SEYCHELLES (Hansard, 4 July 1969)

§ Sir Cyril Black (Wimbledon)
One of the attractions of this House is the rapidity with which we turn from one theme to another. The House has been spending today to very good advantage in debating the privileges of the House. In the short time remaining I want to raise the question of the privileges of a small and distant but nonetheless important country belonging to the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Seychelles.
I have to confess at once that I suffer from one serious disadvantage in raising the matter in that it has never been my fortunate opportunity to visit what I understand to be this delectable territory. I very much hope that the opportunity will occur at some future time for me to visit a territory which I am sure offers a great deal to those who are able to visit it.
It is, of course, recognised by all of us that during recent years the character of the Commonwealth has greatly changed. That is particularly true in reference to the relations between this country and the various Commonwealth countries. One need not be a prophet to state that the Commonwealth continues to change and that this change in the years ahead is likely to continue to be considerable.
More and more of these territories which previously looked to this country for their administration and government are enjoying more freedom and inde- 914 pendence, but that does not necessarily mean that the sense of concern here at the heart of the Commonwealth which we have for these countries is any less now that our responsibility for their administration and government has been so much reduced by the march of events. I hope and believe that we at the heart of the Commonwealth, and hon. Members in particular, will always have a concern for the interest and the welfare of Commonwealth countries throughout the world. I am sure that I carry all hon. Members with me when I say that, in particular, it must ever be one of the main preoccupations of any Government of this country to maintain close and friendly contacts and relations with our Commonwealth countries.
It is in this context that I want to voice the very great concern which I, and I am sure other hon. Members and other people, felt on reading recent newspaper reports about the visit to this country of Mr. James Mancham, Chief Minister of the Seychelles, and the strong complaints he apparently made to the Press and to the public regarding the treatment he received in this country. I make clear right away that I do not of course necessarily accept the newspaper reports as giving either a correct or an altogether impartial account of what may have happened. I have had enough experience of these matters with other hon. Members to know that all questions of this kind have two sides to them and that it is very unfair and very unwise to draw a conclusion on the basis of merely having heard one side of the story. Therefore, I do not approach this matter, at any rate at this stage in the debate, in any spirit of criticising the Government.
This is a probing operation which I am seeking to conduct. I want to hear what the Government say in reply to these alleged complaints by the Chief Minister of the Seychelles. It seems that this debate will serve at least two useful purposes. The first is that it will show to the Chief Minister and the people of the Seychelles our concern in this House for their welfare, a concern which I am quite sure is felt in all parts of the House. Secondly, it will give the Government an opportunity to give their version of the particular matters of which the Chief Minister has made such a bitter public complaint.
915 It is clear that there must be problems outstanding between our Government and the Government of the Seychelles. Whatever the facts of the matter may be, whoever is right and whoever is wrong, it is a good thing for the purpose of the record that we in this House should have an account from Her Majesty's Government relating to these matters. I am of course wholly dependent upon newspaper accounts of these matters for the points I shall raise. The complaints of the Chief Minister fall, I understand, under four main headings. First there is a very strong complaint by the Chief Minister of his inability to get an appointment with any responsible Minister in this country, he wishing to discuss with a responsible Minister here the problems of his Government and country. This is what a newspaper said about this complaint: After a week in London Mr. James Mancham, Chief Minister in the Seychelles, has failed entirely to communicate with anyone in the Government above a departmental official…he said that trying to establish kinship with Britain was the worst diplomatic ploy. He could find no one on a high Whitehall level willing to listen to his country's pleas for closer ties. Yet on the Continent he had found the Pope sympathetic and had discussions with General de Gaulle. Vice-President Humphrey of the United States had been concerned about the archipelego's strategic importance. Mr. Mancham seemed in doubt whether even a unanimous decision of the Seychelles Council to invite the Queen to visit the islands would move the British Government to action. The second complaint can be described as an allegation of failure on the part of the British Government to honour our obligations to the Seychelles. This is how the matter is reported: A complaint that Britain is