HC Deb 03 June 1980 vol 985 cc1247-56
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the New Hebrides.

As the House is aware, the condominium of the New Hebrides is the joint responsibility of Britain and France. Yesterday evening in Paris I met my French colleague, M. Dijoud, the Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories, to review recent events on the island of Espiritu Santo.

M. Dijoud and I agreed that we must discharge our joint responsibility to maintain law and order in the territory. We agreed that we must re-emphasise our joint support for the democratically elected Government of the New Hebrides our commitment to the independence constitution agreed by all parties in Vila last year, and our determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of the condominium.

We further agreed that the authority of the legitimate Government must be restored on the island of Santo as soon as possible, and condemned the actions of those responsible for the armed insurrection on the island.

We agreed that we must jointly make one further effort to persuade both sides to renew, in a true spirit of compromise, the discussions begun in London in March and which have continued until recently, in order to find a peaceful solution to their differences.

In making this appeal, and in urging the Chief Minister to pursue a policy of national reconciliation, we recognised that an essential prerequisite of constructive negotiations must be the reimposition of the authority of the legitimate Government on the island of Santo. In short, those responsible on Santo must agree to return to the legal and administrative position obtaining before the insurrection of 28 May.

M. Dijoud informed me that France was now prepared to agree to the 30 July independence date proposed by the New Hebrides Government. In accepting this date, which is a mere two months away, we recognised that the present problems must be urgently resolved. If no progress is made towards reconciliation, Britain and France will decide jointly on what further action to take.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is the Minister aware that this weak and vacillating statement is in total contradiction to the pledges that he has given to the House to maintain law and order, which he has undertaken to do on behalf of the British Government? The Minister said that the Government are prepared to take all necessary steps to preserve the peace of the New Hebrides. He said that a joint force of police mobiles was ready to take action is necessary. What has happened to that undertaking?

Have the French Government made it clear to those of their nationals who are reported to be supporting this shabby little manoeuvre that they will not in any circumstances allow them to carry on with this open flouting of the central Government? Is he aware that the Chief Minister has more than once offered talks to the people on Espiritu Santo and that his offers have been openly spurned? Why have the Government climbed down, and what do they intend to do to maintain the peace of the New Hebrides?

Mr. Blaker

I totally repudiate the tone of the hon. Lady's question. The main criticism that I have heard in the past two months about the action of the French and British Governments has been that the independence constitution that M. Dijoud and I worked out together last autumn has worked in such a way as to favour the anglophone Government of the New Hebrides. My French colleague and I issued a statement in January in which we clearly stated our support for the legitimate Government of the New Hebrides and our determination to reject any movement towards secession. If the hon. Lady studies the statement that M. Dijoud made with me yesterday, she will find that it is a very strong statement. I assume that M. Dijoud can be taken at his word.

If the hon. Lady is asking for the use of military force, I must tell her that I agree with my French colleague that for the moment the right course is to make a further attempt at negotiation. As recently as 28 May the Chief Minister called for further negotiation. However, the Government have sent to the New Hebrides two military advisers. They are there now, and they will be able to advise the Government what steps may be necessary, in a military sense, if, regrettably, the peaceful negotiations that we have proposed do not succeed.

Mrs. Dunwoody

This is a total contradiction of the undertaking that the Minister gave to the House. He said that a police mobile force was available, which would take action, if necessary, to restore law and order on Santo. He now says that they are offering military advisers. Will he please give us a clear explanation, or has he backed down in the face of the attitude of the French Government?

Mr. Blaker

No. I repeat that we have not backed down. I have taken the same view as my colleague, M. Dijoud, namely, that for the time being the right course is to press both sides for further negotiations. I remind the hon. Lady that when there were disturbances on the island of Tanna a few days ago we took action with the police mobile forces. That action was successful. Before we go in for military action, we must be careful to ensure that such action will be effective. That is one of the matters on which we shall have advice from the two military advisers. For the time being, we believe that the right course is negotiation, which Father Lin was supporting on 28 May.

Mr. Kershaw

Does my hon. Friend agree that he is wise to proceed slowly and cautiously in this particular and peculiar part of the world? Secondly, what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Phoenix Foundation?

Mr. Blaker

I find it somewhat surpriing that the Opposition should be calling, apparently, for military action in such a hurry. It is something that we will wish to remember on future occasions. It contrasts with some attitudes that they have taken in the past.

