South Pacific Island States

HL Deb 22 January 1992 vol 534 cc924-41

8.3 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the island states of the South Pacific.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. My reason for doing so is not, I hasten to say, because I doubt that Her Majesty's Government have a policy towards the island states of the South Pacific. I most certainly know that they have. I had the privilege for two years to be in the shoes of my noble friend Lord Caithness as the Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for our relationship with that region. During that period, I visited many of the Pacific Islands and I have visited the Pacific twice subsequently. So to a limited extent I have had a hand in that policy.

However, being aware that the region is enormous and the peoples, their cultures and aspirations diverse, I believe that it would be useful to all of us who follow events there and also to those in the region who follow our interest in them to have a condensed overall perspective of how the Government view the region.

I do not think, however, that a position on the South Pacific island states in general can be isolated from the relevance of other key influences in and close to the region. Our own association with Australia and New Zealand has, for example, provided over the years the opportunity for a largely shared attitude from these members of the Commonwealth, to what are, after all, their neighbouring islands, many of which have Her Majesty the Queen as head of state. The other countries of the Pacific rim—notably Japan, Canada and the United States—have their own interests and even territorial responsibilities to look after. France, who, like ourselves, still has colonial interests to administer, is obviously also a key player.

I mentioned the Commonwealth. While generally its South Pacific constituents are strong participants, recent years have seen one sad departure—Fiji. I shall not rehearse the history of Fiji's internal politics which led to the coups of 1987. Suffice it to say that, despite those events, for many years previously and since 1987 there has been no more loyal friend of Britain than Fiji and no more staunch supporter of the role of the Commonwealth in the South Pacific and in international affairs. Fiji wants to be able to rejoin the fold and to reinforce the ties between us and among her neighbours, which even now are strong. I very much hope that my noble friend can give some indication of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Fiji's desire to re-enter the Commonwealth.

It is not surprising that some focal point for mutual discussion on the region has been needed. In a part of the world emerging from the influences of the Second World War where old colonial influences were beginning to decline, and as steps were taken towards independence, there emerged a need to focus on aid, trade and cultural and social matters.

The South Pacific Commission, born in 1947, with the United Kingdom as one of its midwives, became a focal point for that discussion. With its headquarters in Noumea in the French territory of New Caledonia, and annual conferences alternating between Noumea and different island venues, the South Pacific Commission has developed into an important convention. Our own participation is much welcomed and exists by virtue not only of our historical association with the region, but through our current territorial interest in Pitcairn Island.

I have been fortunate enough to attend three South Pacific Commission conferences, two, in New Caledonia and the Cook Islands, as a Minister, and one last year on Tonga as the special delegate of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. On each occasion it gave me great pride to have two flags in front of me at the conference table: the Union flag and the flag of Pitcairn Island. I shall say more about Pitcairn in due course.

The major political point of focus for the region has been the South Pacific Forum. Meeting annually, again at different venues in the Pacific, the leaders of the South Pacific island states—including Australia and New Zealand—have developed an effective process of political discussion best designed to achieve their mutual prosperity and security. Over recent years, the value of the forum has been enhanced by its encouragement to Pacific rim countries and those with other Pacific interests to join a dialogue after the main forum meeting. Again, I have been privileged to take part in two of these forum dialogues—the first of its kind in 1989 in Kiribati and the second in 1990 in Vanuatu.

Both the forum and the commission greatly welcome our presence. Representation at ministerial level is something they value particularly highly. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an assurance that he will endeavour wherever possible to arrange for Ministers to attend both these meetings regularly in the future.

Two of the issues which have dominated discussions at past fora and in the subsequent dialogues have been drift net fishing and French nuclear testing. Drift net fishing by the Japanese, with the huge mono-filament nets literally hoovering up the contents of the ocean and taking far more by way of different types of sea creatures and birds than their main quarry, the albacore tuna, has been a matter of enormous concern. I was able on Her Majesty's Government's behalf to join in the chorus of protests at the forum of 1989 about the immense damage that Japan was doing with this fishing. Many of the islands' economies depend on fishing. Their concern was understandable. But the message went home and a moratorium was introduced. If the staunch views of the forum and the partners in the dialogue had not been so clearly expressed by nearly everyone concerned, such a decision might well not have been reached.

As to French nuclear testing, I have to say that our position has not been one which generally finds favour among the islanders. We have long expressed our view that we accept that testing is necessary, even if not desirable. Nevertheless, the international climate has altered somewhat since that view was last promulgated and it is a personal hope of mine that, notwithstanding the relevance of the French independent nuclear deterrent, even in the highly uncertain contemporary international scene, France might one day at least be able to agree to a moratorium.

