St. Helena

HL Deb 04 December 1984 vol 457 cc1271-99

6.34 p.m.

Lord Buxton of Alsa rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will pursue a positive social and economic policy for St. Helena and its British subjects and continue to recognise the importance of St. Helena to the security of the sea lanes and communications of the free world.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my purpose in putting this Question about St. Helena, a British island in the South Atlantic, and in general about British islands in the South Atlantic—and I propose to deal with it later in the context of all the islands—is to draw attention once again to their critical strategic importance to the free world. That means that the British inhabitants must be prosperous, safe and happy.

I have stressed on previous occasions concerning British South Atlantic islands that it would be inappropriate to criticise the present Government for past errors of judgment. Some misconceived and misguided trends, as we all know, have been occurring under many governments for decades. In the case of St. Helena the situation for the inhabitants over a long period had been tending to become one of demoralisation and neglect, which might before long have led to despair. Many, including the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, have drawn attention to this in the past. In 1958 I think the noble Lord made an important speech about St. Helena in which he described the situation then as a critical time of hardship and privation".

I pointed out in December last year that there had been no ministerial visit to St. Helena for decades, despite persistent requests from the St. Helenans and representations by many governors. My noble friend the noble Baroness responded swiftly on the question of an official visit. A former ODA Minister. Sir Neil Marten, went off to St. Helena very promptly with instructions to report to the Government on the general situation. Since one is tempted to think that Sir Neil's visit and his report might have arisen as a result of our debate, I must regret and I am sure others regret, that the report has not yet been made public. In view of our geniune concern I am bound to say that I regard it as somewhat pompous if that report is regarded as secret and confidential.

The present prospect for the 5,500 inhabitants of St. Helena is bleak: but it can be remedied. Without full British citizenship the inhabitants are unable to come to this country for more than three or six months if any of them wish to do so. May I put this immediately in proper context because it is almost insignificant. Information from St. Helena indicates that of the 5,500 inhabitants, 50 per cent, would not want to come because of age or other reasons; 35 per cent. would be ineligible because they are still at school and that would leave only 825 persons who might, if they were so inclined, want to come to this country. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not use the figure of 5,500 as the likely influx if the St. Helenans become entitled to full British Citizenship, an entry into this country and residence.

Owing to lack of development and investment in the past in local enterprise the majority of the population are employed by the St. Helena Government, most simply to keep them occupied. They have few prospects and no incentive in life. In a sense under the new Act they are virtually prisoners on an island in the middle of the Atlantic, like Napoleon himself, with little hope for the future. Regarding the nationality Act, we all know what the dilemma of the Home Office is as it was manifested and became quite public over the Falklands and Gibraltar. There is or was a belief that full British citizenship granted to our islanders in the South Atlantic might lead to a tidal wave of Hong Kong's Chinese into Britain when the Hong Kong treaty runs out. But that is surely becoming out of date. Things have changed recently. The very subject is being debated tomorrow in another place.

Thanks to the Government's statesmanship and diplomatic achievement, that fear about an influx from Hong Kong seems probably to be receding, if it has not been removed. Secondly, the Government have already conceded on full citizenship and quite rightly in the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands. Thus if the pass were to be sold it has now been sold already and 825 St. Helenans or fewer will not affect the issue one iota.

Thirdly, can the Government show that honouring our obligations to the inhabitants of the Falklands has affected the Hong Kong situation in any way at all or increased the prospects of an influx? Unless it can be so proved, rejection of the St. Helenans' moving plea to be properly British is surely discreditable and indefensible. On this particular subject, if I were to give any advice to the Government—although I am bound to say that in the past my advice has almost invariably been ignored—I would say that the Government in this particular case are on a losing battle. I feel sure that they will certainly have to give way because of the logic and the arguments in the end. For the sake of the few hundred people concerned in St. Helena, I would strongly urge that they settle for it now or as soon as possible.

To turn now to the wider issues, although I feel great concern for our St. Helena citizens, who gave Prince Andrew a traditional, heartwarming welcome earlier this year, my real purpose in putting this argument is concern for the security of the free world. I deployed the same arguments over the Falkland Islands. My impression, I am bound to say, is that the importance of these British islands does not seem to be widely comprehended in the corridors of power. Our islands cannot be considered in isolation, one at a time. I intend now to refer to all our South Atlantic islands on the main sea routes. There is also Tristan da Cunha, but I am going to leave that for another day—but Ascension, St. Helena and the Falklands are all interlinked with our own safety and survival; and in certain circumstances, as I have said, even with the survival of the rest of the free world. I am convinced after many years that it is failure to understand and grasp the strategic facts of life that has led successive governments to regard the British citizens in these islands as an irritant which they would be happier without and to question the cost of investment and development in those islands. A chilling example of where this disposition could have led is Ascension Island. I believe that if the United States had not needed a tracking station there and if Cable & Wireless and the BBC had not used Ascension, we might well have found ourselves without Ascension Island altogether in April 1982.

I now turn to the significance of canals. I realise that a year ago I dealt on this at length; so I shall now simply refer to it very briefly. The Suez Canal has already been closed once and there is every reason in the light of current events to think that it might happen again. Incidentally, the closure of Suez led to the unfortunate emergence of the super tankers which have turned out to be such a menace to the marine environment. But that in itself proved that the voyage round the Cape constituted one of the free world's two lifelines. Space age or not, all the necessities of life which sustain us will always have to come by sea.

To turn now to the South American case, if the Suez Canal can be closed so can the Panama Canal. It is my view that recent military events in Grenada which caused consternation in Parliament were not so far removed from the problem of the Panama Canal. If Panama were to be blocked, it must be noticed that the Soviets have an Antarctic base immediately opposite Cape Horn in the South Shetland Islands which I have seen myself; and if they had (let us say) the use of an Argentinian base, the Soviets with their huge fleets of submarines could seriously interfere with the freedom of the seas, if not deny it altogether, between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Whatever the style of government in Argentina at the southern tip of the continent, we must never forget that the junta were always in cahoots with the Soviet Union, particularly through the most dangerous period for our task force sailing to the Falklands. We have to conceive, if we are to have our wits about us, the simultaneous blocking of the Suez and the Panama Canals by governments friendly to the Soviet Union and hostile to the West. Our lifeblood would then have to be pumped round the Capes.

If that happened, there is absolutely no question that, in difficulties, we should be had by the jugular; we could be bled to death. The West might even have to capitulate in order to go on living unless the sea routes round the Capes are safe. To impose that ugly situation—and this is the awful thought—on the West would cost the Soviet Union virtually nothing. The nuclear arms race and NATO and all that would be a total irrelevance. The trillions spent on defence will mean nothing if the canals are closed—unless the sea routes round the Capes are safe.

I have said before that nuclear confrontation, however inevitable until we can achieve multilateral disarmament, reminds me in my more uneasy moments of the Maginot Line. It is not difficult to picture the nuclear positions still being there in 10 or 20 years or even more. But meanwhile the bush fires—sparked off or ignited by the Soviet Union, helped by Cuba and Libya and fanned by terrorism—keep catching alight behind us and behind the West. And then one day we might suddenly wake up and find the Panama and Suez Canals closed together without our being involved at all and all the nuclear armaments on both sides still sitting there proving to be completely irrelevant to the situation.

I must therefore summarise the factors again by which Britain and the free world might be saved from subjugation. First, we need a stable and not hostile regime in South Africa to ensure safe passage for our shipping round the Cape. The question of South African domestic politics and apartheid is completely-irrelevant to this debate and in this context. All that would matter is that the Cape of Good Hope was not in hostile hands and the West could use friendly bases there if necessary. Next, it becomes imperative to safeguard the long voyage home to Europe; and this can only be done by having secure outposts on St. Helena and Ascension Island. Therefore, we cannot be complacent about the remote isolation of St. Helena simply because the Suez Canal is open. It was a very important place once, before Suez. It was only Suez which put it into the backyard, and, if Suez was closed, it would become vital again.

