NEW HEBRIDES BILL

HC Deb 06 March 1980 vol 980 cc678-710

[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce)

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

The essential purpose of the Bill, in the words of the long title, is to make provision in connection with the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth. Before I describe the content of the Bill, I should like to trace briefly the history of the New Hebrides and the constitutional developments within the territory leading up to the introduction of the Bill.

The condominium of the New Hebrides is unique. It is administered jointly by Britain and France under a series of international agreements beginning with the protocol of 1914 which established the condominium. An archipelago of some 70 islands, the New Hebrides is situated in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Australia and Fiji. The total population is in the order of 120,000, of whom 112,000 are of Melanesian origin.

The process of decolonisation began in July 1977 when British and French Ministers announced a joint programme leading to independence for the New Hebrides in 1980. The first major step in the direction of independence was made in December 1978 when a Government of national unity was formed. Both sides of the long-standing political divide were equally represented in that Government, whose primary role was to draw up an independence constitution. Assisted by a broadly based constitutional committee, the new Government had, by mid-1979, made considerable progress with this task.

In September 1979 a constitutional conference was held in Vila, the capital, under the joint chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), and M. Dijoud, the French Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories. My hon. Friend, who has been handling this matter for Her Majesty's Government, much regrets that he is unable to be here today.

The conference unanimously agreed an independence constitution and it was decided that the New Hebrides should achieve independence in 1980. The conference also fixed a date for fresh elections to both the Representative Assembly and to regional councils on the islands of Santo and Tanna.

The constitution was formally adopted, and the decision to grant independence in 1980 confirmed, by an exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979. This exchange of Notes, to which the independence constitution is annexed, was laid before the House on 29 January as Cmnd 7808.

Elections to the Representative Assembly and the two regional councils on Santo and Tanna were held on 14 November 1979. The victors in both the central and the regional elections proved to be the predominantly anglophone Vanuaaku Pati, and they formed a Government led by Fr. Walter Lini. At the first meeting of the newly elected Assembly, Fr. Lini and his Cabinet were empowered to propose a date for independence during the period May to July 1980. We are planning for a date in May. The Representative Assembly has decided that the new republic should apply for membership of both the Commonwealth and the francophone Association for Cultural and Technical Co-operation.

Despite the fact that the rules for the elections of 14 November had been agreed by all parties, it rapidly became clear that certain minority groups on the islands of Santo and Tanna were not prepared to accept the outcome. The root of the problem is that the traditional so-called "custom movements" on these islands do not accept that power should be concentrated in the hands of a central Government. Their discontent has manifested itself in the form of a refusal to accept the legitimate authority of the lawfully elected Government.

Clearly this state of affairs is unacceptable, but we and our French partners have all along recognised that it would be counter-productive for us to attempt to impose a solution which did not recognise the strongly held views of those concerned. Consequently, we have resolved to encourage the protagonists to work out their problems among themselves in the Melanesian way.

In January this year Fr. Lini led delegation from his Government to Europe for preliminary aid talks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and his French counterpart took the opportunity of that visit to reaffirm their wholehearted support for Fr. Lini's Government. In a communiqué issued after a joint meeting in Paris on 8 January, the two Ministers undertook to do everything they could to smooth the path to independence and to counter all threats to the unity of the country. For his part, Fr. Lini undertook to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the custom movements to ensure that ways might be found to safeguard and develop local traditions while preserving the essential unity of the country.

Despite his sincere efforts, Fr. Lini has so far been unsuccessful in his attempts to start negotiations, and custom movements in Santo and Tanna have continued to flout the authority of his Government, although so far no blood has been shed. In an effort to stimulate negotiations, British and French Ministers agreed to receive in Europe a delegation of opposition politicians and leaders of the various custom movements, but it is clear that progress in negotiations within the territory could be promoted by some outside stimulus, and to this end New Hebrides leaders are being invited to hold their talks in London later this month under auspices of the British and French Governments. Experience has shown that such problems are best solved on what might be described as neutral territory away from the daily round of political pressures.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

When the hon. Gentleman says that New Hebrides leaders are being encouraged to hold these talks, which leaders is he referring to?

Mr. Luce

Invitations have gone out, naturally, to the two main parties, and that incorporates those who are involved on the island of Santo. So all those who are concerned with these outstanding difficulties will have the opportunity, if they wish to take it, to join in the discussions.

I should like to make it clear to the House that we and our French colleagues have no intention of imposing a solution. As I have already said, we would regard this as wrong and impractical. It is imperative that the people of the New Hebrides negotiate among themselves a solution acceptable to all parties which is compatible with both the provisions of the constitution and local tradition.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

May I get this quite clear? The Minister has indicated that there will be this meeting in London within the next two months. We are now passing the Bill. Is the passing of the Bill to precede the discussions, and, if so, how will that work?

Mr. Luce

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to explain that we have every intention, as have the French Government, of going ahead with the agreement that has been reached. What I was trying to explain to the House—and I thought it right to give a full explanation since there have been reports of difficulties on the island of Santo in particular—was the background to this. Since there are certain misunderstandings, we thought that we could help to smooth the path to independence, which we plan should be in May, subject to the agreement of the Chief Minister, by offering the opportunity to all the leaders to take part in talks in London if they so wish. We have yet to hear whether they will take this opportunity.

Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he say what safeguards exist to lessen the possibility of some of the difficulties which have occurred so far erupting at a later stage into events which lead to bloodshed and loss of life? What steps are we taking to avoid that state of affairs?

Mr. Luce

As I have said, so far there has been no bloodshed at all. The only problem has been that the local office of the central Government was closed for a short time. It has now been opened.

The hon. Gentleman asks what will happen if there is further difficulty. At the moment, there is a police contribution on the island which is keeping order. I do not believe it will be necessary, but, should it prove necessary, the British and French Governments would be prepared to make a small contribution to help maintain the law and order. I do not believe that this will necessarily arise, and after independence, of course, the new Government will have their own police force, which, I am quite sure, will be able to maintain law and order. Our objective, however, is to get a peaceful solution and since there has been no bloodshed so far I am quite sure that there is every prospect of attaining that.

