HC Deb 16 July 1971 vol 821 cc894-921

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber)

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

It may be convenient to the House if I begin by reminding Members briefly of the history of British involvement in the Anguilla problem.

In February 1967, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla became a State in association with the United Kingdom at the same time as four other former British Colonies in the Eastern Caribbean. Under associated statehood, the States became independent internally while Britain retained responsibility for external affairs and defence. Three months later, on 30th May, 1967, the St. Kitts police continent on Anguilla were ejected from that island by the islanders who claimed that they Would not be ruled by St. Kitts. The independent countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean held a conference in Barbados in July 1967 with delegations from St. Kitts and Anguilla. Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, also attended that conference. Its report was published as Cmnd. 3433. Unfortunately it was not successful in finding a solution to the problem.

In December the same year my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) and the former Member for Birmingham, Northfield, Mr. Donald Chapman, visited both St. Kitts and Anguilla in an attempt to find a way forward. I am grateful, and I am sure the House is, for the attempt they made at that time. As a result of their visit, an interim arrangement was agreed between the two parties and a British official took up residence in Anguilla in January, 1968. In October, 1968, the then British Government invited the State Government and the Anguillans to send delegations to talks in London. It was not possible to find a compromise solution at those talks. The Anguillans made a further declaration of independence in January, 1969, and at that time the British official was withdrawn from Anguilla.

In early March 1969, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whit-lock), after discussions with the State Government, visited Anguilla in an attempt to persuade the islanders to accept the installation of a British Commissioner to administer Anguilla. That visit, unfortunately, did not meet with success and he was forced to leave the island somewhat abruptly. Later that month, on 19th March, British troops and police were landed on Anguilla and a British Commissioner was installed under the authority of an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act, 1967. I do not propose to go into the merits of that operation. They were debated in this House at length at the time. I would, however, recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), as the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in his statement to the House on 19th March, 1969, said : We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1968 ; Vol. 780, c. 495–6.] The right hon. Gentleman on the previous day assured the House that : it is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1969; Vol.780, c. 207.] In May 1969, Her Majesty's Government held discussions with the State Government in London and it was then agreed that a Commission should be jointly appointed by the two Governments to examine the Anguilla problem. This Commission was headed by a former Chief Justice of Trinidad, the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Wooding, and its report was presented to Parliament in November 1970 (Cmnd. 4510). That Report, which contained a valuable analysis and history of the problem, made certain recommendations which included the election of a Council in Anguilla with certain legislative, executive and fiscal authority, functions and powers.

These recommendations might have been the basis of settlement of the problem in an atmosphere less charged with emotion and distrust than that which existed between St. Kitts and Anguilla. However, unfortunately, such a state of affairs did not exist and the Anguilla Council, who have continually repeated their demand for a complete break with St. Kitts, rejected the recommendations in the Report. The St. Kitts Government for their part claimed to accept the Report as a basis for discussion. That is what Mr. Bradshaw, the Premier, said to me when he came here last December.

In view of the Anguillan rejection of the Wooding Commission recommendations and also in the light of the assurance given by the right hon. Member for Fulham, which I have quoted and which we had reaffirmed on taking office, that it was not our intention that the Anguillans should be forced to live under an Administration they did not want, it was not possible for us to use the Wooding recommendations as the basis for a settlement. We were obliged to find some other way in which to proceed.

In December, 1970, in discussions which took place in the Foreign Office here in London, I put to the St. Kitts Government proposals designed to bring about an interim settlement of the problem. The basis of these proposals was that the State Government should delegate to Her Majesty's Government powers which would enable Her Majesty's Commissioner on the Island to conduct an effective administration in Anguilla for a period of years. The period was not determined, but we could have come to some arrangement on that if other matters had been possible of solution. The proposals were designed to restore full authority emanating from the British Government, but at the same time to maintain the basic integrity of he Associated State. It was our hope that after a period of time it might be possible to achieve a permanent solution by bringing the two sides voluntarily together again.

Although a measure of agreement on some points was achieved in our discussions with the St. Kitts Government, they were not prepared in certain important respects to accept the minimum delegation of powers which we considered essential to enable Her Majesty's Commissioner to conduct an effective administration in Anguilla. After six months of discussions, it became evident that there was an apparently unbridgeable gap between what the State Government were prepared to offer and what the Anguillans would be prepared to accept. I was, therefore, reluctantly obliged during my discussions in St. Kitts on 11th June to inform the St. Kitts Government that, since we could not allow this problem to continue indefinitely, Her Majesty's Government would have to proceed unilaterally with their proposals for an interim settlement. The Anguilla Council, after seeking certain assurances, accepted our proposals on 22nd June.

This is a very brief history of the problem and British involvement in it. I do not propose to go over again the debates in the last Parliament or to discuss whether the previous Government's actions in involving themselves first politically and then physically were right or wrong. We have told the Caribbean Governments that should similar circumstances arise in the future we would not be prepared to intervene in this way. But on our assumption of office we were involved in the matter and we felt it essential to find a solution to it. We would have much preferred to have proceeded with the full agreement both of the St. Kitts Government and of the Anguillans, but for the reasons which I have given this has not proved possible.

