HC Deb 02 February 1967 vol 740 cc883-906

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(STATUS OF ASSOCIATION WITH UNITED KINGDOM.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

I wish to put to the hon. Lady Minister of State a question about the operation of the appointed day. On Second Reading —her words appear in c. 344 of HANSARD —she announced the appointed day in respect of five of the six territories, and in her statement this afternoon she announced the appointed day for St. Vincent as 1st June this year. In answer to a question from me, she said that this would be so whether or not the present electoral difficulties have been resolved.

The Committee will agree that in these circumstances the need to resolve the present difficulties is urgent. I imagine that it is possible that they could drag on for many months, and it seems to me that there would be an awkward situation if the difficulties were not resolved before, or at least not long before, the holding of the election which the hon. Lady announced would take place before the end of 1968. We should then have in St. Vincent, as I understand it, a Government which for all its life from 1st June, 1967 would be questioned by a large proportion of the population of the island. Undoubtedly, therefore, the sooner these difficulties are resolved the better.

Will the hon. Lady tell us a little more about what might be possible, either before or after the appointed day for St. Vincent, to resolve the difficulties which still exist? Will she give her opinion on the specific suggestion for the setting up of a special court staffed by judges specially chosen for the purpose of resolving the difficulties and electoral petitions as swiftly as possible'? Unless these difficulties are speedily resolved, the situation in St. Vincent, to the improvement of which she has made a notable contribution by her statement today and the agreement she has been able to achieve, will suffer considerably.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

The Clause includes the Island of Grenada. Can my hon. Friend say something about what is happening there? I have received a telegram from the leader of the opposition in Grenada, Mr. Gairy, to say that all the Grenada opposition members have resigned from the legislature in protest against having the new constitution without general elections. Will it not be impossible to enforce the Clause, and indeed to bring Grenada into a position of associated state under the Clause, if the Legislature is in disarray through withdrawal, by formal resignation, apparently—I do not know whether it is the case, but am merely asking—of all the members of the Opposition? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend contemplate any delay in the case of Grenada. Does she contemplate further discussions about the situation that has arisen there in recent days?

Secondly, there is the question of St. Vincent, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said a word about it. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State made her announcement this afternoon, I said that I viewed it with dismay. The reason is that my hon. Friend was saying in effect that the present situation must continue for something like 18 months, with the courts going through the election petitions, and with a general election on the basis of the new constituencies drawn up by the boundary commissioner some time at the end of 1968.

8.30 p.m.

That means that unless the election petitions are somehow disposed of very quickly, Mr. Joshua remains in power there for another 18 months. That is monstrous in view of the clear fact that the Opposition really won the general election with 500 more votes than the other people in a 30,000 electorate. It would be much better to take the present proposal for four extra seats—the Constitution arrangements include provision for four extra seats to be put into the Legislature—and have immediate elections for them on an island-wide, winner-take-all basis.

If there were an election in the island for those four seats the winner would take them and the situation would be resolved. That is why I object to leaving the situation indeterminate. Regardless of the agreement signed between the two parties, there will be unrest, division, bitter argument and months of in St. Vincent because of the delay in bringing a quick solution to all the troubles.

I am very disappointed with my hon. Friend's announcement. Perhaps she will answer the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the position, namely, whether there is any hope of helping to clear up the situation by speeding the judicial hearings of the election petitions. That might reduce the bitterness and perhaps test public opinion, even though not by elections, a little sooner, which would be a good thing.

At this hour, we should proceed as quickly as possible, and I say no more.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I heard the impassioned plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I wish to supplement it by saying that I have also had a cable from the Leader of the Opposition in Grenada. I conveyed it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I hope that she intends to say a few words about the matter. She will doubtless have thought about it, and I am certain that there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to our complaints.

It is fatal in a colony to have a situation when it is given, not independence, but more autonomy, and the ruling party stays in power without a test at the ballot box of whether it is fit to do so. That is quite wrong. For example, in Barbados last December there had not been elections before a certain gentleman was allowed to stay in power. It is very important in all these colonial societies to test the people's will before handing over even half a loaf, never mind the full loaf of independence.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart)

I wish to deal first with the point raised about St. Vincent by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the possibility of setting up a special court so that the elections could be more speedily disposed of. I assure them that that was obviously a very attractive idea, and we spent some time looking into it and discussing it with both delegations. Had it been possible, had it seemed at the end of the day to be wise, one could have disposed of the petitions more quickly and then, whatever the result, gone ahead with the constitution and associated status. Our own view on balance, having consulted the lawyers, was that that would be unwise.

