Anguilla (Hansard, 5 May 1969)

§ 4. Mr. Marten
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla.

§ 10. Mr. Henig
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

§ 13. Mr. Wall
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

§ 31. Mr. Fisher
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
The situation in Anguilla has, I am glad to say, taken a turn for the better. Mr. Cumber has had a number of meetings with 5 Anguillan leaders of opinion and members of the public; at these a cordial atmosphere has prevailed. There have been some other indications of a reduction in tension and increased willingness to co-operate with Her Majesty's Commissioner.
I have invited the Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla to visit London on 7th and 8th May, and I am glad that Mr. Bradshaw has accepted. I look forward to continuing the talks I had with him in Washington.

§ Mr. Marten
As the only offensive weapons which have come to light in seven weeks' occupation by British troops of Anguilla are ten rifles, four pistols, two carbines and one anti-tank rifle, does not this make a laughing stock of the whole operation? Will the Foreign Secretary say how many rounds of ammunition have been found which fire out of the anti-talk rifle, and will he place the information in the Library?

§ Mr. Stewart
No, I do not think that it can be regarded as a laughing stock. It was beyond doubt that there was a lawless and dangerous condition in Anguilla, and that is the opinion of any informed person.

§ Mr. Henig
Will my right hon. Friend clear up the position, over which there is still some mystery, of Mr. Tony Lee? Secondly, will he take great care that his forthcoming talks with Mr. Bradshaw are not misinterpreted on Anguilla to mean that we are betraying the interests of the Anguillans?

§ Mr. Stewart
In reply to the last part of the question, we will take care to that effect. As for the first part of the question, I have now seen Mr. Lee. After his leave he will be employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and will not be returning to Anguilla. Mr. Cumber's name has been submitted to the Queen for appointment as Her Majesty's Commissioner.

§ Mr. Wall
In his discussions with Mr. Bradshaw, will the Foreign Secretary be discussing the whole problem in the context of wider association in the West Indies?

§ Mr. Stewart
I do not want to prejudice the substance of the conversations, but they may range quite widely.

§ Mr. Fisher
To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman trying to associate the independent countries of the Commonwealth with the long-term solution of this problem in association with us, and how far has he reached in that exercise? What form does he envisage that association might take?

§ Mr. Stewart
I have had some discussions with representatives of independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, but I thought that before going any further it was right to consult with Mr. Bradshaw.

§ Mr. John Fraser
Would my right hon. Friend consider carefully the possible appointment of a West Indian representative on the staff of the Commissioner in Anguilla?

§ Mr. Stewart
I will consider that, yes.

§ Mr. Braine
While we are all very pleased that the situation in Anguilla has improved, has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided to issue a White Paper setting out all the details of and the justification for the intervention?

§ Mr. Stewart
This has already been discussed fully in the House. I undertook to consider whether this was necessary, but I doubt whether it is necessary in view of information which has already been given to the House.

§ 7. Viscount Lambton
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority armed Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on 14th February, 1967.

§ Mr. Whitlock
No Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on that date.

§ Viscount Lambton
Would the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "Navy personnel" when he said that navy personnel had landed? This confirms the statement: H.M.S."Salisbury" landed territorial police in Anguilla on 15th February, 1967, supported by Royal Navy personnel …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 544.] Would he say what was meant by it? Would he not agree that his belated admission that there was a landing at this stage in Anguilla contradicts the Government's earlier statements that they had no idea of the antipathies to the 7 Federation? Would he also comment on the earlier statement by Lord Beswick in the House of Lords?

§ The Speaker
Order. Firstly, we cannot have quotations in Questions, and, secondly, questions should be reasonably brief.

§ Viscount Lambton
Will the hon. Gentleman say why it was denied previously in the House of Lords?

§ Mr. Whitlock
The ship's platoon of 40 sailors was landed on that occasion in support of some 30 to 40 policemen. They were there to support the police when the latter were carrying out a search for weapons and were making some arrests in connection with the disturbances on the island on 4th February, 1967, when stones were thrown and a police officer was injured. The events now mentioned occurred only a few days before Statehood on 27th February, 1967, and they were obviously in no way an indication of mass opposition to Statehood.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a supplementary question, completely to anticipate Question No. 32?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to anticipate questions. It may be inevitable for a Minister, but it is unusual.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
On a further point of order. Would it not have been in order for the Minister to have taken that Question with the other Question?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not responsible for that. The Question will be asked when it is reached.

§ 32. Mr. Biggs-Davison
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give full particulars of the Royal Naval and other armed personnel landed on Anguilla on the 14th Febraury, 1967; and at whose request, and on whose authority, they were landed.

§ Mr. Whitlock
I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the account I gave of this matter on 23rd April. The operation was carried out at the request of the Government of the then colonial territory 8 of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla under the general authority of the Senior Naval Officer West Indies to act in aid of the civil power in colonial territories.—[Vol. 782, c. 544.]

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
We have had so many confused and contradictory statements. Is it not absolutely clear now that opposition to Mr. Byron's installation in 1967 was apprehended? Why did Lord Beswick say, in another place, that the presence of these forces was not required?

§ Mr. Whitlock
There is confusion in the hon. Member's mind. My noble Friend in another place was probably dealing with the allegation that marines had landed on the island.

§ 39. Mr. Braine
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been submitted to Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla of murders committed in the territory in the years 1967, 1968 and to date in 1969; how many of these murders are unsolved; how many prisoners are awaiting trial for murder; how many convicted murderers are in prison for murders committed since 1967; and where these prisoners are detained.

§ Mr. Whitlock
As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st May, a suspected case of murder on 2nd January, 1968, was reported. A person who is now on bail has been committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter in respect of this case. No other cases have been reported and the other parts of the Question do not therefore arise.—[Vol. 782, c. 270.]

§ Mr. Braine
Is not it within the recollection of the House that on 23rd April the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told us, in the context of the justification for military intervention in Anguilla, that there were undoubted cases of arson and murder? Are we now to understand that there were no proven cases of arson and no cases of murder? Does not this strengthen the demand from hon. Members on this side of the House for a full statement in a White Paper at the earliest opportunity?

§ Mr. Whitlock
There appears to have been some misunderstanding—I hope that it was not deliberate—about my right 9 hon. Friend's meaning, which was that there had been only one case of murder, whereas there had been more than one case of arson. My right hon. Friend referred to it as an undoubted case at the time when it occurred, and until very recently, in the absence of any proper judicial arrangements on the island, it was generally considered to be a case of murder.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot comment further on a case which is apparently sub judice.