DOMINICA TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION

HC Deb 21 July 1978 vol 954 cc1080-103

2.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard)

I beg to move, That the draft Dominica Termination of Association Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. Some hon. Members present will recall the occasion, as I do, when the West Indies Act was introduced in 1967. They will remember that that Act created a totally new status for our dependent territories, that of associated State. An associated State was new in that the Government of the territory concerned acquired total independence and autonomy over all of their internal affairs, but the British Government retained responsibility for foreign affairs and defence.

That was a major and new departure in our colonial history, and one which seemed to many of us to be the appropriate one which met the needs of that time and which corresponded to the situation of very small territories which did not themselves then wish to take total independence.

Most of us recognised then that this might not be an immutable arrangement, and that with the passage of time and with changes in the attitude and aspirations of the Governments and peoples concerned, it might be necessary to look at modifications in the future. Four years ago this House considered an order similar to the one which we are discussing today, which had the effect of giving independence to one of the six associated States which were then created.

Today we are considering a similar order for another such territory, Dominica. The order will be made under section 10(2) and section 10(3) of the West Indies Act 1967. It will terminate the status of association of Dominica with the United Kingdom with effect from 3rd November 1978 and will provide that with effect from the same date Dominica shall cease to form part of Her Majesty's dominions. Dominica will then become an independent sovereign republic, to be known as the Commonwealth of Dominica. It is understood that an application will be made for membership of the Commonwealth.

The West Indies Act requires that any order made under section 10(2) must be laid in draft before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. As I said just now, Dominica will be the second of the West Indies associated States to move to complete independence by means of an Order in Council under section 10(2) of the Act.

The West Indies Act was designed to provide the smaller members of the now defunct West Indies Federation with a new type of relationship with Britain, something between that of a colony and that of a totally independent State, under which they could enjoy a complete autonomy in internal affairs. The relationship was to be entirely voluntary. For that reason, we have consistently maintained at the United Nations—I have myself used this argument at the United Nations—that the associated States are not dependent territories falling within the area of competence of the Committee of 24. It was recognised that the status of the territories could be subsequently changed at the will of the territory concerned, or Britain, or both, and section 10 of the Act was designed to set out the conditions under which those requests could be made.

In 1967 it was still our hope that every effort would be made to build some new form of regional political association in this area. For this reason, under section 10(1) of the West Indies Act, it was made easier for the associated states to move to independence in association with the other Commonwealth countries in the region than to move to independence independently. But attitudes among peoples and Governments in the area have now changed. All the Governments concerned, including the independent Commonwealth Caribbean countries and the British Government, recognise that there is no immediate prospect of the emergence in the region of the sort of political structure which could provide the framework for close regional integration.

Meanwhile, territories of similar or smaller size and resources in other parts of the world have moved to separate independence and have been admitted to the United Nations. It is, therefore, entirely understandable that some of the associated States are now beginning to be impatient to acquire that same independence for themselves.

Section 10 of the West Indies Act provides for two alternative means by which the associated States can pass to independence. Under section 10(1), the Government of the territory itself can unilaterally seek to terminate the status of association regardless of the wishes of the United Kingdom Government. In that case, it needs to secure a two-thirds majority in a referendum. Alternatively, under section 10(2) the British Government can, through an Order in Council, such as the one we are discussing, terminate the status of association. Although no conditions are laid down for the use of this latter procedure in the Act, all hon. Members will agree that the British Government would be justified in taking this action only if they felt confident that they had the consent and support of the Government and the people of the territory concerned.

That is the test that we have applied in the case of Dominica. The Governments of the Caribbean community, because they recognise the increasing desire for full independence among the associated States, have supported resolutions calling for the use of section 10(2) to grant separate independence to these territories. Our main concern, therefore, has been to ensure that what is proposed had the consent of the people as a whole.

The Government of Dominica first requested the termination of association by means of the section 10(2) procedure in 1976. Following the publication in Dominica of a Green Paper and policy statements and discussion documents by both parties, it was agreed that a constitutional conference should be convened to discuss the terms of a new constitution which might be brought into effect on the termination of association, without prejudice to the position of any of the parties on the method and timing of termination of association—a matter which we knew might be of some controversy among them.

The conference took place in May 1977 and I presided at it. That is why I am handling the debate—my hon. Friend the Minister of State was not available to preside at the conference, though he normally deals with Caribbean affairs. I have continued to take an interest in the matter since the conference.

