KIRIBATI BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 19 February 1979 vol 398 cc1593-642

6.1 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is to: make provision for and in connection with the attainment by the Gilbert Islands of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth under (he name of Kiribati". Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to express my apologies in advance for having to speak at some length. The reason for this will become apparent, I hope, later in my speech. But now, in accordance with custom, I shall begin by tracing briefly the history of the Gilbert Islands and the developments leading up to the introduction of the Bill.

The intention of the Bill is that Kiribati should become independent as its territory is at present constituted. It comprises 33 islands in all, including the Line Islands and the Phoenix Islands. The total area is 264 square miles, scattered across 2,000,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean around the point at which the International Date Line cuts the Equator. The capital of the territory is Tarawa. The people are Micronesian, and the total population is about 56,000, the bulk of whom live in the Gilberts Group.

Britain's first official involvement in the islands was in 1877, when the Western Pacific High Commission was established in an endeavour to protect the islands in the region from being raided by black-birders for labour to work in plantations in South America, Fiji, Hawaii, Tahiti and Queensland. In 1888–89, Christmas, Fanning and Washington, in the Northern Line Islands, were annexed by Britain. A British Protectorate was declared in 1892 over the Gilberts Group and the neighbouring Ellice Islands, which are now Tuvalu. Banaba (Ocean Island) was annexed in 1900. The Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony succeeded the Protectorate in 1916, and was extended to include Banaba, Fanning and Washington Islands. Christmas Island was included in 1919, the Phoenix Islands in 1937 and the Central and Southern Line Islands in 1972.

During the Second World War the Gilberts were invaded by Japanese forces, and several islands were occupied. After fierce fighting at the battle of Tarawa in 1943, the Japanese were displaced, although Banaba remained occupied until 1945, when it was liberated by Australian forces. In January 1972 the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was formally separated from the Western Pacific High Commission, and the Resident Commissioner became the first Governor of the Colony. As part of a continuous process of constitutional evolution, a ministerial form of government was created, with a House of Assembly and a Council of Ministers. In October 1975, with the agreement of the Gilbert Islands, the Ellice Islands separated from them to become Tuvalu. Full internal self-government was attained by the Gilbert Islands on 1st January 1977. There is a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister and a House of Assembly consisting of 35 elected members, one ex-officio member (the Attorney-General) and a seat for a nominee of the Rabi Council of Leaders, representing the Banabans.

In May 1977 a Constitutional Convention in Tarawa reached agreement by consensus on each of the proposed provisions placed before it. In late November last year a full constitutional conference, with the participation of Banaban representatives, took place in London under my chairmanship. It was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Gilbert Islands should become independent, as a republic within the Commonwealth, in early July 1979. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 7445), and presented to Parliament in January of this year.

I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the independence of the Gilbert Islands as a republic as from 12th July 1979. Clause 3 and the Schedule provide for the continuance after independence of laws operating in respect of Kiribati before independence subject to the consequential modification of certain enactments. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with nationality. They follow closely the similar clauses in the Tuvalu Act 1978. Perhaps I can take Clause 5 first. This provides for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency. Clause 4 provides that, subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall lose that citizenship if, on independence, they become citizens of Kiribati. It also provides that, again subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who, or whose father, was born in Kiribati, or a woman who acquired that citizenship by reason of her marriage to such a citizen, but who does not become a citizen of Kiribati at independence, shall lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if, on independence, he or she has the citizenship of some other country.

This departure from the usual provisions of an independence Bill was agreed with the Gilbert Islands Government because of the unique situation resulting from the division of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony into two, one of them achieving independence in advance of the other. The centre of administration of the former colony was at Tarawa. Consequently, persons not otherwise connected with what became the Gilbert Islands Colony were born there while their fathers were serving in the administration. These persons are, in the main, currently resident in Tuvalu, and became citizens of Tuvalu when that country achieved independence. But because of the accident of birth at Tarawa, they have until now retained citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Kiribati Constitution contains provision for such persons to acquire citizenship of Kiribati automatically at independence if they first renounce their other citizenship. The Gilbert Islands Government have given a firm undertaking to publicise this provision for the benefit of those who wish to take advantage of it. Thus those Tuvaluans have the option of acquiring Kiribati citizenship if they want it. They will, however, in any case cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The clause is so worded as to avoid leaving anyone stateless. Clause 6 enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to appeals from the courts of Kiribati. Clauses 7 and 8 deal with interpretation and citation.

My Lords, it is at this stage that I would normally turn to more general matters not covered by the Bill: for example, prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independance, aid and technical assistance, and such matters. However, before proceeding to those matters, I should like to explain the Government's decision, as provided for in the Bill, that Banaba, or Ocean Island, as it is also known, should remain part of the Gilbert Islands on independence. The Banaban problem has been a long-standing one. It is a complicated subject. I therefore repeat my request that the House will bear with me if I deal with the subject at some length.

The Banaban issue has two aspects—constitutional and financial. The financial aspect has no direct connection with the present Bill. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful if I touched on this aspect later in my statement.

Banaba was discovered by the British vessel "Ocean"—hence the name—in 1804. Phosphate was discovered there in May 1900, when the London-based Pacific Islands Company applied to the Colonial Office for a licence to mine it. The Colonial Office decided that the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate should include the island in the protectorate, and in November 1900 Ocean Island was effectively incorporated into it.

By Order in Council of 10th November 1915 the protectorate was annexed as a colony. This Order in Council referred to islands covered by the Declarations of Protectorate of May and September 1892. Ocean Island was not mentioned in these declarations: it had already been annexed in 1900 and administered as part of the protectorate. A separate Order in Council was issued on 27th January 1916 to include it, together with Fanning and Washington Islands (in the Line Islands, 1,500 miles to the east), within the boundaries of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.

As early as 1909, the British authorities had expressed disquiet about the fate of the Banabans when the phosphate was exhausted, and in 1931 some of the phosphate royalties were credited to a Banaban Provident Fund, whose purpose was to provide money for the purchase of a future home for the Banabans. The Banabans were loath to leave their homeland and for some years resettlement was not pursued. But in 1942, Rabi Island, in Fiji, was purchased freehold.

In August, 1942, the Japanese occupied Ocean Island and dispersed many of the Banabans to other Pacific islands. On Japanese surrender of the island in October 1945, the island was temporarily uninhabitable as a result of wartime depredations. After some initial misgivings, the Banabans, who had been brought together in Tarawa by the British authorities, agreed unanimously to go to Rabi with the option of permanent settlement there, on condition that, if all or any of them should wish to return to Ocean Island after two years, suitable transport would be arranged by the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony Government.

A secret ballot among Banabans on Rabi on whether they wished to stay there or return to Ocean Island was held in 1947, a large majority (270 to 48) electing to make Rabi their headquarters and home. A statement of intentions embodying Banaban land rights and rights of access was read out and explained fully to the Banaban community by officials of the then colonial government. I shall return to this later.

The present Banaban population is about 2,500. All except about 90 of them continue to live on Rabi (now part of independent Fiji) and they maintain only a rotating token presence on Ocean Island (now called Banaba). Many of the Banabans are Fiji citizens and virtually all of them are entitled to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The rights of land ownership on, and freedom of access to, Banaba under the 1947 statement of intentions are included in the present Gilbert Islands internal self-government Constitution.

Over the past decade, the Banabans have campaigned for the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands. Their campaign has included unsuccessful appeals to the United Nations and to the British Government, and prolonged legal actions in the United Kingdom courts. The Banabans have based their claims to separation on three principal points. The first is that they are a different people from the Gilbertese; the second they had not until this century been governed by the Gilbertese; and the third that, since the Ellice Islands (now Tuvalu) were allowed in October 1975 to separate from the Gilbert Islands, so too should they.

Successive Gilbertese Governments have strongly resisted the Banabans' claim to separation, arguing that on legal, historical, ethnic and linguistic grounds, Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands. The separation in October 1975 of the Ellice Islands from the Gilbert Islands took place with the full consent of the Gilbert Islands Government; it is, therefore, not a valid precedent for the granting of Banaba's separation. Moreover, the Gilbertese have argued that on geographical and practical grounds it is more sensible that Banaba remain part of the Gilbert Islands, from whose capital it is only 240 miles distant, rather than be associated with Fiji, from which it is separated by 1,400 miles of ocean.

Over a long period, successive British Governments have explored every possibility in an attempt to solve the Banaban problem, including the despatch to the region in 1977 of a special representative, Mr. Posnett, to report and make recommendations on the problem. The Government have continually encouraged the Gilbert Islands Government and the Banaban leaders to try to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The Government were therefore much encouraged when the two parties met in November 1977 in Bairiki (in the Gilbert Islands), when they passed 10 resolutions, including one for a referendum throughout the Gilbert Islands and Rabi on the separation of Banaba, and some resolutions calling for Britain to pay the Banabans considerable further sums of money. At this stage the Banabans did not link these proposals and, indeed, explicitly accepted the possibility that a referendum would go against them. Subsequently, however, they resiled from this position and said that the Bairiki resolutions should be regarded as a package. In other words, they were prepared to accept a referendum vote which might go against separation if the British Government met their financial demands.

The two sides met again in June 1978 in Tarawa (in the Gilbert Islands) but without success; although on this occasion the Banabans agreed to suspend their campaign for separation, again provided that the British Government gave them considerable sums of money. One understands a feeling about one's homeland, but it is a little difficult to accept it always as being the basis of an argument if from time to time a certain price is placed upon it.

The future status of Banaba therefore fell to be decided at the Gilbert Islands pre-independence constitutional conference held in London from 21st November to 7th December. I was the chairman of the conference. I had made clear well in advance of the conference that, in the absence of an agreement being reached between the Gilbertese and the Banabans in the meantime, the conference itself would need to decide the issue, and for this purpose the Banabans would be invited to put their case once more. The Banabans were represented by their whole Council of Leaders together with advisers.