I now come briefly to the provisions of the Bill. It is not what might be termed the usual independence Bill since it does not provide for the actual grant of independence. This is because the New Hebrides is not a British colony; its legal status as an Anglo-French condominium was established by international agreement and must therefore be terminated in the same way. This will be achieved by the exchange of Notes between the British and French Governments signed in Paris on 23 October 1979, which constitutes a legally binding international agreement and provides for the independence of the New Hebrides during 1980. The exact date of independence will be appointed by Order in Council to be made under this Bill.

As the long title suggests, the Bill contains, in the main, provisions consequent upon the decision of the New Hebrides Government to join the Commonwealth.

Clause 1 modifies the British Nationality Act 1948 so as to confer the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizen on citizens of the New Hebrides with effect from independence.

Clause 2(1) and schedule 1 provides for the modification of certain United Kingdom enactments consequential upon the attainment by the New Hebrides of independence within the Commonwealth.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

To revert to the point my hon. Friend made about citizenship, can he say whether residents of the New Hebrides are at present British protected persons? What is their current status?

Mr. Luce

Their current status is that of British protected persons, but, because of the unique situation of the New Hebrides in so far as it has not been a British colony, clearly we must provide for the fact that there are certain people who should be defined as citizens of the United Kingdom and its colonies. There are only about 460 of them. It is with that in mind and bearing in mind that they wish to join the Commonwealth that we have to undertake these necessary measures.

Clause 2(2) and schedule 2 provide for the repeal of a number of measures relating to the New Hebrides as a consequence of the change in its status.

Clause 3 enables Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to make provisions regarding any appeals from New Hebrides courts which may be pending before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at independence.

Clause 4 gives the short title and provides that the modifications and repeals effected by the Bill will come into force at independence.

Turning to more general matters not covered by the Bill, the House will wish to know that the New Hebrides will, on independence, become a republic with an elected President as Head of State. The new Republic will have a unicameral legislature to be known as Parliament and a Council of Ministers responsible to it, headed by a Prime Minister. The independence constitution provides among other things for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, citizenship, the judicature and the public service.

The New Hebrides economy and development will depend for some time on external aid donors. The parallel British and French administrations which developed as a result of the condominium system are being merged. While this process is now well advanced, we and the French Government are well aware of the heavy administrative burden which will be imposed upon the independent New Hebrides as a result of the duplication inherent in the condominium system of government. We shall be sympathetic to their future needs.

A British aid mission has recently visited the New Hebrides to discuss aid after independence. We hope that aid negotiations can be finalised when Fr. Lini visits London later this month.

The road to independence in the New Hebrides has not been an easy one and, as I have explained, there remain some difficulties. Such difficulties, however, are not unusual at this stage of the independence process and I am sure they will be satisfactorily resolved. I am equally sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating the people and the Government of the New Hebrides on the very considerable progress which has been made since the decision in July 1977 that the territory should become independent this year. I am sure that our long association with the country will continue for many years to come.

With the assent of Parliament to the Bill, the way will be clear for the New Hebrides to join the Commonwealth on independence; and I am pleased that it will be as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we shall have the prospect of continuing the close ties which already exist between ourselves and the people of the New Hebrides.

4.28 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

The Minister has said that we very much welcome the accession of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth, and in that we heartily concur. It is not only that it is a unique country, but it will be extremely welcome for the great range of talents that it will bring to the Commonwealth. There can be very few parts of our Commonwealth that have such a joint heritage, which, of course, carries with it considerable difficulties, but which are capable of contributing so much.

I am delighted to welcome the New Hebrides to its new status as a republic, but there are one or two questions on which I wish to press the Minister. Although he has set out the history in considerable detail, some of the political implications of the Bill have been lightly passed over. The New Hebrides has been the responsibility of both the United Kingdom and France. This joint tradition means that the merging of the judiciary, the various administrative systems and the whole question of the languages will cause considerable difficulty.

The Minister did not say specifically whether our new Commonwealth member intended to apply for membership of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of nations which has an associate status with the European Economic Community. I assume that will be so and that, because of its francophone and anglophone traditions, the New Hebrides in the Community will be able to cross what sometimes seems to be a great divide. There is a practical difference between anglophone and francophone countries which is demonstated by the systems of law, administration and representation. The New Hebrides will have a monumental task in overcoming those differences, and for this it will need a great deal of economic assistance.

The Minister said that there would be discussions on the amount of aid that would be made available to the New Hebrides after it became a republic. I hope that we shall be more generous than we have been to new Commonwealth countries in the past. Because of all the difficulties that will be caused by the presence of two European languages and several others, even though there is a comparatively small population, it will be necessary to set up a completely new administration which will require monetary support and practical assistance.

What internal arrangements are envisaged in the new republic? Although the Minister seemed to be content that the Chief Minister would have responsibility through his police force for maintaining law and order and would be able to deal with any conceivable difficulties that might arise, there has been political trouble in the recent past, and we should not be fulfilling our role responsibly if we simply said that we intended to go ahead irrespective of the arrangements made for the maintenance of internal law and order. After independence, if we are asked by the New Hebrides Chief Minister for assistance, what will be the Government's attitude? Will they be prepared, if need be, to send assistance?

How will dual membership of francophone and Commonwealth organisations work for individual citizens of the New Hebrides? I assume that Commonwealth membership, which will carry with it considerable advantages and responsibilities, will not override membership of francophone organisations and that the two will work in concert and not necessarily against each other.

The Minister said that we should allow the New Hebrides to solve its problems in a Melanesian way—a phrase which he did not elaborate. He is asserting a self-evident truth. In Melanesia, in what other way can the people solve their problems? The people of the South Pacific have a special quality. They have warm personalities and high standards. We should wholeheartedly support many of the moral values enshrined in their new constitution. Because of those qualities, the people are perhaps ill equipped to deal with more sophisticated societies which might for purely selfish reasons want to move in and put pressure on this extremely stable society, given the mixed strands that make it up.

We welcome the Bill because we wholeheartedly welcome the people of the New Hebrides to the Commonwealth. We shall give them our hand in friendship, and we hope that the Government are not assuming that with their attainment of full Commonwealth status our responsibility to them will be at an end. Our responsibility to them must be the moral responsibility of good friends, and we must be prepared to honour that responsibility in terms of hard cash.