In our view, the present situation clearly cannot be allowed to continue. Although a British Commissioner has been resident in Anguilla for over two years, it has not been possible for him to establish an effective administration because he lacked certain essential powers. Moreover, although one of the original purposes behind the installation of a British Commissioner was to restore the rule of law in Anguilla, no regular court of law has been able to function there for over four years. In our view, it is intolerable that such a situation should obtain in an island on which a British Commissioner, British troops and British policemen have been established. We have therefore introduced the Bill which is before the House today.

The Bill has the merit of being both short and clear. It is an enabling Bill which, if enacted, would permit Her Majesty in Council to make detailed provision for the administration of Anguilla. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides for this. The second subsection makes provision for the appointment of a Commissioner in Anguilla.

The third subsection of Clause 1 provides for Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that Anguilla would not any longer form part of the territory of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla in the event of the introduction into the legislature of that State of a Bill for a law terminating the status of association of that State with the United Kingdom. Were such a law to be introduced into the State Legislature and the necessary constitutional procedures to be gone through, the Associated State would of course become fully independent. This subsection makes it clear that the British administration of Anguilla would not be affected by such an event and that, should it in fact happen, Her Majesty by Order in Council would have power to provide a constitution for Anguilla.

The fourth subsection of Clause 1 makes consequential provision in the event of the use of subsection (3) to enable any constitution provided for Anguilla under that subsection to be altered or replaced as may be expedient from time to time.

The fifth subsection of Clause 1 makes provision for this legislation to have effect notwithstanding anything in the West Indies Act, 1967, or any Order in Council made under that Act. I would, however, emphasise that in our opinion this Bill is not inconsistent with the West Indies Act or the Order in Council made under that Act which provided the constitution for the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla.

The Sixth subsection of Clause 1 contains the declaration which is necessary under Section 3(2) of the West Indies Act, 1967, that this legislation is required to extend to St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla in the interests of the responsibilities of Her Majety's Government in the United Kingdom relating to defence and external affairs. We consider that such a declaration is justified by the facts of the case. It would clearly not be possible for the British Government to discharge their responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla if there were no settled administration in the island of Anguilla. Were a vacuum, for example, to be created by the withdrawal of the present British presence on Anguilla there would be a risk, some would put it as high as a probability, of physical conflict betwen St. Kitts and Anguilla. There would be instability and uncertainty, there would be an absence of Government and an absence of law and order which must make it impossible for any British Government to discharge in a meaningful way their constitutional responsibilities in that area. The Bill before the House today is designed to ensure that this does not happen. It will enable an effective administration to be established in Anguilla in consultation and co-operation with the people of that island.

I hope the House will recognise the need to bring an end to the events of the last four years and to provide the opportunity for a fresh start. The Premier of St. Kitts has accused us of attempting to break up the existing State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. My reply is that that was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government when we started these long and involved discussions : nor, indeed, need it be the final outcome. The Order in Council we shall introduce under this Bill, as soon as it has the authority of Law, will be designed solely to provide the British Commissioner on the Island of Anguilla with all the powers he has so long needed and so long lacked. Those powers will derive directly from Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

This means that not only will new courts of law be able to sit but new laws, where necessary, can be enacted on the island ; and the Commissioner will at last be able to recruit and train local policemen to take the place of the London Metropolitan Police who have been filling the gap so admirably since March 1969. No step will be taken at this stage to break up the State unless—and I emphasise this—St. Kitts decides to move to independence, in which case Section 1(3) will come into operation. Our intention is to provide effective administration for a period of years to enable tempers to cool. I have told the Anguillans that we would be willing to reconsider the position after the new arrangements have been working for three years.

When the time comes to move forward, it is our intention that the views of the Anguillans should be ascertained. If they should then wish—although it does not at present seem likely—to revert to their links with St. Kitts, that can be done. If, on the other hand, they wish to continue on the lines we are now establishing with a greater degree of devolution of authority to their own elected repretatives, that also can be done.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

How are their wishes to be ascertained?

Mr. Godber

We have not yet settled how that will be done. We have considered that possibly a referendum might be suitable, but I think we shall leave it flexible so that we can discuss with the Anguillans how this should be done. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that what happens on that island has no bearing on what happens in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. [Interruption.] I would not accept my hon. Friend's interpretation. The circumstances are somewhat different in this regard. They have been seeking to establish their views for four years now, but no firm decision has been taken.

On the other hand, ideas are still developing among the various independent and associated Commonwealth States in the Caribbean. It is possible that new groupings of States will emerge and that Anguilla might wish to participate in one of these. The final test must be the wishes of the Anguillan people themselves.

So, faced with the strange situation which the present Government inherited on this island, we have come to the only tolerable solution. In the long discussions on this matter much bitterness has been expressed on both sides, and there have been not a few accusations of breach of faith. I have refused to involve myself in any of this and have looked only to find a solution for the future.

The Caribbean is a complex area of many conflicting ideas and views. From the moment when the West Indies Federation began to break up, the problem of fragmentation has been there. This latest stage of it—which really began in May 1967—has led some at least in other territories to think again about the future of the whole area. If the Anguilla problem turned out to be the catalyst which helped to bring about a reverse in present attitude, it could prove a blessing in disguise for the whole area.