The first week of the conference—nearly half the duration of this conference—was, at my direction, devoted exclusively to consideration of the future status of Banaba. I invited both sides once more to put forward their views and to raise any new points which might affect Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the subject. Ample opportunity was given to the participants to state their points of view. The Banabans reiterated their long-standing argument that Britain had joined Banaba to the Gilbert Islands in 1916 without consulting the Banabans. They expressed concern that the British Government could contemplate transferring the responsibility in the 1947 "Statement of Intentions", to which I have referred earlier, to an independent Gilbert Islands Republic.

They expresesd distrust that these undertakings could be guaranteed by entrenched clauses in an independent Gilbert Islands Constitution. They contended that only the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands could safeguard the Banabans' rights to their homeland and that it was unfair and impracticable to expect them to live under two jurisdictions—that is, a "monarchical" Fiji and a "republican" Gilbert Islands. Their basic principle, on which they were not prepared to compromise, was that they would not settle for anything less than Banaba's separation from the Gilbert Islands. They wished to remain, at least for the time being, a separate British colony with the right, if they wished, to associate with Fiji. They had thus retreated from the position they had adopted at Bairiki and Tarawa; namely, that they were prepared to consider the possibility of remaining part of the Gilbert Islands in return for large sums of money.

The Banabans' demands were unacceptable to the Gilbert Islands' delegation who reiterated their equally strongly held views against separation. Nevertheless, the Gilbertese Chief Minister indicated that, within a solution which involved the retention of Banaba in the Gilbert Islands, his delegation were prepared to consider any concessions or safeguards the Banabans wished to propose.

In this situation, I adjourned the conference proceedings in order to consult my colleagues in the Government. I subsequently announced the British Government's decision that the Gilbert Islands would proceed to independence as at present constituted—that is, including the island of Banaba—but that special provisions should be included in the Independence Constitution safeguarding the Banabans' interests. On hearing the announcement, the Banaban representatives withdrew from the conference and refused to participate further.

This decision, the text of which is in paragraph 3 of the conference report (Cmnd. 7445) was based on our normal policy, and the generally accepted UN principles, on questions of self-determination, of respecting the wishes of the people as a whole within the existing boundaries of the territory to become independent.

The Gilbert Islands' delegation responded, I am bound to say constructively and co-operatively, to the inclusion and entrenchment of quite special Banaba provisions in their Independence Constitution. I regret that the Banaban representatives refused to take part. Those provisions are set out in paragraphs 62 to 69 of the conference report, and they deserve very careful study. They will, among other things, continue to ensure the Banabans' right of access to, and landownership on, Banaba, irrespective of whether the Banabans are Fiji citizens or become Kiribati citizens; they will afford them the right of representation in the Gilbertese House of Assembly, with their representative having the right of veto over any changes to the entrenched conditions; and will afford them the right of appeal to the Privy Council in any matters affecting the provisions. In addition, the Constitution will provide for an independent Commission of Inquiry to review the operation of the conditions after 5 years and to make recommendations; and the Gilberts' Chief Minister has expressed his Government's willing- ness to conclude an agreement or even a treaty with Fiji, if Fiji were willing, safeguarding the Banabans' rights in the Independence Constitution. These special provisions are entrenched in the Constitution to a degree unprecedented in my experience of such matters.

The Banabans have expressed concern lest the provisions not be honoured. I am confident that they will be: they have been fully honoured since 1947, and it would be discourteous, to say the least, to the Gilbertese people—and they are a Pacific area people, and those familiar with the area will know what I mean when I say that they have their own standards and a Pacific way and Pacific assumptions of what entails honour and behaviour—to suggest that they would violate their constitutional commitments. Indeed, I find it a little ironic that the Banabans are prepared to trust the British Government, of whom they have had many uncomplimentary things to say, but not their neighbours and kinsmen in the Pacific.

I assure the House that I personally and my Government have spared no effort to try to reach an agreed solution to the issue of Banaba's constitutional future. Faced with two parties with opposing views we believe that the decisions we took, in co-operation with the Gilbertese, have resulted in a fair and a workable solution, and that the Banabans should give it a chance. I am sure that the House will agree with the Government that the issue should not be allowed to delay the progress to independence of the Gilbert Islands, who in their period of self-government as a dependancy have shown a remarkable capacity for prudent and cheerful husbandry of their resources. That independence should not be delayed simply because one island cannot be satisfied totally about the safeguards which I believe are very substantial indeed—in fact are conclusive. We cannot rewrite history; but we can help, and we are helping, to provide for a viable future for the Gilbertese and for the Banaban community on Rabi.

My Lords, this exposition—a rather lengthy one—of the efforts of the Government over a long period of time to find a solution to the constitutional problem of Banaba will not have been in vain if I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that we have done everything possible to find a compromise solution which is fair and just to all parties. There are nevertheless some for whom I have the deepest respect who believe that we should make one last effort to see if within the framework of the report of the conference the parties could not be further reconciled.

Such a suggestion has been made to me by the noble Baroness opposite and by her colleagues in this House and in another place. I should like to pay my respects to her and to her colleagues for putting forward the suggestion. Moreover, the Prime Minister of Fiji has made a similar proposal. I am prepared to accept the suggestion that a Minister should, before the Bill is read a second time in another place, visit the Pacific to discuss with the Gilbert Islands Government and the Rabi Council of Leaders, if they are willing, the special provisions to protect the interests of the Banabans. The Minister would also talk to the Government of Fiji, whose Prime Minister has told me he would welcome such a visit. The present plan is that my honourable friend, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Evan Luard, who was co-chairman with me of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, should make a visit in early March following an official visit to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

I must, of course, make clear that there can be no question of Her Majesty's Government resiling from the provisions recorded in the White Paper. This is an agreed report signed by the Chief Minister and myself, and I believe it is a most valuable document for resolving difficulties of this nature. The purpose of the visit will be to see how much further they can go to accommodate views and feelings on the basis of the White Paper, and to talk to everybody concerned in the most friendly and constructive manner possible. I am quite sure that my honourable friend is the very man to do so. Our object would be to discuss with those directly concerned the safeguards for ensuring that the interests of the Banabans are protected within a united Kiribas, in the hope that the two views might yet be reconciled.

I mentioned earlier that the financial aspect of the Banaban issue had no direct bearing on the future status of Banaba, which is a purely constitutional matter. But I should like to acquaint the House with the financial provisions we are making to help the Banabans. As the House will know, following the Banabans' unsuccessful legal action against the Crown, the partner Governments of the British Phosphate Commission, that is the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, offered in May 1977 10 million Australian dollars (about £6.7 million sterling) for a fund for the Banabans' future. That is in addition to the revenues which have been paid for many years to the Banabans as also to the Gilbertese and are continuing to be paid until the end of mining, later this year. In addition the partner Governments are prepared to consider paying back-dated interest on this sum, which would provide about a further 1.5 million Australian dollars. These amounts are additional to the generous 1.25 million Australian dollars offered by the BPC in settlement of the Banabans' actions against them, in which the court awarded damages of 14,000 dollars only.

The Government have also offered the Banabans up to £1 million for development projects on Rabi island where, as I said, the great majority of them live and have been living since 1947. In addition, the Government are prepared to finance a full resources survey of Banaba itself, their former home, to ascertain its potential for habitation and development after phosphate mining ends this year, should any of them choose to live there, and to discuss any recommendations which the survey report makes. I cannot, of course, tie my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Aid in advance of the issue of such a report, if they agree that it should be made; but I think the House will understand me if I say that I have every confidence that if such a valuable survey as this could be reported to be in favour of redeveloping Ocean Island, to overtake some of the mistakes—some of the excesses perhaps—made in another age according to the lights of a different age, to restore the island, then this country and this Government, indeed any Government, would most favourably look on the recommendations of such a survey. I am sure the House will agree that these are generous offers to a community numbering about 2,500. They should help to provide them with a viable future.

I have spent a long time on the Banaban problem. I make no apology since I know this reflects the interests of many of your Lordships; but the purpose of this Bill is to confer independence on the Gilbert Islands. I now return to the economic prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independence. This will depend greatly on the success in establishing a tuna fishing industry and the early development of other revenue-earning projects, since revenues from phosphate will cease in 1979 when phosphate mining on Banaba ends. They will need to rely on aid donors for the development of these projects. In addition to our own substantial British contribution, aid will be available from the European Development Fund, and both Australia and New Zealand have aid programmes. Japan has also indicated her interest in providing assistance.

We have for many years operated a programme of capital aid and technical assistance for the Gilbert Islands, and this will continue after independence. Apart from our substantial programme of technical co-operation, we shall be providing development aid of up to £15.5 million sterling in the first four years of independence. Additionally there will be special financial assistance totalling £5.3 million sterling to support the budget of the Gilbert Islands after phosphate revenues cease.

Many people have contributed to the outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill and in particular I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development for her help in forming an independence settlement specially suited to the needs of the Gilbert Islands. Above all, I think this is the occasion to congratulate the Gilbert Islands Government and especially Mr. Ieremiah Tabai, the Chief Minister, for the statesmanlike way in which they have worked towards achieving a successful future for the Gilbert Islands. Our long association with their country and the friendship between us will endure, I am sure, for many years to come. My Lords, the Gilbert Islands have already expressed their intention of joining the Commonwealth, and it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we have the prospect of continuing the close ties which exist between us. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)

6 39 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, the Minister has made a most comprehensive statement regarding the contents and significance and the surrounding circumstances of the Kiribati Bill now before your Lordships' House. I know that Members on all sides of this House would wish me to thank him for the care and attention he has given to the detail which is engendered by this Bill.

