HC Deb 07 February 1969 vol 777 cc842-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

4.9 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)

I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment questions arising in regard to the constitutional position of Jersey, an island over which the Government, by their recent actions, have raised a hornet's nest.

Jersey is an island beloved by millions of mainlanders and others. Countless people have happy memories of holidays spent there in warm sunshine, with the bule skies and the lovely beaches of this delightful island. The people of Jersey, as those of us who know them will agree, are a proud people, rightly proud of their history over many centuries. They are a brave people who endured with fortitude the cruel occupation of their island during the last war. They are lovers of liberty and democracy, as their Parliamentary system over many years bears evidence. They are among the most loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and what impresses all who visit the island is the friendliness of the local people to all who come there.

It is right and proper that in this House we should turn aside occasionally from what may be regarded as larger issues to consider such a question as this, a matter which affects the welfare of, and our relations with, the people of Jersey.

The matters with which I want to deal began with the Queen's Speech, on 30th October last year, in which it was announced that the Government intended to set up a Commission on the Constitution of the United Kingdom countries. The paragraph dealing with this matter in the Gracious Speech concluded: It will also examine relationships with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In the debate on the Address which followed, the Prime Minister suggested possible terms of reference for the Commisison, as follows: to consider, also, whether any changes are desirable in the constitutional and economic relationships between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 36.] That came as a veritable bombshell to the Government and to the people of Jersey. The result of these entirely unexpected events was to produce in Jersey a state of near revolt on the part of the population there.

I want to make clear to the House the extent of feeling on this matter in Jersey by reading a paragraph from the Daily Telegraph of 13th January. It is as follows: Jersey is on the verge of declaring its own independence of rule by the British Government. A delegation led by the Bailiff is meeting the Home Secretary, on Thursday, to make the island's view on its own autonomy absolutely clear 'in the strongest possible terms'. It will tell Mr. Callaghan that Jersey resents and opposes its inclusion in the planned Royal Commission on the Constitution. The States, Jersey's Parliament, has instructed the delegation to make it clear to Whitehall that the island will not consider itself bound by any findings of such a Commission. They gave warning that it may serve only to jettison months-long constitutional talks already taking place between them and a special Home Office committee. The delegation will inform Mr. Callaghan that the island is upset at 'the complete lack of consultation' about the Commission. The paragraph concludes with these ominous words: It now seems certain that if Jersey does not achieve major concessions from Whitehall, the island will declare its own independence from British Parliamentary rule. Following that, the Home Secretary, by then obviously and clearly alarmed, interviewed the Bailiff and a deputation from Jersey. In so far as one can obtain information on what happened, he backpedalled vigorously on what had previously been said and done and as a result slightly, but no more, mollified the Jersey representatives. The report of the Jersey delegation to the States on that meeting with the Home Secretary includes this paragraph: The Home Secretary stated that 'Her Majesty's Government have no intention of seeking any alteration in the present constitutional relationship between Jersey and the United Kingdom or the constitutional convention under which Parliament did not legislate for Jersey in any taxation matter or in any other matter which has long been accepted as the responsibility and the concern of the insular authorities'. The Home Secretary's assurance is directly contrary to what the Prime Minister said in his speech on the Loyal Address. The Prime Minister said that the whole purpose of the Commission was to consider whether any changes are desirable in the constitutional relationships, whereas the Home Secretary said Her Majesty's Government had no intention of seeking any alteration in the present constitutional relationship. If that be the case, there can be no possible task for the Commission to perform concerning Jersey. Nothing remains for the Commission to do and the whole ill-starred project of setting up a Commission to deal with this matter of the constitutional relationships of the United Kingdom and Jersey becomes completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

This dispute, which has brought Jersey to the verge of revolt is not a private matter between the Home Secretary and the Government of Jersey. This is a matter on which hon. Members of this House and members of the public feel a great sense of concern, a concern that the former happy relations with Jersey should as far as possible be restored and henceforth preserved. I shall ask the Under-Secretary three or four relevant and important questions on this matter, to which I hope he will give an answer when he replies to the debate.

First, I asked why the Home Office, having initiated constitutional discussions with Jersey and carried on those discussions for many months, abruptly broken off with no reason given and at a point at which I understand and am informed the negotiations had not broken down. Secondly, I want to know in those conversations or negotiations what proposals the Home Office made for constitutional changes affecting Jersey, and what response it had received from the Jersey Government to those proposals.

I ask the Minister why the Home Office was so discourteous as to fail to to inform Jersey of a matter of supreme importance to Jersey—the setting up of a proposed constitutional committee. Finally, I ask whether the Under-Secretary will have prepared and submit to the House a White Paper setting out the whole course of events between the Home Office and Jersey leading up to the present distressing position in which we find ourselves, and in particular giving an account of the negotiations between the Home Office and the Jersey authorities and telling us what proposals were put forward and what response was made by Jersey to those proposals. The best thing the Government can do in the circumstances is to call off the Commission as far as Jersey is concerned, and to allow the perfectly satisfactory status quo to remain.

