HC Deb 19 May 1978 vol 950 cc1011-28

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer)

I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

2.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Bill to grant independence to one of the last of our remaining dependent territories, the Solomon Islands.

Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to recall briefly the history of the Solomon Islands and the developments leading, up to the introduction of the Bill.

The Solomon Islands archipelago lies to the north-east of Australia. It stretches approximately 900 miles and consists of large, mountainous islands thrown up by volcanic disturbances and small coral islets. About 90 per cent. of the total population of 200,000 are Melanesian. The remainder include Polynesians, Micronesians, Europeans, Chinese and others.

The first European to visit the area, in 1568, mistakenly believed that he had discovered the source of King Solomon's fabulous wealth. It was in this hopeful belief that the present name was given to the islands. In the eighteenth century many more explorers visited the islands, followed by whalers and the early missionaries. Then came the scandal later known as "blackbirding"—the recruitment of labour for the sugar plantations in Queensland and Fiji. The abuses to which this led provoked retaliation from the Islanders and many were killed during this troubled period. Conditions did not improve until 1893, when Britain extended her protection to the islands.

During the Second World War, when the Japanese invaded the islands, the Allies were assisted by the Islanders, many of whom showed outstanding courage and loyalty in the Allied cause. After the war, recovery was slow. Government, Church, trading and plantation infrastructures had to be slowly rebuilt. As part of a continuous process of constitutional evolution, a ministerial system of government was created in August 1974 and internal self-government was introduced in January 1976. The present Legislative Assembly consists of 38 elected Members. A Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister is collectively responsible to the Assembly.

On September 1977 a full constitutional conference took place in London when it was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Solomon Islands should become independent in mid-1978 as a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty as Head of State. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper, Cmnd. 6969, and presented to Parliament on 26th October 1977.

The Bill which is now before the House accordingly makes provision for the Solomon Islands to attain independence and for various connected matters.

Clause 1 provides for the independence of the Solomon Islands, within Her Majesty's dominions, as from 7th July 1978.

Clauses 2 to 6 deal with nationality. They have a number of unusual features and call for some words of explanation. At the constitutional conference, the Solomon Islands Government would not agree that Solomon Islands citizenship should be conferred automatically on independence day to all those who derive their British national status from a connection with the Protectorate, that is to say, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British protected persons who, or whose fathers, were born, naturalised, or registered in the Solomon Islands, and their wives.

The agreement eventually reached at the conference was that only those who are indigenous to the islands will become citizens automatically on independence day. This will cover the great majority of the population. The non-indigenous minority—about 5,000—will be entitled to Solomon Islands citizenship if they apply for it in the period beginning six months before independence day and ending two years after independence day, In Solomon Islands law, this agreement will be reflected in the independence constitution.

In our law, Clauses 2 to 6 of the Bill deal with what is to become of the British national status of those affected by the settlement. Those who do not become Solomon Islands citizens automatically at independence are expected to take up their entitlement to it by applying within the period allowed. The Bill provides for the national status of these people in the period after independence day. In doing so it does more than simply say, as is usual in independence Acts, that those who become citizens of the new State on independence day are thereupon to lose their British national status.

Clause 2 provides that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have, within Clause 3, a connection with the Solomons Islands will lose that citizenship on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. If they do not become citizens of Solomons Islands by 7th July 1980, they will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies on that day and, if they would otherwise be stateless, will become British protected persons.

Clause 3 defines those who have a connection with the Solomon Islands for the purposes of Clause 2. It excludes from the definition those who continue to have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency.

Clause 4 provides that British protected persons of the Solomon Islands Protectorate will cease to be such on becoming citizens of Solomon Islands. If they do not become such citizens by 7th July 1980 and would otherwise be stateless, they will remain British protected persons until they acquire that or another citizenship. This clause provides, too, that those who become British protected persons under Clause 2(4) will also lose that status on acquiring citizenship of Solomon Islands or any other country.

Clause 5 makes special provision, along usual lines in independence Acts, as to the status of married women. Clause 6 deals with the construction of the nationality provisions.

Clause 7 and the schedule deal with consequential modifications of other enactments. Clause 8 deals with any appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that may be pending at independence. Clauses 9 and 10 deal with interpretation and citation.

