§ 3.58 p.m.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I rise to answer the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and with your Lordships' permission I will repeat the Answer that is being given by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a similar Private Notice Question in another place. The Answer is as follows:
"As I told the House yesterday in answer to the honourable Member for Sevenoaks, I will be making a Statement on this subject at the earliest possible moment.
"Meanwhile I wish to make one thing clear. The object of the British Government's policy is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner to Anguilla with the task of working out a long-term solution of the problem in Anguilla which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla themselves. It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want."
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I very much hope that the Government will make a Statement on this subject at the earliest possible opportunity, because I do not think that that Answer is very satisfactory. Everybody seems to know what is happening except Parliament. Certainly we in this House shall want to know at the very earliest possible moment whether it is the Government's intention to use force and to use British troops, and we expect an early Statement from noble Lords opposite.
May I ask the noble Lord one question which is not put in any Party sense; it is genuinely seeking information because I do not know the answer. What is the constitutional position here? As I understand it, Britain looks after foreign affairs and defence of St. Kitts and Anguilla. But what legal right should we have to intervene in the internal affairs of either Anguilla or St. Kitts, and particularly what legal rights should we have if it were not at the behest of Mr. Bradbury that we did so? May I also ask him exactly what is the status of Her Majesty's Commissioner under the West Indies Act, and have we the right, as seems to be 716 implied in the noble Lord's Answer, to insist on his installation?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think the noble Lord should have said that everybody thinks he knows what is happening, but I am not quite sure that everybody does know what is happening. What is happening is that we are making a number of precautionary moves so that we are prepared for any eventuality. The aim, as I have said, is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner to Anguilla. This is being done, as the noble Lord implied, in pursuance of the West Indies Act, and the specific section is Section 7(2) of that Act. If he refers to that, I am sure he will see that we have legal authority for the course of action we are now taking.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if operations are contemplated, as is reported in the Press, he will bear in mind that such operations will be tolerated only if they are genuine police actions, designed to maintain law and order, and not military exercises aimed at imposing a political decision?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, that of course is a hypothetical question, and the noble Lord is an old enough Parliamentarian to know that I shall not answer it.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, the noble Lord has given an answer with regard to Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act. Could he just answer that which I think is a fairly simple question; namely, is there any legal warranty under that Act for the use of force to install a Commissioner, whether the use of force be by the military or what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, described as a police action? What I should like to be satisfied about now is that we have a legal right to use force to install a Commissioner.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the noble and learned Viscount may say that the question is a simple one. Questions often are. It is the answers that are complicated. In this particular case I can only say that we have legal authority under the West Indies Act for the course of action we are now taking. I cannot answer any question which involves the hypothesis that force might be used.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I was asking the noble Lord not whether there was legal authority for the course he says the Government are now taking. What I was asking him—and I hope for a reply, because I think it is important—is whether there is any legal right to use force.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I fear that I cannot be drawn into answering that question. I am sure that if the noble and learned Viscount will consult the West Indies Act he will be able to answer that question for himself.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us share the view that it is regrettable that Parliament does not have further information on this matter before steps are taken which we cannot influence? May I further ask my noble friend whether, if it is intended to use troops or police—action to which many of us are opposed—he can at least ensure that before they go to Anguilla they shall go to Antigua and await a reply from the authorities in Anguilla?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, as I have said a Statement will be made by my right honourable friend as soon as possible, and I am sure that if it is your Lordships' wish arrangements will be made to repeat that Statement in this House. At this moment I have nothing to add to what I have said.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, can my noble friend say that a suggestion has been made to the people of Anguilla, and can he tell us what is their reaction to the idea that they should revert to being a British Colony for the time being?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the proposals that were put to the people of Anguilla by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary were, we believe, acceptable to the majority of the people of Anguilla. Again, I am afraid that I can go into no details until the Statement that has been promised has been made in another place.
LORD BALFOUR or INCHRYEMy Lords, could the Minister explain one thing? As the revulsion of the people of Anguilla against being under the administration of St. Kitts and the present 718 leader there has been well known for well over a year, how is it the position has been allowed to drift until this last-minute crisis when we read of a force being got ready to go as a precautionary step?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think it would be wrong of me to go into detail in answer to that question as in answer to the other questions. I can only say that this situation has now developed; we are taking steps to deal with it, and it is no part of our policy that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, is the Minister quite satisfied that these precautionary steps, which we read about in the Press and hear about on television, are giving a force adequate in strength and armament, in aircraft and ammunition, sufficient to deal with this grave military situation which they seem likely to face?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I am not responsible for any reports that may appear in the Press. We are satisfied that the precautionary steps we are taking are adequate and appropriate.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the noble Lord said in his original Answer that it is no part of the Government's purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration that they do not want. Does that mean that the Government are not in any circumstances going to put the Anguillans, unless they so desire, back under the domination of St. Kitts?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the general outline of our proposals, so far as the St. Kitt's Government is concerned is satisfactory. I have nothing to add to the Statement made by my right honourable friend, which is, that as a result of our policy the Anguillans will not be put under an administration which they do not want. I think that is quite clear, and I have nothing to add to it at this moment.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, is it not a most unusual situation for the Government to refuse to give any information at all with regard to the visit of an Under-Secretary, a British Minister, to an Island which has some relationship with the United Kingdom, in which he 719 was apparently the subject of some force? And is it not strange that there is no explanation given, so far as I know, to Parliament as to the reasons for his mission and what he hoped to accomplish by going there? Would it not be possible for the Minister to enlighten us, at any rate in some degree, on those subjects?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I think it is unfair, and indeed inaccurate, for the noble Lord to suggest that no information has been given about the visit of my honourable friend. Full information about it has been given in another place, and the noble Lord can, I am sure, refresh his memory if he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for March 17, where he will see that, in answer to a Question there, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary explained the reason for my honourable friend's visit and the policy that lay behind it.