BANABAN COMMUNITY (GRANT IN AID)

HC Deb 04 February 1969 vol 777 cc340-60

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks (Bebington)

On page 12 of the Supplementary Estimates we find under subhead C.17 of the Commonwealth Services Vote an item which reads: Banaban Community (Grant in Aid) (Revote) £80,000. This sum is listed as "Revised provision". It is in fact a net increase of that amount. It is further described as an agreement by Her Majesty's Government to provide a grant to the Banaban Community on Rabi Island.

My interest in this small and apparently insignificant item was initially aroused when I noticed that a footnote was appended at the bottom of page 13 which said: Expenditure will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Any unexpended balances of the sums issued will not be liable to surrender to the Consolidated Fund. This is a fairly unusual, though by no means unique, provision. It is perhaps worth noting that under the same heading of "Special Payments" we find that the £250,000 allocated as emergency aid to Nigeria is apparently to be subjected to the Comptroller and Auditor General's detailed scrutiny.

As an assiduous member of the Public Accounts Committee, I deprecate such intended absence of public accountability for any reason, and I felt it worth pursuing this obscure item to find the reasons for this apparent anomaly.

It was first necessary to find out the whereabouts of the Banaban Community, which until then had escaped my attention. It proved to be a long search. Reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica proved useless, as neither the Banabans nor their island were mentioned.

The Times Atlas Gazetteer also drew a blank, with the only Rabi listed being apparently in Czechoslovakia. Fortunately, at that stage, I had yet to learn that the Chairman of the Rabi Island Council is Mr. Tito. Eventually the Columbia Lippincott Gazetteer came to my rescue, although it seemed that to find "Rabi" I had to look up "Rambi". This I did, and read; "Rambi, Rambe or Rabi", which was described as a volcanic island of some 1,048 souls in the Pacific Ocean. Fortified by this narrowing of my search and by the elucidation of the spelling, I returned to The Times Gazetteer, where, sure enough, Rambi was listed.

However, surprise, surprise, no latitude or longitude was given, which is not only curious, but frankly impossible. At this stage, I realised that serious research was called for, and it was during this phase of my labours that the oddities accumulated to such an extent that I felt persuaded to raise this matter in the House tonight.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I find it fascinating to listen to my hon. Friend's researches, which he entered into in his endeavour to bring this matter to light. May I recommend that he might have short-circuited all this by going to the Royal Geographical Society?

Mr. Brooks

As a former professional geographer before entering this House I can only plead lamentable and profound ignorance, for which I have no excuse. Before developing my main queries about this item, may I make the simple point which is brought out by this narrative of amateur bewilderment and inefficiency? It is that we in the House of Commons, inevitably preoccupied with the affairs of constituency and State, are naturally ignorant of the conditions—and even the whereabouts—of that remote scatter of islands and archipelagoes and coral atolls which are left us by a half-forgotten Imperial legacy.

The British Empire has evolved, remarkably painlessly, on the whole, towards an independent Commonwealth of Nations, in which independence has been bestowed upon peoples who have become politically and economically viable. At least that is the philosophy and the doctrine, and we British have cast ourselves in the rôle of a mother who is happy to see her children let go of her apron strings. But there are some children who can never grow up in that sense; in terms of populations, resources and economic potential, they are simply not viable as adult independent nations. They are what might be called "impossible countries", and even if, as has happened notably in Africa, such States do appear on the map of post-colonial geography, their future is as secure—and certainly no more secure—than that of the child orphan cast alone into the wicked world.

Among such impossible States are the tiny scattered island communities of the Pacific Ocean. And this brings me to the story of the Banabans and their migration a thousand miles from Ocean Island to their present home on Rabi, in the Fiji group. There was on 7th June, 1967, an Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) which coincided with a visit being paid to this country by representatives of the Banaban Community. This enables me to avoid a great deal of tedious detail about the circumstances of these curious people. Some short summary is nevertheless necessary.

The Banabans, it seems, are a people of distinct culture who once lived on this island, itself 250 miles distant to the west from its main neighbours in the Gilbert and Ellice group. This island came under British rule in 1901 in circumstances over which perhaps we should draw a veil. I understand that the Banabans were paid £50 for the island. From then on throughout the whole of this century it has been a major producer of phosphates, mainly for the Australasian markets. Naturally such mining strips the soil and impoverishes the environment generally and it has been estimated, by the Banabans at any rate, that it would cost about £A36,570 to rehabilitate each acre of Ocean Island. This estimate is based upon certain calculations made in comparable conditions on the Nauru group. On such figures per acre, the total cost of restoring Ocean Island, the original home of the Banabans, following the exhaustion of its phosphates, would come to approximately £A40 million.

