HC Deb 18 December 1975 vol 902 cc1852-73

1.42 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

The story I have to tell is not edifying. It concerns the continuing grievances of the Banabans, a small remote people living in the South Pacific who have been caught up in the last stages of decolonisation in a way which poses serious moral and political problems for the British Government.

It is not that the Banabans, who now live on the Fijian island of Rabi, are asking for the moon. They passionately want the return of their own tiny ancestral home, Ocean Island, 1,600 miles away to the north and the means of rehabilitating at least part of it. Ocean Island is hardly a paradise. As I have seen with my own eyes, it has been almost completely devastated by ruthless and systematic mining of phosphate deposits for threequarters of a century. This has not been primarily for the benefit of the original inhabitants, but to provide cheap fertiliser for Australian and New Zealand farmers.

As so often happens in this vale of tears, the worm has turned. On 5th December a case was brought in the High Court of Chancery by Banabans who own land on Ocean Island against the British Phosphate Commission, a body owned in part by the British Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is just coming to a matter which, I think, is sub judice, because it is at present before the High Court.

Sir B. Braine

If you will allow me to continue for a few more moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that I not only recognise that what is before the High Court is sub judice, but that I want to get that aspect of the matter completely out of the way. My only reference to the High Court proceedings is to say in passing that when this case ended on its 106th day, thus gaining the doubtful distinction of being the longest case in our legal history, judgment had not been given, and it would be wrong for any comment to be made in this House on the precise matters at issue.

It would be equally wrong to discuss a second case by the same plaintiffs which began this week and in which the defendants are the Crown, represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. When, however, these two cases are concluded, I have no doubt that the House will wish to know their cost to the Exchequer and why they were undertaken in the first place.

Irrespective of the outcome, a wider justice will still have to be done to all the people of the territory, which until now has been known as the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, and that will require what has been completely missing from the political handling of the situation so far—namely, a statesmanlike and generous settlement. In short, as Britain prepares to divest herself of one of her last colonial dependencies in the South Pacific, she has the choice of leaving behind an area of tranquillity or one of seething discontent. It is my sad conviction that on present form it is the second prospect which seems more likely.

It is for that reason that I seek to raise this matter tonight. Leaving aside the economic grievances of the Banabans, which for the time being are properly the concern of the High Court, the issue I raise turns quite simply on whether the Banabans' claim for the return and independence of their ancestral home should be conceded. Once such independence is granted, it is the Banabans' intention to seek voluntary association with Fiji. The House will be interested to know that the Fijian Government have already let it be known that they accept this in principle.

Unhappily, until now there has been no sign that the problem is really understood in Whitehall or that the political cost to our future relations with our Commonwealth partners in the Pacific—Australia, New Zealand and Fiji—of not resolving the matter before our departure has been fully grasped. Indeed, over the past year or so we have had a most extraordinary attempt to brush the matter under the carpet.

Her Majesty's Government are, of course, now preparing the Bill for the independence of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. They have already conceded that the Elice Islands, which are now known under the enchanting name of Tuvalu, can go their own way on the ground that their people are of a Polynesian stock, whereas the people in the rest of the colony are Meronesians. The Government have so far not been prepared to yield an inch on the Banabans' claim for similar treatment.

Three reasons are given for this. First, the Banabans are the same people as the Gilbertese. Why then permit them to claim special treatment? Secondly, to allow Ocean Island to secede from the Gilberts would be to break up a convenient administrative unit which has existed for a long time, and that would hardly be helpful to the new State. Thirdly, to concede independence to Ocean Island would be to deny to the Gilbertese, at least up to early 1978 when the phosphate deposits will be completely exhausted, much needed revenue.

None of these reasons stands up to any kind of analysis. The Banabans have a distinct identity of their own, as any social scientist who has studied the matter knows and as, incidentally, the Gilbertese and Banabans agreed at the recent meeting in Tarawa.

As for administrative convenience, postwar history surely provides numerous examples of the wrong-headedness and futility of denying an identity to any group that claims to be and is different. The answer to the financial viability argument is that the Gilberts, like Tuvalu, will need external aid long after they reach independence. There is no reason why, as an act of simple restitution, the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments, who have profited so long from the exploitation of Ocean Island's phosphates, should not jointly meet the needs of the entire area while conceding the Banabans' legitimate claim for the return of their homeland.