The Gilbert Islands, for many decades a peaceful British dependency, are achieving independence as a sovereign State. As such, we on this side of the House, with the Minister, warmly welcome the independence of Kiribas as a new member of the community of nations, a future member of the Commonwealth, possibly and hopefully, a signatory to the EEC Lomé Convention and eventually perhaps a member of the United Nations.

In a world of increasing interdependence and struggles for power—we do not have to be reminded today of the tensions in South-East Asia—for strategic, commercial and other reasons, no country, big or small, can ignore the need for friends and allies; and we in the United Kingdom look forward to a new relationship with the Gilbert Islanders, based on respect for their sovereign rights and long years of co-operation.

As the Minister has already said, the Gilbert Islanders have in the last two years been responsible for their own internal affairs, and no one who has watched their progress would fail to appreciate the able and dignified way in which their new tasks and responsibilities have been assumed by the Chief Minister and his colleagues. Under the Bill, the 33 coral atolls, within about 2 million square miles of sea, will, in accordance with the expressed wish of their inhabitants—about 55,000 to 60,000 people—become an independent sovereign territory and constitute an independent republic as from 12th July.

One of the first questions which I should like to put to the Minister—and I give him notice that there will be a certain number of questions from this side of the House—is in connection with claims to the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands, because this is an important issue which is causing some anxiety, and with justification. I wonder whether the Minister can give any indication of the action that the Government are taking to ensure that the right to claims made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to these two sets of islands—the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands—which are now within the boundaries of the colony, will accrue to the Government of Kiribati under the principle of rights or claims which pass on independence, or under State succession. I should be very grateful if we could have some reply on that question.

The noble Lord the Minister has covered a vast number of points and I shall try to avoid repeating what he has said, where we are in complete agreement as to the basis of the facts and as to the comments that he has made. The report of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, held in London in November and December of last year, has set out—I think very fairly and clearly—some of the difficulties which have faced both the Government and the representatives of the Gilbert Islanders in drawing up a fair and workable Constitution, which will guarantee protection for the individual rights of all citizens of the Gilbert Islands.

Noble Lords will be aware, as we are reminded in the Press today, of action taken by the Banabans on Ocean Island, which undoubtedly reflect the deep-felt reaction of those people to the present Bill. There has been a formidable and widely publicised account on behalf of the rights and aspirations of the Banabans, which undoubtedly reveals—and I think that this was confirmed in the High Court of the United Kingdom—that these people have suffered considerable injury, and, as the Minister himself indicated, most people accept that they have a genuine grievance. But—and there is a "but" —in the terms of Mr. Justice Megarry, in his judgment, forceful presentation has been marred by significant omissions of what was true and by intemperate assertions of what was false". Their land, exploited by the British Phospates Commission with an inadequate financial reward for the mining operations which have contributed to making a large part of the island uninhabitable, was later devastated by the Japanese in 1942. But it remains for the Banabans the place to which they are, understandably, deeply and passionately attached, to which some of them may wish to return, and, in order to preserve that right, wish to secede from the Gilbert Islands of which they have formed an integral part for the last 60 or more years.

What is of concern to my noble friends is that Britain's honour has been impugned, and it has been suggested that Britain has a moral duty to agree to the present request of the Banabans for the independence of Ocean Island. It is, therefore, necessary to look closely at the facts which, from all the evidence, appear very much in the way that the noble Lord the Minister has presented them to your Lordships' House. However, there are one or two questions which I should like to ask him for clarification, both for the benefit of your Lordships and for those who have great concern over the matter of statistics.

The Chief Minister of the time, in February 1975, wrote a letter to The Times of the United Kingdom and said that of the 336 men who were evacuated from Ocean Island,152 were not Banabans at all, but came from other Gilbert Islands and are now living on Rabi. The Chief Minister also pointed out that of the approximately 2,000 people living on Rabi at that date, some 250 had both parents born on Gilbert Islands other than Ocean; and in paragraph 13 of the paper prepared by the Gilbert Islanders, 65 per cent. had one or both parents born in Gilbert Islands other than Ocean. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister could confirm this or indicate whether it is in any way incorrect, because clearly this matter of statistic, which can be misleading, puts a different gloss on the situation in regard to the composition of the Banabans now living on Rabi.

I have been given to understand by a very learned anthropologist, Professor Strathearn of University College London—and this opinion is, I believe, shared by many other anthropologists of similar standing—that Banabans are Micronesian people of the same race as the other Gilbert Islanders. They share the same gods, the same language and the same cultural traditions. Also, there has been considerable intermarriage of Banabans with other Gilbert Islanders. Should further evidence of this be needed, I am given to understand that the wife of the present Chief Minister is herself a Banaban. But the genuine grievances of the Banabans have been partly concerned, as the noble Lord indicated, with the important question of compensation, both annual and in capital terms, for the phosphates extracted from Ocean Island and for the destruction of their island.

The more important anxiety undoubtedly stems from the statement of intent of 1947, to which I shall refer shortly. But it is fair to say at this point that the Gilbert Islanders, as a whole, have reason to complain, since Ocean Island is part of the territory of the Gilbert Islands and has been its main source of wealth. In the case brought before the High Court for compensation, it was not within the competence of the court to make an award against Her Majesty's Government, but the outcome was that the British Government offered compensation of something over £6 million which, together with annual revenue, makes the Rabi inhabitants the richest population per capita in the Pacific Islands—and very good luck to them!

It may be that this is still not adequate to restore Ocean Island to a habitable condition, and it may be something which the Government are prepared to look at. In fact, I think that the Minister has already given an indication that they are prepared to do so. We are pleased, once again, to have an undertaking from the Government that they have offered to initiate a scientific survey of the economic prospects of the island, and it is very much hoped that this survey will be agreed to, because it will undoubtedly be of benefit to all the Gilbert Islanders, and, in particular, the Banabans. We believe it essential that in this House we should be satisfied that Ocean Island will be rehabilitated and restored in such a way that the Banabans can, should they wish, return once more to their island.

While considering the legitimate financial concern of the Banabans, I should like to put a question to the Minister. I shall be grateful if he can indicate what conclusions, if any, Her Majesty's Government have come to in regard to the control of the trust fund set up to protect the Banabans' interests. I should like to know whether the Banabans will have complete freedom to operate that fund themselves. Of even greater importance, apart from that financial matter, is the demand for independence on which the Banabans are now insisting, and to which is being attached the question of Britain's moral responsibility.

As I understand it, the undertakings given by the British Government of the day to the Banabans in 1947, which are known as the statement of intent, never included the question of independence at that time. However, it appears that the distinction between land ownership and right to return, and the question of sovereignty, has been eroded in the argument. But at no time was it then suggested that Ocean Island should pass out of the sovereign territory of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could comment when he winds up at the end of the debate. However, the statement of intent included an inalienable right to return to Ocean Island, respecting this deep-seated feeling, to which we have already referred, of the Banabans for their land, and covered both the right of ownership and the right of access to the island.

All of these provisions are entrenched in the new Constitution which is set out in the report on the constitutional conference. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they must be among the most generous terms ever provided for a minority, whether on the attainment of independence or in any treaty provisions that I have ever come across concerning minority groups. Gilbert Island nationality has been offered to those who adopted Fiji nationality in 1970. Again I would ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of how many Banabans acquired Fijian nationality. I understand that very few Banabans acquired Fijian nationality, but I should be grateful if an indication of the numbers involved could be given to your Lordships. The Banabans acquired Fijian nationality when Fiji gained her own independence in 1970.

Other provisions of benefit to the Banabans include, as the noble Lord has already indicated, a seat in the House of Assembly, regardless of Fijian or Kiribatian nationality—again a unique provision—and a right of veto over any change in legislation concerning the Banabans: another unique provision. In my modest opinion, the Gilbert Islanders have shown themselves to be generous and statesmanlike in not only accepting but offering these provisions, made none the easier, as again the noble Lord indicated, by the withdrawal of the Banabans from the relevant discussions.

As has so often been said, Les absents ont toujours tort. I think that it was a great pity that the Banabans were not able to persuade themselves that it would have been both to the benefit of themselves and of the Gilbert Islanders had they managed to remain at that conference. This is no criticism of the action taken by the Banabans; they were justified in taking any action they wished. But it did not help their own case in this difficult situation when so many people were trying to reach a satisfactory solution to what is clearly a very difficult problem. We are concerned as to whether Her Majesty's Government have looked closely enough at the possible consequences of one or two of these provisions in their capacity as still for the time being the colonial power involved.

While dual nationality is allowed in the Gilbert Islands, may I ask the Minister whether or not it is the case that in Fiji it is prohibited by Fijian domestic law? Again, may I ask what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to resolve this question with the Prime Minister of Fiji and his advisers? It is useless to pretend in this case that Her Majesty's Government have done all that they can when this provision is prohibited by domestic law.

Another provision which raises certain queries relates to the steps which the Government envisage will be taken to ensure that when the British Phosphates Commission retire from Ocean Island—which we understand will be shortly—the land will be returned to the landowners, either collectively or individually. Will the Government ensure that there is some form of legally binding instrument which returns these lands to their owners, or, alternatively, will the Minister comment on what is the legal position of the Banabans in relation to their interest in the land of Ocean Island? Obviously this is a question of deep concern, and possibly the Government will be able to allay the fears of those who are afraid that they will have lost certain rights over their own land.

These are two points which could be raised by Mr. Luard when he goes to the Pacific, an initiative which, as the Minister pointed out, was proposed by my colleagues. We very much welcome and are grateful to the Minister for his response to this proposal. The co-operation of the Prime Minister of Fiji would certainly be invaluable, since the Banabans live on Fiji and Fiji is a nation which plays an important part in the area. Therefore, any contribution that they can make to assist in entrenching still further the safeguards for the Banabans could be in the interests of all parties to this problem.