I am very dispirited at the Government's attitude to the supply of aid. It is a disgrace that the United Kingdom has not been able to attain the percentage of support for underdeveloped and partially developed countries that it should have attained. In deciding the level of support, I hope that the Government will take into account all the complex questions, the religious differences and the language problems and say that in this instance it is only right, in view of its history, to give the new nation more generous assistance than we should have done in other circumstances.

Many years ago the people of the New Hebrides earned my affection with their warmth, kindness and upright character. I welcome them warmly to the Commonwealth, and I hope that independence will be the beginning of a new phase in an old and valued friendship.

4.37 pm

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I join the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in welcoming the independence of the New Hebrides. Like her, I was charmed by the welcome I received when I visited the New Hebrides some years ago. I extend my congratulations to Fr. Lini and his Government for the way in which they have started their task.

Because of the history and the present events in the New Hebrides, it is right that more than mere formal congratulations should be voiced in the House of Commons today. I am bothered that we are leaving behind us a system of law that is rather less than clear. Up to now there have been three systems of law—indigenous, French and British. In theory, since 1914 the Chief Justice has been appointed over the two European sections of the law according to the constitution by the King of Spain. For a long time there was not a King of Spain, and since there has been a King of Spain no steps have been taken to implement that constitutional law.

That is sufficiently puzzling, but to unravel the puzzle it was decided that a posse of British lawyers should elaborate a criminal code of justice and a posse of French lawyers should do the civil code. The British lawyers got down to their job, but what they produced was unacceptable to the new Government and they have been told to go back to the drawing board. The French lawyers just chucked their hands in the air and gave up, and no work has been done. Neither the criminal nor the civil code of law is ready for the new State.

Therefore, my first question to my hon. Friend is, what system of law are we leaving behind? Is it the old system? Will a British judge act according to British law and will a French judge act according to French law? Will there be French, English and indigenous law? How soon can that issue be clarified?

My second question concerns the police. Up to now the police have operated in different compartments. There is a French office of police and a British office of police. The two forces do not speak each other's language and they operate in different areas. To whom will the police force be loyal in future? Obviously, it is intended that it should be loyal to the elected Government, but what steps are being taken to ensure the amalgamation of the two forces?

I come now to the dreadful Mr. Stevens. He is, as I understand it, British—perhaps not—and is the front man for a bunch of desperadoes who wish to take over the island of Santo for their own economic purposes.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

Maybe he is a Conservative.

Mr. Kershaw

He may be a Conservative and he may be Australian Labour. I do not know what he is, but I do not think that he deals in politics. Mr. Stevens deals in money.

He has an illegal radio transmitter and he broadcasts his rubbish from Santo. I am not sure what my hon. Friend said about this, but so far no police have been willing to go to Santo to chuck out this chap and the people for whom he is the front man. If the police went there, there might be bloodshed, and that may be a good reason for not undertaking an expedition. Nevertheless, I should like to know what the position is. Are we trying to bring this man to heel, and after we have left the New Hebrides who will bring him to heel? My hon. Friend said that we were willing to make a small contribution to the maintenance of law and order. Is that contribution to be money, or troops, or a Commonwealth force? What are we talking about? Are the "bobbies" to go on from Rhodesia in order to fix Mr. Stevens? We would like to know.

Mr. Christopher Price

Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) leaves the matter of Mr. Stevens, I think another question should be added to the list he has posed, especially as Mr. Stevens is coming to London. Lord Trefgarne said in the House of Lords: With regard to the position of Mr. Stevens' nationality, I am advised that he has on at least one occasion endeavoured to travel upon a passport that he issued himself."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 1980; Vol. 404, c. 1109.] Can the Minister say whether Mr. Stevens is coming to London on a passport that he has issued to himself?

Mr. Kershaw

That is an interesting point. It means that at least one would be sure that one's passport arrived in time for one's journey.

There is the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. My hon. Friend dealt adequately with this matter. We understand that the new State will become a member of the Commonwealth. In that case, I take it that those who wish will be British subjects without the right of entry to the United Kindgom. What will happen in the case of the French union? Will those citizens also be members of the French union? I suppose they will. If so, what right of citizenship is involved? Have those people the right of entry into France and its dependent territories such as New Caledonia? That might be important to them.

We know from the history of the Pacific that one of the great dangers in that part of the world is that States split apart. That was the bugbear of their history before the colonial Powers moved in. We are quitting the new State and leaving behind two systems of education, three systems of law, two police forces and the island of Santo, which appears to be trying to separate itself, in dubious circumstances, from the new State. There are two European languages and goodness knows how many indigenous languages there.

That is not the sort of scenario that we have left behind previously. No doubt, as the hon. Member for Crewe so rightly said, we will be generous with our aid, which I believe is running at £6 million a year. I believe that we should be generous because the people of the New Hebrides will have special problems given that the picture I have painted is not incorrect.

I wonder whether the Government have considered asking Australia whether she would join in this matter. After all, Australia has a great deal to do with the New Hebrides. The Australian dollar is the currency of the island and most of the visitors come from Australia, as do most of the young executives. I have no doubt that Australia would be willing to entertain the idea and I hope that she will be asked.

The people of the New Hebrides are embarking on a difficult voyage and I believe that they are entitled to a bettter launch than they are getting. However, I was much relieved to hear that the Government have asked the leaders of the New Hebrides to come here to try to iron out some of the difficulties which I felt it my duty to set before the House today.

4.45 pm

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for recognising me twice in succession. Perhaps that is because I am, indeed, larger than the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mrs. Dunwoody

Only just.

Mr. Johnston

I can also claim a unique attribute in that I suspect that I shall be the the only Member of the House to speak in the debate on the independence of the New Hebrides who comes from the old Hebrides.

How the New Hebrides got its name is not clear from history. The journal of Captain Cook from 31 August 1774 recognises the activities of other European explorers in those regions. The journal also notes that Captain Cook's journeys had been more complete than those of the other explorers. It goes on to say about the islands whose future we are now discussing: I think we have obtained the right to name them and shall in future describe them by the name of the New Hebrides. There does not seem to be any real connection between Scotland and those islands, much though I would like to establish one.