As to the UK's position on the Treaty of Rarotonga declaring the South Pacific nuclear free zone and our decision in 1987 not to sign the protocols of that treaty, I am sure our position is correct. The posture of the South Pacific is understandable, but in reality I think impracticable for the greater good. It has always been my impression that the island states go along, albeit reluctantly, with our policy and accept the reasons for it.

These issues are sensitive in regional terms, but the South Pacific Forum has been a continuing platform for sensible and rational discussion. Whatever our difference of views may be, our participation has always been encouraged. The closeness of our relationship could never be maintained without the invaluable role played by our high commissioners and embassy within the region. We have representatives in six island states and non-resident accreditation to a further five. The size of our missions varies from what has in the past been literally a one-man band in Kiribati to a more substantial presence in Fiji. The latter is enhanced by the presence there of the British Development Department of the Pacific which is the focal point for the United Kingdom's aid to the region.

Having visited all our resident posts, I must pay tribute to the work they do to achieve such sound relationships between their host countries and ourselves. A posting to the South Pacific may sound like everyone's dream but the distances involved are enormous, travelling is not at all easy and the quality of life is very different from other posts in more accessible parts of the world. I think a very special kind of person is required to fulfil the tasks which our representatives undertake. That said, it is hardly surprising that all those who have been there nearly always seem to fall in love with the way of life in the South Pacific. I hope my noble friend can give me an assurance that even in these times of financial stringency no post will be closed. To try to retain influence and interest with fewer posts would be misunderstood. It probably would not work and it would be most unlikely to save worthwhile sums of money.

As regards the British Development Department of the Pacific, I know that certain changes are taking effect to make our aid effort more closely attuned to the needs of specific countries. BDDP will close and the staff associated will be attached to our posts throughout the region. I was encouraged to be told on my most recent visit in October that this was well understood and accepted by the islanders, but I think it would be helpful if my noble friend could spell out precisely what the new arrangements will be and how our aid effort will be enhanced by the changes.

Broadly speaking, I believe our aid effort in the region is effective. It is certainly valued by those who receive it. One country which is of growing significance is Papua New Guinea. This country is particularly renowned for its mineral reserves and has, accordingly, a large and growing economic base. Although the Commonwealth Development Corporation has some programmes taking place there, as indeed it does elsewhere in the region, it strikes me that Her Majesty's Government could perhaps review the position on a bilateral aid programme to Papua New Guinea. Such a move would enhance the opportunities for PNG to develop her full potential. Although relations between us are very close, I am certain that anything we can do further to support PNG would be to our mutual benefit.

If I left one burning ambition unfulfilled in my period as a Minister responsible for that part of the world it was my inability to visit Pitcairn Island. It is almost impossible to believe that so far as I am aware no ministerial visit has ever been arranged to Pitcairn Island. This remote territory some 3,200 miles north east of New Zealand and about the same distance west of Chile, with around 50 inhabitants, is the platform for much of our historical and contemporary involvement in the region.

The Governor of Pitcairn, who is also our High Commissioner for New Zealand and resides in Wellington, is able to make visits from time to time. Indeed the islands are administered by part of his office and for their size they have a thriving economy based on the sale of stamps. Of course I understand the practicalities against making regular visits. We might not see my noble friend for many weeks should he venture upon such a trek. However, I do not think we should continue to use Pitcairn Island as a lever for part of our enthusiasm and interest for the South Pacific without at least paying direct personal acknowledgement to its importance and our influential position through it as a wholly dependent territory. Its people's affection for the Queen and closeness to the UK are legendary. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend might indicate whether he foresees the possibility of such a visit. If he does not, I should perhaps tell him that my enthusiasm remains undiminished and my imagination for ways of getting there almost boundless.

In summary and in conclusion, I must say I have been immensely struck by the enthusiasm which the South Pacific island states show for our continued interest. On our part, continuity, a close understanding of the region's views and perceptions, the appearance of familiar faces and a genuine love of the diverse cultural differences which exist between the different island groups are all important factors. The scope for diminished interest leading to less stability and even to undesirable influences emerging seems to me to be real enough. But it is in the spirit of what has become for the UK a renewed interest in the South Pacific that I look forward to what my noble friend can tell us about the Government's policy towards this important and particularly friendly part of the world.

8.18 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, the noble Lord has achieved his purpose already in that he has given some publicity to the South Pacific islands and has raised our awareness of them. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, will be able to add to what has already been said. Two of the South Pacific islands are, of course, Australia and New Zealand. Even though we have practically reached the annual anniversary of Australia Day, which falls this weekend, it is not possible to initiate a debate on those two islands.

