BRITISH HONDURAS (CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT) (Hansard, 12 August 1966)

§ Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

We now discuss the affairs of a very small and very distant Colony, British Honduras. I could wish for no better Minister to reply than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He has a long record as a doughty champion of colonial peoples and he and I together fought many battles in the 1950s on subjects of this kind. Thus, I am glad that he is to reply for the Colonial Office—or the Commonwealth Office as it is now—rather than perhaps someone from the Foreign Office, because there has been much activity in the darker purlieus of the Foreign Office in this matter and one might have expected to have some slight evasion from the Foreign Office. I shall do my best, but I must say that I am encouraged by the reply that my hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

We are now in the twilight of what was called the Empire and are encountering anachronistic survivals. Argentina lays claim to the Falkland Islands; I will not say that Senegal lays claim to Gambia, but certainly Spain lays vociferous claim to Gibraltar. Here, in British Honduras, we have this small territory of under 9,000 sq. miles—about the size of Surrey—with a population of 90,000, the size of the population of York. I believe that British Honduras not only wishes, but deserves, like any other Colony, such as Gambia, Mauritius or any other, to have independence within the Commonwealth.

But if we listen to people who have come back from there, or if we read reputable newspapers like The Scotsman, The Times or the Daily Telegraph, we are somewhat disturbed. The Scotsman, on 16th July, reported the following about the territory and the political conditions there. The report was headed "'Sellout' in Honduras" and said: 2050 Prime Minister George Price of British Honduras is authoritatively reported to be losing support even in the ranks of his own People's United Party as a result of the disclosure of secret proposals on the colony's future by the Opposition National Independence Party. The proposals relate to the longstanding Guatemalan claim over British Honduras territory. On 2nd August, The Scotsman reported: The United States Government have offered large-scale economic aid to British Honduras if she accepts the Webster proposals on her future. This set of proposals was drawn up by U.S. Attorney Bethnel Webster on a request by Britain, Honduras and Guatemala, Honduras' neighbour, to President Johnson. Webster's plan is as yet unpublished. But it is known that under it Guatemala would receive a share in the responsibility for the defence, foreign and internal policy of British Honduras after independence, which is expected in 1968.

I come now to the economics of British Honduras, because if the Colony can stand on its own feet it has a better chance of withstanding any overtures by its neighbour. I have mentioned that it has a population of 90,000, whereas Guatemala has a population of more than 4 million. The population of Honduras has so mixed an ethnic basis that the people cannot be separated, whereas next door well over half are pure Indian, descendants of the Aztecs and Toltecs of days past.

I come now to finance. I will translate Honduras dollars into sterling. In 1963, imports were a little over £7 million and exports were £4½ million, so that Honduras is wilting on that basis. The major exports are sugar, timber and citrus fruits, as opposed to Guatemala's almost monoculture of coffee. Honduras is not so steady with its public finance; so that by economic or technical aid, and by investment by British firms like Tate and Lyle, Honduras somehow has to get a more solid economic footing if it is to have a happy political future.

Honduras not only has a better administration than Guatemala, but a much more honest bureaucracy and local government. I cannot give the education figures for Guatemala, but in Honduras there are about 26,000 pupils in elementary schools and slightly more than 2,000 in secondary schools; opposed to this more than seven in 10 persons in Guatemala are illiterate. I am sad to 2051 find that only 34 students in Honduras are training to be teachers, which does not say too much for the future secondary education set-up.

I turn now to the political parties, where all the battle is taking place. The impetus to their formation was mainly the devaluation of the British Honduras dollar in 1949, which had the effect of raising the cost of living because Honduras is mainly dependent on American imports. A Labour movement was founded about that time, perhaps a little earlier; and it has a newspaper which is most scurrilous, perhaps libellous. This is called the Belize Billboard, which has to be seen to be believed. I have seen the West African Pilot in Z.I.G.'s days, but it is nothing as compared with the Billboard, which is edited by Philip Goldson, an old friend of mine. He is the Leader of the Opposition and has a place, with one other member of his party, in the Legislative Assembly in Belize. The largest party of all is the P.U.P., the People's United Party, which is led by Mr. George Price and which has 16 of the 18 members in the Legislative Council. In 1956, there was founded the Honduran Independent Party, a breakaway party, and which now has two of the 18 members and which is led by Mr. Philip Goldson, as I have said.

