HL Deb 17 July 1967 vol 285 cc168-90

10.7 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the situation in St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and the imprisonment of British subjects there. The noble Earl said: My Lords, although it is very late for your Lordships, I make no excuse whatever for begging leave to ask this Question. Ever since your Lordships debated the West Indies Bill at the end of January this year there has been considerable concern, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, about the situation in these islands. The main worry then was about the local Councils, when at that time two responsible members of the People's Action Movement came to London to express their doubts about Mr. Bradshaw's intention to set them up in accordance with the Constitutional Conference Report.

My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who hopes to be with us this evening, raised these matters here in the middle of February, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replied then that he understood that the Government of St. Kitts had every intention of implementing the provisions mentioned, and the Conference Report, and he thought that the necessary legislation had already been drafted.

On February 23—I am sorry to give all these dates, but it is essential for what I am to say and for my conclusions—Mrs. Judith Hart, the Joint Minister of State in another place, said, in reply to a letter from my right honourable friend, Mr. Wood, that subsidiary legislation providing for election procedures and other matters will be enacted within the next two months and preparations for the elections will be made so that they can be held not later than July. My Lords, July is well and truly here. Are the elections going to be held before the end of this month? Since that statement much has happened. On February 27 Mr. Bottomley attended the Independence celebrations, after which, on the following day, he flew to Anguilla. It was then reported, on March 1, that he was taunted by 6,000 demonstrators when he went to the island, and, despite his subsequent assurance in another place on March 16 that the troubles in Anguilla were exaggerated, there were reports of further disturbances.

Then, on March 21, in replying to a Question by my right honourable friend Mr. Wood, in another place, the Minister again played down the whole thing saying he was not aware of any difficulties; and on April 28 Mrs. Hart, the Joint Minister, again confirmed in a letter that elections could be held not later than July. However, when Mr. Bradshaw, representing the Labour Party, came to London at the beginning of May, it then became clear that he had no intention of holding any elections in July. Subsequent questions and correspondence have brought no satisfactory assurance; and on May 21, after growing tension in Anguilla, the police force of some 27 men were expelled from the island, which declared itself to be independent.

Then on June 2 Mrs. Hart ended her Answer in another place, to yet another Question from my right honourable friend, by saying that there is complete uncertainty about the whole thing". And on June 10, after an alleged armed attack on the headquarters of the police and defence forces in St. Kitts, Mr. Bradshaw first arrested Mr. Michael Powell and Dr. Herbert, then other Opposition leaders, as well as Mr. Milne Gaskell and Miss Diana Prior Palmer. There is no doubt that the Government of St. Kitts is behaving in an arbitrary and dictatorial way. It seems to be flouting the Constitution and indeed the Bill of Human Rights, and at least two United Kingdom subjects, if not more, have been disgracefully treated.

Mr. Bradshaw has now introduced emergency regulations, under one of the clauses of which, Section 3-D—I would ask your Lordships to note this clause—he can dispose of the dead without a coroner's report, which is surely in direct contravention of the requirements of the United Nations' Charter of Human Rights. Mr. Milne Gaskell is, I understand, still in prison without having been charged. But what has happened to Mr. Michael Powell, who appears to have disappeared? As your Lordships may know, Miss Prior Palmer has now succeeded in returning to this country, after being abominably treated and summarily expelled without any satisfactory explanation. In addition to those I have mentioned, there are at present 22 known British subjects—that is to say, citizens of the United Kingdom or the Commonwealth—who are being detained at the present time. My Lords, what is happening to them? Under what regulations are they being detained?

On May 11 Mr. Thomas, the other Joint Minister in another place, stated the Government's position about the arrest of British subjects; he stated the position when he referred to the case of the arrest of United Kingdom subjects in Zambia. He said: It is wrong in international law to detain citizens of another country except for the purpose of instituting criminal proceedings or deporting them". In the case of Mr. Milne Gaskell, he is still in detention. And, so far as I know, no criminal proceedings have been instituted against him, and he has not been deported. Is this in accordance with the Constitution? I ask the noble Lord that.