However, the Banabans left Ocean Island before the Japanese onslaught across the Western Pacific, and after the war the Island of Rabi, a small island, although with some economic potential, was purchased for the low sum of £25,000 as a home where the Banaban Community, it was hoped, would be able to settle permanently. Although remote from their original homeland, Rabi is an island of some agricultural wealth, and it is well provided, in particular, with coconut palms. Following an experimental period of two years on Rabi, the Banabans decided by a large majority, and by secret ballot, to remain there. However, they have not surrendered claim to Ocean Island, and within the last two years they have been demanding independence for that island.

Presumably they envisage an independent State within the Commonwealth of two small islands 1,000 miles apart, one of which would be virtually uninhabitable following the conclusion of the phosphate mine, and with a total population of between 1,000 and 2,000—in effect, a large, or not so large, village. This is clearly the concept of national sovereignty gone made. It is easy to deride such rather grandiose projects. Nevertheless, it poses the problem which I have touched upon of the political future of such tiny dependent territories. This is where the grant of £80,000 to some extent involves policy decisions about this future political status.

The Banabans have been quick in recent years to point to the example—and there are some parallels—of Nauru, which is also a major supplier of phosphates, where the estimated income for the islanders during the next 30 years from such mining has been put at £144 million. Therefore, we are talking about a very great deal of money. But the position on Ocean Island is much less entrancing. In the first place, the revenue from the phosphate industry is an essential ingredient in the budget of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, within which Ocean Island has been administratively incorporated. This colony is economically weak and fragile, despite recent moves towards a more democratically elected governing structure. Therefore, any loss of income from Ocean Island—for example, as a result of new arrangements with the Banabans involving their independence or some new contractual arrangement over the distribution of royalties from the phosphate mining—would quite severely hit the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony unless Britain were to step in and make grants or loans available to that colony.

In passing, I might mention that in the Adjournment debate of 7th June, 1967, to which I earlier referred, there was a sympathetic and sensitive elaboration of the Banaban case. I do not wish to use this debate, even if I were permitted to do so, to attempt to argue the alternative point of view put forward by the Gilbert and Ellice islanders; but they have their own point of view on this. It has been expressed as recently as last autumn in London, and they would be very apprehensive if the financial problems of the Banabans were to appear to be solved as a result of taking away some of the revenue from Ocean Island, upon which they too depend.

The second element in the difficulties facing Ocean Island is that the phosphate deposits are running out fast, particularly as it has recently been decided to increase the annual rate of extraction from 450,000 tons to 600,000 tons. As a result of this decision, which was reached by the British Phosphate Commission on grounds of efficiency and profitability of production, the deposits will be exhausted in 1977 instead of in 1981 were the lower annual rate to be maintained.

The Banabans have for many years benefited, not nearly as much as they might feel is their entitlement, from royalty payments derived from the extraction of phosphates from their original homeland. They are naturally concerned that this traditional source of revenue will have dried up in as little as eight or nine years' time. They are also critical, I think with some justification viewing this historically, of the benefits which they have derived over the years from this mining activity. They have made strenuous efforts to gain a larger share, partly to help them to develop Rabi during the next critical 10 years before the phosphate deposits run out, and partly to help them to rehabilitate the ravaged landscape of Ocean Island.

Whether any such increase as has been talked about in royalty payments would come remotely near meeting the bill for the rehabilitation of Ocean Island, that is to say £A40 million, is open to serious doubt. I ask my hon. Friend what the British Government plan to do with Ocean Island, which is still in the ownership of the Banabans, once the phosphates are exhausted. Is it to be left as a Pacific junk yard or, as the Banabans themselves once put it, as a land of "coral pinnacles"? This is a critical matter in evaluating the significance of the grant which is now being suggested as adequate compensation to the Banabans for the income which they claim they should have been receiving over the years from Ocean Island phosphates.