Let us consider for a moment the implications of the Government's attitude, which so far has been to encourage the Gilbertese to become independent, retaining Ocean Island, with some kind of entrenched clause in its constitution, guaranteeing the Banabans' land rights on Ocean Island. This would leave the unhappy Banabans after British withdrawal split between two sovereign independent jurisdictions—as sure a prescription for divided loyalties, bitterness and conflict as anybody could devise. Could anything more ludicrous or irresponsible be imagined?

It may be that by now such ideas have been dropped, but they were certainly current earlier in the year when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and I visited the Pacific. In any event, how can Ministers put faith in entrenched clauses when the world is littered with the confetti of torn-up constitutions thought up by the constitutional lawyers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Why were those constitutions torn up? It was because they were not founded on political reality. Whether it was in Africa or the Caribbean or anywhere else, they were not founded on the love of the people they were designed to serve. Such constitutions are doomed to failure where there is no ready consent from the beginning.

What is more, time is not on our side. By early 1978, the phosphate deposits on Ocean Island will be completely exhausted. This will conclude a commercial operation begun in 1900 which has resulted in the systematic destruction of the island in order to provide cheap fertilisers for Australian and New Zealand farmers. Indirectly, we ourselves, in the days of cheap Commonwealth food, benefited from that policy.

From the beginning the Banabans were in the way. Hardly anyone, even the neighbouring Gilbertese, had known of their existence before the discovery of phosphates in 1900. Britain then moved in quickly, annexed the island and some 16 years later made part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony two groups of atolls the nearest of which lies 240 miles to the east.

The Second World War saw Japanese occupation of Ocean Island and deportation of the Banabans as slave labour to other islands in the Pacific. At the end of hostilities the sick and debilitated survivors were rounded up by the British authorities and dumped 1,600 miles away from their homeland at Rabi in the Pacific, which had been bought for them out of their own money. Incidentally, the thirtieth anniversary of the date of the Banaban's arrival on Rabi in 1945 was last Monday 15th December.

Two months before the arrival of the Banabans on Rabi, the British colonial authority conferred with representatives of the British Phosphate Commission. It is appropriate for me to quote briefly from the notes prepared for the meeting in October 1945: "Removal of Banabans to Rabi.

  1. (1) It is understood that there are at present 600 mixed Banabans and Gilbertese on Nauru, 750 on Kusae and 120 (Banabans only) on Tarawa. It is considered most desirable that this unique opportunity should be taken for taking them to Rabi instead of returning them to Ocean Island.
  2. (2) It is proposed to second Kennedy to take charge of these removal operations with instructions to separate the Gilbertese in Nauru and Kusae from the Banabans, to return the former to their home islands but to inform the latter that as it is impossible for them to inhabit Ocean Island at present they will be taken to Rabi, where temporary accommodation, emergency food, etc. is ready for them.
  3. (3) If this proposal is to be carried into effect it is essential that the BPC should lend the Government a vessel for the purpose of transporting the natives: the recruit ship would do very well. This request is made with confidence, since the removal of the Banabans and the settlement of the Banaban question is even more to the essential benefit of the British Phosphates Commission than the Government."
It is interesting to note the way in which we carried out our trusteeship for those who were our wards. The notes continue— While present shipping difficulties are realised it is strongly urged that they should not be permitted to frustrate the carrying out of a project which the Commissioners have been striving to achieve for decades and which, if not done now, will never be done. A ship was consequently made available and at long last this small community, which had long been regarded as an awkward obstacle to our mining operations on behalf of Australian and New Zealand farmers, was removed from the scene. The irony of it was that indentured labour was then imported into Ocean Island to enjoy the relatively high wages and benefits which the Banabans might themselves have enjoyed on their own soil, while the Banaban community was left to fend for itself on Rabi in a strange environment and in circumstances of most primitive subsistence agriculture.

When I first inquired, I was told how fortunate they were in being removed to Rabi, but then I looked into the documents and consulted those who knew Rabi. All this is on record. There is a revealing literature on the subject if one chooses to read it. Indeed, it must be said that from the outset this small community of inoffensive people have been cheated, deceived and pushed about in a most shameful way. It is a sordid story.