May I go on record as saying that we on this side of the House also feel very strongly that our friends in the Gilbert Islands should be able to proceed to independence as rapidly as possible. Equally, it must be in their interests, as well as in the interests of the Banabans, the Fijians and the British, to ensure a long-lasting solution to the anxieties of the Banabans concerning Ocean Island. This is why we attach great importance to Mr. Luard's mission to the Pacific. We hope that he will return with an understanding between the parties that will do justice to them all. The Minister will no doubt realise that it will be difficult to make progress with the Bill until we receive a report on Mr. Luard's mission, but on this basis we are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.

6.55 p.m.

Lord McNAIR

My Lords, the beginning is easy. We can all offer a warm welcome to Kiribati, soon to be an independent Republic within the Commonwealth. They have, of course, an absolute right to choose a republican form of Government, if they so desire. After all, some of our best friends are republics, We can all be glad, too, that they will be joining us and so many other friendly countries in the Commonwealth. Their life will be hard, but they are used to that. They will probably remain poor, but they are used to that, too. We all wish them well.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, needed to apologise for taking time. This is not a straightforward, normal independence Bill. As noble Lords have already seen, it bristles with difficulties. The point is that if the Almighty had never created Ocean Island or if, having submerged it under the sea for hundreds or thousands—or was it millions?—of years, He had never caused its mountain top to re-emerge with its huge guano deposits mysteriously transmuted into phosphate of lime, then this would be a matter of three or four speakers in 40 minutes and the Bill would have passed with general acclaim.

Let me make it clear that I want the Bill to pass. I shall do what little I can to help it to pass, but not in 40 minutes. That would be a discourtesy and an injustice to a fine people, and a most unlucky people, for whom we have been, and still are, responsible and who have suffered grievously over the years at the hands of various agents—ourselves, I think, included.

I suppose that the temptation to quote oneself is one of the nastiest symptoms of approaching senility, and my reckless intention of yielding to it is probably another, but it is only a line or two of Hansard. When in May of last year we were discussing the independence of Tuvalu, I ventured to suggest that: … coconuts and fish may well be a safer economic base for a nation of atoll dwellers than, for example, phosphates".—[Official Report; 9/5/78; col. 899.] I was, of course, thinking of Ocean Island when I said that, and I recall these words only to show that it is not just in the last few weeks that I have become aware of the Banaban story.

However, in the last few weeks, like several other noble Lords, I have been subjected to a veritable megatonnage of propaganda from the organisation called the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This has met with a limited response from people supporting the point of view of the Gilbertese Government and from Mr. Tabai himself, the Chief Minister. If arguments could be won by sheer weight of paper, it would be a walk-over, but there is such a thing in propaganda as overkill. I freely admit that I have been unable to read everything which has reached me from the campaign. I tried, but I found it impossible.

I am, however, deeply indebted to a remarkable book, one which must certainly be known to many of your Lordships. The title is Treasure Islands and the author is Pearl Binder. This is a finely written, committed work, written frankly and, I would say, justifiably from the Banaban point of view—and written by someone who did not just spend a few days on each island, which is all that most observers have been able to do. This author spent a whole winter, and it cannot have been a very comfortable winter, living on the Banabans' new home of Rabi, learning about their ancient culture and customs, getting to know them and coming to love them. I hope that is a sufficient acknowledgement of my debt to this book, on which I shall draw very heavily. Indeed, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has not read Treasure Islands can easily grasp the full complexity and poignancy of this story. Conversely, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has read the book will disagree with me when I say that it seems to me that this is one of the darkest stains on our past imperial honour; one we have not yet washed out and one that cannot just be left there to haunt us for all future time.

This may be the best place to put in a reference to the news report yesterday of the petrol bomb attacks on mining installations on Ocean Island. I feel that we do not yet know enough for safe comment. The timing of that act is extraordinary. It cannot conceivably do any good to the cause of the Banabans. My only confident comment therefore is that if petrol bombs were thrown by Banabans then they were acting in total conflict with all their traditions and they would certainly be condemned by their own wise leaders. It is completely out of character and I am sure that we do not yet know all the facts.

The Banaban story cannot be told in full. The noble Lord did his best and I may be able to fill in one or two gaps. From that so-called "contract" in 1900 between the company and the then illiterate islanders, negotiations being conducted through a very indifferent interpreter, the company was, for £50 a year, to extract the phosphates for 999 years. When only 13 of those years had passed this deal was already being denounced by our own colonial administrator as iniquitous. Yet out of that shrewd investment of £50 a year, millions of pounds of profit have been made. The farmers of Australia and New Zealand have enjoyed cheap phosphatic fertilisers and the consumers of their products, which includes everyone in this House, I dare to say, have enjoyed relatively cheap food.

I must hurry over the Banabans' appalling experiences during the Second World War, at the end of which some of them, along with other Gilbertese, were the victims of a massacre, one of the ghastliest of all the Japanese war crimes. There was one survivor on Ocean Island. The remaining Banabans had been scattered by war all over the Pacific. We collected them up and settled them on Rabi—which, as we have heard, they had bought—an island in the Fiji group. It can be argued that this was the best thing to do for them at that time. Indeed their own great leader, Tebuke, said that this was the best thing that the British ever did for them. I suspect that Pastor Tebuke has a certain gift of irony, but that is what he is supposed to have said. What is beyond dispute is that it was exactly what the company wanted us to do. "Get them out of the way and leave us to exploit what is left of the island in peace "was the company attitude.

There they are to this day, 1,400 miles from Ocean Island on their new home of Rabi, where they appear to enjoy mutually satisfactory relations with the Fiji Government which, as I read it, has behaved admirably throughout the whole case. Some young Banabans are attending Suva University. They are making a life for themselves on Rabi but they have a yearning to go home and they have an enduring sense of having been swindled.

This is where I think the Banabans have been badly advised, and in parenthesis I suggest that anyone who takes it upon himself to give professional advice to unsophisticated people about Western ways is accepting a very heavy responsibility. It needs humility and it needs great self-restraint. It must be so easy to tell them what they want to hear and so very difficult to tell them that some aspiration is so impossible of fulfilment that it would be a waste of time and money to pursue it.

I think they have been badly advised to link together their two claims, the territorial and the financial. These should have been kept separate. The effect of linking them together is that insistence on the one impedes progress on the other, and this, no doubt, is how it came to be that, having at first accepted the offer made by our Foreign Secretary—referred to by the noble Lord—of the 10 million Australian dollars, they then changed their minds and turned the offer down; on whose advice I do not know but they turned it down because they would not relinquish their other claim to separate sovereignty over Ocean Island.

This is where I completely part company with the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This territorial claim seems to me to be in the realm of fantasy: a political and administrative nonsense. It is suggested that Ocean Island, which happens geographically to be in the Gilbertese archipelago, should be said to be in some way in Fiji. This the Gilberts will never agree to and I cannot see why we should expect them to. We do not right the wrongs done to the Banabans by doing another wrong to the Gilbertese. And even if it did not fly in the face of all reason and geography, there is a very practical objection to this strange idea. It is that Ocean Island enjoys fantastic variations in rainfall and in drought years it must have an administration close at hand to call on.

No, my Lords, that cannot be the right answer and yet a right answer must be found. May I tentatively make three suggestions for others, I hope, to improve upon. First—and I know this will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—I suggest that we must pass this Bill. This will bring it painfully but finally home to the Banabans and perhaps to their advisers that Ocean Island is a Gilbert Island and that it is with the Gilbert Island's Government—the Kiribati Government—that they have to negotiate their rights to Ocean Island. It must be said that the Gilbert Islands Government has been, and continues to be, extremely generous and surely, on the basis of their 15-point offer, these two groups can come to some mutually acceptable agreement—these groups which are already, as the noble Baroness pointed out, so heavily intermarrying.

Secondly, would it not be possible and politic for Her Majesty's Government to place the 10 million Australian dollars already offered in a fund where it can appreciate while these problems are being solved? Lastly, what about the island itself? We must remember that the phosphates are virtually worked out and the island, as a result, virtually uninhabitable. It is a gruesome moonscape of deep holes and coral pinnacles. What is to be done with it? "Leave it to the birds", says the company, which has made millions out of it, and indeed there might be something to be said for leaving it as a grim monument to man's inhumanity to man. But that is not what the Banabans want.

So I come to my third and last suggestion, and I am delighted to find that the noble Lord has already half accepted it. In a phrase, I suggest partial and progressive restoration. We are no longer obliged or able to act alone. Whatever we do must be done in co-operation with the other Governments concerned, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Gilbertese and Fiji. Is it too late, I wonder, for this to be on the agenda of the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Might we not be able to tap the resources and the knowledge and in some way act under the aegis of the FAO? We do know how to do it. We have all the necessary machinery.

We could, bit by bit, restore this ravaged island to habitability. Coconuts are undemanding trees, but they must have some soil. If ships can ferry thousands of tons of phosphates out, could they not ferry hundreds of tons of topsoil in? There will be a bill to pay, of course, and if our laws do not enable us to compel the Phosphate Commission to pay the bill then that is our fault for having such inadequate laws, and we must make our contribution. We can be sure the Banabans will make theirs. As I see it, this could be a concerted pilot project, an example which might be followed in many parts of the world. Something like it we must attempt if we are to stop those two words "Ocean Island" being a lasting reproach to our civilisation, and turn them instead into some kind of a symbol of belated justice and of hope.

7.12 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I am quite sure that Members of this House on all sides will welcome the prospect that the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands are to have their independence. It is almost a romantic idea that this group of atolls scattered about the Pacific should take their own government into their hands and find some way of harmonising their future with the industrialised world. All of us will wish the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands success as they undertake that great project.