Whether Ocean Island is destined to become part of the Banaban Republic or part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Republic, which might be almost equally non-viable, or whatever may be the eventual solution, it is clear that the ending of mining is bound to pose severe difficulties for the local administration. Perhaps my hon. Friend will indicate, if the information is available, the detailed reasoning which lay behind the decision to increase the extraction rate. On the face of it, it seems likely, whatever may be the merits of doing so, to precipitate changes which there might be some point in postponing. There may be a case for spreading out this work in order to delay the problems which will arise for the Banabans and for the Gilbert and Ellice islanders in 1977.

This brings me directly to the £80,000 we are now making available to the Banaban Community. The money was originally made available last year, indeed in 1967 in the first place, and it was also at that time made available in a Supplementary Estimate.

It was, however, subsequently rejected by the Banabans as being inadequate and unsatisfactory. In an effort to reconcile the various viewpoints, including those of the Gilbert and Ellice islanders, the so-called Ocean Island phosphates discussions took place at Lancaster House at the close of October, 1968. Since the report of the discussions has been published with the various viewpoints clearly set out, I have no wish to read the detailed financial case presented by both the Banabans and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands representatives. I would simply ask my hon. Friend to explain the financial reason behind this ex gratia payment. In other words, what were the criteria involved in assessing the sum? Was it to be regarded as a once-for-all payment, a sort of settlement for the ravages of the imperialists of long ago? I ask that because, in the Daily Telegraph of 20th June, 1967, a report of the original offer reads: Britain has agreed to make them (the Banabans) an ex gratia payment of £80,000, with the promise to review their share next spring. That would have been the spring of 1968.

It appears that, at that time, in the summer of 1967, the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs was arguing clearly that it was to be a once-for-all payment. She said: It is in respect of this that we are making a once-for-all grant of £80,000 to be used under controlled conditions for the economic development of Rabi Island, where at the moment the Banaban community is living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 1252.] Does the same position hold with this renewed offer under this year's Supplementary Estimate? In other words, is the Banaban share of royalty payments subject to review at some subsequent date?

In paragraph 6(b) of the Agreed Minute, which was orginally signed at Wellington on 15th September, 1967, such flexibility seems to be implied and also to be at the discretion of the British Government. But in paragraph 7(h) of the Concluding Statement made by the right hon. the Lord Shepherd on 30th October last, it would seem to be unlikely that any changes would be permitted which would be to the disadvantage of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. However, since there is the proviso "for the time being" in that paragraph, it might be helpful to know precisely what further financial concessions are contemplated for the Banabans.

My next question concerns the disposal of the £80,000, assuming that it is accepted this time by the Banabans. It would be interesting to know if they have indicated their willingness to do so. Although it is a small sum in these days of Concorde, £80,000 is still a tidy sum in terms, say, of Britain's annual contribution to the invaluable work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Furthermore, it will go to people who number at most 2,000, including children, and I think that we should see it as roughly equivalent to at least £150 per family in a part of the world where per capita incomes are not notably high. According to the figures supplied last October by the Government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, the Banabans are already in receipt of an annual unearned income of at least 315,000 dollars, so that they are by no means the poorest of the world's under-developed peoples.

I do not want to sound parsimonious, but I think that Parliament should have some idea of what is happening to its money, particularly when detailed auditing appears to have been abandoned. This is a matter of accounting principles and, in view of the oddities of the whole story, it is a principle which we should not ignore. I feel that there is a matter here of wider concern, and it is very much implicit in this grant and the reasoning which seems to lie behind it.

The real dilemma of the Banabans, and of the Gilbert and Ellice Islanders, too, is that they are incapable of achieving political and economic stability and growth if left to themselves. We can shrug off the problem conveniently by pretending that it does not exist or assuming that the number of people involved is so small that we can jog along with the occasional hand-out or bribe to them to be of good behaviour.

But we may be wholly underestimating the future importance of many of these apparently insignificant and remote atolls. The Pacific today is the great arena of confrontation between a resurgent China and a rich but fearful United States. It is a big protective moat, but the lesson of the Second World War was that it could be hopped over. Today China is developing nuclear weapons, and probably intermediate range ballistic missiles. Before long she may well be testing them in the Pacific in the vicinity of these islands that we are discussing, just as the other great Powers, including the U.S.S.R., have been doing in recent years.

It would be foolish to sound too alarmist or to develop the argument at great length, but the prospect of a myriad tiny island states, most of which would be only too vulnerable to political corruption—not to mention Mafia-type activities—is not a pleasing one in these days of strategic reappraisal symbolised in the Sentinel ABM system.