This is because, however tempting it might seem, it would represent an interference in the normal judicial processes in St. Vincent. Apart from interfering with judicial processes, it would cast some element of doubt, which we would not wish to cast, upon the capabilities of the judges in the courts there. On reflection, both sides, with whom we have frankly discussed this idea, took the same view, that this would represent an interference with the judiciary and ought not to be permitted.

On the general point about the settlement reached and the agreed solution, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield would have preferred, we are possibly differing in our attitude about what is the essential point to have secured in this agreement. He would say, as Mr. Cato says, that we should have island-wide elections, and on the basis of that, the winner would take all. This is what it would amount to, and if that had been the solution I would not have achieved a neutral Boundary Commission and a neutral definition of the four seats.

I regard this as one of the most important points in this obviously very marginal political situation. When this was agreed to by both sides, in the spring, there was a much less marginal political situation. Mr. Cato told me that his party fought its first election in 1956 and failed to win a seat. In the next election it won one or two, and in the elections preceding those last August, it won three seats, so that the position was 6-3. In that situation no one was fully aware of the difficulties which might emerge as a result of both sides agreeing to this particular element. It becomes very different when one has a margin of 5-4 in one election which could be in favour of another party at another election.

What matters is providing a means of securing a fair basis upon which the country can operate, so that there can be no accusations made in future about how boundaries have been drawn up, how a constituency was created, and how the Government got into power. This was a very fair solution. It is preferable to that suggested by the hon. Member for Northfield. I prefer to have a clean-cut solution, offering a fair and correct basis for the future, than follow a "gambler take all" policy. There has been a straight-down-the-middle compromise. Mr. Cato would prefer to postpone associated status until much nearer the date of another election. Mr. Joshua wanted associated status before then. We have a compromise between pushing forward the date of associated status and bringing forward the date of the next election. Both sides would obviously prefer their original idea, but this is a fair compromise.

No doubt, I shall continue to disagree with the gambling philosophy of my hon. Friend, but I am satisfied that this is the right thing to do. I am glad that both sides agreed to it. It will provide the right basis for the future, although there will be difficulties over the next few months. With this agreement behind them, and with the knowledge that there is no longer uncertainty about when they will have associated status and how the island is to proceed, I hope that both sides will make every effort in their power to speed up their applications for a hearing on one matter or another in the courts. Certainly we have the constitutional basis. I took very much into account the fact that an agreed solution was, on the whole, less likely to result in disturbance of any severe degree in St. Vincent than would have been the case with a non-agreed, imposed solution which would have immensely angered both sides or one side.

I wish to say a few words about Grenada. There have been Opposition resignations. Our information is that, as a result, the Legislature is by no means in disarray—it is continuing to function—and that the procedure to be followed in relation to statehood is not affected because this is strictly an internal matter. It is as though some hon. Members opposite were to resign their seats. There would then be a number of pending by-elections. They might, in a flurry of public concern, succeed in forcing the Government to resign and hold a general election. On the other hand, the Government might stick it out and manage to get away with the by-elections. It is very much a matter of the internal politics of Grenada.

Mr. Chapman

My evidence is not that some Opposition members resigned but that they all resigned. Does not this mean, not merely a few Opposition members resigning their seats, but the breakdown of the parliamentary system?

Mrs. Hart

I did not mean to imply that not all the members of the Opposition had resigned. Nevertheless, it is an internal political situation. The Constitution provides for dealing with it either by holding by-elections or by the Government resigning and calling a general election. This is a decision of the Government. It is an internal political decision.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield is a colonialist at heart in many ways and does not like to recognise situations in which we cannot challenge and influence the internal position because the Constitution—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend will admit that he would like to be able to intervene more often that we are able to do by our constitutional relationships.

