when the time comes? Will they be able to keep their virginity when the general marriage is consummated? I remind the Secretary of State that in another place the noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government did not know the answer. Can we have it before this debate finishes tonight?

While I was over there we had the advantage of staying with the Colonial Secretary in Antigua; the Governor was on leave. I hear wonderful reports of the Governor himself but I knew the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Macdonald, a man of real wisdom and great understanding for the people out there. I feel that something might be done to retain that wisdom and understanding and that it should not be lost in any way so that the separation becomes disintegration.

As I said, I do not want to pour cold water on the Bill, but I felt that it was necessary to ask the questions I have put. I felt so because of the little knowledge I have of the islands, because however small an amount of knowledge may be it is better than none, and however small my knowledge may be of the islands it is greater than that of those who have not been there, and I regard myself as one of the rarities of the House in having been there. In spite of doubts I may have cast, I hope that what is in mind will prove to be an undoubted success.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

It is quite plain from the speeches we have heard already on this matter that the thought which is uppermost in the minds of all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen is not so much the Leeward Islands, about which we purport to talk, but the federation of the West Indian Islands—nearly all if not all of them—which is to be. These islands have stood by themselves, or in some loose federation such as that we are nominally discussing, and the Leeward Islands have had to face not only the meteorological storms which, unfortunately, so frequently beset them but also the economic storms of the world over which they have no chance of having any influence. Now there is this great adventure of the Federation coming before them and us and the world, and, of course, we wish it well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) seemed to have some very real fears and probably justified fears about what may happen to medical services, electricity supply, transport and other matters in the individual islands when this loose federation of the Leeward Islands has been dissolved. On that I should have thought that there were two considerations. The first is that these individual islands have asked for this thing; and secondly, they could scarcely be much worse; and there is always the hope, of course, that with federation, the bigger federation which is to come, these matters will be attended to with much greater care than they have been hitherto.

Like those who have spoken already from this side of the House, I am very interested in the position of the Virgin Islands in the very north. We have been told that those islands are divided into two from the point of view of sovereignty, the United States group and our own group, and that it is the United States Virgins which have, so to speak, most of the oil. It is not, of course, because they have been Unwise Virgins that our group have not the oil. They are, in fact, from all accounts, more industrious than their sisters in the other group. As for the beauty of the islands—I cannot claim to have been there—I happen just to have come from hearing a talk by one of the very gallant Englishmen who have been round the world in just under three years, and who has been displaying pictures of those wonderful islands, and their beauty cannot be beaten. No doubt, all the advantages which the British Virgins at present obtain from the American Virgins could be obtained equally well if this group became a member of the bigger federation, the Caribbean federation which is to be.

I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us something about the steps he is taking, if any, to make it plain to the inhabitants of those islands that if they did, after the passage of the Bill, decide to review their apparent decision to wish not to join the big federation of the future, something could be done to persuade them that it would, perhaps, be in their interest. However, I am convinced of this, that if whatever steps are taken by him or by anybody else do not succeed in persuading the inhabitants of those islands to come into the big federation, it would not be a good thing to try to push them into it, to have an unwilling partner in that federation to which everyone is looking forward with such hope for this area which has been so poverty-stricken in parts but which has such immense possibilities if properly organised.

While the Bill is being passed and we are apparently going in the opposite direction from the trend that we want to see, namely, federation, I feel perfectly convinced that it would be very much simpler for all these individual islands to come into the bigger federation if they were not part of this already unpopular federation which we have been discussing. Therefore, while saying goodbye to that federation, I feel that this is in a sense one of our many means of showing to these islands how much we wish them well in the big federation of tomorrow. It is for that reason that I and so many hon. Members wish to support the Bill.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

The Colonial Secretary was quite correct in saying earlier that this is not a controversial Measure. These are beautiful islands which have a very long history. I wonder whether the Colonial Secretary knows that this is the second oldest federation in the world, second only to that of the Swiss. It was started in the seventeenth century and, in its present form, dates back to 1871.

