HL Deb 23 July 1971 vol 322 cc1314-27

12.36 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for inflicting yet another speech upon the House this morning. I think it would be helpful, before going into the provisions of the Bill, if I were to indulge in a little pre-history, so that the Bill may be set in perspective. The association between Britain and the three islands of St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla goes back to the early days of the 17th century. Indeed, St. Kitts makes the proud claim to have been the mother colony both of the British and of the French Caribbean. Anguilla was colonised as early as 1625. In 1871, the Leeward Islands Federation was created, with St. Kitts and Anguilla as one of its units, and in 1882 St. Kitts, Anguilla and Nevis were united into a single presidency. In 1956 the Leeward Islands Federation was dissolved and each of the presidencies became a single colony. In 1958 St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla became a unit of the West Indies Federation, but reverted to being a Crown Colony on the collapse of that Federation.

At the Constitutional Conference for St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla, which was held in London in May, 1966, it was agreed that the colony should become an associated State under which the State Government would have internal independence while Britain would retain responsibility for external affairs and defence. The Conference Report was signed by representatives of all three islands and the signatories retained their seats in the Legislature at general elections held in July, 1966. St. Kitts—Nevis—Anguilla duly became a State in association with Britain in February, 1967, at the same time as four other former colonies in the eastern Caribbean.

I now come to an account of the more recent history of Anguilla and of British involvement in the problem. Only three months after statehood the St. Kitts police contingent on Anguilla was ejected by the islanders, who claimed that they would not be ruled by St. Kitts and wished to be able to decide their own future. They complained of past neglect. My Lords, I would add at this point that it is not only in relation to Anguilla that accusations of past neglect can be and have been made. Before the last war, the economic conditions of much of the Caribbean left a great deal to be desired, and it was only with the enactment of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts from 1940 onwards that systematic efforts began to be made to effect a radical improvement of these conditions. Much has already been done, but there is a great deal yet to be tackled.

It was with this end in view that a British Development Division was established at Barbados in 1966, and there has been a striking improvement since that date. But it takes time to achieve significant progress. One of the ironies of the situation is that the Anguilla action of May, 1967, took place at a time when the bulk of the St. Kitts public works department equipment was engaged in Anguilla on projects there. I mention this in order to make the point that it would not be fair to assign the responsibility for economic neglect of Anguilla solely to the authorities in St. Kitts. The need in that island was recognised, but there were equally pressing needs elsewhere in the State, and shortage of funds, equipment and manpower made it impossible to satisfy all the needs at the same time.

In July, 1967, the independent countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean held a conference in Barbados with delegations from the United Kingdom, as well as from St. Kitts and Anguilla. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as the then Minister of State, attended that conference on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Its Report was published as Command 3433. Unfortunately the conference did not lead to any solution of the problem.

In December, 1967, two Members of another place, Mr. Nigel Fisher and Mr. Donald Chapman, visited both St. Kitts and Anguilla in an attempt to find a way forward. As a result of their visit, the two parties in the dispute agreed to proposals placed before them for an interim arrangement, and a British official, Mr. Tony Lee, took up residence in Anguilla in January, 1968. In October, 1968, the then British Government invited the State Government and the Anguillans to send delegations to talks in London. Those talks were not successful in their attempt to find a more lasting solution. In January, 1969, the Anguillans made a further declaration of independence and Mr. Lee, who had discharged his difficult assignment with patience and tact, was withdrawn from Anguilla, although he continued to visit the island.

In early March, 1969, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. William Whitlock, after discussions with the State Government, visited Anguilla in an attempt to persuade the islanders to accept the installation of a British Commissioner to administer Anguilla. That visit unfortunately did not meet with success, and Mr. Whitlock was forced to leave the island. Later that month, on March 19, British troops and police were landed on Anguilla and a British Commissioner was installed under the authority of an Order in Council made under Section 7(2) of the West Indies Act 1967.