I now turn to matters not covered by the Bill but about which the House may wish to be informed. For many years we have operated a programme of aid and technical assistance to the Solomon Islands. This will continue after independence. Apart from our already substantial programme of technical co-operation we shall be providing development aid of up to £18 million in the first four years of independence. There will be additional development aid in the form of special project grants totalling £5 million, and budgetary assistance totalling up to £3 million. The whole of this aid programme, which amounts to £26 million, will be on grant terms. We have also secured an increase from £4 million to £6 million in the allocation to the Solomon Islands from the European Development Fund over a period of five years.

Prospects for the Solomon Islands after independence seem good, although economic development will depend for some time on outside donors. In addition to British and European Development Fund aid, programmes from Australia and New Zealand have already begun, and the Japanese Government recently sent an economic mission to the islands to discuss their future aid policy which will begin upon independence. The Solomon Islands also expect to benefit from their membership of the Asian Development Bank and their proposed membership of the World Bank, and they intend to accede to the Lomé Convention.

The successful outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill owes much to the efforts of all those involved. In particular, I must thank my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Overseas Development, for her help with the generous aid provisions. This is also the occasion to pay tribute to the Solomon Islands Government and especially the honourable Peter Kenilorea, the Chief Minister, for successfully bringing their country to the threshold of independence.

I am glad to say that the Solomon Islands have already expressed their intention of joining the Commonwealth and, as a result, we can look forward to the prospect of continuing, in that important organisation, the close ties that already exist between us. I have no doubt that our long and friendly association with the Solomon Islands will continue for many years and I am sure that the House will wish to support a Bill to confer independence on an important newcomer to the Commonwealth and the international community of nations.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

On behalf of the Opposition, I join the Minister in welcoming the Bill which enables the Solomon Islands to proceed to independence.

There is no doubt that the Islanders have many friends in this country and in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) is in the Chamber. He is a friend of the Islanders and has a deep knowledge of many of our dependencies, not only in the Pacific but in other parts of the Commonwealth. I am glad to see him here to support the Bill.

We have a long association with the Solomon Islands, going back for many years. I do not intend to repeat the details of the history, but the Protectorate began in 1893, although, in one form or another, through missionaries, trading activities and so on, we have had an association for very much longer.

Since 1976, the islands have had internal self-government. The constitutional conference held in September expressed a clear desire that the islands should proceed to independence within the Commonwealth, and I am sure that every hon. Member will warmly welcome and support that.

It is heartening, when reading the report of the constitutional conference, to see that proposals for the constitution are to be based on firm, democratic principles which will undoubtedly create a common bond between the islands and this country. Indeed, paragraph 4 of the proposals says: The Chief Minister placed great emphasis on the principle of individual liberty and the inappropriateness for the Solomon Islands of an authoritarian system of government. The constitution would be based on principles of democratic government and human rights which they had in common with the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that fact because it highlights the great common bond that we have with so many other Commonwealth countries.

May I ask the Minister whether it is not slightly unusual that, in such a Bill, we do not have the final constitutional proposals before us? May I take it that the report of the constitutional conference more or less confirms the nature of the constitution that they propose to adopt on independence?

The Minister highlighted Clauses 2 to 6, which concentrate on citizenship. I wish to probe this matter a little further in broad principle. I hope that the Minister can answer one or two questions so that we can clear up this matter. I mean no disrespect to the Islanders, but I wish to press the citizenship proposals a little further because they open up wider issues concerning citizenship which could affect any future independence Bills that come before the House.

The difficulties stem from two aspects of the Bill. The first is the insistence by the Solomon Islands Government that they would like to have special provisions incorporated into the Bill regarding citizenship rights. That is unusual in an independence Bill. I refer particularly to Clause 2(2), (3) and (4). It would help if the Minister would explain why the Solomon Islands Government feel so strongly that these provisions should be incorporated in the Bill in this way.

The second aspect of the problem that is causing difficulty is the provision that if, on independence or within a period of two years thereafter, non-indigenous persons fail to apply for citizenship or do not choose it, they will lose their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and will become what is known as—just to illustrate the confusion of our citizenship laws—British protected persons.

The population of the Solomon Islands is just under 200,000 and is predominantly Melanesian, though there are about 5,000 non-indigenous people. We must be clear what our duty is to these people and what their position is likely to be.