I was at a most interesting function this evening at which American Congressmen were welcomed. We there compared notes on the difference between the American constitution and ours. The right hon. Gentleman might confirm that Alexander Hamilton was a native of St. Kitts-Nevis, and I believe that when he drafted the American constitution he took the Crown Colony constitution of the Leeward Islands almost lock, stock and barrel for the purpose. The modern American constitution is based on that seventeenth century model.

It seems a pity at first glance that this ancient federation is now coming to an end. This process is somewhat Marxist. It is like Lenin's one step backward in order to take two steps forward. It de-federalises now for West Indian federation in the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that the past federation was not quite such a howling success. We have had unusual Governors—and even a Governor with an illustrious name like Baldwin—at loggerheads. The wives occasionally squabbled; even the police fell out with the Chief Justice in the past. I except in all this a first-class Governor now in Sir Kenneth Blackburne. He has been most sympathetic, and is popular with the subjects of the Islands.

We on this side of the House welcome the Measure, and I hope that the pattern of the new set-up will be like that of the Windwards, which is a confederation with the Governor a Governor of each separate island. The Windwards have nothing in common except a bishop. If the Leewards have a similar set-up and have only a bishop in common, I am sure that they can look forward to an amicable future.

The British Virgin Islands are much poorer and much more hard-working than their American counterparts. I understand that they wish in future to opt alongside their American neighbours, if and when they are left on their own. I hope that the Colonial Secretary has more information to give us than was given recently in another place on this matter and that we can be reassured tonight about the future of the Virgins.

We cannot now go into questions of housing and economic conditions, but I would point out that Montserrat, which is very poor, has an ancient, almost feudal tenure system. The labouring class are tenants and there is virtually a tied cottage system. It is true that the houses are mere movable wooden shacks, but nevertheless much pressure is placed on the tenants by the landlords. I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he would consider earmarking some moneys in the future budget of Montserrat, when it becomes an independent island, to purchase land from the old estates and settle it on the smallholders so that in future they can have resident villages.

It would be an important measure, because it is only by such measures for medical benefits and future economic welfare, we shall judge these constitutional changes. If the people see that the new federal move will give them benefits, they will be behind it. For my part, if this is done I shall be happy to see this Bill go through peacefully and, as I said before, it is merely a step backwards in order to make two paces forward to become the wider federation which will give a much happier future to our people of the West Indies.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), I have not been to this area. I have attended this debate because I want to learn rather than because I want to speak. I shall only ask one question of the Minister and make two points about the contents of the Bill.

It has been emphasised from both sides of the House that the provisions of this Bill have the support of the people of these islands. If that is so, there will be no doubt about the House accepting this Bill. My question is, what is the basis of the judgment of that support of the people? Is there adult suffrage? Is there a means by which the desire of the people can be judged?

My first point is to support my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West in his plea that, if this area is to be divided into smaller political units, we should be sure there will be a contribution towards the social and economic conditions and the health of the people of these islands. If one can judge from other areas in our colonial sphere, there will be desperate poverty, there will be appalling housing, there will be a terrible need for medical attention. If that is true and one is making the political unit still smaller, it may prove even more difficult to supply those elementary human needs.

I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if this House is to have the responsibility of adopting this Bill, we should at the same time have assurances from him that special steps will be taken in the increased difficulties resulting from smaller political units to meet the needs of the people for health, for work, for a decent standard of life, for education and for housing. I hope, therefore, that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will indicate how those problems are likely to be dealt with within these smaller units.

My second point is that the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to receive with enthusiasm Clause 3 of this Bill which, by Order in Council during a period of emergency, can empower special regulations. I cannot possibly support that Clause with enthusiasm when I know the way in which such Clauses have been used in other parts of the Colonial world. Does this Clause mean that it would be possible for the Governor in Council to suspend the Constitution? Does it mean that it will be possible for the Governor to deport from these territories people who become difficult, like Seretse Khama became in Bechuanaland or the Kabaka became in Uganda? Does it mean that it will be possible for the Governor in Council, when he desires, to arrest and imprison people without trial? Does it mean that individuals in these Islands may, at the decision of the Governor in Council, be limited to a particular town and not allowed to travel to other parts? Does it mean that the freedom of the Press can be destroyed?

