Saint Christopher and Nevis

HC Deb 05 May 1983 vol 42 cc514-31 10.21 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow)

I beg to move, That the draft Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved. Although the hour is late, which explains the relatively low attendance in the House, it is right that the House should give appropriate time and attention to the detailed consideration of a matter that is important to the people of the two islands in question and to their many friends in Britain and in the Caribbean.

The order, which terminates the status of association between the United Kingdom and St. Kitts and Nevis, will be made under section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967. Any order made under that section is required to be laid in draft before Parliament and to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was kind enough to give me notice of what he believes to be a flaw in the order. He said that the matter for consideration by the House is the termination of association order, not the constitution order. The constitution order is a matter for Her Majesty in Council under section 5(4) of the West Indies Act 1967, and there is no statutory requirement for the draft constitution order to be laid before Parliament. However, in response to the hon. Gentleman's request last Tuesday, a copy of the draft constitution as approved by the legislature of St. Kitts and Nevis on 16 March this year has been placed in the Library, and I hope that it has been of value to him. However, there is no procedural obligation upon us to do so in such a case.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

I am only too aware that there is no statutory obligation to table a copy of the constitution, but it is in the best interests of the House in considering this order to have some idea of the constitution which underlies the fact that section 10(2.) of the West Indies Act 1967 has been used and not schedule 2 of that Act, which is the other route to independence.

Mr. Onslow

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I had hoped that he would have found an outline of the proposed independence constitution in the report of the constitutional conference that was presented to Parliament in January this year as Cmnd. 8796, but no doubt he will develop that point in his speech. I wished to make it clear that I have considered the matter, and I hope that it helps to dispose of his anxiety.

It is proposed that the order should come into effect on 19 September 1983. Thereupon the islands of Saint Christopher and Nevis will become a fully independent sovereign federal democratic state which should be described as the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis, or simply Saint Christopher and Nevis, or St. Kitts and Nevis for short. Her Majesty the Queen will be head of the independent state.

The Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis is the sixth and last of the Associated States in the eastern Caribbean to move to full independence, following Grenada in 1974, Dominica in 1978, St. Lucia and St. Vincent in 1979, and Antigua and Barbuda in 1981.

In view of the importance of this occasion both to us and the people of St. Kitts and Nevis, the House will expect me to comment briefly on the geography and history of these islands. They lie in the northern part of the Leeward group of the Lesser Antilles in the eastern Caribbean. They were united by the federal Act 1882, together with Anguilla, which was formally detached in 1980, and became a state in association with the United Kingdom on 27 February 1967. The two islands, which are very attractive, are separated by a channel some two miles in width. St. Kitts has an area of 65 square miles and Nevis of 36 square miles. The population of the two islands is about 45,000: St. Kitts has a population of 35,000, and Nevis a population of 10,000.

St. Kitts was discovered by Colombus on his second voyage in 1493, and was the first island in the West Indies to be colonised by the English when Sir Thomas Warner took settlers there in 1623. It became known as the "Mother Colony of the West Indies". Intermittent warfare between the English and the French during the 17th century ravaged the economy of the island. It was, however, ceded to Britain by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The last fighting on the island took place in 1782 when the French captured Brimstone Hill after a memorable siege and once more took possession. The island was finally restored to Britain by the treaty of Versailles in 1783.

Nevis, also sighted by Columbus on his second voyage, was settled by the English in 1628 and soon became one of the most prosperous of the Antilles. Although it suffered from French and Spanish attacks in the 17th and 18th centuries, it maintained a sound economic position until the middle of the 19th century. Indeed, it became a popular and fashionable resort. As readers of David Walder's book will know. Lord Nelson was married to Frances Nisbett in Nevis in 1787, when he was stationed in the West Indies. Britain therefore has a historic and prolonged connection with the islands.

The West Indies Act 1967 created the concept of associated statehood. This enabled certain small territories in the eastern Caribbean, which were not then ready to move to full independence, to be given full internal self government. The United Kingdom retained responsibility only for defence and external affairs, although certain of the latter responsibilities were also delegated to the Associated States' Governments. As I have already indicated there has been a steady movement on the part of these states, over the past nine years, towards full independence.

Under the 1967 Act there are two ways in which independence can be achieved. The first is under section 10(1) whereby a two thirds majority in the legislative council and a two thirds majority of those who vote in a referendum can give an associated state the right to opt for independence, irrespective of the views of this House. Secondly, there is the alternative under section 10(2) whereby Her Majesty may by Order in Council terminate the status of association. As is usual under this alternative, the House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis have by way of resolution requested termination and there is no reason not to accede to that request. This is the same method as has been followed in the transition to independence of the other five former Associated States.

British policy on the application of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act has been consistent under successive Governments. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are, first, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the state, and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the rights and freedoms of these people. I am satisfied that both criteria have been met in this case. A constitutional conference was held at Lancaster house in December last year under my chairmanship. The coalition Government of St. Kitts and Nevis led by Premier Dr. Simmonds and an Opposition delegation led by Mr. Moore participated. The draft before the conference had been prepared by the State Government and embodied proposals which were published in July 1982, subsequently discussed fully in the Associated State and approved by the State's House of Assembly in October. I visited the islands later in October to meet the political leaders and to familiarise myself with the issues. I was entirely satisfied that all the political parties there were agreed on the principle of independence and that this was the wish of the majority of the people.