Can the Minister explain why the Solomon Islands Government feel so strongly about these provisions? Can he confirm that although the special provisions requested by the Solomon Islands Government are included in the Bill, they are, in broad terms, in line with citizenship measures implemented when other colonies have proceeded to independence? In other words, does this create a precedent that could produce complications for other independence Bills?

My third question is whether there is provision within the Solomon Islands constitution for a system of appeal, to a high court or elsewhere, in regard to the applications for citizenship? Is there a right of appeal to the United Kingdom.

Those who do not obtain citizenship, or opt for non-citizenship, become British protected persons. What are our obligations to them? This illustrates the confusion of our citizenship and nationality laws.

It is most important that all the complications of the citizenship agreement should be made clear and that the Islanders should be made fully aware of the provisions of the Bill and understand its implications for them. I hope that the Government will make sure that this information about citizenship is disseminated.

On our future relationship with the Solomon Islands, it is very important that we should maintain and strengthen our ties with that country. Any small dependency like this will suffer difficulties with its economy once it becomes independent. It already has an imbalance in trade. It is up to the British Government to do what they can to help in the early years of independence.

This points to the wider question whether we should encourage a newly independent small dependency to adopt some sort of regional arrangements to assist with its economic problems. I am encouraged to hear about the Solomon Islands link with the Japanese and membership of the Asian Development Bank.

The Under-Secretary has said that we shall provide overseas development aid for the Solomon Islands and that that country will automatically accede to the Lomé Convention. That convention is being renegotiated. Will the Solomon Islands accede to the convention before or after renegotiation? Whatever happens, will the Solomon Islands have a say in the renegotiation of the convention, which is bound to affect them?

It is important to clarify the position, but I emphasise that we warmly welcome this Bill. We have long historical ties with the Solomon Islands which we hope, as a result of this Bill, will be renewed and strengthened in a new form. We wish the Solomon Islanders every success on their independence day—I understand it will be 7th July—and we wish them a prosperous, happy and democratic future.

2.43 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

As the Under-Secretary reminded us, with this Bill we are nearing the end of the long process of decolonisation. It should be a matter of considerable satisfaction that this massive historic task has been carried through, in the main, with the minimum of political difficulty and the maximum of good will on both sides.

Britain has been linked with the Solomon Islands for 85 years. It is only right that after so long an association, the British Parliament should welcome this Bill and approve the general arrangements for the transfer of power. It is right that, after so long an association, that when we have concluded our discussion we should wish the new country all success in the task of shaping its own destiny in the future.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and knowing some of the principal Solomon Island Ministers and their advisers. I share the confidence expressed by the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) that such men will be able to lead their country into the international community with skill. I, too, have been greatly impressed by the firm dedication of the Chief Minister to the democratic process.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer to our satisfaction all the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham. I am completely puzzled by Clauses 2 to 4. I do not understand what happens to persons who do not wish to apply for Solomon Islands citizenship by 7th July 1980 and who thus become British protected persons. My hon. Friend asked, rightly, what our obligations to these people would be. Shall we wake up in July 1980 to find that we have an obligation to admit them to this country as refugees, if circumstances bring undue pressure to bear on them?

Politics is not just about power or the transfer of power from one sovereign Parliament to another; it is also about people. It is not sufficient to say that after a certain date persons who do not opt for Solomon Islands citizenship will become British protected persons. What in Heaven's name does that mean in the modern world? Have we always been able to protect such persons who enjoy that status in so many countries around the world which were subject to disturbance after the disappearance of the Raj?

Happily, in the Pacific generally the atmosphere is one of such racial tolerance and understanding, gentleness and liberal attitudes that no such problems should arise. But it is not sufficient for the Minister to say that there are a number of people who on a certain date will not be citizens of the Solomon Islands but who will have the status of British protected persons. What will be their rights as human beings?

There is good reason for taking an optimistic view of the future of the Solomon Islands. There is, after all, in that part of the world a "Pacific spirit", which in a strange, indefinable way binds together the Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian peoples who live in the myriad islands of that vast ocean. This augurs well for the future of the Solomon Islands and its neighbours Papua-New Guinea, Nauru, the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa.

There was, however, a moment in the negotiations for Solomon Islands independence when the Government were proposing a financial settlement which smacked of paternalism. That would have been a very bad start for relations between Britain and an independent Solomon Islands. It is a great tribute to the Solomon Islands Ministers and their advisers, on the one hand, and the British Government, on the other, that the final settlement was very different and was entirely acceptable to both sides. That is good, and the House notes it with satisfaction.