It is far enough now to travel from the island of Skye in the Inner Hebrides, where I was brought up, to Santo or Tanna or Porto Vila. In the days of Captain Cook it must have seemed like a journey beyond Mars. I think that it is a comment on the extent of public interest in the fragmented tail of empire and an observation on our lack of any serious responsible commitment to these inheritances of our Imperial past that the only press interest in the independence of the New Hebrides that I could dig up was an article in The Guardian on 21 November 1979 and an article in this week's issue of the magazine Now covering the period 24 February to 4 March. That is all that I have seen in the British press. I may have missed something, but that is not very much. Neither article gave me particular cause for comfort—rather the opposite. I shall return to that in a moment.

My point is that we are proceeding with this important legislation—important despite an earlier objection by an hon. Member who said that there was not much business in the House today, merely the small matter of the New Hebrides—in that this day we are giving up responsibility for the weal of 120,000 people. That is important.

Mr. Christopher Price

I should like to dispel any misconceptions. I think that I am the only Member of the House who has raised an Adjournment debate on the New Hebrides. If our discussions on one will be happier than I. I certainly this Second Reading last until 10 pm, no do not intend to curtail my remarks. I simply felt that the House was not as packed as it usually is for an occasion of this kind.

Mr. Johnston

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is correct. Only 12 hon. Members are in the Chamber. I do not seek to criticise the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, but we should be worried that the House is making a decision on behalf of the New Hebrides when only 12 of us are present. We must be sure that we are making the decision in response to a clear demand, or we must be sure that we are doing right by the people whose traditional mode of life was disrupted by our ancestors. They bequeathed upon them languages, religion, laws and cultural mores which had no previous place in the islands' development. We have a great responsibility for the way in which the islands are now run.

In pluralist Europe we make great issues of individualism and human rights but we still play the numbers game. I have just returned from Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe. I praise the Government for going to such enormous lengths to ensure that the transition there was as fair as possible. They ensured that if they misjudged or missed anything there were enough people to hone in on, highlight and facilitate their correction.

But Rhodesia's population is about 6½ million and the country holds a crucial position in Africa. The New Hebrides has a population of only 120,000. Most people do not even know where it is and—this is very important—no one believes that it has special commercial or political significance. What worries me is that we are deciding on an issue about which we know so little. We are acting on advice from the Foreign Office. Usually that advice is not bad, but it can be seriously wrong occasionally.

When I was in Rhodesia I heard Joshua Nkomo speaking at a great rally in Gwelo. He said that people are people, whatever their colour or number, and that they are of like importance. That is worth remembering. I am not sure whether we are doing the right thing. The Bill might be right. I shall not oppose it, but I am not sure.

I should like to ask the Minister some questions. Is there genuine pressure for independence, or is it a question of Britain and France getting shot of an inconvenience? Normally, when there is genuine pressure for independence protesters go to see Members of Parliament. Nobody has come to see me about the issue. I know that the islands are far away and that the people are not rich. That might be the reason. I should like to know whether there has been genuine pressure for independence.

Were discussions held about the French system of dealing with its enclaves, because that has been pretty successful and should not be dismissed lightly? Integration with metropolitan France has been achieved in a number of cases. That is not an easy solution when there is simultaneous responsibility, but it should not be impossible. Was there any discussion about the possibility of giving the New Hebrides a dominion-type status with full self-government and with the condominium remaining responsible for defence? That would be a relevant solution.

Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office does not exclude the possibility of Britain's accepting an ongoing responsibility for its enclaves? Britain has only a few bits and pieces scattered round the globe. Have the Government considered that possibility, if the islanders so wish, as do the people of Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong? Have we had a dialogue with our existing dependencies about that possibility? Have the Government considered the possibility of retaining such a relationship with the New Hebrides?

Our remaining dependencies tend to be small and fragile. However, they have an integrated concept of themselves. Gibraltar, for example, has such a concept of itself. We should recognise that in terms of human rights. Will the Minister make available in the Library a document expressing the Government's schematic thinking and, colony by colony, what they believe should be done with the pieces of land and people over which we retain sovereignty? Is there a general view as opposed to a pragmatic reaction? I do not seek to resist genuine claims for independence. However, as a responsible parent Power with responsibility for small fragile colonies, we should consider whether another option is appropriate.

Mr. Kershaw

Will the hon. Member explain the similarities between Pitcairn Island and Hong Kong?

Mr. Johnston

The similarity is that they are British dependencies. However, Pitcairn Island has a population of only about 60, while Hong Kong has a population of about 5 million. They are both British responsibilities. At some stage we must decide what to do about them. It may be easy to give independence to Hong Kong or to give Hong Kong to China. It is more difficult to give independence to the 60 people of Pitcairn Island. However, the responsibility is ours.

The word "fragile" is relevant. I am an islander from Skye. That island has a larger population than that of Anguilla. We experienced great problems in Anguilla. Islands are economically difficult, but touristically they can be enormously profitable. They can also be strategically crucial, as is Diego Garcia. If they are way out in the sea they can easily be seized. The hon. Member for Crewe mentioned Mr. Jimmy Stevens, and the possible American influence there was also referred to by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). This has also been outlined in Now magazine and in The Guardian. The House would benefit from the Minister's indicating his knowledge of this matter. Is what we have read in the press well founded, or is it not? It is not just a question of Left or Right.

I am unhappy about what has happened in the Seychelles, where an elected Government were replaced following a coup d'etat. That is a group of islands where the people are educationally undeveloped and it looks as though they will be shaped and moulded by someone who has seized power. That is something that we should not wish to see happen in the New Hebrides. Some people suggest that that might happen in Santo.

I conclude by saying that I am unhappy on an occasion which should be a happy one. My noble Friend Lord McNair has indicated in the other place that we are not by any means convinced that the future of these islands to which we are giving independence is an assured democratic one. We believe that we do not know enough to make a proper judgment. I must honestly say that Lord Trefgarne's speech in the other place was somewhat inadequate, and I do not believe that the Minister's speech was any more illuminating.

