HC Deb 04 May 1966 vol 727 cc1819-23
Mr. Stonehouse

I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "but", to insert "section 129 and".

I think that it might be convenient if with that Amendment we discuss the Amendment in line 42, leave out "sections 108" and insert "section 105 and sections 107".

These two Amendments have been tabled because of an error in the original drafting of the Bill. There were some omissions, and I should like to explain them, if the Committee will allow me a few moments at this late hour.

By agreement British troops are remaining in Guyana until October of this year, and it is considered desirable that certain Sections of the Army Act, 1955, which relate to deserters and absentees without leave, and provide for arrest by civil or military authorities, for proceedings before civil courts, for detention in civil prisons, and for delivery into military custody, should continue to apply as if Guyana were a colony. The sections of the Act must therefore be included in the Bill.

I hope that with that explanation the Committee will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 42, leave out "sections 108" and insert "section 105 and sections 107".—[Mr. Storehouse.]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Stonehouse

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

I do not wish to delay the House, but I think that in moving this Motion it would be the unanimous wish of the House that I should send the people of Guyana and the Ministers who will assume responsibility on 26th May all good wishes for their success, their progress towards real prosperity, the improvement in racial friendship, and stability. We wish them well in their success in achieving independence. That is the unanimous wish of this House.

12.55 a.m.

Sir F. Bennett

We had some very hard words earlier this evening. At this stage it would be entirely inappropriate, even if it were in order, to refer to them. I endorse what the Minister has said. From my personal experience I know that there is an enormous fund of good will in British Guiana towards this country. I know that hon. Members will agree, irrespective of party, that it is one of the Commonwealth territories which still have an enormous amount of personal friendship and respect for this country, which has been shown over and over again in the last few years, despite the difficulties. I hope that in spite of our earlier arguments we can now quite unanimously wish the country every success under its present leadership.

It has enormous potential riches, quite apart from its political possibilities, and it is a grand thing that at the end of the day we, as a united House of Commons, without any further attacks or remarks about those concerned, should be able to wish the country well.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Rowland (Meriden)

I want to detain the House only briefly because there has been no speech from this side on this matter other than speeches connected with the detention of 15 people. It would be a pity if, even inadvertently, the impression was conveyed to the 600,000 people of British Guiana that the British Government were granting independence only with the reluctant consent of their supporters, and that the Conservative Opposition was the more enthusiastic party in its support for independence.

I think I should declare an interest in the matter. I first met Mr. Burnham and Dr. Jagan in 1953 when chairman of the Labour Party's national student body, and I got them to speak at Oxford, against the wishes of the Labour Party of the day, I believe. In more recent years, by the turn of the wheel of fortune I have been closely connected with the commercial life of the country. I hope that that qualifies me rather than disqualifies me from adding this footnote to the historic event which is enshrined in the Bill.

British Guiana has come late to independence—late by the time-table of the West Indies and particularly late in comparison with States in other parts of the world less well endowed in the skills of their people or the sophistication of their leaders.

Much praise has been given to the present Prime Minister of British Guiana, Mr. Burnham, and deservedly so, in my opinion. He has brought administrative order to his country. Under his Government—and it is more than coincidental—there has been an abatement of violence. In the history of British Guiana to him will always go the honour of being Prime Minister at the point of independence.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has pointed out, he is also a Socialist, and I believe that in British Guiana in the next few years there will be more effective State planning than in the past, and more participation by the Government of Guyana in its industries. But on this occasion we should not forget—and many hon. Members have not forgotten—the rôle played by Dr. Jagan. For a decade he has been a symbol in his own country, and in the world outside, of the struggle for independence. His reported decision to boycott the independence celebrations is the current working-out of a personal tragedy. I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that he should play his part in the political future of his country, because he has a great part to play in respect of the Indian community of which he is still regarded as a champion.

But it is not for this House, at this stage, to pontificate and say what Dr. Jagan, or Mr. Burnham, should do. There is a great danger that, unintentionally, we shall end up being neocolonialist telling a former colonial territory how it should behave. We should not do that. In 22 days hence it will be for the Guyanese to decide what to do, in every conceivable matter. It is for the elected Government of Guyana to decide what happens about the 15 people about whom there has been so much comment in the last few days. It is for the elected Government to tackle their considerable unemployment, to deal with internal security, to secure foreign aid and to work out Guyana's relationships with the rest of the West Indies.

I hope that what goes out from this House—which is widely reported in the Guyanese Press—is not only a word of concern about the 15 people who are detained, although I have no objection to that, but also a word of real welcome to a new sister member of the Commonwealth with which I have had a long association for many years and which I hope we shall continue to have in the future.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Wood

I think that with the final words of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) we should all agree, and I should merely like on my own behalf and that of my hon. Friends to endorse what the Under-Secretary of State said in moving the Third Reading. I spoke at an earlier stage with enthusiasm about the future which could lie ahead of Guyana and I think that it is our sincere wish that they should realise that future to the full.

1.2 a.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

Without detaining the House, I should like to add that the Liberal Members would like to associate themselves with the good wishes sent to Guyana on this occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.