The importance of mutual understanding in negotiations cannot be underestimated. Britain is about to leave the Pacific. Tuvalu, the former Ellice Islands, will shortly receive independence. No doubt a Bill to this effect will come before the House soon. The Gilbert Islands will follow. It is imperative for the future that we should leave this vast area of the world—ringed as it is with friendly Commonwealth States, such as Australia, New Zealand and Fiji—with the maximum of good will. It is imperative that we retain the friendship not merely of the small new States which will have been created but of the older sovereign members of the Commonwealth with which we have worked closely for many years.

I should like, if I may, to give a warning here. Unless justice is done to one small Pacific community whose case is well understood from one end of the Pacific to the other—from the Solomon Islands to Samoa, from Australia and New Zealand to Fiji and Nauru—that is, the Banaban community, whose treatment by successive British Governments has been oppressive and unjust for so long—by returning their island home to them, our departure from the Pacific will not be a moment for mutual celebration, for expressions of gratitude from those we have governed and a feeling of a job well done on our side, but a sour experience.

Ministers should feel heartily ashamed, as I do, of the way in which this small Pacific community has been treated. This is not the time to go into that in any detail, and I do not propose to do so. What Mr. Justice Megarry described in the High Court as a breach of the higher trust covers the whole sorry tale in words far more eloquent than anything I could muster. All I shall say now is that I promise the Government that they will not have an easy passage for any Bill for Gilbertese independence unless justice is done to the Banabans. Indeed, they will find opposition in every part of the House.

However, I wish this present Bill a swift passage. With its enactment, I hope that a message will go out to the Solomon Islanders that the British Parliament and people wish them in the future all success in their new role in the community of nations. I hope, too, that the happy conclusion of this affair will encourage the Government to behave more magnanimously, more generously, than they have been disposed to do hitherto in respect of one other Pacific community that has yet to reach its independence.

2.52 p.m.

Mr. Luard

The debate has shown that the substance of the Bill is not a matter of controversy in the House. Those who have spoken have all expressed their warm welcome to the Solomon Islands becoming independent, taking their place in the Commonwealth and becoming a significant member of the international community.

The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) rightly drew attention to the commitment which leaders in the Solomon Islands have expressed to democratic principles and their determination to continue on democratic lines, which was expressed at the time of the independence conference and is expressed in the new constitution. He asked me about publication of the constitution. The constitution is now being printed and will shortly be available, but I will willingly if he so desires, write to him and give him fuller and further details. I described in rough form the type of constitution we are providing for. It is a democratic constitution and provide for the Solomon Islands to remain a monarchy, with Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State.

The hon. Member for Shoreham and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) raised questions concerning some of the citizenship provisions, I shall answer them as well as I can. First, the hon. Member for Shoreham asked why there were special provisions concerning nationality in this case and what were the reasons why the Solomon Islands Government attached importance to them.

I think the reason was that the Solomon Islands Government felt that they had a special obligation to the genuinely indigenous population—the Polynesian-Melanesian population. That did not mean that they were not prepared to grant citizenship to the 5,000 other people of European or Chinese extraction. They did not, however, feel that they had the same degree of obligation towards them but that they should be asked to express a clear commitment in the newly independent State, in the same way as Governments in East Africa had a similar idea when their countries became independent.

Therefore, the Solomon Islands' Government have asked that these 5,000 people should themselves apply to become citizens of the Solomon Islands within the time limit I described, ending in June-July 1980. I certainly hope, and I think that it is hoped in the Solomon Islands, that the great majority of these people will apply and they will be accepted and in that sense they will have made the commitment that is required to become and remain citizens of the new State.

Secondly, I was asked what will be the exact status of those who become British protected persons rather than citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies as they are at present. I can give the hon. Gentleman the explanation he asked for. British protected persons are British nationals in the sense that the British Government may exercise diplomatic or consular protection over them when they are abroad and may grant British passports to them. But they have no right of abode in the United Kingdom, nor any right to vote in British elections—a right which, incidentally, citizens of other Commonwealth countries resident here possess—and those connected with the Solomon Islands will not be able to pass on their status as British protected persons to their children after 7th July 1980. That is roughly the status of these people as British protected persons. They will continue to receive the protection of the British Government.