As a Liberal, I am frequently critical of the actions of the press, but I suspect that if the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and The Times had correspondents sitting in the New Hebrides our debate would be of an entirely different character and the Minister's speech would have taken account of that.

We have been told continuously by the Minister that central authority has been criticised. It seemed that he admitted that in his speech. At the same time, it is strange that we should pass a Bill before we have had discussions to resolve and recognise the difficulties. When I intervened in the Minister's speech, he admitted that that was so. The nature of these difficulties has already been specified, so I shall not repeat them. There are the problems of statute law, the police, and Mr. Stevens. No one has mentioned the Phoenix Foundation, which, according to Now magazine, is behind Mr. Stevens. It might be helpful if the Minister confirmed, denied or commented on whether this is a real criticism. I am not raising this matter because I know anything about it, but as a Member of Parliament I am merely saying that that is the only information that is available to me.

Now is certainly not a magazine affiliated to the Tribune group, as far as I am aware—no doubt the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) will confirm that in due course—yet it has expressed serious doubts about whether the end result of the passing of the Bill will be democratic.

I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I wish to register considerable concern, in the absence of information, and I place full responsibility for the Bill with the Government. In saying that, I do not in any way suggest that I do not offer Fr. Lini and the people of the islands my warm support in their future status.

5.4 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Unlike previous contributors to the debate, I cannot claim to have enjoyed Melanesian hospitality and I have seen neither the New Hebrides nor the old.

We had a typically Liberal speech from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He said—I summarise—that he might be right or he might be wrong. He was not sure about the provisions of the Bill, but in a speech of great sincerity and charm, mostly in the interrogative, he came to the conclusion that he did not know enough to make a proper judgment.

Mr. Russell Johnston

As the hon. Member has never been to the New Hebrides, I am sure that as a Conservative he is fully capable of making a totally convinced judgment.

Mr. Wilkinson

I am. I shall make a judgment about subsections (1) and (2) of clause 1. Before I do so, I should like to add my congratulations to those already given to the people of the New Hebrides. I wish them well in their independence.

The provisions of this legislation to which I wish to draw attention are rather analogous to those to which I drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State during the Report stage of the Zimbabwe Bill. However, in one important respect the matter we are discussing this afternoon is unique. The condominium status of the New Hebrides is different from that of any other territory to which we have granted independence. Therefore, the citizenship provisions in the Bill are different. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether, first, membership of the francophone association which the people of the New Hebrides will enjoy after independence confers any rights of subject-hood in the way that membership of the British Commonwealth does on Commonwealth nationals.

There is another matter in the Bill that is of significance. By the passage of the Bill we will confer upon those residents of the New Hebrides who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies—I gather that it is all of them with the exception of about 460—a status they did not previously enjoy. In the independence legislation that has been passed hitherto, we have continued the status that people have enjoyed up to that time.

I gather that residents of the New Hebrides are British protected persons. In essence, they are stateless, similar to the way in which residents of Kashmir were stateless. However, we have undertaken certain technical obligations in their regard. If residents of the pre-independence New Hebrides were, for example, to reside in Britain, I take it that they would not be able to join the police or the Armed Forces, serve on a jury or vote in the same way as British subjects and Commonwealth nationals are. After the Bill becomes law, because New Hebrideans will become Commonwealth nationals, and, ipso facto, British subjects, they will be able to enjoy those rights. That is something that is totally new in our citizenship law. It is also of great significance.

This may be almost the last opportunity that I shall have to draw attention to the concepts of British subjecthood as described in the British Nationality Act. British subjecthood, as described in the British Nationality Act 1948, is totally analogous to Commonwealth citizenship. The 1948 Act describes "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen" as having the same meaning. That may be so in strictly legal parlance according to the 1948 Act, but surely they do not have exactly the same meaning in terms of the everyday perception in this country of what British subjecthood means. Section 1 of the 1948 Act provides: Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject. In every piece of independence legislation that has passed through the House—for example, the Tuvalu Act and now, we hope, the New Hebrides Bill—we have given to people many miles away from these shores, who probably have no family connection with this country and who probably have little understanding of our way of life as it is lived in Britain, the right to fulfil certain obligations and privileges in the United Kingdom. For reasons that are based largely on nostalgia, the concept of British subjecthood stems directly from our Imperial legacy. It stems from the day when a citizen of a colony or a dependency of the United Kingdom, wherever it may have been on the globe, could proudly say "Civis Brittanicus sum"—"I have the same rights as any United Kingdom passport holder in the United Kingdom itself." It was a fine and noble concept. However, the reality has been that the independent States that we have created have been proud above all of their independence. That has been their supreme pride. It is not right that for ever we should perpetuate a system that is in essence nostalgic, quasi-Imperial and in no way related to contemporary reality.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is he saying that it is all right to be nostalgic if we are British and talking about someone who stands as a colonial subject but that it is wrong to use the fact that we have had responsibility for that State as the basis for giving it a proper status once it has become independent? Is that the basis of his argument? If it is, it seems extraordinarily paternalistic and mildy offensive.

Mr. Wilkinson

It may offend the hon. Lady, but it is anything but paternalistic. I see no reason in logic why the citizen of an overseas country that is independent and happens to be in the Commonwealth—

Mrs. Dunwoody

Happens to be in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Wilkinson

Yes. It freely decides to join the Commonwealth. I see no reason why a citizen of that country should have rights and obligations in the United Kingdom that are greater than the rights and obligations of an EEC national. That is a fair basis of comparison. For example, EEC nationals resident in Britain are not able to vote in elections to the Assembly of the European Communities. However, Commonwealth nationals, who probably have no concept of the EEC and who probably may not even understand English, can vote by virtue of their Commonwealth citizenship. I do not think that that is appropriate. I do not think that it is right.

I am seeking to put out a marker for the reform of citizenship which is necessary. British subjecthood should be a function of residence in this country, or close family connection with the United Kingdom, namely, patriality, which is a principle that we have already established in the Immigration Act 1971. As the Under-Secretary of State has said, the Bill has no immigration overtones. Similarly, my speech has no immigration overtones. I am merely seeking to draw to the attention of the House some of the anomalies that exist in British citizenship law, and the Bill has done that very well.