If Clause 3 gives those powers to the Governor in Council, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect some of us, who have seen how these powers have been used in other Colonies, to support it with enthusiasm. I hope that in Committee we may insert some qualifying phrase to these very wide powers and may at least declare that we support the Declaration on Human Rights of the United Nations and will ensure that the Declaration is carried out in our British Colonies. I give warning to the right hon. Gentleman that, if I can find a way to do it, I shall introduce an Amendment to limit the powers under the Clause to the terms of the Declaration on Human Rights.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I can answer at once one question put by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), and say that there is indeed adult suffrage in these islands and that their decision in favour of de-federating the Leeward Islands was arrived at in broadly the same way as the overwhelming decision of this country was reached at the recent General Election in favour of a Conservative Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied on that matter.

Mr. Brockway

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's declaration about the Leeward Islands just as much as I deplore his illustration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

No doubt they are equally permanent decisions.

With regard to the other question asked by the hon. Member, I notice with interest that he has now moved west. I shall await Clause 3 in Committee, if not with the liveliest apprehension, at least with the greatest possible interest. There is a word that I should like to say about Clause 3 in reply to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who has told me that he had unfortunately to catch a train to South Wales.

Not the least pleasing feature of this short and fairly unanimous debate has been the obvious good will of the Committee towards not only our fellow countrymen in the Colonies concerned but those from the United Kingdom who are serving in important capacities in the Leeward Islands Administration. I join in the tribute which has been paid to the most admirable Governor and the tribute to the Colonial Secretary in Antigua, and I would add praise to many other people who have earned the gratitude of their fellow-countrymen and the respect and affection of the people among whom they work.

I agree also with what my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said about the degree of responsibility and wisdom being shown by local leaders in the Leeward Islands, some of whom I have the pleasure of knowing, who are doing such excellent work in their own territories. They come from very ancient communities. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) was correct in saying that Alexander Hamilton picked up many of his ideas from Nevis, where he was born, and the Committee knows that another historic name is associated, through Lady Nelson, with the territory of the Leeward Islands.

The right hon. Member for Llanelly spoke about de-federation being, as indeed it must at first sight appear to us all, a curious prelude to federation of the West Indies. I am glad that he recognises, however, that this is the wish of the people of the territories concerned. If in fact, by some unhappy mischance—which I do not believe any of us wishes to contemplate, and the consequences of which might be very serious indeed—West Indian federation should fall through, then these islands would find themselves in the same position as the Windward Islands are today, separate Colonies with the same Governor, but with that Governor in fact being the head of each separate Colony, the Governor of each particular Colony.

I have been asked a number of questions about the British Virgin Islands. One hon. Member said that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State, in another place, did not know the answer. I hope that he will not say the same about me when I use almost exactly the same words as did my noble Friend. This is, of course, a problem to which we are giving attention. We are very well aware of the wishes of the people, and we will take fully into account their wishes in regard to federation when a decision is reached, I join with the right hon. Member for Llanelly in believing that the House should apply itself, in due course and at the right season, to this particular problem, which very much concerns the welfare of an important and valued part of the Commonwealth.

The right hon. Member for Llanelly and a number of hon. Members asked me about colonial development and welfare money. Although, after two devastating world wars and innumerable difficulties and immense responsibilities in every corner of the globe, we are not able to marshal the economic resources of our great Ally, the United States, it would be a great mistake to believe that nothing is being done in the way of economic development for the Leeward Islands, including the British Virgin Islands group. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton dealt shortly but effectively with some account of imaginative agricultural development schemes and the very definite housing improvement which we are all so glad to see.

