OCEAN ISLAND (SECURITY) (Hansard, 12 March 1979)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard)
According to the latest reports available, the security situation on Banaba is at present quiet. When I met representatives of the Banabans in Rabi and Tarawa a few days go, I expressed the hope that the expedition of 150 Banabans which was then shortly to leave for Banaba would conduct itself in the island in an orderly way. All Banabans have a right to enter Banaba whenever they wish, provided their intentions are peaceful, but I pointed out that further acts of violence would only alienate sympathy for their cause among their many well-wishers in Britain and elsewhere.

§ Sir B. Braine
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer does not remove the anxieties that many of us feel in all quarters of the House that a tragic blunder has been committed? Will he confirm that he admitted to the Fijian Prime Minister last week that his meeting with the Banaban community on Fiji had left him in no doubt as to their determined opposition to being included in a Gilbertese republic, but that he had come out to the Pacific with no mandate to listen to their pleas for separation? Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that, following this, the Fijian Prime Minister told his Parliament that the British Government policy over the Banabans was unfair, that it had ignored Fijian representations, that Fiji could not be insensitive to Banaban claims, and that Fiji would not be prepared to act as guarantor in future disputes between Banabans and the Gilbertese over Banaban rights on Ocean Island?
In view of the fact that the Government's manifestly clumsy and insensitive handling of this matter over a long time 41 has now resulted in 154 Banabans setting sail for their Ocean Island homeland vowing that they will die in defence of their own rights—and they may very shortly arrive—will the British Government, even at this late hour, reconsider their position with a view to preventing almost inevitable conflict and bloodshed?
Finally, since the Government have themselves provoked this situation, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what additional British security forces will be sent to Ocean Island to prevent conflict between Banabans and Gilbertese, and how quickly those forces will arrive?

§ Mr. Luard
I do not think that the British Government have at any time concealed the fact that there exists a major difference of views between the Government of the Gilbert Islands, on the one hand, and the people of Banaba, on the other. I have certainly never concealed the fact—I did not conceal it in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara, the Prime Minister of Fiji—that we believe that a very large proportion of the Banabans seek separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands.
This has not been the problem. The problem has been that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been totally opposed to that separation. That was the situation with which we were confronted, as a result of which the British Government, in November, made a decision that the Gilbert Islands would go to independence including Banaba. Therefore, as I told Mr. Ratu Mara, my own mandate was to discuss ways of safeguarding the interests of the Banabans in a united Gilbert Islands. That I attempted to do, both in my discussions with the Banabans and in my discussions with the Fijian Government and with the Gilbert Islands Government. I believe that my visit was useful in enabling me to clarify some of these points.
The hon. Gentleman speaks about the danger of conflict and bloodshed. I suggest to him and to the Banabans, whom he has so strongly supported, that it would be unwise of the Banabans if they thought that they would promote their cause by deliberately seeking to promote conflict and violence in Banaba. I do not know that that is their aim. I hope that it is not their aim. That is why I told them myself, when I spoke to 42 them in Rabi and again in Tarawa, that I thought that it would be misguided of them to believe any such thing, and I expressed the hope that they would conduct themselves in an orderly way.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the use of British security forces. I hope very much that such a thing will not be necessary.

§ Mr. Hooley
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Banabans are Fijian citizens and that the perverse and obtuse behaviour of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Banabans and Ocean Island is causing trouble not only with the Banabans but with the Government of Fiji and is souring our relations with a country with which we have long had very friendly and good relations?
Is my hon. Friend also aware that responsibility for Ocean Island is a matter not for the Gilbert Islands Government but for the British Government, who are responsible for the present situation by their arbitrary act in linking Ocean Island with the Gilberts, and that the Gilbert Islands Government do not have the final responsibility in the matter? That responsibility rests with this House.

§ Mr. Luard
Of course I am aware that many of the Banabans are or may be Fijian citizens, although most of them are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies at present. One of the matters that I discussed with Mr. Ratu Mara was citizenship matters of this kind.
My hon. Friend is right. We are concerned about our relations with Fiji. But I am glad to say that I can conclude from my quite long conversation with the Prime Minister of Fiji that I do not think that there is any danger at present that our long-term relationship with Fiji will be badly prejudiced by this particular issue, although Mr. Ratu Mara did not conceal his own opinions on this subject.
Of course I accept that this matter is at present the responsibility of the British Government. I spoke earlier about the decisions that the British Government have reached on the question. No one doubts for a moment that, until the Gilbert Islands become independent, the decisions are those of the British Government. That is precisely why I was sent to the region to try to 43 discuss the question. In the final resort, of course, the decisions are for this House. The House will have an opportunity in due course to express a view on the matter.
I was sent to the region particularly in order that the British Government's views should be known and so that I could discuss with the other interested parties possible compromise solutions.