I would recall that the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in his Statement in another place on March 19, 1969 said: We have, however, a responsibility under the West Indies Act. We took action because conditions in Anguilla were such that it was impossible for us to discharge our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs ". The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, repeated that Statement in your Lordships' House on the same date (cols. 902–905 of Hansard). The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, also said (col. 879): Anguilla 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 under the circumstances to discharge their constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs. I would also recall that in the Statement of the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which I have already referred, and in an earlier statement the previous day the Secretary of State said: It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want. In May, 1969, Her Majesty's Government held discussions with the State Government in London, and it was then agreed that a Commission should be jointly appointed by the two Governments to examine the Anguilla problem. This Commission was headed by a former Chief Justice of Trinidad, the Right Honourable Sir Hugh Wooding, and its Report was presented to Parliament in November 1970 (Cmnd. 4510). That Report, which contained a valuable analysis and history of the problem, made certain recommendations which included the election of a Council in Anguilla with wide-ranging legislative, executive and fiscal authority, functions and powers the establishment of a coordinating Council on which each of the three islands of the State would have equal representation and greater participation for Anguilla in the government of the State through increased Anguillan membership in the House of Assembly and Anguillan representation on the public and police service commissions.

These recommendations might have produced a settlement of the problem in an atmosphere less charged with emotion and distrust than that which existed between St. Kitts and Anguilla. However, such a state of affairs did not exist, and the Anguilla Council, who had continually repeated their demand for a complete break with St. Kitts, rejected the recommendations in the Report. The St. Kitts Government, for their part, said they accepted the Report and its recommendations as a basis for discussions. In view of the Anguillan rejection of the Wooding Commission recommendations, and also in the light of the assurance given by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which we had reaffirmed on taking office, that it was not our intention that the Anguillans should be forced to live under an administration which they did not want, it was not possible for us to use these recommendations as the basis for a settlement. We were obliged to find some other way in which to proceed.

In December, 1970, at discussions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right honourable friend Mr. Godber, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, put to the St. Kitts Government proposals designed to bring about an interim settlement of the problem. The basis of these proposals was that the State Government should delegate to Her Majesty's Government powers which would enable Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla to conduct an effective administration on that island for a period of years. The proposals were designed to restore a full administration of the island by authority emanating from the British Government, but at the same time to maintain the basic integrity of the associated State. It was our hope that after a period of time it might be possible to achieve a permanent solution by bringing the two sides voluntarily together again.

Although a measure of agreement on a number of points was achieved in our discussions with the Government in St. Kitt, they were not prepared in certain important respects to accept the minimum delegation of powers which we considered essential to enable Her Majesty's Commissioner to conduct an effective administration in Anguilla. After six months of discussions it became evident that there was an unbridgeable gap between what the State Government were prepared to offer and what the Anguillans were prepared to accept. Mr. Godber was therefore reluctantly obliged, during his discussions in St. Kitts on June 11, to inform the St. Kitts Government that, since we could not allow this problem to continue indefinitely, Her Majesty's Government would reluctantly have to obtain Parliamentary approval for proceeding unilaterally with our proposals for an interim settlement.

I should mention at this point that the State Government had been advised as early as February of this year that should it, unfortunately, not prove possible to reach an agreement in our negotiations, we should be forced to take unilateral action. The Anguillan Council for their part, after seeking certain assurances accepted our proposals on June 22.

My Lords, that is a very brief history of the problem and of British involvement in it. We have made it clear to Commonwealth Caribbean Governments that should similar circumstances arise in the future we would not be prepared to intervene in this way and would expect them to deal with the problems themselves. But on our assumption of office we were involved in the matter and we felt it essential to find a solution of it. As the course of the negotiations has made clear, we should have much preferred to proceed with the full agreement both of the State Government and of the Anguillans; but for the reasons which I have given this unfortunately was not possible.

In our view, the present situation cannot be allowed to continue. Although a British Commissioner has been resident in Anguilla for over two years, it has not been possible for him to establish a fully effective administration because he has lacked certain essential powers. Moreover, although one of the original purposes behind the installation of a British Commissioner was to restore the rule of law in Anguilla, it is a fact that no regular court of law has been able to function there for over four years. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is intolerable that such a situation should obtain in an island on which a British commissioner and British troops and police have been established. It is for these reasons that we have introduced the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day.