None would pretend that the standard of living and economic development is all that we want to see, but one of the main arguments in favour of the wider Caribbean federation is that it will be able, in resources, to command the confidence and the aid of the money markets in the world to raise the standard of living, let us hope, for all the territories concerned.

The hon. Member for Rugby mentioned in particular the possibility of the use of certain funds in Montserrat in order to improve the type of tenure and agricultural cutivation. I will certainly look carefully into the suggestions that he made. Considerable sums of money which total a quite impressive sum have been voted for the forthcoming and present colonial development and welfare period up to 1960: leaving out the central allocation for the Leeward Islands as a group, nearly £800,000 to Antigua, nearly £500,000 to St. Kitts-Nevis, £234,000 to Montserrat alone and about £180,000 to the Virgin Islands.

As to economic development and the need to find and preserve markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, I can assure hon. Members that there are few parts of those territories for which I have responsibility to which I personally, with my colleagues and advisers, give more anxious consideration to the economic welfare than I do to that of the West Indies; and I have, during the short period in which I have been Secretary of State, been brought face to face with many important problems. I am glad to have the full co-operation of distinguished leaders like Mr. Manley, Mr. Gomes, Mr. Grantley Adams and others. I have been able to arrive at at least two agreements which they regard as being thoroughly worth while in regard to the economic development and security of the West Indies.

I know that a number of hon. Members, when we consider Clause 3, may want to join with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough in discussing the particular powers in the Bill. There was not, in the previous legislation, the power of the Leeward Islands to legislate by Order in Council. It appears to us to be desirable at this time that there should be such a power. I am prepared to argue this in detail when we reach the Committee stage, if that is desired.

I would just make two or three general observations. It must not be thought that a state of emergency is necessarily, or indeed usually, a political emergency, particularly in territories which are subjected to sudden onslaughts like the hurricane "Janet," for example. Though I am glad it did not apply in this particular case, a state may well arise when it is highly essential that there should be power to legislate by immediate Order in Council, and it would, I think, be a rather unwise preoccupation with politics as such to assume that there can be no emergencies of that kind which are not political emergencies.

I would also add that, at a time when the Ministerial system is being developed in certain territories, we have got, I think, to build carefully and patiently, and I do not regard it as being altogether inappropriate that, at least in the earlier stages of new constitutional development, there should be this reserve power in the hands of the Governor until the pattern has been fairly laid and experience has shown that such powers are no longer necessary. But, as I said, I should be very ready to deal with that during the Committee stage. The power to make laws by Orders in Council for all purposes, including powers to make laws for dealing with emergencies, exists in the case of some thirty-two other Colonial Territories, and I feel that there is sufficient precedent, and indeed considerable wisdom, in having similar powers here.

The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) spoke about communications in the West Indies. When I was Minister of Transport I was frequently distressed to feel that in that important part of the British Commonwealth communications were so exceedingly poor. He spoke of the sea voyage from Antigua to Montserrat, and I do not believe that that could be worse after de-federation; I quite agree with him. It may well be that one of the fruits of the federation of the Caribbean that that particular service, and others like it, should be thoroughly improved.

The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), in referring to his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West and his fears that certain social services would suffer in the poorer islands, said in effect that no doubt the people of the territory had faced up to this possibility themselves, but none the less believed that they would not suffer thereby. I cannot really see why, given good will, there should not be considerable association together, in advance of the wider federation, in all those matters of social services, hospitals, and urgent needs of that kind, without having that federal executive council and general legislature and political link which has not commended itself to the people of the territory, for, as all hon. Members have pointed out, their loyalties lie to the islands and not to federation.

I am very grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interest which they have shown, and I hope that our friends in the Leeward Islands will take this as a proof of the affection which we all feel for them, the desire to meet their wishes in every way we can, and as a sign of confidence in the forthcoming federation of the Caribbean, which we believe will be one of the major achievements of this part of the century.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Godber.]

Committee upon Monday next.