5.15 pm

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

I shall make only a brief intervention, for two reasons. First, two of my relatives spent varying times in the area of the New Hebrides, one as a medical administrator and the other as a business man. My two relatives spent about half a dozen years in the area separately. Secondly, although it is true that I have never been to the New Hebrides—I have been to Papua and New Guinea—I believe that I am the only Australian-born Member of the House of Commons. In part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I share that distinction with you as a Commonwealth-born Member.

It is appropriate that as the New Hebrides is delivered into nationhood there should be a great mass of good will shown towards it explicitly, certainly by the United Kingdom and by the older and, dare I say it, rather richer members of the Commonwealth, such as my own native Australia, which for geographical reasons has a sizeable interest in the new nation.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has reminded us that Australian business men and professionals have had quite a long association with the New Hebrides. It forms part of the Australian consciousness. It will be appropriate if relations between Australia and the new nation become even stronger in the years ahead. The new nation is being launched on to the sea of nationality all on its own. It will need friends and assistance in rather more liberal measure than was forthcoming in the past. It is potentially a rich country. If it is properly managed and if the right sort of political and social system is forthcoming, it promises a full and happy life for its inhabitants.

Perhaps the main reason for my intervention is to emphasise that we are discussing an area of considerable sensitivity. The feature that makes it sensitive in terms of international politics is that over the past 20 years—certainly over the past 10 years—there has been a major Japanese economic incursion into the area. A great many of the bits and pieces of the economic infrastructure of the area have been taken over by the Japanese, who are now Australia's number one customer in both importing and exporting. That is a factor that cannot be dismissed. I am not sure whether I can offer any advice on what the answer is or what it should be. However, it is not something that we as a nation can ignore any more than Australia should be ignoring it.

I wish to place a warning beacon so that we know what we are doing in future. I hope that we shall walk around that part of the world with our eyes open and avoid stumbling into situations that we may come to regret for political reasons.

My lighthearted references to Mr. Jimmy Stevens and his political sensitivities were not meant over-seriously. I am not even aware that he is a member of the Australian Labour Party. Perhaps that is even less likely than my earlier references.

I welcome the new nation. I welcome the Bill because of the help that it is offering to the new nation. I am sure that the residents and natives of the New Hebrides can look forward to a long and fruitful period of co-operation with the essentially generous and liberal-minded people of this country. I wish the new nation every success in future.

5.20 pm

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

I should like to give my good wishes in advance to the newly independent New Hebrides. However, I wish to make one remark about the speech of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). It was an interesting and realistic speech, but it was reminiscent of his former speeches when he represented the constituency of Bradford, West. Britain's law on citizenship contains many problems. We have not yet sorted out those problems. However, the fact that a few New Hebrideans might come to Britain and acquire in May the right to vote here is a cause for self-congratulation on the flexibility and liberality of our constitution. It is not a cause for little niggles.

The Minister referred to three sets of events that have taken place in Santo since the elections as "difficulties". Clearly they are difficulties. However, it has been the Government's custom to describe violence and intimidation as "violence and intimidation" when it occurs in Britain. I recognise how delicate the situation is. However, we should call a spade a spade. On the island of Santo, the Vanuaaku Pati might win a majority. Violence and intimidation might take place afterwards. As a result, many of the citizens of Santo will leave the island. They will be too frightened to return. The Government's representative's house may be occupied. The Government's writ may no longer run in the island for several days. The British representative may be unable to go there. Such events should be described for what they are. They should not be described by such euphemisms as "difficulties".

There is a problem of policing and of security in the New Hebrides. The conference may take place during the next few weeks. Whatever the result of that conference, there may be problems after independence. It behoves the British and French Governments to leave resources in the hands of the locally elected Government of the New Hebrides. They should ensure that it remains a united country.

There are difficulties. One difficulty is that of the French connection. It is well known that the forces of intimidation in Santo are connected with French business men on the island. The French have substantial economic interests on Santo. The same difficulties that existed before independence many reappear after independence. If the British feel that they wish to fulfil an obligation, and if they wish to ensure that this newly independent country can survive, they should bear in mind that the French have troops in Noumea, in New Caledonia. They may not be inhibited, as they were in the past, from using those troops if French citizens are involved. If troops from Noumea are used to put down troubles in the New Hebrides, it may cause trouble in Paris.

Britain is not in a position to intervene. Our nearest troops are in Brunei. I do not want the Minister to spell out every contingency plan. I was encouraged by the statement of the two Ministers of State, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I was also encouraged to some extent by the words of Lord Trefgarne. Fr. Walter Lini deserves a very forthright statement from the Government during the Second Reading debate. The Government should state that this country is committed to the integrity of the New Hebrides. The Government should be prepared to go further and to commit themselves, if that should prove necessary. We have had such assurances before for the period before independence. The Government have said that they will take every necessary measure. That is reassuring.

We do not know what will happen after independence. It has been pointed out that we shall be asked to give the Bill a Second Reading and to go through the remaining stages of the Bill before the conference takes place. The Minister hopes that the conference will smooth out any difficulties. The conference may not take place at all. It may succeed and it may fail. Should it fail, we must use our best endeavours both before and after independence to ensure that nothing disrupts that country. We must go ahead with our promise to give it independence in May or June of this year. Many preparations have been made and it would be counter-productive to postpone the independence celebrations or procedures. I differ from the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on that point.

The New Hebrides is a difficult country to govern. It is not used to unitary government from Porto Vila. Very powerful economic interests are involved. Several people might be determined to break up that country. Strong connections in terms of air transport and economic links exist with the neighbouring French colony of New Caledonia. Nickel deposits are found there. There is a fifty-fifty balance between French colons and the indigenous kanaka. As a result the French have made clear that they will never give New Caledonia its independence, in the same way as it was conceded to the New Hebrides.

There are powerful people in New Caledonia who have a lot of money to spend. They do not have the best interests of the New Hebrides at heart. That country is trying to do what no other country has ever tried to do, with the exception of Mauritius and the Seychelles, namely, to build a bilingual State. In addition, religious divisions exist. The Minister must speak convincingly if we are to be reassured that events following independence will be given a reasonable guarantee. The Government of the country have few resources.