Mr. George Price, who is the Premier of this Colony, has for many years been a controversial figure, mainly because of his sympathies with Guatemala; and yet he is on record as having said, in 1957 and again this year, that he rejects any claim by any Government other than the British Government to sovereignty over British Honduras. In the past, he has declined to have anything to do with any plan for the incorporation of British Honduras in any other country. He has affirmed and reaffirmed the loyalty of the Assembly and its allegiance to the Crown.

By 1959, all parties were claiming that their policy was to seek self-government within the Commonwealth and at the constitutional talks in London in 1960 both the P.U.P. and the N.I.P. made a declaration totally rejecting the claims of the Guatemalan Government to any sovereignty over British Honduras.

The Guatemalans go back to a distant treaty to substantiate their claims, as do 2052 people similarly elsewhere, like Gibraltar. There was an Anglo-Guatemalan Treaty in 1859 under which we offered to build a road from Guatemala to the Atlantic coast. Much of the tangle and the motives behind all the dispute are due to the fact that while Guatemala has a large Pacific coast, it has a very small Atlantic seaboard. It is my surmise that the American Government would like Guatemala to have a larger Atlantic seaboard to make it easier for them to survey any Castroite or pro-Castroite guerrilla movements in Guatemala, for instance, on the United Fruit and banana plantations.

We have done a little road building. We built a road west of Belize to the Guatemalan border and we have built another road to the south to a place called Stann Creek, not very far away.

The top and bottom of the matter is that, like Spain with Gibraltar and like the Argentine with the Falklands, Guatemala does not acknowledge the existence of British Honduras. The Guatemalas say that this is part of the old Spanish territory and that they are the legitimate successors of the Spaniards and that this is, therefore, Belize State, or the Belize Province of Guatemala.

I do not much care for the political state of Guatemala. There have been some inspired revolutions over the past 10 or 14 years, some would say inspired by the C.I.A. in Washington. Gentlemen with names like President Guzman have gone down and Colonel Armas has come up. Colonel Peralta, the self-designated head of Government, agreed to elections on 6th March when Dr. Julio Montenegro emerged, the head of the army candidates. On 5th May, Congress endorsed his election and I should add with some diffidence that he did not have the clear majority needed by the Constitution.

Politics and violence are closely interconnected in the whole of this Central American peninsula. There have been student uprisings and organised Castroite guerrilla righting has continued. On 27th May, this year, the Leader of the Democrat Party in opposition, Dr. Menendes was kidnapped and has not yet been found, so The Times tells me.

For any political party in Guatemala to state that possession of Belize is one 2053 of its main objects, is always a winner in Guatemalan politics. In 1963, Guatemala broke off relations with us, shortly after the Peralta Government seized power. The United States has always kept a nervous watch on Guatemalan affairs. The Scotsman of 16th July said that American aid to the tune of 100 million dollars had been given to assist Guatemalans reforms, but on 20th July The Times reported the abduction and murder by the Gautemalan secret police of 28 Communist leaders before the elections.

In the context of all this, I for one—and I hope that my hon. Friend will echo this—do not think that the political and social and economic situation in Guatemala tempts any of us to agree to any association between the two States.

Now I come to the crisis at the moment. The Daily Telegraph, on 20th June, talked of a secret deal between the United Kingdom and Guatemala. This has been denied by politicians here and in Guatemala. The reports are said to be based on the publication of a plan drafted by Mr. Bethune Webster, who is the American arbitrator. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us what these proposals are, because there certainly are some proposals, known to the American, the United Kingdom, and to the Guatemalan Governments. Apparently this plan visualises a limited independence for Honduras in 1968, involving Guatemala taking over our share of defence and foreign policy for the Colonies. This has been denied by the Foreign Office.

The independence issue is a long and protracted tale. At the moment, the People's United Party has 16 of the 18 seats, and it is undoubtedly expecting independence in 1968. The Opposition, the National Independence Party, want independence within the Commonwealth and in 1968.