At the conference, representatives of both parties made clear that they had no objection in principle to the termination of association. Their differences were not about the principle of independence but about the details of the proposed constitution and the method and timing. Some of these differences were resolved at the conference, but others were not. I therefore said at the end of the conference that discussions should be continued in Dominica and that if broad agreement emerged I would recommend to my colleagues that association should be terminated, but that if serious differences remained between the parties a further process of consultation might be necessary.

In order to establish the will of the people of Dominica, 3,000 copies of a paper summarising the constitutional proposals in laymen's language were circulated in Dominica last year as a basis for discussion.

As a result of discussions in the year following the conference, considerable progress was made in narrowing the differences between the Government and the Opposition, but the gap was not entirely closed. In order to bridge the gap, the Minister of State agreed with the Government of Dominica that the dependent territories adviser in the Foreign Office, Mr. Posnett, should visit Dominica to discuss the remaining issues and to form an assessment of the state of public opinion. Mr. Posnett's report was published on 5th July as Command 7279 and copies have been placed in the Library.

I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the careful and conscientious report that Mr. Posnett has produced and all the work he has done in this important matter. Hon. Members will, no doubt, have read the report and I shall not repeat all the conclusions, but I agree with his view that the question of independence has been debated in Dominica at unusual length and that there is no reason to believe that a significant number of people wish to retain the status of association with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Posnett also reported that further progress in narrowing the constitutional differences seems unlikely but that the constitution proposed by the Government of Dominica is a good one and is similar to others in newly independent countries in the area. It contains substantial safeguards and, since the termination of association was clearly implied in their manifesto at the last General Election in 1975, the democratically elected Government of Dominica are justified in their request for an order to be made under section 10(2) to take effect from 3rd November 1978.

Above all, I agree with Mr. Posnett's conclusion, which is the essential one for the House to consider, on the wish of the people of Dominica. He recorded that at the constitutional conference last year, both parties expressed their support for the principle of independence. I must stress this point. I remember well from my discussions with the leaders of both parties that neither party contested the general principle that Dominica should become an independent State, though they had other differences about the precise details of the constitution and questions of timing.

Mr. Posnett wrote: There is no doubt in my mind that in this they correctly reflected the views and aspirations of their people. I met no more than one or two people who were opposed to independence as such. Several people, especially the younger generation, seemed impatient at the slowness of the progress to independence. They felt that waiting would not help. They had to learn how to stand on their own feet without support, conscious of their own full responsibility, and the only way they could do this was by terminating the association with its implications of British protection. I do not have the same first-hand knowledge and experience that Mr. Posnett was able to obtain, but, as far as I am able to judge from what I have read and learned, I believe that that is the view of the majority of people in Dominica. There may be some who are not particularly closely concerned or very well informed about this question, but the majority of thinking people have taken for granted that independence is to come and have welcomed that fact.

Two resolutions have been passed in the House of Assembly of Dominica calling for the termination of association. More recently, on 12th July, a resolution was passed requesting and consenting to the promulgation of a new constitution for Dominica on the termination of association, along the lines agreed at the constitutional conference, but as amended in subsequent discussions. All these resolutions received the support of at least two-thirds of the democratically elected representatives of the people of Dominica. This should be carefully noted by the House. It would in itself be regarded by many people as sufficient endorsement of the desire for independence in Dominica as expressed by constitutionally elected representatives. It is for these reasons that we propose the passage of the order.

May I make one important point quite clear. We are not talking about the ending of a relationship with Dominica if we pass the order. We look forward to a still closer and more mature relationship with an independent Dominica. We shall continue to give substantial aid to the country after independence.

We shall soon be discussing the level and composition of post-independence aid with the Government of Dominica with a view to making a specific commitment at the time of independence. We certainly do not envisage any reduction in the level of our project aid or technical cooperation in the foreseeable future and we shall probably, in the light of our discussions with the Government of Dominica, maintain some budgetary aid for a time after independence.

Moreover, I am glad to say that there are signs of further progress towards regional co-operation which will be of assistance to an independent Dominica. This must be a matter of concern to us all. We are not letting Dominica loose as a small and defenceless territory in a world without friends. She will take her place in an area where important moves are taking place to bring about closer regional co-operation.