I was very interested in the noble Lord's remarks about Pitcairn Island. A tribute needs to be paid to at least one High Commissioner from New Zealand who travelled all the way to Pitcairn Island in a small yacht. The noble Lord was right to wish to encourage travel to Pitcairn Island. Some of the women who are skilled at yacht racing might be able to undertake such a venture.

I wish to speak briefly about Papua New Guinea. The company I am involved with, RTZ, has a principal subsidiary, CRA, which has developed a magnificent mine there. It appeared that the mine was well suited to the needs of the people of Papua New Guinea and to the needs of the government there and the shareholders in the mine. It is a tragedy that for the time being all that has been lost. I do not know of a solution but I should like to put on record the achievement of CRA in doing such an excellent job in Papua New Guinea, and in Bougainville in the North Solomons in particular. It is a wonderful country. It is fascinating. In my youth it was an area for exploration among cannibals. Now it has grown to a large extent into a modern state. Unfortunately, like other modern states it is prone to disagreements and, alas, in Papua New Guinea the Bougainville copper mine is no longer functioning. I hope that it will come back into operation soon.

I congratulate the noble Lord. I am not sure that he does not do a better job as an individual peer than as a Minister. To send peers to islands is a good use of Members of this House. I was sent to the Falkland Islands, which are rather different from the South Pacific islands. I hope that there may be a team of Members of the House of Lords who will make visits and represent Her Majesty and Parliament in those islands.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Auckland

My Lords, some people may wonder why at eight o'clock on a Wednesday evening your Lordships' House should be debating the South Pacific when there are so many problems in the European Community, the Middle East, Ireland and Eastern Europe. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has given ample reasons to those who may study his excellent speech. He has demonstrated the importance of those islands. They have rather glamorous sounding names since their independence—Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Kiribati. The Gilbert Islands and the New Hebrides sounded very much more formal.

I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the Anglo-South Pacific Group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The only country which I have visited is Fiji, which, alas, is temporarily out of the Commonwealth, as your Lordships know. I went there with my wife in 1971 on holiday en route to a very hard working official visit to Auckland in New Zealand. What a wonderful country it is and how essential it is for Fiji to return to the Commonwealth. I hope that after the elections which are to take place next month that may be achieved.

Last year I went to New Zealand on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to the Waitangi celebrations. I had hoped to go via Tonga and visit our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association office there. However, as some of your Lordships may know, getting from Tonga to Australia or New Zealand is not easy. There are two or three flights a week but, unfortunately, despite the marvellous efforts of the High Commissioner for Tonga here in planning a route, it was not possible for me to obtain a flight in time to link up with my parliamentary colleagues in New Zealand. If I had arrived two days late having been, in their view, disporting myself in Tonga, I should not have been popular.

However, I have two memories of Tongans. The first is of 1953, when I was in the Territorial Army and at the coronation of our present Queen helped to line the route in Pall Mall. Your Lordships may recall that it was a very wet and windy day and very cold. I remember the wonderful sight of the much beloved Queen Salote in her open carriage, with the rain pouring down, being cheered by the crowd. Her marvellous achievements alone have put Tonga—the Friendly Islands—on the map. That has made me particularly anxious to visit those lovely islands.

My other memory of Tonga is of a "Songs of Praise" broadcast of Christmas carols on Christmas Day two years ago. There was two-way traffic between St. Martin in the Fields and Tonga. Those who know how well the Fijians and Tongans can sing will know what a marvellous programme that was.

If we do not pay more attention to those islands others may well do so. I am not as knowledgeable about the islands as my noble friend so I speak with some diffidence, but, although they may be a long way away, the islanders are extremely friendly towards this country. On behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I sometimes have the opportunity of meeting Ministers from Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Kiribati when they come here. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur and my noble friend the Minister, who have visited those countries, will know better than I the enormous affection of the people of the islands for this country. I hope that we can do something to reciprocate.

One difficulty is the problem of travel. I know that Her Majesty's Government cannot do a great deal about that, but the fact that one cannot get easily from the islands to Australia or New Zealand is a real problem. I am told that there are moves afoot to do something positive—perhaps in the form of additional Air New Zealand or Qantas flights. There is an opportunity for tourism. The islands are beautiful and there are a great many opportunities for swimming. If it was possible to have flights to the islands and to provide hotels at a reasonable price and of good quality enormous opportunities could be opened up in the islands. I daresay that a number of Australians and New Zealanders already go to the islands but even they have great problems with travel.