Mr. Gairy fully agreed to the Constitution which provides for the advance to associated status. This reinforces my point that this is very much an internal situation and not one which calls into question any of the provisions in the White Paper or the move towards associated status.

Mr. James Johnson

Would my hon. Friend say when the next elections would have been due without the change which is proposed now?

Mrs. Hart

January, 1968.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF NEW CONSTITUTIONS FOR ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wood

This is the first Clause which mentions an Order in Council. I am in rather a muddle about the procedures which follow these Orders in Council. Clause 17 explains the procedure in relation to Orders in Council made under certain Clauses of the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

My confusion is, perhaps, a little less culpable because I understand that it was shared by my very well-informed hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers), who raised this matter on Second Reading. My hon. Friend drew attention to the later Clause which pointed out a certain procedure for orders under Clauses 13 and 14. My hon. Friend was anxious that the procedures for these orders should be brought into line with that which governs orders under Clause 7.

I understand that the Minister of State has let my hon. Friend have certain views to suggest that her interpretation of the position was incorrect. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would be kind enough not only to explain the position concerning the point raised by my hon. Friend on Second Reading, but to take this opportunity of clarifying this, to me, complicated matter of the different procedures relating to the different Orders in Council.

I hope that I have said enough merely to put my confusion into interrogative form. I would be grateful for any clarity that the Minister of State can shine on the situation.

Mrs. Hart

I will do what I can to throw light on the position for the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). I will deal first with Clause 5 and then the matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). In Clause 5 we are dealing with procedure affecting Orders in Council. Neither affirmative nor negative procedure is involved. The grant of these constitutions is very similar to the grant of an independence constitution.

The question whether an Order in Council would be subject to affirmative or negative procedure is largely determined by whether the Order in Council in question will for the most part be confined to making changes in the law operating in this country. For instance, as I have explained to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport by letter, an order might be made if a State was establishing its own citizenship on termination of the association.

In those circumstances, there would be consequential effects on the British Nationality Acts. We should have to deprive some of the people who acquire citizenship of the territory of citizenship of the United Kingdom. In other words, to meet the legislative requirements of the territory we would have to change the legislation here. When that happened, it would be made under one of the Clauses that provide for annulment. Since it would be our legislation which was in question, it would be right that Parliament should have the opportunity, if it so wished, to discuss it and pray against it. This is not the case if an Order in Council deals entirely with something which is done at the request and with the consent of an associated State and does not concern British legislation. I hope that this clarifies the situation to some extent for the right hon. Gentleman.

Clause 17, on which the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport raised her query, deals with Parliamentary control over Orders in Council. It requires that Orders in Council made on the ending of association of a territory shall be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. It requires that Orders in Council which modify Acts of Parliament here and other instruments in the event of changes in the constitutional status of a territory should be subject to annulment here. But those Orders which do not come under either of those two categories and relate to matters concerning only the territory and not our legislation would simply be made and not be subject to Parliamentary discussion, debate or annulment.

The essential point is that the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, in an Order in Council is helping with the legislation of one of the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Wood

I thank the hon. Lady for that illuminating reply. I fancy that I shall find it even more illuminating when I read it in HANSARD tomorrow.

I have a quite separate point which I left until later because I did not want to muddle it with the one about Orders in Council. It relates specifically to the Clause dealing with the provision of a constitution. We have just been discussing the affairs of St. Vincent, and I presume that the constitution will be agreed with St. Vincent on or just before the appointed day of this year. I do not know whether that is a correct assumption.

Mrs. Hart

If I may assist the right hon. Gentleman, the position is that the agreement made yesterday is the new Constitutional Agreement. The old Constitution agreed last spring stands, with the modifications that were included in yesterday's agreement. That is all signed and settled.

Mr. Wood

The Constitution, as the White Paper foreshadowed, includes already the terms of setting up a Boundaries Commission. I do not know whether that is modified by the statement which the hon. Lady made about the operation of the Boundaries Commission in working between now and the elections to change the roll and draw the boundaries of the 13 seats. In any event, no doubt it is included in the Constitution. I wonder if the hon. Lady can give me her views on the interesting and significant distinctions which are made between the Boundaries Commission proposed for Dominica and that proposed for St. Vincent in the Report on the Windward Islands. On page 25 of that Report relating to Dominica, paragraph 17 says: The Constitution will provide for a Boundaries Commission, which will consist of the Speaker of the House of Assembly as Chairman. two members of the House of Assembly appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Premier, and two members of the House appointed by the Governor either on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition or, if there is no Opposition, by the Governor in his discretion. That is apparently the proposal for Dominica.