I shall be speaking mostly about the Banabans, but speaking of them I am also thinking of the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because I think it is quite clear that unless some agreement is reached between those respective peoples the future of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands will be made much more difficult. The story of the Banabans is one of the most sorry and tragic in all the history of the colonial régime. I do not propose to repeat it because a description was given of it by the Vice-Chancellor when the Banabans sued for greater finance. That is on record and need not be repeated. But the real tragedy for the Banabans was the discovery of phosphate deposits on their island. This beautiful and fertile island has been destroyed almost as though a bomb had fallen on it. Over the greater part of the island no trees or flowering bushes still remain; the birds departed; it is a dead waste.

The phosphates, exploited by the consortium of which the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments were a part, were directed towards the benefit of the peoples of Britain, Australia and New Zealand and it is they who have enjoyed the fruits of the destruction of that lovely island. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, has referred to an occurrence which has been reported today, that a group of Banabans attempted to destroy one of the mining installations on Ocean Island. I think this is the first time that any violence has occurred, and I deplore it, but I was interested to note that Mr. Ron Elliott, the Ocean Island manager for the Phosphate Commission, said, "I do not think the Banabans meant to harm anyone. Their objective was machinery. "I can understand their intense feeling as they have seen their island destroyed by the exploitation of the phosphate deposits.

My Lords, I turn to the constitutional issue which is the main subject of our discussion. While the Gilbert and Ellice Islands became a British protectorate as far back as 1892, with the agreement of the representatives of the indigenous peoples of those islands Ocean Island remained a separate autonomous community. It was not made a part of the Protectorate of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. It was only annexed by the British Government in 1900, and annexed quite separately from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because of the discovery of the phosphate deposits. There was no consultation with the Banaban people about their loss of independence. It was just an imposed idea by the British Government, because of the value of the phosphate deposits found upon that island. In November 1915, after their representatives had been consulted and agreed, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands were ceded to the Crown as a colony. That was only after discussions had taken place with the representatives of the people. A few weeks later, in January 1916, without any consultation at all with the people of Ocean Island, with the Banaban community, Ocean Island, by a decree of Britain, was made a part of the colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. One of the reasons undoubtedly was that the phosphate wealth would help to finance the new colony without a charge upon the British Exchequer.

The World War began in 1914. The Japanese occupied Ocean Island. They imposed forced labour. There were heroic Banabans who resisted the Japanese administration and there were mass executions of them. Others became refugees and reassembled on the Gilbert Islands after the war, and it was then that the British Government prevailed upon them not to return to Ocean Island—where they would have interrupted the processes of the phosphate exploitation—and secured their consent to moving to the Island of Rabi in Fiji as a second home. The Banabans agreed to remain on Rabi Island only after the British Government had given an undertaking that they would be allowed to return to their own homeland.

Reference has been made already to the statement of intentions which the British Government signed. It is known generally as "The Covenant". That statement of intentions is absolutely central to the issues which we are discussing tonight. It began with the words: The Banabans' decision to reside on Rabi Island shall in no way affect any right to lands possessed by the Banabans on Ocean Island". That was a guarantee by the British Government; it was an agreement with the Banabans. Now, without the consent of the Banabans, it is proposed that that agreement between the British Government and them should be transferred to another sovereign power.

I recognise that the Bill which we are now discussing includes an entrenched clause to maintain that guarantee. I submit that all recent history proves that entrenched clauses in any Constitution do not decide that they will be carried out by subsequent Governments to that which has adopted the Constitution. The Banabans, in addition to their deep determination to a claim of self-determination and independence, have no faith in entrenched clauses. Recent history justifies their view. From the days when Great Britain handed independence to the Afrikaaners in South Africa with entrenched clauses guaranteeing the rights of the African people, to the present time, the world is scattered with Governments—which include in their Constitution the Declaration of Human Rights—to whom those entrenched clauses have become of no value at all.

There is another reason why the Banabans are justified in their scepticism. In the last 20 years, indeed ever since the conclusion of the last World War, history has shown that separate communities have succeeded in gaining their independence from unions to which they previously belonged. Pakistan was an example of separation from the Indian Union in 1947, followed by Bangladesh which also won its independence. There is the case of the Cayman Islands and Jamaica which withdrew and asserted their own independence from the West Indian Federation. And, quite recently, there has been the case of Anguilla which has insisted on independence from its identity with St. Kitts. Therefore, we are finding today that one may build a union or a colony composed of many different territories, but in fact parts of those territories will insist upon their independence.

I want to conclude, as I always try to do, on a constructive note. Fiji has proposed, as I understand the noble Baroness has proposed, that there should be discussions still between representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this country, to find a settlement of this problem. Fiji has urged that those further discussions should take place before the Bill is passed.

I should like humbly to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I recognise that in all these discussions he has sought agreement and he has sought to gain the right of people to have self-government and expression. His speech tonight was notably fair in presenting the Bill. He concluded with a proposal which I very much welcome. As I understand it, he suggested that before the Bill becomes law there should be further discussions—discussions including representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this Government—seeking a solution to the problem.

I venture to make one suggestion. There is this scepticism about entrenched clauses in the Constitution of one Government. May I suggest to the noble Lord that, if he enters into these discussions, a guarantee of the rights of the Banabans should not merely be in the Constitution for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands' indepence. That guarantee, which was first given by Her Majesty's Government, should be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. The Commonwealth might be brought in; Fiji might be brought in. If there could be a guarantee of these rights of the Banabans, as is in the Bill—but arousing scepticism because it is only in this Bill—and if it could also be endorsed by the British Government, which first gave the guarantee, and by the Commonwealth, I think that the further discussion which the noble Lord has proposed might achieve success. I very much hope that he will consider that proposal.

7.32 p.m.

Lord HYLTON

My Lords, I should like to begin by apologising to the Minister for not having been present to hear his opening sentences. I want to join with previous speakers in welcoming the progress towards independence of the Gilbert Islands. But tonight I wish to speak only on the question of Ocean Island and the Banaban community. Again, I shall limit myself solely to the constitutional side of this and not to the financial side. I submit that it is incumbent upon us and upon Parliament in total to get this issue right. If we are unable to do so, what hope have we in the future when it comes to the questions of the Falkland Islands, Belize and Gibraltar? We are considering a very small community of 2,500 people, about 90 of them on Ocean Island and the remainder on Rabi. It is very important that this small community should not be left with a sense of disillusionment with their treatment by Britain.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has outlined most of the relevant points in history, and I follow him on nearly all of them. I should just like to add that in relation to their numbers the Banaban islanders contributed very large sums to Britain in the course of the two world wars, and even in 1947 they contributed to relief work in Portsmouth and Plymouth, as I think my noble friend Lady Vickers will be mentioning. I believe that one should place very great importance on the 1947 statement of intention by the British Government, which was solemnly reaffirmed on 31st March 1967. That relates, of course, to ownership and access to Ocean Island.

To take all these points together appears to me to constitute a very heavy moral obligations on this country, and an obligation to ensure that however negotiations have proceeded up till now, the Banaban people are not left with a sense of betrayal; for there can be no doubt about their very strong community identity and their very strong wish and desire to return to Ocean Island.

As has been said, the present Bill keeps Ocean Island within the independent Gilbert Islands, and the White Paper sets out safeguards to be entrenched in the future Constitution by Order in Council. Those safeguards have been devised for the Banaban people, but alas! although they were invited to discuss them, they were not actually consulted as to what the safeguards should be. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in asking what, indeed, is the value of entrenched clauses. The history of similar arrangements elsewhere can only be said to be very discouraging. One might well ask why future administrations in the Gilbert Islands should respect in perpetuity something which at this moment is clearly an obligation falling upon Her Majesty's Government.

A further problem will arise for the Banabans who are now Fijian citizens, as they will be faced with a very difficult choice of citizenship if they wish to return to Ocean Island. I am sorry to say this, but, as it stands, the Bill seems to contain a formula for possible future friction, not only within the newly-independent State, but also between the Gilbert Islands and Fiji. One understands the Government's case when they talk about the integrity of existing boundaries and not allowing secession without the agreement of the majority of the people becoming independent, but has not this case been very seriously weakened by what has already happened to the Ellice Islanders, who have become a sovereign independent group with United Nations approval?

One must cast one's mind back to 1947, the time of the statement of intention, which was precisely the moment when Pakistan was being allowed to leave the Indian Union. It has already been mentioned this evening that there is a great distance between Ocean Island and Rabi Island, but perhaps not too much weight should be attached to that. It is important for both islands to be under one sovereignty and for the Rabi community to have a very positive say and influence in the resettlement and restoration of Ocean Island.

How can that be achieved? I submit that there is a case for autonomy for Ocean Island, provided that it comes in association with Fiji. This is where I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord McNair. It is important to remember that Fiji has accepted association with Ocean Island in principle ever since February 1977. It is perhaps also worth stressing that such an arrangement would not harm Gilbertese interests, as mining royalties in respect of Ocean Island, as we know, cease later this year or at the best early in 1980. It can be no secret that in the past Her Majesty's Government have considered a solution along the lines I am mentioning, and Her Majesty's Government used to say that they had an open mind. I believe that Parliament should insist on our Government thinking again, and thinking again in the light of the letters from the Prime Minister of Fiji and from the Chairman of the Rabi Council of Leaders, both addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and both received within the last few days. Like other speakers, I welcome the proposed visit to the Islands in March of this year by the noble Lord's colleague, but I hope that the discussions that will tale place then need not be limited to the text, as it stands, of the White Paper and of the Bill.

