11
"L
1079
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
dependent or notionally independent, have the same social mena. The position is perhaps summed up in a phrase that I heard when I went to Hong Kong-I am breaking my rule, but Hong Kong is an interesting example when I was told "Don't worry what the Government say; find out what they are saying and doing at the Jockey Club." I do not know whether that is accurate, but it expresses a tendency that we find throughout the world.
Therefore, the political volatility of any of these small countries will largely depend on the degree to which the de facto establishment and the de jure Government and constitution are in alignment or whether they are distinct or quarrelling. When something goes wrong, the police have to go in, or the warships are sent, or we hear curious buccaneering stories in the newspapers about people leaning out of windows with shotguns. We do not necessarily know very much about what is going on in some of these places over which the Union Jack flies. It is not until the pot boils over that somebody says “Oh dear me, we should know something more about this."
This is relevant because of an anomaly in some of our dependent territories, in particular, Bermuda. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) asked in a written question for an outline of the constitutional position of the remaining dependencies. The answer provided a useful table, particularly for this debate. To my surprise, I find that Bermuda, which has 55,000 people, has no elected members. The answer says:
"Elected members: None.
Non-elected members: Eleven (five appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Premier, three on the advice of Leader of Opposition, and three in the Governor's discretion)." [Official Report, 27 October 1982, Vol. 29, c. 423.)
Mr. Moate: Did the hon. Gentleman refer to Bermuda? If he did, may I suggest to him that he probably has incorrect information? I assure him that Bermuda has just had an election and has a powerful and rigorous elected assembly.
Mr. Spearing: I am interested to hear that. It may be that I have misread the Hansard quotation or that there is a mistake in the printing. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has corrected me. When I read this information, I was surprised. Perhaps I should have been a little more careful in checking even the accuracy of Hansard.
Until 1974, Grenada was a dependency. The circumstances of Grenada will not necessarily be repeated, but many hon. Members will remember that in 1974, when the Bill to give Grenada independence was passing through the House, there was great discussion about whether it should go through. I suspect that it went through because it was introduced by one Government at the end of their term of office and taken up by another Government at the beginning of theirs. There was considerable concern about what was happening on Grenada at the time independence was granted. Since the change of Government on the island two or three years ago, we know a little more about it. It is a remarkable place and, so far as I know, it is the only Marxist monarchy in the history of the world, and may be the last. It is an interesting example of how flexible Commonwealth and Westminster insititutions or modified Westminster institutions-can be. I do not suggest that they are to everyone's
$55
Dependent Territories
1080
satisfaction, but I think the hon. Member for Orpington will agree that, at least in outline, my discription is
correct.
Another territory which is a dependency, de facto and de jure, is the Turks and Caicos Islands. The islands have been the subject of two Select Committee reports and a recent debate about the airfield. I wish to refer in particular to a recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee in paragraph 54 of its report for the Session 1980-81. Under the heading
"British responsibilities to dependent territories" the report states:
"Your Committee recommend that when FCO/ODA come to a conclusion about the best course of development for a particular dependency such as their conclusion that tourism was the way forward for the Turks and Caicos Islands - then they should prepare a strategy determing the best way that the economy could be developed and how aid funds might be used to maximum effect. This would then provide them with a framework for assessing any project proposals that came to them."
One of the advantages of Select Committee reports is that the Government must reply to them. When a Select Committee makes a specific recommendation, the Government must reply. I shall read the Government's reply to that recommendation:
"As the Committee are aware, it is not only the FCO/ODA which came to the conclusion that tourism was the best way forward for the Turks and Caicos Islands. That conclusion was reached as long ago as 1971 by independent consultants." The footnote to the reply points out that that conclusion was reached by the Shankland Cox report. That conclusion has also been endorsed by successive Turks and Caicos Island Governments, but the Government reply does not answer that specific recommendation.
Before the investigation into the Turks and Caicos Islands hotel development I should have assumed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had a running strategy for the economic development of all our dependencies, but it is clear, at least to me, from the reply to that recommendation that, first, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not have such a strategy- incidentally, the Shankland Cox report was not an overall economic report; Shankland Cox is a well-known firm of town planners and consultants, particularly for the leisure trade — and, secondly, that there was not an overall report on which projects could be based. Moreover, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not appear to have an intention to develop an economic strategy for each of our remaining territories. I hope that the Minister will comment on this and tell us whether that is so, because if there is no such strategy, there should be.
Finally, I refer to our responsibilities to Our dependencies. I think that the hon. Member for Orpington will agree that one of the places to which we should pay particular attention is St. Helena. Unlike the Falkland Islands, which have one airport and may have another. St. Helena has no airport. We need a new visible status for our remaining dependencies so that the stigma of the past can be expunged and so that the United Kingdom can be seen to be playing a constructive role in the development and prosperity of those territories. That is important because of Britain's status in the United Nations and because the United Nations views “colonial” territories on a legal basis and not on the basis of what is happening in the territories and whether those countries wish to push out the boat to the hazards of full independence. It is clear that many of
;
:
>
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.