I should also like to say a word about the Declaration of Emergency and the relevant paragraphs of the Constitution which was granted by an Order in Council made on February 22. May I ask the Government whether they are satisfied that the Constitution has been adhered to, both in the form of the declaration of Emergency and in regard to the protection of persons detained under the Emergency Laws? Paragraph 17 (2)(b) of the Constitution states that within 21 days after the Declaration it must be approved by a Resolution of the House of Assembly, supported by the votes of two-thirds of all the members of the House. Can the noble Lord tell me whether this has taken place? As regards Mr. Milne Gaskell, paragraph 15 (1)(c) of the Constitution states that within a month of his detention the case in question must be reviewed by an independent and impartial tribunal. The month has now passed Has this case been heard by an impartial and independent tribunal? If not, why not?

I should also like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, why the British Government took no action to see that the arrangements for elections for local councils (which were included in the granting of Independence) were not put in hand between May, 1966, the date of the Constitutional Conference, and January, 1967, when Mr. Johnson was sent out to the territory by the Commonwealth Office. Did not the British Government completely misjudge the likely course of events and constantly play down the difficulties? Mr. Thomas's remarks on March 21, that, I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen since the inauguration of Statehood. were inexcusably complacent and irresponsible. The Government clearly misjudged the situation. Have they now taken steps to make certain that they have up-to-date information about what is now going on? Time and again Mrs. Hart, the Joint Minister in another place, has replied that she was not sure what the actual position was in the territory.

My Lords, associated status may well be the model on which it is intended that other remaining colonial territories may move to a form of independence, but the experience of St. Kitts is not a happy one. Associated status must not represent a method of sliding out of responsibilities by the British Government, with no concern as to what will happen to the population after this status is granted. The Government should clearly not have granted this status until they were certain that the territories had a viable, responsible and truly democratic government. So far in this case associated status has been a passport not to the tranquillity and economic prosperity which we all desire, but to near anarchy.

The grant-in-aid for St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla for 1967–68 appeared at £272,000 in the Civil Estimates. Surely there must be a case for reconsidering this grant, if only because St. Kitts is no longer in control of Anguilla. As your Lordships will have seen in the Press a day or two ago, Anguilla has now voted in favour of breaking away from St. Kitts, and therefore the proportion which was to go to Anguilla in my view should not be given to St. Kitts.

There is one other question which I should like to ask the noble Lord. I believe that a mission from four West Indian territories has gone to St. Kitts, and indeed to Anguilla, with a view to bringing the two sides together. Can we be told what the result of this mission has been? I hope the noble Lord will be able to provide us with a realistic appraisal of the situation at present existing in these West Indian islands. It is about time we had one. So much unrest seems still to exist there, and it would appear that the lives of British subjects are still in danger.

The real tragedy is that the course of events has been predictable and avoidable. It was predictable that the people of Anguilla would react violently if they were not assured of their local Councils before associated status was granted. Dr. Herbert and Mr. Adams, the Member for Anguilla, told the Government about the depth of feeling in the island when they came to London in early February, six months ago. In any case, the Government should have found out about the aspirations and fears of the people of Anguilla before plunging these territories into associated status. It is not good enough to say that Mr. Adams signed the Constitutional Conference Report. Of course he did, because it was stated in the document that there would be local Councils. There was no reference in the Report on the Constitutional Conference to any great delay in the setting up of these Councils, nor to the proposal that they would be nominated in the interim period before elections.

The Government should have made certain that Councils were set up before associated status was granted. The present crisis would in all probability have been avoided if they had taken this elementary precaution. With their heads in the sand the Government have (if they will permit me to mix my metaphors) waited, like Mr. Micawber, for something to turn up. Now they show surprise when the sea rolls in. They may try to take refuge in skeltering back quickly to land, uttering the classic apologia of failure, "It is not our fault". It was their legal and still is their moral responsibility to do something; and responsibility cannot be cast aside like a paper handkerchief. I see from looking at the map that the highest mountain in these islands is called Mount Misery. I only hope that the islands themselves will not come to be known as the islands of misery.