In the case of St. Vincent, it is put differently and more simply. It says: … a Constituency Boundaries Commission, consisting of a Chairman and not less than two nor more than four other members, to be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Premier. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could explain why these two proposals are different, if they are to be maintained in the effective Constitutions. On the face of it, particularly in the light of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), it is essential that the proposals for the Boundaries Commission should not only be absolutely fair but should be accepted as fair in these islands.

On the face of it, again, the proposals for Dominica's Boundaries Commission seem the fairer of the two. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could enlighten us as to why different procedures for the setting-up of the Boundaries Commissions were adopted.

Mrs. Hart

As I understand it, and my right hon. Friend was there, it was simply because the constitutional conferences had the opportunity to discuss one, two or even three possible ways of doing many things including dealing with the Constituency Boundaries Commissions. Each one was felt by my office to be a perfectly fair and sound way of doing it. The fact that at one constitutional conference the delegates preferred one way of doing it, and at another constitutional conference the delegates preferred another way of doing it, accounts for the difference between the two. It does not necessarily cast any reflection on either one constitution or the other, although, as I said, because of the political situation in St. Vincent, I am glad that we have changed the transitional provisions and provided for an amendment to what is to occur in St. Vincent.

Mr. Chapman

Are they only transitional in the case of St. Vincent? On the face of it, the permanent proposals in the White Paper will mean that the Government will control the membership of the Boundary Commission.

Mrs. Hart

No. They are amendments to the Constitution which will be entrenched, and amendments to the transitional provisions will cover the four extra seats to be created, and the Boundary Commission is one of the more substantial provisions of the Constitution. I think that hon. Members will find this easier to understand when they have read the copy of the agreement which has been placed in the Library, which sets all this out in detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO MAKE LAWS FOR ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wood

During the Second Reading debate I raised a point with the hon. Lady about the connection between paragraph 18 of the Windward Islands Report and the Bill. The Report said: It would not be possible, by means of an Act of Parliament or Order in Council having effect by virtue of the exception,"— which I explained on that occasion, to amend, suspend or revoke the constitution of the associated State. Subsection (2) of this Clause contains the words: including … provision derogating from the provisions of the constitution of that state relating to fundamental rights and freedoms. When the hon. Lady replied she said: It is a fact that nothing in the Bill in terms reflects the statement in paragraph 18 of the Windward Report, but it will be included in the agreement with Antigua, and with any other State if that should be its wish, so this matter is not covered by the Bill, but is covered in the agreement"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 382.] I did not on that occasion interrupt the hon. Lady with a number of Committee points, but she seems to have been guilty of an understatement by saying that nothing in the Bill in terms reflects the statement in paragraph 18", because my reading of it is that the Bill almost flatly contradicts the statement in paragraph 18. I would, therefore, be grateful if the hon. Lady would, first, clear up this apparent contradiction, and, secondly, explain what she means by this agreement. Is this agreement embodied in the Constitution for each of the territories?

Mrs. Hart

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is "No". It is the heads of agreement on defence and external affairs which we are considering here, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I said on Tuesday night was right. It is a fact that although White Papers do not refer to the fact that we should he able to derogate from the fundamental rights and freedoms when legislating for defence purposes, we agreed that they would require the power to derogate in their own emergency provisions, and there is no reason why they should not wish us to be in a similar position.

The real difficulty is that the agreement which was reached, and covered general matters, has a binding effect on some matters which arise in relation to each constitution and in relation to each territory. But in the case of a matter which was agreed and in respect of which the agreement was signed, it was felt that unless a specific constitutional and legal point was involved it was not necessary to write it into the Bill. We do not feel that there is the slightest danger of anything going wrong in this connection simply because there are no expressed terms in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(POWER TO UNITE, DIVIDE OR ALTER TERRITORIES OF ASSOCIATED STATES.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out subsection (2).