11.24 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley (West Bromwich)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone in which he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill. It contrasts sharply with the atmosphere which prevailed in the debates in 1967 and 1969. I can only assume that the cares of office and the responsibilities of government have led him to feel that this is not the moment to deploy a narrow party political line, whatever that may be.

May I say how sad I am, after reading the debates over the period, about the thoughtless way in which members of the Government attacked the courage and integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whit-lock). On reflection, some very harsh things were said then which I hope people now regret.

I turn now to the motivation and what stems from the West Indies Act under which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to act. I recall particularly the words of the present Prime Minister in the debate on 24th March, 1969, when he said : It seems to many, including legal opinion, that Section 7(2) has been stretched to the limit to cover this operation. Indeed many people think that it has been stretched beyond the limit. Later on, he continued : I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is not stretching Section 7(2) far beyond its normal meaning and for what purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969 ; Vol. 780, c. 1064–5.] As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman in presenting the Bill is acting under this very Section 7(2) when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the present Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and the present Home Secretary condemned us for doing exactly the same thing in 1967. Would he explain to the House whether his hon. and right hon. colleagues are reconciled to the fact that we were right and had a duty to act, and that it was not illegal to act, under that section of the West Indies Act? If we could do so in 1967, this presumably is the reason why he is now invoking it. Is he not, in a rather nice way, hoist with his own petard?

Mr. Godber

I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the point. The Section under which I am acting is Section 3(2) and not Section 7(2).

Mr. Foley

With respect, I am referring to invoking the provision dealing with defence and external affairs. The present Prime Minister referred to the fact that the purpose of the Order under which we acted was to maintain the territorial integrity of the Associated States. He went on to say that these people did not want to live under an administration of which they did not approve. Is the Minister of State accepting that these two things can be reconciled? Is he saying that he wants to preserve the territorial integrity of the State, or is he saying that he hopes that that will happen but what will be paramount and dominant is his proposal that Anguilla for an interim period would be ruled from this country?

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that his last conversations with the Prime Minister of the Associated States, Mr. Bradshaw, took place on 11th June. Can he tell the House whether he has had any contact since then, whether Mr. Bradshaw was informed of the precise terms of the Bill to be introduced, when he was so informed, and whether he had any comment to make in relation to it? It would also be helpful to know whether there have been any reactions from any of the other Associated States or independent countries in the Caribbean.

I want to make quite clear that it is not our intention to obstruct this legislation. We believe it is necessary at this moment, but I want to refer to the wider issue because we must look at how this matter will be seen in the Caribbean. Is it the Government's intention to reaffirm that the idea of the Associated States will continue, that we do not wish to see a break-up of the other Associated States? Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm, too, the desire for closer and more effective consultation in the Caribbean, with the independent countries and the Associated States working closer together and trying to devise new links and relationships?

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look particularly at the wider economic and social issues. The lesson that we have learnt from this particular episode is a sad one, and we may well assume that it is no more than a clash of personalities. But we should be doing a disservice to the whole of the Caribbean if we read it as such. It is a much wider and complex question of poverty and economic and social conditions, and the frustration that comes about through inability to obtain economic growth and development, the absence of infrastructure in terms of attracting external capital, and the absence of trained people for administration. Have the Government any intention of giving a greater priority for development aid, and do they intend to encourage private capital to assist this area of the world, where we still have a measure of responsibility, great traditional ties and a legacy that we have to put right in terms of economic priorities? What are the Government's intentions?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the position of the Caribbean Development Fund? Is it correct that some Latin-American countries have shown interest in contributing to the fund? We should look at it again in connection with stimulating growth and giving this area of the world a sense of hope to replace the present frustration with at least some measure of optimism in terms of the economic future.

11.32 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), especially in his last remarks about economic growth. This is one of the most important things we have to consider for the future.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on finding some form of solution to this long-standing problem. There have been many projected discussions, and one should pay a special tribute to the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Wooding for his very excellent report. Even if it was not successful, I have never read a more detailed and constructive report. I hope that the thanks of the House will go to him. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of the troops and the police. Their task cannot have been easy in the beginning.

This may be a very small Bill, but it is an extremely important one, because it means the future happiness of about 6,000 people. During the debate on the West Indies Bill, I said : I am not certain that I like the kind of association proposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967 ; Vol. 740, c. 375.] I hope that we have all followed what my right hon. Friend has said about thinking again about this kind of association, because it has not been very successful up to date and we may have to change our ideas. I suggested also that we should call the islands "free States of the Commonwealth." I thought that this would give a better understanding. My right hon. Friend mentioned the reaction of the other Caribbean islands. I should like to know the thoughts of Barbados concerning this matter, because Barbados is the most intimately connected.

In her opening remarks in the debate on the West Indies Bill, the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) stated concerning the association : 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 335.] I do not understand why we need this Bill at all. Could this not have been done more simply if that was agreed in the West Indies Act, 1967? The right hon. Lady ended : Firstly, we believe that the people in each territory are entitled to the fullest political liberty …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967 ; Vol. 740, c. 338.] I thought that this was made clear in Section 10 (1) of the West Indies Act. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will let me know exactly why this could not be enacted instead of having to have this new Bill.

