ST. VINCENT (TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION) (Hansard, 5 July 1979)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)

I beg to move, That the draft Saint Vincent Termination of Association Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved. I apologise to the House for only now making my maiden speech in this Parliament. Indeed, the House may be glad that I have not troubled it until now. I think that this is the longest time that I have been in a Parliament without making a speech. However, it gives me enormous pleasure that it should be on the occasion of the island of St. Vincent seeking to gain independence that I first address the House.

The island has a long history of association with this country. It was given by Charles I to the Earl of Carlisle in 1627. He lost it, or something happened to it, and for many years there was a dispute between British and French forces as to who owned it. Finally, it was restored to Britain in 1783. It became an associated State under the West Indies Act 1967 on 27 October 1969. It now seeks to become independent exactly 10 years later on 27 October 1979. It will be the fourth of the associated States under the West Indies Act to seek independence.

There were two ways in which this could have been done. The first was under section 10(1) of the Act whereby a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council and a two-thirds majority of those who vote in the referendum can give an associated State the right to opt for independence, irrespective of the views of this House. Secondly, there is an alternative under section 10(2). We in this House, by approving an Order in Council, can grant independence to an associated State. This is the method that has been used on every occasion. Since we have been requested by the Premier and the Governor of St. Vincent to lay this order, there is no dispute, and we are simply acceding to that request.

The House may wish me to speak on whether it is right to grant independence at this time. We believe that there is no doubt in this case. There are two criteria 1694 by which we judge the question of independence. The first is whether the majority of people want it and the second is whether there is a reasonable constitution which has been agreed as far as possible, and upon which the new State will start its independent existence.

On the first count, in the general election in St. Vincent in 1974, 69 per cent. of the people voted for the present Government, and that Government stood on a mandate of seeking independence. I believe that St. Vincent would have been given independence earlier had it not been for the eruption of the Soufriere volcano which caused considerable consternation, distress and economic damage. Naturally, the request for independence was postponed until the effect of that had been cleared up. I am happy to tell the House that the volcano appears to have been dormant since May and the latest reports indicate that there is no sign of a likely return to activity. In these circumstances the Premier believes that it is right to return those who were evacuated to their homes and to proceed with his plans for independence.

On the question of whether there is a reasonable constitution, there has been some difficulty here. There was a constitutional conference, but some members of the Opposition are not entirely happy with their representation there. Therefore, I feel that there is a special duty upon me to ensure that the constitution is reasonable in the light of those representations. I went to St. Vincent and discussed this matter with Mr. and Mrs. Joshua and Mr. Mitchell who are the three members in opposition at present. I succeeded in persuading the Premier to accept three amendments to the constitution which they put forward and which seemed to me to be minor improvements. On the other hand, I am not sure that it is right, in establishing a constitution, to build into it so much that it is binding upon future legislators. Therefore, I did not feel able to suggest to the Premier that he should adopt all the points put forward by the Opposition leaders.

When St. Vincent becomes independent, it is possible for the new Government to change their own constitution by a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council. Therefore, I believe that it is 1695 right to grant independence at this time on the two criteria which are normally applied.

Some fear that the granting of independence will in some way reduce the help and assistance which we give to these West Indian islands whose economic circumstances are not as strong and as happy as we would wish them to be. But in the case of St. Vincent, I can commend to the House the fact that the arrangements which have been made are as generous as can be, considering our economic problems and our need to cut our aid programme.

Independent aid of £10 million, half in grant and half in loan, will be available to the island over a period of years for development projects. The value of technical co-operation which we have offered to the island over a two-year period is £370,000. The special provisions which we have made to repair the damage and to meet the cost of the volcanic eruption are £100,000 for food and drugs during the emergency, and the provision of a couple of ambulances and a further grant of £250,000 to help to get the crops back to a condition where they can again bear fruit.

I do not believe that—either at present or elsewhere in the future—we have used independence in any way to retard the economic development of St. Vincent. Indeed, the reverse could be said to be the case.

