WEST INDIES BILL

HC Deb 31 January 1967 vol 740 cc335-88

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

7.56 p.m.

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

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

The Bill concerns the people of Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenada. At Conferences last spring their representatives agreed with us conclusions about their future. The Reports of the Conferences have been published as White Papers—Cmnd, 2963, 3021 and 3031. After many days—sometimes even nights—of deliberation the Conferences decided that the present colonial relationship with Britain should cease, and should he replaced by a new pattern of association with us. This would be free and voluntary; it could be ended by either country at any time, and under it the associated State would be fully self-governing in all its internal affairs. The Bill will give effect to those conclusions.

The House will wish to know the background which led to the Conferences. They were able to take as a basis proposals which had been worked out by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government while he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. An outline of them had been discussed on his behalf with Ministers in each territory by Sir Stephen Luke during a tour of the islands in November, 1965. A Memorandum containing the proposals and a suggestion that they should be discussed at Conferences in London were sent to the administrators in December and published in Cmnd. 2865.

It was a little later that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as Secretary of State, took the Chair at the first of these successful Conferences—the one with Antigua. At subsequent Conferences the chair was taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as Secretary of State, and he presented the Bill to the House as the last act in Parliament of the last Secretary of State for the Colonies.

This is not, of course, an independence Bill on familiar lines. The House will know—certainly hon. Gentlemen opposite will—that we hoped at one time to achieve an independent Federation in the Caribbean. This is not the moment to go into all the reasons why it did not happen, but we have to face the fact that the will to federate was not strong enough. We were disappointed, of course, and puzzled. The six territories are very much of a size, with populations of between 60,000 and 120,000. None of them is more than 20 miles square. They have a full share in the culture of the Caribbean and long experience of democratic government. Federation would have seemed an additional way of achieving independence, but since this was not possible, we had to look for some other way forward, while leaving the way open for federation in the future.

These territories are sadly poor, especially when seen against the background of North American opulence, and their connection with us is their lifeline. For trade, aid and their standing internationally, they depend upon us. Independent nationhood for each was not realistic. Neither they nor we thought so, but, one by one, the separate Governments came to us with proposals for more liberal Constitutions. We knew that they really wanted their freedom, but did not want to give them an illusion of freedom, a mere facade. For some time, we could not see a way forward. This, of course, was part of a wider problem. We had then, and still have, 15 other territories of the same size or smaller, most of them islands.

There are four smaller West Indian territories, five, including the Bahamas, Bermuda and Gibraltar, in the Atlantic, two in the Indian Ocean and four in the Pacific. Every one of these territories is a special case. In the Pacific archipelago, for instance—the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate—we still have full responsibility and a long way to go to develop their economies and social services, to train local leaders and create democratic institutions.

Bermuda and the Bahamas are a contrast; they are prosperous, self-reliant, very largely self-governing. They have their problems and they are often responsive to our advice, but there has been nothing colonial in our relationship with them for many years past. In the Turks and Caicos Islands, at the end of the Bahamas chain, some 6,000 people live. Once prosperous, these isolated islands are now wretchedly poor and they are heavily dependent upon a British subsidy. So the list goes on. Hardly any generalisations hold good over the whole field except that they all need either help, or a protector, or both, and they all dread the thought that we might leave them on their own too soon.

So we have had to carve out a new path. In 1965, after touring the Caribbean islands, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government called a very unusual conference in Oxford. He invited colonial Governors, business men, scholars, journalists and a number of slightly surprised officials from Whitehall Departments; and he threw this smaller territories problem at them. The result was a ferment of ideas, and soon afterwards the germ of the proposals we are considering tonight emerged, partly worked out on the basis of first principles, and partly by studying experience elsewhere.

Several of the ex-colonial Powers have similar dependencies, often isolated, often poor, and difficult to accommodate in a world of young nationalism and anti-colonial enthusiasm. Each of the Powers is tackling the problems in its own way. The New Zealanders, in particular, have been pace-makers. Between 1963 and 1965 they negotiated an association with the Cook Islands which gives the 20,000 islanders a new combination of freedom and outside support. The special feature of this association is that the islanders have a standing option of independence. I want to acknowledge the use which we Dave made of the Cook Islands model, in this and other respects, in working out the proposals contained in the Bill.

I do not suggest that these proposals are a prototype and that all we have to do now is to work out solutions for other territories on the same lines. Similar as these Caribbean islands are, separate and detailed Constitutions have had to be tailor-made for them. I hope that some of their provisions will be useful as models elsewhere, but the hard truth is that there are no stock answers to any of these problems. On the other hand, we have worked out some general principles and I think it is worth stating them. They provide the background to this Bill.

First, we believe that the people in each territory are entitled to the fullest political liberty, the fullest voice in their own affairs, that their circumstances allow. Second, we see it as our duty to widen their opportunities whenever we can and make real liberty possible for them. For one or two, the scope will always be very narrow; we cannot change geography. But for most of them there is a great deal which we can do to help. Third, we owe them help and protection while they need it: it would be totally wrong to abandon them before they can stand on their own.

Twenty years ago the late Arthur Creech-Jones said that the purpose of our policy was … to guide the colonial territories to responsible self-government within the Commonwealth in conditions that assured the people concerned both a fair standard of living and freedom from oppression from any quarter. In more recent years, we have come to read "independence" for "self-government" and perhaps be less exacting about such things as economic viability and the capacity for self-defence. But now we are having to think again: is this, after all, a choice that we should try to make? Leaving aside such territories as Hong Kong and Gibraltar, where international factors must be paramount, I believe we should set ourselves now to prepare the people of each territory to choose for themselves, when the time comes, between independence on the one hand and, on the other, some such relationship as we are discussing here; a relationship that will set them free as communities and individuals but assure them of continued help and protection. But the choice will be theirs.

In a recent Parliamentary Answer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said: We are ready to work out suitable arrangements to grant independence to those dependent territories overseas which want it and can sustain it. For the others we are willing to work out with the representatives of their peoples arrangements that would enable them, if they so wish, to continue in some form of association with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1966: Vol. 738, c. 151.] This is the concept which emerges in the Bill.

What is the nature of the Associated Status to be granted to the territories covered in it? Many hon. Members will doubtless be familiar by now with the Conference Reports. I should like to draw attention to certain features of the proposals which are of special significance. Where it is necessary—this will not be often—to refer to passages in the Reports it will, I hope, be convenient if I refer throughout to the Report on the Conference with St. Kitts. Cmnd. 3031.

The proposed new association will be free and voluntary. It will be terminable at any time. Under it the territory will be fully self-governing in all its "internal affairs". That is in paragraph 10. The ability of the territory to terminate the association is intended as a guarantee of its voluntary nature. But while the association continues, neither side will be able to amend its terms without the agreement of the other.

A decision to terminate the association, once implemented, will be irrevocable. It seems prudent, therefore, to introduce some safeguards against legislative action to terminate the association being taken in a territory without due deliberation and the positive backing of public opinion. The procedures set out in paragraph 23 of the Report provide this safeguard.

They involve an interval of 90 days between introduction of legislation for this purpose and any consideration of it; they require the approval of two-thirds of the elected members of the legislature; and they require the further approval of two-thirds of the persons voting in a referendum before the legislation is submitted for assent. No referendum would be required if it was proposed to terminate association in favour of association with some other Commonwealth country in the Caribbean.

I have already mentioned that the way is left open for federation. Many of those at the Conferences expressed the feeling that it should be no more difficult for the territories to federate as associated States than it is today. This is of the greatest importance. It will still be possible for United Kingdom legislation to be made at the request and with the consent of an associated State. It would be open to any associated States which wished to federate to signify their request and consent that the necessary provision should be made. This they could do by simple resolution of the legislatures, and without recourse to a referendum. The new relationship with Britain will, therefore, create no new procedural difficulties which might stand in the way of federation.

It is not only associated States, however, which would be able to terminate the association; Britain also could do so. Assurances were given that Britain would not do so unilaterally without giving six months' notice of her intention. We gave this further assurance: that we would be prepared to hold a conference at which the political and economical implications of the termination could be discussed; and would seek the specific approval of Parliament for the termination of the association.

Apart from its voluntary nature, the proposed association would owe its character mainly to the division of responsibilities and powers between the United Kingdom and the associated States. Each associated State will have full control of its internal affairs and the power to amend its Constitution. We will be responsible for defence and external affairs, and we will retain the legislative and executive authority necessary for us to discharge that responsibility.

The Constitution agreed for each of the Associated States was set out in an annex to the Conference Report. Each contains the provisions which are normal in a modern independence Constitution, subject to the requirements of our responsibility for defence and external affairs, and also the preservation of a common citizenship. Each Constitution contains provision for the protection of fundamental rights and procedures; for the maintenance of democratic institutions; and for its amendment or replacement by the legislature in accordance with procedures laid down for this purpose. The Conferences all envisaged the establishment of a single Supreme Court for the Associated States, consisting of a High Court and a Court of Appeal; and agreement has since been reached on the provision to be made for this purpose.

The arrangements which should govern the exercise by the United Kingdom and the Associated States of their respective responsibilities and powers were the matter of detailed agreement at the Conferences. They will be found in paragraphs 11–22 of the Report and in Annexes "C" and "D". Agreement was reached that future legislation of the United Kingdom should not extend to an Associated State as part of its law unless made at the request and with the consent of the Associated State. There is, however, one important exception. It was necessary to meet the eventuality that proper discharge of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government might require the enactment of legislation which the Associated State was unwilling or unable to undertake itself, and unwilling to request Her Majesty's Government to undertake This is a power of last resort—in the words of the Report: … necessary because it would not be reasonable to expect the United Kingdom to bear a responsibility without having the means of discharging it whatever course events might take, but unlikely to be invoked except as a last resort in circumstances that in practice seem unlikely to arise. At each of the Conferences "Heads of Agreement on Defence and External Affairs" were worked out which laid down the obligations of the British and State Governments in these respects. They are in Annex "C" of the Report.