7.41 p.m.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much welcome the Bill. So far as the Ellice Islands are concerned, we are all very glad that they should have independence, and we welcome them within the Commonwealth. But I should like to say a word about Banaba in addition to those which have already been said. I have never had the good fortune to visit Banaba, but I have read carefully all the evidence both for and against which I have received, and the situation seems to me to be this: the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, mentioned the fact that the safeguards for them are included in the Bill, but the discussions on the Constitution, although attended by 13 representatives of Banaba, seem to produce no consideration of their particular problems.

The 1947 agreement, as your Lordships heard, which gave Banaba Rabi Island as a second home, and which gave them full rights of ownership and residence in both islands is, as the noble Lord has told us, preserved in the Bill. But of course there is one special problem here, and that is the fact that the Fijians do not recognise dual citizenship. A great number, in fact I should say by far the majority of Banabans, are Fijian citizens. If they want to come back to Banaba—and many of them do—they will of course have to face the problem of either retaining their Fijian citizenship, and so remaining for political purposes foreigners in their own country, or they will have to reject their Fijian citizenship and take on that of the Gilbert Islands, which is the last thing on earth that they want to do.

We talk a great deal about our democratic system as we know it here. It has many faults. Indeed, I have myself commented on them once or twice. But it has one great advantage, and that is that it gives the people the right to choose the Government they want. They may afterwards come to regret it very much, but none the less they have had the choice. Now this Bill is imposing on the Banabans a Government that not one single one of them wants. They want independence: independence and self-government in association with Fiji.

They claim that they are a different race from the Gilbertese. As to the truth of that, of course I cannot vouch, but one must remember that nationality is not merely a biological question. For instance, I suppose from a biological point of view we come from the same stem as the Germans, but I do not think that there are any of us who would wish to feel that there was no difference in nationality between the two. Of course, geographically again Banaba is one of the group of Gilbert Islands. But geographic position also means nothing. Geographically, for instance, Wales and England are one, but I hardly think that the noble Lord would agree that Wales and England are one country. Also, nationality is what you feel like. It is where you feel your own loyalty rests. In the light of everything that we have heard, and in the light of the fact there has been such a great campaign on their part to preserve their own independence and their own individuality, I hope that the Government will give this problem of Banaba a second thought. The last thing on earth that we want to do is to add another mistake to the already formidable list of those made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend.

7.46 p.m.

Lord HALE

My Lords, I hope that I shall not spoil a debate which, up to now, in my humble view has been a very successful one indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will not think me patronising if I venture to say that I thought his own contribution was of quite exceptional value and extremely well done, and a model of a speech that should be made in a situation like this. The noble Lord made some reference to a paragraph in a newspaper this morning, or a few words on television last night. There does seem to have been an unpleasant incident on Banaba, to say the least. I have heard from the organisation of which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, slightly disapproved. Frankly, I should have thought that it is almost a model of a pressure group. A "pressure group" is a recognised parliamentary term. Very often you have to rush around at a moment's notice to try to get friends and allies. This group has sent out a lot of paper, but no one can really criticise for being supplied with all the relevant information.

I come back to the telex message. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has the fullest information. However, he did not refer to it, and I can well understand why he did not. I do not profess to do more than give just a brief sentence to the House, because anything further would point the finger at one Party or another. It seems from the telex that there were groups of Banabans involved. It said that they moved on to six target areas, and within an hour or two flames lit up the sky. A person connected with the Phosphate Commission said that he had never seen anything like it before, and was palpably upset. Two Banabans were hurt, and I am told that eight Banabans were jailed—presumably detained awaiting further trial; I do not know. Among them, unfortunately, were the deputy chairman of the Banaban Council of Leaders, the Reverend Kaitangare Kaburoro, and Council Member Mr. Tekaie Tabuariki, and the Council's assistant secretary.

Everyone will say, of course quite rightly, that this is not the best way of helping their cause. They have tried pretty hard. I would say that never before in the history of our jurisprudence has a small and lonely island people been able to occupy our courts with a case which was of such an historic nature; and for once I must tell my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for whom I have profound and deep personal respect, that I thought he was less than full today in some of the observations he made.

As I understand the history of what is now called the Ocean Island, it was the home of the Banabans for many centuries. This is not a case of a discovery in 1900 or even 1800, because there are historic records going back to the 15th century. It was occupied by them long before there were any records of the occupation of any of the Gilbert atoll. It was their home. Experts will, of course, argue about the anthropological history. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her excellent speech said they shared the same god as the Gilberts; but I will not wander into the difficulties of theology with religious wars being fought in half the countries of the world, and frequently between people who worship the same god, ostentatiously very often.

The Banabans were being advised by a lawyer of very great distinction, a man well known in this House and now disqualified for participating in litigation, a man whose name seems to me to bear some connection with the book to which Lord McNair referred, and I would expect it to be. They brought a case which they virtually knew they were bound to lose, substantially on technicalities.

The history of his case goes back to somebody asking someone to make a mark on a bit of paper for a 99 year lease on the island. The history of this case has some pages so ugly that one wants to suppress them because they do little good to our national reputation. The Vice-Chancellor, while saying he was a court of law and not of equity, went out of his way to make observations showing clearly what his view might have been had it been a court of equity—I think he used those words—and told, in a judgment lasting five and a half days, a story of trickery and deception which made it incumbent on a nation like ours to step in and say, "We will double, treble, quadruple the amount of compensation previously offered".

My problem about this—it is, of course, my own problem—is that I am getting a very old man, my mind is not as good as it was and my memory is not so clear. Nevertheless, I do not understand to this moment certain matters which surely are of supreme importance if we are to approach negotiations. First, to whom does this compensation go, and who administers it? Secondly, what would happen if the Banabans were able to reoccupy Ocean Island? We are told that their present island was bought in the open market, I think during the last war, out of funds which were being administered by one of our officials for the benefit of the Banabans and which presumably belonged to them. So what happens to the territory of the island if they leave it? Thirdly, if they could be persuaded on any terms, and if it were respectable for them, to reoccupy Ocean Island, would it not be their locus pœnitentiœ until they found out whether it was admirable and capable now, after all the destruction, of providing subsistence?

One of the reasons for the demonstrations is undoubtedly the deep-seated belief that there has been unfairness all along, that they have been kept out of their homeland and that it was intended to keep them out of their homeland while the phosphate operations were going on. Lord Goronwy-Roberts talked about a 30-year story. That is so, but it is a 30-year story which happens to end at the precise moment when they are no longer of any value to anyone else at all, when the phosphates have all been gathered together and when no one would say the place has any future industrial value or prospects, and where the only prospects for subsistence seem to be to live on fishing and possibly some ground. Lord McNair said he thought that could be done with outside aid. With all the skill of the Australians, for example—and they could afford to be generous—it might be put right, it is said.

But what happens in the meantime? Lord Goronwy-Roberts has made another offer, but an offer of a further conference is almost a snare and delusion, and it is with care that I use those words to my noble friend, whose integrity is beyond doubt. Unless there is a road which shows some hope of leading somewhere, another conference is not much use. While demonstrations of anger and intransigence are still being brought to some form of justice, and while tempers seem to be more roused than before, it is not a very good climate.

I recall the case of St. Kitts Nevis. At the time there was a good deal of criticism about St. Kitts. Of the islands concerned one was under heavy criticism and receiving heavy defence. There was the position in which a Minister went to Anguilla from London to attend a formal reception, with greetings prepared in his honour, and he was chased off the island to the security of a British ship. That is not an incident that we want to see or to encourage. We want to assure the Banabans that everything is being done, and that it is our passionate desire that they should be treated fairly. I think that the committee could go a long way, having won their confidence, in giving them those assurances. Before the next conference there ought to be some real hope that a result will be produced. Another failure would be a sad end.

Finally, I have heard no mention of Nauru in this connection. The Banabans sent their telex message from Nauru over this weekend. Nauru, I know, is a full member of the Commonwealth. It is in a position perhaps to render some help. The noble Baroness said that the Prime Minister of Fiji had shown goodwill, statesmanship, and understanding, and might still render great service. He himself has said that he is now placed in a position where he can no longer arbitrate betwen the two sides because his own position puts him on the one side. I would not have thought, in the circumstances, that that was an overwhelming objection, and I am certain that he might render a further contribution towards solving a situation which has become one of great difficulty.

8.4 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate. I say this particularly because I have before me a copy of a document dated 15th March 1947 stating, The Banabans' gift to Plymouth—food valued at £500. All races joined in". The food gifts were given to Plymouth and to Portsmouth, and they were sent to be allocated fairly to the two cities through centres of the Ministry of Food. We were intensely grateful, to them particularly at that time, Plymouth having been so severely bombed, and I should like now to put on record our sincere thanks. I should also like to remind the House that they gave £1,000 to the National Relief Fund. That was in the first world war, and early in the last war they gave £12,500 for anti-aircraft guns. There could not be more loyal gestures than those.

I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the interesting details he gave us. I have studied over the weekend and previously the excellent document produced by Sir Bernard Braine and his committee, as well as a summary sent to me by the chief officer of Fiji. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. He may not be able to answer them now, and I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said, but I shall just put these points to him, and if he cannot reply now perhaps he will write to me.

I should like to know whether appeals will continue to lie from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in future, particularly in respect of any question of infringement of the specific provisions in the Constitution relating to the Banabans. It would be very helpful if we could know this, and it would also be helpful to the Banabans themselves.

I also wish to raise a point in regard to a statement made in June 1975, when the then Chief Minister of the Gilbert Islands made some generous offers. I should like to know whether these are still in force, and, in particular, what it means to be a "belonger". Part of the offer reads: to provide for all Banabans who so wish to be granted 'belonger' status in the Gilbert Islands". It went on to say: to provide for a seat in the House of Assembly for a representative of Banaba and to provide that all Banabans granted 'belonger' status and subsequently citizenship may on certain conditions"— perhaps the noble Lord will let me know what the "certain conditions" are— participate in the election of the representative of Banaba". It would be very helpful if I could know about that. It was also proposed: to provide for a Banaba Island Council to be elected by the Banabans and to provide that Council with the same rights and privileges as any other island council". What are these rights and privileges? What can they do? Is the situation similar to that of a local government authority in this country? It would be a great safeguard if one knew what could be done by this council.