The constitutional conference produced a report which was a thoroughly considered basis for a constitution. Regrettably the Opposition delegation felt that the proposals they put before the conference were not adequately discussed and they participated intermittently, not taking part in the signing ceremony. I am satified however that their criticisms of the manner in which the conference was conducted were unjustified.

When the St. Kitts and Nevis Government delegation were presented with reasoned, careful and constructive criticisms of their draft constitution, they showed that they were prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the Opposition's point of view. The Opposition had full opportunity to present their own proposals as well as to comment in detail on the draft constitution before the conference. The final version of the constitution which incorporated amendments made in the light of conference decisions was debated over a period of three days in the St. Christopher and Nevis House of Assembly. The constitution was then approved by a resolution of the St. Kitts and Nevis House of Assembly, a copy of which I have had placed in the Library of the House.

The proposed constitution is similar to those under which the other associated states became independent. It does, however, contain some novel features in that it contains provisions for the autonomy of Nevis within the federation, and for secession of Nevis from the federation. The provisions for Nevis to secede would require the introduction and the passage of a Bill in the Nevis Assembly supported by a two thirds majority of the elected members. This would subsequently need to be approved by a referendum in Nevis by not less than two thirds of the votes cast by persons registered on the parliamentary electoral roll there. Further provisions would ensure that adequate notification of the proposals for separation, including the proposals for its future constitution, would be given to enable proper discussion and explanation to take place. Arrangements would be made for independent and impartial observers appointed by an independent international body to observe the procedures involved in the referendum and to report publicly on the manner in which it had been carried out. The provisions for the Nevis Legislature and Administration, the financial provisions and the right of secession will be entrenched in the constitution. For this reason, we are confident that the interests of the people of Nevis have been safeguarded.

A note on the front cover of the draft constitution order refers to the provisions of section 27, 92(1)(g) and 92(1)(h) as being the subject of continuing discussion between the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis and Her Majesty's Government. I am happy to say that the points at issue have since been resolved.

Section 27, which concerns the qualifications necessary for election as a Representative or appointment as a Senator, is slightly unusual in that it restricts eligibility to those persons who were born, or one of whose parents were born, in the islands. I am satisfied, however, that the provision has been inserted in response to public representations. In the case of a small state, I can see no objection to a provision to the effect that those who represent the people should be of the people.

The two subsections refer to citizenship of the new state, which will be the first of our remaining territories to become independent after the entry into force of the British Nationality Act 1981 on 1 January 1983.

It has been agreed that any person who was born in St. Kitts and Nevis and is a British Dependent Territories citizen immediately before independence will become a St. Kitts and Nevis citizen automatically on independence. So too will certain other British dependent territories citizens, including those who are such by virtue of a parental or grandparental connection with St. Kitts and Nevis. Provision is also made for certain persons to become citizens, who were born or otherwise had a connection with Anguilla before 19 December 1980, the date of separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts and Nevis, and who have been resident in St. Kitts and Nevis. Further provision is made for persons to become citizens after independence by virtue of birth or registration.

Those who were formerly citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of a connection with St. Kitts and Nevis became British dependent territories citizens under the 1981 Act. they will become citizens of Saint Christopher and Nevis on independence day, when they will lose their British dependent territories citizenship unless they qualify for retention of that citizenship by virtue of a connection with a remaining dependency. I emphasise that no one will lose British citizenship as a result of the independence of St. Kitts and Nevis, dual citizenship will be permitted.

As it is the wish of the majority of the people of St. Kitts and Nevis for independence, it is incumbent upon us to respond now to that wish. With full independence, the state of St. Kitts and Nevis can further develop its cooperation with neighbouring states, especially within the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, in the activities of which an independent St. Kitts and Nevis can play a full part. That will be an important contribution to the stability of the region.

Aid to St. Kitts and Nevis will continue after independence and we shall be discussing a suitable aid package with the St. Kitts and Nevis Government once the order is approved. We hope and expect that aid flows to St. Kitts and Nevis from other sources will increase as a result of independence.

Finally, I am happy to inform the House that the St. Kitts and Nevis Government have announced their intention to apply for membership of the Commonwealth. We look forward to continuing our links with them within the Commonwealth.

I know that the good wishes of the House will go to the Government and people of St. Kitts and Nevis as they approach their independence, an important stage in their history.

I now seek the House's approval of the draft Order in Council terminating the status of association with Britain from 19 September 1983.

10.37 pm

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

There should have been an opportunity this evening for some harmony and congratulation. It could, and would, have been a rare opportunity for both sides of the House to agree on wishing well independence status for yet another of the far-flung colonies for which we still have responsibility. No one would have been happier than Ito have come to the House to commend the order giving final independence to St. Kitts and Nevis. No party would have been more satisfied with another act of decolonisation than the Labour party. But that is not to be. The responsibility for the profoundly unsatisfactory position lies squarely at the door of the British Government.

This is a two-line order., debated with only a handful of hon. Members present. The outside world must assume that the issue is non-controversial. However, as the Minister rightly said, the matter is important and of major consequence to the 45,000 people of St. Kitts and Nevis —and they, if no one else, will be viewing this debate tonight with more than ordinary interest, and so they should.

