1085
Dependent Territories
[Sir Bernard Braine]
15 APRIL 1983
care. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington suggested that for some an associated status, such as that enjoyed by the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, would be appropriate. That is precisely what I recommended for Gibraltar when I had Front Bench responsibilities in the late 1960s. Spain at that time was under Fascist rule. Independence was then and still is out of the question for Gibraltar because this is precluded by the treaty of Utrecht. Associated status has attractions. It is in line with the aspirations of the Gibraltarians themselves, who overwhelmingly voted in the referendum on 10 September 1967 voluntarily to retain the link with Britain, with democratic local institutions, and with Britain retaining its present responsibilities.
Secondly, associated status is not in conflict with Britain's treaty obligations. Thirdly, it is in line with the spirit and the letter of article 73 of the United Nations charter, which calls upon administering powers to have respect for the culture and political aspirations of the people involved. The Gibraltarians have demonstrated again and again that they are British and desire to remain
SO.
Since then, Spain has returned to democracy. It is seeking to join the European Community and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Once that happens, it should not be impossible to arrive at a friendly modus vivendi, but it must be with the approval of the Gibraltarians and the best way of achieving that is to help them weather the economic difficulties which Britain has created by the rundown of the port and to ensure that Spain avoids harassment.
I will not say much about Hong Kong because my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) knows more about that colony than any other hon. Member. Here again, independence is ruled out by the facts of history and geography. Hong Kong can hardly maintain a separate existence when the Kowloon lease expires. Here is a great success story and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Howden will tell the House something of the wonderful achievements of the people and the Government of Hong Kong. It is surely in China's interests that Hong Kong continues to maintain its momentum. I would expect British and Chinese pragmatism and good sense to allow for a peaceful transition.
What about St. Helena? I think that I am one of only two hon. Members who have ever been there. I went there at the invitation of the governor and the legislature in 1980. I was profoundly perturbed by what I found. My report was entitled:
"St. Helena a case of enforced dependence."
I uncovered neglect on a large scale and a hopeless lack of liaison with St. Helena's main dependency, Ascension. The resident commissioner on Ascension had not seen the development plan for the colony. The writ of the governor of St. Helena at that time did not seem to run in Ascension. Two years after the submission of my report, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Overseas Development, the Member for Banbury (Sir N. Marten) wrote to me saying:
"it was decided as an indirect follow up to your visit to send out a Budgetary Aid Review Mission in June of this year”— 1982.
"The review was, unfortunately, somewhat more limited than we had originally planned because of the Falklands conflict.
•
Dependent Territories
1086
The report has been considered and welcomed both here and on St. Helena and its recommendations are already being implemented. It is planned to conduct a further review in June 1983."
Why these delays? I should like to know what recommendations have been implemented and what improvements have been secured. Members of the legislature of St. Helena keep in close touch with me and it is apparent that the discontent continues.
Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman received any information on the disruption of shipping links between Ascension and St. Helena, which are important in the maintenance of contacts with the outside world? Does he agree that it will be useful if the Minister refers to that issue in his reply, especially if shipping links have not been restored to provide even the meagre service that existed before the Falklands conflict?
Sir Bernard Braine: I have been in touch over the years with the shipping interests involved, and I think that they represent one of the more successful sides of the story. Undoubtedly the House will welcome any information that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can give.
At the time of my visit to St. Helena, communications left much to be desired. It would have added only 400 miles to the journey from the Falklands to this country to have gone via St. Helena and Ascension. However, there have been improvements.
When talking about discontent I was referring to the telegram that was sent to the Prime Minister on 29 November 1982, a copy of which was sent to me. It reads:
"We the twelve elected representatives of the 5,000 loyal patriotic British people of the South Atlantic dependent territory of St. Helena island plead that the same rights of entry to the United Kingdom be allowed."
If it is not possible to give St. Helenans the same right as Falkland islanders, for example, to enter Britain and settle because of our immigration restrictions-there are 7,000 St. Helenans already in Britain, more than there are on St. Helena-and if that is the policy, we are surely under a heavy moral obligation to bend all our efforts to provide a self-sufficient economy for St. Helenans so that they can achieve a satisfying life and status in their own land.
―
What happened to the suggestion that was made in 1980 that St. Helenans should be settled on the Falklands? There was surplus labour on St. Helena and a shortage of labour on the Falklands-both islands are in the south Atlantic
ocean
and it seemed that there could be some development along those lines. When I was on St. Helena, invitations had been received by St. Helenans to emigrate to the Falklands. What happened to that proposal? Was it stopped out of deference to the Argentines? What happened to what could have been a useful contribution to a solution of St. Helena's problems?
We should give some thought also to the constitutional future of St. Helena. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has made some interesting suggestions. Unfortunately it is not possible to pursue them in detail on the Floor of the House. I think that there is a case for publishing a White Paper-perhaps not immediately but before too long setting out the Government's objectives so that we, and perhaps more importantly the international community, can understand the problems. At present, the international community does not really have an understanding of them. We and it should know where we are going. If a White Paper on those lines could be
558
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.