The Government of Barbados have advanced a number of proposals for common services, including a joint coastguard service in the area, a joint marketing and air-freight service, upgrading of the regional police training centre in Barbados and joint collaboration in overseas representation after independence. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been holding discussions this week with the Barbados Minister of External Affairs, who has clearly expressed his Government's view that the continuation of the status of association could be an impede- ment to the further development of their policy for closer co-operation. They are thinking in terms of co-operation mainly among independent States in the area.

The British Government will give all possible support, including the provision of aid funds where appropriate, to this most welcome initiative from Barbados, and to other promising regional initiatives. We may therefore be entering on a new era of much closer regional co-operation among Governments, that are increasingly fully independent, engaging in voluntary association with each other. The development of such regional co-operation will ease the transition to independence for Dominica.

The significance of the step to full independence is much smaller for an associated State than for a dependent territory because even under the existing status of association the responsibilities of the British Government today and for the past 10 years have been limited to external affairs and external events.

There is at present no perceived external threat and in practice our duties on their behalf have not been onerous. Delegated authority has been given to the associated States to act on their own behalf in those areas of external affairs in which they have the greatest interest. In other words, we are not proposing any major change in the existing situation. Some of the responsibilities which are at present undertaken by the British Government will now be replaced by intra-Commonwealth and intra-regional cooperation. It can truthfully be said that the termination of association will amount to very little more than the formalisation of the status quo.

What we are discussing today is not the handing over of political responsibility to the Government of Dominica because that has already been done—it took place 11 years ago in 1967, when the associated statehood was created. We are not, like Pontius Pilate, washing our hands of our obligations. As I said earlier, we shall maintain our aid programme and other close links. We are, in response to an overwhelming body of opinion in the Caribbean, abandoning an anachronistic relationship and re-engaging in a modern relationship which is mutually acceptable. We look forward to welcoming Dominica as a free and equal fellow member of the Commonwealth.

I am sure that the House will wish to join me in wishing the Government and people of Dominica well at this important moment in their history. I seek the approval of the House for the draft Order in Council terminating association with Britain.

2.22 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

I begin by assuring the Minister that the Opposition do not wish to oppose this Order in Council, although I have in the past few weeks carefully considered its provisions. As the Minister has already implied, there have been a number of anxieties on the island about the process by which they undertake this new status. I wish briefly to air the main anxieties which have been expressed, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the position.

Dominica has a distinguished history. Records tell us that Christopher Columbus claims to have discovered this island for the first time on 3rd November 1493. It changed hands several times between the French and the British in both the 17th and 18th centuries. Therefore, it can claim to have close links with two major members of the EEC. We have a long association of great friendship with Dominica. I understand that 15,000 Dominicans live in the United Kingdom, which shows that there is a considerable common bond between us.

I wish to focus my questions to the Minister on two main areas. Is there clear evidence that the people of Dominica want independence? We must consider this question against the background of the West Indies Act 1967. Where there is evidence of overwhelming support for independence, we must not stand in its way. In this case, in Dominica over the past couple of years there has been a great deal of discussion and considerable anxiety has been expressed by the leader of the Freedom Party, Miss Charles, about the constitutional arrangements as opposed to the principle of independence.

We should consider this matter against the background of certain established facts, some of which the Minister has already made clear. In the 1973 General Election in Dominica no party opposed the principle of independence. The second fact is that during the constitutional conference over which the Minister presided the principle was again accepted by the main parties to the discussion.

In 1977 two votes took place in the House of Assembly in Dominica—one in March in which the voting was 16 to 3 in favour of the proposal to terminate, and one in October 1977 in which the voting was 16 to 5. They were two separate votes. The problem is based not on the principle of independence but on the difficulty of reaching an understanding about the constitutional arrangements.

A further factor relates to what has become known as the Posnett report. I wish to join the Minister in paying tribute to a distinguished diplomat who has produced a thorough and interesting report. It is no fault of his that there are still some doubts and anxieties about the constitutional arrangements between, on the one hand, the Government side in Dominica and, on the other hand, the Freedom Party.

If there are doubts, is it not right to consider asking the Government there to call a General Election? I understand that the Posnett report considered this matter, and I believe that Miss Charles felt that this was not a sensible procedure and would only confuse the issue still further. But if there is any doubt, as there has been in the past few months, about the constitutional arrangements, would it not have been sensible to invoke section 10(1) of the Act to enable the people to have a referendum? Could the Minister say why the British Government and the Dominica Government decided together not to proceed with this method of consultation in view of the anxieties expressed?