But in the past 10 years the Banabans, under the impressive leadership of two men, Tito Rotan and his son, the Rev. Tebuke Rotan, have awakened to a realisation of their unique and dangerous political situation. They are resident, in the main, within the sovereign State of Fiji and yet they are still the lawful owners of Ocean Island which, if the British Government have their way, will pass to an independent Gilbertese State. Once the British depart and wash their hands of the whole area, they will find themselves under two sovereign independent jurisdictions. What a magnificent achievement that will be for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office!

As you reminded me at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the two legal actions I cannot discuss the extent of the financial exploitation of the Banabans, but an estimate of the cost of granting their independence is on record. In August 1974, the Governor, Mr. John H. Smith, expressed the hope that the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony would accumulate out of the then remaining Banaban phosphates a reserve of about £36 million, the interest on which would help balance the Budget in future years. If one assumes that there were four years of phosphates left when the governor made that estimate, some three remaining years would represent a once-for-all capital payment of £27 million which the Gilbert Islands fear would be lost to them if the Banabans' wishes were met.

The Banabans say that they must have full control over their remaining phosphates without delay if they are ever to restore a reasonable part of their ancestral homeland so that at least some of their people can return to live there once again. In passing, I may say, and the hon. Member for Handsworth will bear me out, because we were there together, that I have little doubt that some rehabilitation is possible. We stood at the bottom of 30 ft. to 40 ft. craters on a moonscape, with dereliction all round us, yet we observed that there had been a natural regeneration of fruit-bearing trees.

However one looks at it, Britain will be morally responsible for replacing this sum of £27 million, or the interest thereon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I want to be entirely fair to the hon. Member, and also to do my duty to the House. Is he arguing that the Government should provide the trees and shrubs? I understand that that is one of the issues upon which judgment will be given by the court in 1976.

Sir B. Braine

I cannot say, because the judgment of the court has not been given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

But the case has been heard, and this is one of the issues upon which the court will give judgment. We therefore cannot—

Sir B. Braine

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With respect to the hon. Member, I must go by the advice that I am given. We cannot discuss a case that is sub judice.

Sir B. Braine

Having regard to the matters before the court, I do not think that I am transgressing. I shall be very careful in what I say. It is surely permissible to argue that in all fairness, if it be held that Britain should contribute something towards the rehabilitation of the island, that burden should in the end be shared by Australia and New Zealand. That has nothing to do with any court case. Over a period of many years, they should voluntarily contribute a substantial proportion.

The interesting point that I want to make is that there is every indication—at least, there was earlier in the year—that both countries would willingly meet their fair share of that responsibility. But it is Britain, the administering Power which has benefited until now in that the revenue from Banaban phosphate accruing to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, that has actually reduced the amount of aid given from this country. These words are not mine. They are the considered view of the Government's advisers.

It is, therefore, the British Government who have deliberately permitted the exploitation of Banabans over three-quarters of a century—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I am not trying to make things difficult for him. However, I understand that one of the chief matters in dispute in the second action which is sub judice is this very question of the payment of royalty to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Sir B. Braine

That may be so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am dealing with something quite apart from any question of financial settlement—namely, what is to happen to Ocean Island and what is to be done to meet the request of the. Banabans for its return. That is not the subject of the court actions. But it is absolutely basic to a solution of this very difficult problem.

What I am trying to say—and it is very difficult to separate this from what may subsequently have to be done in the financial field—is that Britain is the governing Power at this stage. It is the British Government who in all conscience must take the initiative in righting the wrong.

I do not make these assertions without knowledge. Earlier this year the hon. Member for Handsworth and I visited Ocean Island, the Gilberts, Fiji and Australia. We were left in no doubt as to the fact that the Banabans had suffered great injustice, and there was a great deal of sympathy for their plight right across the Pacific. But we were also left with the distinct impression that the Australian and New Zealand Governments were profoundly uneasy about the whole situation and were prepared, if invited by Britain, to play a positive role in a settlement which would enable Ocean Island to become associated with Fiji while ensuring that both the Gilbert Islands and Tuvalu received compensatory support and continuing aid for some years ahead. Indeed, we were assured, both by Ministers and officials, that they would respond to an early invitation by Britain to a round-table conference to resolve the matter.