As I have already made clear to the Minister, the House has had only 48 hours to consider the constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis. That is the precise time during which the constitution document has been available in the Library—and that only because of a parliamentary question I tabled last week. I do not wish to labour the matter. The Minister has been good enough to answer my point, of which I gave him prior notice.

The Library assures me, and the reading of previous debates under the West Indies Acts shows that it is a matter of form, that the documents associated with such orders are tabled in the Library so that hon. Members, quite rightly, should have the basic information on which to make up their minds on what are, in themselves, simple and elementary orders.

Moreover, we debate this order tonight with no information about the views on the constitution of the House of Assembly of St. Kitts and Nevis. The Minister told me again on Tuesday, in answer to a parliamentary question, that there is no record of debates in the St. Kitts and Nevis Parliament. Thai was all the information he offered, other than to tell us in his speech this evening that a copy of the resolution has been tabled in the Library. It is bad enough for us to be denied an early sight of the constitutional document itself, but to have to rely on a column and a half in the magazine "Caribbean Insight" for the only information about the islanders' views on this constitution is no way to give serious consideration to an associated state being made an independent country within the Commonwealth.

This House does itself no good when it considers such important issues with meagre and insufficient information, as we do today. At the very least, we should have a supplementary White Paper — supplementary to the White Paper on the constitutional conference—outlining the ascertained views of the people of the country affected and their representatives, following the results of the constitutional conference at Lancaster House. That is the very least, but it is far the ideal.

However, such inconsideration and discourtesy are not the most important charge against the Government. My main charge—it is a serious one—is this. There has been a clearly defined policy on establishing the desire to terminate association, when particular provisions of the West Indies Act 1967 are involved. When section 10(2) of that Act is involved the criteria are as the Minister outlined this evening and as outlined in this Parliament by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) in the debate on the termination of association with Antigua on 8 July. The hon. Gentleman said, and it is worth repeating what he said, because his words go slightly beyond what the Minister said this evening: The British Government's policy on the application of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act is the same as that followed by the previous Government. Provided that two particular criteria are met, we are prepared to move the necessary order. These criteria are, firstly, that it is demonstrated to our satisfaction that independence is the wish of the majority of the people in the State, and, secondly, that the independence constitution properly protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of those people". In that debate in 1981 the hon. Gentleman went on to say a number of things that the House would do well toconsider this evening. He said, about Antigua: Although the Antigua Labour Party Government first indicated to the British Government in 1978 that they wished to move forward to independence, they had not, in the previous general election in 1976, been elected with a mandate for independence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, the Minister of State, visited Antigua in August 1979 and reminded the Antiguan Government that if they had changed their minds about independence they must demonstrate to us that this was what the people wanted. They must also set about drafting an independence constitution. The hon. Gentleman went on to say: The more fundamental issue of determining the people's wishes for the State's future was settled by the general election which took place in April 1980. The paragraph later makes it clear that The manifestos put out by the ALP, the PLM and the unsuccessful Antigua Caribbean Liberation Movement all included a commitment to independence."—[Official Report, 8 July 1981; Vol. 8, c. 515.] Thus, in 1980 the present Government were clear enough about what was needed to demonstrate that the section 10(2) route to independence was to be followed. Sadly, however, the contrast to that clear and thorough approach to establishing public opinion—the one which has been adopted for St. Kitts and Nevis—could not be more marked. The treatment of St. Kitts and Nevis shows all the signs of the British Government hastily attempting to abdicate their responsibilities and wash their hands of the people there.

Mr. Onslow

Nonsense.

Mr. Robertson

As the Minister confirmed, there are two routes to terminating association under the 1967 Act. One is via the procedures of schedule 2, which provides for a number of decisions by the legislatures concerned, supplemented by a referendum. The other route is termination by Order in Council, which has no such safeguard and where a judgment has to be made, initially by the Minister and the Government, and then by Parliament, along the traditional lines outlined by the hon. Member for Shoreham in 1980.

The responsibility to establish the opinion of the people must therefore be all the heavier in the short-cut route than in the more open, clear-cut route of the referendum, and I have no doubt that the Minister, from what he said, would agree with that analysis. That is why the Government were so strict with the Antiguans, and rightly so.

But where is the evidence in the St. Kitts and Nevis situation of the wish of the majority of the people? Look at the facts. Elections last took place in St. Kitts and Nevis in 1980 and were themselves precipitated to establish a mandate for independence. In those elections the Labour party lost power but still got 5..05 per cent. of the total vote in St. Kitts and Nevis. The People's Action Movement, standing only in St. Kitts, got 33.9 per cent. of the vote and the NRP, standing in Nevis alone, got only 16.02 per cent. of the total St. Kitts and Nevis vote but polled 85 per cent. of the vote in Nevis.

The coalition, which therefore won the election against the Labour party, which was testing the electorate specifically on independence, was made up, first, of the PAM, which was at best lukewarm to independence and certainly made it a secondary objective of its programme, and, secondly, of the NRP, which openly campaigned in Nevis for a secessionist mandate for that island. Since the Labour party, with a majority supporting it at that last election—which was all of three years ago—is against the present constitution, where is the Minister's new test of opinion? How can he be so confident as to make the assertion tonight that he is satisfied that the majority of the people are in favour of this constitution?

Mr. Onslow

I asserted clearly that the majority of the people are in favour of independence, too.