We are as concerned about their future as is the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the great majority of them will acquire citizenship of the Solomon Islands. Others may wish to acquire citizenship elsewhere. They may not necessarily wish to stay permanently in the Solomon Islands. This is one of the reasons for not giving them immediately Solomon Islands citizenship. If they are to move, for example, to other territories in the Pacific or to parts of Africa, it may be better that they should have some kind of transitional citizenship status and subsequently acquire some new status as citizens of another country.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked me what were the precedents for this action.

Sir Bernard Braine

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. He implies that such people, not having applied for Solomon Islands citizenship, and presumably after a certain date being not able to acquire it even if they had second thoughts, may apply for citizenship elsewhere. They may well do so, but suppose they are not successful. Is there not a residual obligation to accept them as citizens of the United Kingdom? If not, is not this provision, being entered into solemnly in advance, likely to put some people into limbo, being ultimately stateless persons? What is the good of giving people a protected status which one cannot in effect protect?

Mr. Luard

I think the hon. Gentleman is implying that by becoming British protected persons these people will be thrown into limbo. I do not accept that view. But I agree with the general point that he is making—that no one should be left entirely stranded and stateless. Indeed, we have obligations under the statelessness convention. The hon. Member may be assured that we shall make a commitment to ensure that nobody is left completely stranded in that respect. For the moment it is reasonable to expect and to hope that these people will exercise their own option as to their future status. Their rights to enter this country will not be affected by what is suggested here.

Sir Bernard Braine

We are trying to establish—and bit by bit it is coming out—that we could have a situation in which a proportion of these 5,000 persons could claim a right to enter this country because there is nowhere else for them to go. If that is the position, it is only honest for the Under-Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, to say that the Government are accepting the obligation of possible entry into this country of people who have been unable to obtain citizenship anywhere else in the world. If that is the position, the Government should say so, here and now, before the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Luard

The hon. Member is talking about a hypothetical situation which it is impossible to envisage at present. Even if they had no citizenship of the Solomon Islands or some other territory, that does not mean that they have nowhere else to go. It is conceivable that there might be people who eventually find themselves expelled from a country and have nowhere else to go, as happened in East Africa and particularly in Uganda in 1972. Then, of course, we should have to consider carefully, as the then Government did on that occasion, whether we have an obligation to accept them. But we are not in that situation now.

We have reached an understanding with the Solomon Islands Government. The overwhelming probability is that most of these people will acquire some other citizenship. We shall have to consider whether there is any residual obligation on our part. Under this Bill they will become British protected persons.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

I apologise for not having heard the earlier part of the debate, but I was involved in the negotiations for the Solomon Islands' independence. Although I agree that there is a chance that the small group of Gilbertese might wish to make their homes in Britain—although they will probably want to go somewhere else—there is a question of principle involved which must go on the record in Hansard.

I recognise the pressures on the Foreign Office to get rid of everything in the Pacific and on the Home Office to ensure that nobody in the Pacific has any right to come to Britain. But my hon. Friend is a Foreign Office Minister. All his predecessors in situations such as this have made absolute guarantees which, being on the record, have been honoured in fairly difficult circumstances in terms of the Kenyan and Ugandan Asians in this country. I hope that he is going to give that type of guarantee today.

Mr. Luard

My hon. Friend is also talking about a hypothetical situation. At this stage we cannot make a categorical commitment. We can be reasonably sure that no one will be left totally stranded and that therefore some arrangement will be made. But for the moment we are providing that these individuals will become British protected persons and will continue to enjoy the protection of the British Government. The question of immigration to this country has not arisen.

Sir Bernard Braine

I am grateful to the Minister. He is giving way liberally because I know he wishes to help the House. But what he says will not do. Anything might happen in the future. It is easy for him to defend his present stance by saying that this is a hypothetical possibility. But there is no need to look into the crystal when we can consult the book.

This was all said, or taken for granted, before citizenship arrangements were made for Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In the event a number of people of Asian origin in those countries—they were good citizens and good people—did not exercise the option of taking out Ugandan, Kenyan or Tanzanian citizenship. The consequences to them have been unhappy.