I also suggested that it was time that we trained the people in the countries concerned to play a larger part themselves. I hope that it will not be for very long that we have a British Commissioner there. I should like there to be a Commissioner of the local people, if possible, but not one from the other associated islands.

In the previous debate, I realised that these territories and States would not be in an easy position in the future. I stated what was not an entirely new idea—we had already put it in one of our Conservative Party documents—that I should like these islands to be allowed to send a representative to the House of Lords. I repeat that suggestion. I was told then that it was an interesting suggestion, but nothing has happened about it. It would be very advantageous. Their representatives could sit on the cross-benches. They could come to the House of Lords as and when necessary. They could be appointed for the time being, and could express to the House of Lords the difficulties of their various islands, not only the Caribbean islands but others which will probably never be able to be independent. They would have the opportunity of expressing in Parliament the difficulties in their countries and avoiding situations such as this which may arise. I have canvassed opinion about this matter and I do not think that many people would be against it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it seriously.

I do not suggest representation should be in the House of Commons. Member of the House of Commons would always be able to raise points concerning any of these territories and, naturally, would receive requests from individuals living in them. But if the representatives go to the House of Lords, they can rise to speak as and when necessary, and would not have to wait to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. They could attend a specific debate, and this would be helpful. I hope that this idea will be considered not only for the Caribbean but also for other islands.

These islands should have far more contact with the Commonwealth Secretariat. They would have much better information and it would make them much more outward-looking. This would also interest other Commonwealth countries in their problems. Where appropriate, I should also like to see provision made for representation of the territories on some of the United Kingdom delegations at the United Nations.

I believe that Anguilla will be what is termed a Crown Colony, at least for some time. Mr. Webster's title of Chairman of the Legislative Council is not a very inspiring one. Why cannot he be called the First Minister, even if he cannot be called the Premier? That would give him a much better standing. "The Chairman" sounds like somebody on a local county council—although many county councils or borough councils have larger populations than the islands, but it would give him a better standing when he goes overseas.

Finally, as my right hon. Friend mentioned the question of a referendum, I gave my opinion about this when I said I am worried about what is referred to in Schedule 2. It is a very complicated Schedule. I never like referendums."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967 ; Vol.740. c. 372.] I will not go into explaining the reasons why, but in view of our past experience in the Caribbean, this has not set a good precedent for a referendum in the future.

I wish my right hon. Friend success in his new plans. The economic situation must be examined. It is no good relying on tourism, because tourism is a gamble, and people go to the territories only for certain periods and then wish to visit other places for their holidays. Grand Bahamas have a tremendous amount of this trade, being much nearer to America. I hope that the economic situation of the country will be looked into, even if we have to make private investment. I was rather astonished to hear this suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

I thank my right hon. Friend for putting forward the Bill, and I wish the people concerned happiness for the future.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I hope the House will give its unanimous assent to the Bill. I am sure that this is the right action to take now. As the Minister accepts, it is not a permanent solution to the problem. The problem of Anguilla is only part of a larger one affecting the West Indies.

The right hon. Gentleman gave us to understand that after an interim period consideration may have to be given to what comes next. The wishes of the people of Anguilla will be an extremely relevant factor. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us how long he sees the interim period being. With the leave of the House, perhaps he will do so when he replies to the debate.

Perhaps I might refer briefly to the action taken by the previous Government and indicate how it links with the action of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the view that we took was that, in the situation that had arisen by April 1969. we could not fulfil our duties under the law for the external defence of the island unless we took some action in the internal affairs of Anguilla. That was our view. We took that view partly because of the number of acts of violence in Anguilla itself. The law courts were not able to operate. The right hon. Gentleman said that they have not operated since. But there is the interesting fact that, since 1969, the behaviour of the Anguillans has been so exemplary that it has not been necessary to raise the difficult question of how to have a court when the people of the island will not accept one which has even nominal authority from St. Kitts. However, their own behaviour has resolved the problem.

At that time, there was an ugly situation in Anguilla. More serious and more relevant to British responsibilities, there was a threat from outside. At the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) referred 10 a number of "Mafia types", an expression which was criticised. I described them as "disreputable characters". I see that the Wooding Commission uses the word "predators". One can use whatever expression one likes, but the fact is established that there was a danger that Anguilla by itself was rejecting the authority of St. Kitts and that, with no other effective authority there, it could have been made the prey of elements which simply wanted to make money out of it and which had no interest in the welfare of the islanders. That was the situation that we faced.

The alternative to what we did would have been to wash our hands of the whole business. If I understood the Minister aright, that is what the Government would do if a similar situation arose. They may be right now. History will decide, but it is arguable that we might have decided to let the matter slide and to see what happened. However, the weight of informed opinion and opinion friendly to us in the West Indies at the time was the other way. There was a strong feeling in the West Indies that we should not let matters slide and so open the door to the predators. Broadly, that was why we took the action that we did. I make no further comment on it other than to say how much I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) said in rejecting some of the criticisms made at the time of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

We had to act, and the present Government have had to act since, subject to the clear condition that we should not impose a solution against the will of the people of Anguilla. That remains a fixed fact. I suppose that it could be done, but obviously it would be extremely wrong and silly to try to do it.