I turn to the constitutional problems. I have had the pleasure of meeting Premier John of Dominica and some of his Ministers. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Miss Charles, although there has been considerable correspondence between Miss Charles and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. She should be congratulated on her diligence and tenacity in examining thoroughly all the constitutional aspects of the proposals.

The discussions have been lengthy and a wide number of issues have been raised, such as the type of State. I note that Miss Charles would like to have a republic. There have been discussions about the role of the Head of State, the composition of the Assembly, the Public Service Commission, the Public Appeals Board, the Electoral Commission and the methods of amending the constitution. All these issues have been thoroughly aired.

Nevertheless, having had all these discussions, it appears that there are still reservations on the part of Miss Charles on two main constitutional issues. Will the Minister clarify the position? One question concerns the powers of the President. There have been considerable modifications as a result of the representations made by Miss Charles. One idea is that the President should be appointed after consultation between the Government of Dominica and the Opposition in that country and that there should be consideration of a secret ballot of the Assembly for the election of the President. Where do the differences lie between the Dominican Government and their Opposition on this matter?

The second matter relates to the appointment of the Electoral Commission on which, it appears, there is still anxiety. Although it is proposed that there should be three members of the Electoral Commission, it is proposed that one, the chairman, should be a lawyer, and that two of its members should be appointed by the President, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Dominica. I understand that there is still a difference of opinion on this matter between the two parties. Perhaps the Minister could say how large is that difference. In general, this constitution is broadly in line with many other constitutions adopted in the Caribbean and other parts of the world when countries have proceeded to independence.

As for the future, I am sure that all hon. Members wish Dominica well. I welcome the fact that Her Majesty's Government have decided to continue with the provision of aid. I assume that Dominica will be able to acquire membership of the Lomé Convention. I welcome warmly the fact that Dominica has decided to apply for membership f the Commonwealth, and I also welcome the Minister's remarks about regional cooperation, to which I attach the greatest importance.

I, too, had the pleasure of meeting this week the very distinguished Foreign Minister of Barbados who explained that it is the objective of his Government and of many of the neighbouring Governments to develop as much functional cooperation in the area as possible. That would no doubt be welcomed, not only by Dominica but by many other States. It would be in the interests of us all, and I hope that the United Kingdom will do its best to assist in the process.

We have obviously, in the light of this Order in Council, to consider the implications of the experience of Dominica with other associated States in the Caribbean, should they wish, as some do, to proceed to independence. We must consider carefully where there is difficulty or anxiety about the method of proceeding to independence, or a difference of opinion on constitutional matters or on the principle of independence. The process of consultation as provided for in section 10(1) of the Act is something we must seriously consider in order to allay anxiety and make sure that all these countries have the opportunity of a full say.

We on the Opposition side join the Minister in wishing the people of Dominica well and in expressing the hope that when independence comes, as I understand it will on 3rd November, 485 years, if my mathematics is right, after Columbus is supposed to have discovered the island, it will come in a spirit of unity between the Government and Opposition parties. We hope that they will find it possible to reconcile their final remaining differences before that day comes, a day that we shall all welcome.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

It is only right that on an occasion such as this, those of us who in the past have had the good fortune to visit the island and be acquainted with some of the people involved in the discussions should speak and wish the island and its people well in the future.

I was one of those who went out there at the time of high hopes for the possibility of a British federation of the West Indies. That, however, was many years ago, and many things have happened since then. Those of us who went at that time attempted to put forward ideas for development and so forth and we were deeply concerned at the plight of islands like Dominica, those with genuine difficulties of terrain and climate. It rains very heavily from time to time in Dominica, but it does that here. Dominica provided the Minister for Communications in the early federation, and he had to deal with one of the challenging and difficult problems that then existed.

It is vital that there should be the closest possible relationship and economic understanding between all the territories in the area. For the islands most immediately adjacent to Dominica—the French islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique—and for the wider range of islands in the Caribbean, as well as some of the mainland territories, it is still important that some common understanding should be reached.

It is more likely to be achieved after the confirmation of full independence than it was during our earlier efforts at securing various forms of association. I am glad to hear of Dominica's intention to retain links with the Commonwealth in the way that other independent members have done.

I hope that those associated with development will succeed in tackling the challenging problems which face people living in that territory. One feels that one wants to represent the voice here today of those many hon. Members who are anxious to ensure that in the future support, aid and advice will continue to be available to Dominica from this country.