The assumption was that because their ancestors came from India they would go back to India if they wanted to go anywhere at all. But that was not the view of the Indian Government, nor did it work out like that in practice. With all this experience, with the consequent pain and suffering which has affected thousands of people and which is a matter of direst concern to the people of this country it will not do for the Government to say that it is only hypothetical and involves only a small number of people in the Pacific.

It may not be possible to block the Bill this afternoon but I hope that the Minister will tell the Government that here is a gap which raises problems which have not been thought through properly and that something must be done about it quickly.

Mr. Luard

I shall take account of the views that have been expressed. These points are more for Committee than for Second Reading.

Sir Bernard Braine

If there is no answer, the Bill will make no progress in Committee.

Mr. Luard

The hon. Member takes a slightly strange view of this matter, given his position. One of his party's Front Bench spokesmen has said that if there is a recurrence of what happened in 1972 a Conservative Administration would not be prepared to accept people in this country in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is visualising a recurrence of that sort of situation. Perhaps he is dissenting from the view expressed by one of his leaders. He is cerainly taking a different position from that adopted by other members of his party.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is my hon. Friend aware—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. The Bill is not being disposed of this afternoon. It is possible that it will go to a Committee of the whole House. In my opinion the Minister is right to say that he has heard all the representations. The matter will be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Christopher Price

The Minister gave way to me, I think on the understanding that this is a crucial constitutional matter which, although we are on Second Reading, should be referred to since if affects not only the Solomon Islands but a number of other countries which will become independent. This matter is crucial to the future status of a number of individuals for whom the British Government have a responsibility.

Although the Conservative Party has made certain statements, the leader of my party has never made the sort of statements to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred. Whatever the Conservatives might say, this hypothetical situation cannot be left as hypothetical. It is the sort of issue of principle which should be stated as a principle by the Minister on Second Reading so that we know where we are when we reach the Committee stage. The truth is that the Home Office and the Foreign Office are at loggerheads on the matter, and everyone knows it. The Minister cannot try to wear two hats at once and get away with it. I hope that he will put his Foreign Office hat firmly on and state the principle.

Mr. Luard

I shall take account of the views that have been expressed on both sides of the House. I agree that this could be an important question at some time in the future. I do not believe that anyone in respect of whom we have a commitment at present will be allowed to be totally stranded. Rights of immigration are not being affected by what is proposed here. The Bill involves merely a small difference in status which will not affect the right to come to this country.

I was asked what are the precedents for the sort of citizenship arrangements that are being planned in the Bill. There are one or two unusual features in that not all those people whom we usually expect to be given citizenship of the new country will get it automatically on independence day. That accords with the strongly expressed wish and view of the Government of the Solomon Islands. We usually expect that all those who were born, or all those who had fathers who were born, naturalised or registered in the colony or protectorate would obtain citizenship automatically in that way.

But the Solomon Islands Ministers were concerned about people who were not indigenous to that country but who wished to become citizens of it. They are willing to grant citizenship as of right to those who apply either before or for a period of two years after independence. The Ministers were influenced among other things by the fact that early in the 1960s a number of people from the Gilbert Islands were brought to the Solomon Islands under the auspices of the British Government, and that many of these people have children born in the Solomon Islands. The Ministers felt very strongly that such people should apply to be given citizenship.

Features such as these are unlikely, as far as the Government can see, to be found in other territories approaching independence. Indeed, the Tuvalu Bill, which is being considered in another place, does not contain any unusual provisions of this kind. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members. This is an unusual arrangement which we do not believe will create precedents which will affect territories elsewhere.

I asked whether the Solomon Islands would be able to take part in the negotiations for the renegotiation of the Lomé Agreement. When its application has been accepted, which is expected to take place very soon, it will be possible for it to take part in the negotiations in common with the other ACP countries that are renegotiating that agreement.

I hope that I have answered most of the main points raised in the debate. I may not have entirely satisfied some hon. Members. However, I undertake to look carefully into the points they have raised. I wish to give the assurance that the Government do not wish to allow anybody to remain in a position in which they become totally stateless. We have an obligation under the statelessness convention to avoid such a situation arising.

These matters can be pursued in Committee if that is the wish of the House. For the moment I believe that the House as a whole has indicated support for the Bill and is behind the principle of independence for the Solomon Islands. I know that all hon. Members will join me in wishing very best fortune to this new State when it becomes independent in July.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stallard.]

Committee upon Monday next.

    c1028
  1. INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL 40 words