I must ask my noble friend the Minister these questions. Have the Government assessed what Russian fishing fleets are doing all the time round our South Atlantic islands? Are they really only fishing? Are we listening to everything they say and do? Do the Government have a blueprint for what will be done when Suez or Panama are closed? Have the Government concentrated on the situation when both are closed? Or might it all be a case of total surprise and a mad scramble once again as in the case of the Falklands? When the Angolans finally get rid of the Cubans, as I understand they want to do—this is just a hypothesis—have the Ministry of Defence considered, for example, what might happen if the Cubans stopped off at St. Helena on the way and refused to budge? Are they aware that there is nothing to stop an alien party landing?

That may sound fanciful, but then all my contributions were regarded as fanciful before the Falklands, especially what I said concerning our main symbol of deterrence, HMS "Endurance". On one point there can be no argument. St. Helena is not a flat-shored archipelago with 200 islands like the Falklands. Once someone had got up the cliffs and occupied St. Helena, it is very doubtful if you could ever get them off short of a blockade. And how could we now enforce that with an Atlantic teeming with Soviet submarines?

Since St. Helena affairs are primarily matters for the Foreign Office and even more for MoD, it worries me that the Minister primarily rsponsible for St. Helena apparently always seems to be the Minister for ODA. This is alarming, in my view, because it seems to imply a lack of understanding of the critical potential of the British islands in the South Atlantic to which I have been referring and which relate to our ultimate security or survival. That is surely not a matter for ODA. The British citizens in these territories do not need aid from ODA as if they were unfortunate Ethiopians or starving millions in the third world. What is required is investment and working capital in order to create busy and secure communities. Aid, in my view, means trying to maintain the status quo, which again in my view is simply another way of saying "decline".

In my opinion, ODA should never have had anything to do with St. Helena or with the Falkland Islands. I pray that my noble friend the Minister will not refer to the per capita support for these islands as if British citizens were citizens of third world countries. These British places are a vital responsibility of the Government, especially the MoD and, certainly, the Department of Trade. There are British citizens who live there who should surely be administered in the same way as the inhabitants of the Outer Hebrides or the Orkneys, and who would probably be stimulated far better and more effectively by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, or something similar.

To turn briefly to the western arm of the South Atlantic triangle, let us assume that the Panama Canal is closed. In the same way as in the case of South Africa, security of the sea lanes round Cape Horn becomes the key for supplies by sea to Britain, to the free world and to the United States, from the West coast to the East coast.

Last, of course, we have the baffling problem of Argentina. I do not intend to refer to that fearful problem this evening, but I should like to take the opportunity to say that I refuse to be branded as anti-Argentine simply because I know, like others, that we have to retain the Falklands. It is utterly ridiculous that opinion is becoming polarised in that way. But one has to conclude, I am afraid, very sadly, that there cannot for a long time to come be any guarantee of stability and security for maritime communications around Cape Horn without something else to safeguard them. That something else has stood us and the democracies in very good stead in the past, and was of critical importance to our survival during two world wars: that is, the Falklands. Unless the Falklands belong to us or are in safe and secure hands for the free world, we could be in mortal danger, with the rest of Europe, if Panama is ever closed. We simply do not have the right to put other countries and the free world at risk in this way, quite apart from ourselves.

Of course the restoration of good relations with Argentina is vital. We must continue to strive to attain it. We must do everything we can to support Alfonsin and try to get "on side" with that new, democratic government. It is not our fault if they refuse to talk about anything except sovereignty. But that very desirable objective of having good relations with Argentina frankly pales into utter insignificance compared with the importance of maintaining the safety of our maritime lifelines.

There is one other aspect regarding the islands of St. Helena, Ascension and the Falklands to which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may refer, and that is access to the Antarctic. Most other major nations concerned with the Antarctic and its potential over the next century are today looking south and moving south. Even India is establishing an Antarctic presence. Only in Britain have we appeared to be facing the other way and showing signs of reluctance. Yet we were always the leaders in the Antarctic, and are still regarded as such. There is not another nation in the world concerned with the Antarctic which would not give their eye-teeth for our new airport in the Falklands. It will prove, in the end, in my view, to be the most brilliant investment this century. It may prove to be on a par with Disraeli and Suez. To talk of it as if it were a costly extravagance is to lack perception and, quite frankly, to demonstrate ignorance.

I am concerned that it is becoming a bit of an establishment cult to decry our British islands and profess that we cannot afford them. This new and rather trendy posture is curiously un-British, not in terms of patriotism—no, no!—but simply in terms of enterprise, opportunity and self-interest. Let me quote from an article that appeared in the Daily Telegraph at the time of the United Nations debate on the Falklands. The writer says: The Falklands by themsleves are admittedly not worth very much. A latchkey is not worth much either—by itself. But when that latchkey is fitted to open the front door of a palace filled with riches beyond calculation, one comes to take a very different view of its economic value.

I am tempted, from another paragraph, to think of a new name for the decriers and the "opters-out". It might be, "British Indians". Let me quote: An Indian tribe, in 1626, thought they had made a good deal when they sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch for 24 dollars' worth of trinkets and a bottle of whisky. Their descendants came to regret the transaction.

I will now finish on a note of optimism, because I know the Minister has taken on board the welfare of the St. Helenans and she will, I am sure, be going to reassure us on many aspects. To ensure stability for the free world our South Atlantic islands must be sustained and must be secure. Therefore, it is imperative that British citizens on those islands are prosperous, safe and happy.

6.55 p.m.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has raised the question of St. Helena, and in such an eloquent way. It is inevitable that I shall repeat some of the things he has said, though probably a good deal less effectively than he has said them. I dare say there are many people who think there are more important matters for this House to discuss than this island; but here, I think, is something where it lies within the power of Her Majesty's Government to make an overdue advance and to make it at no great material cost and without international argument and debate.

I had an opportunity to visit the island privately last March and, through the kindness of the Governor, John Massingham, was able to see and learn about some of its problems. It convinced me that there were wrongs that should be righted—and righted in a reasonable period of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has said, shortly before I was there Sir Neil Marten, the former Minister for Overseas Development, was sent there. He made a report and I regret, as does the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that it has not been published. Certainly his visit and the meetings he held with islanders raised expectations.

A little later Price Andrew called at the capital, and his visit coincided with a short television programme which was made, I think, by Lord Buxton's company. That was shown here and prompted one or two press articles. The visit of the Prince and the attention in the press also raised expectations in the island, and for a brief period St. Helena was in the news. More recently two Members of the other place visited the island under the auspices of the CPA, and they have reported to their House and have issued a useful and detailed report.

I think that St. Helena deserves more attention than it is receiving. The Falklands reminded the British people, at least for a short time, that there are still "left-overs" from the Empire for which this country is responsible and whose inhabitants, quite rightly, look to us for aid and protection. The passage of time does not diminish this responsibility, although it is less fashionable to talk about it and to admit it. Some people seem to find this inconvenient; and if there was a practical and acceptable alternative it would, of course, have to be considered. But for St. Helena I believe there is no alternative. The island has been correctly described as: a pinpoint of inaccessibility, unbelievably remote, isolated from the main shipping routes and by a terrain inimical to air transport". Every schoolchild knows the history of the island in connection with Napoleon, but forgotten is the role it has played for centuries in supporting our merchantmen in the East India trade and in impeding the passage of the slave ships from Africa to the New World. It also offered a place for South African prisoners of war during the South African War. More recently detainees from Bahrain were held there and, incidentally, I remember, when released wrote a charming letter of thanks for the kindness they had received.

The natural resources are, as everybody knows, negligible, with the possible exception of fish. Attempts to develop the agriculture have failed and I should think have a very limited chance of success. Independence is not a practical option for St. Helena and a patron will always be necessary. If this patron is to continue to be the United Kingdom, the question arises whether we are playing fair with the 5,000 or so inhabitants and whether we discharge our undoubted responsibility justly and adequately. Do we not have a greater responsibility in terms of help to St. Helena than we do to our former colonies, now independent members of the Commonwealth? Should not St. Helena have a prime charge on our aid programme? The annual sum is small and would not diminish the Government's general aid strategy.