The territorial Governments undertook to provide us and our allies with defence facilities, and not to allow other Governments these facilities without our consent. Other Clauses cover the status of visiting forces and the use of our troops in aid of the civil powers. On the external affairs side, Her Majesty's Government undertook to exercise their powers in consultation with the State Governments. Those Governments undertook to take all steps—including, where necessary, steps to secure the passage of legislation—required by us to secure the fulfilment of our Commonwealth or international obligations or in the interest of good relations.

There is also provision for us to legislate on these matters on behalf of the State with its advice and consent. We have given an undertaking to those who wanted it that if, after full consultation, there is failure to reach agreement concerning the enactment of legislation, before exercising our own powers to invite Parliament to legislate for the States, we will give a State Government as much notice as possible and, so far as we can, give it the opportunity to consider whether in all the circumstances it would wish to take the necessary steps to terminate the association.

We also agreed at the Conference the texts of draft dispatches defining the authority the State Governments will have in the external relations field. We indicated our readiness to extend this delegation for particular purposes on request. It was agreed that in making use of their relegated powers the States would keep us informed throughout and that if we informed them that their actions or proposals conflicted with our international commitments, responsibilities or policies they would, after consultation, accept and abide by the decision of Her Majesty's Government.

I should mention the assurances which were given during the Conference on arrangements for development and budgetary aid in the future. So far as development assistance is concerned, we confirmed that we would carry out in full the undertakings already given to the territories concerned in connection with the Overseas Development and Services Act, 1965. We also confirmed that associated States would, if the need arose, continue to be eligible for budgetary aid after the new constitutional arrangements had come into force.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of financial aid, would she say something about capital development in the islands and the possibility of carrying out the recommendations of the Tripartite Report? Surely, when we have given independence on previous occasions, we have normally given some sort of birthday present which launches a territory on its way. Will a similar announcement be made?

Mrs. Hart

I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that one will not be made tonight. However, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is personally concerned with this matter, will be visiting the islands for the purpose of helping them to celebrate the days when they come into associated status; and perhaps he will have something to say on this point.

I will explain briefly the content of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the assumption of associated status, and read with Clause 19(2) enables different days to be appointed for different territories.

Clause 2 sets out the limits of continuing responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Clause 3 lays down the conditions to be met before an Act of Parliament passed after association will extend to an associated State. Clause 4 sets out the executive authority of the Government of an associated State. Clause 5 enables new constitutions to be granted and Clause 6 enables courts to be established. Clause 7 enables Orders in Council to he made at the request and with the consent of an associated State; but this will not be needed in Orders concerned with defence or external affairs. Clause 8 contains normal provisions enabling compensation schemes to be made. Clause 9 enables provision to be made for combining associated States or for dividing or altering the boundaries of a State.

Clause 10 provides two ways of terminating the status of association. One is by the legislature in accordance with Schedule 2. I am afraid that minor changes with a purely technical aspect are desirable in paragraph 3 of this Schedule, and notice of the necessary amendment will be given tomorrow. Clause 11 provides for the effect of termination of the association. It would be complete independence. Clause 12 read with Schedule 3, removes from the Governors of associated States functions under the British Nationality Acts which are appropriate only to a Colonial Governor.

Clauses 13, 14 and 15 contain consequential and supplementary provisions. Clause 16 will enable grants to continue to be made to the Governments of associated States. Clause 17 provides that all Orders in Council terminating the association will require approval in draft by a resolution of each House. An Order under Clause 13 or Clause 14 will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House. Clauses 18, 19 and 20 are interpretative and procedural. Clause 20 provides a short title.

In conclusion, I return to what I said at the beginning; that the Bill was needed only to give effect to agreed conclusions. The territorial delegations at the Conferences included members of all the parties represented in the legislatures. Complete agreement was reached in every case, save on certain matters that did not affect the substance of the proposals and on which the opposition parties from three territories entered reservations. The proposals have since been endorsed by Resolution of the legislatures of each of the territories and they are now looking to this Parliament to provide the legislative authority for their assumption of their new status. If this authority is provided—which I am sure will be the case—St. Kitts and Antigua will proceed to associated Statehood on 27th February, Dominica and St. Lucia on 1st March and Grenada on the 3rd March; which leaves the question of St. Vincent.

St. Vincent is included in the Bill and it is our hope that St. Vincent can also proceed to associated Statehood as soon as the present, unfortunate uncertainties about the electoral position can be resolved. These arise, as I think the House will know, from the closeness of the General Election results in which one party won five seats and another won four, and four outstanding election petitions are involved at the same time. I am discussing the problem with representatives of the Government and Opposition parties of St. Vincent. I should tell the House that there has been a very wide measure of agreement reached by now. I am hopeful that it will be possible during the course of tomorrow to arrive at an agreed solution which will meet the agreement of both sides and the approval of the British Government.

The position as to the actual date for St. Vincent I cannot give to the House at this moment.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I am interested in the question of St. Vincent. Will the hon. Lady announce to the House if an agreement has been reached and then the date on which it will receive independence?

Mrs. Hart

Yes, as soon as possible after the discussions I am having at the moment are concluded and any ends have been tied up, I shall tell the House what has been decided. Then the House will be able to see the conclusions which, I hope, will have been reached by then. At that point it will be possible to set a date at which St. Vincent may also enter into associated status.

This Bill represents a unique development in the relationship between Britain and some of her former Colonial Territories. The problem which lies ahead of us in deciding the future of some of the scattered territories—many sparse in natural resources, many needing so much help by way of development and education in order to give them real hope for the future—presents us with problems so great that the normal traditional concepts which apply to considerations of colonialism and anti-colonialism seem to be of comparatively less relevance. What is necessary is to work out a new way, and this is what the Bill tries to do, in which they can move towards the degree of freedom they ask for and want and at the same time continue to give them the degree of protection for which they also ask.

It is an interesting venture, an interesting period into which we now move when we shall see how the new concept of associated States works out. Its success will depend a great deal on good will and co-operation. For our part we can certainly give to the territories involved our wholehearted assurance that there will be an abundance of both.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

We have listened with interest to what the hon. Lady told us. Like her, before the present Government took office, and since then, we have followed closely the various initiatives and developments which have taken place in the Caribbean since the dissolution of the West Indies Federation: first, the examination of the possibilities of a new Federation which she mentioned this evening and, more recently, the new proposals to the West Indian Six about which this Bill is concerned. We seem to be dealing with a number of "Sixes" in different parts of the world. Judging by the calm atmosphere in this Chamber tonight, it seems that this Six evokes less passion than does another Six.

We should all like to congratulate the Minister on the progress made by a rapid succession of the hon. Lady's right hon. Friend's predecessors, which itself must have been a little bewildering for the Six. Even though this Bill is a little behind the timetable announced last August, I can assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friends and I will certainly give our support to the new arrangements for which the Bill provides. I do not think any of us expect—I should add that I do not think we hope—that they represent the final answer, but we certainly believe that the arrangements which the hon. Lady has described can be the basis of a continuing and fruitful partnership between the territories and Great Britain. It is for the territories themselves to come by agreement, if they wish, into closer association between themselves and other Commonwealth States in the Caribbean.

We are all aware of the difficulties, but I cherish the hope that some form of closer association with one another before long will seem both sensible and practical to the territories concerned. Even after the important change which will take place in the status of the territories, as the hon. Lady mentioned, in five of the six within a few weeks, the responsibility of this country for their well-being will continue. I was very much in sympathy with the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman)—how far shall we be able to fulfil those responsibilities? I hope that the hon. Lady will give us the assurance, more than she did when she was speaking, that her right hon. Friend, when he returns from the West Indies, will undertake to make a definite statement about what he has heard and seen and decided, because that will be of great interest to us all.

The democratic system which Great Britain has exported, or tried to export, to a great many parts of the world is, as we in this country have discovered from time to time, a very fragile instrument. The territories which we are now discussing have had considerable experience of the working of the democratic system. When we cast our own minds back to the growing pains of democracy in Great Britain, I fancy we all want to congratulate those in the islands who have been responsible for democracy in action. But democracy, which more than any other system of government can bring stability, is also able all too easily to provide the framework for tension and instability. Under the new status of association, I hope and trust that those responsible in the islands will always be watchful and continuously on guard against the abuses to which democracy has been subjected on countless occasions.

Having welcomed the new status for the islands, I wish to ask certain questions and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could give the answers to them in some detail if possible before the end of the debate. The hon. Lady spoke, first, about the assurances that we had given, at the various conferences which have taken place, about the procedure if the termination of the status of association becomes necessary in any case. Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference states: the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that Britain would not terminate the association unilaterally without giving six months' notice of intention to do so. Britain would also be prepared to hold a conference with the territory concerned … The paragraph goes on to say that the specific approval of the British Parliament would be sought.

That is almost exactly copied in the St. Kitts Report, but there is no mention of this procedure in the Report of the Antigua constitutional conference, presumably because this was the one which was held first and the matter was not brought up. I believe that there is no mention of it in Clause 10 or, as to this precise matter, in Schedule 2.

If I am right in thinking that there is no mention of it, I cannot think that this situation is very satisfactory, because in five of the six territories—the Windward Islands and the St. Kitts group—we are committed to these three things—the six months' delay, the conference and a positive vote in the House of Commons. I cannot believe that there was any sinister intention in the fact that comparable offers were not made at the Antigua conference. I wonder—I should be grateful for the answer—if there is any objection whatsoever to the confirmation of these arrangements applying to all the six territories by writing them specifically into the Bill.