In practice, the Clause will empower the making of any future federation of the islands. That is its main impact. My hon. Friend is quite wrong in thinking, either by my earlier remarks or by this Amendment, that I am a colonialist. When she has been out to the West Indies —and I am delighted to know that she may be going out there—she will realise how a person may want to take a very active part in helping those islands even on matters that he might consider to be their internal affairs, simply because they are so small, so scattered, and so desperate for our help. They are not like other territories which are clamouring for independence; they are terrified of being left alone. We must not be worried about exercising a little paternalism, if I may call it that rather than colonialism.

I am puzzled about the meaning of subsection (2,b) which seems to provide that no Order in Council designed to bring about a federation shall be made so as to affect one of the islands or any of the islands plus some other part of the Caribbean for which we could not in any case be making Orders in Council. Let me put it in another way. It seems to provide that no Order to make a federation can be made so as to include a part of the Caribbean for which we would not have had power to make an Order in Council anyway.

That is how I understand the paragraph to read. If that is so it will be a terrific disadvantage, which will operate against one of the most obvious possibilities for future federation. Such a future federation might well come about in association with Trinidad, Jamaica or Barbados, all of which are now independent States. It is important that we should leave ourselves with the option to make an Order in Council which could link these islands with any or all of the newly independent states in the Caribbean.

I do not want to see a provision which will inhibit that process in the future. We are very near such a federation in one case. There has been a great deal of talk about a real link between Grenada and Trinidad. If this should be demanded by the people of Grenada in due course I want the possibility to be wide open for an Order in Council to be made to facilitate it.

Perhaps my hon. Friend can make some comments about the way in which Her Majesty's Government intend to foster the idea of federation—to use their powers under the Clause. We must not let this matter drop just because recent attempts at federation have failed. The Tripartite Economic Survey, to which I have already referred, goes into enormous detail about the number of services which need to be run on a federated basis. The list is quite frightening. It includes industrial development, tourist development, market development within and outside the islands, fishery development, forestry and mineral development, and agricultural development and research—half-a-dozen enormous subjects to start with. These services can be fostered properly only on an inter-island co-operative basis of a substantial scale.

It is important for my hon. Friend to say that Her Majesty's Government will continually keep the idea of federation and co-operation, on these and other issues, right at the top of the agenda in their contacts and influence in the newly independent islands.

Finally, I hope that the scheme which I have pressed for a long time will be accepted. I refer to the idea of having a regional commissioner as representative of Her Majesty's Government, and not separate Governors for each island, independent from each other and interested only in their own island. I would prefer a regional commissioner, whose permanent job would be to look for the topics, the issues, and the services on which cooperation and joint service could be planned and fostered. One of the ways in which the future of these islands can be assured is by the continuing pressure and encouragement of Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Hart

I gather from what my hon. Friend has said that he has no intention of pressing his Amendment, but has moved it on an exploratory basis.

The best way in which I can deal with his query is to explain to him what the Clause does or does not do.

Subsection (1) enables an Order in Council to provide for the possible changes which might be required in units of Government, including changes in which both an associated state and another British dependent territory in the area is involved. It provides for the necessary steps to be taken if one associated State and another British dependent territory wish to become associated together or federated.

Subsection (2) makes it clear that an associated state must ask for and agree to any Order in Council which affects it. It also makes clear that, regarding other dependent territories, an Order in Council which does what subsection (1) provides cannot be made unless there is power to do so independently of the Bill.

Subsection (3) deals with new constitutions of Government, which does not touch on my hon. Friend's point. Under subsection (4), any territory which results from the powers that are given under subsection (1) being exercised, can be deemed to be included among the territories to which Clause 1 of the Act applies—that is to say, treated as an associated State for the purposes of the Bill.

I can assure the hon. Member that what we have done here is to make it easier, and certainly not more difficult, for an associated State, so to amend its constitution that it is able to federate with an independent Commonwealth country. It is much easier, and I can assure the hon. Member that to allow his Amendment to be accepted would be the last thing that he would want.