10.22 p.m.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Earl in the rather extravagant language that he used, because this is, in my view, a serious matter, although a relatively small number of people are involved. I agree with him that, whether it is an associated status territory or whether it is an independent territory or whether it is our own country, any interference with the freedom of the individual contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights is something we all of us, on both sides of the House, would have to condemn. But it seems to me the facts are not altogether clear, although I would accept the reference that the noble Earl made with regard to Mr. Gaskell and other individuals who, according to his information, have been deprived of their liberty, and indeed one or more are still in restraint. But I do not think it is a bit of good gibing at the grant of associated status. The pressure of almost the whole world is on almost any country with Colonies to end colonialism. I happened to be at the United Nations last year when the New Zealand Government were putting through associated status for Cooke Island, and I can assure the noble Earl that that has been a great success.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I was not gibing at associated status: I am in favour of it. But we must grant associated status when the time is ripe.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, the noble Earl will be able to read his statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Someone has to decide when the time is ripe to grant associated status. In my opinion—and it is hypothetical now—if there had been a Conservative Government in office at the present time they would have, I hope, at least followed this policy of granting associated status to these three small islands, which are nonviable in themselves. They cannot form part of any Caribbean Federation, and it seems to me that the only solution is to give them this associated status.

That does not mean that I approve of everything that has been going on in St. Kitts. I am personally acquainted with Mr. Bradshaw. I met him in connection with my work in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He is a colourful character; but that does not mean that we have to condemn him root and branch. If he reads the report of the noble Earl's speech, I think it will probably have a bad effect upon him; and this is not the time that anything should be said which is going to cause him to be more difficult than perhaps he has been in the last few months.

I hope that my noble friend who replies to this discussion will urge upon Mr. Bradshaw to seek to restore world confidence. Apparently, according to what the noble Earl has just said, things have been done in St. Kitts of which no one here to-night would approve. If Mr. Bradshaw would see his way, for example, to expedite the date upon which local government is to be granted to the 8,000 people who live in the island of Anguilla, I think that in itself would do much to restore world confidence in the present régime that is in control in St. Kitts.

But having said that, I hope that we shall be careful not to put Mr. Bradshaw and his colleagues too much in the dock. After all, we have all recognised the limitations. We cannot have it both ways. We can have a colonial system. We can grant full independence, as we have done to many other territories in the world since 1945. But the basis of associated status, as approved by the United Nations General Assembly in the case of Cook Island, was that there should be a limit to any interference in the internal affairs of the island or the territory which was given associated status.

I should like my noble friend to confirm me in this. As I understand, the United Nations General Assembly has not yet approved associated status for these three small islands, and some of the things that may be said, even in this Chamber, may be quoted by those who opposed the grant of associated status to New Zealand. They had a difficult fight to put it through the General Assembly. We may find some of the things that are said here quoted in opposition to the policy of our own Government in seeking the approval of the United Nations General Assembly to the grant of associated status to these small islands.

I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to reassure the noble Earl—I think he is entitled to be reassured—on the question of interference with personal liberty. But at the same time, I hope that he will be able to put forward a case which will smooth or soothe some of the feelings that are likely to be aroused by too many strictures against the authorities in St. Kitts.

10.28 p.m.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Party I should like to associate myself, broadly speaking, with what the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, has said, and indeed in some respects to reinforce what he has said, in the light of certain information which I have recently received.

What are the facts? Since this ex-Colony achieved associated status, as it is called, a few months ago, the Head of the Government of St. Kitts (with which, as we all know is associated the island of Nevis, and until recently the island of Anguilla), a gentleman by the name of Mr. Bradshaw, who, as it seems, is well known to Lord Rowley, has undoubtedly not been behaving in a democratic way. There is no doubt about it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, himself admitted it. He has been suppressing the Opposition he has been casting some of them into gaol and, on the face of it, he has been clearly violating the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. There is no doubt about that. It seems obvious that he is not going to hold elections by the end of July, as Mrs. Hart assured us all he would some time ago. Even if they were held, what are the prospects at the moment of such elections being fairly conducted?

Unless I am wrongly informed, Mr. Bradshaw, though a member of the local Labour Party, now goes about in the uniform of a colonel and sporting a tommy-gun. West Indians are a very civilised and democratic race, and are not accustomed to such behaviour, any more than we should be if Mr. Wilson suddenly turned up in the House of Commons in the uniform of a field-marshal with a couple of pistols. We should think that a bad thing. I have no doubt that the West Indians think it is a bad thing, too. Clearly, this sort of thing should be stopped, or it may spread throughout the whole of the West Indies. Already there are rumours that rather similar phenomena are being produced in Antigua, and perhaps the noble Lord would confirm whether or not this is so.