The offers also included: to ensure that any benefits arising from greater indigenous involvement in the operations of the phosphate industry are shared between the Government and the Banaban landowners in the present proportions". This, I presume, will be ceasing quite shortly, and I should like to know what is to happen regarding the land at present belonging to landowners. It was also proposed: to guarantee that the Banaban landowners' income from phosphate is free of tax within the Gilbert Islands". That would be very favourably received.

Here, I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, because I am rather disturbed about what has happened over the last two or three days. This has not been mentioned by the Minister at all. I understand that 30 special constables had to be called in to reinforce the island's 10-man police force, and as many as 300 additional men were hurriedly recruited after the Banaban sabotage attempts. It is very fortunate that a Minister will be going out, and I should like to know tonight whether it is possible for him to go out sooner than was planned. Alternatively, perhaps the noble Lord will send a message to the Government, if he has not already done so, stating that someone is coming. I see from the report I have had that the people are becoming very angry. Councillors and about 200 Banabans living on the island marched to the BPC offices on Wednesday, carrying placards bearing the slogans: "British Justice Stinks", "Hands Off Banaba", and "Return Stolen Property". I am sure the noble Lord will agree that this was very unfortunate, but I hope that something will be done quickly so that the people will know that the question of their rights is to be looked into again, and perhaps a more detailed explanation can be given so that they really understand what the Government intend to do. I understand that Mr. Caine, a member of the Fiji Parliament, and councillors burnt a copy of the White Paper setting out the terms of independence for the Gilberts. This, too, I think, is unfortunate; I hope they read it in detail. But, still more, I gather that they are now in detention as political prisoners. This was stated by Mr. Caine. So, perhaps, when he winds up, the noble Lord might like to say a few things about the points I have raised. It would be very helpful to me and, I think, to others as well.

8.10 p.m.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on the very painstaking way in which he has spoken about this Bill. I completely agree that, of course, from the point of view of tidiness it makes sense that Ocean Island should be incorporated in the new Constitution to be given to the Gilbertese. As I say, it is far tidier. Ocean Island will be near the administrative centre; and if there is a drought—and as we have heard you get great vagaries of climate—it will be far easier to cope with that if she is in the Gilbertese Constitution. But I also agree that the entrenched clauses, the safeguards that she is being offered in the Constitution, could hardly be fairer. In fact, I doubt whether there are many Constitutions in which the minority has been so very well looked after in theory. But as we have heard today, if we look round the many countries, even subcontinents, for whom we have drawn up independence Constitutions, I can think of hardly any that have remained in the form in which we drew them up, and quite a few have been completely abandoned.

I want to speak for two or three minutes about the moral side of this Bill. I do not understand because, apart from the entrenched clauses and the safeguards, we have also heard that the financial arrangements for the Banabans are generous. I understand that over five years they are going to get £15,500,000 and they are going to get 10 million Australian dollars to commence with. It seems generous, and they deserve it, but taking these very fair safeguards in the Constitution and the financial help that has been promised, why is it that the Banabans do not appear to be at all happy with joining the Gilbertese in the Kiribati Constitution? It does not matter how tidy you make a Constitution, if a minority is forced—perhaps "forced" is too strong a word, but are advised to join it against their will, that will not be a happy state of affairs.

Particularly in the Pacific we need to create stability wherever it is within our power. We must look with every consideration at the great attachment—the love, if you like to call it that—they have for their homeland. It may seem rather odd for an island which appears to have been to all intents and purposes, from what we have heard today, ruined; nevertheless, it appears to be there, this great love for their homeland. We must take great care of that and ensure that, no matter how small the minority is—I think the smaller the minority the more important it is in many ways—we have regard to their emotions. This is the only point that really worries me.

Talking of islands—although one cannot compare the two, of course—I remember St. Kilda. In 1930 (or was it 1928) the St. Kildans were removed by the then British Government from their homeland. The British Government had some very good reasons for doing that because, for every form of economic reason, and to assist the standard of living, it was the correct thing to do. A lot of these St. Kildans were settled opposite my home in Scotland and they were not happy. They always wanted to go back to St. Kilda. There is an example of something that appears to be tidy, but in humane terms it failed. I am all for tidiness. The Civil Service like tidiness. I quite agree it is essential, but I cannot say that it has been all that successful in the new form of local government in the regions, but that is beside the point. However, we must take regard of these emotions and this attachment, this great love of the Banabans for Ocean Island.

What I should like to see is something that has been mentioned today, I think, although I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it. Could not the Government along with the Gilbertese guarantee the 1947 safeguards in the Constitution? Could they not guarantee the entrenched clauses, the safeguards, so that if by any chance the Gilbertese—I am told they are very charming people, but a lot of odd things happen in the world—let the Banabans down, that guarantee would exist? I feel that if the British Government were able to do that, perhaps the Banabans might be happier. I do not think they will be completely happy, but personally I cannot understand it. When we take an island such as the Caymans (I knew all those islands well) it is a tiny island which was allowed its independence; it used to be tied to Jamaica, of course, and it was allowed its independence. It appears to be getting on all right. I agree that there are other reasons, since it is a tax-haven for, I understand, quite a lot of people—not me! I agree it is in a different position from Ocean Island, but it shows that these very small islands can be independent.

Of course, I think they must be in a loose association with the United Kingdom—or I suppose that Ocean Island would have to be in association with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. But I hope that the Government will not be too hasty in bringing this Constitution into being and in forcing (or, as I said, advising) the Banabans to join with the Gilbertese, and if it appeared to be against their will I hope they will again attempt to explain to them the great benefits they will get. Apparently they walked out of the last conference here, which I think was rather foolish of them. My Lords, I will end by saying that the date which is given for independence is July. Could we not delay it somewhat to be sure whether the Banabans will be happier to join in Kiribati: and if they are completely adamant against so doing, we ought to think again.

8.20 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the tone and content of this debate. I think that every participant has agreed that this is an extremely difficult problem to resolve. On the one hand, you have the very deep feelings of the Banaban community about Ocean Island, and, on the other hand, you have the equally deep convictions among the Gilbertese elements of this territory. When my noble friend Lord Hale says that it is perhaps inutilitous to attempt to have further discussions between them unless a result is obtained, I wonder whether he means "unless a result that one or the other insists upon having is obtained".

Lord HALE

My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I did not say that. I said: unless there is some light or opening to be seen ahead.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, knowing him as I do, I was proceeding to make exactly that interpretation of what my noble friend said. Yes, certainly. Another attempt to get them together, with the full blessing, I might add, of the Fiji Prime Minister, Ratu Mara, is worth undertaking—and I have given the undertaking this evening that that will be done—so that an agreement, an arrangement, an acceptance of a strengthened agreement can possibly be extracted from such a discussion. What I am saying is that, having regard for the absolutist attitude of both sides—and I have had to deal with this for something like two years—I do not think that a solution rests in deciding totally in favour of one over the other. The durable solution rests in somehow strengthening the common ground so that the Gilbert Islands, as now constituted, can go forward on the basis of the fullest possible safeguards, guaranteed—and I have listened carefully to the suggestions on this—to the fullest possible and most effective extent. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Brockway that the history of entrenched clauses in many but not all parts of the world is not a very encouraging one. If we can do that and then, after a period of trying out this accommodation, have a report on the situation, on how it has worked out, and consider any recommendations that are made, I am convinced that this is the way we ought to proceed.

This is a good Bill to meet a very difficult situation. It ought to be given a trial, with a supervision of how provisions in it relating to this particular island and this particular community work out. Then, under impartial supervision and study, a report, with recommendations, should be returned as to how it has worked out. In fact, it is in the report of the conference that that is how it shall be done. I would appeal to my Banaban friends to accept these arrangements, these safeguards, and to work the arrangements for a period of time under the supervision of the sort of body which can be put together to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Commonwealth itself has been mentioned. Fiji has been mentioned. I do not wish to intrude too much into a prescription of how this should be supervised. A body that is acceptable to all—a commission, as I have described it—should examine it as it develops and, at the end of the period, report. This is provided for in the con- ference report and will be implemented. It is a matter of detail how such a commission is put together.

My Lords, I was asked a number of important questions by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. In particular, she referred to the position of the Phoenix and Line groups. That is one of the points she made. We have, of course, amicable and constructive discussions with the United States who have a view and an interest in two of these islands. I am confident that a successful outcome can be reached within the next few months. Our American friends are well aware of our attitude. We regard these islands, all 33 of them, as forming the territory upon which we hope, with the approval of Parliament, to confer independence and sovereignty.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that if by chance there is no satisfactory arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom before 12th July, any rights or claims which may lie with the present Government would pass to Kiribati? Or would the claim go by default?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, it is our intention that sovereign independence should be conferred upon what used to be known as the Gilbert Islands (namely Kiribati) and that the territory comprises the 33 islands which in turn includes the islands and all the sovereignty and rights that attach thereto. That is the British view. Our American friends understand this. We are discussing with them, on that basis, what the future should hold.