Perhaps I might in passing mention that what has been going on in Jersey has, in slightly different measure, been going on also in Guernsey and in the Isle of Man. In Guernsey, for tactical reasons I think, the Government have so far taken a more acquiescent attitude, but the population of Guernsey are concerned and outraged at the proposals, as are the people of Jersey. In the Isle of Man the Parliament there, the Tynwald, has passed a resolution, a copy of which has been sent to me, which sets out virtually the same objections to the whole procedure as have been made by the island authorities in Jersey.

I fail to understand what is underlying the Government's actions in this matter. Have not they enough troubles on their hands at home and in various parts of the world without trying to stir up trouble in places where troubles do not exist, and where no troubles need to exist? At a time when so many British territories overseas are seeking independence, indulging in acts of violence, breaking away from the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, we find here territories, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, which are peaceful, law-abiding, democratic, economically managed, and anxious only to be left alone to get on with their own business. Why cannot we leave them alone and get on with our own business? Many people may think that if this country were as well governed as Jersey the people here would be a great deal happier than most of them appear to be at the present time I fail to understand this policy of apparently casting one's eyes north, south, east and west to try to pick on peaceful people, to try to pick quarrels with them. The actions of the Home Office in this matter have very much that appearance.

I conclude by saying that this debate can serve at least two useful purposes. First, it provides the Government with an opportunity to explain to the House exactly what they have been doing, why they are doing it, what they are seeking to achieve, and what is the purpose of stirring up all this trouble. The need for the Constitutional Commission having vanished, in view of the Home Secretary's statement to the Jersey authorities, I hope that the Government will call off the Constitutional Commission for Jersey and the other two islands.

The second useful purpose which the debate serves is that it gives the House an opportunity to assure the people of Jersey, of Guernsey, and of the Isle of Man, that they have in this House many friends who, in case of need, will be prepared to rally to their cause. It will assure them that they have friends in this House who are not willing to permit, without protest, these small territories to be bullied by the Government at home, and who desire, above everything else, that the rancour and the suspicion so needlessly created in these islands should as far as possible and as speedily as possible be removed, and that our old friendly, easy relationships should be restored.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I should like to add some words briefly. I want to take up the second part of the Prime Minister's sentence dealing with this problem in the debate on the Address. Jersey's economy, which the Prime Minister was attacking, depends substantially on the horticultural industry. The people of Jersey and, indeed, of all the Channel Islands are most concerned about the possibility of the United Kingdom entry into the Common Market. What is needed in any consultations about constitutional matters is to reassure them about their economic future and in particular about their sector of the horticultural industry, rather than adding further dismay.

Therefore, briefly, although I substantially represent a horticultural constituency at home, I believe that the growers in my area and elsewhere in the rest of the United Kingdom would like to support the mainstay of the economy of Jersey, namely, horticulture, and ask the Government to sustain them and not frighten them.

4.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees)

A debate on the affairs of Jersey must be an almost unique occasion in this House. Jersey has for many centuries enjoyed a measure of self-government as a dependancy of the Crown and there has been little occasion for this House to concern itself with the affairs of the Island.

The hon. Gentleman has told us of the misgivings felt by the people of the island at the inclusion of the island within the terms of reference of the Commission on the Constitution. I choose the word "misgivings" deliberately. He used the word "revolt", which I do not think applies at all.

I should like to make two points clear at the outset. The first is that it is not part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to diminish the extent of the autonomy that Jersey now enjoys in relation to its domestic affairs. Secondly, my right hon. Friend has had two discussions with representatives of the island and now awaits the decision of the island's legislature on whether they will co-operate in the inquiry.

I think there is often a good deal of misunderstanding over the position of Jersey and other islands, and I would like to state very briefly what the constitutional position is. Jersey is not part of the United Kingdom, but is a dependancy of the Crown and, as the House will know, has been for many centuries. The island has its own legislature—the States of Jersey—which makes laws affecting the domestic affairs of the island. These laws are subject to the consent of the Queen in Council. They cover all matters ordinarily regarded as domestic, including notably taxation. The island sends no representative to this House. That is the position as respects Jersey's domestic affairs. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are, however, responsible for the external affairs of the island. For example, we deal with all international agreements affecting the island—and a great many international agreements affect it in one way or another. That, in the briefest outline, is the general pattern of the relationship.

The arrangements I have described above have worked happily for very many years. But the questions that would be involved in the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome—and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning this—and membership of the European Economic Community have caused great anxiety in the island. This anxiety was felt before the advent of this Administration. Their representatives have had a number of discussions with us, and Her Majesty's Government have been made aware of the serious disadvantages that the representatives believe would accrue to the island from its inclusion within the Community. These anxieties have caused those concerned to consider anew whether the constitutional arrangements which I have just outlined are those best suited to the modern situation.

Last year representatives of the States of Jersey began discussions with my noble Friend, the Minister of State at the Home Office in pursuance of a resolution of the States which I will read: To request Her Majesty's Government to receive representatives of the States with a view to negotiating, as a matter of urgency and at the highest level, such changes as are required in the constitutional status of the Island having regard to modern constitutional developments. The people in the island themselves at least were thinking of and looking at changes. The hon. Gentleman asked for the status quo. I suggest that he consults the people of the island, because that does not seem to indicate that they want the status quo. We examined together a number of possible ways in which the constitutional relationship could be re-stated or adjusted.