Some people feel that to grant independence to these islands would somehow mean pushing them out into an unfriendly world where the protection which has been given by their being one of Her Majesty's dependencies is stripped away. Independence means what it says. Once a State is independent, it is its responsibility to look to its own security and defence. I hope that these problems can be dealt with and that the fears of some Caribbean States on the subject of security can be dealt with by a greater association among the States. I welcome the setting up of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, which I hope will develop not only militarily and in a security sense but economically. The more that such States co-operate, the more will be the strength of their position in a security as well as in an economic sense.

1696 We have reached the point where making more of the West Indies independent will aid the process of association. It is difficult to imagine a sensible association where some of the States are dependent and some are independent. The more we can speed up the process, the more I believe we contribute to the necessary association of the islands for their own good. We are being asked by the Caribbean States to help with regional security. We will certainly with our friends examine their suggestions and see in what way we can best help.

This is another act of decolonisation which confirms the total untruth of allegations that this country wishes to hold people in domination. Only the other day the Cuban Foreign Minister said: There remain many peoples subject to colonial domination, the Virgin Islands the Caymans, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, St. Christopher, Nevis, Anguilla. In these territories the colonial powers maintain powerful military bases which are frequently used for manoeuvres which put at risk not only the lives of the inhabitants and the conservation of their natural resources but also the peace and security of the region. Apart from the fact that St. Lucia was made independent by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) during his time in Government—and I support him in that action, so that that territory should not be on the list—here before us is a demonstration that we are keen to grant independence to St. Vincent as well. I have been there and I saw no military base of any sort. The fear of the St. Vincentians is that there are inadequate military bases on St. Vincent. I therefore hope that the Cuban Foreign Minister will stop making such remarks.

We hope, in this country, that we have been able to make the transformation from Empire to viable democratic, happy States. We cannot guarantee their economic success, but I hope that the whole House will join me in wishing St. Vincent both prosperity and success, and a very long democratic future.

§ Mr. Edward Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil)

It is a pleasure to offer my congratulations to the Minister of State on his maiden speech in this Parliament. He and I have known each other well in personal and parliamentary terms. We have been pairs for more than a decade 1697 in the House. I must confess that I have never seen him as a parliamentary virgin and the coy way in which he introduced himself tonight does not accord with his traditional role. I am sure that we will see him in his usual robust role on future occasions.

This is the third section 10(2) order under the West Indies Act 1967 that the House has debated, considered and, I hope, approved, within the last couple of years. I had the pleasure of moving two orders. It is now a pleasure to listen to the eloquence of the hon. Gentleman in the moving of the third. If approved, it will launch yet another small mini-State into a rather inhospitable world. As on other occasions, the Government and this House are responding to the request from the democratically elected Government of St. Vincent to go to independence. In no way are we imposing a policy on the people of St. Vincent or the Government of St. Vincent, or trying to force them into independence.

I was pleased to hear the way in which the Minister of State referred to the Cuban Foreign Minister, who is a bit of a nut-case anyway. I have always shared the robust views expressed in this House about the attitudes of some of the cranks who have spoken in these terms. I recall vividly a marvellous visit by the Committee of 24 of the United Nations to Montserrat and other dependent territories of ours. With the Chief Minister sitting on the other side of the table, a sub-committee of the Committee described how they had come to save the territory from the yoke of colonialism and release it from the grip of British imperial power. I understand that the conversation continued for 20 or 30 minutes before the Chief Minister said "Let's pause here. We have the British exactly where we want them. Please don't interfere with the amicable arrangement of dependency that we have."