2.37 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, North)

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I have not had the pleasure of visiting the island of Dominica, but I feel that the island has had the pleasure of visiting me. Of the 80,000 inhabitants of Dominica roughly 40,000 now live in Britain and Europe, and I sometimes think that most of them reside in my constituency.

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the courtesy he has shown over the last 18 months in meeting the anxieties that have been expressed by the members of this ethnic minority who are now domiciled and settled here and who, with independence coming, face cer- tain problems. My hon. Friend has leaned over backwards for some considerable time in attempting to set their minds at rest on these problems. It is only fair that the House should realise that his time, trouble and effort have not been wasted but have been deeply appreciated.

The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) has raised most of the important queries, and I therefore need not weary the House with them. I am, however, concerned at the future operation of section 10(1) of the 1967 Act, but I am certain that these points have been considered.

Independence is not in doubt, but the ways and means by which the new Government will work and the democratic safeguards that will be provided need to be examined. Having met Miss Charles, I am impressed by her devotion to her people. Often she has put forward a minority point of view, but she has done so with great sincerity. Although she might not have won the case every time, in the last 18 months she has earned a good deal of respect both in the British Government and in Dominica.

The hon. Member for Shoreham raised the question of the practicalities of the Public Service Commission. In developing countries there is always a worry about nepotism and about the extent of democratic control when a great deal of authority can be concentrated in one family. I echo the tribute paid to the marvellous job done by Mr. Posnett. His report indicated that he appreciated this fear on the part of the minorities.

Let me quote from the letter by Miss Charles who expresses her reservations that the chairman of the PSC was the Governor's brother and his niece was executive secretary of the Tourist Board … The Governor's other brother is also deputy chairman of the PSC, his nephew is chairman of the National Bank and his niece is personnel manager of the National Bank. Such problems are for the Dominicans, not for us. Nevertheless, Mr. Posnett and others were right to give full consideration and weight to that kind of problem. My only hope is that when independence is established and the first teething troubles are over, such problems will be satisfactorily settled in the island itself, as they should be, and not from outside.

I join my colleagues in welcoming this step and looking forward to continued co-operation throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has done a good deal over the past 10 years. We have had many representatives from Dominica here in our seminars. Through contact with other Commonwealth countries and ourselves in the Palace of Westminster, they have been able to gain a considerable understanding of parliamentary techniques and democratic processes, as worked out not only in the Mother of Parliaments but in the Westminster system which so many of our independent territories have adopted. I am confident that when Dominica becomes an independent nation and part of the Commonwealth, that process will continue and that we shall continue to have these exchanges.

I hope that one personal exchange may enable me to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields so that I, too, may be able to enjoy the sunshine instead of the rather dull days of the Palace of Westminster.

We extend our best wishes to the new Government of Dominica and hope that the teething troubles are not too severe. We hope that the outcome will be a good deal of increased happiness and self-confidence for a newly emerging nation in that part of the world.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

Like the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) I echo the welcome that has been given to the order. I have not had the pleasure of visiting Dominica, but I went with a Commonwealth parliamentary delegation to a number of other Associated States in the Caribbean at the end of last year. Many of the problems and aspirations of those island States are similar. To the extent that the order will provide the Dominicans with the impetus and potential to fulfil many of their national aspirations, and the spur which only full independence can give to an island country, I very much welcome it.

I would utter a cautionary comment about section 10 of the West Indies Act 1967 and the various facilities under the Act by which independence can be granted. There is often a temptation to have the internal political difficulties of countries resolved or even manipulated by different use of the various sections and subsections of the Act. Although it was clearly in Parliament's mind at the time of passing the Act that there should be different procedures leading to independence being granted, I feel very strongly that we should not use one system as opposed to another simply to meet a partisan preference within the country concerned. We have an important responsibility to remain as far as possible objective and impartial in deciding by which procedure and method independence should be granted.

In this respect, I pay tribute to the Government for the negotiations and hard work they have put into the order. I have a little more experience and knowledge of their work and negotiations with certain other Associated States. I know that these are delicate and sensitive matters. The willingness to create the greatest possible accord amongst all the various individuals and parties in the countries concerned is a very difficult and time-consuming responsibility which is not always publicly appreciated. Therefore, on this occasion, I should very much like to thank the Minister and the Government for the work and negotiations they have put into the order, as previous Governments have on earlier orders.