On 27th June of this year, after a leak by the Opposition about the alleged contents of these proposals, a curfew was imposed in Belize following attacks upon the radio station and the Guatemalan Consulate. There is no doubt that the violence and demonstrations were caused by the natural upswelling of anger and opposition by Honduras people against these proposals, which caused them to fear for their future. Whether Mr. Philip 2054 Goldson has leaked these proposals, after he had received them in confidence, I do not know. They were in his newspaper, the Belize Billboard.

The record of the Premier of British Honduras, Mr. George Price, does not suggest that he would be an implacable enemy to the integration of Honduras with Guatemala. This public outburst, and I believe that it was spontaneous, on 27th June, was clear evidence that union with Guatemala is not acceptable to the politically articulate and politically educated in Belize. It is admitted that well over 1,000 people attacked the Consulate and the radio station. Gold-son may be liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. He is distorting the facts, but in voicing concern about this he is, in my view, skilfully exploiting Honduran public opinion, as he is entitled to do if he feels that there is genuine concern among the electors of British Honduras against this projected take over.

Jamaica and Trinidad have publicly expressed their view that after independence they hope that British Honduras will be an independent state within the Commonwealth, within some West Indian Federation. The economic situation in Honduras is improving. Tourists, mainly from America, are adding to its income. Sugar, citrus and timber are also important dollar earners. I understand, and the Under-Secretary can perhaps confirm this, that Tate and Lyle are putting in a £7 million investment scheme. This is very important for the unskilled workers of the Colony.

The fears of the people are based upon three points. It is generally believed that the Premier, Mr. Price, plans to join Guatemala. The radio station will only broadcast material which is favourable to Guatemala and of which he approves. Apparently we have the old, old tale in the Civil Service that only supporters of the P.U.P. can get jobs. The national day has been renamed "dia de la inde-pendencia", although Spanish is not the official language, and this is a British Colony.

The British Foreign Office has said that no settlement will be entered into without the full knowledge and approval of the British Honduras Government. There is some ambiguity here. We have 2055 had Parliamentary Answers on the subject on 28th June, 11th July, 12th July and 18th July. Is it meant by this phrase that the Government, of Mr. Price, with his 16 members will be consulted, or do we mean that the people should determine this by plebiscite or a referendum, or some such means? I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us the answer to this.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question yesterday, the Under-Secretary said: I am glad to give that assurance. We shall consult the wishes of British Honduras before any final arrangement is made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,11th August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 1855.] Does this mean that the Government or the people will be consulted? Can we have a definition? The people of British Honduras argue that by race, language and religion, the Guatemalans belong to a totally different tradition. Guatemala is feudal, with an archaic land-holding system, and widespread peasant unrest.

British Honduras, on the other hand, is a British Colony, well-administered, with a peaceful population and an honest bureaucracy. Perhaps some see independence within the Commonwealth as meaning greater ties with the Caribbean, Jamaica, Barbados and the like, while others may see the future of British Honduras as an independent country, participating fully in Central American regional affairs. But union with Guatemala, which seems to be imminent to some people, is seen as an intolerably backward step by virtually everyone.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehonse)

The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for raising the problems of the last remaining dependent territory on the American mainland for which we are responsible. He has established a reputation for himself in this House as an expert on our evolving territories and it is no exception to his usual contributions that on this occasion he has brought to this debate not only a great deal of humanity and interest in the population of British Honduras, but also a great deal of background information.

I want to take this occasion of dealing with some of the points which my hon.

2056 Friend has raised. British Honduras has had a connection with Britain which goes back over the last 300 years. It became a Crown Colony in 1871 and it has made steady progress in the constitutional field. In 1954, a new Constitution introduced adult suffrage, an Assembly and a semi-ministerial system.

After changes in 1960 a full ministerial system and a First Minister were introduced. The present Constitution was agreed at a conference held in London in 1963 and provides for full internal administration. This Constitution came into force in January, 1964, and the last stages of its implementation took place following the elections in March, 1965, when the Senate was established and replaced the nominated members in the Assembly, which is now called the House of Representatives. As is usual at this stage of constitutional development, the Governor remains responsible for foreign relations, defence and internal security; he also has certain responsibilities for financial questions.