It is no use the Under-Secretary shaking his head. This was conveyed to the Foreign Secretary in a report on 21st April, since when we have heard absolutely nothing further.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands)

The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about assurances. Will he give me some quotations from Ministers in Australia and New Zealand, some specific examples? I have spoken to the Australian and New Zealand Governments very recently on this subject, and I am only too happy to mention it now. But the hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning his special experience. What is that in detail?

Sir B. Braille

I shall give the hon. Gentleman his answer. The meetings that the hon. Member for Handsworth and I had were attended by representatives of Her Majesty's Government in Canberra. We did not have any meetings in secret. Representatives of Her Majesty's Government were present at the discussions that we had. Perhaps the hon. Member for Handsworth will confirm that.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

Perhaps I can assist in this way. I think that the hon. Member will recall that I stayed behind in Australia after be and I had spoken to Senator Willesey, the then Foreign Minister. I had a conversation with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Cairns, and it was held in the presence of the Head of Chancery of the British High Commission in Canberra, so there can be no dispute about that.

Sir B. Braine

It would be better for the Minister if he did not pursue that line.

Thus not only Australia and New Zealand but the newly-independent Commonwealth nations of the South Pacific are anxious that Britain should negotiate a generous and amicable solution to this problem rather than withdraw from the area leaving behind rancour and seething dissatisfaction. After much patient negotiation that wise and farsighted Pacific statesman, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister of Fiji, whom we were privileged to meet, brought the Gilberts Council of Ministers and the Rabi Council of Leaders together. Under his chairmanship, full and frank discussions took place on 13th, 14th and 15th October. At the end of that meeting the two communities directly concerned added their combined plea to the one we had made in April for a round-table conference with representatives of Her Majesty's Government. For the benefit of the Minister I shall read the joint resolution which they published, which was as follows: We (the Gilberts Council of Ministers) and the Banabans are concerned for the future well-being of our respective people when the phosphate mining on Ocean Island is exhausted in two to three years' time. We strongly feel that the Partner Governments"— the Governments of Britain, Australia and New Zealand— have a deep moral obligation towards both of us for our future economic survival as a people. We therefore resolve that negotiations between us and the three Partner Governments be commenced without any further delay to determine the extent by which some satisfactory and amicable solution can be arrived at so that each may properly discharge their respective responsibilities towards us both. We believe that negotiations should be conducted on a government-to-government basis and should start immediately. A second resolution stated that the constitutional relationship between the two parties—the matter of the separation of Ocean Island from the Gilberts—would continue to be discussed, but that it would be determined by the financial provisions available from the proceeds of the remaining phosphate resources and any contribution that may be forthcoming from countries which have benefited from the exploitation of the phosphate resources over the last 75 years. Not unnaturally, the Gilberts Council of Ministers is not prepared to commit itself to parting with the share of revenue Britain has led it to expect to receive from the remaining phosphates until it knows that the administering Power, together with Australia and New Zealand, will supply it with the necessary, compensatory support. I have every sympathy with the council. We had every sympathy with the Gilbertese Ministers when we saw them earlier in the year.

As far as I know, this appeal, two months ago, for an immediate conference to establish the financial provisions required for a just and peaceful solution of the problem, has been ignored by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it has not been ignored. It will be disgraceful if it has. It will be an abdication of leadership, an invitation to turbulence and in line with the continuing failure of Ministers and their advisers to take the Banaban issue seriously.

The only comment the Under-Secretary has made to my knowledge—apart from the strange remark in his intervention which implied that he did not know what has been going on—was that further discussions on the constitutional issue are to take place. He must know full well that the prospect of the Gilbertese agreeing to Banaban independence is unlikely in the extreme while their financial future remains unsecured. This was made crystal-clear to the hon. Member for Handsworth and myself in April. Why is it not crystal-clear to the Government today?