Is Britain to stay indefinitely policing these States and giving them from time to time ex gratia payments, or are we to pull out completely—and, if so, when— from the vast area east of Borneo? Is Australasia or the United States to take over our protective rôle? If not, is it to be the Soviet Union or China? Or should we reappraise the potential rôle of the United Nation

This leads me to consider not so much the speculative problems of military technology in terms of island bases—and there have been reports, although I discount the notion, that the islands may be envisaged as one such island base—but the inevitable growth in the economic importance of the ocean, the sea bed and marine technology in the next few decades. It is true that many of these Pacific islands lack the extensive areas of continental shelf which might one day offer rich yields of minerals and fuels, but they may well offer suitable sites for the new marine farming which is coming as certainly as the world's population is going to mount.

Such islands, small in themselves—Ocean Island is only three miles across—have territorial waters whose significance in future may well be great. They are, I think, likely to become increasingly important for meteorological and marine science stations and for the jumbo jets which will need servicing and refuelling facilities as they cross the Pacific. The supersonics are also likely to follow, for sonic boom reasons, the great ocean routes. Not least, they will become increasingly important as the advent of mass flying brings them into the holiday orbit of affluent Westerners and Japanese as areas where we can all follow Gauguin to the sun and to other delectable objectives.

What I am trying to suggest—and clearly I must not develop these wider themes tonight—is that we need to take a long hard look at the whole future of these dependent territories. I have for some time been urging the Government to define the powers of the Constitutional Commission so that it can consider the future links between the United Kingdom and these small and remote dependencies—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must resist the temptation to go too wide.

Mr. Brooks

I fully accept your point, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly not pursue this particular matter. But it is clear that if we do not, when maters such as this arise where sums of money are allocated as part of an apparent philosophy of dealing with these small islands as client States, raise these more general issues of their political future, perhaps no opportunity will be presented to the House. As I have tried to argue, policy questions of some magnitude are involved in what appear, on the face of it, to be very small and harmless decisions.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

I should like to make a brief comment, but, first, I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present during the first few minutes of his remarks.

I do not want to go into detail because of the late hour and because my hon. Friend is extremely well briefed and has covered all the essential points. My interest arises from a special report from the Methodist Church which is deeply concerned about these people and has made social representations on their behalf. I understand that it is also committed to raise, from the World Methodist Church, a sum of at least £10,000 to help them. My interest in and knowledge of the case derive entirely from that source.

I am also concerned about this problem for the reasons set out in the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks. I believe that there is a serious general problem about what this country should do in relation to what has been called the micro-States, that is to say this scattering of about 30 dependencies, the residual amount of the erstwhile Colonial Empire, consisting largely of tiny territories, with tiny populations, which, to be realistic, cannot be looked on as potential independent States with viable political or economic futures.

The details of the matter have been gone into with great care by my hon. Friend. I am not sure whether he has quoted any figures for the value of the phosphates, but I obtained some information from my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and it is rather startling to look at the disparity between the value of the phosphates themselves and the moneys accruing to these people whose land and property this was until they were removed from it, and I believe that theoretically it still is their property.

Ten years ago the value of the phosphates was about £1 million. The revenue accruing to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Administration then was £250,000, while the Banabans got £29,000. In 1967–68, ten years later, the value of the phosphates was £2½ million. The Gilbert and Ellice Islands got nearly £1 million of that, while the Banabans received £162,000. These figures are in Australian £s.

It seems to me that the relationship of the proportions of those sums shows that the Banabans have a substantial case for further consideration and for more financial aid from this country than they are getting at the moment. As these phosphates are by any reasonable standard the property of the people, and while, obviously, the technical expertise which makes them exploitable has to be paid for, nevertheless it seems that the money accruing to the Banabans from the total revenue raised is somewhat tiny in relation to the value of this natural resource.

I underline what my hon. Friend said about the rate of exploitation, which is of serious concern to these people. I confirm the figures given by my hon. Friend of the build up from 450,000 tons to 600,000 tons which has occurred recently, and which is estimated to shorten the life of the industry to about eight years.

One of my major concerns is that we should be aware that the treatment, of peoples in our few remaining colonial dependencies has a direct effect on the general prestige and standing of this country in the world at large, and at the United Nations in particular. We may rightly be proud of the fact that the former Colonial Empire has developed into the Commonwealth, but many members of the United Nations—about 70 or 80 of them—are still extremely sensitive on the subject of colonialism generally, and colonial possessions in particular.