My hon. Friend asks about our view of federation but he will recall what the former Secretary of State for the Colonies said on this subject. I do not want to go into the question of federation now, for I have not seen things for myself in the Caribbean. Again, on the question of the appointment of a Regional Commissioner, my hon. Friend must allow me to study the matter for myself, having listened carefully to what he has had to say not only tonight but on other occasions. I am inclined to think that what he has to say contains a great deal of substance but I know that he will be glad to allow me time to reach my own conclusion in my own way.

Mr. Chapman

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, although I still do not understand subsection (4), and accepting her assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(GRANTS FOR BENEFIT OF

ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, at end to insert: 'and any federation of the states made under section 9 of this Act '. Subsection (1) relates to the powers of the Government to provide financial help for these new associated States under the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. The effect of my Amendment would be to make it clear that that power to make grants under the Act would continue if the powers of Clause 9 were used to federate any of these States. It may be said that probably they would be able to go on having grants after federation because they would still be the associated States set out in the Bill. On the other hand, we want to be sure that the federal Government, if it came about—it is not mentioned in the Bill so far—would be able to receive the grants under the Act. So far as I can see, that could not be so without my Amendment.

Mrs. Hart

I agree that it is necessary that, what can be done for an associated State under Clause 16, should be possible for a federation of those States. But while I agree with my hon. Friend that this is highly desirable, the Amendment is unnecessary. I direct his attention again to the difficult Clause 9(4). He will find there the provision that Clause 16(1) could be applied to a federation of associated States. His objective is already met in the Bill.

Mr. Chapman

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out subsection (3).

Subsection (3) is puzzling. In effect, it says that, after the appointed day, these new associated territories shall cease to receive any grants made under Section 8 of the West Indies Act, 1962. The effect is to withdraw grants which would have been available under that Act. I looked up the Act and am rather puzzled as to why the Government wish to disembarrass themselves of the powers in Section 8. They are very useful powers to give money. Section 8 says that the Secretary of State may from time to time make, to the Government of any colony"— this would include these islands— to which section five of this Act applies, being a Government whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses, grants of such amounts as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine. There are two other subsections about federation and so on. This is a very handy power.

Why then does my hon. Friend wish to get rid of it? What sort of grant which would have been made under this Clause will now not be made to these associated States? What money have they been receiving under this Section which they now will not receive? If the effect of the subsection is to reduce the amount which we give these islands, I shall hotly oppose it. As an hon. Member opposite said on Second Reading, we are already making very small grants to these islands compared to what is being given to Guadaloupe and Martinique.

9.15 p.m.

The figures will stagger my hon. Friend. One can see Guadaloupe and Martinique from Dominica which shows how near it is and how embarrassing to have money poured into these other islands when Dominica is so poor. In Guadaloupe and Martinique, in 1963, the grant was £75 per head, compared with less than £10 per head in Dominica and the other Windward Islands. There is a great deal to worry about in the way in which money is to be provided and the liberality of Acts of Parliament under which we give grants to these islands.

At the dinner of the British Caribbean Association last Saturday, the Prime Minister, as guest of honour, gave his personal blessing to the idea of a "little Colombo Plan" for these islands. This is the idea fostered by the tri-partite survey, of getting the United States and Canada, with Great Britain, to make grants to these islands. It needs about £30 million or £40 million to start the process, but if the Government have not the power under subsection (3) but only under the Overseas Aid Act of 1966, how will we provide the money which I hope we will find—£10 million—to start this thing?

We must find it somewhere and I am worried that, if my hon. Friend gets rid of the powers of the 1962 Act, there will be no legislation under which we can make these initial substantial grants which will be needed to make these associated States viable. Is this figure of £32 million, the starting figure, accepted by the Government as necessary? Does my hon. Friend hope to announce the way in which Canada and the United States will be associated with us in helping to provide it?

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison (Eye)

I add my plea to that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Those of us who have visited these islands and know them well—and I might mention that I presented a report to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor after I had been there—appreciate that much more could be done, remembering the great historical tradition of the islands. They took part in battles between the French and the British and I believe that they could be developed, if a little more money was spent, into great tourist attractions, particularly for visitors from the United States and Canada. The islands have great historical associations and these could be developed to great advantage.