My second set of questions concerns the status of the conference that the Minister announced. I am sure that he will agree that it is unthinkable for that conference to reopen the constitutional conference. That should be made absolutely clear. The constitutional conference has taken place, the parties have signed their agreement and free and fair elections have taken place. They did not get as much publicity as the other free and fair elections, but they were free and fair, and the British and French authorities agreed to respect them. One group and one group only are still disputing them.

If only one group disputes a set of elections, it is not normal to haul everyone over to London for a second constitutional conference. I accept the Minister's statement that Fr. Walter Lini hopes to settle these matters in the Melanesian way, and I discussed that with him when he was last in London. If they are to be settled in the Melanesian way, I would expect it to be done on the spot.

If the conference takes place, I hope that it will in no way be seen as undermining Fr. Walter Lini's authority, which has been bestowed on him by free and fair elections in the New Hebrides. I should like that reassurance from the Minister.

Is it expected that Jimmy Stevens will come to the conference? The Minister did not say that in as many words. If he is, it will provide a colourful sight at Heathrow. We may waive some of our passport restrictions. I doubt whether he will receive the treatment that some of my constituents get when they arrive at Heathrow. If he comes, I hope that the Government will get their protocol right. They should not equate an individual who has gone through a series of democratic elections and lost with a Prime Minister who has gone through them and won. It is important to get that straight.

I have qualms over whether bringing the parties to London is the right approach that will lead to the best result. The Government have decided to issue invitations, although I understand that there has not yet been a response.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, will he say something about the integrity of the New Hebrides? The subject occurs again and again in these circumstances. It occurred over Bermuda and Banaba, and we have had secession arguments over many other places. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the condominium concept of the New Hebrides is valid?

Mr. Price

I believe that it is as valid as any other. The most appalling bequest from the West to the Third world is that its peoples should live within accidental geographical areas which originally had no meaning. Nowhere is that more true than in the Pacific Ocean.

We agreed to let the Gilbert and Ellice Islands split up into Kiribati and Tuvalu. It would have been unreasonable to force one island full of Micronesian people and the other full of Polynesian people to form the same community, especially when they were thousands of miles apart.

In the New Hebrides the people are broadly Melanesian. They have probably been less susceptible to Western democracy, law and general customs than many other communities. That may be one of the problems. Looking at the map of the New Hebrides, at first sight they do not appear to be an easy group of islands to run from Porto Vila.

The only hope for the world with regard to international affairs and law is to stick to the territorial integrity of former colonial countries, whatever absurdities and idiocies are produced. One day it may be possible to have greater rationalisation. The only way for decolonisation to proceed has been on that prin- ciple. I suspect that that must happen in the New Hebrides, but the people need help and reassurance that they are not being undermined. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverness that it will not be an easy task.

Finally, I realise that in the constitution the new Government will have the right to take control, with compensation, if necessary, of land in the New Hebrides.

In replying to my Adjournment debate on 7 December, the Minister said: The constitution provides that all land in the Republic will belong to the indigenous custom owners and their dependants. It requires that Parliament shall enact a national land law. It goes on to say that Parliament shall prescribe such criteria as it deems appropriate for the assessment of compensation and the manner of its payment to those persons whose interests are adversely affected."—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 883.] That is splendid as far as it goes. I am sure that the new Government, after independence, will take steps to make sure that they have control over the use to which land is put.

However, I was disturbed when the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to me on a matter that he had been unable to deal with in the debate, with regard to land in the New Hebrides owned by Americans connected with the Phoenix Foundation. He said: I understand that a total of 5,008.5 hectares"— I cannot work that out, but I understand that it is quite a lot— of land on the islands of Gaua (Banks Group), Malekula and Pentecost is at present owned by Americans directly connected with the Foundation. Title to a further 3,498.5 hectares of land—most of it on Santo—is held by an American who is suspected of being involved"— that is, with the Phoenix Foundation— but whose precise relationship with the Foundation is not clear. This particular area of land has been sub-divided into 283 plots, title of which has been registered to other individuals, including some Americans. After independence there will be a frail Government with tiny resources, who will be trying to take control, with compensation agreed in the constitution, of land allegedly owned by some dubious Americans. Anyone who knows about the history of the New Hebrides understands that the role of the British and French in dividing up land over the past 100 years has been dubious.

I fear that although the constitution is splendid and gives the new Government the right to take control of land and use it in the interests of the people, which I am sure they know best about, it is doubtful whether they will have the powed to do that, considering some of the interests that they may be up against.

I ask the Minister to make it clear that if there are any attempts—whether direct or through economic pressure, or in any other way—to put pressure on the new Government of the New Hebrides they will have the full support of the British Government in resisting those attempts and running the New Hebrides as they think it should be run. I am pleased that the Bill provides for the New Hebrides to become a member of the Commonwealth. That is some sort of earnest of the help that we may be able to give. I am also pleased that the New Hebrides will become a member of the Lomé convention. That is also an earnest of the support that we shall give.

The decision of the United Kingdom over the past 15 years—a decision that has been accelerated over the last five or six years—to grant independence to a number of tiny island States in the Pacific is right, but we should not deceive ourselves into thinking that it puts them into strategic positions. It could place them in great difficulties.

In a sense, the French have recognised that by saying that they will stay in Polynesia and Caledonia for the foreseeable future. We are giving independence, but we are really relying on our friends in Australia, New Zealand and even Japan to make sure that those States are able to develop as genuinely independent mini-States rather than as neo-colonialist dependants of other Powers. The more the Minister can say that we are committed to their genuine interests and to letting the New Hebrideans run their country as they think fit, the greater the reassurance will be to Fr. Walter Lini and his colleagues. I am sure that the whole House wishes them well when the New Hebrides becomes independent.

5.42 pm

Mr. Luce

With the leave of the House, should like to answer at least some, if not most, of the many points that have been raised.

I was somewhat taken aback by the response to my speech. I had thought that the House would find it rather long, but many hon. Members thought that I had not been full enough in my explanation not only of the history but of the present situation in the New Hebrides.