§ Mr. Donald Stewart
Does not the Minister regard it as regrettable that, on Commonwealth Day, the Government's handling of the situation should be meeting the severe censure of the Fijian Prime Minister? In view of the orginal appalling injustice done to the Banaban people, will the Minister attempt now to get nearer to meeting their wishes in this matter?

§ Mr. Luard
I cannot accept that in my interview with Mr. Ratu Mara he expressed severe censure of the policy of the British Government. Even the statement issued about that meeting—a one-sided statement—did not suggest that he expressed severe censure of the British Government's policy, and it certainly was not the tone of our discussion at that time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about appalling injustice to the Banabans. I am sure that the House, if it considers the matter, will realise that the British Government were faced—as any British Government would be—with a very difficult dilemma on this issue. The question was whether we should do an injustice to the Banabans or an injustice to the people of the Gilbert Islands as a whole. The fact was that the people of the Gilbert Islands and the Government of the Gilbert Islands, whom I have seen within the last few days, have at no time concealed their very strong determination that Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands.
Therefore, it was on that principle, a principle which has been adopted by successive British Governments—that it should be the will of the Government and the people of the territory as a whole that is decisive—that we decided that Banaba should not be separated from the Gilbert Islands.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen.

§ Mr. Christopher Price
Is my hon. Friend aware that it may be very difficult to get the Kiribati independence Bill through the House so long as this question remains unresolved? Is he also aware that a peaceful solution is much more important that a rapid solution and the absolute adherence to deadlines? Did he explore with Ratu Mara and the Fijian Government forms of association with Fiji or Nauru as possible alternatives to the present alternatives set out in the White Paper?

§ Mr. Luard
My hon. Friend said that, as the matter was unresolved, we should allow further time for looking at other solutions. One of the main purposes of my visit was to consider what compromise solutions might be possible. I proposed to the various parties with whom I discussed the matter forms of self-government for the Banabans within their own island, further assurances that could be given to them that they would continue to enjoy their rights, which we have ensured should be provided for them under the independence Bill, and even the possibility of a treaty between the Gilberts and some other country which would help to ensure that those rights were protected. Those were reasonable compromises to explore. I do not believe that my journey was in vain.
I agree that we should not be too hasty about these matters. But the House knows that the Government of the Gilbert Islands have been promised that they will enjoy their independence in July this year. That is already a postponement from the date originally suggested, so I hope that we can reach a solution before then.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of association with Fiji, Nauru or some other territory. All these ideas have been proposed in the past. They were certainly mentioned in the course of my discussions. But I must make clear that I had a mandate. That mandate was to act in accordance with the decision that had already been reached by the British Government last November, which was that Banaba itself would remain, in some form, associated with the Gilbert Islands.

§ Mr. Beith
Would not the best way to prevent disorder be to restore the shattered faith of the Banaban people in the 45 integrity of the British Government by saying directly to the Gilbertese that we cannot associate Ocean Island with Gilbertese independence in the way they propose? Would it not be fairer to the Gilbertese people to say that we in this House do not want to delay their independence but that it is likely to be delayed if this question is inextricably bound up with it?

§ Mr. Luard
The hon. Gentleman and perhaps the House as a whole seem to forget that this matter has been discussed, debated and explored over several years. There have been a number of meetings between the Banabans and the Gilbertese and between them both and the British Government. There was a long discussion of the question at the Gilbert Islands independence conference in London in November. There was about a week's discussion on the matter. All sides were listened to carefully. As a result, the Government reached a decision. There is no reason to think that by delaying the matter much further it would be any easier to reach a decision. Eventually, as Ratu Mara said to me, a decision must be reached. He urged us to reach a decision quickly on the matter.

§ Mr. Roper
Has my hon. Friend any evidence of external interference or aid in the disturbances which have occurred recently on Ocean Island? Will he ensure that a clear distinction is made between the question of compensation for the Ocean Islanders from the British Phosphate Commission and the question of independence for the Gilbert Islands, remembering that many Members are concerned about the Gilbert Islanders as well as the Banabans?

§ Mr. Luard
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question relating to external influence and aid for the Banabans—

§ Sir Bernard Braine
The Methodist Church?