Sadly, I am beginning to conclude that the Under-Secretary seems prepared to continue the unworthy tradition established by his advisers throughout their dealings with the Banaban issue—to prevaricate and delay as long as there is the slightest prospect of the Government's continuing to enjoy the indirect benefit of Banaban phosphate revenue subsidising our obligations towards the Gilberts at the rate of a million Australian dollars a month. I urge the hon. Gentleman to free himself without further delay from this sordid and dishonourable policy.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to reject the sort of advice that we know has been given to his predecessors. I have in mind the mean words of one adviser who said that our purpose must be "to ditch the Banabans". That is one thing that I do not believe this Parliament or enlightened world opinion will ever permit him to do. I ask him to recognise that history has an uncomfortable way of refusing to allow injustice to be hidden for long. I say that the time is ripe for him to invite the Australian, New Zealand and Fiji Governments to an immediate conference with the Gilberts and Rabi Councils in order to establish the financial price which must be paid if Britain is to make amends and leave the South Pacific with its head high, secure in the friendship and respect of all its island peoples.

It will be a tragedy if, in these last stages of decolonisation, Britain cannot find an honourable and generous solution to a problem that she herself has created and chooses to leave behind frustration and bitterness which results in another Anguilla or worse. There is still a little time in which to act with justice, but not much.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

As I have indicated to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, as I have had the opportunity of taking part in this debate I shall waive the Adjournment debate for which I had asked and which Mr. Speaker had been kind enough to give me for Friday. It would obviously be absurd to have two debates on the same subject within the same day.

In a curious way there is an echo in this debate of what was taking place not very long ago in the preceding debate on devolution. There is the common theme of the problem of government by consent. More and more as our society and more and more as the world as a whole becomes sophisticated, more and more peoples, be they large or small, remote from or close to the main stream of economic activity, are asserting their right to be consulted about the way in which they are governed. Less and less will it be permissible and less and less will it be prudent for their wishes to be disregarded.

To take an example a very long way from this debate—I think that the moral will be obvious to my hon. Friend after what he has heard from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)-there is the situation of the North American Indians and the demonstrations at Wounded Knee. That relates to a situation in which the peoples concerned had been dormant or acquiescent in regard to their identity for many a long day, yet they have now demonstrated and given vent to the kind of militancy that one associates with far more powerful and obvious sources of discontent.

I do not propose to go over all the ground that the hon. Gentleman has covered, but I propose to give one or two illustrations of the way in which both inside the British Commonwealth and outside we have seen examples of how the world rues the day when it disregarded the susceptibilities and the identity of small peoples. I take an example of which I have some personal knowledge from my experience in the old Colonial Service.

The Treaty of Trianon was drawn up after the First World War when the German colonies of Togoland were abolished. The new boundaries were drawn up in total disregard of the wishes of the Dagomba and Ewe people who lived in the area. The reasonable approach would have been to have drawn the boundaries so that one community went into the French territory and became the French mandated Togoland and the other community went into the British mandated Togoland, which formed what was then known as the Gold Coast, but the boundary was drawn in such a way that both communities were riven apart. I suspect that that was because the boundaries were drawn by diplomats in France who had neither knowledge nor insight of the peoples concerned.

Another illustration that is very much more poignantly with us is the tragedy surrounding the Kurdish peoples in the Middle East and the Armenian people in Turkey and in the Caucasus. They are examples of peoples who straddle the international frontiers. Their fate is the sorry story of what happens if one seeks to divide people between two independent jurisdictions. That provides enough illustration of the kind of injustice that may be perpetrated in regard to the people of Ocean Island or the Banabans if we disregard their wish to be placed under sole jurisdiction.

I should like to reiterate some of the things that were dealt with by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, with whom I had the pleasure of visiting these islands last spring. Whatever may be said to the contrary, it is clear that the history of Ocean Island for centuries was different from that of the rest of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. The people concerned were separated physically since they were divided by water, but for a long time they lived in ignorance of each other.

When the time came when the body of the Gilberts proper and Ocean Island came to be part of the British administration, the assumption of British sovereignty took place at different times and in different ways. The Gilberts were constituted in 1888 as a British colony. Ocean Island was annexed separately in 1900 and remained separately administered. The two were merged without either party or any of the parties being consulted.

That was not particularly outrageous, because in early days of colonial administration there were no means of assessing and securing the consensus of the people concerned. But it points to the separateness and identity of the two peoples. It has already been said that in social structure, in many aspects of customs, anthropology and to a considerable degree in language there was never a complete merging of the two peoples.