My second difficulty relates to Clause 14. This seems to suggest, but it is pretty complicated reading, that, if the association comes to an end, the British Government will retain the power to preserve by Order in Council existing British laws in territories which have become completely independent. I appreciate that in certain circumstances this might be valuable and, indeed, necessary, but dotted about the Bill in various places I find such words as at the request and with the consent of the associated State. My question is whether there is not a strong case, in order to remove any doubt about Clause 14, for the insertion of a similar phrase somewhere in the Clause.

My third point concerns the possibility of this country interfering with the Constitution. In paragraph 18 of the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference it was concluded as follows: It would not be possible, by means of an Act of Parliament or Order in Council having effect by virtue of the exception"— that is the opinion of Parliament, and so on, that defence and external relations were involved— to amend, suspend or revoke the constitution of the associated State. At the end of Clause 7 there are the words: "including"—in certain circumstances, war or other emergency— provision derogating from the provisions of the constitution of that State relating to fundamental rights and freedoms. This is a very complicated matter, but I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could make quite clear that what is said in paragraph 18 of the Report about our powers over the Constitution is—because it does not appear to be—the same as what is said in Clause 7(2) about the

The last question of detail—I appreciate from what the hon. Lady said at the end of her speech that she would probably prefer to answer this, not tonight, but in a few days' time when her discussions with the leaders of Saint Vincent have made further progress—concerns the difficult position in that same subject.

Island. We are all aware, as the hon. Lady said, of the electoral situation there. I assume that all of us would agree that the sooner it is resolved the better for us all.

Apart from the obvious need to clarify the whole situation in order that the date can be agreed for the attainment of associated status and the grant of a new Constitution for the island, it appears—again I put this in an interrogative form—from paragraphs 6 and 12 of Appendix III, which relates to Saint Vincent, on pages 36 and 37 of the Windward Islands Report, that four additional seats are to be given to the party in power during the life of the first legislature. Apart from any other consideration, it is obviously important to decide as soon as possible which party will have the power to obtain these have extra seats.

I had intended to make certain suggestions about the situation as it is at the moment. In view of what the hon. Lady said, it would, on the whole, be wiser to leave her to conduct the important negotiations as best she may. We have her undertaking that she will make a statement as soon as these matters are resolved, and we shall await that with great interest.

Regarding the other questions which I asked, I hope that before the debate ends we can have satisfactory answers to these various important points of detail. If we have those satisfactory answers, then my hon. Friends will fully support the proposals in the Bill.

Although the territories concerned will thereafter have the right to bring to an end their association with Britain, I hope—and I think that the hon. Lady clearly hopes—that they will not find it necessary to do so. I am convinced that it is in the interest not only of the territories themselves and of this country, but also of the whole Western world, that the connections, which we have now had for well over three centuries, should continue and should grow stronger, whatever the future may hold.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

These are usually occasions for congratulation, for felicitation, and for expressions of satisfaction, that another part of the Commonwealth is moving towards freedom and independence. In one sense, I should like very much to join in those expressions of good will and congratulation. With other hon. Members, I made such expressions as each part of the Caribbean moved towards some form of independence. I recall with considerable affection the debates we had on the independence of Jamaica, of Trinidad, and of Barbados. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), my hon. Friend, as I would call him, and I have been here on all those occasions, and we have all expressed our satisfaction when these things have happened.

I am, therefore, in rather a difficult position tonight, because I have the gravest possible reservations about the Bill, and I shall express them frankly. We are treating the suggestions in the Bill and in the preceding White Papers with insufficient thought about some of the consequences of what we are doing. I am sure, for a start, that we do not regard the proposals in the Bill as eminently satisfactory. What we would have preferred was, first, the big West Indies Federation, if that could have been retained; and, if we could not have that—we did not have it, and we all wept tears when it broke down—we would have preferred the Eastern Caribbean Federation. This is the third alternative, and ranks No. 3 in our preference.

It is on that beginning—and it is not auspicious—that we come to examine the consequences of the proposals in the Bill. What does the Bill really mean? The hon. Lady spoke about the comparison between these islands and the Cook Islands near New Zealand. I beg the hon. Lady to appreciate the difference between that relationship and that which she is proposing in the Bill. The Cook Islands are close to New Zealand physically. They feel closely under the continued protection and active interest of New Zealand. That association has worked because New Zealand has in no sense—and I use my hon. Friend's own phrase—left them alone too soon.

What worries me—and this is the core of what I want to say—is that the effect of the Bill is to cast adrift, in a very real sense, far-off islands which are too small, and which need a lot more continuing active interest by the House of Commons, and not the shaking-off of responsibility, which may well follow from the precise terms of the Bill. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I have the gravest reservations about the consequences of the Bill.

I know the dilemma which Her Majesty's Government were in—the dilemma which is fairly set out in Cmnd. 3021, the Report of the Windward Islands Constitutional Conference. In paragraph 9 headed, The alternative to these proposals the view of the Government is given about the possible alternative, which was clearly pressed at that Conference on behalf of these islands. The alternative to this associated status was to have full internal self-government, with Her Majesty's Government continuing to have responsibility for defence and so on. One great consequence of the difference between the present proposals and full internal self-government would have been the continuing responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the final resort for internal affairs in the islands. It would have meant answerability in this House of Commons about such things as the economic development of the islands and their further progress towards real viability and real independence, which could come only when they had reached the take-off point economically and were fully settled democratically.

There is this difference between the two proposals. Personally, I think that we have chosen the wrong one and I am very worried about the consequences which may now follow. The Government said that the disadvantage of this alternative was: The British Government were held internationally responsible for matters which they had no effective means of controlling". That, they said, was the disadvantage of having this full internal self-government with some residue of responsibility here—that internationally we would get the blame without being able to do a great deal. I would have accepted that blame. I would have accepted the international risk in return for the continuing possibility of more active intervention to help these islands on to their feet; and that is why I think that we have made the wrong choice and why I have the gravest reservations about the Bill's contents.

I want to take this a little further and to illustrate what I said when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I want to consider this from the angle of economic aid. I have in my hand the Report of the Tripartite Economic Survey of the islands—which as the House knows, was undertaken, after a number of us had fought for it year after year, by the British Government, Canada and the United States. It is an economic survey of the beginnings of the development potential of the islands. It could not be called a full development survey and it does not claim to be. It tries to consider the possibility of how the islands can get towards take-off point, as the economists call it. I quote the Report to show the difficulties of the situation created by the Bill and I want to quote one or two of the emphases which the writers of the Report gave to it.

In its introduction, the Report says: We see little possibility of a movement into sustained growth"— that is, in the islands— without extensive reliance on external private and public sources of capital, technical and organisational skills as well as"— and this comes out in page after page of this document— direction and initiative for some years. I repeat: external direction and external initiative for some years. … Even if such an integrated programme were arranged, the attainment of self-sustaining growth is not likely to be achieved in a period as short as five years. What seems necessary is a well integrated, long-term programme for development which has staying power. To begin with, much of the initiative"— that word comes up yet again in this next paragraph— finance and execution must come from outside. The extent of this participation can then be phased out gradually as local resources are built up. I shall not weary the House with continual quotations on the same lines. What the document makes crystal clear is that for five years and possibly ten the need of the islands, small and with a long way to go before they reach "take-off point", is not to be cast adrift too easily but to have continuing external interest, initiative and help in bringing them towards "take-off point." I believe that that could have come; it would have been possible to make sure that it happened if the final responsibility had stayed in the House.

What I now fear happening is the kind of thing that has been happening over such matters as getting help for the islands from international authorities. I have been told, "Well, of course, we shall try to get them together on this matter, but it is primarily their responsibility, and if they do not happen to get together as six islands and make the proper applications, there is not much chance". The next stage in the argument will be—and I shudder for my hon. Friend if she has to make it here—when the House has passed the Bill, it is no longer our responsibility, and nobody will bother to do anything about it. That is what I fear as the real consequence of the Bill.

I shall take the example just one stage further, and then I am done. As my hon. Friend knows, I have worked for a long time on the idea of getting an application made on behalf of the islands to the International Development Authority for funds to help them with roads and education. The Authority, which is a subsidiary of the World Bank, has millions of dollars for that kind of thing. Why do not the Leewards and Windwards get it? The answer is that they are too small, that they are below the level of population at which the I.D.A. will deal with an independent country.

I urged that the right way to deal with that problem was to get the islands together and put in a co-ordinated plan to meet the required population level. I was told, "We shall try to get them together, but perhaps it will fail", and of course it failed all the time.

The survey makes it clear that if Her Majesty's Government had only got on with the job of setting up a development bank for the six islands on the lines recommended in the Report by now we would have been able, through a development bank for the whole of the islands, to be making application to I.D.A. for that kind of development assistance. I cannot tell my hon. Friend the exact page on which that appears because they are not numbered. The Survey actually says: We hope that by establishing a development bank with a development agency the islands would be enabled collectively to deal with certain international development agencies whose rules now exclude them on grounds of size. Whose responsibility is this now? Apparently it is no longer to be ours, and the whole of the pleas in the Report for external initiative and direction are now very likely to founder, because we shall wash our hands of the islands and say that if they do not do it themselves it will not get done. We shall say "Too bad", but that at least we gave them independence and that our conscience is clear.

My conscience will not be clear. I believe that we have rushed at this thing quite wrongly in a way that will result in the danger of the House being too detached from islands in which it will pretend to have a continuing interest, but will slide out of it by saying that they have a degree of independence.

I end with one or two questions about St. Vincent. Like the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), I am very concerned about the situation there under the proposals of this Bill. As I understand it, my hon. Friend the Minister of State is apparently reaching agreement on the arrangements there following the indecisive—I put it no higher—result of the general election in the island. I hope that, when she makes the settlement, it will be patently fair particularly in view of the position in St. Vincent.