So long as we leave unredressed what may be regarded as legitimate grievances, and so long as we even appear to exploit small peoples who are unable adequately to defend themselves, so long shall we be subject to continual criticism and attack at the United Nations, and from bodies such as the Committee of 24 Some of the criticisms and attacks may be ill informed, unnecessarily vicious and politically stupid, but they will go on until we get down to the serious question of solving these people's problems.

I am not wholly satisfied that the Government have worked out a general forward policy for dealing with this kind of territory. We can probably work out a sensible forward policy only by deliberately offering to co-operate with the international community through the United Nations and perhaps by making use of a part of its machinery, the Trusteeship Council, which may lately have appeared to have exhausted its useful life but which could be given a valuable new lease of life by a calculated act of policy by the Government in saying, "We have these territories which are a residual responsibility and pose certain international and other problems, and we should explicitly like the co-operation and help of the international community in devising for them a viable and a sensible future acceptable to the peoples themselves and to the world." This is essentially my plea, and I am glad to support what my hon. Friend has said.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. John Peel (Leicester, South-East)

I had not planned to intervene, but I am probably one of the few hon. Members who knows this colony, and Ocean Island, among the many islands which make up the colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands fairly well.

I wanted to make sure that the Under-Secretary would cover one or two points which are particularly applicable. For instance, my memory, which is getting rather old on this matter, is that, when it was realised that Ocean Island would cost a great deal of money to rehabilitate after the phosphates had been dug out, we arranged to provide for the Banabans a much more luxurious island in the South Pacific, in the Fiji group, which could be developed to make a good agricultural community. Certainly, during the years that I was there, there were no serious complaints from the Banabans on that score, so I am rather interested that, many years later, these claims should be coming forward.

The problems of a colony of that size are very difficult, but people do not appreciate the enormous distances involved and the very small size of these islands. In fact, over the years, their peoples have themselves asked us, the administering Power, to help them to go to other islands where there is more room. There has been considerable overcrowding on many islands in the area and we instituted a large resettlement programme at the request of these people, and moved them to these other islands. In some cases, this resettlement was successful, but in others not so successful. In all these cases, although the islands may be overcrowded, certainly older people very much dislike being moved.

It is, therefore, nothing new to these people to move to other islands. My recollection of the removal of the Banabans to the South Pacific is that it was a good move in that the island provided for them, Rabi, was a good and fertile place. I hope that the Minister will explain more fully what is the present position.

As for the rumour that Ocean Island might be used as a harbour by potential enemies, my recollection is that it is one of the worst anchorages one could find, so that the danger which has been rumoured is unlikely to arise.

10.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) began with what one might call a cold financial interest in the matter under discussion; but, being warm hearted, he was quickly carried away by an intriguing story which he was able to unravel about the Banabans.

I wish, first, to comment on the question of accountability which he raised. He was puzzled by the footnote on page 13 of the Supplementary Estimates. It is customary for grants of this nature to be governed in this manner. They are not subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General here. Nor is it the custom for the balances to be subject to surrender. Adequate arrangements are made locally for audit.

The grant is being paid into a fund which is being set up in Fiji for the specific purpose of directing the money towards the proper objectives. It is intended that the money will be under the control of the Governor and that expenditure will be subject to proper audit in the Colony. In view of the circumstances in which the grant is being made, it would be inappropriate for the expenditure to be accounted for in detail here, in London, to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Since the Government have undertaken to provide the round sum of £80,000, it would not be appropriate to surrender any unexpended balance at the end of the financial year.

As my hon. Friend has found, the Banabans are a little-known but very attractive people who have been championed by hon. Members on a number of occasions. They were originally inhabitants of Ocean Island, where phosphate mining began in 1900. From an early date the Administration had been concerned about the future livelihood of the Banabans after mining had removed the top soil. They therefore had the idea of finding a new island for the Banabans and an opportunity occurred during the last war to buy the Island of Rabi, the Fijian spelling of which is, I gather, Rambi. An opportunity to buy this island, which is in the Fiji group, occurred at that time at the low price of £A25,000. The purchase was negotiated by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific with Banaban funds which he held in trust.