The Bill has the merit of being short and clear. It is an enabling Bill which, if enacted, will permit Her Majesty in Council to make detailed provision for the administration of Anguilla. The first subsection of Clause 1 provides for this. The second subsection makes provision for the appointment of a Commissioner in Anguilla. The third subsection of Clause 1 provides for Her Majesty by Order in Council to direct that Anguilla would not any longer form part of the territory of the Associated State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla, in the event of the introduction into the Legislature of that State of a Bill for a law terminating the status of association of the State with the United Kingdom. Were such a law to be introduced into the State Legislature and the necessary constitutional procedures to be gone through, the associated State would of course become fully independent. This subsection makes it clear that the British administration of Anguilla would not be affected by such an event and that, should it in fact happen, Her Majesty by Order in Council would have powers to provide a constitution for Anguilla.

The fourth subsection of Clause 1 makes consequential provision in the event of the use of subsection (3), to enable any constitution provided for Anguilla under that subsection to be altered or replaced as may be expedient from time to time. The fifth subsection of Clause 1 makes provision for this legislation to have effect notwithstanding anything in the West Indies Act 1967 or any Order in Council made under that Act I would, however, emphasise that in our opinion this Act is not inconsistent with the West Indies Act 1967. The sixth subsection of Clause 1 contains the declaration which is necessary under Section 3(2) of the West Indies Act 1967 that this legislation is required to extend to St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla in the interests of the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom relating to defence and external affairs. We consider that such a declaration is justified by the facts of the case.

It would clearly not be possible for the British Government to discharge its responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla if there were no settled administration in the island of Anguilla. Were a vacuum to be created by the withdrawal of the British presence on Anguilla there would be a risk, which some would put as high as a probability, of conflict between St. Kitts and Anguilla. There would be instability and incertainty and an absence of government and law and order which must make it impossible for any British Government to discharge in a meaningful way its constitutional responsibilities in the area. The Bill before the House to-day will, if it is approved by your Lordships, ensure that this does not happen. It will enable an effective administration to be established in Anguilla in consultation and co-operation with the people of that island. I hope your Lordships will recognise the need to bring an end to the events of the last four years and to provide an opportunity for a fresh start. The Premier in St. Kitts has accused us of attempting to break up the existing State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. Our reply is that that was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government when we embarked upon these long and difficult negotiations: nor indeed need it be the final outcome.

The Order in Council which we propose to introduce under this Bill, once it has the authority of law, will be designed solely to provide the British Commissioner on the island of Anguilla with all the powers he has so long needed and so long lacked. Those powers will derive directly from Her Majesty's Government in United Kingdom. This means that not only will new courts of law be able to sit, but new laws where necessary can be enacted on the island. The Commissioner, for instance, will then be able to recruit and train local policemen to take the place of the London Metropolitan Police who have been tilling the gap so admirably since March, 1969. But no step will be taken at this stage to remove Anguilla from the State, unless St. Kitts decides to move to independence, in which case Clause 1(3) can come into operation in the manner I have already described.

Our intention is to provide effective administration for a period of years to enable tempers to cool. My right honourable friend Mr. Godber has told the Anguillans that we should be willing to reconsider the position after the new arrangements have been working for three years. When the time comes to move forward it is our intention that the wishes of the Anguillans shall be ascertained. If they should wish to revert to their links with St. Kitts, that can be done. If, on the other hand, they wish to continue with a greater degree of devolution of authority to their own elected representatives, that also should be possible. On the other hand, ideas are still developing among the various independent and associated Commonwealth States in the Caribbean. It is possible that new groupings of States will emerge and that Anguilla may wish to participate in one of these. The final test must be the wishes of the Anguillan people themselves.

I know that certain noble Lords and others outside have advocated new federal groupings in the West Indies. On this I would only say that in the present post-Colonial era in the Caribbean, any new initiatives in this field must spring from the Caribbean itself and gain the willing acceptance of the Governments and peoples of the area if they are to be crowned with success. Our earlier efforts and their outcome are a matter of historical record. Faced with the present situation on Anguilla I believe that we have found the only tolerable solution, at any rate for the time being. We have had to look to the future, and not only to the past, and the Bill before your Lordships to-day does, I believe, point the way to a settlement of this problem.