I apologise to the Minister for not having been able to be present for his initial remarks, owing to a constituency engagement. If he has not already had an opportunity to do so, will he expand on the question of aid? My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) referred to the possibilities of and hopes for increased regional assistance, but there was a good deal of talk a year or more ago about the United States taking a much more direct and sizeable financial interest in the development future of the Caribbean. I believe that Mrs. Rosalynn Carter in particular took an interest in the area.

Some negotiations and discussions may have taken place between the Foreign Office and certain representatives of the United States Government about future aid for the Caribbean. This is an immensely important possibility in the vacuum of decolonisation, for want of a better word.

One vivid impression that I brought back with me from my visit to the Associated States last year was of the tremendous potential for producing their own food in many of the islands and, one must say with regret, the sad failure to match that potential. It is a tragedy that one island should be importing from another coconuts and pineapples when it could easily produce many of them itself.

Although successive British Governments have provided aid and direct technical assistance to try to encourage such industries to get off the ground, there can be no doubt that in most of the Associated States the performance in trying to meet their own food requirements by home production has been woefully inadequate. I think that nearly all the Governments and parties in those States would admit that. There are climatic and other problems which militate against a change, but it seems to me that there is great potential for the islands to provide a more stable and prosperous economy on which to secure and build their independence.

With the departure of the United Kingdom and its declining personal interest in the islands' future, it seems very important that we should encourage all prospects of the United States taking an interest in providing aid and assistance. It may well be that the United States is sorely in need of a triumph in its foreign policy. I suggest that there would be an easy one if it adopted a better approach towards the Associated States and the former Associated States in the Caribbean. Whether this is done through various banks or regional banks remains to be seen. But I should like to feel that with respect to Dominica and the remaining Associated States, the Government are making every effort to encourage the United States Government to participate closely in the development of a variety of islands which are much closer to the United States than to us.

I repeat my welcome for the order. Approving such orders is a curious parliamentary circumstance. We shall see fewer and fewer of them as time goes on. Therefore, they provide interesting occasions. I welcome the order and thank the Government for the work they have done in bringing it forward.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. Luard

The debate has shown that there is in general a very warm welcome for the independence of Dominica. At most, one or two hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), have raised certain doubts about aspects of the constitution, or questioned whether we could have handled the procedures rather differently.

First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there was clear evidence that the people of Dominica wanted independence. When the Government party contested the last election in 1975, the seeking of independence was a major plank of its platform. The party won 46 per cent. of the vote. The other party that contested the election did not fight on a policy of opposing independence. Either it did not mention it particularly or it wanted independence on its own terms.

I have said that we ourselves were very much concerned about that question, which is, of course, the key question for the House and this country as a whole in considering whether we should accede to the request to approve an order of this kind. It was for that reason that, when there were difficulties—not, I repeat, on the principle of independence but difficulties about certain constitutional questions, some of which were not finally resolved at the constitutional conference —we came to a conclusion on the best way to satisfy ourselves that the people in general at least wanted independence, and roughly on the terms that were being suggested. Mr. Posnett was accordingly sent out and he undertook this careful and detailed report, reaching the conclusion which I read out earlier. He came very definitely to the conclusion that the majority of the people did want independence and there was no major movement against it, though there might be doubts on particular points.

I come now to some of the questions raised on those points. The hon. Member for Shoreham asked why we had not used the provisions of section 10(1) of the West Indies Act under which we could have demanded a referendum, with a two-thirds majority. The first point to he made is that to have demanded that would have been in some sense discriminatory against Dominica and other Associated States. This is not a test that we have ever expected in the case of other dependent territories or colonies. If the Government of the day wish independence and if the general process of constitutional advance has reached a stage where independence is required, we introduce legislation in this country.

I explained earlier why certain alternatives were put in section 10 of the West Indies Act. Those alternatives take account of the possibility of a unilateral move by one side or the other. If the Government of a territory had themselves unilaterally wanted independence, possibly against the wish of the British Government, we could legitimately have required that Government to show through a referendum and a two-thirds majority that they had the overwhelming consent of the people.

That was not the case with Dominica. Therefore, the Dominican Government having requested independence, we had to consider that request. One of the major considerations for us was whether that request had general support within the community. Indeed, it might have been much more difficult for us. There might have been a 50–50 split among the population, or the Opposition party might have been totally opposed even to the principle of independence. But that was not the case in Dominica. None the less, we felt that we should undertake a fairly careful survey of the wishes of the people.