Obviously we should not attempt to subsidise St. Helena's standard of living to unreal levels in terms of its resources, but surely we should build up quickly—I emphasise "quickly"—and maintain a level which reflects credit on the United Kingdom and assures the islanders the possibility of a dignified and constructive life.

I do not wish to imply that the island is anything to be deeply ashamed of, but a standard should be set which includes proper health care, good internal and external communications, water and electricity, suitable educational facilities and better access to the United Kingdom for training and employment. I do not doubt the good intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this respect, but the previous record of British governments makes one distrust their determination to translate them in St. Helena quickly into fact.

I understand that significant steps are under discussion and in some cases in the process of implementation, but can we not get on with them with a greater sense of urgency? There are, I am sure, piles of correspondence between the successive hopeful governors and Whitehall which are nothing to be proud of. The question of the secondary school, which is referred to so often, took 20 years to settle. I do not absolve myself entirely from responsibility in these matters as it was in the field of operations of the department of government in which I once served, but in retrospect I am sorry that the voices calling for action were so faint. We often boast of our past colonial administration and compare it with some of the failures of its independent successors. Is it too much to ask that our present colonial performance should be improved?

I referred, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, did, to the need for the islanders to have better access to the United Kingdom. This is a key matter. We shall be told by the Minister that improved access would set a precedent—an embarrassing precedent. Anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy knows what a terrible thing that is! Theoretically it may be true that a precedent would be set, but given the very small numbers—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, produced clear numbers—and the unique predicament of the island, surely Her Majesty's Government could ignore the theoretical precedent created. Employment for the islanders in Ascension Island and on the Falklands is not an adequate alternative. We turn a blind eye now to many people working illegally in this country from territories for which we have no obligation whatsoever.

Another critical question is the provision of efficient supply arrangements. A new ship is wanted and we shall be told of the high cost and the fact that it is all under professional study. But surely we can get on with it. It would be a very useful order for one of our shipyards and there is a large market for a tourist vessel on this route, which for many decades contributed much to the success of the Union Castle Line.

The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has put great emphasis on the strategic importance of St. Helena for the future. His arguments must be very carefully considered. I can recall that as one approaches the island by sea one is struck by three things: first, the volume of merchant shipping passing in both directions, most of it bound to and from the Continent of Europe; secondly, the very large presence of the Russian fishing fleets; and thirdly, when one arrives at the island itself, the lack of facilities for defence purposes—nothing which could really be described as a harbour, hardly an anchorage, and no airfield. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position of the problem of an airfield. I can remember its being discussed many years ago in the Foreign Office, and in those days it was not described as impractical. Now, so I was told when I was in the island, it is not practical to buy an airfield. Even setting aside the question of cost and the climatic and other difficulties of building such an airfield, a useful airfield, it would be very helpful to know what is the latest thinking about this.

There can be no question that the island in unfriendly hands could constitute a serious threat in many important ways. Equally, if the defensive possibilities of the island were to be fully developed, it could be done only on a multi-national basis and not adequately on a purely national basis. Everything depends on how you assess the future Western strategic needs in the South Atlantic. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, are very helpful in this respect. But this assessment can be made only in discussion with our allies, and I suggest that these discussions should be discreetly undertaken.

Then there is the very sensitive problem of how far the countries bordering on the South Atlantic are to be involved, if at all, in these discussions. It is not difficult to construct a very disturbing scenario for the future threats to our vital interests and in doing so one must not dismiss the attraction which the island may have for those on the mainland of Africa itself. It is already very dependent on South Africa and one can think of developments on the west coast of Africa which would make the position of St. Helena questionable. But these problems are very difficult to assess. I would very strongly advocate that they should be examined without delay, and I should be very happy if the Minister could say that they are already being examined.

However, in the meantime I feel there is a simple colonial task for Her Majesty's Government to perform on the islands and I hope that they will enter into it with some enthusiasm.

7.10 p.m.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, with his expert knowledge. Unfortunately, I have not been to the island but I have visited the islands near it and I should like to put forward some views. I also thank my noble friend Lord Buxton for bringing forward this debate today and also for his excellent film. When we consider Ethiopia we know what effect films can have on problems when shown on television. I hope his film will also have some interest to the general public.

My attention was drawn to the people of St. Helena when I went to Ascension Island because there had been several hundred working there during the Falklands war. Without their work, preparations could never have been made on Ascension Island. Also, in this country during the last war I was very interested because quite a number of women from St. Helena were over here when the war started and were left behind. One of my jobs was to look after them and obtain jobs for them. I am afraid that it was mostly in domestic work but at least they had a roof over their heads.

Tennyson wrote, It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles Made weak by time and fate, but stronger will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield. I hope that after this debate we will not yield to propositions that may be put forward by various Members. We need to give some indication from Parliament that we in this country are grateful for the faith of the inhabitants of St. Helena, their loyalty to this country and to the Crown. We shall not yield until we have found some solution to their problems.

I agree with the noble Lord who mentioned fishing. At last we have a boat actually going out to the Falklands, and I hope this may encourage another unemployed fisherman—and there are quite a number in, for example, Hull—to go out for perhaps three years, taking his own boat and his family, to test the waters. We want to know what lies round them and how profitable they could become. He could also give instruction to the islanders at a later date if that was found worthwhile.

With regard to the ODA plans to build a central school, this will have a sixth form. I should like to know where the jobs will be found for the young people when they get this knowledge and wish to obtain a job. There will be no opportunity for them to get a job on the island. Therefore, we must think about their future. It is no good educating the young and giving them hopes for a better life if we cannot provide it.

There are also the deaf and dumb children. There are only three of them but I gather that nothing can be done for them at the moment on the island. I suggest that a special teacher should go there to teach these children. Alternatively—and I do not know their ages; I could not find out—they should be allowed to come to this country. After all, they are going to be completely cut off from the world if they cannot speak or understand anything that is happening. It is extremely sad.

As regards the people employed there, I gather that about 90 per cent. are in Government employment. Therefore, it is unlikely that they have a vote. That appears to me to be very unfortunate because many of them may have very good ideas, having done practical work, and so on, about what should happen in their country but they are cut off from expressing their views because most of them are classed as civil servants.

I should like to know when the irrigation is likely to begin. When they have good irrigation, can they start coffee plantations again? That would give very good work for many people and it would not be difficult once sufficient water is available. There is also jute. There is masses of it on the island. It used to be very profitable until the Post Office stopped using the products produced from it. On the other hand, there is no reason why they should not start a basket industry. At present we in this country obtain baskets made in China, Pakistan and other places. Even the village shop at home stocks baskets from those two countries. Surely we could start a very good industry in St. Helena for the people, particularly for the women.

In Malaysia, after the war, I started this type of work with a leaf called manquan. We made marvellous things. It is a similar leaf, although rather prickly instead of being plain, and it made all sorts of products such as place mats, handbags, blotters, and so on. It could be woven into anything useful one could think of. It has been mentioned that tourists may go to the island. Tourists will certainly want to buy souvenirs to take home. I should like to see some effort made to send someone out to teach the inhabitants how to make all these things. I am sure that they would be glad to have some such occupation and therefore to be of use in the future.

I also suggest that the United States of America should pay a rent for the use of Ascension Island. Ascension Island is, strange to say, a colony of St. Helena. I cannot see why the Americans should not pay a rent to St. Helena. Also, the Ministry of Defence occupies a large part of the island. I believe that the Ministry should pay something, too. I understand that the cost of recreation facilities built by the St. Helenans recently on Ascension Island was equal to about half the entire annual subsidy that we give to the population of St. Helena. It seems to me that both the United States and the Ministry might help in improving the status of the people in St. Helena.

A former treasurer and development officer, after the Second World War referred to St. Helena as an "Imperial slum". That may be rather strong language but St. Helena has certainly never been the jewel in the Crown. There is a popular song that the inhabitants sing when someone goes away. It is called "Farewell to another expert". That is what is happening. A number of experts go there, fail to get either any interest or money and then go away. I give one example. A brewery was constructed for producing lager, but it produced the English-type beer which is not liked by the inhabitants. Surely it is necessary to consult the people.

Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to say something about passports, which has already been mentioned by one noble Lord. When the children and young people finish in the sixth form are they going to be allowed passports to come to England and to train either as nurses, doctors, or teachers? Will they be allowed to go to universities or polytechnics? Can they be given the short permission necessary on their passports to take up their various professions? It is absolutely essential that they should know what they are going to do in the future.

In the 1700s a poet called John Dibdin wrote, but not about St. Helena: O' it's a snug little island A right little, tight little island Search the globe around, none can be found So happy as this little island. I sincerely hope that after this debate we shall be on the way to making it a happy little island.

7.19 p.m.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, I do not want to follow my noble friend Lady Vickers down her detailed path because she obviously has great knowledge of St. Helena and spoke with authority; but I should like to say to her how much we all welcome her return to the House after her recent illness. She seems to have lost none of her powers of oratory during her absence and therein has become fortified with her usual ability to question the Government in great detail.

Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Buxton for introducing this issue. I want to take up the points he made in a more general context concerning the strategic issues. In his anaylsis of St. Helena, he put it into the general context of the islands of the South Atlantic. I must say to him that I find myself in a greater measure of agreement than I had previously anticipated I would be, because he and I have discussed these issues on many occasions, not only inside but outside this Chamber. I found his analysis particularly fascinating, but I would like to stress one or two aspects of the security of the sea lanes which I think may give a different angle.

First, if the security of our sea lanes is important, one has to consider them in the wider context of what is happening in security and defence in general. One wonders in fact whether now, with nuclear submarines and satellite surveillance, the security of the sea lanes has not changed in its total context and therefore it is difficult to review this aspect in isolation of certain islands.

Clearly, whatever may be the state of defence in the South Atlantic, one must have some sort of base somewhere. It behoves us, therefore, to consider where this should be. Maybe St. Helena and Ascension Island—to which it is closely connected—are the right places. I would question very sincerely, however, whether the Falkland Islands is the right place for having defence and having a base, whatever may be the importance of Cape Horn, because the Falkland Islands is a territory which is in dispute, whereas St. Helena and Ascension Island are not. Is it entirely sensible to consider having a long-term base in an island which is under threat of one sort or another unless we somehow remove that threat and think about the issue in its broader context? The noble Lord was kind enough to consider this matter in its broader context, and its broader context must be giving cause for consideration to all the territories and other countries which abut the South Atlantic. That includes not only Argentina but Brazil, South Africa and indeed other West African territories.

If we look at the defence of the sea lanes in isolation to our own specific interests, we must be in danger of burying our heads in the sand, because it is only in the wider context that we can review this issue sensibly. Lord Buxton referred quite rightly to our relations with Argentina, and said that they were in some disrepair. Indeed, he is right but there are many of us who have argued that this can be dealt with, because we need to have sensible relations with Argentina. I would say to him that, despite the fact that Argentina may have had a flirtation with Russia, that flirtation was largely concerned with trade. That flirtation was concerned with disposing of its main agricultural crop—which is wheat—and meat, and it is a trade connection rather than a philosophical connection.

We must always remember, whatever view we have about Argentina, that they are firmly in the Western free economic camp. They have always been that way. Whether or not we have at times liked their type of government, that is where they stand, as indeed do other countries in South America. It is in that context that we must consider our relations with Argentina. Despite the fact, therefore, that they may have had a government which made a foolish decision to carry out an aggressive act on an island in the South Atlantic—the Falkland Islands—that position has now changed and they have a democratically elected government. Whether it is totally stable or not is yet to be seen, but it is a fragile democracy which we need to support, and we need to try to establish better relations with it.

Secondly, in support of this we have the United Nations, and there the Latin American countries and others stand united in the fact that we must come towards them, so I would say that considering bases in the South Atlantic in a vacuum is a rather sterile pursuit. I think we have to consider this in a much wider context, and, whatever the Minister may say in reply, I hope the importance of looking into the wider issue will not be forgotten.

The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, also mentioned the question of the Antarctic, and we shall hear much more about this later on from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he comes to speak, because he is a much greater authority on the subject than any of us. When we think about the Antarctic, we must remember the discussions that will be needed for the renegotiation of the Antarctic Treaty when it comes up for review in 1991. I would venture to suggest that, if we have not resolved our difficulties with Argentina by then, it will be that much more difficult to entertain negotiations or renegotiations on the Antarctic Treaty, because the Antarctic Treaty not only includes a number of the territories which face onto the South Atlantic but it should also include Brazil, which is currently excluded. Of course, it also includes Chile and other countries which may be at variance. So it is in that context that I would like to think we can consider the security of the sea lanes.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what he means by "solve the problem of the Falklands"? Does he mean hand over sovereignty to the Argentine? What does he mean by it?

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would say that it is much too early to consider that point. What I mean by solving the problem is conforming at this stage to the edict of the United Nations that we should be talking to each other about the issue. What the long-term solution is, I do not know yet, and I do not think that anybody in this Chamber can give that answer. What I do say, however, is that if we do not talk to each other, if we do not have a discussion, if we do not again make friends with this country with whom we have had a friendship for 150 years, it is not satisfactory for any of the parties concerned. How we achieve that, I do not know, because there are various alternative solutions. The fact of the matter is, however, that the population of the Falkland Islands can never have a secure future if we are not working together with their closest neighbours.

It is conceivable that one of the futures for the South Atlantic is that we should work together with Argentina, together with other riparian states, to develop the resources in that area for our mutual benefit. I like to think that that is one of the solutions that will come out of the discussions, but it will never happen while we do not have proper, sensible, diplomatic links on a direct basis, because these things cannot be handled through third parties.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has raised a very important issue tonight. Starting from the narrow base of St. Helena, he widened it onto the broader issue of the South Atlantic—a matter which we shall no doubt discuss on many occasions—and I hope that we can see the way forward by discussing these things not only among ourselves but among the people who are really interested in this issue.

7.29 p.m.

Lord Renwick

My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Buxton for bringing up this subject in the House today. Many noble Lords may rather wonder why I put down my name to speak. For some years—going back in fact before the Falklands war—I have been privileged to meet my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the subject of the South West Atlantic, though I am afraid I have probably never been south of Spain. But it is mostly on strategic issues and the problems that government have at various times in taking decisions that affect our properties, interests and responsibilities world-wide that I wanted to make a very short and fairly simple contribution to the debate. I hope that it will be seen as such.

There have been many instances recently where Her Majesty's Government have made decisions that seem to have been taken for purely financial reasons. This seems to be a subject which will come up and will demand Government action and thought from the various departments which have been well itemised by my noble friend and which have, or, more likely, should have, responsibility for the future of St. Helena. My simple plea and my earnest hope is that Her Majesty's Government will appear to use other than purely financial criteria in their approach to this situation.

I say "appear" because many actions of government are misinterpreted by media and are often put in simple terms that usually come down to how much a project costs. We are quite naturally in a period of stringent economic—not problems but of having to be very careful in budgeting. But I hope that imagination and, certainly, strategic issues will take a very big place in future discussions and thoughts on this and other problems. It would be facile to go back to early 1982 or late 1981, when it seemed that it was a purely financial consideration that withdrew or threatened to withdraw HMS "Endurance" from the South Atlantic. It is not in fact with the benefit of hindsight that I bring that up. We were saying that before the invasion of the Falkland Islands. The cost was infinitesimal set against the cost of the Falklands war.

I have been very aware of and impressed by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on the Falklands and his attempt to identify and analyse the ways in which investment would make them more self-supporting and less of a burden on the taxpayer. It is vital that it is understood that investment, if it is properly planned, has an enormous add-on value over the years. Investment in a catalyst such as communications can have an enormous effect on an area and its infrastructure. Many noble Lords have mentioned communications, such as a ship going to St. Helena, and of course those which would be supplied, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, by an airport.