The Caribbean, as many of your Lordships are well aware, is a complex area full of strong personalities who have many conflicting ideas and views. From the time when the West Indies Federation began to break up the problem of fragmentation has been there. This latest stage of it has led some at least in other Caribbean countries to think again about the future of the whole area. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said at the conclusion of his speech on July 16 in another place when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill there: If the Anguilla problem turned out to be the catalyst which helped to bring about a reversal of present attitudes, it could prove a blessing in disguise for the whole area "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/21, cols.900–1.] My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

12.55 p.m.

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, once again I am thankful to the noble Marquess for introducing the Bill on Second Reading. I am grateful to him also for his review of the events leading up to the introduction of the Bill. I must confess that my heart sank a little when he talked of going back into pre-history, but in the event he went back no further than the 17th century, which by the standards of your Lordships' House might reasonably be called"yesterday's events ". I should like to commend also the extraordinary speed with which he moved from 1625 to 1966, although the four years that followed occupied a little more time. It might be as well at this stage to point out that in his admirable resume of the events leading up to his introduction of the Bill, he did not mention, although I am sure that he would agree, that disputes among the islands forming the Colony have been taking place for many years. In the days of the first white settlers in the area disputes between the islands began, and they have been going on ever since. It might be worth recalling that the constant conflict in this area cannot be laid exclusively at the doors of contemporary political leaders in the area.

Before saying anything about the actual clauses of the Bill may I take this opportunity to echo something said by the noble Marquess on the conduct of the Armed Forces and the police in the area during the last difficult years. We on this side wish to express our appreciation and admiration of the way in which the Armed Forces and the Metropolitan Police have conducted themselves during this difficult operation. We should not forget, either, the succession of public servants who have discharged their duties with dignity and efficiency, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances. I should like also to mention—although he has had to leave his place at the moment—the efforts made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd when we were in office. It is probably not sufficiently recognised that his efforts to try to bring this matter to a successful conclusion were most energetic and vigorous.

My Lords, we on this side would agree with Her Majesty's Government that the present situation is unsatisfactory. We accept, too, that there is nothing in the Bill, at least on the face of it, which is inconsistent with the West Indies Act. In this context, I was grateful for the assurance of the noble Marquess—at least, I took it as an assurance—that the Bill does not imply any permanent fragmentation in the area. It is not, as he said, an attempt to break up the Colony; it is an attempt to buy time, to allow tempers to cool. If he rises to speak again, I should be grateful for his assurance that no possibility regarding future constitutional structure in the area is foreclosed. I was grateful for his assurance that after the three years of what might be called a"cooling-off period"the views of the Anguillans will be sought. As he has said, we must bear in mind not only the interests of the Anguillans but their express wishes. On the basis of those assurances, we on this side accept the necessity for this Bill and its provisions.

1.0 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, the Bill certainly gives reality to the wishes of some 6,000 inhabitants of the island of Anguilla. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the result of the common effort of all Parties—the noble Lord's Party when in office and the present Government. Because the wishes of the islanders must always be the main factor, I wish to raise one point which I feel the right honourable Member in another place, Mr. Stewart, who was then Foreign Secretary, would himself wish to raise. We have received to-day from the Minister assurances that the wishes of the people of Anguilla will be paramount. The right honourable gentleman, speaking for the Opposition in the House of Commons, said: The right honourable gentleman "— he was referring to the Minister— gave us to understand that after an interim period consideration may be given to what comes next. He then used these words: The wishes of the people of Anguilla will be an extremely relevant factor "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/71; c. 906.]. The point that I want to raise concerns the words"relevant factor ". I suggest that the wishes of the people of Anguilla must rather be the determining factor. I think the Minister has given us that assurance, but I feel it is necessary to bring to your Lordships' attention the particular words spoken, not, I hope, on behalf of the Opposition in another place. If they were so spoken, I am quite sure the ex-Minister who said them would wish not to be misunderstood by using the word"relevant"instead of"determining ".