The pronouncement that we would not do that has never been welcome to Mr. Bradshaw. I had hoped, though with no great optimism, that, when the Wooding Commission produced its Report, the people of Anguilla might have been willing to reach a settlement on the basis of that Report. It is a pity that they were not. But we have to accept that, apparently, there is now such bitterness that a solution on those lines is not available. In the circumstances, I am sure that what the Government propose now is right and that, to determine future policy, to begin with we shall have to see how matters progress.

I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that a necessary step was to build up an indigenous police force in Anguilla. It would not have to be very large, but it would need to be competent and well trained. When we are able to withdraw the Metropolitan Police from Anguilla, it will be a great relief to whoever is Home Secretary at the time, because there are other uses for their services. It will be a matter of some regret to the Metropolitan Police themselves, because I understand that there has been no shortage of volunteers for this duty, despite the fact that, to begin with, they ran into some unpleasant experiences. Fortunately, that period did not last long.

Here, we must widen the argument from Anguilla to the problem of the West Indies as a whole. The need for a competent indigenous police force to keep the law and to ensure that a small island is not at the mercy of predators is an important and pressing one. Similarly, there is the question of our general interest in and concern for the welfare of these islands. It is fair to say that, in terms of material aid, both Anguilla and the State of St. Kitts-Nevis itself have some reason to be glad about what has happened. It obliged a British Government to take more interest in the islands than has been taken for the last 300 years. We now have various suggestions, and we listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). I commend it strongly to the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

For the present, I believe that the Government are doing right. Any well-intentioned person must wish them well for the future. But I hope that the people of the West Indies will realise that any final solution of the problem is quite as much a West Indian responsibility as it is a British one. At this distance, we cannot solve all the problems. They have to help.

11.46 a.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I must first congratulate my right hon. Friend for what he has achieved. It has not been easy. I am sure that the House will agree that he has shown enormous patience in this negotiation.

I will not go back over the history. However, probably the House will agree that the initial mistake was to join Anguilla with St. Kitts and Nevis. I accept at once that this goes back well before the West Indies Act. They are different people. They are too far apart. If they had to join with anyone, the right direction in which to look would have been towards the British Virgin Islands rather than towards St. Kitts.

I first visited the island in 1965, as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. It interested me greatly. When I came back, I was fortunate enough to be given an Adjournment debate. I elected to discuss the appalling conditions in that island and in one or two others that I visited. I concentrated upon the conditions under which schoolchildren were being educated, especially primary schoolchildren. I seem to remember saying in that debate that I was compelled to hang my head in shame over the neglect of successive British Governments of this delightful island and its people. That was the first time that it really hit me. As a result, I initiated this little debate.

Having seen the neglect and the social conditions of the people, one sensed the seeds of trouble both in St. Kitts and in Anguilla. I visited Anguilla again about three months before the invasion. I did not go to stir up trouble, or anything like that. But I saw it coming. When I was there, I met Mr. Webster and what was then called the Revolutionary Council. I had long discussions with them and when I came back I saw Lord Shepherd, who was then the Minister in charge, and said that the only solution which would work would be the kind that we have today. I am not saying this to show that I was right. The point is that I wonder whether, looking back, if we had tried then to get this solution we might have avoided a lot of this trouble. We were not then in office, so I cannot say what the pressures were at that time.

What pleases me greatly is that this Government have honoured the undertaking given by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). This is a splendid example, where the British people have spoken, of one Government honouring the undertaking given by the previous Government.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) said that we attacked the courage and integrity of his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. If the hon. Gentleman reads the debate on the Consolidated Fund, at about 4.30 in the morning—in a debate which I was lucky enough to draw—he will see that the Front Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), said that we were not attacking the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North felt that we were. However, our attack was more on the detail, not on his personal courage and integrity. Some of the newspapers might have attacked him in that way, but we did not.

The great thing is that we have at last achieved what the people of those islands have always wished for. I comment in passing how lucky they are that they might have the opportunity to express their views on a constitutional change of great importance to them. I congratulate the Government for accepting that they are intelligent enough to understand the issues involved in such great matters to those people, whereas that does not apparently appear to be the case with the British people. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will agree with that comment.

Now that Anguilla again has direct links with this country, I hope that the British Government will fulfil to the full their moral obligations to the people of this island. I think that what interests all hon. Members is our sense of obligation to those people. Equally, on the other side, I believe that great responsibility rests with the people of Anguilla to make all this work. I am sure that together we can make it work.

Finally, I should like to raise two small points. The first is about police training. I hope that the Anguillans and the British have been sensible, anyhow within the last six months, in using the police who are and have been there for so long to train potential policemen so that when the whistle blows, as it were, trained policemen can move straight into their job. I am glad that the magistrates' courts are to be set up. This gives a chance for law and order to work, not that these charming people need a lot of law and order.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) about not relying totally on tourism. The island's income comes largely from remittances by Anguillans working overseas. That will presumably continue, but it is not the most healthy way to run a state. There is very little in the way of natural resources. There are lovely beaches for hotels. I hope that some scheme can be devised by the Commissioner to enable some form of light industry or jobs to be created so that they do not entirely rely on the fickle nature or tourism as an industry.