As I have no personal interest, it is obviously not my place to put specific proposals as to what could make St. Helena viable and a good place for our 5,000 compatriots to live in. But I also take on board the very important strategic implications of the decisions that will be made over the next few years. I am confident that my noble friend the Minister will not overemphasise the importance of the cost of such operations.

7.36 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, first of all, we must certainly thank my noble friend Lord Buxton for introducing this Question. I should like to say just one thing to my noble friend Lord Montgomery. He said that we have to resolve our difficulties with Argentina. I would slightly suggest that the Argentines might try to resolve their difficulties with us. That would be quite a help.

Secondly, I think that it is well worth pointing out that the oft and loud repeated statement of a lie or a claim does not reinforce either the truth of the lie or the validity of the claim. It is reputed, or so Julian Amery told me once, that in the depths of the Foreign Office is a safe. Very rarely is the Foreign Secretary allowed to see it—only when he is ultra-trusted by his most senior officials. In that safe is a one-page document. Finally, one Foreign Secretary was allowed to see it. There, scrawled on it, were two sentences: "God is an Englishman" and "Keep open the road to India". The first is denied by the Bishop of Durham and the second is still in a way important today, even though it is parabolic.

Before the invention of the Suez Canal, St. Helena was important. It may not be well known, but the Duke of Wellington stopped there on his way back from India exactly 10 years before the Battle of Waterloo, and I think he even stayed at Longwood. There is an historical coincidence for you!

My noble friend Lady Vickers produced the quite worrying thought of educating people to absolutely no jobs. That has happened in the Caribbean in certain small island states. It has led to discontent and, above all, the coups d'état. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there is a Marxist coup in St. Helena. I am not saying that that is certain but that it is just every so slightly worrying that it could happen. One would then have to go through the enormously costly and difficult business of trying to get St. Helena back again. That happened in Grenada, and look where that led us!

The reason that I started by mentioning the road to India is that I want to suggest to your Lordships the following scenario, which I do not think is too unrealistic. Russia at the moment is a gerontocracy, with a perfectly failed economy. I suppose that some of us in the agricultural world can say, "Thank goodness for the failure of the Russian grain harvest year after year". Otherwise, the Common Market surpluses in grain would be even worse.

Russia has a static Slav population, and a rising Moslem minority, who are only too conscious of the revival of Islam over their borders. I suggest to your Lordships that this inherent instability could provide the Russians with that perfect excuse to try to keep people's minds away from internal problems and to go for external stir-up. Argentina did that over the Falklands because she thought she could get away with it. Iraq did it with Iran, again because they thought they could get away with it. It is an old trick; it is a trick that is used very frequently.

I am not suggesting that under those circumstances the Russians will charge flat out across the Westphalian plains towards the Channel ports and the Rhine. I am suggesting that it is much more likely that she will start stirring up external trouble more vigorously than she is doing at the moment. She has a sea-going navy, thanks to Admiral Gorbachev. You can see that it is not going to produce an act of war if the Russians indulge in what perhaps could best be called privateering. We have only to see the effect that one submarine can have, even when it is tied up in the dockyard at Rosyth. I recall to your Lordships the fact that during the Falklands campaign somebody said to a Ministry of Defence spokesman, "Is 'Superb on her way to the South Atlantic?" The Minister of Defence spokesman, telling the complete truth and suggesting something completely different, said, "No comment", whereupon the "Superb" was immediately placed by everybody in the South Atlantic, when in fact she was tied up along the dockside in Rosyth. But she had the effect of producing an immediate reaction and a worry for the Argentinians about the effect of one nuclear submarine.

This is not a new way to behave. We, as a maritime nation, should understand this more clearly than most. Drake was messing about in Latin-America; England and Spain were still at peace. Dupleix and Clive were fighting in India; England and France were still at peace. It is absolutely possible to have peripheral arguments around the sea lanes of the world which do not involve Europe in a major world war, especially, as my noble friend Lord Buxton said, when the advent of nuclear weapons does produce a Maginot Line complex in Western Europe. I am not complaining about that. I am thankful that has produced peace by constipation, which is what one could possibly call it.

One then adds to that the basic inherent instability of South Africa. It is not unstable now, but if you have a basically unfair society with no methods of change in it, one day that society is going to go bang. If that happens, what a perfect place, once more, for the Russians to meddle in! Again, the sea lanes are under threat. I think that we as an island race must not forget these sea lanes. We must not forget that we export and import such an enormously large percentage of our gross national product—far, far bigger than anybody else. These are important points. It seems to me that the Falkland Islands and Ascension Islands become two quite enormously important aircraft carriers in the Atlantic for the guarding of the sea lanes. I digress, perhaps, a little historical hyperbole, but I still think that what is on that piece of paper in the Foreign Office safe should be very carefully considered.

7.43 p.m.

Lord Harvington

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to my noble friend Lady Young for allowing me to interject just for one minute on what I think is a very important point which has been missed. I went to this area about five years ago and I observed the fact that there is no harbour at all. It is not a question of bad harbour facilities—there just ain't any! Therefore, the swell round the island is pretty constant all the time, and all the transporting of materials from any ships that come there has to be done in very small tenders; in fact, what we would call very small tenders indeed. Unless something can be done about making some sort of a wall, or something, against which you can put a 7,000 or 8,000 tonne ship so as to use its derricks to unload the materials you need to unload, then I think it will be very difficult to develop the islands in any way at all.

I simply mention this because I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, may have this in his mind as well, and may like to enlarge upon it. This I cannot remember for sure, but it may well be that the depths just off the island are so considerable that it would be very difficult to build anything of a wall at all. However, as far as my memory goes, I think it is not quite so and that something could be done, though of course it will be expensive. But let us remember this: that if that island ever fell into hostile hands it would not be very long before they built anything that was necessary to make it a very effective, hostile base against us.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, as a former chairman of Ways and Means and a Deputy Speaker in another place, would know that this debate would never have been allowed to go as widely in the House of Commons as it has ranged here. Indeed, I had not intended to say very much on this subject of the Falkland Islands. As a former Member of the Commons, I was well disciplined by the noble Lord or his predecessors. Nonetheless, it has gone wide, and therefore I shall have to say something to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, who I think is still somewhere around. At any rate I will reserve my comments, because he made some rather provocative remarks.

I should like to start straight away by expressing my very warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, not merely for introducing this subject but for the rather spendid Anglia film. Though he does not refer to his own productions, I think it would be right to say that, once again, Anglia, have done a very interesting job. As the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, said, people do need to know what St. Helena is like. I have never been there, but it is an elementary fact of geography that it is a sea mount; that there are enormous depths. There is no continental shelf, which is so important for fishing, although there is the possibility of tuna fishing. It is a difficult place to get into and out of. The geography is fundamental. Indeed, it is because we need to know the geography that it is wise to discuss St. Helena not by itself but in terms of the geographical factors in the South Atlantic.

I should like to remind noble Lords that it was Lord Curzon who, when he was President of the Royal Geographical Society, at an annual dinner of the Royal Geographical Society at which the guest of honour was Lord Asquith, proposed that it would be excellent for the conduct of the British Empire—and, today, what is left of our interests overseas—if a ship could be chartered and the entire Cabinet taken round the world, so that they could know something of the geography of the world. I think this would help us to understand the very complex geographical factors.

We are fortunate, and it is fascinating, that in the debate today we have a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow—who have all visited Ascension Island, and all have strong views. I think I must first of all disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, when he says that the British are not in the habit of decrying our previous colonies. I fear it is too often that the British have decried. We have as a nation a feeling of guilt, somehow, that we ought not to have occupied particular areas. My criticism of the British is not so much of what they did when they were effectively occupying but of what they have done after these particular colonies or areas have ceased to be of immediate importance. I can give story after story. It was very interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, talking about those St. Helenans who have been working in Ascension Island. There are a number of cases that I could give where the British have really forgotten the obligations that they had in the past.