Mr. Robertson

The Minister of course said that the majority of the people are in favour of independence, but what the constitutional conference was concerned with was getting a constitution for that independence. What is required under the traditional procedures of section 10(2) of the Act is a satisfactory belief that the people are in favour of the independence that is on offer. If there are serious doubts on that score, it is up to the Minister to satisfy this Parliament that those doubts have been allayed and that a majority of the people are in favour of the independence that is being legislated for.

Page 2 of the White Paper states: The British Government, having considered the steps taken by the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis prior to the Resolution in the House of Assembly on 6 October, decided that the necessary conditions had been satisfied to justify the calling of a Conference". On page 14 of the White Paper the Premier of St. Christopher and Nevis, The Honourable Dr. Kennedy A. Simmonds, asserts: On October 20 and 21 the Honourable Minister of State visited St. Kitts and Nevis and saw at first hand the general acclaim for independence by all parties. I am told that the Minister's visit was surrounded by the presentation of a petition objecting to the Government's White Paper with at least 10,000 signatures out of an island population of 45,000 and, on 18 September, one demonstration against the Government's proposals for independence was attended by more than 9,000 people —a sizeable proportion of the population. That is just before the Minister arrived in the island to see this general acclaim for independence. What did the Minister see that so persuaded him, when he tells us nothing of the clear evidence that shows this body of support?

On page 19 of the White Paper Mr. Lee Moore, the Leader of the Opposition and former Premier, outlines those people and organisations on the islands who have objected to the proposed constitution. It is a formidable and influential list. Can the Minister tell us whether the people on that list are now satisfied with the terms of the new constitution? How did he test their opinion? Is he satisfied that the residual resentment that clearly existed then has now been allayed with the prospect of independence on 19 September?

In the past the British Government have insisted on a clear sign of a desire for independence by the majority. How will that he assessed in the absence of a recent enough general election or referendum? The Minister has not made that clear. It seems that on the surface no clear evidence, apart from the legislative assembly's majority, has been produced to show the will of the people on this issue in St. Kitts and Nevis.

The largest party polling the largest number of single votes is opposed to it. The second partner in the coalition is open about its secessionist mandate and ambitions. On page 24 of the White Paper the leader of the Nevis party, the Honourable Simeon Daniel states: We of my Party, the NRP, were elected on a mandate for secession. He continues and states that the people of St. Kitts would prefer us not to go, but they will not oppose our wishes if and when we take steps to carry out our mandate. The constitutional proposals before us reflect this wise and statemanlike view. Mr. Daniel concludes: Our Government has, however, conceded that Nevis may secede, if this is what it eventually decides to do. Can the Minister assure us that this is a sound and secure basis for the independence of a nation? Why have not we been offered any explanation for this apparent break with previously recognised criteria for adopting the Order-in-Council method of terminating the status of association?

It is not as though there are no residual complaints in the island. The Opposition's objections did not stop at the constitutional conference at Lancaster house. In the latest edition of "Caribbean Insight", which is our only source of material for what went on in the debate.

Mr. Lee Moore is quoted as saying that That document"— In other words, the constitution document— was 'ill-conceived, unworkable and unfair'". Mr. Moore warned that it might well lead to 'strife' between the two states of the union. In particular, he was insistent that Nevis should have been given an even greater say in its own affairs and not relegated to 'inferior' status. As the Minister has made clear, the status of Nevis in the constitution seems to provide for the in-built instability of the small nation. Mr. Lee Moore has said that there is no commitment to permanence. The words of the leader of the secessionist party in Nevis which I have quoted seem to underline the truth of that statement only too well. There seems to be no commitment to the unitary nature of the State with which the Minister made great play in his letter of 12 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). The Minister said: The present constitutional proposals offer, in my view, a unique opportunity to bring St. Kitts-Nevis to independence as a unitary state. I am sure you will agree that in the interests of stability in the Caribbean as a whole we ought not to lose this chance to do what we can to prevent further fragmentation in the region. I should like to hear from the Minister what sort of guarantees he believes that he possesses that such fragmentation will not occur, when the constitution contains a formula for the secession of Nevis on a smaller vote in that island than the secessionist party got in the last election that it contested.

This should have been an opportunity for welcoming the prospect of a new nation's arrival in the world and the Commonwealth on 19 September. We wish the nation well and hope sincerely that our country can help it through these troubled economic times. But if my speech has seemed somewhat negative, that is not because of a desire to nitpick or to be sanctimonious but because we believe that the Government have seriously let down this House and the people of St. Kitts and Nevis by not ensuring a more stable and more popularly based constitution to justify the order.

The Opposition will not vote against the order, because we have no right to defy the decision of the elected Parliament of St. Kitts and Nevis. But we have the right to point out that a wholly unnecessary burden has been placed on that country at its birth—a country to which, however, we pledge our sincere and lasting friendship.

10.58 pm

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stevenage)

I welcome the order, but with mixed feelings. I share some of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), but, in answer to some of the arguments that he has advanced, I would say that St. Kitts and Nevis would never have been brought to independence as a unitary state without the provisions in the constitution which now guarantee Nevis the possibility of secession in the future. The implications of the secession of Nevis—a small island with a population of only 10,000—are very important in many respects, not only in the Caribbean but in the international forum.