It is true that Mr. Joshua, the Chief Minister, won the election with five seats to the Opposition's four, but my hon. Friend did not mention the fact, which should be recorded here, that, in an electorate so small, what is significant is not who wins most seats but who wins most votes. There is no doubt that the present Opposition had 500 more votes than its opponents. Constituencies do not have a great meaning in a total of 60,000. I do not know what the electorate is but presumably it is about half the population. It is almost accidental that the election resulted in a strange reversal of power in the sense that Mr. Joshua's party has more seats.

Thus, the agreement, when reached by my hon. Friend, must be a fair solution for a start as between Government and Opposition, bearing this major fact about the electorate, constituencies and total votes in mind.

Secondly, I want to be assured that something will be done to provide supervision in St. Vinvent—I hope that it will be voluntarily accepted—for the next election in order to ensure that we get a result which is accepted and against which there can be no complaint. Perhaps there can be observers from here or other islands.

The real worry is corruption in St. Vincent. It has been proved before and it is time we said so. I know that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) will allow me to say that I blame him partly for some of the situation. Mrs. Joshua, the wife of the Chief Minister, was convicted by a judicial inquiry of paying non-existent people from public works funds. The payments were made from her own house and in one case the money to pay them was cashed in the island's treasury by the Chief Minister, Mr. Joshua, himself. So I do not believe that he was innocent of the whole matter. What happened? The then British Government refused to do more than deprive Mrs. Joshua of her portfolio as a Minister. There have never been proper proceedings in the courts against her to get the money back. She was not, as she should have been, turned out of the legislature.

Allegations of corruption in the sale of land followed and it is even significant now that, in the present dispute, there is an allegation that an attempt was made to bribe one of the judges with an offer, again, of land below the market price. It all adds up to a picture in St. Vincent—and there is no point in beating about the bush—of corruption. I hold Mr. Joshua chiefly responsible and I think that it was the fault of the British Government of the day that the situation was not handled better.

In the circumstances, I do not want to take sides on the election petitions, for that would be quite improper; but in the final settlement of this position it must be accepted that there shall be some arrangements to clear up all these doubts, suspicions and allegations of corruption and some attempt to provide assurance that, when elections are held, the result is not in doubt.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Surbiton)

We did, of course, so to speak, induce Mrs. Joshua to resign from the Government of St. Vincent, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. But I do not think that it would have been really appropriate had we forced her to resign from the legislature. After all, she had been properly elected by the democratic vote of her constituents and it was not for the British Government to try to deprive her of her seat. Had we done so, I can think of a great number of hon. Members opposite who would have protested violently against this as an interference with the democratic rights of the people of St. Vincent.

Mr. Chapman

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there are two views on how to handle this matter. He may have felt that he went as far as he could in the circumstances. My own view is that he did not. He will accept that I am entitled to a different view.

This is not the end of the matter. Today there must be some way of clearing up other suspicions. There is now this trouble about the accounts of the new deep-water wharf, and I understand that the Canadian Government, to some extent, are not entirely happy about the final fate of some of the money that they have put into this project. I beg for a solution which looks fair, and ends in a real clean-up and rebirth of confidence in the island so that this chapter can be finally closed, and we can all feel a little happier from this time onwards.

I apologise if I have spoken at some length. I should like to reassure my hon. Friends who know of my personal devotion to this island and the West Indies as a whole. In taking what I think is a rather unpopular line and expressing reserves about this Bill, I have done so with sincerity and only because I feel that the net result of washing our hands too soon of these islands will be to deprive the people of the benefit of our help in the years to come. They will desperately the years to come. They will be desperately in need of what the Report from which I quoted was advocating all the time, namely, the initiative and direction which a more developed country such as ours can offer to these very small islands.

I hope that my protest will nave the good result that my hon. Friend will say from the Box, "If that is what my hon. Friend thinks, I give him the assurance here and now, that as Minister I will see that this separation of real interest between these islands and ourselves will never take place as long as I am in the Ministry". I hope that she will say something like that, assuring them of the sort of guidance and help that can too easily be lost as the result of this Bill. I hope that some of my worst fears are not realised.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

In welcoming the intention behind the Bill I want to make a few brief remarks about St. Vincent. I found myself in considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) when he spoke about St. Vincent. I share his concern about the economic and political situation of the island. In my constituency the overwhelming number of West Indians come from St. Vincent. They come over here because the island is extremely poor, with practically no natural resources and very little industry.

The Minister will recall that considerable damage was done to the island's industry in the disastrous strike of March, 1962, which was followed by disturbances, said at that time, rightly or wrongly, to be instigated by the present Chief Minister, Mr. Joshua.

I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield in analysing the difference between the two parties or the particular behaviour of the present Minister, or any other statesman or politician in St. Vincent. I want to make the Minister aware, if she is not already aware, of the overwhelming necessity of having the most rigid examination of the results of the last election, and making quite certain, before accepting any solution, that at least the people of St. Vincent are convinced that the Government which they have elected or are likely to elect, is the right Government and has been elected by a majority vote of the island.

As to the economic situation, I share the concern which has been expressed about the possibility that these islands will be left rather too much to their own resources. An island like St. Vincent cannot possibly exist without a good deal of injection of capital from outside. Various suggestions have been made which are designed to help that island, but most of them were fairly small. We have heard about the deep-water port and grants are to be given for the establishment of a cotton ginnery. I am not sure how that is going. On the whole, however, all these are comparatively small.

There is no doubt that more far-reaching proposals for the development of this and other islands are needed if they are to become economically viable and able in the end to stand on their own feet. I am certain that many things can be done in St. Vincent, although I do not underrate the difficulties. I do not think that the island is developing its tourist facilities as well as it could, but this requires a great deal of money, more roads and other facilites. It is necessary to inject either Government or private money into the island.

Unless there is stability and a reasonably corruption-free Government, as far as Governments in that part of the world can be entirely corruption-free, we will not get private investment there. That is one of the reasons why it is essential to ensure that the present political situation is cleared up. The Minister of State has said that she will announce to the House when she has arrived at an agreed solution between the political leaders and the Government in this country and that she hopes to do this within the next day or two.

Mrs. Hart

I would say within the next few days.

Mr. Hall

We all look forward with considerable interest to the solution at which the hon. Lady arrives and to knowing whether it has the unanimous support of the leaders there and over here and whether, in her view, it will be acceptable in the country. It is an important decision which the hon. Lady will have to make and it might well decide whether St. Vincent can enter into an association with this country under the best possible auspices.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I do not have the same expert knowledge as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about these islands, but, having had the honour of leading a delegation there from this House a year ago, I think that one or two of the impressions of myself and other members of the delegation are worth recording.

Knowing nothing previously about the Windward Islands, I was extraordinarily impressed by how British these islands are. No part of the Commonwealth could be more British. One felt this everywhere one went. One saw it when going round and seeing pictures of the Royal family when visiting people in their homes and talking to people in the islands.

Once or twice stories were told to me of people from these islands who met some West Africans. The West Africans taunted them by saying, "You are no more than black-faced Englishmen, you and your cricket. We have never been slaves. You will never be free." That is worth recording because I feel that we have a certain obligation to these islands, more, possibly, than to any other part of the Commonwealth, because we made money out of them when sugar was king and we took there the great part of the population as slaves from West Africa.

I have never met any community anywhere in which colour meant less or where there was a happier association together of people of different races and mixtures. They are a very happy people and I feel that we ought to help them in every way we can in building up democracy. They have this British tradition.

We visited there before the fall of Nkrumah in Ghana. Everywhere we went, the point was made to us, "We do not want to have a dictatorship established here when greater independence comes. We want safeguards against any kind of dictatorship being established. We do not want to see our police being dominated by the Government of the day and used to suppress our liberties. We want to see freedom for people who do not agree with the Government."

That was combined with a rather naive approach to the whole idea of Parliamentary government. In some islands, like Barbados, there is a long tradition of Parliamentary rule. In others, however, the tradition of self-government is fairly short. None the less, they have the feeling that they want some kind of democratic government and certain safeguards for the future.

On the other hand, one does not find an advanced party system. The political parties do not differ greatly from one another in terms of philosophies or programmes. They are parties based on groups. In the earliest days of self-government, one found a party coming to power, often called the "Labour Party", which was based on the trade unions in the ports, representing a very small proportion of the electorate but consisting of older people who had fought for independence and freedom. In some islands, these have been replaced by younger people who have returned from universities in this country and the West Indian university and taken over the country. However, whatever the party in power, the differences between it and the opposition party do not appear to be very substantial. They may grow and develop in time, but that is not the position at the moment. At the same time, despite that lack of fundamental differences, there is the desire to see that there is not established the kind of dictatorship which Nkrumah set up in Ghana.

I think that all of us will agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield about the smallness of these units and how much more desirable it would be if a federation of the British West Indies were established to form an economic unit of a viable character. However, what is not realised here is the enormous distances involved. From Jamaica to Barbados, for example, it is over 1,000 miles, and contacts between the two have been very small in the past. Most of the islands have traded with Britain and other European countries rather than with one another. The West Indies University is building up a common feeling. Cricket, too, builds up a common feeling. In fact, anything which can build up that feeling in the islands ought to be encouraged. But it is very difficult, given the essential individuality of each of the islands, to force them together against their will, and it would be a great mistake for the British Government to try. However, one has to try to build up the idea of working together as fast as one can, though it will take quite a long time.

I feel that the economic situation will be extremely difficult in years to come. In St. Vincent, for over 100 years there were grants in aid because its people could not balance their budget. What will be the situation in years to come? I fear that they will not get as much assistance from this country as they ought to have.

Many of them would like to be associated with this country along similar lines to those now being put forward for Gibraltar, with Members of Parliament here, and that might have been possible 50 years ago. France has associations with Martinique and Guadeloupe, and Holland has similar association with her possessions in the West Indies. In the case of France, it means that a great deal of French money goes into Guadeloupe and Martinique for development purposes. There is a certain amount of feeling among the people there of wanting independence, but, on the other hand, they are not sorry to receive great assistance from the metropolitan countries.