It is perfectly correct to suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has done, that we should look at Ascension Island and other islands in relation to geographical factors and strategic factors. There are not only the islands that he has mentioned. There are others. Deception Island is an example. If we could foresee what the world will be like in another 50 or 100 years' time, if we could be certain there would be peace everywhere, with effective United Nations negotiation and keeping of the peace, then we need not worry. It was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, if I can have the noble Lord's attention for a moment, who referred to this. There is the example of the Seychelles now under a Communist government.

With the best will in the world towards the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, we cannot say what the Government of the Argentine will be like. To describe an action, a wanton invasion of the Falklands, which led to the loss of a great deal of life and which was condemned by the United Nations simply as a foolish action, and then expect us to forgive, is being rather optimistic.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I remind him that that particular government has been despatched altogether?

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear what the noble Lord said.

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein

My Lords, what I said was that the government which conducted that action has been despatched by its own fellow citizens.

Lord Shackleton

I entirely agree. But it is not very easy to forget these things. Nonetheless, we are passionately anxious to have co-operation. I put this in my report. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government tried to get such co-operation. A meeting was set up, but it was said that it could not take place unless sovereignty was discussed. It is vital that there should be discussions and that there should be good relations with South America. Those of us who are now upholding the position of the Falklands are thinking in strategic terms.

It is true, as one noble Lord has said, that probably the new airfield in the Falklands—which, if I may say so, was recommended seven or eight years ago, and again now on economic grounds and not just on defence grounds—could be of enormous importance when we come to consider the Antarctic. I should like, since we have got into the Antarctic Treaty question, to say a word about this. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery who knows his geography—he is on the Council of the Royal Geographical Society—and who is not like Lord Asquith, that the fact is that the Antarctic Treaty is probably the most successful treaty that any group of countries has negotiated since the war.

There was great danger almost of fighting breaking out. Indeed, shots were fired in relation to the overlapping claims of the Argentine, Chile and Britain. It settled that. I do not believe that it can be endangered if we do not sign a satisfactory agreement with regard to sovereignty with the Argentine because it is only possible for an individual nation to give notice that in two years' it will withdraw. If the Falklands battle had gone the other way, the story might have been different. It is this very important part of the world, the strategic significance of which we should not overlook, that we are concerned with in relation to these islands.

I therefore find it all the more regrettable—I do not accuse the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, of this—when ill-informed clerics talk about the people of the Falklands, as has happened. I do not know whether it was one of the Anglican bishops, but I have heard it said that the life of the people was virtually destroyed by the invasion. This is quite untrue. Anyone who is in touch with the Falklands knows that at least in the camp—Stanley has always been a place where there have been a certain number of grumbles—morale is high. I should like to say on another occasion—I shall not harass the noble Baroness, to comment when she replies tonight—that I want to see a much more positive policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government with regard to land reform in the Falklands. Even the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, would have called me to order long ago in another place if I dealt with that now.

This is an area where it is necessary to think in terms of a geographical factor and strategic factors. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about thinking in terms of the cost and cutting. If I may make one party point, this is a great Government for cutting. It is equal misery for all. They do it very well and very thoroughly, and they make everyone unhappy. But we cannot hazard the future of this country in the long run and the peace of that part of the world unless we consider the strategic implications.

I hope that we shall do something for the St. Helenans. I hope that some of the skills that the Government are today bringing to bear to develop private enterprise in this country will perhaps be developed and deployed in St. Helena. In the long run, the only solution for St. Helena,—this was a matter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred—is that its people should become British citizens. I know that this raises great difficulties in relation to Hong Kong and elsewhere. But the number is not great. It is a matter that we have to face.

The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is to be thanked for initiating a debate that has raised wide issues. It is difficult for the Government to answer all of them. But we are really saying this so that the Government may listen. If we do not obtain replies, we can always return on another day.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, for initiating this debate on the subject of the island of St. Helena. In the interests of brevity, I do not propose to follow him, my noble friend Lord Shackleton and other noble Lords into the security implications of the Falklands and the South Atlantic, important though they may be. My own feeling is that at some stage the House should debate that issue separately. The Antarctic Treaty, and the implications and accessibility to the Antarctic, with all that it means during the years to come, is so important that it merits a debate in itself.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton, have indicated my interest. As they have said, I had the good fortune to visit St. Helena and to stay on the island for five weeks in 1958. I formed an affection for the island and for the people which has not waned with the passage of time. I still have many friends there. I only wish that I could have visited the island again during my time as a Member of another place. But, as we have been reminded, it is inaccessible and there is no airfield.

I travelled there and back by ships of the Union Castle line. My visit then was at the request of a number of inhabitants of the island who felt strongly, even at that time, that they were forgotten and neglected by the Government. It appears that I was the first serving Member of Parliament to visit the island of St. Helena up to that time. And when I reported upon my visit in another place, the then Colonial Secretary, the late Lord Boyd of Merton, made some changes.

The problems then were lack of employment opportunities, low wages, lamentable poor relief, poor health, medical and educational services, inadequate housing and a failure to develop the resources of the island. There have been many changes since then but the basic problems remain. I appreciate the opportunity with other noble Lords to call attention to them today. In a speech in another place in 1958 I called St. Helena both the best known and the least known of British colonial territories. During the past two years, it has gained some prominence because of its proximity to Ascension and the activity there during the Falklands war and later from the visit by Prince Andrew. I think the suggestion by the noble Baroness—whom we are delighted to see back, looking so well after her illness—that the United States should pay some rent for Ascension Island is an interesting one which the Prime Minister might raise with President Reagan at the first available opportunity.

Since my visit a number of Members of Parliament have visited St. Helena, and Sir Neil Marten, the former Minister for Overseas Aid, has also been there and has reported to the Government. As we have heard, the most recent visit was by two honourable Members, Dr. John Marek and Mr. Jonathan Sayeed. They went to St. Helena last October and they have published what is in my view a very important report. But as the noble Lord said, quite properly, it is a great pity that no serving Minister of the Crown has been to visit the island.

On the question of employment, there is, as we know, insufficient work to absorb the young men and women, and figures show that the population is increasing. It is now 5,500, out of which 2,300 are working; and as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and others have said, 90 per cent. are government employees and this does not make for a satisfactory economic structure. Furthermore, because government employees are not qualified to stand for election to the island's Legislative Council, the population cannot possibly be properly represented on that council.

I would merely say this in passing: that it should be within the wit of the Foreign Office to devise rules which would enable the great majority at least of the population to stand for election if they so wish. This is the sort of unimaginative reaction which makes for discontent among a decent and law-abiding community. It is worth noting that serious crime is virtually unknown among the population of St. Helena.

Again, as we know, 750 St. Helenans work on Ascension Island, and this has been an outlet for them for many years past. I wonder whether we may be told by the noble Baroness what is the prospect when 250 of these are made redundant after the current MoD construction work is completed. Is there, for example, any plan to place them or to suggest to them that they can be put in work in the Falklands? I am not sure that they would all welcome that, but it would be helpful if we could be told what lies ahead for these redundant men

In my report in 1958 I strongly urged the development of agriculture and fisheries. This was not particularly original but it was, and it remains, an obvious solution, especially since the collapse of the flax industry in the mid-1960s. Most of the island of St. Helena is uncultivated, but it is cultivable, and if water supplies and irrigation are provided the island can become self-sufficient in meat and in the main crops. Dr. Marek and Mr. Sayeed strongly recommend that a reservoir and irrigation programme be embarked upon without delay. I hope the Government will take careful note of this and act upon it.

St. Helena could also divert to more sophisticated lines of production, because in the Great Exhibition of 1851 St. Helena won first prize for a most fragrant coffee. They can also grow small and delicious bananas—the best in the world for flavour. Would it not be better for them to be engaged on farming their island than to be living on aid, without prospect of useful work? These seem to me, in a small island, to be very real, practical possibilities which, with a little encouragement from the Government and not a great deal of expenditure, could be exploited and used to make this community a far happier and more constructive one.