I recently attended a reception at the Foreign Office at which I met a gentleman from Cable & Wireless. The company is doing a great deal of work in the islands, in particular in Tonga, where I believe it has a franchise up to 2000 AD. I have not given my noble friend notice of this question, but can he comment on the opportunities available for other companies to work in the islands and possibly to set up companies? We do a great deal of business with Fiji, despite the enormous problems in that island at present. I believe that there are opportunities to help in the Solomon Islands too. I wonder whether anything is being done to help with agriculture there and whether any teams have gone out to provide advice. However, perhaps the islands are limited as to what they can grow.

I end by thanking my noble friend for having initiated the debate. We rightly spend a great deal of time discussing Europe but, as I said last year, I believe that the Commonwealth is of major importance. In the international sphere the islands are of growing importance and the debate is timely.

8.30 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton, in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for tabling for debate a region in the world which I do not recollect having discussed previously in this House. I congratulate him, as the Minister then responsible, on his contribution towards the policy in that region. The debate will give the Minister an opportunity to outline government policy on various aspects, including the political developments in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and other island states. It will also give him an opportunity to set out the Government's overseas aid commitments and objectives in relation to the South Pacific.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said about Fiji. It has always been a loyal member of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, one of the main developments that caused concern in the South Pacific was the coup in Fiji in May 1987. Troops commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka overthrew a multi-racial coalition government headed by the Fijian Labour Party's Mr. Bavadra. That government, comprising the multi-racial Fijian Labour Party and the Indo-Fijian National Federation Party, was of historical importance. It was the first time since Fiji's independence in 1970 that the Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities shared political powers as equal partners.

Following the coup, Colonel Rabuka declared Fiji a republic and withdrew the country from the Commonwealth. In 1990 he imposed a new constitution which enshrined Fijian dominance of government and gave sweeping powers to the Fijian president and to the great council chiefs. It is most sad and worrying that the new constitution shows evidence of racism and discrimination. For instance, it prohibits Indo-Fijians from becoming president or prime minister and bans them from holding a wide range of other high public offices. It also imposes racially-based employment policies which guarantee ethnic Fijians preferential treatment in appointments to all levels of the Civil Service. Consequently, the ethnic Fijians, who comprise about 47 per cent. of the population, currently receive about 75 per cent. of all new Civil Service appointments. Such discrimination has extended to all areas of civil and economic life within Fiji.

Opposition groups have attempted to publicise and campaign against the gross inequity of the system. Since the coup many have been subjected to harassment and imprisonment. The case of Dr. Singh, a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and a civil rights campaigner, has been brought to my attention. He was the subject of abduction and torture.

Will the Minister outline the Government's latest assessment of the situation in Fiji with respect to both human and civil rights? In the light of the Harare Accord linking overseas aid provision to a country's human rights record, will the Government review their aid policy to Fiji and their provision of training for members of that country's armed forces?

As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, elections in Fiji are expected to take place in May this year. However, in view of the unacceptable constitution, the Fijian Labour Party has decided to boycott the polls. Will the Minister say whether the Government's proposal put forward in May 1990 and confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, still stands? It was proposed to help Fiji to work out a constitution for its communities to consider. Will the British Government respond if there is a request from any of the Opposition parties in Fiji to monitor the elections?

I am not saying that there is any question of Britain interfering in Fiji's internal affairs. I merely wish to know what information the Minister can give to the House on those two issues. Can he also say how the rest of the Commonwealth countries regard Fiji's possible wish to return to the Commonwealth and whether there have been any discussions among Commonwealth countries on that subject?

There have been political upheavals in other island states in the South Pacific. I wish to comment briefly on one further issue and to ask the Minister about Papua New Guinea and its conflict with the secessionist movement of Bougainville Island. I believe that the situation there as a result of the blockade is most serious. Does the Minister have any information about the peace process that was being carried out and the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Bougainville Island?

I wish to speak briefly of Belau. It may appear strange that a small group of islands consisting of some 500 square miles of land and a population of only 15,000 has been the victim of political destabilisation. In 1947 Belau was placed in trust by the UN to the US administered trust territory of the Pacific Islands. Under the terms of that trusteeship the United States was obliged to assist the islands to make the transition to eventual self government. However, the United States neglected the development aspect of its trusteeship while at the same time turning the Pacific into a nuclear test site, which has left many of the islands uninhabitable.