The important point was that, following the Japanese invasion, the people of Ocean Island were dispersed to the winds. The fact that the people were settled elsewhere marks the point of no return—the point at which those identifiable differences to which I have referred crystallised into a permanent separateness of identity. One can say that things might have been different if events had taken a different turn. But the fact remains that for 30 years the bulk of Ocean Islanders have lived separately and a long way away from the Gilbertees.

They did not return. This is something that left a nasty taste in the mouth for the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and me. Whatever the original excuse for their not returning, and there were good reasons in the devastation of the immediate post-war period, they have been discouraged at every turn by the Government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and by the officials of the British Phosphate Commission. I shall not refer to any court action. My criticism and strictures against the Commission refer to its behaviour towards the Banabans and the British administration which has been treated in a high-handed and cavalier fashion in the manner of some John Company mandarins of the eighteenth century.

The Banaban people have been denied the right to re-enter the territory which is undisputably proprietorially their own. Not long after they settled on Rabi, there was a declaration of intent which conceded their right of re-entry. It was made in 1947 and has never been properly honoured.

From my investigations and what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and I were able to discover from our talks in the Pacific, these people have a commendable realism. They do not claim to be able to transfer en bloc back to the island they once owned. Without commenting on any legal action, I can say that in an age when ecology is rightly a concept in vogue, the idea of leaving a territory in a state of wilderness offends against all we believe to be right in relation to the husbanding of the resources of the earth. The Banaban people believe they could rehabilitate 500 of the 2,500 people who form their community. Those 500 could return to Ocean Island and they see themselves as affiliates of Fiji, with which they have lived in amity for many years.

It will not be enough for the Minister to say that these people cannot be allowed back because they could not exist as an independent unit. They do not claim that they could. They claim the right to return, but they realise that it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to exist as an independent unit entity. They want to be united with their temporary homeland of Rabi and for the two territories to form part of Fiji.

Against that it will be argued that it is a long way away from Fiji and thus presents formidable administrative problems, but that argument does not wash. No one would claim that the Indonesian Republic was a model of modern government, but Indonesia comprises 3,000 islands scattered over a far wider area than the distances involved here. The independent Commonwealth country Fiji consists of 800 islands, 300 of which are inhabited. The addition of one more island does not seem likely to impose an insuperable burden on the administrative ability of the Fijian Government.

I refrain from commenting on the phosphate dispute, save to say that if it were to be argued that by hiving off Ocean Island from the Gilberts we should be denying resources to an economically modest community, that argument falls to the ground, because in a year or two that source of revenue will dry up because the phosphates will have been exhausted. The question of the economic sustenance of the Gilberts and Ocean Island together or separately will have to be faced by us as the departing colonial Power, and, in any event, other sources of revenue will have to be found.

The story of this community has been sad and unedifying. Because the number of people involved is small, successive British Governments have been minded to sweep the matter under the carpet, with a sense of irritation that the problem distracts their attention from more compelling problems presented by more powerful people. One of the tests of a civilised community is the willingness with which it is prepared to do justice to those who are least able to assert themselves. If the Government now show towards the people of Ocean Island a willingness to make amends for the past, it will be possible for the Ocean Islanders—who have borne with fortitude long frustrations and disappointments—to regard the British Government with gratitude and be prepared to forgive the many injustices they have suffered in the past.

2.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands)

As you have reminded the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have to recognise the constraint that is imposed upon the debate by the sub judice considerations. Just as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) restricted himself to marginal references to the issues involved in the Banaban dispute, so shall I, in the light of the current case and the case that has just been heard, but upon which no judgment has been made.

If the hon. Member for Essex, South-East takes pride in using strong and emotive language in speaking of problems which arouse strong and emotional feelings, that is all right, but, whatever the merits of the case he put before us, his speech did not make a great contribution to it. It was littered with a number or rather snide and nastly references to the way in which we have tried to deal with the difficult problem which I and many other hon. Members recognise. He has absolutely no prerogative of justice or injustice about this or, indeed, any other case. If he believes that other hon. Members and even Ministers are unaware of or feel no sympathy for the Banabans and the other Pacific islanders, he is being unfair and he is not doing justice to the case.