The noble Baroness asked about control of the trust fund set up out of the monies agreed between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, namely, the 10 million Australian dollars. We have no wish to prescribe how this fund should be set up or to exercise control as to how it is spent. Discussions with the Banaban legal advisers were in train before the end of last year, when they were instructed to discontinue them. The offer has been made, together with an offer to discuss how best to set up a fund—which will include answers to the questions put to me by my noble friend Lord Hale as to who receives this—and we stand ready not only to hand over the money but to assist in constructing the best possible, most acceptable machinery for the disposal of this money. I hope that they will come back soon and discuss with us as good friends how this should be done. The money is there. We have been able to add to it the accumulated interest since the offer was made which amounts to another 1½million dollars. So that in every possible way, having regard to the fact, as I have said, in another age with other standards and other capacities of vision, mistakes may have been made—and not all the actions in this area were entirely mistakes by the way—we have been working as hard as possible in a practical way, financial and otherwise, to compensate for those mistakes in an ex-gratia sense.

The noble Baroness asked a question about dual nationality. Yes, my Lords, it is our understanding that Fiji law does not admit of dual citizenship; but it is for the Fiji Government to interpret their own law. I say this because although that is statutory fact in Fiji, in practice the Fiji Government have exercised more than marginal administrative tolerance which, while not exactly extending dual citizenship, certainly has created facilities for the Banabans on Rabi Island to travel, for instance, on Fiji passports. There may be there a possibility that the Fiji Government—itself a sovereign independent Government—may of their own accord look at the position and perhaps indicate that they will continue to interpret their law in such a way as to continue what I call the tolerant facilities that they have been able to extend to the Banabans. We are ready to discuss this with the Fiji Government. Indeed, I hope this will be one of the points that my honourable friend will discuss with them.

As to the future of the land, yes, I can give the assurance that the land leased from the Banaban landowners will be returned at the end of phosphate mining, which is some time this year, in accordance with the terms of the leases. Any land held by the Gilbert Islands Government, which was formerly Banaban land, will be returned to the former landowners after mining has ceased, in accordance with the Independence Constitution. This is provided for in paragraph 64 of the conference report.

Regarding the figures she gave about the population of Rabi and the fact that it is not entirely Banaban—however we define that—it would take some little research, as she herself conceded, to answer and to confirm the exact figures. But I can tell the noble Baroness that her figures are broadly right. The Kiribati community is a community where there has been a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing and a romantic initiative from time to time, so that part of the charm of all these communities which form the larger community arises from the inventiveness of human relationships as indeed of some of the arts.

How many Banabans acquired Fiji nationality? The precise numbers are not known. All those born in Fiji acquired Fiji citizenship; but since Fiji does not now permit dual nationality, dual citizens lose their Fiji citizenship on their 22nd birthday unless they have renounced their non-Fiji citizenship by that date. If I have omitted any of the points—and, if I may say so without presumption, they are always appropriate ones that the noble Baroness makes from the Opposition Front Bench—then I shall communicate with her in another way.

If I may now refer to the incidents of the past few days, I do not think that we should make too much of them. These are people to whom violence and destruction is totally foreign, it is not the Pacific way. Frankly, I wonder where this particular activity came from. I very much hesitate to believe that it is of Banaban or indeed Pacific instigation. They are not that type of people. The facts, so far as I have been able to gather them today, are that a Banaban party of about 15 persons, led by the deputy chairman of the Rabi Council, including one Press representative, arrived in Banaba last week, on the 13th, and they requested the BPC to cease mining on the island, otherwise they threatened to obstruct mining operations. After some argument, 36 hours later they threw some petrol bombs damaging some equipment, excavators, a crusher motor and a conveyor system. This again is very foreign to this community and to the individuals that one knows. I find it very hard to believe, and it is certainly not natural to them.

Some of the protestors were taken into custody. Their leader, the deputy chairman of the Council, subsequently asked the remainder of the group to desist from further active protest, and they did so. The island has now returned to normal; the damaged equipment is being repaired and the Banaban party have had discussions with two Gilbertese Ministers visiting the island. Of course we all deplore this use of violence, by the Banabans or anybody else. It is wrong in itself, and also, as I have said, totally out of keeping with the Pacific tradition. On the question of damage to machinery, it is of course the intention of the Commission not only to hand over the land according to the proper way, but also to make over to Banabans on the island itself and to the Gilbertese Government most, if not all, of this equipment. Some of it is very valuable indeed and could be of the utmost help in the kind of restoration that more than one noble Lord has urged should be undertaken on the island. It is really a counterproductive form of protest to destroy some of the machinery which may well in the next few years be the means of restoring this island.

My noble friend Lord Brockway made a speech which I very much appreciate. He is of course intensely anxious that any minority should be properly treated. There are minorities everywhere, and perhaps particularly in the Pacific. We have minorities in this country; the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the minority to which I belong. Well, there is a minority within that minority, and one or two islands are concerned. Are we, in the third quarter of this century, perhaps losing sight of the need not only to safeguard minority interests but also to pay due regard to stability and consolidation?

I have to listen to everybody and there is a widespread feeling, particularly in the Pacific, that constant fragmentation holds for that area real dangers and hazards for the future. I simply indicate what must have occurred to many noble Lords apart from me, that we can go too far in slicing down sovereignty, so that the friends of democracy find that they have been atomised politically with a danger that that might lead to their being treated in the same way more literally. I pay my respects to my noble friend: of course I always listen to every word that he says. I have sat at his feet and learned a great deal from him about what I like to call humane politics.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in a very helpful speech, put a number of questions to me. Even more helpfully, she said that she would be content with having the answers at a later date, and I propose to adopt that course. I regard that as a very helpful speech indeed to any Minister. But I can answer one or two questions at once. Will Banaban income from phosphates be free of tax as they move with their neighbours into an independent Kiribas? Yes. Not everybody knows that their income from phosphates revenues is tax-free and will continue to be so. Some islands are fortunate. That is referred to in paragraph 67 of the conference report. The noble Baroness raised the question of the Chief Minister's generous offer in relation to "belonger" status. Does this still stand? Is it a reference to the 15 points? The constitution provides for Kiribas citizenship for Banabans wherever they live: that goes somewhat further than "belongership", I think. I shall be writing to the noble Baroness on the other points she raised and, if she feels they can be brought out a little more clearly by means of a Written Answer, I shall be happy to co-operate in every way.

I was particularly appreciative of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. He made a number of suggestions. He said, "Let us pass this Bill", and he is absolutely right. It will be a signal to the Pacific that we are passing an excellent Bill, a very generous one in terms of financial aid to the new Government and specifically to the Banaban community, although of course that is not part of the Bill. From the basis of the Second Reading of this Bill we can go on to its further stages. It will take a couple of months, and very early in that period my honourable friend will, I hope, have visited Tarawa and Suva and will have talked to all concerned. In fact, I shall be very much surprised if he is not armed, among other documents, with the Official Report of this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for instance, brought out a number of extremely important points and I am sure that I and my honourable friend will be studying what he said, as indeed we shall be studying what has been said generally in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, suggested that the 10 million Australian dollars might well be, as it were, put on one side and allowed to fructify—which was the Churchillian way of describing accumulated interest in, I believe, one of his Budgets. Certainly we would welcome resumption of discussions with the Banaban leaders and their advisers to organise this fund, if they wish it, on that basis. I think the noble Lord made an extremely useful suggestion. It is not for me to decide: it is for my Government to discuss with them how to do it, and I do hope that the Banban leaders will pay careful attention to what the noble Lord said on this point.

As to rehabilitation—yes, indeed. As I said in my opening speech, one of the number of—I will not say concessions but points of assistance—to the Banaban community that I am personally very keen on is that we in this country should fund a thorough-going survey of Ocean Island to see how productively restoration for industrial and agricultural purposes could be undertaken. I cannot guarantee what such a survey would report, but certainly I can guarantee that we are ready to undertake it and to pay for it, and to do the job thoroughly. As I said earlier, I should be very surprised if any Government in Britain would look upon this survey as something to be shot down. They would welcome the survey and look in it for possibilities for the advance of redevelopment and restoration of this island, which would meet the point which was properly made by a number of noble Lords. This community does have a feeling for this island.

My Lords, I think I have said enough this evening to show that we have safeguarded the Banabans' land ownership and their access to their island. If anything more can be done, most certainly we are prepared to talk with them and with the Gilbertese and also with the Fijian Prime Minister, whose counsel in these matters we greatly value. We shall do that as well; and, on the basis of the best possible accommodation between two pretty irreconcilable views of where Ocean Island should be, move forward in the next few years with Britain continuing to accord generous aid and technical assistance, together with exceptional bud- getary assistance, to the new Kiribas Government. On that basis, we will move forward to implement the new arrangement, under supervision to be chosen by them. I hope that my honourable friend will be able to get them to agree on this and that at the end of that period we shall be able to look at this and ask: "How has this worked?" and on the basis of conclusions reached after the end of what I should call a trial period, decide what changes, if any, should be made.

I am grateful to the House: I think the House is entirely right, if I may say so, to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading. Then, during the succeeding stages—which cannot and must not be held up—we can examine whatever suggestions and possibilities my honourable friend is able to bring back with him from his visit to the area.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why cannot the Government guarantee the entrenched clauses for a certain period: say, 10, 20 or 30 years? Why can they not guarantee that?

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I have listened to what has been said about the further strengthening of what are known as "guarantees". I cannot from this Box immediately say that I accept any one of the suggestions. As I said, I think it is right for my honourable friend to arm himself with a copy of the Official Report and that part of it which has been subscribed by the noble Viscount will have a special fascination for him, so that when he goes out to the area he can say: "This was said; this suggestion was made about this procedural commission". There was the suggestion that perhaps the Commonwealth might be brought in, with the Commonwealth Secretariat. The noble Viscount mentioned the possibility of Britain coming in, as did others. Let us leave it at that. Let him bring up these various points. This is really an attempt to gild the lily. The safeguards and guarantees are there, but if there are genuinely-held reservations then a Ministerial visit will be made to the area and all these possibilities for further strengthening will be gone into with the parties.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.