The history of associated statehood in the Caribbean is not, in my view, a happy one. The British Government, when they first entered into associated statehood, should have taken a much greater responsibility for the economic and social development of the islands concerned. Unlike the New Zealand associated statehood of some of the Pacific islands, the British Government did not take their responsibilities seriously enough. There is a general feeling in the islands that Britain was attempting to abandon them as quickly as it could, and that in 1974—illegitimately and irresponsibly, in my view—it took the opportunity of section 10(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 to give independence to Grenada.

Grenada is an important example in relation to this order. No referendum was held there. Few people there understood the implications of independence, and few realised that within a few years they would be living under an extreme Left-wing revolutionary Government dominated by Cuba and increasingly dependent on the eastern bloc of Europe and some of the more Left-wing Governments of the Mediterranean and the middle east. That is the future that the 1974 order gave to the people of Grenada. Only last year, I visited that now most unhappy island with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and was shocked at the appalling way in which the economy and the freedom of the people had degenerated.

I believe that Britain has a special responsibility to the islands with which we have been associated for so long. My hon. Friend the Minister of State made glowing references to the history of these islands. It is not just that the famous Admiral Nelson found a rather unhappy partner in Mrs. Nisbet of Nevis and was associated gloriously with the history of the Caribbean. The islands made a major contribution to the economy of this country, and especially to the wealth of many of our leading families. If one asks where the money came from to build many of the country homes of this country, one finds that an astonishing number of them depended on the tiny island communities of the Caribbean. That is just one more reason why we have a special responsibility to those islands.

In my view, the way in which independence was brought about in Grenada was irresponsible and even illegitimate. A Minister of State cannot just visit the islands for a couple of days and then tell the House of Commons that he sensed a general understanding and agreement for independence. There has been no referendum. Because there has been no referendum, the issues have not been properly discussed with the people of the islands and they do not understand the implications. I maintain that view strongly. We were wrong to proceed under section 10(2) in relation to Grenada and we are wrong again now.

I refer briefly to the status of Nevis with its 10,000 population and to the speculations as to whether it will remain with St. Kitts. I should have thought that Anguilla would have been a shining beacon to encourage Nevis eventually to adopt the same procedure. Anguilla remains a dependant of this country. It has benefited enormously as a result of secession. Never before have its people received so much assistance and they could never have developed their economy in the way that they have now achieved.

I believe that the examples of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos islands and the Cayman islands—none of them very far from St. Kitts-Nevis and all with very similar histories — will suggest to Nevis a means to achieve a more secure future. I am therefore very doubtful whether St. Kitts-Nevis will remain a unitary state.

I should refer, too, to the development of internal democracy in a federation with population much smaller than that of most parliamentary constituencies in this country. I do not think that any of us could guarantee the future of democracy in the hands of such a small group. It might be the ideal Greek state, but I doubt whether freedoms and democracies can be guaranteed in such a small state. Surely the history of Grenada and that of Dominica has demonstrated that.

How do we guarantee the freedom of elections in such a small state? It is something that cannot be guaranteed in Guyana, where it has been usurped and undermined. The system of elections has been taken over by the state and used by the Government of that state to ensure that they remain continuously in power. That is why—the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) might reflect upon this—when a Government in the West Indies are in power they are in favour of independence, and when they form the Opposition they are not. That is the history of the negotiations that are outlined in the White Paper.

In Dominica, the Prime Minister, Mrs. Eugenia Charles, insisted upon the independence of the electoral machinery. That insistence was maintained in the face of bitter opposition from the legal experts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was that, and the loyalty and independence of the civil servant appointed as electoral commissioner by the governor-general, that enabled Dominica to hold an election that ousted what was becoming a tyrannical regime of the left. It was tyrannical and utterly corrupt. The immediately previous Prime Minister has spent some time in gaol, and in my view he should remain there for a long time.

Has the Minister made adequate provision for the independence of the electoral machinery in the independence constitution? I note what is set out in paragraph 13(g) in the White Paper. I ask my hon. Friend to tell me how the supervisor of elections will be guaranteed independence of the Government in power and of the Opposition. How are we to ensure that the boundaries of the constituencies are not gerrymandered in such a small state unless there is a guarantee of independence? What is the future of a supervisor of elections in St. Kitts and Nevis who displeases the party that is eventually elected to form a Government? Would he be able to remain as a civil servant? Would he be able to continue to earn his living on the island or would he have to flee to another island, or even to this country, to continue his life? That is something that a civil servant has to take into consideration on the islands.

One of the factors that instigated the British Government to adopt their present policy on associated states was the fear that we would have at some time to defend the territorial integrity of St. Kitts and Nevis, and even Anguilla, against an attack. The House may believe that that sounds far fetched, but let us remember that Cuba is not far away from the islands and that there are many gun-running vessels in the Caribbean that are creating mayhem on the high seas between the Cuba and Florida coasts and throughout the Bahamas. These islands could become, as some of them were in the past, nests for pirates, gun-runners and runners of cocaine and other drugs.

I believe that the islands will need defence and will need our assistance to maintain their independence and security arrangements, whether they are independent or whether they remain as they are. Who will undertake that security? Will we send a task force to St. Kitts, or will we let the people stew in their own juice? The arrangements for the security of the islands leave a great deal to be desired and leave them open to invasion by any acquisitive group of people; it need not necessarily be another sovereign state but simply a group of people. We must lead a serious discussion into how security can be provided. I know that the independent islands of Barbados, and indeed, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica are equally concerned, although they have a much larger population.