When the Banabans—who, during the Japanese occupation, had been sent to other islands and were used almost as slaves—gathered together again on the Island of Tarawa, they agreed to go to Rabi for a trial period of two years. At the end of that they agreed, by a large majority recorded in a secret ballot, to remain in Rabi. I gather that Ocean Island had become almost a moonscape, an ugly, inhospitable, almost uninhabitable island of coral peaks and rocks and holes left by mining excavations, whereas Rabi was not an atoll but an attractive island capable of considerable development. Quite voluntarily, and by the decision of an overwhelming majority, they decided to stay on Rabi.

The relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony and that between Her Majesty's Government and the Banabans is different in kind. Her Majesty's Government have a direct constitutional link with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony of which Ocean Island is a part, and have responsibility for the good order and efficient conduct of the administration. The Banabans, on the other hand, are a community living in Fiji, but with certain rights as inhabitants of Ocean Island in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. This community has the same right of approach to the British Government as other inhabitants of the dependent territories.

My hon. Friend asked whether it is possible that Ocean Island can become independent. I draw his attention to a document which I am sure he has read, and which was placed in the Library after the discussions here in October, 1968, on the Ocean Island phosphates. During those discussions my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said: In this context, I must remind you of a cardinal principle to which Britain has adhered closely in the past in dealing with her dependent territories, and to which we continue to adhere—that the wishes of the people of the territory must be the main guide to action. There are cases where adherence to this principle has led to difficulties for Britain. But the fact remains that we must be guided by the wishes of the people as a whole within the existing boundaries of the territories. In this case those members of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony Delegation who are elected members of the House of Representatives (including the Chief Elected Member of the Governing Council), and thus representing the people of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, have made it absolutely clear that they would not agree to the exclusion of Ocean Island from their territory either now, or at any time when the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony may reach some status other than its present relationship with Britain. On these grounds, I have to state that it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider the exclusion of Ocean Island from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony through the grant of independence on Ocean Island to the Banaban community. It is entirely out of the question to consider Rabi as being excluded from the Fiji group. The Fijians would not consider any severance of the island from Fiji. There would certainly be repercussions from Fiji politicians if we were in any way to suggest that that is possible. There seems no question of an agreement that Rabi should be separated from Fiji and Ocean Island or the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony and made into one State.

My hon. Friend spoke about the small islands over whose future there is a questionmark, small islands whose future economic potential is very much in question and whose economic potential may have an importance out of all proportion to their size. As he said, they may have a strategic importance militarily which they do not have now. They may be in demand as sites for space tracking stations, meteorological stations, and so on. He spotlighted the danger that undesirable elements may wish to develop the islands in a way of which none of us would approve. Mafia-type organisations are operating in other parts of the world, but I know of no such instance in the Pacific. All these matters are matters of conjecture. They are matters on which I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will keep a close eye.

These islands may become very important because of the development of the resources of the seabed. We are on the verge of space travel, although we have not yet learned to live sensibly and at peace on our own planet or to develop the resources it offers. Among the resources which we have not yet learned to develop are those of the seabed.

The importance of the resources of the seabed was spotlighted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a debate on 31st October last. On 26th July last there was a full-scale debate on the question of the ocean bed, when it was pointed out that at the United Nations the United Kingdom delegation, along with Malta, sponsored the idea of setting up a committee to study the peaceful use of the seabed for all nations. We have gone to considerable lengths to consult on seabed matters all dependent territories with coastlines, and we pay due respect to their views.

As to the future of the remaining British dependent territories, the British Government stand ready to give independence to dependent territories which want it and which can sustain it. For the others, Britain is willing to work out arrangements appropriate to each territory which will enable it if it wishes to continue in some form of association with Britain. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in his opening address to the Bahamas Constitutional Conference in London in September, 1968, outlined the policy of the British Government towards the dependent territories as follows: There still remain a number of British territories around the globe. We do not know what their ultimate constitutional future will be. We have not and never have had any detailed blueprint. A few of these territories may wish to proceed to independence. Others may not. It is always difficult to forecast, but whatever the future holds we in Britain will adhere closely to the cardinal principle to which we have adhered in the past, that the wishes of the people concerned must be the main guide to action. It is not and never has been our desire or intention either to delay independence for those dependencies who want it or to force it upon those who do not. Now that most of the territories for which independence is the goal have attained it or are close to it, our task is for the most part to work out arrangements for small island territories whose leaders most definitely recognise that they cannot hope to sustain separate sovereign independence and who in many cases wish to retain some form of continuing link with Britain. The problems with which we shall be dealing in future are to some extent different in character from those with which we have been concerned in recent years. Some of the features of the arrangements already adopted in the associated states may be applicable to other British territories. In each instance our policy will remain, as it has always been, to work out arrangements for them in consultation with the representatives of their people which will meet the special circumstances of each individual case.

