HL Deb 28 June 1971 vol 321 cc12-4
LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals have been made by Mr. Joseph Godber, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, for a settlement of the dispute between St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla regarding the status of Anguilla.]

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the basis of the proposals made to the Government of the Associated State and to the Anguilla Council by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was that Her Majesty's Commissioner should be given adequate powers to establish a satisfactory administration for a period of years in Anguilla, in consultation and co-operation with the people of Anguilla. The Anguilla Council have accepted these proposals. The State Government has not felt able to do so.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us welcome this proposal, although we hope that it would be under the auspices of the United Nations rather than of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? May I also ask the noble Earl whether he would make this suggestion to the Secretary of State? In view of the fact that this issue is now arising among other associated groups in the Caribbean would it not be desirable to have discussions with the representatives, with a view to establishing federal, or even confederal, relationships rather than the present unitary States?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the welcome he gave to my Answer. With regard to his supplementary question, I would only say that the situation which has arisen in Anguilla and the results which have eminated from it are not likely to be taken as a precedent for other similar happenings which may occur in the Caribbean. It is perfectly true that in the long term confederation or federation could be a possible outcome, but that would not, of course, solve the present and immediate problem.

LORD BROCKWAY

But is not the noble Earl aware that this matter is already arising in other associated groups? It has arisen in Barbuda and in another group. And is it not desirable, before this situation develops to a crisis, as it did in Anguilla, that there should be discussions regarding the arrangements between these islands?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are always open to these discussions, but the noble Lord will know that in other parts of the world confederations and federations have not always produced the best results that can be obtained.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, in the light of the noble Earl's first Answer, can he say what legal authority Her Majesty's Government have for carrying out their responsibilities in Anguilla?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the position with regard to Anguilla is that we are now involved in it; therefore it is up to Her Majesty's Government to find a solution to this particular problem. We hoped that this would have been done by consultation and with agreement. But as the noble Lord will know better than most, that has proved impossible over the course of the last few months. Her Majesty's Government have acted entirely under the West Indies Act 1967.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, it is true that Her Majesty's Government have acted under the West Indies Act, but that was because there was agreement between the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla and the people of Anguilla. Now I understand a new situation is arising in which one of the parties dissents from the actions of Her Majesty's Government. From the noble Earl's original Answer it is clear that the Government are placing themselves in a new position in regard to Anguilla. I was asking on what legal basis does their authority arise?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the situation is that Her Majesty's Government have only recently—and by recently I mean within the last week or so—been apprised of the opinions of the parties concerned. Therefore a new situation has arisen. It is upon this new situation that Her Majesty's Government intend to act, and within the Act to which I have referred.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, am I to construe from that reply that the Government intend to take legal authority?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I would not be prepared to go beyond what I have already replied.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, the noble Earl used the phrase that the present arrangement is to be "for a period of years". What is the "period of years" which the Government have in mind?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, a period of years can mean only what is says, and I should not be prepared to anticipate. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would expect me to say whether it would be for two, five, ten or twenty years.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, in view of the uncertainty over this matter, I wonder whether the noble Earl would give an undertaking that he will consult—perhaps through the noble Earl the Leader of the House—with his noble friend at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a statement to be made before Parliament rises.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to uncertainty. I have not meant to be unhelpful, but he will appreciate that the situation is necessarily a trifle uncertain because of the results that have only just come through. I will give the undertaking to the noble Lord that Parliament will be fully informed before action is taken.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, since the Government's legal position in this matter seems somewhat doubtful, can the noble Earl say what the Government's intentions are if, as seems possible, their proposals are resisted physically?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I think that would have to wait until the circumstances arose. It is a somewhat hypothetical question.