The tradition of association with France is a long one. Guadeloupe and Martinique have been departments of France since 1870, and there is a natural tendency for people in our islands in the West Indies to compare what we do for them with what France has done for her islands. I think that that is often to our disadvantage. Although islands like St. Lucia and Dominica have been French in the past, they are essentially British in feeling, despite the French patois that is still widely used there at the present time. We should remember that this feeling of being with Britain is extremely strong. It would be extremely callous of us to ignore it, and in the years to come we mast remember it and do our best to help our fellow British citizens in these islands.

I do not quarrel with what has been said about St. Vincent. Mr. Joshua, the Prime Minister, is a very colourful figure indeed. What we have to remember about this island is that after the ending of slavery a great deal of money was taken out of it when estates were sold and handed to the peasants, and there has not since been the capital available for development. Much of the money made out of the island in the 18th and 19th centuries was put into British industry. One of the leading British banks started in this island and developed over here subsequently. I think, therefore, that we must always have a certain responsibility for giving help to these islands in the years to come, whatever association we may have with them, and whatever measure of independence we give them. I am in favour of that, though I would prefer to see a federal organisation of a viable character coming into being.

I welcome the Bill, but I hope it does not mean that we will refuse all responsibility for these islands and all links with them in future.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)

I was gravely disturbed by the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). I am certain that nobody who has even a passing acquaintance with these islands which we are discussing tonight would in any way want to give support to a Bill which could leave them rather sooner than they ought to be left on the path which they are following.

I should like to put another aspect of the matter to the hon. Gentleman. This year I had the privilege of going to the area conference in the Caribbean of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. About 70 Parliamentarians from different parts of the Caribbean and of these islands were represented there. One of the things which was perfectly clear from nearly all the discussions which took place was that whatever their view may have been about the original federation, or about the arrangement between the Wind-wards and Leewards, the time had come when they had to get their heads together and find some way in which they could provide something to take the place of what was no longer available. I think that it was almost the unanimous expression of opinion among the people at that conference that the time had come for them to see whether there was some way in which they could find something to replace the federation.

They could see that it was no use a very small country trying to develop services which would cost more than it could afford. They were finding that the freedom of movement between the islands was diminishing as a result of the freedom which was being given to the various islands. I was therefore pleased to see Clause 9 which gives power to unite. I sincerely hope that as a result of the Bill people will take advantage of the expression of the will for unity between various parts of the Caribbean.

The hon. Member for Northfield referred to the tripartite survey. One of the things which that survey made clear was that if there was going to be any progress in the Caribbean, there had to be regional development. It is impossible for them to develop on their own. If they are going to have tourism, about which the tripartite survey talks so much, they must have regional arrangements for tourism, they must be able to represent the regions abroad, and matters of that sort.

If we are to have that regional development I hope that it will be encouraged by the steps that we are taking today and that the message will go out from this House that we shall not lose interest in these islands, but are taking these steps today because we feel very keenly about their future.

Another matter which was frequently raised during the conference in the Caribbean—and certain representatives of these islands raised it very vehemently—was the small amount of aid which had been given to the islands by this country in the past. I had made investigations before I went out there to see what sort of figures I could obtain about the position, but I was not able to get a very clear picture. I found that nobody at the conference knew the exact position. When I came home I found that the figures were not available. When I asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he could let me have them it took some months before my Question was answered. The Answer was given on 5th December and it set out, for the various islands, the amount given to them since the war and the amount given in total.

The short answer is that since the war we have provided £145 million for these islands in various ways—in grants, loans and technical assistance. If there are criticisms about what we ought to have done in the past, that figure is at least worth quoting so that we know the facts. I sincerely urge the Minister to support the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Northfield that, whatever may be the result of our step tonight, the message should go out clearly to all the people of these islands that the House is keenly interested in their future.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Reading)

I find myself on this rather bipartisan occasion in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). I propose to speak for only a few minutes, as one of the comparatively few Members who were former members of the Colonial Service, although I did not serve in the part of the world covered by the Bill.

I find myself joining issue with my hon. Friends in their criticisms of the setting up of this association, although I have considerable sympathy with the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the fact that there may be some impediment, in the setting up of this association, to the promotion of as generous a form of economic development as most hon. Members would want.

The answer is that the situation has now been reached, even in the case of the smallest territories, in which, because parity of esteem is so important among emergent peoples—even peoples like this where there has been a comparatively mild, non-turbulent period of development unlike some territories in Africa and Asia—to hold back political independence in favour of or because one wishes to promote economic development that much more easily is probably to risk relationships going sour.

I share entirely my hon. Friend's views about the limitations of a small association like this, from any point of view. Hardly any Member would regard the failure of the West Indian Federation as anything but a great tragedy. Several other federations were set up by the previous Government, about which the less said the better. But the one federation which was approved by hon. Members on this side was the West Indian Federation. The previous Government were right to attempt it; it was to their credit that they did so. It was a tragedy and no blame to them that it failed.

I share the hopes that Clause 9 will be operated and that this association will be enlarged. We would not be right, however, to hold back, when there was wide agreement between the parties in each island, and say that they should not go forward to a wider association, merely in the hope that it would be easier for this country to provide economic assistance. I hope that the Commonwealth Development Corporation and other institutions will be generous with the assistance which will be needed in these territories long after this association had proved to be a success, or a failure, or has developed into something larger.

Although the Bill is not particularly clear, I take it that this is a unique situation in constitutional law, whereby a political association is created, not itself independent, but which grants to the component parts the right to choose to be independent if they ever wish to do so. This is peculiar. The wording of Clauses 10 and 11 is not as clear as it might be. It would have been sounder if there were no right of unilateral secession. This is bound to be a loose and flimsy political association and it would have been better to have no right to secede except by general agreement. It is easy to see how the secession of one disgruntled member might trigger off general disillusionment and a premature, unnecessary disintegration. That is one substantial criticism.

Another comment concerns the complicated character of Schedule 2, which provides the machinery for this to be operated. I can understand why the Minister is anxious to ensure that the secession procedure should be put into operation only if there were a wide measure of consent in the territory concerned. I am a little sceptical about this. I have some experience of drafting constitutions. I had a hand in the drafting of the Ghana Constitution, which I regret to say was successfully wrecked—given the treatment which those of us who had put our minds to it knew it might receive from the Government—as soon after independence as they thought it possible.

I hope that the provisions for two-thirds majorities will not be merely an incitement to certain interests who see their path being jammed to resort to less constitutional methods. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard these criticisms as churlish, because we must genuinely welcome the Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, this is a somewhat inadequate substitute for something very much better. However, we are faced, in this last stage of winding-up the Colonial Empire, with one of the most intractable problems of all, much more difficult than the political decision to give independence to a single viable territory. There is general agreement between the parties on the granting of independence now, except over Rhodesia. It is a question of trying to group together enough territories to make them economically viable without making the group so unmanageably large as to be a strain on their resources—political as much as economic resources—but without holding back that grant of independence for so long as to cause sourness in relations.

We are getting to the last stage of our Colonial responsibilities, and these responsibilities are being sloughed off. In many ways this is an organisation and methods study. The Minister has shown imagination in this association. I do not suppose that this is the only alternative that will be tried. There may be other alternatives in the future, in dealing, for example, with the islands in the West Pacific High Commission. However, in the meantime I commend the Bill to the House.

9.27 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

Having had the great privilege of taking part in the C.P.A. delegation which visited the Windward Islands about a year ago tinder the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), I endorse much of what has been said about the extraordinary British flavour and atmosphere that one finds there. I suspect that, following his leadership, when one returns there in a year's time one may find hi4 photograph alongside those one sees displayed in many places.

Anyone who has sampled the delights of the islands and the hospitality of their inhabitants will wish, having studied their problems, to take this opportunity to offer good wishes to the people of the Windward Islands, and particularly to those whom we visited, on the great adventure on which they are embarking. I still glow with the memory of the hospitality and friendy nature of the many people we met, and one could not help but be impressed by the determination, resolution and calibre of the politicians—the way in which they are setting out to tackle the difficult problems which lie ahead and, at the same time, are wishing to do so in the best traditions of democracy. In no island did this appear more apparent than in Dominica, which in many respects has further to go from the point of view of commercial development than any of the others. I was indeed impressed by the realistic programme which it has drawn up for a scheme of capital investment, and this bears out what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said.

When the time comes for a loosening of the apron strings—and I do not share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Northfield when he spoke about casting these islands adrift; we are merely loosening the apron strings—it is not unnatural, when one considers the affection which has been built up for these islands, that one should have a great deal of concern for their future well-being.

It is comforting to note that the Bill is the result of the closest consultation between the representative bodies of these islands and that, even more important, included in that consultation was the full expression of views of the Opposition as well as of the Government parties. It is important and right that that should be on the record. Not having been present at the Lancaster House Conferences in the spring, I believe that I am safe in saying that this is what they themselves decided—and the best of British luck to them. One cannot help feeling that the form of association which has been drawn up and which is outlined in this Bill is yet another excellent example to other nations, including those behind the "Iron Curtain" and the "Bamboo Curtain", of how the aspirations of freedom-loving people to be their own masters can be granted.

There are one or two specific points arising from the Bill on which I should like a little clarification. First, I ask whether or not the Minister feels that adequate provision has been made, or sufficient assurances have been given, in regard to Her Majesty's Government making technical advice freely available to those islands which may require it to further their economic, social and commercial development.

I believe the hon. Member for Northfield was too pessimistic when he spoke about the way in which we were cutting the islands adrift and were in danger of losing interest in their development. I think we shall not lose interest in their development, because this is a different association from that to which the hon. Member might have referred. There is every bit as much obligation on Her Majesty's Government to have regard to these islands no matter what form of association they have.