It is remarkable that we are debating a country that is a long way from here, in the Pacific. It is a country that many people—this is no offence to the people of the New Hebrides—do not know very much about, and yet there are Members from all parties who have spoken with expert knowledge of that part of the world. That is one of the extraordinary things about this House. In a debate on almost anything under the sun, there is always someone who knows something about the problem. It should be a source of comfort to the people of the New Hebrides that some hon. Members know a lot about their country.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has left the Chamber. It is rare to hear him speak, and it is very rare that I agree with what he says. I welcome the spirit in which he spoke about the progress towards independence for the New Hebrides and I should like to reaffirm, on behalf of the Government, that Great Britain and our other friends in the Commonwealth, notably Australia, will demonstrate a real and continuing interest in the future of the New Hebrides. We, along with the French, shall continue to do that after independence.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) knows a great deal about the New Hebrides, and I listened to his speech with care. I stress to him that the British and French Governments are totally committed to the agreements that were reached last autumn in Vila about the constitution and the agreement to proceed towards independence between May and June of 1980. We are totally committed to that, as are the French Government, and we owe it to our friends and to the Government in the New Hebrides to ensure that we proceed along those lines.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West suggested that I was not calling a spade a spade when I spoke about the island of Santo. I was not seeking to exaggerate the problem. I do not think that it should be exaggerated. Of course, there has been some intimidation, and there is—I say this in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—a small police force there, but they have not had to use force. Order has been maintained, and there has been no bloodshed. I was deliberately seeking not to exaggerate the problem. I was simply seeking to inform the House that there are some outstanding differences of opinion between some members of the Custom movement and the central Government.

Although we are fully committed to proceed with the agreement, we felt that it was our duty with the French as the join Powers responsible to act as a sort of lubricant machinery to try to smooth over any of the outstanding difficulties between now and the date that is shortly to be chosen for independence. I stress again that we are fully committed to everything that was agreed last autumn between all the parties and with the French. There is no question of reopening the issue.

The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) asked some important questions about matters that I did not touch on in my speech, and I am grateful to her for asking them. She touched on the question of economic assistance, which is an important issue. We already give a considerable sum of aid to the New Hebrides. It is one of the highest in the world, per capita, and it has been at the rate of about £6 million a year—which is a large sum for a population of 120,000. An aid team has recently visited the New Hebrides and made an assessment. We shall be ready to discuss with the Chief Minister when he visits Britain at the end of the month the future aid programme after independence. We shall be as forthcoming as possible.

The hon. Member for Crewe also asked about the ACP. As a dependency up to now, the New Hebrides has received benefits from the European development fund. On independence, it will be entitled to full membership of the Lomé convention. I am sure that it will receive benefits from that.

Mrs. Dunwoody

One thing that occurs to me is that there is a marked difference within the ACP between countries that are ex-francophone and those that are ex-anglophone in the way that they negotiate trade arrangements with the EEC. It is noticeable that where countries are still regarded as part of metropolitan France they have a special relationship with the Community, and in some instances they get much better terms than do ex-anglophone countries. Is the Minister satisfied that the New Hebrides will benefit to the fullest extent? It is just possible that it might be losing a positive advantage.

Mr. Luce

In these circumstances, we have the unique situation of condominium—that is, joint responsibility between France and Britain. If there is any truth in what the hon. Lady says, the New Hebrides will have the benefit of both the British and French Governments taking a keen negotiating interest on its behalf within the Community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has visited the New Hebrides and knows a great deal about that part of the world. He asked one or two questions. On the security side, the police forces will be amalgamated. They will pledge loyalty to the new Government in the same way as other services which will be amalgamated. After independence it will be up to the new Government in the same way if they wish, and we shall consider any requests from them. Some of the British expatriates serving in the police force and other services in the New Hebrides may wish to continue giving service. We shall continue to take a keen interest in all these aspects.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the law. We are now in the process of seeking a unified criminal code, which is being prepared, and British experts are also preparing a unified civil and commercial code. There will be a single system of courts, and the British and French courts will cease to exist.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has a great interest in citizenship. I shall not get too involved in this question, as we could spend a long time discussing it. My hon. Friend is a considerable expert and he knows that the Government are pledged to reform the nationality law. That will provide him with the opportunity to put his points across.

I apologise to my hon. Friend because, when he intervened earlier, I misled him slightly on the question of citizenship in the New Hebrides. There is an indigenous New Hebridean population which consists of 112,000 of the total of 120,000 people living there. At present they are technically stateless, although they carry special travel documents when travelling abroad, enabling them to call on the British and French authorities for protection if that is necessary. Under the independence constitution they will acquire New Hebridean citizenship on independence.

There are about 5,000 French citizens living in the New Hebrides, 1,500 Australians, New Zealanders and citizens of other independent Commonwealth countries and 460 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The Bill provides for them to continue as citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.

The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) raised a number of points, some of which have been partly answered. He asked whether there was genuine pressure or desire for independence. I confirm that there is and that there has been for some time. That desire led to the setting up in 1978 of a constitutional committee of all parties to examine the constitution on the basis that all parties wanted independence and were committed to it. This led to the two main parties working together for a common constitution. At that stage there was a Government of national unity, which demonstrated the common desire to proceed in this direction.

The hon. Member also asked whether other options had been considered. The answer is "Yes". It was open to the parties concerned to consider union with France. The Government party, which is the anglophone party, represents 55 per cent. of the population. However, these arrangements for independence were the wish of the two main parties, so there is no problem there.

The hon. Member ended up on the broader issue of British Government policy on dependencies. I do not think that it would be right for me to make a long comment about the future of our remaining dependencies, save to note that whichever Government have been in office—Labour or Conservative—have adopted a pragmatic approach to each situation—Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands and Belize. In this unusual case we have done just that, in close co-operation with the French. In fact, throughout all the stages we have worked extremely closely with the French Government.

Both Governments are committed to the agreement to proceed towards independence. We intend that independence should come about in May and hope that the facilities that we have offered to enable outstanding differences of opinion—which are not very great—to be resolved will bring about that resolution in the next few weeks. We hope that the country will then proceed to independence, and I am glad that, to judge from the speeches we have heard tonight. all hon. Members wish the people of the New Hebrides well in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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

Committee tomorrow.