Mr. Posnett reached the conclusion which I read out. In those circumstances, I feel that both the Government and this House are quite justified in proceeding with this order under section 10(2) of the West Indies Act.

I should point out here that it would have been difficult to have a referendum on the specific issues which have been in dispute, which are on particular constitutional questions. Most of them have been resolved, and I think it important to emphasise this. In many cases they have been resolved because the Government of the day have made concessions and accepted the view of the Opposition. But even in the few remaining cases it would have been very difficult to put the points to a referendum.

Many of us would think it not very satisfactory to try to resolve constitu- tional questions by way of a referendum, and in any case it would certainly not have resolved the issue whether the people of Dominica wanted a monarchy or a republic. It would have been a very complicated situation if we had different answers on various constitutional points and then had to decide whether we wanted to give independence on that basis. It was more sensible to take the course which we took and try to resolve the differences between the major parties on each of these issues. To a considerable extent, we have succeeded in doing that, as I shall try to show in a moment.

The hon. Gentleman raised two particular points which, I agree, have been the two most important single issues in the discussions that we have undertaken. One concerned the method for electing or choosing the president. The hon. Gentleman mentioned both the powers and the method of election. I think it right to say that there has been little difference between the parties on the powers of the president. Both agreed that they did not want a purely constitutional president who would have no powers or effective influence and who would merely be a figurehead.

The difference was about the way in which the president should be chosen or elected. There was a difference in that the Opposition asked that the president should be elected—in the way that the President of the United States is elected. This was not welcome to the Governmen and I can entirely understand their views on this. If that had had been accepted, one would have established a situation in which the Government and Prime Minister of the day might find themselves in continual conflict with the president. A president elected by the normal election process would probably have been a political figure, with strong political views of his or her own, and this could have been a built-in recipe for confrontation and deadlock between the Government of the day and the president.

For those reasons, as I understand it, the Government were unwilling to accept that course and proposed instead that the president should be a person of stature, someone respected by both major parties, who would have a constitutional role to play, but of an entirely independent kind.

They therefore proposed a system which, I think, is by no means unfair—that the president should be agreed, if possible, by consultation between the two major parties. Most of us would agree that, if that could be arranged, that would be he ideal way in which the president should be chosen. He would be above politics and acceptable at least to the two major parties within the system.

The difficulty about that method is that one or other of the parties—perhaps the Opposition—could deliberately refuse to agree to any name that was put forward. On this issue also I should say that the Government have been very conciliatory over the past year or so in virually telling the Leader of the Opposition that she could name almost anyone she liked and they would consider whether that name was acceptable to them. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition has produced only one name so far—the name of a member of her own party.

One can see from that experience that there are many possible difficulties which can occur through a process of consultation of that kind. Therefore, the Government proposed, and it is provided in the constitution, that in that situation it would be for the Assembly itself to elect the president. One still sincerely hopes that it will elect a non-party person of stature who will win and retain the respect of both the major parties. I cannot say that the difference was entirely resolved, but I think that Miss Charles, the Leader of the Opposition, is now at least reconciled to the situation on that question.

The other point which was raised by the hon. Member for Shoreham was precisely the point about which Miss Charles was most concerned. She has reiterated her concern about this in the last few weeks, and it has been mentioned in correspondence with Members of the House and others in this country. I refer to the question of the Electoral Commission. One can understand the concern of any opposition party about the way in which the Electoral Commission is composed. It can be very important for the future of the country. I am afraid one has a situation in the Caribbean in which many opposition parties are suspicious—rightly or wrongly, and, I think, often wrongly—of the intentions of the Government of the day. Therefore, they are particularly concerned that there shall be provisions in the constitution which will absolutely satisfy them that subsequent elections will be conducted in a fully fair way and not to their disadvantage. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that the Leader of the Opposition, Miss Charles, should have wanted to be assured that the Electoral Commission would operate fairly, impartially and effectively.

Originally, both parties agreed that there should be three members of the Electoral Commission, with one to be appointed by the President. The other two, in the eyes of Miss Charles, should be appointed by each of the two opposition parties, so that she could be assured that at least one would be sympathetic to her point of view and could raise objections about alleged irregularities in the election process. Mr. John, the Premier, had wanted a system under which all these people would be expected to be impartial people rather than party representatives and they would be mutually agreed, or if necessary appointed by the President.