I have touched briefly on the economic situation. When we consider that these islands earn most of their money from the production and export of sugar and to some extent from tourism, we are talking about two industries which are vulnerable to international market conditions and also to the depredations of the sugar beet farmers of this country and the European Community. Over the future economy of the islands hangs a large question mark. I should like the Minister to tell us, if he will, what kind of a golden handshake he will give to the islands. Aid agencies which were not there before will go in, but I do not believe that there is proper provision for considered economic development and diversification out of sugar. The price for sugar on the world market is below £100 per tonne. I do not know what the cost of production is on St. Kitts, but I know that a producer with one of the lowest costs in the Caribbean produces sugar at £250 per tonne. That is slightly above the special import price into the EC. From those figures one can see that the major industry of St. Kitts and Nevis may not be viable for the future. That argument applies to the other islands which were previously sugar dependent such as Jamaica, Barbados in particular, Trinidad and Guyana.

In regard to judicial matters, I am glad that the islands are retaining possible appeals to the Queen in Council. Can the Minister spell out how the court of appeal in the island will be conducted and how we will maintain the independence of the judiciary which has been shared by all six islands? Are we confident that it has sufficient resources and independence to maintain an independent position?

There is another omission from the White Paper to which I should like to refer. The hon. Member for Hamilton may have found this in his examination of the constitution which unfortunately I was not able to examine. In my view, the provision whereby in Britain we cannot sue the Crown is not applicable in the islands, particularly if they adopt a Socialist form of economy. This means that nobody can sue a state-run corporation, let alone the Government. This is a grave omission which will not add to internal security or democratic procedures. It has been resisted in the past by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was brought up in the 1974 independence constitutional talks under Lord Balniel and was rejected. It is a major omission. I hope that it has not happened in this case and that common sense has prevailed.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Britain has been under serious pressure from the United Nations and other bodies to bring these nations to independence. But the settlement was made with the United Nations special committee on decolonisation that associated statehood was acceptable to them as a method of granting independence of a particular kind in a particular circumstances. However, now that we are abandoning that position, all those states will be independent members of the United Nations. At least we can expect that St. Kitts and Nevis will follow the example of the other associated states. That means that in the international forum they have as great a vote at the United Nations General Assembly as the United States or the United Kingdom. Is that a particularly just and fair method of conducting international affairs? Can St. Kitts and Nevis sustain the necessary resources to back up their representatives in the United Nations? What are we doing? Should we not have pursued a settlement in the United Nations that would have made it possible for the associated states to be able to present their case forcefully and properly, and backed by resources, to the United Nations rather than leaving them in the vulnerable position that they are now in, in which they have to seek for partners to get anything at all that they need from the United Nations and its agencies. That is a grave omission.

I come now to my more positive remarks. This is the last of the six associated states to be given so-called independence. It will open up the path for constitutional arrangements between the six and the larger islands in the British Caribbean — Barbados, Trindad, Jamaica and Guyana. For that reason, if the British Government support the Caribbean Community not just with money but with expertise and technical assistance, with the objective of developing the economy, of helping the evolution of democracy in their internal affairs, and of assisting social development, that is, education and health on the islands, we might, in combination with partners such as the United States, Canada and possibly other Commonwealth partners such as Australia, begin to be able to provide a future for the people of those islands, which contains an element of hope, and which will enable them to see a future of security, in which they can earn their living adequately for themselves and their families.

Without that move and a determined effort by the British Government to pursue those ends, we are condemning those islands to tyranny, economic poverty and dependence on any other rogue nation or individual who wishes to undermine and usurp the independence and the dignity of the people on those islands.

I call on Britain and the Minister of State to make a commitment to those islands, to assist in a determined and enthusiastic way, and to develop, in partnership with other Caribbean countries, through Caricom and the Caribbean Development Bank, an economic system that can at least rival that of the metropolitan islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique, which they can visit easily, so that the EC plays its part in the development of those islands and we do not throw them on the dust heap of history and let them moulder away with no future and with social injustice, and prey to every evil influence within and without the islands.

I hope that the Minister of State will confirm our determination to assist our allies and friends of long standing. I have personally enjoyed their hospitality, kindness, generosity, sincerity and ability. I wish them well in their independence. I hope that it will be prosperous, bright, democratic and free. However, Britain and the Commonwealth still have a major part to play in their future.

11.19 pm

Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)

I have listened, as, I am sure, have all hon. Members, with considerable interest and respect to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells). He is clearly versed in the affairs of the Caribbean and the two tiny islands with which we are dealing today in a way which goes far beyond my knowledge of that area and the problems to which he has referred. I therefore await with equal interest what the Minister will say.

Although I appreciate and, to some extent, share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about individual freedoms, democratic operations and the workings of territories that are gaining their independence, the same considerations must have applied ever since Britain granted independence to much larger counties. We witness today how some of the major nations in Africa cannot pretend to the type of democracy that the hon. Gentleman, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish them to have. We often regret that deeply when we observe the internal affairs of countries that have gained their independence.