§ Mr. Luard
—they have decided, in their own judgment, to engage certain public relations firms and others who have been assisting them in promoting their cause. I am willing to say—it was the first answer I gave this afternoon—that most of the Banabans are sincere in their view about this matter. We have to take account of their strongly held views. My hon. Friend rightly says that the constitu- 46 tional question with which we have been mainly concerned in the House today is distinct from the problem of compensation for the Banabans. As the House knows, the British Government have made what we believe is a fairly generous offer to try to resolve the financial question. We accept that the important matter of the constitutional future of the Banabans is something separate which the Government and I have been exploring on a separate basis in the last week or so.

§ Mr. Neubert
Do not these instances of frustration arise from the Banabans' conviction that the British Government's mind has been, is, and will remain closed to their genuine grievance? Will those doubts be assuaged by the Minister's unprecedented eleventh-hour visit to the Pacific?

§ Mr. Luard
It would be unjustified to suggest that the British Government's mind has been closed at any time on these questions. I have already mentioned that we had a long discussion of the whole problem at the Gilbert Islands independence conference. We listened to arguments on both sides. No stone has been left unturned in exploring possible ways out of this dilemma. We have listened many times to the arguments on the question.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that my visit was an attempt to go to the last limit in exploring all possible avenues and all possible means of compromise. I hope that I was putting forward some proposals that might represent a mutually acceptable compromise to try to meet positions that are almost diametrically opposed. By talking about autonomy for Banaba and about safeguards for the protection of their interests, I thought it might be possible to arrive at a solution acceptable to both parties.

§ Miss Joan Lestor
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is reminiscent of the Anguilla situation, when Anguilla was forced into a union that she did not want? The consequent history of that is still going on. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be far better to delay bringing forward independence for the Gilbert Islands until a solution has been found that meets the wishes of Banaba rather than putting the Government into an embarrassing position of having to 47 go back again on a Bill which is unlikely to get the assent of this Parliament?

§ Mr. Luard
My hon. Friend mentions a parallel with Anguilla. I agree that there are some parallels, but there is one major difference which the House ought to bear in mind. We have no knowledge of what is likely to be the future population of Banaba. Over the last few years only about 50 or 100 Banabans have lived in Banaba. The great majority of the total population of 2,400 Banabans have lived in Fiji. In considering whether Banaba should be separated or remain part of the Gilbert Islands, we have to take account of the fact that it looks as if the future population will be very small—perhaps 100 or 200—and very much smaller than the population of Anguilla.
My hon. Friend also said that it would be worth delaying the independence of the Gilbert Islands in order to explore this matter further. This view can be expressed and I will report it to my colleagues in the Government. But we have discussed this issue for three or four years in many different forms. My hon. Friend knows that herself because she was concerned with the issue at one time. We could hardly have done more to listen to many expressions of views. We have tried to explore all possible compromise solutions that we could devise. That was the reason for my recent visit.

§ Mr. Luce
The tense situation on Ocean Island arises from the anxiety of the Banabans about their rights on that island. I acknowledge that the Minister, I understand, has paid a fresh visit to the Pacific area in the light of strong representations from this side of the House which arose from the comprehensive and forceful case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. 48 Braine),leading the campaign for justice for the Banabans—an all-party campaign—which reflects the genuine anxieties of the Banabans.
Will the Minister make a full and complete statement as soon as possible about the mission that he has recently made to the Pacific and before the Second Reading of the Bill in this House so that hon. Members may assess the situation carefully? While we on this side of the House genuinely wish to see the aspiration of friends in the Gilbert Islands fully succeeding, namely, that they proceed to independence, we also believe that the British Government should give the highest priority to ensuring that the genuine anxieties of the Banabans are allayed.

§ Mr. Luard
The hon. Member asked me about making a statement. I got back only this morning from a fairly long visit to the area and I have spent most of the morning dictating my own report to the Government about my visit. That report will have to be considered, and then no doubt a statement will be made to the House and to the other place about the Government's conclusions as a result of my visit.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that we should give the highest priority to considering the apprehensions of the Banabans. I repeat that we fully recognise their concern. It was precisely because of our recognition of their strong feelings on this subject that the Government decided to send me to the area to see whether I could explore some compromise acceptable to all parties. Because, as I have said, the views of both major parties are diametrically opposed, it is very difficult, but I hope that in my report I shall be able to suggest one or two ways which might go some way to alleviating the difficulties.