I turn now to defence. Under the present political feeling between St. Kitts and Anguilla it is fair to say that the Anguillans have a real fear that one day, or one night, they might be invaded—it may be a rather curious invasion—by St. Kitts. This could happen quite suddenly. I hope, therefore, that we have considered such a situation. Perhaps some light naval force could cut off any such invasion force before it arrived at Anguilla.

I will not deal with the wider question, because I know that we want to get en to the next important debate. However, at some time we should debate the wider question of the whole of these small dependencies around the world. I believe that unity among the small dependencies can emerge in the end. If we concentrate on creating some kind of free trade area to begin with, then the habit of working together will develop.

The Bill opens up a new chapter in relations between Britain and Anguilla. I hope that St. Kitts will accept it in a sensible way. I am sure that the whole House wishes the island and its people well.

11.55 a.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

I, too, recognise the need for brevity this morning. However, I am glad that you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed the debate to go a little wider in some of its implications than just the Bill, which I regard as no more than an overdue tidying up of an untidy situation.

I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), the former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, say that we could not look at this matter in isolation and think that similar troubles might not break out elsewhere.

I was also interested that the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) made the point that we should not think that this situation arises from a clash of personalities. There are more personalities in the Caribbean than in any other comparable area of the world. Nevertheless, there are other things as well. Normally, personalities only arise because of the fierce individualism of the islands.

It is no use imagining that we can tidy up this situation as if it was a series of British counties. The odd thing about Europeans is that they readily accept a whole lot of little absurdities in Europe, such as San Remo, Lichtenstein, and so on, which have no more logic than some of the small islands trying to obtain independence for themselves in the Caribbean. We look with shocked horror when they wish to achieve a certain amount of individual absurdity for themselves.

There is a lesson to be learned here. I mention the lesson because it is to do, most of all, with associated status. I have at times praised that idea. I am not going back on what I thought might be a solution, but it has turned out to be an unhappy combination of having a fair degree of responsibility without the power to carry it out under unexpected and unanticipated conditions.

When dealing with the remaining areas of the Caribbean which are either not yet completely, but are about to become, independent, or Associated status, there are one or two specific lessons to be learned. Sometimes the most logical explanation for tying a group of States together to form some kind of federation is not the simplest. If there is one bit of history about the British Commonwealth which stands out it is that our lust for leaving federations behind, whether in Africa or elsewhere, has not altogether been a success. In the long term, it may be that a larger number of small territories will prove more feasible to handle.

I quote one example where this has been achieved. I cannot remember now which Government did it. I refer to the occasion when we accepted that if there was an attempt to continue to tie the Cayman Islands to Jamaica there would be trouble. The Jamaicans were mature enough to realise that. We have had a singularly happy situation there with good relations between those territories. That situation, in its way, was no more illogical than some of the other suggestions which have been made, yet it proved successful.

There are other areas in the Caribbean where it may be better, before they proceed to complete independence, not to try to bring pressure to federate them on the ground that we regard it as economically and otherwise sensible, because we may have to face the consequences which follow even though at the time it may have been thought to be the most sensible plan that we could make.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear to all such remaining States that when they become independent we cannot carry on any obligation, moral or otherwise, to hold those groupings together, if those at the centre cannot carry the confidence of those with whom they claim to have the right to become independent. That is one firm lesson which my right hon. Friend has made clear on recent visits to that part of the world.

The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has been an idea of mine for a long time, but it would be a pity if that were our only thought on the subject. The more one looks around the world, the more one sees the necessity for a substantial addition to the House of Lords. We are not talking only about the Caribbean. There are many other "left-overs" of imperial rule which could claim an equal right.

An alternative idea, which I wrote about some time ago, is some form of council of Britain and overseas realms. It is a new idea, but there is no particular harm in that. It would allow representatives of the House of Lords to sit with representatives of the 20 or 30 remaining dependencies which want some say and which would then feel that they had some independence or an opportunity to express their views at Westminster.

Having made this point, I wish the Minister well in carrying out the Bill.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on this Measure. It is a commendable attempt to meet and pacify the fears of Anguillan public opinion. Rightly or wrongly, the Anguillans fear domination by the present leaders of St. Kitts. That part of the Bill dealing with the formal separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts and Nevis would be triggered off by a successful move by the inhabitants of St. Kitts to seek full independence under the West Indies Act, 1967.

Schedule 2(2) of that Act says that if one of those Associated States wishes to become fully independent, an independence Bill must be approved not only by its legislature but by two-thirds of the population who take part in a referendum. Many referenda have been held in the Commonwealth on questions of sovereignty in the last 25 years—India, Pakistan, Singapore, Malta, Gibraltar, Ghana, Nigeria, Rhodesia and Jamaica.