Today, however, it is impossible and it would be quite inappropriate for Britain to deny independence to any people, the great majority of whom desire it. I am therefore impressed by what the Minister said about the clear wish of the majority of people in these two tiny islands to achieve independence. I work from that premise. We have a duty and a responsibulity to confer on those people what they wish—independence—in spite of all the dangers that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

In spite of what the hon. Members for Hertford and Stevenage and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, I prefer to treat this as a felicitous occasion rather than one for cavilling or for the introduction of sour notes. I would like to extend the good wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the people of St. Kitts and Nevis and wish the federation that will come into being later this year well.

We are discussing tiny populations in tiny islands and must recognise the difficulties that had to be overcome to reach this stage of the order. The problems that remain must still be resolved. We are aware that there has been a great deal of political acrimony but we all hope that, with formal independence, political divisions will concentrate less on abstruse constitutional rights and more on the best way in which to improve the economy of the islands and achieve rising living standards for the inhabitants. We should congratulate the island Government on their plans for investment in new industries, and on their attempts to diversify industry, especially on Nevis. Tourism is a major growth industry, and I wonder when and whether I shall be able to visit those beautiful islands before too long.

Although formal ties with Britain will cease later this year, I hope that new associations will be formed. After about 270 years of British sovereignty, with all the links that that entails, I have no doubt that the friendship that many of us feel for the islands will be perpetuated in many other directions. I welcome the order, and express our continuing friendship for the last of our Caribbean associated states on the achievement of full independence.

11.26 pm

Mr. Onslow

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) for the fact that he is the only hon. Member, apart from myself, who has given unqualified support to the order. His support may be qualified to the extent that it appears that he is looking forward to an early Caribbean cruise, but I should not make too much of that for fear of upsetting his electors. I am grateful for the tone of his remarks, and I shall respond to as many points as I can, although some of them were detailed. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells) will forgive me if I do not go into enormous detail in answer to some of their points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage made a rather mixed-up speech, partly because of his acute personal feelings, which came through strongly in many of his remarks. His speech was none the worse for that, but he seemed to have both an optimistic and a pessimistic view. Occasionally it appeared to me that he was rather sorry that we were debating this order tonight, and that he did not wish St. Kitts and Nevis to become independent, although he did not develop an alternative solution. However, the House recognised the sincerity of his worries.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government do not see this order as casting St. Kitts and Nevis adrift, any more than the independence formalities of the previous associated states were intended to cast them adrift. We know what happened in Grenada, but it was not an inevitable consequence of independence. There may be important lessons to be learnt, but they do not include the lesson that we should not grant independence to states of that size. Even smaller states have achieved independence and have survived.

I accept my hon. Friend's anxiety about security, which is perceived especially clearly in the eastern Caribbean. There has been a series of discussions about security between the Caribbean Commonwealth countries and other countries that are concerned with the area, which is beginning to put together a more effective system of mutual protection. However, it will take some time to fulfil their objective. They are certainly coming together in their own defence in a way in which they have never come together in their politics, and some encouragement can be derived from that.

I am clear in my mind that this is a process that Britain should support and try to move forward at the pace that the local independent states accept. We cannot force it, but we can and do support it. Indeed, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is particularly interested in this issue and I have talked at length to him about it, as I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage has done.

I know of no constitution that can guarantee freedom of elections. Attempts in this House to gerrymander constituency boundaries are not unheard of. We have only our own vigilance, strength and participation—

Mr. George Robertson

That is a very serious allegation.

Mr. Onslow

I am sorry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not been a Member of Parliament for as long as I have, but I recall such a case.

There can be no doubt about the fact that cast-iron guarantees of freedom cannot be provided. However, in so far as they can be provided, those in this constitution go a good way towards doing that. The guarantee of electoral freedom is provided by the provision of a supervisor of elections and an electoral commission comprised of both Government and Opposition representatives. I hope that that will prove more effective than was the case in Dominica. It is a lesson learnt, and, I hope, profited from.

The judiciary will remain independent, under the provisions of the constitution, notably chapter 9. The appellate court will remain the eastern Caribbean supreme court, as at present, and I hope that that will give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage comfort. In some ways I wish that he had made his points .at the constitutional conference. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I should have invited him, but he has been talking about constitution making, and the time for that has now passed. The hon. Member for Hamilton snorts, but apparently he has not yet understood that we are discussing not the constitution but the termination of association and whether to proceed with independence.

The Government of St. Kitts and Nevis have asked us to embark on that process on the basis of a constitution that they have drawn up and which they see as suited to their needs. We cannot dictate it or tamper with it. They are the arbiters of their needs and that is why the constitution is theirs, not ours. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that we should have debated it line by line and that we should have changed it if we did not like it. That is not the function of this House. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has understood the process.

Mr. George Robertson

In 1980, why did the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) tell the Antiguans to go to the people in a general election if the Government were so unconcerned about the need for a mandate? They were concerned that a mandate was required, but the Minister did not seek that sort of mandate in St. Kitts and Nevis.