Fearing the threat of such tests to the environment, 92 per cent. of Belau's inhabitants approved the world's first nuclear-free constitution. However, pressure remained on Belau to overturn that constitution and to approve a compact of free association. I understand that women tribal elders refused to accept the compact and successfully challenged its legality. They won the reinstatement of the nuclear-free constitution.

I understand that the people of Belau want some form of association with the United States. However, they would prefer to keep nuclear warships out of their waters, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It is possible that the United States may revise its strategy in the South Pacific in the light of the disintegration of the USSR. That will have definite implications for the people of Belau. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will comment on the current situation between the United States and Belau.

Lastly, there is little doubt that the South Pacific island states depend on the provision of overseas aid. There is visible evidence of that which comes from the UNICEF country programme recommendations to the Pacific Island region, which show some worrying statistics. They show that child mortality is a grave problem. The figure for infant mortality, although it involves a wide range throughout the region, at the highest may be 120 deaths per 1,000 live births. That is a high level.

A recent World Bank report highlights that, despite high levels of aid, economic growth has been poor over the past decade and seems to have made little impact on sustainable development in the region. Against that background the UK aid programme is in a state of transition. I should be grateful if the noble Earl would say something about whether our aid programmes to the South Pacific in terms of strategy, objectives and funding, are under review and in what way he believes that they will change. Perhaps he will also inform us whether our aid policy includes any projects designed to address health and environmental problems caused by nuclear testing in the South Pacific to protect the region from further ecological degradation.

The US and the UK conducted extensive nuclear tests in this region prior to their signing the partial test ban treaty in 1969. It would make a great impact if the French ceased their tests too.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for bringing up this subject of great interest. I look forward to the response of the Minister. I am extremely sorry that I did not give the noble Earl warning of the points that I wished raised. However, since they are of a general nature I hope that he will be able to respond.

8.42 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for giving the House this opportunity to discuss British policy towards a region which is not often in the news but with which Britain still has a valued relationship. It is useful from time to time for the House to reflect upon areas of our foreign policy which usually receive little publicity, yet nevertheless have their significance.

It might be helpful if I clarify what I mean by the island states of the South Pacific. I mean the countries and territories in the region stretching from the Mariana Islands in the north to Tonga in the south, and from Palau in the west, to Pitcairn in the east. Like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I include Papua New Guinea.

The Government's policy towards these island states is to continue to take an active interest in them and to maintain a commitment towards them. As recently as 15 years ago Britain administered a substantial part of the region. Since then all but a very few territories have become independent. But we still have a presence and remain engaged in the region.

Britain's contacts with the South Pacific go back to the early 18th century and have continued uninterruptedly for over 200 years. Pitcairn, our only remaining dependent territory in the region, celebrated its bicentenary in 1990.

Our involvement began with the voyages of the explorer/navigators, Wallis, Cook and Bligh. It developed through trading and missionary activity, until we gradually assumed responsibility for the administration of much of the region.

Political evolution during the 1960s drew on British political traditions and institutions, as well as the representative nature of many of the island societies. It led to the achievement of full sovereignty and independence in the 1970s and early 1980s without conflict for the great majority.

As a result of our long-standing involvement, a substantial common heritage has built up. It has left us with many historical, institutional and cultural links, and a certain residual emotional attachment to the region. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur obviously has that attachment, and so have I.

As I have said, most of the South Pacific island states were formerly UK dependencies or protectorates. English is their most universal language. Their parliamentary systems owe much to Westminster. Eight of the island states are members of the Commonwealth. Three of them are realms. A fourth, Fiji, would like to re-establish its close links with the Crown, but I shall say more about Fiji later. At times our respective armed services have served alongside each other and developed ties of friendship. It has proved impossible to be interested and involved in the South Pacific without making many firm friends among the island peoples themselves.

So, although the British role in the South Pacific has shrunk since the islands became independent, we have nevertheless maintained an interest and a corresponding presence in the region. More specifically we run a significant bilateral aid programme for the South Pacific island states as well as contributing to multilateral programmes. We maintain six resident diplomatic missions there—more than any other former metropolitan power. Those missions are in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, the Solomons, Tonga and Kiribati. We have non-resident relations with five others, including two new South Pacific states which we recognised last year, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur 1, too, with to pay tribute of the highest quality to our high commissioners, ambassadors and their staff.

We are active members of the South Pacific Commission, which we helped to found 45 years ago, contributing a significant part of its core budget. We participate at ministerial level in the South Pacific forum's annual dialogue with out-of-area countries. We are a major regular participant in disaster relief operations, most recently following the damage caused by Cyclone Val in Western Samoa where a troop of the Queen's Ghurka Engineers from Hong Kong is doing a very useful job.

