§ Mr. Maudling (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)As I told the House yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), I shall be making a statement on this subject. This will be at the earliest possible moment.
Meanwhile, I wish to make one thing clear. The object of the British Government's policy is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla with the task of working out a long-term solution of the problem in Anguilla which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla themselves.
It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want.—[Vol. 780, c. 39–42.]
§ Mr. MaudlingIs the Secretary of State aware of the volume and detail of the Press reports of activities which are causing public concern because they are out of scale with what is happening in Anguilla? Secondly, will he make absolutely clear today—and I think that this can be done without prejudice to anything that is happening—what is the precise constitutional duty of Britain and what are the precise constitutional rights of Britain in acting in this field?
§ Mr. StewartI am, of course, aware of Press reports. I do not think that I should comment on them now; they may arise later on when I make a statement.
The constitutional position is to be found in the West Indies Act, 1967. We have responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of an associated State, and there are also certain other provisions where we could act with the consent of an associated State. The point 208 that is most relevant is Section 7 of that Act.
§ Mr. MaudlingMay I press the Foreign Secretary on that? I asked what our duties were. I am quite clear that out duties relate to external defence, but what are our duties on internal problems?
§ Mr. StewartThe internal affairs of an associated State are its own concern, but we have a responsibility for its external defence, and we can also act in accordance with the wishes of the Government of an associated State.
§ Mr. BraineIf the purpose of the Government is not to force the Anguillans to live under a Government that they detest, the Government have known this for two years. Why have not they done anything before, and why is it necessary now to use force?
§ Mr. StewartThe hon. Member had better wait for the statement I am to make later.
§ Mr. MartenDoes the last part of the Foreign Secretary's answer to my right hon. Friend mean that he is prepared to give an assurance that Anguilla will not be put back under St. Kitts, and, if so, what is the power in the West Indies Act under which he gives that assurance?
§ Mr. StewartI will repeat the assurance which I gave. It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration which they do not want. It means exactly what it says.
§ Mr. HenigWill my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most unfortunate if Britain were to be involved in a military intervention overseas and the House of Commons were presented only after the event with a fait accompli? I welcome his remarks about the wishes of the Anguillans, but will he elaborate? Does this mean, for example, that there will be a referendum of all the people of Anguilla before any final constitutional settlement is imposed?
§ Mr. StewartI do not think at this stage that I can elaborate. In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we are making a number of precautionary moves so as to be ready for any eventuality.
§ Mr. MurrayAs the Government seen) to have acted very quickly and there seem to be preparations for troop movements, would it not have been better to have a rehearsal for this military operation in Rhodesia?
§ Mr. StewartMy hon. Friend should look at the geography and certain other facts that are involved here.
§ Mr. SandysHas it not been obvious, ever since internal self-government was granted, that the union between St. Kitts and Anguilla could not last, and why have not the Government taken effective action to prevent the occurrence of this explosive situation which could have been foreseen?
§ Mr. StewartThe right hon. Gentleman makes a large number of assumptions in that question which I am not prepared to accept, and there are implications in it which had better be dealt with later on.
§ Mr. DalyellOn the last point of the Foreign Secretary's statement, that it is no part of the Government's purpose that Anguillans should live under a régime they do not want, was this made perfectly clear by the Under-Secretary when he visited Anguilla?
§ Mr. StewartYes, Sir. When my hon. Friend visited Anguilla a statement from him which made this quite clear was distributed to the people.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Foreign Secretary aware that right hon. and hon. Members have to make assumptions in this matter because he has been so uncommunicative to the House? Yesterday, the House was very patient with him, but we now find that there is wide and detailed coverage of all these matters in the Press, radio and television, and the House of Commons appears to be the last place to be informed. Will the Foreign Secretary at least be more explicit about the situation as the Government see it? For example, do they believe that at the moment Anguilla is under a régime which it does not want, and will he be more explicit about the Government's objective? Is it to achieve results by negotiation, or by force?
§ Mr. StewartI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can complain that I was unwilling to inform the House yes- 210 terday. I answered a question which, in fact, was not asked, and which I was under no obligation to do. I did it in deference to the wishes of the House. I have been plain enough today about the objective of policy. I do not think that I can be expected to comment on every report that appears in the Press, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I will keep the House as fully informed as it is in the public interest to do so.
§ Mr. George BrownI do not press my right hon. Friend to make a statement; I think that he should be the judge of when he should do that. Will he bear in mind that both he and I, over a period of some years, have refused to resort to what we used to call scornfully "gun-boat diplomacy" in issues which had much more interest for Britain than this; and when he comes to make his statement, will he please take into account that if by then force has been used a number of people will want to know why it has been used in this case and not in other cases, which have much more interest for Britain?
§ Mr. StewartI take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Might I take up a point in the right hon. Gentleman's question which I did not answer? In the light of the treatment accorded to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we believe that what happened then was not in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of Anguilla.
§ Mr. ThorpeSince what is required is a permanent political settlement, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are adequate legal facilities for the people to be allowed to secede or opt for a looser form of federation?
§ Mr. StewartI do not think that it would be right to look ahead to the exact nature of what the settlement will be. I have laid down one necessary condition of it, namely, that it should be acceptable to the people of Anguilla.
§ Mr. LuardWhile appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulty, can we be assured that, before there is any attempt to use force in this instance, there will be further attempts at a peaceful approach to the people of Anguilla themselves?
§ Mr. StewartWe are most anxious—and this was one reason why I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question as I did—that the people of Anguilla should be fully aware of our policy as I have defined it.
§ Several Hon. Membersrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Baker— Private Notice Question.