.1075
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
do not wish to discuss the Falklands campaign. We all made speeches on the subject. However, we must not just look at the islands and the future of the islanders, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington will agree is of paramount importance, but at the wider context of the whole future of the south Atlantic. We may find an international solution, without in any way disclaiming our rights or sovereignty, in the interests of the development of the vast resources which exist in the south Atlantic. Those resources can possibly be developed with modern technology. I do not wish to bring politics into this subject, because my hon. Friend deliberately avoided introducing any political background.
Our military strategy has changed, rightly or wrongly, since the days of Suez. The denial of our use of the South African base at Simonstown, the build-up of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean and the invasion of the Falkland Islands give us much food for thought. I am not going to discuss whether the use of Ascension Island is right or wrong, because I know that I shall incur the displeasure of the hon. Member for West Lothian, but Ascension Island was essential if the Falklands campaign was to be successful. Many of our dependencies may be of great strategic value.
As for Gibraltar, Spain must realise--whatever its internal difficulties-that in the end, remembering the build-up of the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, the only powers capable of combating such forces are Great Britain and the United States. Therefore, we have to consider not only the future of the islanders, which is paramount they wish to remain British but the facilities in the area that we will need for our naval forces if we become involved in a dispute with the Soviet Union. It is also in the interest of Spain's defence. The build-up of the Soviet navy in the Mediterranean has caused me and many of my colleagues great anxiety.
When considering the future of our island dependen- cies, the paramount issue is the wishes of the islanders, but we must also bear in mind the strategic advantages of those territories to our general defence policy. At present, NATO is confined to Europe, but its influence will probably be extended in future. The help that Britain gives its dependencies will not only benefit them, but may strengthen our defence policy and make sure that we have bases in the right parts of the world.
10.51 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on his choice of subject, because it is important that the House has the opportunity to discuss that important matter. however, my congratulations do not extend to the wording of the motion, which advocates the use of force, which, I concede, may be necessary, and a closer association with our dependent territories, on the lines of our relationship with the Isle of Man.
That wording limits the value of the debate, although it was curious that the hon. Member for Orpington did not highlight those distinctive features of the motion. The issues raised in the motion are important and the hon. Gentleman has every right to advocate his proposed solution, but I should have been happier if he had tabled the motion earlier. We saw it for the first time only yesterday.
I shall concentrate on general issues affecting our dependencies. They have not been discussed in the House
Dependent Territories
1076
for many years and it is high time that they were. I understand that at least until recently, and perhaps even currently, the dependencies are dealt with in the Hong Kong general department of the Foreign Office. At one stage, even the Falkland Islands were dealt with in that department.
The issues affecting Hong Kong and Gibraltar are separate from those of our other dependencies, whatever legal status may be involved, and I shall confine my remarks to those other dependencies, which, no doubt, are grouped together under the title "general".
A feature of post-war years has been the absorption by the Foreign Office of a number of new functions. I suppose that the origins of modern diplomacy are to be found in the inner circle of European capitals in the early years of the 19th century, based on French as the international language, and the habits and customs developed in Europe towards the then narrow international sphere have spread throughout the world and are generally accepted. That was the origin and core of our Foreign Office. In those years we also had Her Majesty's consular service dealing with an associated, but different, range of matters. Those responsibilities were absorbed by the Foreign Office. The distinctive functions of the former Commonwealth Relations Office have also been absorbed by the Foreign Office, as have those of the colonial administrators, of whom the hon. Member for Orpington was one, and the Colonial Office.
More recently, given our proper emphasis on trade and commerce, many of our foreign representatives have had to be versed in those matters, and no career diplomat can be considered for promotion unless he has passing knowledge of that subject. Therefore, trade and commerce issues have been absorbed by the Foreign Office. Finally, in these days of the North-South dialogue and the Brandt report, the Foreign Office deals with what is generally called development. Indeed, the Ministry of Overseas Development has been absorbed by the Foreign Office.
I do not disagree that all those matters are associated in some ways, but the problems involved in all the functions that the Foreign Office has to perform create some disadvantages. The tiny remaining element of the Colonial Office--the responsibilities for our dependen- cies-is overwhelmed by some of the other functions that career diplomats and Ministers have to perform. It is only when fire breaks out that emphasis is placed on our dependencies, whether we have to send a task force, the SAS and the Royal Marines or the good old London bobby.
There have been some even more fundamental changes. The transition from empire to Commonwealth between 1945 and 1965, before the winds of change started to blow, was a halcyon time for Commonwealth co- operation. Many hon. Members who were here at the time will confirm that the feel of the House for international affairs, particularly those relating to the English-speaking Commonwealth, was different in those days.
Sir Bernard Braine: Too true.
Mr. Spearing: Foreign Office Ministers have been waylaid and pushed on to new constitutional paths, which are becoming increasingly controversial.
The hon. Member for Orpington spoke about colonies and colonial status. On a world scale, our remaining dependencies are colonial in the old sense. The hon.
553
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.