§ 2.45 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT D1LHORNEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have already given Private Notice, namely,
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 only gives power to make laws in certain circumstances, they will correct the Answer given in this House by the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on March 18 in which he sought to justify Government action by reference to this provision."
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I see no need to correct the Answer that I gave in this House yesterday. The position is that the West Indies Act 1967 which establishes the Associated States reserved to the United Kingdom the responsibilities for defence and external affairs. To enable the United Kingdom to carry out those responsibilities, Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act authorises Her Majesty by Order in Council to make such laws 879 for an Associated State as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate in the interests of the United Kingdom Government's responsibilities for defence and external affairs. The Order in Council governing the action now being undertaken was therefore made appropriately under Section 7(2) of the Act.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, the noble Lord yesterday said that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government was to install a Commissioner. He said nothing—and he could have done so if he wished—
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount ask a question?
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I am proposing to ask a supplementary question. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will put it in my own way. Does the noble Lord remember that he said yesterday that the Government policy was to install a High Commissioner and that it was based on Section 7(2)? Does he recognise that Section 7(2) makes provision only for passing laws applying to the whole of an Associated State; and the Associated State here is St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla? On what basis does he say that laws can be passed relating to one part alone of that State?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, the position is that Anguilla, as the noble and learned Viscount has rightly said, is certainly constitutionally a part of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla; but the authority of the State Government has not been effective in Anguilla since May, 1967. There are no lawfully established courts functioning on the island. It was therefore, in the view of the Government, not possible for them in the circumstances to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs. Therefore, under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act Her Majesty has made an Order in Council which will enable the Government to install Her Majesty's Commissioner upon the island; and all the other action is pursuant to that.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount at this stage whether he will consent to postpone further questioning on this subject until a suitable moment 880 after 3.30 p.m., when I hope to be making a Statement on Anguilla. I can then take up the legal point, as well as other points that arise at that time.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I do not seek to know anything about what is in the full Statement. May I ask why the noble Lord did not frankly say, as is clearly the case, that this particular Act does not in any way sanction the use of force?
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, I said in answer to the noble and learned Viscount yesterday that the use of force was purely a hypothetical matter. When I come to make my Statement at a suitable time after 3.30 p.m. I think I shall then be able to deal with realities and not hypotheses.