How can such tendencies be stopped or checked? Obviously, they cannot be stopped by the despatch of a British gunboat. Those days are over. The newly associated States are now completely independent. But so far as I can see there is no reason why, if their leaders carry on in the way Mr. Bradshaw has been carrying on, we should ourselves continue to be associated with these associated States. I think it would be deplorable if we were so associated. I suggest that unless those in gaol can be shown to have been arrested in accordance with the Constitution, or are given the benefit of a fair trial with proper legal aid, we should discontinue the subsidy we now pay to the Government of St. Kitts. And if that has no effect, then we should simply revoke the articles of association, or whatever they are called. Why should we not?

Finally, if the dictatorship continues, then, so far as St. Kitts is concerned, we should free ourselves from the necessity of buying its sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreements. Why should we buy it if they behave in this way? If we did take such action, it might be an object lesson in the results of abandoning democracy and moving towards totalitarianism. I say this in no way to criticise the associated States. I think these are a good thing, and I think that they will flourish. It is an excellent concept in accordance with United Nations' principles. I am not therefore attacking associated States as such. However, it is no good toadying to any dictator, and I trust that the Government will resist any temptation to do so.

10.34 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would like me to intervene at this stage in the discussion.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I would say to the noble Earl, in the friendliest way, that had he intervened afterwards I should not have risen to my feet a second time.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am sad that it has been necessary for my noble friend Lord Bessborough again to draw attention this evening to the slide we are witnessing in these three Caribbean islands. I am, however, very glad that he has done so. I am sad in that, given the assurances which we were given by the Government when the West Indies Bill was before us a bare five months ago, we were entitled to think that these islands in the Windward and the Leeward chain were advancing to a happy future in their new-found, post-colonial, associated status. That, I am sure, is so for the great majority of them. It is emphatically not so, at least for the present, so far as St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla are concerned; and the sorry tale which my noble friend has unfolded makes this only too plain. But I am glad that he has chosen to unfold it.

Just because these islands are no longer Colonies, we cannot wash our hands of them. When things go wrong—and in this case they seem to have gone very wrong indeed—we cannot just walk by on the other side of the Caribbean street with our eyes averted. True, they have a population of only some 60,000 people—about the population of Scarborough—and they are a long way away. But we have had a long and close association with them and with their people. These people are British subjects; the islands share associated status with us; we are still responsible for their foreign relations and for their defence, and we still extend to them, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn has said, substantial economic aid. I am glad, therefore, that my noble friend has drawn our attention to their present plight; and I am glad, also, for a rather personal reason.

When the West Indies Bill was before us five months or so ago, a small delegation from the main Opposition Party came over here, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows well. It was led by Dr. Herbert, the leader of the Opposition, and by Mr. Adams, the Opposition Leader for Anguilla. They were accompanied by Mr. James Milne-Gaskell, about whom we have heard this evening. They came to tell us of their forebodings about the course which events were likely to take after Statehood, and I reflected their disquiet in some small measure during our discussions on that Bill.

The Government, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, reassured your Lordships—and your Lordships were reassured. Yet what do we find now, a bare five months later? We find the situation described by my noble friend. We find Herbert and Milne-Gaskell in gaol; we find a sort of Graham Greene atmosphere starting to pervade these islands. I am speaking in this short discussion since I feel a degree of personal involvement. In their talks with me, Herbert, Milne-Gaskell and Adams showed a very high degree of responsibility. They were undoubtedly worried about the future, and they did not hide their worry. They feared that the new Constitution—above all, the local councils in Nevis and Anguilla—would not be properly activated. And who is to say that in this view they were necessarily wrong? But at no moment did they step outside the proprieties usually observed by Opposition Parties when they are abroad. I feel it only right that I should say this—and I say it with all sincerity—because they are now languishing in gaol.

My Lords, I have no desire to make any Party points out of this matter, but my noble friend has unfolded a very sorry tale—a new Constitution in jeopardy when the ink on it is hardly dry; a further fragmentation of the already fragmented British West Indies; the Opposition hamstrung and imprisoned in some large degree; assaults upon the liberties of United Kingdom citizens; Milne-Gaskell still neither charged nor deported; the Constitution apparently flouted in his case—I say "apparently", as one cannot prove these matters. And here in the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government are, it would appear, impotent in this matter; certainly ill-informed, at least in the past, and certainly at least in the past, I think, unduly complacent. They rejected the suggestion which we advanced, that in view of the disquieting factors placed before us, and placed before them, they should consider postponing Statehood until they were entirely satisfied that the new Constitution would be properly operated, both in the spirit and in the letter; and they did not, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough has pointed out, take the elementary precaution of seeing that proper provision had been made to establish the local councils before Statehood was granted.