There is considerable British private sector investment in the region, most notably in Papua New Guinea, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knows so much. United Kingdom investment is currently running at £500 million and, if all goes well, is set to rise to £2 billion in the next few years. Like the noble Lord, we hope for an early resolution of the country's problems.

But while it is natural, in view of our many long-standing ties, that Britain should remain involved, those ties in themselves are not the reason for doing so. We remain involved because it is in our interest to do so. It is in our interest that the South Pacific, adjoining as it does the economically dynamic Asia-Pacific region, should remain secure and stable, as it has been generally since independence.

It is in our interest, as a country which wishes to see democratic systems adopted worldwide, that the South Pacific states should continue to make a success of democracy, as most of them have done since independence. It helps that the region happens to share our political values and orientation. That obviously suits us and we want to ensure that it continues.

United Kingdom investment in the region, which I mentioned earlier, is another interest. We want to support and protect United Kingdom investment, and a good way to do that is to help to encourage stable conditions.

The South Pacific also forms part of our regular exchanges with Australia and New Zealand. They welcome our involvement, which helps to spread responsibility for providing advice and technical co-operation and to balance the interest being shown by other out-of-area countries.

There has been some increase in outside interest in the region, both political and commercial, in the last five years. The Japanese are keen to build up a positive image. They have increased aid flows and are also investing commercially. The Chinese and Taiwanese are also active. Since 1987 Fiji has sought to cultivate relations with Malaysia. From the other side of the Pacific, the United States is showing increased interest since President Bush met South Pacific leaders in Hawaii in 1990.

Turning from the reasons for, to the objectives of, our policy, those are to help to consolidate democracy in the region and to strengthen like-minded attitudes there. To that end we seek to promote the well-being and development of the island states. The main instrument for the pursuit of those objectives is our bilateral aid programme and the careful attention we give to its planning and management. We have, and will continue to have, an active aid programme in the Pacific, focused at the country level on Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Fiji, Tuvalu and Tonga. We also support a number of projects with regional organisations, the biggest being a programme of staffing assistance and training at the University of the South Pacific.

Our government to government aid programme is presently running at about £12 million a year. With our contributions to multilateral programmes, the annual flow of UK funds to the region is about £35 million. Although this may not seem a large sum it is very big per head of local population. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Corporation is an important ingredient of Britain's overall assistance to the region. In the five years to 1990, the CDC invested over £60 million in the Pacific, with Papua New Guinea receiving the largest contribution. The CDC has investments in natural resources, economic infrastructure and development finance.

The aim of our bilateral aid programme is sustainable development. Our planning and management of the programme lays stress on the following points among others: attention to the effectiveness of our aid; the need for policy dialogue with recipients; institutional development with a sectoral approach; making development compatible with concern for the environment; strengthening the private sector; co-ordination with other donors.

At this point perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lord Auckland. I can tell him that the United Kingdom continues to support commercial agricultural development in the Pacific through the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which is funded by the ODA. The CDC has supported development of coffee and cocoa estates in Vanuatu and forestry in the Solomons.

The majority of our aid is spent on providing skilled British staff in a variety of fields, from meteorology to animal health, and from the judiciary to geological survey. Training for local people, also in a wide variety of skills, is another key element of the programme. To make this technical co-operation more effective we are aiming to concentrate on a smaller number of sectors and institutions in each country, selected so that our effort and that of host governments contributes towards clearly identified objectives aimed at long-term sustainability.

A meeting of aid recipients and donors organised by the South Pacific Forum at the beginning of last year concluded that, although most Pacific countries receive substantial volumes of aid, standards of living have declined in the past 10 years. We have therefore been looking hard at the planning and management of our aid programme in the region to ensure that we learn the lessons of the past and build on success. We are, for example, paying more attention to the effectiveness of aid. We are also giving greater priority to policy dialogue with recipients. "Policy dialogue" means being sure, before we commit aid funds, that there are policies in place within which aid is likely to be effective and that we have, together with host governments, identified the key development objectives and the constraints to their achievement.

The search for more effective ways of helping to achieve sustainable institutional development is leading to a gradual shift away from the simple provision of British manpower and the supply of scholarships. Instead we are seeking to adopt a more integrated approach, based on a rigorous joint review of the factors preventing the institutions from recruiting and retaining their own staff and of the long-term sustainability of current structures and service levels. Unless these issues are tackled, providing British staff can be counter-productive, masking the need for adjustment and sapping the will of local people to tackle their problems.