There are other matters which can be referred to only very briefly. In regard to communications, first, the Union Castle Line has gone and the island is now dependent on the RMS "St. Helena", which calls there six times a year. It is a most valuable service to the islanders, but, as one noble Lord has said, another ship is now needed. The noble Lord, Lord Harvington, also referred to the need for a harbour. I agree with him that this is a very important point. There are difficulties, as your Lordships know, because this is a volcanic island which drops sharply into the sea. If you jump in rather thoughtlessly you will very quickly find yourself in very deep water indeed.

While the island's economy cannot support an airfield—and I am not absolutely sure that the islanders want one—I note that the two Members of Parliament recommend an emergency grass strip on level land suitable for a Hercules aircraft. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment this evening on this suggestion.

In regard to education, the decision announced by Mr. Raison in October that a new central school is to be built is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said, very welcome indeed, and it is in fact overdue. It is noteworthy that no St. Helenan with teaching qualifications teaches on the island, and that no St. Helenan has attended a British university. That is a damning commentary on what has been going on over the years, because these are extremely intelligent people. There has been no change since my visit all those years ago.

I note also that Dr. Marek and Mr. Sayeed recommend some improvement in the health arrangements, that future postings should take account of the need for a surgeon there, and that tour lengths of three and a half years are too long to attract suitable candidates. There is also a recommendation that social welfare payments should be increased in line with inflation, and this seems to me to be a reasonable recommendation. This same point is valid in relation to labour rates. I understand that a salaries commissioner recently visited the island, and the House will be grateful to the Minister if she can tell us the results of that visit. It would not be unreasonable, in view of the Government's dominance of the island's economy, if wages could also be increased to take account of inflation.

Finally, it must be emphasised that the way the Government have handled the immigration of St. Helenans to this country, and the restrictions imposed on them compared, for example, with the people of Gibraltar, has deeply hurt the islanders. A vigorous campaign has been conducted by the St. Helena Great Britain Association. They have argued their case very vigorously and I do not think the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have listened to them in a proper manner.

Let me say this. The population of St. Helena is British. The people know no other allegiance, no other loyalty, no other tradition, no other motherland. Britain is their motherland. I believe we have a profound duty towards them. As noble Lords have said, this country used the island in the imperial days, and we should not forget them now. Britain's "Fortress Falklands" policy has demonstrated a glaring inequality of investment in the two islands. Let me give an example. Next year Britain will spend £240,000 per Falklander in the new financial year. This is more than 300 times the £666 to be spent per capita on St. Helenans. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, there are wrongs to be righted, and the Government must take constructive action before it is too late.

The island's long-term strategic value has properly been emphasised by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. They were perfectly right. It is of strategic value. Although it is thousands of miles away from the Falklands, nevertheless it is on the route, as they have said. But it is the people I care about this evening. They face a bleak future if nothing is done, with little to export except themselves and postage stamps. As he noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said, they hould be a prime charge on our aid programme.

Twenty-six years ago almost to this night I said in another place: That the people of St. Helena, courteous, law abiding and intelligent have faith in this country and in this House. They have been callously neglected up to now. They are cheerful in adversity and I formed a great affection for them. And so it is that they are on my conscience, and from now on until their position and their conditions are improved they will be on the conscience of the House. can say no better than that in this debate.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me; I did not wish to interrupt his very moving peroration. However, is he aware that in fact until the Falkland Islands were invaded there was no form of grant aid at all in the Falklands, and that St. Helena has been grant-aided for many years? I should like to see it get more but it is not true to suggest that in the past it has not been assisted. I am sure that the noble Lord would accept that. In fact, the money now being spent is very largely to redress some of the money we have taken out of the Falklands and in defence of the Western position generally.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, I was merely making a comparison between the aid which now goes to the Falklands and to St. Helena. It is perfectly true, as my noble friend has said, that there was no grant aid to the Falklands for reasons of which we are aware—namely, they were able to manage without it. But that was not true and has not been true for many years of St. Helena. What I have tried to do is to make a factual comparison between the grant aid that is now going to the Falklands and to St. Helena. I think that in doing that I was pursuing a proper argument.

8.12 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for giving us this opportunity of debating the affairs of the island of St. Helena which this year celebrated its 150th anniversary as a Crown colony. As many noble Lords have said, life is not easy on St. Helena. Her Majesty's Government recognise this fact and I am pleased to give the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, the assurance that he seeks in his Question. The Government have every intention of continuing to pursue a positive social and economic policy for the island. We attach great importance to the loyalty and wellbeing of the people of St. Helena.

Before turning to a number of other matters, I should like to say to both the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who referred to the report of Sir Neil Marten, that Sir Neil Marten visited St. Helena in January and February of this year as the personal representative of my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. His report was personal to the Minister. But in view of the concern with which this matter has been raised I shall, of course, report what has been said to my right honourable friend.

The reasonable needs of dependent territories, including St. Helena, are a first call upon our aid programme. In the current financial year, our aid to the island is expected to amount to over £8 million. This represents some £1,400 for each islander, the highest per capita that the United Kingdom gives to any country, apart for the Falkland islands.

Broadly speaking, our aid falls into three categories: budgetary aid, £3.2 million this year, to enable the St. Helena Government to match income with necessary expenditure; a shipping subsidy of £2.2 million in support of the island's only regular link with the outside world; and development aid (which is £1.8 million) and technical co-operation (which amounts to £900,000) which aims to promote productive activity on the island and expand the islander's ability to be self-sufficient.

Greater self-sufficiency for the islands is the wish of the St. Helenan people as well as of Her Majesty's Government. It is in everyone's interest that in the coming years the islanders should be increasingly able to stand on their own feet. Earlier this year we committed £3.5 million to the establishment of a new central secondary school in order to raise educational standards and to help provide the skilled manpower that a developing St. Helena will need. We have approved the construction of a new power station, costing over £ 1 million, to cope with the expansion of demand for electricity; and we have also very recently agreed to the extension of electricity supplies to outlying areas at present not connected to the main grid. We have built one new reservoir this year and are considering other water storage and irrigation schemes. Such schemes have particular value in opening the way to fuller exploitation of the island's agricultural potential.

The development of fisheries offers perhaps the greatest potential for generating growth in St. Helena's economy. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers (who I, too, am delighted to see with us this evening), will be glad to know that we have approved project allocations of over £800,000 to improve the island's inshore fishing industry and to survey the potential of offshore fisheries resources. Marketing is a particularly important aspect of this. Early efforts in this respect were not entirely successful, but a fisheries adviser has been appointed as part of the inshore fisheries project, and encouraging progress has been made in the processing and marketing of tuna and salted skipjack. West Africa is the main market at present, but trial shipments of products to London are also promising. I am sure that St. Helena, with our support, will build on these openings. I hope that this point will indicate to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that we do take seriously his point about enabling St. Helena to have other private industries.

The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has suggested that a body might be set up for St. Helena along the lines of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. St. Helena already has a number of what might be termed para-statal organisations, charged with the development of certain key areas of the economy. These include the St. Helena Fisheries Corporation. The Agricultural Development Authority and the Small Industries Authority. Our aid to these sectors is either channelled through or closely connected with the work of the bodies that I have mentioned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked about the rents on Ascension Island. I should like to say that the United States, who operate Wide-Awake Airfield and a NASA base on Ascension Island, are exempt from rents under the terms of existing agreements. The other major users on Ascension Island are funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There would be little therefore to be gained by increasing the rents, as the Government would have to provide the additional funds to enable the users to pay these rents.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned employment. The Government share their concern and are seeking to increase the opportunities for productive employment on the island. I believe that, in the long run, we must look to St. Helena to provide employment prospects for its people. But they need help to do so, and we are giving that help, to the fishing industry (as I have already indicated), to agriculture and other small industries, and through assistance to education.

The noble Baroness Lady Vickers, suggested that more help should be given to develop St. Helena's handicrafts industry. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that this is in hand. Since the end of last year a handicrafts adviser has been working on the island, and a pilot project to stimulate handicrafts is being funded under our aid programme.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also asked about the production of coffee. We will always consider any proposals about cash crops with the St. Helena Government. But present priorities are to use valuable agricultural land to increase the St. Helenans' output of staple crops in order to reduce reliance upon imports.