I await with interest the noble Lord's replies to the pertinent questions which have been put to him by my noble friend, and I wish to add only one of my own. We have all seen reports that the St. Kitts Government has been importing arms and material possibly with a view to bringing Anguilla forcibly to heel. Has the noble Lord any information about this, and can he tell us how in this context Her Majesty's Government interpret their responsibilities for defence and foreign relations? I know that this is a difficult issue, that there is a delicate balance here between the full internal sovereignty which these islands undoubtedly command and our responsibilities for external protection. But I should be grateful to know how the noble Lord interprets what is undoubtedly, as I say, this delicate balance here.

My Lords, there is more at stake in these small, sparsely populated, remote islands than may at first meet the eye. It is not only the reputation of the three islands that can be tarnished. In some degree, the reputation of the West Indies may be tarnished, but these islands are also a proving ground for the new experiment in decolonialisation, the new formula of associated Statehood. It is one which could very well be applied, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, has pointed out, elsewhere, and, indeed, already has been applied in other small and barely viable communities. I should like to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Bessborough has already said: that we are in no way opposed to this concept. What we are opposed to, what we are worried about, is when it is granted without due precautions and when, as it appears to be in this case, it may be miscarrying. It is important that this new formula should not be found wanting at the start, and I very much hope that Premier Bradshaw and his advisers (and I am not saying that all the blame for what has happened should necessarily attach to them; I think that these matters are largely sub judice, and we do not know all the facts) will seek to restore world confidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, has said. Equally, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will show themselves in the future a good deal better informed and a good deal less complacent than they have shown themselves on this particular issue in the past.

I do not wish to end these brief remarks on too petulant or too negative a note. The noble Lord opposite may well reply: "Very well; I accept some of these strictures. Perhaps we were a bit 'dozy' at the outset of all this in February. We are now, at long last, on our toes. But what would you do now if you were to find yourselves in our position?" That is a fair question, and, given the total internal independence of these islands, not a particularly easy one to answer. My answer would be twofold. Where the rights of United Kingdom citizens are involved, Her Majesty's Government should be punctilious in seeing that these are respected by every possible means at their disposal; and I am not entirely satisfied that this has been the case in this particular instance. But where the internal political evolution of these islands themselves is concerned, I am inclined to think that more is likely to be achieved by quite hard pressure from their friends and their neighbours than by undue strictures from Whitehall or from Westminster. That I why I personally attach such very high importance to the West Indian Good Offices Mission, to which my noble friend Lord Bessborough has drawn our attention.

That Mission, which as I understand it is composed of senior civil servants from four neighbouring Commonwealth territories, has just visited, I gather, St. Kitts, and I trust that Her Majesty's Government have kept in close touch with the four Governments concerned about the visit. I should be very glad to know what the noble Lord has to tell us, if anything, about the results of that Mission. That said, I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this sad subject—and I feel that this really is a sad subject, given the hopes which we all entertained five months ago about the future of these three territories.

THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON

My Lords, may I intervene to ask just one question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, before he answers this debate? It is not a political question, it is purely a geographical one. What led Her Majesty's Government to incorporate St. Kitts and Nevis with Anguilla, which is 70 miles away as the crow flies? The crux of the whole matter seems to me that the rebellion has emanated from this small island outnumbered in population by St. Kitts and Nevis. I want to keep off the political implications; I am not a political man. But this is very interesting. There is a 70-mile sea-way—there are one French and two Netherlands islands—between the island of Anguilla and St. Kitts and Nevis. What led Her Majesty's Government to incorporate them?

10.46 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, approached this problem in a somewhat more statesmanlike way than did his noble friend, Lord Bessborough. I quite agree that this is a matter which should have been raised today, even at this hour. It is a matter about which there has been a great deal of concern, both outside and in this place. I only regret, as did my noble friend Lord Rowley, the extravagant terms with which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, opened this discussion.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I merely stated the facts.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rowley asked whether I could confirm that the new status of these islands had been considered by the United Nations. The answer is that it has not yet been considered. I can say that when it comes up before the appropriate committee, or the General Assembly, some of the strictures which, unfairly and inaccurately, have been uttered by the noble Earl will be seized upon by some of the ill-disposed persons in New York.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, may I interrupt? The noble Lord has made quite serious accusations against my noble friend. If he has uttered strictures which, in the noble Lord's view, are inaccurate, I hope very much in the course of his remarks in reply the noble Lord will say why they are inaccurate.