These referenda have ceased to be a novelty, but the West Indies Act, which we are now amending, was the first in our history to lay down that a referendum had to be held before constitutional status changed. It is interesting to remember that, although this was a constitutional change of substantial magnitude, it was accepted in 1967 virtually on the nod.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) reminded us today, she said then that she did not like referenda. She was the only speaker in the debate to refer to this point. I am sorry that she still does not like referenda. I thought that the suggestions about introducing representatives from Anguilla and the other Associated States into the House of Lords was worthy of support.

The special arrangements in the Bill will not be needed if Anguillan public opinion should become reconciled to the leadership of St. Kitts. This may not be probable, but we must all hope that it is possible. My right hon. Friend suggested that there will be special consultation with the Anguillans within three years, and that it might be a referendum. I suspect that if the word "referendum" had not become politically charged by association with the Common Market in the last two years, it would have been written into this Measure as it was in the West Indies Act.

Although this is not the time to debate the Common Market, one can legitimately point out that when a question affecting sovereignty arises in Anguilla it is considered right to consult the people directly but that here, on an even greater issue of sovereignty, formal consultation with the people has been rejected.

I congratulate the Government on their decision to consult public opinion in Anguilla. I hope that this shining example will prove contagious and that in future it may even spread to this country.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Godber

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their reception of the Bill. Their recognition of the problems and warm support for this attempt to find a permanent solution are very encouraging. The people of Anguilla will also recognise the genuine good will expressed today and the fact that we all hope that we are now starting a better chapter for the future. The Government wish to provide every means by which they can move forward and in which they, the House and the Caribbean as a whole can have confidence. I was asked specifically by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) about the future of Associated Statehood, whether it is affected in any way by what is proposed. Associated Statehood was a new concept in 1967. It was accepted on both sides of the House at the time as an interesting development in seeking to find a way forward for colonial territories which were small but wished to move further towards independence. I think it was in the back of people's minds generally that, while it was important to find a vehicle towards independence, nevertheless there was a hope that there would be attempts, when moving to independence, to do so in groups rather than as individual small States, because of the difficulties of independence for very small islands with small populations.

I have had the privilege since returning to office of visiting all six Associated States and discussing these problems with them. One of them, Grenada, is anxious to move to independence at an early date, and there is provision under section 10 of the Act to enable it to do so. There is also provision to enable us to take steps, if we wish, in regard to any of them under Section 10(2). Associated Statehood, apart from this one problem, has on the whole worked reasonably well so far, and I think that the knowledge that there is a clear unfettered opportunity to move towards independence is helping to build up the confidence in the future which we all want to see.

I wish to make no sort of prognostication for the future because, going round the Caribbean, I have found the intense individualism which has been referred to today. I want to retain the utmost flexibility in movement towards future groupings, possibly, or the independence of individual territories. I want to be able to discuss freely with those concerned and to assist them if they genuinely want to move forward, just as we want to make clear to them that we are not pushing them into independence but are willing to help them as much as we can.

We have islands in the Caribbean in all sort of stages of development. Some are still dependent ; some are in Associated Statehood ; some are fully independent and are carrying their own responsibilities squarely on their own shoulders. We want to see that these British and ex-British States move forward in the way they themselves wish. We are only too happy to help them in any way we can and nothing in this Bill is designed to undermine the position of Associated Statehood.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was right in saying that the mistake here—and one can see these things in retrospect more easily than in prospect—was to include Anguilla in this particular Associated State from the start. There have been other cases in the Caribbean—the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands—where they had clearly indicated in advance their wish not to be included in a group which had been built up for the convenience, really, of colonial administration. None of us realised sufficiently far in advance that Anguilla would have preferred to be treated separately. I am not making any criticism of any individual Minister. It is easy to see afterwards what perhaps we should all have seen in advance. That is the basic trouble that he have had.

The advent of the 1967 Act has made it more complicated to undo what was done at the time, but there is no reason for any of the existing Associated States to feel that in what we are doing here we are creating a precedent for any other action. I have made that abundantly clear to the Associated States. I made a statement in the Caribbean to this effect. I do not think there is any other really comparable territory. Anguilla is 70 miles from St. Kitts, and there is no direct identity of interests. This is not the position with regard to any of the other islands suggested to me as possibly comparable. I hope that nothing we are doing here today will encourage people to think that we want to see further fragmentation.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich raised a question about what we are doing with regard to Section 7(2). I take the point that he was referring to foreign affairs and defence. We are actually acting under Section 3(2), which provides not for an Order in Council but for an Act of Parliament, and which is predicated on the idea of foreign affairs and defence. To that extent he is right, although I want to make it clear that, strickly speaking, we are operating under Section 3.

I repeat the point which the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) made—that we had to face this situation, as he did, of the breakdown of internal rule in regard to Anguilla, which must affect foreign affairs and defence. Therefore, we felt it right and proper in the circumstances to invoke the powers which Britain retained for herself under the 1967 Act in order to solve the matter. I would have preferred to do it by agreement, but as that was not possible I think we had every right to take this action, and I think the Bill will confirm that that is the view of both sides of the Houe.

I think we are fully entitled to do this, and also I reconcile our action with the undertaking given by the last Government and repeated by us, that we do not wish to force the Anguillans to live under an administration they do not want, because they are voluntarily accepting this return to direct control from Britain. We are not forcing them in any way. At the end of a period of time we shall ascertain their views.