It is clear from the Phoenix Foundation's own admission that it has been involved in the insurrection. I have agreed with M. Dijoud that we should take action to eliminate the meddling of the Foundation on Santo. At our request, the United States Government have agreed to see whether any United States laws have been violated by the involvement of United States citizens. Yesterday, the State Department issued a statement that it was its intention to prosecute should there be any violation of United States law.

Mr. Heffer

Send in an assasination squad.

Mr. Christopher Price

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in rather greater detail why the Government have decided to renege on their absolute pledges in the House, on three occasions, to take whatever measures were necessary to restore law and order, and why they have allowed M. Dijoud to issue a statement that only negotiations—that is, ruling out force, as we did over Rhodesia—can solve the problem?

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although there is a duty to consult in the treaty, as in the Cyprus treaty, there is nothing to preclude the British Government, if necessary, taking unilateral action if they decide that that is proper? Finally, can the hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that if Mr. Oliver, any other member of the Phoenix Foundation, or any member of the French interests in Paris involved in the coup against the legitimately elected Government of the New Hebrides arrives at Port Vila, he will be sent home on the next plane?

Mr. Blaker

The Government are not reneging on any of their undertakings. I repeated those undertakings in my statement today. We did not say that in the event of the threat of secession, or secession, our first step would be to take military action. We said that we would sustain the integrity of the New Hebrides. Powers exist to keep Mr. Oliver and the other members of the Phoenix Foundation out of the New Hebrides. I have my French colleague's assurance that such powers will be used if necessary. The nature of the condominium is such that it is assumed that the two metropolitan Powers will always act together. The basic constitutional document, which is the document of 1914, is silent on the possibility of unilateral action. I believe that it is essential for Britain and France to act together. That way we have the best chance of success.

Mr. Philip Holland

As one who was recently airwrecked in the New Hebrides, may I ask my hon. Friend to congratulate warmly the authorities in Port Vila for their prompt action in removing from the area of insurrection people who might have been at risk? Can my hon. Friend assure us that, if necessary, further support will be given immediately to the authorities in Port Vila to mount a rescue operation and put down the insurrection promptly?

Mr. Blaker

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the British authorities' actions in Port Vila in rescuing people from the island of Santo. I shall see that those remarks are passed to our resident commissioner. They are well deserved. I do not believe that he requires further help at present to continue the rescue operation. I have nothing to add to what I said with regard to the use of force.

Mr. Russell Johnston

As all the problems that we are now concerned with were ventilated in debates in this House, and, I presume, were equally well known to the French Government, how on earth have two such widely experienced colonial Powers got themselves into such an enormous mess?

Mr. Blaker

I do not accept that it is the two colonial Powers that have got themselves into an enormous mess; nor would I describe the situation as an enormous mess. It is a problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that a condominium is not the easiest arrangement to manage. The problems of a country coming to independence from condominium status are greater than those of a country that has been ruled by only one country.

Mr. Cormack

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is revealing that the Opposition are anxious to use force only when the enemy is armed with bows and arrows?

Mr. Blaker

I have noted the interesting development of the Opposition calling for the use of force. However, the House should not assume that bows and arrows are the only weapons with which the rebels are armed. They have other weapons. The House should also not assume that a bow and arrow is not a lethal weapon.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising throughout questions on the statement.

Mr. Dalyell

Are senior advisers in the Foreign Office in any way haunted by the rotten advice about Anguilla that they gave to my noble Friend Lord Stewart of Fulham—then Mr. Michael Stewart—when he was Foreign Secretary? If not, they should be. In terms of force, what does the Minister mean by his reference to the Government's determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of the condominium?

Mr. Blaker

I do not believe that a valid comparison can be made between the New Hebrides and Anguilla. We are dealing here with a minority group that lost the regional election in Santo last November. Having lost that election, that group is attempting to gain control by the use of force. The meaning of my statement is perfectly clear. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Paul Dean

Will my hon. Friend accept that I welcome his statement that it is the joint responsibility of the British and French Governments to ensure that law and order are restored? Does he agree that it is essential for the future viability of the New Hebrides that its territorial integrity is maintained and fragmentation is avoided?

Mr. Blaker

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. A matter also understood by the Chief Minister and hon. Members who know the New Hebrides as well as my hon. Friend is that it will continue to be dependent on France and Britain after independence, as it will require aid from both countries. That is an important factor in the future life of the New Hebrides, and one reason why I believe that it is important for Britain and France to act together.

Mr. Hooley

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government appear to be following the same dubious policy in the New Hebrides as that which they followed in the Comoro Islands, which led to international friction? Is he also aware of the involvement of the squalid American business interests in the episode? If so what formal representations have been made to the American Government?