LORD BESWICK

If I am given a chance, possibly I can deal with them. I was asked by the noble Earl and by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, why it was that the island of Anguilla had been joined with St. Kitts and Nevis in the one associated State. The fact is that for more than eighty years the three islands had been administered as one unit. Moreover, at the Conference held in London in May, 1966, to consider the future of the islands we had deliberations of men exercising free will. It was not an unusual pro- cedure; it was the usual procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, seemed to think it strange that we should have accepted the views and the opinion of the representative of the people of Anguilla. But this was not a Press-gang affair; this was, as I have said, a deliberation of men of free will. Anguilla was represented. Her representative was not of our choosing.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I do not think I ever referred to this in my remarks. I do not know quite with what the noble Lord is crediting me.

LORD BESWICK

I am crediting the noble Earl, and his noble friend, with the statement that we had not endeavoured to find out the wishes of the people of Anguilla. I am saying there was a Conference in London to consider the future status of the islands. It was a Conference of men of free will. I am saying that Anguilla was represented, not by a person selected by us but by their freely-elected representative.

THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have always been under the impression that St. Kitts, Nevis was an entity under colonial rule—it issued its own stamps and so on. I have never previously heard of Anguilla. When the islands were under colonial rule previously, before the West Indies Federation broke up, one always heard of the entity of St. Kitts, Nevis, but never of Anguilla.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I am giving the noble Earl the information at my disposal: that for the last eighty years these three islands were administered under colonial rule as one unit.

Moreover, so far as the Conference is concerned, I am assured—and I have re-checked this—that Mr. Adams, who was their representative, and who in fact sat in the Central Council of St. Kitts as representative of the people of Anguilla, never once argued against the proposal to set up this new authority for the three islands including Anguilla. It is true that at the time the Bill was going through this House doubts were raised, and I recall that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, very properly expressed the apprehensions felt by some people about the good faith of the Central Government in St. Kitts regarding the promised establishment of a local Council with adequate powers in Anguilla.

The charge has been made by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that this local Council should have been set up before the granting of independence, but there was never any requirement for this to be done. The undertaking was that the local Council would be established by the end of 1967. At the time of the Constitutional Conference, and before, there was, admittedly, a feeling among the Anguillans, as there commonly is among out-islanders, that their interests compared with those of the main-islanders, were neglected by the Central Government. There were fears that this neglect would be perpetuated once the remaining authority of the United Kingdom over the internal affairs of the territory was removed.

To meet these feelings, the then Chief Minister put forward proposals for asociating the Anguillans more closely with the running of their own affairs through the establishment of a Council for Anguilla with at least two-thirds elected members. These proposals were accepted. These were proposals to establish the local Council, not by June or July, but by the end of the year. During January and the beginning of February of this year there was evidence of growing anxiety in Anguilla and in the Opposition Peoples Action Movement about entering associated status and about the nature and timing of Government proposals for local government.

THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON

My Lords—

LORD BESWICK

No, I cannot give way. Noble Lords would like me to answer the points which have already been put. On February 2 the President of the Peoples Action Movement, Mr. Herbert, sent to the Administrator a letter, signed also by Mr. Adams, containing a number of demands, including a demand for proper local government before statehood. Despite assurances which the Administrator was able to give that the report of an expert on local government provided by the Ministry of Overseas Development had been received, and that proposals under consideration by the Government covered almost the whole of their points, they decided to come to London to make their views known here.

In London they both confirmed that they were not questioning the entry of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla into associated status, but pressing for postponement of Statehood Day until properly elected Councils had been set up. On February 15 of this year, while the delegates were still here, the St. Kitts Government issued a statement setting out their local government proposals. The statement explained that it would take considerable time to draft the necessary legislation and to set up machinery to provide for elections to local Councils in Nevis and Anguilla. In view of this, the expert sent out from here by the Ministry of Overseas Development had advised the Government, who agreed, that the first Councils should be full nominated to give effect to the requirements of the Constitution on Statehood Day. The statement went on that it should be no longer than one year before the elections to the local Councils took place. The statement also said that the appropriate legislation was being enacted. In other words, it would have passed the nominated Council, and then the elections would take place within the one year. It was in the light of this information that I was advised to give the assurances which were accepted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, at the time of the Third Reading of the Bill.