That was the major issue which Miss Charles has recently been raising. I am happy to be able to tell the House that that point has now been agreed to the mutual satisfaction of the parties and that once again the Prime Minister and the governing party have virtually accepted the Opposition's view. I heard only today that it has now been agreed that there will be an Electoral Commission with four members, with two appointed by each party. If the Opposition party were simply to refuse to nominate members at all as a deliberate obstructive strategy, which I hope would not happen, it would then be possible for members to be appointed by some other means, but still with the hope in the final outcome of an impartial commission which could be relied on and trusted to ensure that the election took place fairly.

Mr. Luce

I am grateful for the Minister's full answers to my questions, and I welcome the fact that further progress has been made on these two outstanding points. It is a tribute to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said, as well to the Dominican Government and Miss Charles that a major reconciliation has been achieved. I assume that the final constitution is now in draft form and that if there are further differences of opinion, there is no further scope for reconciliation—or is there a further period for discussion?

Mr. Luard

There is a draft constitution—I have a copy here—but it is still capable of amendment in small respects. That will be the case for the next two or three weeks at least. That is why this change can be incorporated in the constitution now.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has the advantage over me and most other hon. Members of actually having visited Dominica. His words, based on his experience, will be particularly welcome to its Government and people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) also has a special kind of experience because many members of the Dominican community live in his constituency. I know his long-standing interest in and concern with this question.

Mr. Pavitt

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in these negotiations efforts will be made adequately to safeguard the rights of the people who now live for most of their time in this country when the new constitution comes into being?

Mr. Luard

Yes, I can give that assurance. Their situation will depend very much on their own will. If they wish to go back, and retain their citizenship, they will enjoy all the rights of other people in Dominica. Like others in the Caribbean, they may intend to settle here more permanently. As is the case with other newly—independent territories, they will have to make a choice about their citizenship. The residents of Dominica will become citizens of the new State and cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as always happens on independence.

I thank the hon. Member for Chichester for his kind remarks about our role, though it has been much more the work of the Minister of State than of me. I was involved in the constitutional conference and I have been consulted by my hon. Friend from time to time on the basis of that experience, but he has had much more of the burden of the negotiations.

I agree that these are difficult negotiations and that we have an important role to play, for the reason that I gave just now—that there is often some mistrust between the two main political parties in territories of this kind. One cannot be surprised that the Opposition party wants to be satisfied that the country will go to independence under constitutional arrangements which will safeguard their position in future and ensure a free, fair and reasonable democratic system. They may sometimes make exaggerated demands because of that fear.

The Government party in Dominica was very conciliatory about many of the points made. I have here a whole list of matters on which the Government gave way to the views of the Opposition. It includes some of the most important questions. On the question of a monarchy or a republic, the Government thought that Dominica should be made a monarchy but gave way to the view of the Opposition that it should become a republic. Similarly, they accepted the Opposition's views about the system of elections for senators, about the way in which the referendum could be conducted on constitutional changes, with only a simple majority, and the matter I have just mentioned concerning the way in which an electoral commission should be set up.

Therefore, the Government in Dominica have been fairly conciliatory, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the British Government will often have an important role to play and will no doubt have similar negotiations with other Associated States which want to move towards independence. We must do what we can to reconcile the view of both parties and to ensure that these States move towards independence on the basis of a free and fair constitution.

Regarding the hon. Gentleman's question about aid, we are to have discussions with the Government of Dominica about the level and type of aid that will be granted after independence. Last year we spent about £1½ million, which included £660,000 on project aid, £650,000 on budgetary aid and £135,000 on technical co-operation. Dominica also benefits from British aid provided on a regional basis, especially the financial and technical support that we provide for the Windward Islands banana development programme. Dominica also benefits from other regional activities such as the Caribbean Development Bank, to which we contribute, and the European Development Fund. She will benefit from the Lomé agrement to which we expect her to accede. She receives assistance from Canada and she will no doubt apply for, and probably receive, aid from the United States when she becomes independent.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has been having discussions within the last week or so on the whole question of regional aid in the Caribbean. Most speakers in this debate have expressed the hope that there will be better regional arrangements in all matters of this kind.

I hope that I have now answered the main points that were raised in the debate. I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is gratifying that there is a general welcome in the House for this important step forward and I am sure that not only the House but people in the country in general join in wishing the best possible success and happiness to the people of Dominica in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Dominica Termination of Association Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.