Then, as the House knows, in the Gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session it was announced that consultations would take place on the appointment of a Commission on the Constitution which would, as well as examining the situation within the United Kingdom, examine the constitutional and economic relations between the United Kingdom and the islands. We explained the position to Jersey, and my right hon. Friend invited representatives from Jersey, together with those of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, to London to discuss the matter with him. The representatives from Jersey made plain that they were very much against being included within the Commission's terms of reference. There is no discourtesy involved here. The hon. Gentleman understands the problems associated with a Queen's Speech and announcements made beforehand. Those problems are not new, perhaps. Certainly, no discourtesy was intended.

Guernsey decided that it would cooperate. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman regarded that as a tactical move or that the Government of Guernsey, as he put it, had "acquiesced". I am sorry that he thought it right to say that about Guernsey as opposed to Jersey. The representatives of Guernsey were ready to co-operate. But the representatives of Jersey were particularly disturbed at the consideration that the constitutional talks with the Home Office, that is, the talks already proceeding, which had revealed a desire for change, not the status quo, were to be stopped in mid-course by the establishment of a Royal Commission with seemingly unlimited power to make recommendations about the future of the islands.

On 16th January, my right hon. Friend held another meeting with the Bailiff and other representatives of the States of Jersey. At this meeting he explained that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of seeking any alteration in the present constitutional relationship between Jersey and the United Kingdom or the constitutional convention under which Parliament did not legislate for Jersey in any taxation matter or in any other matter which had long been accepted as the responsibility and concern of the Insular Authority.

Her Majesty's Government would not suggest any such thing in evidence to the Commission. He assured them that, whatever the Commission might recommend, there would be the fullest consultation with the island. At this meeting, my right hon. Friend expressed the hope that the States would cooperate with the Commission. We now await the State's decision.

The island's Constitution and Common Market Committee was the body which met my right hon. Friend. This underlines, as the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) said, some of the misgivings of the islands, since their economy is based on horticulture and there would be, in their belief, problems if this country were to join the E.E.C. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that question, since not just constitutional matters but economic matters as well are of concern, or are thought to be of concern.

I understand that Jersey's Constitution and Common Market Committee decided to recommend to the States, the Parliament, that they should co-operate in the work of the Commission. My hope—I am sure that it will be shared on both sides of the House—is that the States will follow the advice of their Committee. We want the best to be made of the opportunity presented by the setting up of the Commission.

I can understand why the hon. Member for Wimbledon, to whose constituency one could walk from here relatively easily, is not greatly concerned about the constitutional question. As a Welshman born who represents a Northern constituency, I can assure him that, as one moves further away from Westminster, one does not look at the question in such a rosy light. I cannot hope that there will be home rule for Wimbledon, but I quite understand why he does not appreciate the feelings on the periphery. If the best is to be made of the opportunity presented by the setting up of the Commission the cooperation of Jersey will be extremely valuable. My right hon. Friend would hope that the evidence to the Commission could be presented in joint memoranda prepared and agreed in consultation between the island and the Home Office.

I should now like to deal with the point that it would have been better to continue the bilateral discussions between Jersey and the Home Office which had already begun rather than to set up the Commission. The Government had decided that the time had come when constitutional relationships within the United Kingdom needed to be considered by a Commission. In my view this is right. It would have been wrong at this stage not to extend the inquiry to the islands. It is not an inquiry just to consider Jersey, or the islands, alone, but the United Kingdom as a whole. If Jersey has proposals for changes, it is very much to its advantage that they or any other proposals it wants to make are considered by an independent body of the standing and authority of the Commission. Its establishment would not prevent progress being made on matters on which the bilateral talks with Jersey had already reached agreement. I do not think that it is for me to reveal them. They were raised by the Island's representatives and not, I understand, by Her Majesty's Government.

We are well aware of the intense desire of the people of the island to retain their ancient privileges and rights, and we do not seek to dimnish them. Our relationships with Jersey have always been most harmonious. I have been most impressed by them in the short time I have been at the Home Office. I sincerely hope that the States of Jersey will decide to cooperate with the Commission, and that our happy relationship will be demonstrated in our joint preparation of evidence to that body.

It is wrong to talk of revolt; it would be right to talk of misgivings. I am sure that given the needs of the island and the history of many hundreds of years all will be well. I hope that I have been able to put the matter into its right perspective.

Sir C. Black

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the constitutional arrangements between Jersey and the United Kingdom stand, in the event of this country's entering the Common Market the decision as to whether Jersey should enter or stay out would be for Jersey alone?

Mr. Rees

I understand that negotiations to go into the E.E.C. have not yet begun again. We are aware of the problems that would exist. It would be much better to leave the matter on the terms of the last well-nigh 900 years. I am sure that we shall find a pragmatic solution.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Five o'clock.