In this task our minds are not closed to new ideas. We have noted the concern expressed in the United Nations Secretary General's reports for the last two years about the proliferation of independent micro states, and his recommendation that their special problems should be examined. We are glad that there is a growing realisation that independence may not be the solution for very small territories. We have indicated our support for a United Nations study of smaller territories which is due to begin soon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has mentioned the Committee of 24 and we are well aware of the interest of the international community in decolonisation. Although we may think that some of the discussions of the United Nations have been somewhat unrealistic, we have participated in those discussions and we welcome constructive suggestions from any quarter. At the same time, we have made it clear that responsibility for our territories is ours alone while they remain dependent on us and we cannot shirk that responsibility. With that proviso, we are willing to consider constructive suggestions put forward in the United Nations including that for a special study of the problems of smaller territories.

The reason for making the special grant of £80,000 to the Banabans was stated by my noble and right hon. Friend, Lord Shepherd, in his concluding statement at the Ocean Islands phosphates discussion held in London in October last year. This was printed in a print containing the representations of the Banabans and the Government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony on the subject of the division of the benefits from the Ocean Island phosphates, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House at the time. Her Majesty's Government acknowledge a responsibility for assisting the Banabans to develop the Island of Rabi to its fullest potential as the best means of securing the future welfare of the Banaban community.

The Banabans have made claims as to their rights on the Ocean Island phosphates which the British Government cannot accept, for reasons made clear by my right hon. and noble Friend in his statement to which I have referred. I think the following passage from his statement clearly sets out Her Majesty's Government's position: I would hope that both the Banabans and the people of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony will accept that in coming to this decision the British Government has balanced the conflicting interests which inevitably arise with objectivity and fairness. The facts of the situation, when it comes to matters of hard financial decisions, must dictate the Government's policy. The Government has considered from every aspect the Banabans' case for a greater financial income from the phosphates and has taken very seriously the Banabans' declarations of trust in the Government's good faith in deciding this issue. One of the factors which has decided the matter is the Government's sincere belief, based on all the evidence available, that the economic future for the Banabans in Fiji is a good one. The British Government has on a previous occasion acknowledged a responsibility for assisting the Banabans to develop Rabi to its fullest potential and we still believe that this is the best means of securing the future welfare of the Banaban community. The British Government therefore believes that everything possible should be done to press forward with a practical approach to the development of Rabi Island. A sound ground plan has already been prepared by experts who went to the island last year under technical assistance arrangements, and I firmly believe that if this can be followed up with the proper energy over a period of time, the future prosperity of the Banabans on Rabi Island can be fully assured. For these reasons, Her Majesty's Government is prepared to renew the offer of a grant of £80,000 which was made last year, conditionally only on its controlled application to the development of the Rabi Island. Her Majesty's Government have always taken the view that because of the mining of Ocean Island they ought to do their best to help the Banabans to settle on the island of their choice and develop it to its fullest possible potential. Those were my right hon. and hon. Friend's words at the end of the conference to which I have referred.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development arranged in 1967 for a two-man team to visit Rabi under Technical Assistance arrangements to consider the best means of future development of the island, and a copy of their report also has been placed in the Library. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington has looked at it.

As has been reported to the House previously, the Banabans declined to accept the grant of £80,000 when it was offered to them after their representations made in 1967, but I am glad to say that their representatives have been discussing development projects for the expenditure of the grant of £80,000, made at the October 1968 discussions, with officials of the Fiji Government. I hope that practical steps will soon be taken in the development of the island. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has undertaken to consider any further technical assistance which may be required.

I am satisfied that the Banabans on Rabi will be able to provide for a prosperous future for the community. The Banabans in Fiji are lucky to be residing in a territory which, by Pacific standards, enjoys modest prosperity and has a stable social background, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South-East (Mr. Peel) said. It is true that the phosphate revenue will eventually cease, but even then, provided that the Banabans cooperate in developing Rabi to its optimum extent, they will still have a valuable asset to cushion them against the problems of the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.