neglecting her responsibility to the Seychelles, islands of 50,000 people in the Indian Ocean, was made yesterday by Mr. James Mancham, the chief Minister. He is in London on a short visit to try to persuade the British Government that the islands want closer ties with Britain… 'We are a forgotten territory', he said. Britain does not seem to be very interested in looking after us.' More than 95 per cent. of the population wanted stronger links with Britain, but their pro-British attitude seemed to be a liability. The third complaint really amounts, as I understand it, to an allegation of a perpetration of a fraud on the Seychelles. Again I quote: 916 Britain had offered the islands £4 million towards a new airport which would give local employment and help the tourist industry. In return, the Seychelles had given up three islands to the British Indian Ocean territory, a newly formed colony. 'Now the British Government is saying that this amount'"— that, I assume, is the £4 million in dispute— 'must come out of our normal quota of aid Mr. Mancham said. 'This is a fraud'. This is by any standard of judgment a serious allegation by the Chief Minister. What he is saying, in effect, is that his territory gave up three islands as a result of a bargain with Britain, the bargain being that they were to receive £4 million for a particular purpose; and, they having given up the islands, Britain is now saying to them, "The £4 million is merely part of aid that you would in any case have received from this country whether you had given the islands up or not". We must ask for an explanation of this transaction.
The fourth and last complaint of the Chief Minister to which I shall refer is his failure on behalf of his Government to get help from our Government in the formulation of an agreed new constitution for the territory. Again I quote: His country that is, the Chief Minister's country— was not looking for independence. What the islanders wanted was the kind of agreement reached recently between Britain and Gibraltar, in which the Seychelles would be declared to be part of the Queen's dominions. This, again, is a serious allegation, if accepted at its face value. Here are people, of whose loyalty to the Queen and Britain there is, I think, no doubt, who are anxious, as they say, for closer ties, but who are unable to accomplish those closer ties which they desire owing, so it is said, to the unwillingness of our Government to co-operate to this end.
It will be most helpful if we can be given some account of the Government's position in regard to these matters. I have sought to state this case moderately on the basis of such information as I have been able to gather. I have made it clear that I am certainly not attempting at this moment to sit in judgment on the Government, because I have heard only one side of the question, and I have heard that only through an indirect source, namely, the Press.
917 The wide publicity given to these allegations must clearly do harm to this country's good name if they be not answered. The only place where we can seek that answer is in the House. This is the kind of purpose for which the House exists. This is the kind of opportunity that these short Adjournment debates at the end of our day's work give us of obtaining information which it might be otherwise difficult to obtain.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity to clear up a number of misconceptions which have arisen because of this Press report, although I think he will agree that if this House spent its time dealing with every misconception arising from a Press report, we would do nothing else.
The matter that he has raised is of great concern to a number of hon. Members. A number of hon. Members have spoken to me about this report and have expressed, as he has, their concern about the matter and their interest in the Seychelles. He has never visited that part of the world and neither have I, unfortunately. I hope, like him, one day to go there. It is a tiny part of the world, but nevertheless a very important part which deserves our attention and the interest which the hon. Gentleman has brought to it.
I want to deal with the Press report of what Mr. Mancham said at a Press conference on 5th June. Contrary to what the Press report states, Mr. Mancham is not the Chief Minister of the Seychelles. There are no Ministers in the Seychelles, only chairmen of committees, and Mr. Mancham is chairman of a committee.
If I may deal with the four points which the hon. Gentleman has raised and which were mentioned in the article, I should like first of all to deal with the statement that Mr. Mancham was in Britain to try to persuade the British Government that the islanders wanted closer ties with Britain. Up to the present"— that was 6th June— 918 he has been unable to meet anybody of Ministerial authority. I should like to point out that Mr. Mancham was here on a private visit and that he was received at the beginning of that visit by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department concerned. They discussed with him a wide range of Seychelles problems and told him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Lord Shepherd, who is responsible for the affairs of dependent territories and who was then abroad, would look forward to seeing him on his return. In fact, that meeting between Mr. Mancham and my right hon. Friend has been arranged for Monday next, 7th July.