These new arrangements will cut out duplication in existing structures and will be more responsive to the needs of the region because they will include a substantial presence on the ground in the main recipient countries. This will allow increased discussion and dialogue at the project design stage and a more intensive management input during their implementation. This should increase the quality of our aid, and I am glad to say to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that I think that the change that we have instituted in BDDP has been to the benefit of the area and has been received as such.

Other shifts in emphasis are that we now prefer to help with the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing buildings rather than to build new ones. We hope to emphasise in-country and on-the-job training for junior and middle level staff. We will use more regional experts, and institutions, in our aid programmes rather than bringing in so many people from Britain. We will seek to strengthen the private sector and to enhance the capacity of nongovernmental organisations.

One of our current projects is helping the South Pacific Forum Secretariat to undertake a study of the factors which may be undermining the effectiveness of current programmes of technical co-operation, and to identify guidelines which may help the island states and their donor partners to plan for more effective programmes in the future.

We attach the highest priority to this process because it is increasingly clear that traditional patterns of aid in the region are failing, and failing conspicuously, to underpin sustainable growth. If donors provide aid which underpins high levels of consumption and welfare provision without helping the island states to become more self-sufficient in the longer-term, then we are simply reinforcing the tendency to aid-dependency.

We also attach a high priority to co-ordination among aid donors, welcoming and encouraging the opportunities for co-ordination offered by UNDP sponsored discussions and by regional bodies like the South Pacific Forum secretariat. Some recipient governments have organised single country meetings with their aid donors. These have proved most effective. We hope the practice will spread and become a regular habit.

I have dwelt on our aid programme because it is the core of our policy. Aside from the bilateral aid programme there are no other major instruments of policy available to us for the South Pacific. The island states are far too far away for us to have day-to-day business with them.

However, my noble friend Lord Auckland mentioned one area that is important to us, and that is trade links. Trade links, though not negligible, are modest. At 5.5 million people, the market is a small one. Nevertheless our diplomatic missions do engage in trade promotion and commercial work. The bulk of UK exports are in fact re-exports from Australia and New Zealand and get subsumed into our trade statistics for those countries. Direct UK exports total about £45 million a year. I was glad that my noble friend had the opportunity to discuss some of the trade and industry that we are doing in the South Pacific. I would say to him that there are opportunities, and I hope that British business will take them.

The Commonwealth link is significant and provides opportunities for us to lend support to the region. South Pacific island states account for one-sixth of Commonwealth membership. The Commonwealth has done useful work on the security problems of small states, recognising that micro states are particularly vulnerable to subversion and exploitation by unscrupulous outsiders. Recently the Commonwealth Secretariat has offered its services in the search for a solution to the Bougainville secession problem in Papua New Guinea. Against this background there are various miscellaneous ways in which we give the South Pacific as much attention as we can, within our priorities and available resources.

I have already mentioned our active participation in the South Pacific Commission and in the annual dialogues with the South Pacific Forum. We like to support these leading regional organisations, to encourage regional co-operation. We try to be represented at ministerial level at major meetings in the region, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Glenarthur on their importance. I have been to the region three times since assuming my present responsibilities visiting Fiji, Tonga, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Guam and the Federated States of Micronesia. My immediate predecessors also paid regular visits, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for acting on behalf of the Government at the South Pacific Commission in Tonga last year.

We aim to make the most of our scholarship and sponsored visitor schemes, to expose South Pacific islanders to the British experience and British institutions. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office runs a Commonwealth Fund for small states using residual British Phosphates Commission money which, among other things, is used to pay for an office in New York for the Solomon Islands and Western Samoan missions to the United Nations and also to pay for young officials from the island states to attend training courses in the United Kingdom. We have Heads of Missions Gift Schemes to enable our High Commissioners to make presentations of useful equipment.

But after our aid programme, our other major continuing commitment is our six resident diplomatic missions in the region. To give aid intelligently to the island states we have to have an understanding of them. Through our missions we aim to establish good working relations with those involved in the governmental, private and voluntary sectors in those countries. I should mention here that the Fiji Embassy and Papua New Guinea and Tongan High Commissions in London provide us with additional immediate points of contact.

Resource costs of our diplomatic operation are very modest. In return we secure the continuation of a favourable situation in which we are generally well regarded in the area, make an effective contribution, and enjoy some influence. The island states are friendly and generally supportive. A number of them supported us during the Falklands conflict and over the Gulf war. They have been helpful to us at the United Nations where seven of them are members.

All that makes for an excellent relationship, which throws up few problems for us. There are no real bones of contention and only very few points of difference.