At no point during his speech did the hon. Gentleman refer to the fact that I am probably the only Minister who has visited the island. Two or three months ago, I spent a month visiting not only Ocean Island, but Rabi. That does not sound like a Minister who is not interested in the problems, or who does not care about the justice or injustice of the issues. Moreover, it does not endorse the hon. Gentleman's remark that we are sweeping the problem under the carpet.

I went first to Rabi. The hon. Gentleman has not been to Rabi, but I am sure that this is not his fault. I visited both Rabi and Ocean Island. I have talked to the distinguished Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. I talked to the then New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers. In Rabi I held discussions with the Banabans about their present home.

I went to Ocean Island, which is not the easiest island to reach. It is a long journey by boat, and anyone who goes there, as the distinguished Judge Megarry will testify, has problems in landing on the island in certain circumstances. Many of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, some of which I think were cheap, were not justified. Ministers do not spend a month doing what I have done and pretend that they are not interested in the problem or want to sweep it under the carpet.

Sir Bernard Braine

rose—

Mr. Rowlands

The hon. Gentleman has had his say; let me reply to his remarks, because a lot of his speech was littered with such references.

Because of the complexity of the Banaban problem and the apparently immovable barrier created by the conflicting interests of the various parties, I visited the Pacific in September for discussions not only with the main parties, the Gilbertese in Tarawa and the Banabans in Rabi and Ocean Island, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) recognised in a very reasoned speech, with the Australian and New Zealand Governments which, as partner Governments, are also involved.

In September I went to Australia and New Zealand to talk to both Prime Ministers and Ministers. I went with an open mind. The hon. Gentleman has made many references to this matter in past speeches. The speech he made tonight was the same as the one he has made on a number of occasions during his campaign to make sure that the Banabans get justice. I went with an open mind. My ideas were not coloured by any previous advice or advisers. I stated that I rejected no reasonable option or proposal. I was willing to look at all of them. It became increasingly obvious to me, as I proceeded through the Pacific, that there were genuine conflicts of interests to which the hon. Gentleman made scarcely any reference.

We must try to find an honourable solution to the problem, and one which will not leave one side happy because it has won everything, and the other side feeling aggrieved. I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads his speech in the cold light of morning he will not be as happy with it as he seems to be now.

Sir Bernard Braine

The hon. Gentle man has levelled several strictures at me. First, he will recollect his ill-timed intervention when he suggested that I was not speaking with any authority when I referred to my hon. Friend and I having had talks with Australian Ministers and officials. The inference which could be drawn from that remark is that I was not addressing myself to the facts of the case. He is wrong.

Secondly, had the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said, he would know that at no time have we suggested—we did not suggest in our report—that a solution should be found which would be unfair to either one party or the other. So far the Minister has not given a single answer to any of the points that I made with particular reference to the resolutions passed at the joint meeting at Tarawa. The House would like some information.

Mr. Rowlands

If the hon. Gentleman will desist from making a second speech, I will describe to him what I found and give my view of the situation.

Everyone is conscious of the strength of feeling of the Banabans about their grievances. They have a feeling of having been neglected both before and during the phosphate era. I sympathise with them and all the other island communities of the South Pacific. Having visited some of the coral atolls, I realise the difficulties facing those who are trying to establish prosperous communities on small islands with such minimal resources.

I went to Tarawa in September and asked the Council of Ministers the same question as that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and the hon. Gentleman. I asked what they thought about an independent Ocean Island seceded, as it were, to the Banabans. They were strongly opposed to that idea. They had not only financial but strong historical and constitutional reasons for not allowing the island to be separated. The hon. Gentleman does no good to his cause by ignoring that strong feeling of sentiment.

The decision on the constitutional issue, which the hon. Gentleman chose to make the major part of his speech, was to put it in abeyance and not deal with it at present.

This is not just a financial matter. I asked the Gilbertese Government whether, if the issue of finance were resolved, they would allow Ocean Island to go. They said "No." They felt that, as it had been part of their territory for 75 years, their claim, in constitutional terms, was as legitimate as the alternative claim by the Banabans.

I have not taken sides on this issue. We have been trying to discover whether there is any common ground between the parties. Of course, they may change their minds. I shall wait to see what emerges from the continuing discussions. However, when I asked the Chief Minister and the other Ministers whether they would allow Ocean Island to go if the issue of finance were resolved, they said "No.".