I make the comment, in passing, that of course the best magnet for investment in the islands is political stability. If they can show that they mean business when they talk about political stability and democratic processes, that of itself will be a great inducement to investment. In this context I am talking about private investment, because I believe there is enormous scope for businessmen to invest in these islands if the opportunity is made available to them.

Investment by Her Majesty's Government is something which can be pursued through the Government's existing channels for performing this kind of aid. One would, of course, stress—and it is the same in the United Kingdom in relation to development districts—that one wants to be very careful that the kind of investment indulged in should be self-regenerating. That is something which we have learned in Scotland. As the hon. Lady represents a Scottish constituency, no doubt this is something she understands and will be able to implement.

The subject of defence is referred to in rather broad terms in the Bill and there is no specific reference to what the British Government can do in the way of claiming this or that piece of territory in order to set up a base. I presume that there will be some method by which Her Majesty's Government could negotiate with the Government of a particular island for a piece of land for a base, for a seaport or an airport. A little clarification of this would be helpful, although I see very little prospect of any of these islands becoming "little Cubas" in future and the need for elaborate arrangements for defence seems very remote.

Many of us have received representations about St. Vincent and many of us have views about its problems. The least said about them at this juncture the better. I wish the hon. Lady the best of luck in the course of carrying out discussions in the next few days and I sincerely pray that those with whom she is negotiating will look upon their problems with the greatest of wisdom and tranquillity. Then I am sure the right solutions will be found. I hope that they will find the right answer and that St. Vincent will not be the odd man out when the appointed day is decided on for all the islands.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

There can be no disagreement in the House as to our feelings towards the inhabitants of these islands. Those of us who have had the pleasure of going there have been greatly impressed by the courtesy, kindness and delightful nature of the inhabitants, and by the politeness of their children. They are an excellent people. Whatever their future may be, they have the good wishes of us all.

I believe that they will be beset with great difficulties in the future. They have only a small population. They will have difficulty in starting suitable industries to keep that population in a decent standard of life. When nations as small as these become independent, they have a tendency to become ambitious. A typical example of this is Barbados. This is a very small island with a population of about a quarter of a million which has taken upon itself the heavy financial burden of having representation at the United Nations. The cost is about £100,000. They can ill afford this gesture to greatness. If they would remember the old Scottish philosophy that it is better to go gradually or to creep slowly than to rush too quickly they would gain in the future.

The Reports on these islands, in foreshadowing some of the improvements which are to be brought about, speak of the possibility of securing a better standard by increasing the tourist industry. It quotes the Hilton Hotel in Barbados. This hotel is too ambitious and caters for only a very limited clientele. It cost £3 million or £4 million and was built with Government money, not by the Hilton organisation. That Government money could have been better spent on more useful purposes. That is my opinion, and I think that the Reports bears it out.

Owing to the climatic conditions and the very kindly disposition of the people, they have not that tenacity of purpose and drive which is absolutely essential to bring about the industrialisation of their islands. Most of them depend upon the sugar crop, but the by-product of that crop is not utilised. The by-product which could come from the cane is probably the best wax that could be produced. There is also the possibility of using the dry material for the making of boards for housing. However, that is not used. It is just wasted. There is no initiative. There is no drive. At this moment, with the starting of the sugar cane crop, they have great difficulty in getting workers to cut the sugar cane because of the hard and difficult work involved.

It would be in the best interests of the islands to maintain a close link and association with a nation such as ours. It would be in our interests as well as theirs that we should give them help, not only monetary help, but technical help and research help, not only in relation to the sugar industry but in relation to other aspects of the utilisation of their land for better and more profitable agricultural products. If it were not for the sugar agreement we have with these countries, they would be in very difficult straits indeed.

What depresses me on going there is the fact that the help and assistance we have given over the years—the figure of £140 million has been mentioned—is not known by anybody—least of all by Members of this House. I take Barbados as an illustration again. There is no indication to be seen there that Britain has done anything for that country. One can see that America plays an important part there. It can be seen that Canada is very well represented. For our part, we seem to have forgotten that we have a rôle to play and that we should tell the people of the réle we are prepared to play.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we have gone on in this fashion over the years, not letting people know what help we have brought to them and the return which we should reasonably expect to receive from that help. I might not be putting this as well as I should like, but I would counsel those islands who under the provisions of the Bill will now get close association with Britain, to continue that association. We should encourage further development in those islands. There should be research into the type of industry which would be more suitable to the aptitude and mental capacity of the people. There are types of industry which could be suitable and other types which would not be. This requires a certain amount of research. If we are to help them, we should do so by sending individuals to give the people the impetus to go forward and to produce the type of wood carving, for instance, which would start them on their way.

It is a very difficult problem. The islands are going into most difficult times. This applies not only to the small islands but to Barbados. The future for the islands cannot be regarded with any certainty. I would counsel them, as I would counsel Barbados, to cut their coats according to their cloth, and to try to make themselves as self-supporting as possible, without too many commitments.

I sincerely wish these people well. They are most wonderful people. They are most polite and most generous. Their children are most delightful to speak to. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that, in being given this greater freedom, they will not forget their great responsibility not only to their own generation, but to the future generations of the islands.

I say in passing that much more health education in family planning and so on, is needed. A great deal of work has to be done in the islands. They will not be able to do it themselves. If they cease to be as closely associated with Britain as they should be, then I see perils ahead for them. I would therefore counsel them to keep their association with this country and to try to develop their natural resources as best they can in conjunction with our knowledge and understanding.

9.41 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate, as I have done, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) remarked, on several occasions in similar debates on other islands.

I should also like to wish the hon. Lady the Minister of State success in her new job within her Ministry. I believe she was dealing with Africa before. We wish her success in dealing with the problems which have to be faced, particularly in regard to St. Vincent.

I am not nearly as gloomy as some of the hon. Members who have spoken. Independence often encourages initiative. It gives people incentive. They have to feel that they are on their own, and this gives them an incentive for the future. I am certain that we shall not shirk our responsibilities. We have not done so in the past, and I cannot see why we should do so now. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Overseas Development goes on his visit, he will inquire, as the hon. Lady said he would, into ways in which we can help with the technical aid, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), and that he will be able to take with him a present to celebrate this new association.

I am particularly interested in this new form of Constitution. It proves how flexible we are in the Commonwealth. We can only hope that this will work out. I cannot see why it should not, as long as we give it every chance in putting forward our ideas as constructively as possible.

I am not worried about one party having more votes than another and not getting the corresponding number of seats. That has happened in this country. A party has had more votes than another and has not been the party in power. This happens in a democracy, and we have to recognise it.

I am worried about what is referred to in Schedule 2. It is a very complicated Schedule. I never like referendums. The Federation of the West Indies came to an end on a referendum in Jamaica. In a referendum, people nearly always vote against something. This has happened so often. I would much prefer to see it done through Parliament in the ordinary way and not through a referendum of all those eligible to elect their representatives.

The White Paper says: The Governor will appoint as Premier the member of the House of Assembly who in his judgment is best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members of that House. I would much prefer that individual to be elected by the party in power rather than selected by the Governor. We in this House elect the leaders of our parties and I would have thought that that would be better and would not put so much responsibility on the Governor. It may be rather difficult for him always to ascertain who in his judgment commands the confidence of the majority of members of the House of Assembly.

I was also interested to see that there can be further consultations about the Senate, for instance. It says that the Senate is to consist of 10 Senators—this is the Constitution of Antigua—who are to be appointed on the advice of the Premier and that three are to be appointed after consultation with the Premier. I do not see what the difference is. I would have thought that the two—advice and consultation—were more or less synonymous.

Mrs. Hart

There is a very important difference. With appointments on advice, in any conflict of view those who give the advice have the choice. It is rather different when it is a matter of appointment with consent or agreement.

Dame Joan Vickers

I thank the hon. Lady for that explanation, but I still feel it might have been better to have made all the appointments in consultation. I would think that that would make it much easier.

What is to be the status of the Premiers in future vis-àvis other Prime Ministers and other Commonwealth leaders? Are they to be allowed to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Are they to have access to the help of the Commonwealth Secretariat? What will be their status with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? As the hon. Lady will know, at the moment they are entitled to send one representative, but will they in future be allowed to send the same type of representation as other countries which are fully independent? When some matter affecting them is referred to the United Nations, although we are to represent the islands for external matters and for defence, will a representative from the islands be able to put their point of view at the United Nations? This ought to be one of their privileges if they are to have independence.

The Bill provides for more than 20 Orders in Council. For instance, Clause 7 says that Her Majesty may make laws for the Associated States. I presume that this will be different from Clauses 13 and 14, because Clause 17(3) says: Any order in Council made under section 13 or section 14 of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. If all the other Orders in Council can be made, and Her Majesty has power to make an Order in Council at the request, or with the consent, of any associated State, why must we have this procedure, under which one political party can pray against an Order, and then get ourselves involved in the political points of view in those other countries? I would like to see the same procedure as that used in Clause 7, but there may be some reason for not using that. Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me know.

It seems to me to be unfortunate that we might be persuaded to pray against something when the persuasion might not represent the views of the islands concerned. We have heard tonight expressions of opinion, for instance about the island of St. Vincent. We can only put forward details of which we are made aware through letters or by delegates who come to see us and so on. Could we not have the same procedure all through the Bill as for the other Orders in Council?

What will be our real contact with the islands in future? It has been suggested that it might be a good idea to offer them the right to send representatives to this House. That would be extremely difficult and probably very boring in many ways for such representatives, because so much in the House would not concern them. As they have Senates, I would like them to be able to have representation in the House of Lords so that they could put their points of view there. That would give them real contact with this country, and in the House of Lords the representatives would have the added advantage that when they travelled such a long distance to make a speech they would know that they would make it, unlike the situation so often in this House, when the best of one's speeches go into the waste paper basket or are put away for a future occasion. I make that suggestion seriously because we would then be able to have their full views.