The Chief Minister and a senior official of the Commonwealth Office discussed procedure for nominations in Nevis and Anguilla. The procedure then agreed has been followed successfully in Nevis. The Council for Nevis was inaugurated on April 20. But in Anguilla, unfortunately, the same procedure has not resulted in any names being put forward for appointment. But this was not the fault of Mr. Bradshaw; it was the fault of the people of Anguilla. On March 21, when the reply mentioned by the noble Earl was given in another place (I use the word "mentioned", but one could use another word to describe the tone he used in referring to the statement in another place), there was every expectation that the invitation of the Premier to suggest nominees would be successful in Anguilla.

On the basis of these reports from the senior official from the Commonwealth Office, our understanding in February was that if the establishment of a nominated Council could not be brought about arrangements for elections would be possible by June or July. The assurances given by my honourable friend in the letter to Mr. Wood, quoted by the noble Earl, were worded accordingly. It was only later, as a result of changes in the office of the Attorney General, that it seemed that this timetable might slip. But the fact is that today the Anguillans could, if they had wished, have a properly constituted Council of Members in whose nomination they had been consulted through their elected representative in the Legislature.

A statement issued on June 1 by the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla referred to a delegation from Anguilla which had been received by the Government in the presence of senior Ministers. The statement said that the Anguillans wanted to become a separate associated State. It recalled that this was the very first occasion on which an approach of this sort had been made to the Government. It pointed out that the people of Anguilla had taken part through their properly elected representative in all the discussions concerning the present Constitution. It affirmed that the Government continued to be ready to make every opportunity available for Anguillans, as well as other citizens of the State, to exercise their constitutional rights and to pursue their wishes in a democratic and peaceful manner. It went on to point out that for this to take place in Anguilla it was necessary for all violence to cease, for law and order to be restored, and for all arms and ammunition, including those seized from the police on Tuesday, May 30, 1967, to be turned in to the Government. The statement ended with a call upon all the citizens of Anguilla to ensure a quick return to peace and law and order for Anguilla without any untoward incident or occurrence.

On May 30 the Premier requested the United Kingdom and certain other Caribbean Governments to provide forces to help in the restoration of law and order. While these requests were still under consideration by the several Governments, and the Deputy Premier was already on his way to London for consultations, news was received of an outbreak of firing on the night of 9th-10th June in Baseterre, the capital of St. Kitts, resulting in the wounding of a guard at the power station, but no other casualties.

On June 11 it was reported that a number of persons, including the Leader of the Opposition Party, had been taken into detention under the emergency regulations made on May 30. I have been asked by noble Lords opposite about these emergency regulations, and the fact of the matter is that they were properly promulgated according to the Constitution. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that there is absolutely no evidence, no justification, for his saying that there has been a clear violation either of the Constitution or indeed of the Human Rights Convention.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, I thought I said, "I thought there had been".

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I thought the noble Lord said—and I made a note of it at the time—that "there is clear evidence of a violation". However, we shall see what Hansard says.

The Premier immediately renewed his request for assistance, and the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs at once initiated consultations with other Commonwealth Governments. The outcome was that, acting on a suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, the Governments of Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Barbados, with the agreement of the Premier, despatched a mission to St. Kitts to determine the facts and to help in any way it could to find a peaceful solution to the problem. In the course of its visit, the mission was able to visit Anguilla; to take part in a meeting between a delegation from Anguilla and St. Kitts Ministers under the chairmanship of Sir Fred Phillips, the Governor; but also to visit detainees. The members of the mission have now reported to their own countries, they have reported to their Governments; and I shall refer later to this Commonwealth initiative.

Among those taken into detention under emergency regulations—properly taken into detention according to the law of their land—was Mr. James Milne Gaskell, about whom I have been asked. As soon as the British Government representative learned of the arrests and the possibility that one or more United Kingdom citizens from this country might be involved he made official inquiries. The arrest of Mr. Gaskell was confirmed, and our representative immediately took steps to assure himself that Mr. Gaskell had access to his lawyers, and that he had no complaints of his treatment in prison. He has made repeated representations to the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla against the continued detention of a United Kingdom citizen without charges or trial, and he has pressed for his early release or speedy trial on specific charges. But, again, although we have pressed for this on behalf of a United Kingdom citizen, it still remains the case that the Government of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla have every right under the emergency regulations, drafted by their lawyers, to detain a person.