There is a conflict of interest on the constitutional issue. It is idle for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is not. I am not saying that they will not change their minds. Discussions are continuing and have gone on both in Tarawa and last week in Nauru. Some consensus of view might be achieved on the constitutional issue in the petition for independence. If so, we shall be interested to try to meet their wishes.

The hon. Gentleman said that I had not answered any of his points. I have stated what I found to be the position. The conflict of interest cannot easily be swept under the carpet, as he suggested. There may seem to be an evolving or changing view on this issue, but, as I understand it from the joint resolution and from the meeting under the chairmanship of Sir Kamisese Mara, they wish to leave the constitutional relationship in abeyance, pending questions of financial provision for the future.

But hon. Members must not question my sincerity. The Gilbertese Ministers told me in Tarawa that their constitutional relationship with Ocean Island was not only a financial matter. They might have changed their minds since then, but I would have to see more definite information and we must concede that this point of view has to be considered.

Mr. Lee

I must ask my hon. Friend to develop that argument. Was the non-financial consideration the fear of progressive fragmentation? If it was, one could argue, as I have, that Ocean Island has had a different history ab initio. In other words, it could not be used as a precedent for other islands in the Gilbert Group to claim the right to go their own way as well.

Mr. Rowlands

We spent some time discussing that, but I do not wish to spell out what was said, because some of it was in confidence. There was a general uneasiness about fragmentation, but I do not wish to exaggerate the point, because it might create further division and my aim is to find a common ground rather than to discuss differences.

The island has been an integral part of their territory for a long time—for the lifetime of most of the Ministers and the people who govern the colony at present. That is the general feeling that came across, but it could change, and it might change as a result of the way in which the two sides have been getting together. Maybe we shall see some common ground emerge.

I suggested that the Gilbertese should attend the meeting in Tawara. I said that I thought that it was a good idea for the two parties to get together. It is easy for two parties to get together and agree to demand enormous sums of money from Britain and the partner Governments. Indeed, one of the terms of the resolution conveys that, and we accept that. They have both said that they would like a great deal of money from the partner Governments. I thought that there was value in the meeting, and I supported it as I support the meetings which they have had in recent weeks in an effort to find some common ground. Nobody can demand a large sum of money and insist that that is the only solution which they can agree—and there is an element of that in one of the resolutions. I do not know yet how much common ground will be found, but that is what I want to work towards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth made a reasoned speech about the history of the issues, but some other points were strongly made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I intervened in his speech not to deny that he had met Australian ministers and officials, but to challenge the partial view he expressed—that it was the British Government alone who were dragging their feet and preventing an agreed policy—

Sir Bernard Braine

They should have taken the initiative.

Mr. Rowlands

The implication was that everything would be all right if the British Government took the lead. That is why I went to talk to the New Zealand and Australian Ministers and officials—because I had heard this. I found, as the hon. Member did, a great deal of sympathy for solving the problem. Those exploratory talks are now being followed up. The hon. Member will know the reasons why we have not been able to pursue them as quickly as we should have liked. There have been considerable political changes in both countries ever since my visit in late September. We must discover whether there will be any changes in attitude.

We had some interesting exploratory talks. At no time did either Government say that they thought that the British Government were responsible for the situation. They wanted to find a joint approach. I took the initiative in that respect, in seeking with them a common policy to deal with the sense of injustice in Ocean Island and the Gilberts generally.

Although the initial talks were useful, they did not produce an immediate agreed view. There are some differences of emphasis and it is my duty to try to resolve them. This is how we look at the other proposal for the calling of an immediate joint conference of all parties. I have not slammed the door on a joint conference. There could be considerable merit in a round table conference.

But anyone involved in these issues knows that a great deal of preparation would be required. There must be essential preparatory work. More consultations would be needed before we could launch a successful conference. I have responded sympathetically to the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Fiji, but we should not rush into it. If we did and it was abortive and led to yet another chapter of bitterness and disagreement, a just solution would be even further away.

I do not wish to sweep anything under the carpet. I have the same objective as both hon. Members who have spoken tonight—a fair and honourable solution to a difficult problem beset both by history and the social difficulties of these communities. That is what I am trying to work towards. It will not be the same answer as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East wants, but it will be one that I can recommend to the House in honour and justice.