I recall seeing an American ship arriving at St. Lucia. The tourists merely left the ship and went to the leading hotel for lunch—and that was that. Nothing was laid on to make the place a tourist attraction. No trips were provided to enable them to see St. Lucia. If money were spent and something like the English Harbour being developed in Antigua was provided there, much could be done to build up the tourist trade.

Mrs. Hart

I congratulate hon. Members on having widened the scope of the debate on a somewhat narrow Amendment, yet at the same time having remained in order. Although this has been a clever exercise on their part, I am afraid that I cannot follow them into a wide discussion of the degree of assistance which we, compared with, say, France, have given to countries in the Caribbean or into a whole range of matters which are strictly for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, who is keenly interested in these issues.

I can best answer the points made on the Amendment by simply saying that it touches on one of those points of government where one is anxious that the Minister who gets the money to spend is the Minister responsible for spending it. We are merely translating the donor as from the Secretary of State to the Minister of Overseas Development. The amounts of money will depend on a number of factors; and I was delighted to hear about my right hon. Friend's remarks on Saturday evening. The only point here is that it is no longer appropriate that the grants should be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) and, by removing the power to give grants under the West Indies Act, 1962, we are enabling the Minister of Overseas Development to give the associated States all the assistance that may be made available under the Act for developing the State, for maintaining its economy and for making grants in aid of administration. There is no variation at all in the amount or character of the aid which the Government would provide. It is merely the formal agent of that aid who differs as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Chapman

Is my hon. Friend saying that this subsection will not take away the possibility of any of the grants which are now being made from being made in future?

Mrs. Hart

In terms of a grant being made to Dominica or St. Vincent, this will have no relevance to what they get, the purposes for which they use it or the amounts we give in relation to their needs and economic situation generally. Instead of the Secretary of State giving the grant under the 1962 Act, it will be the Minister of Overseas Development who will give them under this Measure.

Mr. Chapman

I am not entirely reassured by my hon. Friend's remarks, but, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR

TERMINATING STATUS OF ASSOCIATION.)

Mrs. Hart

I beg to move, in page 15, line 39, to leave out from 'Bill' to the second 'the' in line 40 and to insert: 'having been passed by the lower House, is passed by the upper House in the same Session either without amendment or with amendments which are agreed to by the lower House in accordance with the last preceding sub-paragraph'. I think I need not explain this matter fully to the House but I will do so if I am asked to do so. Schedule 2 lays down the procedure which the legislature of an associated State has to observe in enacting a law, under Clause 10(1) to terminate the association and make the State independent of the United Kingdom. The Amendment relates to paragraph 3 of the Schedule and involves no new matter of policy. The purpose is to clarify the wording of the paragraph so that if a State does invoke Clause 10 there can be no possible doubt as to whether it has gone through the proper legislative procedure to make itself independent of this country. We thought that this further clarification would improve the Bill.

Mr. Wood

The only question I ask is for clarification of the procedures. Are the procedures understood and accepted by all the territories concerned?

Mrs. Hart

Yes, I completely confirm that that is the case. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to give a fuller explanation I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Wood

No, I do not think that is necessary.

Mrs. Hart

That apparently satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 13, at end insert: (8) Sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to the passage of the Bill in the second of those Sessions as it has effect in relation to the passage of the Bill in the Session in which it is first introduced.

In line 17, leave out 'the last preceding sub-paragraph' and insert: 'sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph'.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.—[Mrs. Hart.]

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

Rather than allow the Bill to go through entirely without a final word as I suspect would otherwise happen, I wish to say one or two things. I think the House would like to thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done on this Bill this week. This has been a particularly heavy week for her. She has had all the negotiations with St. Vincent to deal with, and I know that they have not been easy. Indeed, I have been one of the people who have made them difficult for her. In addition, she has had the various stages of this Bill and the Malta debate as well. I am sure the House would wish to thank her for her patience and to congratulate her on her physical endurance. I am particularly grateful to her because, although I have crossed swords with her on the Bill, she has remained much more courteous than I have and I have learned some lessons about behaviour as well as about endurance.