I want now to go into the interesting point raised by my hon. Friends the Member for Banbury and for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)——

Mr. Foley

Before doing so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by "interim period"? What length of time has he in mind? Does he hope and wish to move Anguilla back into being part of this State during the interim period? Where does he put the weight—on Anguilla itself or on the desire ultimately, if possible, to keep territorial integrity?

Mr. Godber

I will deal with that in a moment. I would like first to answer the point raised by my hon. Friends about referenda.

We have not included the word "referenda" in the Bill. Indeed, this had nothing to do with the other subject which they talked about. It was done because we wished to retain full flexibility. There is a great difference between a country which has had over 700 years' experience of parliamentary democracy and a country which has had only very limited experience. If we in this House and in Parliament do not know how to assess public opinion by now, after 700 years, we should give up our jobs. We have ample opportunity to find out. If my hon. Friends feel insecure in the knowledge of their own constituents' views, I sympathise with them, but it is not my feeling. This has not been broached with regard to a commitment in Anguilla but it is one possibility.

The question of the interim period was also raised by the right hon. Member for Fulham. Although we have not written anything formal into the Bill, I have told the Anuillans that I would be willing to reconsider the matter after three years to see where they wish to go. I think that that would be the time at which I would wish to ascertain their views. What they wish at this moment is to be able to move forward to a condition which my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport was referring to when she said that we should give Mr. Webster more authority.

If they want to move forward, we have told them that they must have some experience of government under the Commissioner—and they would play a full part in Government—before moving forward to a state such as one or two other Colonial dependent territories in the Caribbean have reached ; namely, Ministerial status. But we recognise Mr. Webster's special position, and have said that we would give formal authority for the elected members of the Council to elect not a chairman but a leader of the Council. We thought the word "leader" comparable to the title "Leader of the House of Commons". It is a very distinguished title, and I hope Mr. Webster will think so. I hope he will find this is a very suitable title until such time as it is possible to move forward.

As to the interim period, our attitude must be governed by the attitude of the Anguillans themselves. We want to encouraged them in establishing a position in which they are taking a greater part in their own government. But at the end of this period it will be for them to decide whether they wish to move back towards the Associated State status or towards a greater degree of devolution. If they wish to move forward to a greater degree of devolution, we shall have to take formal steps to carry out that wish. It is not for us to seek to influence them in regard to the matter, but merely to assist them in whatever way they wish to move.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport referred specifically to economic aid, as did several other hon. Members. This is a very important aspect. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury spoke of the great need he found in certain islands in 1965. I agree, and I think that Governments on both sides have recognised this need. The previous Government began a great degree of development aid which we have carried forward and expanded. Incidentally, Anguilla has throughout had the considerable advantage of having Royal Engineers in the island. Both Governments here have tried to provide more funds for development, but I myself saw in some of the very small islands in the Caribbean, during my visit in the spring, urgent need for further help, particularly in regard to schooling.

I had a very moving experience in Tortola in the British Virgin Islands. I was invited to attend school assembly at a school in Tortola of some 500 children, and was given an opportunity to address them. These were new school buildings provided under aid, and these young children were learning in most excellent conditions of great advantage to them. I was delighted at the way in which they were responding to the opportunities they were accepting. I felt proud of that. But there are other islands where we need to do much more, and it will be our wish to keep on with the work.

Mention has been made of the police. The position has so far been that we have had no authority to recruit police, but once the Bill is on the Statute Book and there is an Order in Council, the Commissioner can immediately start to recruit police, and already this is very much in his mind. It will be our intention that some of the Metropolitan Police there will remain long enough to complete the effective training of local men. I have no reason to believe that we shall not be able to do this, and secure a smooth transition from Metropolitan Police to indigenous police. A certain number of Royal Engineers still remain in the island, and we shall consider carefully the time of their withdrawal. I am hopeful that it will not be long before we can bring them home. Certainly the feeling in the island is very much better, and there is a very great degree of co-operation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked specifically about the defence of Anguilla from any possible invasion. We are very well aware of this point, and I made it quite clear to the Premier of St. Kitts when I last saw him that Britain would not permit invasion, and that certainly as long as we have the responsibility, which we have clearly accepted, we shall discharge to the full that responsibility for the defence of Anguilla.

With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock), I have checked the records and find that no one questioned his personal courage and integrity. It was to other aspects that criticism was directed. I have checked the particular debate. I assure him that my feeling has never been that he lacked personal courage, and I pay every respect to it. It was an unfortunate situation in which the hon. Gentleman became involved, and we had better leave it at that.

I am grateful for the support which the Bill has received on both sides of the House. It will be an encouragement to Anguilla itself, and I am sure that the Caribbean as a whole will recognise that a special requirement has called for special action which has the support of both sides of the House, and will recognise, too, that we have no desire in any way to detract from the value of the 1967 Act with regard to Associated States, nor to damage St. Kitts and Nevis, for it is not our wish to do so. We shall continue and increase our aid to those States, and we wish them well.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time

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

Further proceeding postponed, pursuant of the Order of the House this day.