Secondly, Mr. Mancham was reported as saying: Britain had offered the islands £4 million towards a new airport which would give local employment and help the tourist industry. In return, the Seychelles had given up three islands to the British Indian Ocean Territory… Mr. Mancham is alleged to have said: Now the British Government is saying that this amount must come out of our normal quota of aid. This is a fraud. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no fraud at all involved in this. The airport project is separate and additional to normal British aid to the Colonies. The airport project will cost over £5¼ million. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that British aid to the Seychelles in the 1968–69 period was £937,000, which works out at £22 per person in the Seychelles. Hardly can one say that this suggests that we do not have a high regard for the people of the Seychelles or that we are neglecting them.
Thirdly, the report says that the Seychelles was not looking for independence. What the islanders wanted was the kind of agreement reached recently between Britain and Gibraltar, in which the Seychelles would be declared to be part of the Queen's dominions. In answer to that, I must point out that the Seychelles, as a Crown Colony, is already part of the Queen's Dominions. As in respect of other dependent territories, the wishes of the people of the territory will be Britain's main guide in considering the future status of the Seychelles, and that we shall consider at a later point when my right hon. and noble Friend goes to the Seychelles.
919 The fourth matter raised in the Press report to which the hon. Gentleman referred is the statement that even a unanimous decision…to invite the Queen to visit the islands would not move the British Government to action. The answer to that is that a motion was unanimously approved by the Governing Council in December, 1968, inviting the Queen to visit the Seychelles. In reply, Her Majesty expressed her appreciation and said that, although her engagements do not permit such a visit in the foreseeable future, the message from the Governing Council would none the less be borne in mind. In other words, the possibility of a visit by Her Majesty to the Seychelles has not been ruled out, but at the moment, because of Her Majesty's commitments, it cannot be considered.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the future constitution. The present Constitution of the Seychelles is an interim one providing for a unique form of administration in dependent territories. It came into force in November, 1967, and it came into force with the agreement of all the political parties in the Colony. Any suggestion that the Constitution has broken down can be denied. There are certain difficulties at the moment, but the work of the Governing Council and its Committees has continued. We have had no precise proposal for constitutional change from the people of the Seychelles.
As I have said, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State intends to visit the Colony soon, and this visit should provide a good opportunity for discussions with the leaders of the Seychelles on constitutional matters. From those discussions we shall then have a complete picture of what the Seychellois have in mind. In considering the future of the Seychelles, we shall adhere to the principle which I have already expressed, that the wishes of the people concerned must be our main guide for action.
I have dealt with the question of aid and the airport, but perhaps I could tell the House that an official aid mission will visit the Colony later this year. The 920 mission will consider, with the Seychelles Government, future development policy, the level and form of British financial aid during the next four years, and the best way in which this can be most usefully applied. The mission has already discussed the matter with Mr. Mancham, and it has an open mind on the main projects which have been proposed. They will look into all of these closely during their visit. There is, however, a strict limitation to the amount of available aid funds, and emphasis will be on the most effective use of these for the benefit of the economy as a whole.
I have dealt with all the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I hope that I have done so satisfactorily, but, if there are other matters on which he is still not clearly, I shall gladly deal with them.

§ Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) has performed a most useful service today in providing an opportunity to clear away a serious misunderstanding. For my part, I am satisfied with the answer which the Minister has given.
I am very pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is shortly to go to the Seychelles. It is indeed a small place and remote, but it is home and important to the people who live there. I think that we are all touched by the references which both my hon. Friend and the Minister have made to the attachment that the islanders feel towards our country. Therefore, the sooner that Lord Shepherd can go there the better.
I am very pleased to hear that an aid mission will be going from this country in order, presumably, to assess the needs and requirements of the Colony on the spot. I rise merely to say, in thanking the Minister for the explanation which he has given this afternoon, that we shall look forward with the closest interest to the results of that mission.