In many Caribbean territories, the relationship is anything but one that can be described as imperial or colonial. I do not wish to be complacent. I am sure, however, that we are legitimately responding, and have wished to respond, to requests and suggestions of those territories that remain broadly as dependent territories. It was a privilege in my time at the Foreign and Commonwealth 1698 Office to be the Minister responsible for our relationship with those territories. Inevitably, the House and the Government have to be satisfied that this request represents the wishes of the majority of the people of St. Vincent. As with previous orders, this aspect has inevitably posed the question of how this can be done and whether to use a provision in the West Indies Act—the simplest of all tests of opinion—for a referendum. Like the Minister, I would argue against using that rather simplistic, crude method of assessing opinion.

We are proceeding in the way specifically requested by the democratically elected Government of St. Vincent. It would be a grave step to reject that request. I took the view, and I think that the hon. Gentleman takes the view, that it would do more harm than good to propose an alternative view contrary to that of the Government representing the majority of the people, and in a small community to force the use of a divisive process for assessing opinion. It is far better to try, as the hon. Gentleman and I have done, to develop a consensus around the constitution, around the political processes which lead to independence. At the same time, although we have only marginal responsibility, we should ensure that the electoral processes and the electoral system are the best possible to allow the people of the State to make a free and fair choice of Government, not before but after independence.

Oppositions in all the associated States with which I have had dealings have understandably and inevitably opposed the sort of process that is proposed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can confirm this. However, it is only rarely that Oppositions oppose the principle of independence. It is always the timing that they oppose.

Understandably, too, the fear of Oppositions in small societies such as those which we are discussing is that the Government in power will attain independence and subsequently trample on Opposition rights and thwart free and fair elections. However, in the Caribbean, perhaps unlike some other parts of the world, Oppositions can draw comfort from political experience.

Despite the traumatic events of Grenada, the principle of change through 1699 the ballot box has been upheld in Jamaica, Barbados and—as recently as Monday of this wek—St. Lucia. Under a constitution drafted here, St. Lucia obtained its independence through an order passed only months ago, in the last Parliament, and on Monday the process of change from one Government to another was achieved by the free and fair processes of the ballot box.

It is no part of the duty of this House to involve itself in the internal affairs of St. Vincent or any other of the associated States. As I have said, it would be a grave step to refuse to accede to the legitimate request of a democratically elected Government, seeking independence through a normal legislative process laid down by previous Parliaments.

Given the criteria mentioned by the Minister—that we can satisfy ourselves that what is sought is the general wish, and that the constitution under which the State will go to independence upholds the tradition of democracy and personal civil rights—I do not think that we should stand in its way. I wholeheartedly support the order.

I think that the patient process to achieve the maximum possible consensus around the constitution has been carried out. I regret that individual Opposition leaders failed, at the last minute, to attend the constitutional conference last autumn. I think that they were wrong, and I have argued that strongly with them since. Both the hon. Gentlemen and I have had chances since the conference to discuss at considerable length with Mr. Joshua and Mr. Sonny Mitchell the various constitutional aspects of points that they should have made at the conference. I am glad to hear that the Minister, with his charm, has persuaded Premier Cato to accept a number of amendments put forward by the Opposition—not all, but at least some. I am pleased that the process took place in that spirit.

My only criticism of the Minister of State is that we cannot take the order out of context and he alluded only briefly to the situation into which we are to launch a new mini-State in the Caribbean. The Minister should have referred more substantively to the current situation in that area.

There have been serious developments since our previous debate on an independence 1700 order. The Minister mentioned the traumatic events in Grenada. That is a small society and we passed its independence order in February 1974. It has been the setting for the first coup in an Anglophone Caribbean country. "Coup" is a much abused word, but in this case we can define it as people coming to power through non-constitutional means.

That coup was followed by political turmoil in Dominica and both events were accompanied by rumours and press headlines alleging adventurist and mercenary activities in the area which have caused a shiver of worry and concern through the eastern Caribbean since they raise the possibility of an external threat to one or more of the smaller States.

Many of the rumours about mercenary activity have been press talk, but there are reasons for genuine concern and fear in the Caribbean. Developments have added force to the arguments of those who claim that mini-States will always create vulnerable political and economic situations.