The main such difference concerns the South Pacific nuclear free zone. The island states would like us to sign the protocols to their nuclear-free treaty—the Treaty of Raratonga—and join in condemnation of nuclear testing in the region. We recognise and understand South Pacific anxieties in this matter. However, as a nuclear power which believes in nuclear deterence we accept the need to test nuclear weapons in order to maintain the effectiveness of the deterrent. That prevents us from acceding to the South Pacific's wishes and subscribing to the protocols.

In practice, as publicly stated, we remain ready as a matter of policy to respect several of the intentions of the island states in the Raratonga treaty. For example, we have no intention of testing, manufacturing or basing nuclear weapons on our only dependency in the region, Pitcairn, nor of conducting nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The island states accept that.

We understand and sympathise with other specific anxieties of the region, also environmental in nature. The South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and its associated convention has an invaluable role to play in protecting the region's environment. We fully support the programme. We have signed the SPREP Convention on behalf of Pitcairn and are now working actively towards ratification. Meanwhile, we are contributing financially to several SPREP projects and will continue to do so. We endorse the recent decision to extend the programme's scope; for example, to look at the regional implications of biodiversity and climate change. The latter, and its effect on sea-levels, bears on the very survival of many South Pacific islands.

We are also conscious of the strong South Pacific worry about drift-net fishing. We attended, on Pitcairn's behalf, the 1989 Wellington meeting which led to the conclusion by states in the region of the Wellington Convention prohibiting fishing with long drift-nets in the area. We supported the aims of the convention. For a time our position on accession was complicated by international discussions on an acceptable definition of long drift-nets. However, we are now ready to sign the Wellington Convention on behalf of Pitcairn, subject to Pitcairn's approval. We and our European Community partners have fully supported the United Nations General Assembly resolutions of the past three years on the subject, including that passed only recently on 20th December. The Community had already decided to end large-scale drift-net fishing in northern seas, as recommended by the UNGA Resolution. I am glad to say that in the past 18 months long drift-net fishing in the South Pacific has virtually stopped.

I referred earlier to Pitcairn, our only remaining dependency in the area. We assume full responsibility for the territory's administration. It has first call on our aid funds for infrastructure projects, repairs and improvements. We recently provided £20,000 for satellite communications. Other projects in the pipeline are replacement electricity generators and work on the jetty. Any further decline in the island's present population of around 60 would be worrying, raising questions about long-term viability. We are very conscious about the desirability of a Ministerial visit.

Like my noble friend Lord Glenarthur, I should be keen to visit Pitcairn. However, the logistical problems are formidable. I am in correspondence with my noble friend Lord Arran at the Ministry of Defence at the moment on this very matter.

As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, reminded us, one of the more sensitive elements in our policy towards the region is our relations with Fiji since the 1987 coups. We were saddened by the coups, which caused a break in Fiji's parliamentary tradition and led to the lapsing of its Commonwealth membership.

That led us to examine our policy. We concluded that censure and ostracism would serve no useful purpose. We decided to maintain more or less normal relations with Fiji while making it clear that we would like to see an early return to parliamentary government there under a constitution acceptable to a majority of all the peoples of the country. We took the view that Fiji's political crisis was primarily an internal matter for its own citizens to resolve. We continue to apply that policy, giving advice when asked for and urging reconciliation between the communities and encouraging movement towards democratic government. I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, would wish the U.K. Government to be more interfering. I believe that to be totally wrong. At the same time we stand ready to take up human rights violations with the Fiji Government as necessary, and I have done so myself.

It is well known that Fiji much regrets the severing of its direct links with the Crown—a consequence of its declaring itself a republic—and would like to see them restored. But a necessary first step is for Fiji to rejoin the Commonwealth.

I make the Government's position clear. They would welcome Fiji's return to the Commonwealth. At the moment Fiji is not formally seeking re-admission. When it does it will be for the Commonwealth as a whole to decide.

Elections in Fiji are planned for the first half of this year under a controversial and contested new constitution introduced in 1990, but no specific date has yet been fixed and target dates have been postponed more than once. If those elections take place in a constructive and orderly way the restoration of elected parliamentary government should prove a positive step. We shall have to see what happens. Meanwhile we enjoy good relations with Fiji, as indeed we do with all the island states.

We intend to continue to maintain our interest and involvement in the region. We will go on doing our bit to promote sustainable economic and social development. We will continue to seek to encourage regional co-operation among the island states as a source of strength and as the best means to pursue their common interests. And we will keep up our contribution to the promotion of good government in the region so that the stability which it has enjoyed since independence may continue and whatever social tensions it may face in the future can be resolved within its democratic structures.