Mr. Onslow

The hon. Gentleman is very astute and percipient. Such a procedure was not thought appropriate in the case of St. Kitts and Nevis—as distinct from that of Antigua—for reasons I shall now explain to him. I hope that he can follow my explanation. The difficulty is that, although the Antigua Labour party first told the British Government in 1978 that it wanted to move towards independence, it had not been elected in 1976 with a mandate for independence. Indeed, in opposition, it had campaigned against independence without a referendum. Thus it is hardly strange that it should have been told that, as it had come to power on one platform and now wished to stand on another, it might be as well to test it by the appropriate means of a referendum.—[Interruption.] I do not know whether it is like the Labour party. However, I have explained the difference. The party in power in Antigua did not have a mandate to embark on that course. The difference is marked and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had more access to the type of information that might have helped him. We have not tried to hide the facts or the progress that we have made. The issue has been in the public domain since October last year and before. The fact that independence was being embarked upon has been widely known.

Even that issue was not the point of departure. The question of independence is not new. The first moves to organise a constitutional conference were made in 1979 under a Labour party Government led by someone whose powerful advocacy I recognise in the hon. Gentleman's speech.

When informal talks were held, the Nevis issue was discovered. Representatives insisted on a referendum before independence. I take the point. That was the stumbling block. But it was overridden. It was agreed that the move should be to independence as early as possible in 1980. That proposal came to grief when the ruling party lost the election and went into Opposition. That election was not called because of any dispute among the parties about the desirability of independence. The Government of Dr. Kennedy Simmonds and his party were cautious about independence. Perhaps the Minister has seen the latest manifesto which is worth examining for a moment. It states: The position of the PAM on this vital matter is that independence is not merely a catchword nor the means for a few people to secure more power. It is a serious, vital and meaningful development committed to the people which can be undertaken only with the firm knowledge and informed consent of the people. People must be aware that when the celebration and merriment has died down, serious financial and constitutional responsibilities lie ahead. The report states what it will do if given power: The PAM will prepare and publish for the study of the public a document setting out, amongst other things, the financial implications of independence, the projected cost of foreign representation, the cost of other services essential to independence, additional sources of revenue to meet the financial burden of independence, and areas of increased taxation which the public must inevitably suffer". Proposals are made for constitutional reform, especially in human rights, the improvement of the administration of justice, the preservation of democracy, the protection of rights and the freedom of the people.

It also says that the PAM will come to grips with serious domestic problems to ensure that independence means a better quality of life for our people. The report adds that community meetings to study and discuss the issue should be held throughout the country to involve people in the process and to make them understanding partners. The problems must he solved before any precipitous and consequently disastrous move to independence. It says that the PAM does not intend to entertain the question of independence until the preceding conditions are satisfied.

That clearly means that when such conditions are satisfied the PAM will move to entertain the question of independence. When the leaders of St. Kitts and Nevis came over for the constitutional conference they took the time to talk to their many countrymen living and working here in the midlands and Birmingham in particular, about what was proposed. There was full and fair consultation with all the political parties, which agreed that independence was desirable. The debate was simply about how that would be achieved and what agreement they could reach among themselves to form a constitution that would be the foundation for independence. This is the constitution that they have succeeded in forming, in debating and passing in their assembly thus enabling us to go forward as we wish to do. There is no other way. There was no alternative but for us to say, as we have said, that this satisfies our criteria. We believe that it has been put forward in good faith, and that it has been formulated thoroughly and carefully, not recklessly. We are therefore bound to discharge our duty in the matter, which is to go forward with the processes we are considering tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage said that my visit to St. Kitts and Nevis could scarcely turn me into an independence expert, but by the same token I can say to him that people demonstrating on one side or the other outside my car at the airport—they were noisy and friendly demonstrations—proves nothing except that there were noisy and friendly demonstrations and someone organised them. How many people came to which demonstration and how they are weighed in the balance is not a matter for me to test. All I was clear about was that there were a great many people there, they were interested in the subject and there were no demonstrations against independence.

The people of St. Kitts and Nevis have a marvellous 18th century quality in one respect. They are great pamphleteers and polemicists. I think the spirit of Wilkes lives on somewhere in the Caribbean, they write verse, they print, they have a lively political environment. But that lively political environment, in the months that we have been discussing their independence in the public domain, has not produced any serious and sustained public opposition to the course of independence upon which they have invited us to launch them. Indeed, it is possible to say that opposition to independence has declined rather than increased as time has passed The latest petition to reach me from the islands, which sets out in grand terms a number of strong objections by someone who has been a prominent opponent of the provisions of independence and the constitution, bears the grand total of two signatures. Against the background of the minimal representations that have come to hon. Members—the attendance for our debate this evening does not suggest the storm of indignation that the hon. Member for Hamilton was trying to whip up in his opening remarks—I think that we are rightly embarked on a course of which I hope the House will approve.

The key to independence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage pointed out, is the right to secede. That is admitted. It is unusual and could lead to further fragmentation. Plenty of forces in the Caribbean could lead to further fragmentation and it must be conceded that this is one of them, but it is also the key to unity. It has been the placing of the right to secede in Nevis' hands that has made it possible for the unitary state to go forward. That was the stumbling block removed.

I hope—I am sure that the leaders of the coalition hope—that this will not be needed but it is there and it is a powerful force for unity in the St. Kitts and Nevis federation. It certainly represents the decision of the majority of the elected members of the assembly, duly discussing and debating the matter in their country and in their own time.

We cannot complain if they come to a decision with which some of us disagree. I believe that they have come to the right decision. I hope that the House will agree. I hope that the House will share their faith in their future and approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Saint Christopher and Nevis Termination of Association Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.