I hope that as often as possible in future a local person from the islands concerned will be made the Governor. That principle has worked extremely well in both Trinidad and Jamaica. If the islands are to be independent in this manner they should be seen to be independent and be able to have one of their own people as Governor. That may not happen at once, but I hope that it will be borne in mind.

I am not certain that I like the kind of association proposed. Could we not just call the islands "free States of the Commonwealth", or some name that shows that they are completely free but also members of the Commonwealth? That would give them far more standing than under the proposals in the Bill.

It has been pointed out in several speeches tonight that the islands are poor in material, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the people are not poor in spirit. They are the gayest and happiest people I know. If one wants a really happy Sunday one can go to those islands and see how to enjoy oneself, because the islanders have a magnificent spirit, and they also have a religious faith which will uphold them in many ways.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I want to add the good wishes of the Liberal Party to those expressed by Government and Opposition to this new association on its birth, not least because it has tremendous implications not just for the six territories but also for the other dependent territories over which we still have control. Few people realise that we in this House still are directly responsible, excluding Aden, for about 7 million people scattered in parcels large and small all over the world.

With the exception of the most difficult problem of Hong Kong, I hope that this model that we have before us now will be something from which we can learn and which we can adapt and mould and which may be useful in other parts of the world in the next few years.

The Bill contains a very important new constitutional principle and I am surprised that not more interest has been expressed by hon. Members other than those who have personal knowledge of these islands. Despite what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said, some of the attractions of the Bill lie in its flexibility—that it is still open to these territories to come together in federation by themselves or with others if they so decide and to end the form of association laid down here.

Throughout the speeches in the debate, there has been the recurring interest of hon. Members in concern that, by passing the Bill, we shall not cut these islands adrift and that there shall be some continuation not only of our emotional but of our financial interest in these territories. The hon. Lady the Minister of State skated over that aspect rather thinly and I hope that, when she replies, she will give some information of what the ties are to be and what the continuing interest is to be in these new territories under their new status.

9.57 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I do not rise to speak as an expert on the West Indies. In my Parliamentary career, I have been invited to visit most of the world and most of the islands. But one group of islands to which I have never been is the West Indies. I have been to the Fiji Islands, the Seychelles and Mauritius and I would love to have gone to the West Indies. I hope that the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association are listening, for I have never been invited to the West Indies.

When my party was in power and we evolved the Federation of the West Indies, even although I had not been there it struck me as being an airy-fairy conception because we do not realise how far the islands are separated from each other. If we in this House brought forward as a serious debating point the proposition that Cyprus and Israel should be joined to this country, we would say, "It is impossible; they are too far away." But they are much closer to us than many of the islands in the West Indies are to each other. It was inevitable that the Federation would break down, although a great pity.

Now we are dealing with the practical results of the breakdown and, on a much smaller scale, with the practical problems that confront these islands. My principal reason for speaking is that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I am Chairman of the Anti-Slavery Society and I think that one must always take great pride and happiness in these islands, whose history was largely built up on the slave trade but which are now getting their independence.

If I may take a "dig" at the African nations, I am astonished that the people of the West Indies, whose ancestors were transported across the Atlantic in not exactly salubrious conditions, seem to be far more "clued up" when it comes to government and democracy than the Africans are in a continent from which the people of the West Indies originally came. Transportation seems to have given them a great deal more solidarity or—to use a Lancashire or Yorkshire expression—"bottom" than those in Africa. They are not as mercurial, of course, although they have their steel bands. I am happy that these six islands are getting their independence. Having said that, I want to come to a much more detailed problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in a very able speech touched upon this problem. These islands will not be completely independent; they will be rather like Jersey and Guernsey. We will still look after their foreign affairs, but they will be self-governing. We are missing a great opportunity here. At some stage, with all the other groups of islands which have come to independence—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the West Indies Bill, on the Order of the day relating to Agriculture, and on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Sir D. Glover

When all of the other groups of islands such as the Seychelles, Mauritius, Fiji, the Solomons and so on, come to independence we shall be dealing with about 7 million people. None of these island groups, unless they bankrupt themselves, would be in a position to be properly represented at the United Nations.

The British Government have a wonderful opportunity now. With the exception of Rhodesia, we are dealing with island communities, not political problems. We are not arguing about whether a unit gets its independence, but about how one gives a community of 30,000 people, 1,000 miles from anywhere, independence. If these people are to feel independent, then we have to begin to evolve, in consultation with U Thant, some machinery in the United Nations, perhaps a joint secretariat or joint mission, which would enable these communities to raise any matters that they wished at the United Nations.

It may be that if these islands with which we are now dealing have to make representations to the United Nations through us, they might be a little suspicious, and would prefer to do so through the secretariat dealing with such small communities. Perhaps these communities would not necessarily have a vote in the United Nations but they would be able to air their problems there.

The House should take a great deal of notice of what I am saying, because in the next five years or thereabouts we shall not only give independence to about 7 million people, but if these independent communities apply for membership of the United Nations then the membership will rise from 120 to 160. Each of these communities wants to feel that it has a voice. If we just maintain their local independence and remain the authority speaking for them in the United Nations and other international affairs, then, when they quarrel with us, as they are bound to, human nature being what it is, they will feel deprived of any independent body through which to air their grievances.

I ask the hon. Lady seriously to consider whether we could not evolve a new system. This applies not only to Britain, but to France, which has quite a lot of islands in the West Indies. There are a lot of other small communities, such as the Dutch possessions, none of which justifies independent status and none of which probably wishes to be represented at the United Nations as such because they cannot afford it.

Jamaica and Trinidad have produced some of the most outstanding representatives at the United Nations, but anybody who knows the United Nations knows that Ambassador Richardson, for instance, is worked to a frazzle because he is the one chap representing his country. He cannot be in the First Committee, the Second Committee, the Third Committee, the Fourth Committee, the Fifth Committee, the Sixth Committee, and the Anti-Colonialist Committee. He knows that he cannot do the whole job, yet he is the representative of Jamaica. How much worse it would be for these much smaller communities.

We could build up a Secretariat in the United Nations if we began to talk about it. The hon. Lady will agree with me that any change in the procedure of this House would take a long time to bring about. Similarly in the United Nations. This will not come about because we raise it next year. It is the sort of thing we must raise now and begin to talk about and, as a result of discussions, evolve a system for the small communities which cannot justify full independence so that they will have a forum where their views, objections and grouses can be raised at the United Nations, which, under the present procedure, they will not be able to do.

The hon. Member for West Stirling-shire (Mr. W. Baxter), to whose speeches I always listen with great interest, talked a great deal of common sense about industry. I am not at all certain, however, that the advice of what I would call a highly-geared economist is what these islands need. A highly-geared economist would be inclined to say, "If you use this by-product to make wood on a cost-plus basis, it is not economic compared with what is produced in Nigeria, Britain or elsewhere." That is not the point. The point is, how much would it cost to import real wood into those islands? We are dealing with a primitive community. What these people want is not highly-geared economists, but practical men to advise them. That is much more important.

It may cost 50 per cent. more to produce the wood to build a house, but as the wood or the by-product is grown on the island there is no import or export cost. They do not have to export £50 million worth of bananas to pay for it. From the islands' viewpoint, that is a far sounder economy.

The real problem with so many of these island communities is that economically they never will be viable. I am not now talking about a particular island in the West Indies. A lot of them never will be viable. I spent an interesting trip in the Seychelles. Apart from the international airport I can say that I had—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must relate his remarks to the Bill.

Sir D. Glover

I am citing the Seychelles as an instance, Mr. Speaker. I had a lot to do with getting the machinery for the airport. This applies in these islands in the West Indies. Economically, they are not viable. It is rather like the make-do-and-mend about which we used to talk in the Army. It is making the maximum use possible of the materials which exist in an island. It is not true to say that it is possible to establish a manufacturing industry 1,000 miles from its nearest customer and compete with someone else.

Most of the islands will exist on a make-do-and-mend basis. It is not the high-powered industrialist or economist who is required. What is required is the practical man who will make the maximum use of the raw materials which exist to reduce to the minimum the amount of money which has to be earned overseas. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire will agree with that view.

From my tours round the world, it is apparent that that is not the advice which so many people from the Colonial Service and the United Nations give to these little communities. They are overambitious. They think that by some wave of a wand, they can have a steel-works or some other nonsense. They will never have a steelworks. They have to realise that, unfortunately for them, God has put them down in delightful surroundings, but that they are way out of the stream of commercial activity.

The importance, therefore, is to work out an economy which makes the maximum use of what is grown on the island, and by substitution and all sorts of other means, to give them the best possible standard of living under those conditions. It would be a great mistake to establish industries which will never compete with the world outside the islands themselves.

The principal point which I wanted to get into the hon. Lady's mind was the one about the United Nations. I have been saying to her tonight something which is very important. We are dealing with 30 or 40 different territories which will never be in a position to be viably independent. From time to time, they may want to raise issues at the United Nations. Surely we could evolve machinery with the Secretariat in New York by means of which, when that sort of problem arises, it can be raised at the United Nations without each island having a mission, an ambassador, a first secretary and so on, the support of whom would cause an enormous amount of economic embarrassment to so many of the small nations.

10.14 p.m.

Mrs. Hart

With the permission of the House, I will reply to some of the points which have been made during the debate. I hope that I can deal with all of them, but there have been a great many and, if I miss any, I shall make sure that I give them a written reply.

