HC Deb 20 December 1982 vol 34 cc325-6W
Mr. George Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he is satisfied that a constitution for St. Kitts-Nevis not agreed by the opposition party is an appropriate basis for independence;

(2) when he expects to lay the orders granting independence to St. Kitts-Nevis;

(3) if he is satisfied that the constitutional conference on St. Kitts-Nevis sufficiently considered the alternative proposals put forward by the opposition party;

(4) if he will make a statement about the outcome of the constitutional conference on St. Kitts-Nevis;

(5) what was his response to the proposals put forward by local opposition representatives at the constitutional conference on St. Kitts-Nevis.

Mr. Onslow

The constitutional conference for Saint Christopher and Nevis was held in London from 7 to 16 December under my chairmanship.

The purpose of the conference was to seek agreement on the terms of a new constitution for the independent State. The document before the conference was the draft constitution prepared by the Government of Saint Christopher and Nevis. This embodied proposals which were published in July 1982, subsequently discussed fully in the Associated State and approved by the State's House of Assembly in October.

The conference produced a report which is a thoroughly considered basis for a constitution. The report, which was signed at Lancaster House on 16 December, will be published as a White Paper in the United Kingdom and presented to Parliament. I believe it faithfully represents the views expressed by the participants at the Conference.

If the revised draft constitution is approved by the Saint Christopher and Nevis House of Assembly, a draft Order in Council terminating the status of Associated Statehood will be laid before both Houses of the British Parliament for approval before it is submitted to Her Majesty in Council. The timing of the laying of the order will depend on action by the State's House of Assembly but I would expect to present it before the Whitsun Recess. I hope it will be possible to complete the constitutional processes in time for Saint Christopher and Nevis to achieve independence in September 1983.

I regret that members of the Opposition delegation for Saint Christopher and Nevis felt that the proposals which they put before the conference were not adequately discussed and that this led them to leave the conference on two occasions. I believe that their criticisms of the manner in which the conference was being conducted were unjustified. When presented with reasoned, careful and constructive criticisms of their draft constitution, the Saint Christopher and Nevis Government delegation showed that it was prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the Opposition's point of view. The Opposition had full opportunity to present their own proposals as well as to comment in detail on the draft constitution before the conference.

The Opposition delegation did not sign the conference report. The history of constitutional conferences for Associated States shows that it is not unusual for an Opposition party not to endorse a draft constitution. Such a situation cannot, however, be regarded as amounting to a bar to progress to independence. In the case of the last Associated State to achieve independence, Antigua and Barbuda, the Opposition party participated in the constitutional conference in December 1980, criticized the draft constitution and did not sign the report. In 1978 the St. Vincent Opposition parties did not attend the constitutional conference.

Back to