Mr. Blaker

There is no comparison between the situation in the New Hebrides and that in the Comoro Islands. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I answered a question about the American business interests a few months ago.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

How many people have been evacuated or rescued from Espiritu Santo, and how are they being looked after?

Mr. Blaker

According to the latest information that I received this morning, a total of about 1,400 people have been evacuated from Santo. Among them are 104 people of non-New Hebridean origin, including 21 British subjects. To our knowledge, a few people are left, including one Briton who has chosen to remain, and about 30 other non-New Hebrideans. The people evacuated are being looked after under emergency arrangements. I have had no complaints about difficulties.

Mr. Ogden

Will the Minister now accept that the Melanesian way includes the use of force, as he has been warned on more than one occasion in past weeks? Will he further accept that either local French officials have been misleading the French Government, the French Government have been misleading the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Gentleman has been inadvertently misleading the House? Will he please check his information? Does he believe that Mr. Jimmy Stevens will take notice of the statements that he, the Minister, makes in this House?

Mr. Blaker

We have agreed that the French and British Governments will do their utmost to persuade both sides to agree to the negotiations that we have proposed. I believe that there is evidence that some officials employed by the French sector of the New Hebrides Government have acted in an improper manner. I make a distinction between their actions and those of the French Government. M. Dijoud agreed yesterday to the communiqué contained in my statement. I believe that I am entitled to take him at his word.

Mr. Gummer

Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the New Hebrides depends on the English—and French—speaking people getting on together? It is therefore most important that the two countries act together and are not seen to be divided. Will my hon. Friend accept that the House does itself no credit by trying to drag anti-French feeling into this serious situation?

Mr. Blaker

I entirely agree. It is very much in the interests of the New Hebrideans that Britain and France should act together. However, I emphasise that the action agreed on yesterday was taken on its merits and on no other criteria.

Mr. Christopher Price

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the reneging by the Government on their absolute pledge in the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to preserve law and order in the New Hebrides and their failure to defend those islands' territorial integrity ". I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, before noon today that I might seek to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.

Hon. Members will remember the three recent occasions when the question of the New Hebrides has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The first occasion arose from a private notice question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lester) on 22 November last year. In response to that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—said that he would use the police, and added: We shall go further than that if events prove that further action is necessary. In answer to a later question the hon. Gentleman said that if the police are inadequate, further forces will be sent."—[Official Report, 22 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 561–2.] I initiated an Adjournment debate on 7 December and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)—said: I can assure the House that we are prepared to take all necessary steps to preserve the peace of the New Hebrides as long as we are responsible for it."—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 885.] We heard the hon. Gentleman's statement today alongside a statement by the French Minister, M. Dijoud, which appeared on the Press Association tapes saying exactly the opposite. He ruled out any form of force and said that only peaceful negotiations could solve the problem.

In stressing the urgency of the matter I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that an issue of confidence in pledges given to the House is at stake. It is clear that law and order have broken down and that the territorial integrity of the New Hebrides has been breached.

I remind the House that UDI has been declared on the island of Santo and new documents have been issued to everyone who wishes to remain there. The power of the British half of the condominium has been eliminated, while French policemen on the island are allowed to go about unmolested.

Secondly, it is well known that not only American interests, through the Phoenix Foundation, of Carson City, are involved in the ownership of land in the New Hebrides. That has been confirmed to me in a letter from the Minister of State about the extent of the ownership of land on the island. A total of 3,498.5 hectares of land is owned by the Foundation. On top of that, French interests, which are particularly voluble in the French Senate, are making it impossible for M. Dijoud, the responsible Minister, to take any decisions on his own account. He has to refer everything to President Giscard d'Estaing, because of the French commercial interests that are involved.

There are two issues at stake—absolute pledges given in absolute terms on the Floor of the House and British responsibilities to a condominium for which we still have responsibility. I urge on you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Minister of State's statement represents a breach of faith with the House on pledges given to it. For that reason, an emergency debate is justified.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the reneging by the Government on their absolute pledge in the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to preserve law and order in the New Hebrides and their failure to defend those islands' territorial integrity ".

Mr. Skinner

Now read it in French.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not tempt me. I might go into Welsh, though that would not be very successful.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West and the House know that when an application for an emergency debate is submitted to me I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reason for my decision. The House knows that I do not decide whether the matters that the hon. Member has raised should be dabated, but merely whether they are of such a character that our business should be changed tonight or tomorrow night to allow an emergency debate to take place.

Having listened with care to the hon. Member, I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.