First of all, may I take up the point which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) raised and one or two of the others, concerning the technical aspects of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was worried about the procedure under the Bill for termination and the extent to which it was written into the Bill. He pointed out that it was there in the Windwards Report and that concerned with St. Kitts, but not mentioned in the one dealing with Antigua. He will probably be content when he knows that our view is that the simple assurance that Britain would not terminate the association unilaterally without giving six months' notice still stands on the record in the Command Paper. That is a positive and firm assurance, and no need was felt by anyone at the Conferences to make statutory provision and have it written into the Bill.

Mr. Wood

Presumably, that will go for Antigua, too, although it is not on the written record of that Conference.

Mrs. Hart

Yes. That is the undertaking which has been given. The statement that he would be prepared to hold a conference depends on the willingness of the other party to join in a conference, so the same thing cannot quite apply there. But it also stands on the record in the Command Paper. The specific reference to Parliamentary approval in the Bill is Clause 17.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a point about Clause 14. The provisions of this Clause are there, because in some of the events which are envisaged it may be necessary to provide in United Kingdom legislation for Acts of Parliament or instruments made under those Acts to continue as if no change had occurred, to provide for the continuity of existing legislation where one does not want to make a change. The Clause enables this to be done by Order in Council, but it is qualified by Clause 15(4,a) under which an Order will apply only to a limited extent, if at all, as part of law of the territory. That sounds a little complex, but the point is that the preservation of British laws will be done only where this is necessary to provide for existing United Kingdom legislation.

The third point which the right hon. Gentleman made concerned the question of paragraph 18 of the Windward Report, and Clause 7. 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.

The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) raised a number of points on the Bill, and if she will forgive me I think that on a few of the specific detailed ones I shall write to her.

Perhaps I should comment on what the hon. Lady said about the choice of premier, because this is of some importance. The position here is that the provisions whereby the governor appoints as premier the member whom he thinks commands a majority is the provision in the present constitution of the territories, and it obtains in most Commonwealth countries. In other words, this is the normal way of doing things, that the Governor appoints as premier the man whom he thinks command a majority. It is what the territories want, and there seems no reason to change that. That is why that provision is in the form it is.

I turn now to more general points. I am delighted that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken part in the debate. Quite apart from what they have said, I think that this is an indication of the measure of interest that the House of Commons has in these territories in the West Indies, and is, I think, a clear indication that there is no likelihood at all that the interest of the House of Commons in them will diminish by the mere fact that their status in relation to ours is changed. I am very glad that so many hon. Members have spoken, and have had such interesting contributions to make.

Perhaps I might deal first with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who raised a point which is bound to become one of considerable interest in the future. I think that it is probably a little early for anyone to have worked out any specific ideas about this, but he put forward a proposal, and I think that there is great merit in his having drawn attention to the fact that this is likely to be a problem in the future, and that we ought to be applying our minds to it.

Sir D. Glover

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so kind. Usually we are much more vitriolic to each other. The point is that, knowing the United Nations as I do, as an ex-delegate, I know that it takes a long time before it begins to get seized of a problem, and if we want this to operate, it has to begin to operate now, not in three or four years time.

Mrs. Hart

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and share his delight that on this occasion we are not quarrelling as bitterly as we often do.

The hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port raised two or three very interesting points, and in respect of two of them I can only say that I have noted them. The first is her idea that there should be membership from the associated States in the House of Lords. I note that suggestion and also her suggestion about the name. Nomenclature is a difficulty, and in any new form of relationship that is arrived at in future, finding the right name, which means so much, is a very important matter.

The hon. Lady also raised the question of membership of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. On that point I should tell her that this matter is not in our hands. It can be decided only by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and this Bill will have to become law before the question could be raised.

The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) raised the question of defence facilities and asked what the position would be. It will be as follows: the territorial Governments undertake to provide us and our allies with defence facilities. This means that the territorial Governments have signified their readiness to agree, and will shortly be signing agreements as part of the arrangements for introducing the new association, to provide such facilities as may be required by us in connection with our defence responsibilities. We shall proceed in these matters in the fullest consultation with them. It seems most unlikely that we shall want to invoke the agreement for any purpose so far-reaching as setting up a base. Facilities are provided for in the agreement we shall be signing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) expressed some doubt about the concept of association. He was anxious about the chain reaction that might be produced if one associated State wished to dissociate. He may have slightly misconceived the concept of association. The position is that each associated State will be associated with Britain but the associated States will not be associated with each other. There will be no body called "the Association". Each State will be in association with us, but there will be freedom under the Bill for any of the associated States which wish to do so to federate with each other, or with another State. It is a dual relationship between each of them and us, but not a circular one.

General questions were raised concerning the future of the islands, their economies, and their development. These were very correct questions to raise. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) and to the noble Lord, I should point out that we are talking about the economic development of the areas concerned and about our own economic aid. Technical advice, and the kind of advice of which the noble Lord spoke, and which would produce self-generating projects in the areas, are fully covered in the overseas aid and the help given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development. This is exactly the kind of thing that he does.

There is no reason why special help should be given to the islands at this point, in addition to the level of aid at present given. Our promises to them still stand and are at the moment as generous as we can make them. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend is there he will observe the way in which our help is being given and the way in which it is being used, and will bring back his own ideas about possibilities for the future.

Reference has been made to the tripartite economic programme. My hon. Friend drew attention to the report by independent economists, which has recommended that significant development could be achieved only if there were full regional economic co-operation. The report recommends the establishment of a regional development agency which would provide technical services on a regional basis and might also establish a development bank for the area. A meeting to discuss the report was held as recently as November last year between the sponsoring and the island Governments, and at that meeting it was decided to ask the United Nations Development Programme to sponsor the study of a regional development bank which would include the independent Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean. At the same time the island Governments agreed to form a regional development committee with which the sponsoring Governments would be associated. A great deal of progress was made at the meeting.

We hope that the United Nations will agree to sponsor the study of the Regional Development Bank. It is important to understand that there is nothing in the Bill to hold up any of this. It can all proceed. There is no limitation on this regional development or the setting up of regional agencies, nor would I expect there to be any. I would expect only that such moves would be strengthened by the association of the states and their greater degree of self-government.

My hon. Friend will know—I should like all hon. Members who do not know to be told—that last year the Ministry of Overseas Development established the British Development Division in the Caribbean, in Barbados. The staff of the Division consists of the head and advisers in economics, agriculture, education, engineering and finance. Its functions are to advise the British Government on the scope and content of the aid programme and to provide technical advice to the local Governments, particularly in the formulation and co-ordination of development projects.

This is, of course, primarily a matter for the Minister of Overseas Development, but the Division covers nearly all the countries bordering the Caribbean, although its primary responsibility will be towards the small islands in the Eastern Caribbean. I hope to visit the Caribbean in the near future to see for myself what seems to be needed, to see what I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development when we discuss these things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is right to say that there is a difficulty in the I.D.A. criterion which has caused trouble in the small islands, as it will not go into any territory with a population of fewer than 250,000, which excludes all those covered by the Bill. If the scattered territories would federate, they would qualify for I.D.A. assistance, which might amount to a great deal. We have done what we can and taken initiatives.

We wrote to the territories some time ago and suggested that, even before federation, they might want to produce some co-operative scheme on the basis of which they could apply for I.D.A. assistance. However, this piece of United Kingdom initiative has produced no response. It is the kind of thing that the new Development Division could stimulate and is what my right hon. Friend will have in mind when he goes there.

Mr. Chapman

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is dealing with this and I sense that she will keep her eye on it now. But would it not be a good thing to take this all up with a regional commissioner, whose job was to see that all these plans were successfully co-ordinated in a form to be presented to the I.D.A. and do other things to help co-ordinate the activities of the island and bring them closer together? We must take initiatives all the time.

Mrs. Hart

I agree that we must take initiatives and that our initiatives must be designed further to promote as rapidly as possible every kind of feasible economic development. The experience of the Development Division might lead it to some such conclusion.

I come now to the main point underlying my hon. Friend's criticism of the Bill and much of what I have been saying about economic development in the area. I will not touch on his remarks about St. Vincent. I think the House will appreciate that this is not the best moment to rake over some of the past events there. I hope that an agreement can be reached and I do not want to jeopardise it.

In relation to the principle of the Bill, my hon. Friend raised the question of how far associated status was compatible with the sustained initiatives for economic development—as he quoted it from the tripartite survey—which must come from outside. What my hon. Friend is asking for if he pursues this line is total dependence of these territories upon us, because, whatever the degree of self-government which a territory achieves, be it limited self-government, which is what my hon. Friend said that he would have preferred to this system of association, or in whatever respect self-government is applied, I would have to stand at this Box whenever my hon. Friend asked a Parliamentary Question and say that I could not answer it because it concerned a matter in which the State concerned ran its own affairs. This means that as soon as one moves from total dependence to any other new arrangements, one is there-by quite deliberately handing over many decisions about an area to the area and its people.

If my hon. Friend argues that for too many years—and I do not speak in party political terms, but speak of the years of history—too little was done to prepare the way for later constitutional advance, I agree with him, but at this point in time the world has got hold of an idea and an idea cannot be pushed back or held back.

What is important is that we should recognise that, having abandoned paternalism and having abandoned colonialism and having in the Bill brought into being a new kind of association between a former dependent territory and ourselves, we nevertheless assert our continuing interest in the area and we nevertheless assert our continuing responsibility to provide economic assistance and technical assistance and aid to the area and to continue to take whatever initiatives we can and to encourage other international agencies to take their initiatives in co-operation with the people in the territories in association with us.

That is a fair statement and it offers plenty of possibility for the future. I think that it is a better substitute than any other which has so far been devised of thought of as a means of giving independence, in association with Britain, so that Britain, as the Bill provides, retains her capacity in external and foreign affairs to give the protection which these territories still believe that they need.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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

Committee Tomorrow.

c388
1. WEST INDIES [MONEY] 77 words
c388
2. AGRICULTURE 70 words