As I mentioned in answer to a Parliamentary Question by the noble Earl, I think a week ago, there has been an application in respect of Mr. Gaskell for a writ of habeas corpus, but his counsel applied on July 7 for an adjournment of the proceedings on this application sine die. Our representative has continued to press for the review of Mr. Gaskell's case, as the Constitution provides. The Constitution provides that the case against a detained person should be made known to him within seven days, and further provides that there should be a review within one month. And, again, my understanding of what the noble Earl has said was that there had been again a breach of the Constitution in this regard.

The tribunal has been established. It started work on July 8, within the time required by their law. It adjourned sine die on July 13, without having made any recommendations. I am informed that it did so to allow hearings to be completed in the magistrates' court of specific charges against certain other detainees. I cannot say whether this is to Mr. Gaskell's disadvantage or not. It may well be to his advantage. In the first instance, this is a matter for him and his legal advisers to decide. It will, of course, be possible, if the provisions of the Con- stitution have been contravened in this respect, to seek a remedy in the High Court. But I understand the concern expressed about this case, and I am glad to say that we have arranged for a First Secretary to be attached temporarily to the staff of the British Government representative in the associated States, who will be stationed for the present in St. Kitts, with the object of looking after British interests in the territory, including, of course, the case of Mr. Gaskell.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, since one does not have the chance of replying after the noble Lord has sat down, I should like to say straight away that I very much welcome the information he has just conveyed to us.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Meanwhile, the Anguillans are reported to have conducted for themselves a referendum on the question of secession from St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, and we have reports of a Proclamation made in Anguilla immediately after the announcement of the result of the referendum was made on July 11. The contents of the Proclamation were not without interest. It says, inter alia: Anguilla is now absolutely and conclusively independent from St. Kitts. Today's decision will never be undone. It goes on, however, to say: The history of the British Empire and the Commonwealth gives us high hopes that we, as others, can enjoy both freedom and allegiance to the Crown. We humbly beg our Queen and the people of Britain to talk with us about sharing the future. Despite statements in this Proclamation that the referendum had effected the independence of Anguilla from St. Kitts, the fact is, of course, that it has no constitutional validity. But that is not to pass any judgment on its value as an expression of the wishes of the Anguillans. It may be that when more is known of the conditions under which it was held it will be seen to be a free expression of the voters' wishes, and a factor to be taken into account. I think that all who study the situation in these islands will take their own view of the importance to attach to this event, but the real problem is still that of creating a situation in which the difficulties can be resolved by constitutional means.

The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others have referred to the possibility of stopping grants, and so on. This is something which we may well have to consider, but for the time being in our judgment that possibility does not yet arise. As I have said before, we are not responsible for the internal affairs of the associated States, except to the extent that they impinge upon matters of defence and external affairs. But this does not mean that we are not concerned over the difficulties which have arisen in St. Kitts. Our close and friendly relations with the associated States ensure our continued interest. If we can help in achieving a satisfactory settlement, we are ready to do so.

Meanwhile, we have this Commonwealth Mission about which I have been asked. The initiative of the Commonwealth Mission, composed, as the noble Earl said, of eminent representatives of four Caribbean countries, was warmly welcomed. We are now in urgent discussion with them as to the means by which this initiative can best be followed up. I am hoping that some further development will take place before the end of the week, though I am afraid—even though the noble Lord couched his invitation in such a friendly way—I cannot say more at this stage.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, might I just ask my noble friend one question? Does he consider that any advantage would be derived from the expediting of the date on which Anguilla would be given local government? Is that not the root of the trouble?

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, that is certainly one of the original difficulties, as I thought I had made clear. The original promise was that the local Council would be established by the end of the year. I have endeavoured to show that there are certain mechanical difficulties, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, about the holding of elections, but there would have been absolutely no hindrance to the establishment of a nominated Council. That Council could have been in existence now had it not been for the lack of co-operation shown by the people of Anguilla. I was referring to the possibility of a further development together with, or in line with, or following, the initiative taken by the other four Commonwealth Governments. This, I think, is the most helpful line of approach, and I am sure all of us will agree that some way forward from this unhappy situation can, and must, be found.