It is likely that employment on Ascension Island will be available for the foreseeable future, though not for the same numbers as in the period immediately following the Falkland's conflict. It is possible that some employment may be found elsewhere. We are looking into this. However, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that employment prospects away from the island are not good and are no substitute for employment on St. Helena.

For those not in work we have a social aid policy. Welfare payments are naturally linked to the level of wages, and are therefore lower than equivalent payments in Britain. The Government recently sent a salaries commissioner to the island to review wage levels and we await his recommendations. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised. We would expect any changes in wage rates to have a corresponding impact on the level of social welfare payments.

A number of your Lordships have argued that it would be a major step towards easing St. Helena's employment and associated problems if St. Helenans were given British citizenship and thus allowed automatic right of entry to the United Kingdom. I can understand that view. But I have to say that the Government have no plans to change the British Nationality Act 1981. As your Lordships will recall, this Act established the principle that British citizenship should be confined to those with close connections with the United Kingdom. There are special reasons for the two exceptions to the 1981 Act: Falkland islanders and Gibraltarians. Under that Act the majority of Falkland islanders already possessed British citizenship. The British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Act 1983 conferred British citizenship automatically on those British dependent territories' citizens with a connection with the Falklands who did not already enjoy that status. This amendment Act was a consequence of the wholly exceptional circumstances arising from the Argentine invasion of the Falklands and the Government made it clear at the time that it should not be regarded as setting a precedent for other dependent territories.

The case of Gibraltar is different. British dependent territories' citizens with a connection with Gibraltar are entitled under the British Nationality Act 1981 to register as British citizens. This is because Gibraltar is a European territory of a European Community member state, and the people concerned are United Kingdom nationals for the purpose of Community treaties.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, if the noble Baroness would give way, on the point of the criterion which she mentioned, can she tell the House of any other population in any other British territory which has a closer connection with this country than St. Helena?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and indeed the views that have been expressed by other noble Lords about the strength of feeling over the links between St. Helena and Britain. However, it is only right that I should make the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear on this issue. The British Nationality Act has only recently become law and, as I have indicated, the Government have no present plans to amend it.

St. Helenans with the requisite skills may come to the United Kingdom to work. In recognition of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and our dependent territories, a work permit concessionary quota scheme exists for them, under which a limited number of permits are issued to workers who do not meet the normal skill requirements. The size of the quota is kept under review and is currently set at 200 per year, of which no more than 150 may be issued to any one dependent territory. However, in the next review, which is due in 1985, we intend to consider reducing the lower age limit for entry under this scheme.

St. Helenans may also come to the United Kingdom for training. We are planning to increase the number of training awards for next year. We hope that the new central school we are building will help other students reach the required qualifications for admission of courses of further education in this country.

My noble friend Lady Vickers raised the question of the non-eligibility of Government employees to stand for the Legislative Council. Such constitutional changes are for the Government of St. Helena to consider, but we stand ready to respond sympathetically to any proposals which do not conflict with our ability to discharge our responsibilities.

In its isolated situation, communications are vital to St. Helena. In 1973 the Civil Aviation Authority was pessimistic about the prospects for constructing a civil airport on St. Helena. This is now being re-examined in the light of recent advances in technology, particularly regarding aircraft performance. But serious practical constraints remain. The cost of even a small facility allowing use only by aircraft of a very limited range would be substantial—at least £20-£25 million, and running costs would also be high. I do not believe that a small airport would be a substitute for the shipping link which at present costs more than £2 million a year.

The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, also drew attention to the report made by two Members of another place who have recently visited St. Helena. One of the suggestions in their report was that an emergency airstrip should be provided on the island. We are examining this possibility, but the practical constraints also apply to this proposal. The noble Lord also raised the question of the ship, RMS "St. Helena". This is now 21 years old and will have to be taken out of service in the next few years. Any replacement will amost certainly have to be purpose-built. The Government are giving urgent consideration to this matter, and to the possibility of a tourist ship.

My noble friend Lord Harvington spoke of the need for improvements to harbour facilities on St. Helena, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that funds for this have been allocated by the European Development Fund and that British consultants are being engaged to draw up plans for this work.

I have sought to outline to your Lordships the full programme of social and economic policies the Government are pursuing for St. Helena. I should now like to return to the other aspect of the Question of my noble friend Lord Buxton; that is, the strategic importance of the islands. This is a matter which has been raised particularly by my noble friends Lord Montgomery, Lord Renwick and Lord Onslow, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Indeed, in preparation for this debate I re-read what my noble friend Lord Buxton had said in the debate which he introduced on the Falkland Islands almost exactly a year ago today. I know of the importance which my noble friend Lord Buxton attaches to this matter.

Ascension Island is certainly a vital link between the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands and will continue to be so even after the opening of the Falkland Islands to civilian air traffic. I must emphasise, however, that our dispositions in the Falkland Islands are to prevent a recurrence of the tragic events of 1982. It is a fact that Mount Pleasant airport has an important military role, but we hope that this will be short term only, and the primary purpose of the airfield will be civilian as economic activity is stimulated and diversified. This is an essential aspect of its construction, and I should like to give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who I know raised the matter of a new airport in both his reports on the Falkland Islands. Our dispositions have no wider purpose.

Ascension Island also plays a significant role in the free world's communications. The Atlantic relay station of the British Broadcasting Corporation is, for example, sited there. But St. Helena does not possess the attributes for a similar role at present; nor does it offer serious prospects for such a role in the future. As my noble friend Lord Buxton has observed, the Suez Canal has been closed before. St. Helena did not feature in our plans then and, given its proximity to the base at Ascension, its role in that eventuality would be limited.

It is Ascension Island that has some military importance. May I remind your Lordships that, although Ascension is a dependency of St. Helena for administrative purposes, it is in fact entirely separate from St. Helena. The link is provided solely by the governor. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the defence of all dependent territories, including St. Helena. Unlike the Falkland Islands, we assess the external threat to St. Helena as low. In these circumstances I believe that your Lordships will recognise that the deployment of defence resources of St. Helena would not be warranted. The Government are satisfied that the island can be adequately defended from any external threat.

My noble friend Lord Buxton also asked me what would happen in the eventuality of the closure of the Panama Canal. Under these circumstances it is possible to imagine that the Falkland Islands might play a role such as they played in the First World War, by reason of their position of the Cape Horn route to the Pacific. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and other noble Lords know, there have been many changes in naval warfare since that time.

I do not propose to follow my noble friend Lord Montgomery or the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who both referred to the Falkland Islands, into a debate on that subject this evening. It is a very important matter and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for your Lordships to debate the Falkland Islands. I confirm to my noble friend Lord Montgomery that the Government do want better and more normal relations with Argentina; however we have said that we are not prepared to discuss the matter of sovereignty.

Finally, I shall touch again on the subject of Antarctica; though I am bound to say that I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, that this again is a very large subject and one that would be more suitably taken in a debate on its own. But I cannot agree with what my noble friend Lord Buxton said about the importance of St. Helena to the pursuit of our interests in Antarctica. The island plays no significant role in that capacity at present, nor do we envisage any change in the future. It might just be conceivable that St. Helena might be used in its traditional role of earlier years as an emergency source of supplies and water. But we do not foresee any likelihood of a greater call upon the island at the present time.

In conclusion I say again that I welcome this debate. We should not forget small islands such as St. Helena. These are areas in which in your Lordships' House takes a great interest and in which many noble Lords who have spoken today are acknowledged experts, including the three noble Lords taking part in this debate who have visited St. Helena. I believe the policies that I have outlined clearly demonstrate the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the present wellbeing and future development of St. Helena. I believe that 1984 has been a good year for the island. A number of important steps have been taken towards helping St. Helenans more effectively to tackle their problems. I hope that the progress made this year will be sustained in 1985 and in the years to come.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before nine o'clock.