It is, therefore, all the more important that the British Government should make clear their policy on the eastern Caribbean and the mini-States in the area. I was closely identified with the previous Government's policy and there was nothing in the Minister's remarks to lead me to believe that it is not a common policy. Granting independence to associated States is not a Pontius Pilate policy in which we wash our hands and walk away.

The policy of disengagement from anachronistic constitutional arrangements, which sums up associate Statehood, to independence should be pursued so that the United Kingdom can immediately re-engage in a modern relationship of co-operation and partnership with the small territories of the eastern Caribbean.

A refreshing and enlightened development in the Caribbean is the inspired thinking of some eastern Caribbean leaders, such as Tom Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados, and Henry Forde his distinguished Foreign Minister. Premiers and politicians of the associated States have been trying to work out the consequential developments that should occur as a result of the growth of mini-States.

1701 The majority of associated State premiers would not have chosen the path of individual independence. Many to whom I have spoken had hoped that a confederation would have developed, but there was not the dynamic to achieve it. That was no one's fault—it was probably an inevitable consequence of the breakup of the West Indies federation.

A number of premiers have reluctantly accepted that individual independences would continue and we have had alongside that process some interesting and valuable planning and thinking about regional planning and co-operation. The Minister of State rightly said that we have to complete this progress to allow regional re-groupings to occur.

There have been interesting discussions aimed at converting the Council of Ministers into an organisation of eastern Caribbean States with joint responsibility for overseas representation which would help to co-ordinate foreign policy and to ensure the sovereignty, integrity and independence of the State by a collective arrangement. This is important.

Important discussions have taken place this week on forms of regional security and co-operation on security. Strong and detailed proposals have been made for a regional coastguard service centred on Barbados. That service would have a multi-purpose role—for example, fishing protection and drugs control. It would also be a possible deterrent to the bizarre scheme of mercenary freebooters and adventurers which could threaten the territorial integrity of such small States.

There has been a willingness to improve the police services of individual States within the eastern Caribbean region.

We talk of a thin blue line in the United Kingdom. Anyone who has seen the blue line in this area will realise that it barely exists. Not only would local police forces be incapable of resisting small, well armed invasion forces from outside but they would find it difficult to cope with an average demonstration within the territory. That cannot be good for the establishment of a social democratic society. The normal certainties of law and order are essential. We should approve the order in that context.

I feel passionately that the Government should give a clear commitment to provide 1702 full political and financial support—it will be a question of money in the end—to these regional developments. Such support is needed for the regional coastguard service, helping to establish the overseas representation system, the regional commission and the police. The coastguard service is of particular importance because of its multi-purpose role.

It has been said that the cost could be £8 million. I hope that the two Ministers will persuade the Treasury to allocate the money that the region deserves. It will be a contribution to security, peace and political stability.

That sounds a little imperialistic, coming from this side of the House. Sometimes I wonder which side I am on. But social democracy has worked—or can work—in this area. That is why what happened in Grenada was such a traumatic experience and caused such a shiver to run through the area. There is a Caribbean tradition of social democracy. Government Members have often preached about social democracy. We can help to do something about that in this area. There is a will that we should do so.

It would be sad if, for what in global terms are peanuts, the Minister of State or others, in their zeal to cut public expenditure, did not do the job properly and, for the sake of a ha'p'orth of tar, spoilt what could be a very useful arrangement of co-operation and assistance.

I and my right hon. and hon. Friends wish St. Vincent well. Apart from its beauty it has not been well endowed with natural resources. One of its natural geographical features, alas, is the Soufriere volcano which has wrought its evil work in the last few weeks. I was glad to hear of the decent and generous aid programme that has been proposed. I hope that the Minister will add to that in the way that I have suggested in regional terms. I hope that if and when the House approves the order, it will not just forget this mini-State but that those on both sides who have interests, connections and personal friendships with the people in the Caribbean will maintain their interest and commitment to what will be a new Commonwealth State.