My hon. Friend asked about the future constitution of British Honduras, and he referred particularly to the activities of Mr. Webster, who has been acting on behalf of the United States as the mediator in the dispute with Guatemala. I should like to put on record our appreciation of the work of Mr. Webster. He is a mediator. He is not involved in arbitration, which was the term used by my hon. Friend.

It was recognised at the time of the 1963 Constitutional Conference that independence was a natural and legitimate aspiration for the people of British Honduras, and both the political parties have declared themselves in favour of eventual independence within the Commonwealth. There is, therefore, no dispute about that. We stand ready to consider any proposals which may be put forward to achieve independence. Membership of the Commonwealth is a matter for collective decision by the existing members and will have to be raised with them in due course.

With regard to the mediation being carried out now, I think that it would be unwise for us to publish these proposals before there has been full consideration by all those concerned. We must try to reach an honourable and final 2057 solution to this dispute, and, although there have appeared some inaccurate reports about the mediation, it would be unwise for us to attempt to go into the detail of Mr. Webster's proposals because that could prejudice the consideration of his report. The allegations which have been made are wholly unwarranted, but I do not want to attempt to give the details of the proposals as we must await the decision of the mediator.

There is no question of this dispute with Guatemala being settled on any basis which is not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras itself. As I said yesterday—and my hon. Friend quoted my words—we will take steps to ensure that the wishes of British Honduras are consulted. We will at the apropriate time ask the Government of British Honduras how they would wish this consultation to be carried out. It is in the general interest, not only of ourselves and British Honduras, but of Guatemala, that this dispute should be settled in an honourable fashion. It is our aim throughout to achieve this. The resolution of the dispute will make further constitutional advance easier.

My hon. Friend referred to the country's economic position. I confirm what he said: the economic position is improving. The Tate and Lyle development to which he referred, costing about £7 million, will be a very important factor. But a country of this size with a budget of less than £3 million a year is faced with a tremendous problem in maintaining all the services which are required. However, I am glad to say that in recent years the revenue has been buoyant, and, as was forecast three years ago, we see no reason why the country should not be able to balance its recurrent budget in 1967 without financial help from the United Kingdom.

I should like to pay full tribute to the Premier and the Ministers of British Honduras for the way in which they have managed their financial affairs. Their determination to end the need for recurrent assistance is highlighted by the introduction at the beginning of this year of taxation measures designed to increase the revenue by over £250,000. They have a great many problems. They are committed to the construction of a capital to be sited about 50 miles inland, which is 2058 well out of the danger of flooding caused by the hurricanes. This will take a large share of their development resources. The development of the airport, which is essential if this country is to remain on the main air routes and is to take advantage of the development of tourism, will cost an enormous amount of money.

But the United Kingdom aid to British Honduras has been substantial. During the period 1959–68, we expect to provide nearly £11¾ million. This is equivalent to about £12 per head in each of the last ten years. The budgetary aid will have taken nearly £2 million of this. Over £3¾ million was to make good the devastation caused by Hurricane Hattie in October, 1961. I am glad to say that the territory has made a good recovery from this disaster. Colonial development and welfare assistance in this period will total nearly £4½ million. We have also undertaken to provide £1½ million towards the cost of the capital. In addition, there are sums which British Honduras has agreed to find from its territorial colonial development and welfare allocation.

Until comparatively recently, British Honduras was very largely dependent on its forest resources. More recently, the aim has been to change the emphasis to agricultural production not only for export but also to make the territory more self-sufficient in food. The production of rice, for example, has significantly increased, while it is hoped that the expansion of cattle ranching will shortly enable an export trade in meat to be developed. Citrus, planting also has seen a considerable expansion. I have already referred to the sugar developments.

While much will depend on the prices obtainable for these products in world markets, prospects for the future are by no means unencouraging. Land is available for development and there is considerable scope for private investment. The British Honduras authorities will welcome foreign investment and will provide financial incentives for the establishment of new industries. They hope, too, that they may enjoy some of the benefits of the fantastic growth in tourism in the Caribbean, and the development of the airport to which I referred will certainly assist that.

We therefore look forward to British Honduras moving ahead. We hope that 2059 the mediation being conducted by Mr. Webster will be successful and that no handicap will be placed in the way of British Honduras achieving her rightful place in the world.