The good thing about this Bill, apart from the move to independence which it incorporates, is the assurances we have extracted—that is the wrong word for they have been freely given—about the continuing interest by Her Majesty's Government in these associated territories despite the degree of independence which is entailed under the terms of the Bill. This is important. I made a long speech about it on Second Reading and I will not bore the House by making it again. If, after the Bill, despite independence these islands—far off, very lonely, very separated, very conscious of their remoteness—feel that independence also carries with it a little of the paternalism with which my hon. Friend reproaches me, I shall be delighted, because Her Majesty's Government's initiative and economic protection as well as physical protection are needed.

They look to us for leadership, for ideas, and for assistance of all kinds in a world which is very difficult indeed for little islands with a population of no more than 60,000 each. These are not people to launch alone on the world stage today. We are doing it in a remarkable way in the Bill, I freely confess. The one hope I have of success is the sort of assurances I have sought and received from my hon. Friend that in this new, uncharted sea of independence nevertheless these islands can be absolutely assured of Her Majesty's continuing affection as well as simple physical protection. That is very important indeed today.

As the House knows, I love these islands very dearly. I would not be alone in saying that I would love to live there most of the year. Who would not, with our climate and with their climate and topography? My hon. Friend is going out there very soon. I hope that she will enjoy her visit. I hope that she will return as enthusiastic as many of us are about this part of the world and as committed as many of us are to seeing them through a very difficult future.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Wood

In addition to supporting what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has delightfully said about the endurance and courtesy of the hon. Lady the Minister of State throughout the passage of the Bill, I should like to share what he said about his desire, if he could, to live in that part of the world. Not only has it the charms he mentioned. As far as I know, they do not have morning sittings there.

In spite of any reservations that the hon. Gentleman or I expressed during earlier stages of the Bill about the future, we are all united in hoping that this new move forward will be a great success. As I said on Second Reading, I hope very much indeed that it will provide a basis for a new beginning to the kind of hopeful signs of federations, and groups of that sort, which we saw developing a decade ago but which so disappointingly came to a temporary end in 1962. I hope very much that this will be a great success; I hope that we shall go on giving the kind of support that the hon. Gentleman suggested; and I hope that this new form of association between us will be very fruitful.

9.33 p.m.

Sir H. Harrison

I add my tribute from the back benches on this side of the House. Far be it from me to cross swords with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but the island that I particularly know of—St. Lucia—would not like to be thought to be in the 60,000 category. Its population is much nearer 100,000, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my making that slight correction.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said, we wish the Bill well. I am sure that this sort of association is the type of process we should like for these small islands, which are, in a way, lonely. If they want their self-government, they look to us for a certain amount of protection and help. I only hope that that very great man, Sir Garnett Gordon, who when he was High Commissioner here for the Federation had something like this very much in mind, will feel that the Bill meets some of the aspirations, not only of his own island, but also of the other islands out there.

What some people in this country do not realise is that although these territories are known as the West Indies, they are a very long way from centres like the Bahamas and Jamaica. They are very much on their own. But they have a great sense of loyalty and attachment to this country, although they want their self-government. I said earlier that, with the expenditure of very little money, a great deal more could be done to help them o earn money themselves by developing their tourist trade. I hope that this will be done, and I wish them well under the Bill.

9.35 p.m.

Mrs. Hart

I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their kind remarks about me, but I wish to add a word about the background to the Bill. For a considerable part of this evening, we have had with us my right hon. Friend the last Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whose work we owe a great deal in the preparation of the Bill and the negotiations which led up to associated status. Before his work, of course, there was that of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and before that the work of my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Those Ministers brought about, as it were, the genesis of the Bill, and it has been my duty merely to pilot through the House a Measure which had had an enormous amount of thought and discussion devoted to it before I arrived at the Commonwealth Office.

The Bill has had very many good wishes, and good wishes for the Bill, of course, are good wishes for the associated States in the West Indies. I feel that we may now, without danger of being accused of colonialism or neo-colonialism in the Committee of Twenty-four, quietly allow ourselves the small luxury of a degree of paternalism, a degree of involvement, inasmuch as our relationship carries with a great continuing interest and concern for these territories, to which we are happy to give self-government but with which we wish always to retain our links.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Back to
Forward to