My Lords, it is modern fashion for past colonial territories to launch off into self-government at the earliest possible moment. I am reminded of Arthur Balfour's statement when he said that people prefer self-government to good government. That has been the tendency, I think, in the disintegration of our Colonial Empire. But, here is an island clinging to Britain for justice, peace and progress, and we must respond. In the past, those of us who know the Caribbean have felt that we have some measure of responsibility for things that ought to have been done and were not done, but, in this new Associate State relationship we have a great chance to forget the past in the progress of the present and future welfare of the people. My plea would be for Parliament and the Government not just to pass this Bill and then forget Anguilla but to see that Parliament obtains progress reports on the results of the Associated State development. I should like there to be an annual White Paper, giving a report of progress. I suggest that there should be a biennial Parliamentary visit by members of the main Parties so that we could watch the progress arising from the passing of this Bill, with the feeling that Britain had well justified the trust Anguillans put in us and our responsibilities to them.

1.5 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships, and particularly to the Minister, because I did not hear the whole of his speech. I had taken great care to be within the hearing of the loudspeaking apparatus so that I might come in immediately, but, unfortunately, for some reason I did not hear that this Bill was now before the House. It is possible that some of the points I shall raise were already dealt with in the opening speech; if so, I apologise to the Minister and to the House.

My Lords, I find it almost incredible that I should be supporting this Bill, because, on the surface, it is a colonialist measure, giving all power to the Government here and to the Commissioner in Anguilla. I was similarly surprised, earlier in the course of events, to find myself supporting the presence of British troops in Anguilla, which, again, is contrary to my general record. However, I want to join with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in tribute to their behaviour in Anguilla. It has been a constructive contribution. The way in which, during their period there, they have developed the island is something for which all of us should pay tribute.

It is possible that the Minister in his opening speech dealt with this matter, but I should like to know how far the Representative Council in Anguilla has endorsed the proposals in this Bill. I should like to see included in the actual terms of the Bill definite suggestions that the Representative Council in Anguilla should be associated with all the functions which are here described. For example, in Clause 1(2) the Commissioner is given great powers. I hope that he will be exercising those powers in association with the Council. Then, in subsection (3)(a) there is the decision that Anguilla shall not any longer form part of the Territory. Again, in certain circumstances which are mentioned, I would ask very strongly that this should be done in association with the Representative Council. Finally, there is the proposal of a new Constitution and, once more, I want to emphasise strongly that that should be applied only in consultation with the Representative Council.

Lastly, I wish to urge upon the Minister that the problem in this grouped Associated States is not likely to be the last among Associated States in the Caribbean. I mentioned this earlier in a speech; Hansard made me refer to Bermuda when, in fact, I was referring to Barbuda, but the noble Lord will know that these problems are arising in other grouped Associated States. I would repeat the plea I made earlier that there should be a conference of Caribbean countries, particularly those which are Associated States, to seek to prevent the kind of situation which has arisen in this Associated State from arising in other States as well. The solution would probably have to be on the basis of confederation rather than the unity which is now prescribed. May I, in conclusion, welcome the suggestion that we should have regular reports regarding development and also that there might be Parliamentary visits so that the Houses of Parliament might be kept in touch with developments there.

1.10 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the welcome they have given to this Bill. I would echo what they have said in their tributes to the British forces, the police and the public servants who have held the field for so long in Anguilla. I think the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Balfour are very valuable. I will certainly take note of them and pass them on to my right honourable friend. I do not wish to detain the House any longer—we have another Bill in front of us—but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because I think he may have missed a part of my speech, that the people of Anguilla accepted these proposals—I think it was on June 22. I should also like to assure him that I am certain the Commissioner will exercise his powers in collaboration with the Council.

The noble Lord raised the rather wider question of what may happen in similar circumstances in the Caribbean. It is true that the countries out there are worried about this. It may well be that we shall see conferences and further developments. I would only repeat what I said in my opening speech: we feel that this is something which the islands must sort out for themselves. With that, again I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.