HL Deb 13 February 1968 vol 289 cc10-37

2.58 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD)

My Lords, I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of this Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, if I move the Second Reading of this Bill briefly, it in no way detracts from the importance of the occasion, either to us here in Parliament or to the people of Mauritius. The cold, dry words of Clause 1(1) read: On and after 12th March 1968 (in this Act referred to as 'the appointed day') Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Mauritius. It is hard to believe that those words will create a new, independent country. This Bill received a very warm welcome in another place and I am sure that a similar welcome will be given from both sides of your Lordships' House. It marks yet another step in the process of decolonisation, something in which we on this side of the House, and noble Lords opposite, have played our part since 1945. It may well be a reminder to those who attack this country regarding our decolonisation policy.

We have had a close relationship with Mauritius since 1810 and I do not believe that independence will in any way cut this long-standing tie. I take the view that when she becomes independent, our ties may become even closer. The Government of Mauritius have indicated their desire to join the Commonwealth of Nations, and I understand from the Commonwealth Secretariat that all the countries within the Commonwealth have given a warm welcome to their admission.

Those who know Mauritius will recognise that there is no easy road ahead for her people. I am sure that we recognise and sympathise with their great difficulties. Perhaps the greatest of their problems is the distance of the island from Africa or from any major trading country. This makes industrialisation extremely difficult. In fact, the island and its people must depend on its primary products, such as sugar. The sugar industry is both modern and efficient, providing around 95 per cent. of the export revenue of the country and some one-third of its national income. Those who know the effect of fluctuations in the prices of primary commodities will know how vulnerable is the economy of Mauritius.

I am sure that your Lordships would agree that the root of the problem of Mauritius lies in the size of its population. There are some 1,000 people per square mile. Since 1944 we have seen an increase of population of about 80 per cent. A population explosion of this sort is bound to place great strain on any country, and on Mauritius, so dependent on primary products, it is exceptionally severe. It must be a matter of concern to the Government of Mauritius that if this trend continues there will be a population of some 2 million by the end of the century. I do not believe there is any immediate solution; we must depend on the long-term education of the people. But we should recognise this and sympathise with them in the economic difficulties—in particular, the unemployment problem—of the country.

On financial matters, your Lordships will know that a delegation from Mauritius, led by the Prime Minister, was in London in October for financial talks. More recently a high-level team of officials from the Ministry of Overseas Development visited Mauritius to follow up these talks; and of course there will be further talks in future. In the October talks the Mauritius representatives made plain that the rapid growth in population and the consequent higher unemployment had led to deficits in the capital and current budgets for 1967–68. Subject to certain conditions and to Parliamentary approval, it was then agreed that a considerable additional aid would be provided. The more recent talks have clarified further the details connected with this aid and we have taken a further look at the position so far as 1968–69 is concerned. Apart from the question of direct aid, the resources of the Ministry of Overseas Development in the field of technical co-operation will, as is usual with independent members of the Commonwealth, continue to be available on request by the Government of Mauritius.

Mauritius has many problems to face in the years ahead, but I believe that all of them can be resolved with common sense, with prudence and with wise leadership. Small though Mauritius may be, those qualities are not lacking. I do not intend to dwell on the tragic outbreak of violence in Mauritius which led to a serious loss of life, the calling in of British troops and the declaration of a state of emergency, which still continues. I am glad to be able to say, however, that Mauritius has now to a considerable extent returned to normality, and to report the Governor's view that those disturbances were in no way political. Indeed, I am sure it is worth emphasising that the political leaders, both in the Government and in the Opposition, were quick to deplore the outbreak of violence in their public utterances and to do all they could to encourage a speedy return to law and order. I believe that this speedy and responsible reaction by Mauritian political leaders on both sides, despite the deep racial feelings that had been clearly let loose by the riots, augurs well for the future of the country. We all regret the recent violence and must hope that it is an episode that will be forgotten.

Clause 1 of the Bill provides for fully responsible status for Mauritius from March 12. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with nationality matters and follow the normal pattern. Clause 4 makes consequential modifications to other enactments. Clause 5 deals with interpretations and Clause 6 gives the Short Title of this Act as the Mauritius Independence Act 1967.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to add a few words in rather more detail about the effect of Clause 3 in the Bill. Citizenship arrangements are matters in which Parliament always takes the greatest interest, and a number of questions were raised in another place by the friends of noble Lords opposite. The House will be aware that the Independence Constitution itself forms no part of this Bill but will be the subject of a separate Order which will be submitted to Her Majesty when the Bill has become law. But I can say that persons naturalised or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will automatically become citizens of Mauritius at independence. They will not merely be given a right to acquire that citizenship by registration. That is a point about which some concern was expressed in another place. Similarly, persons born outside Mauritius, of fathers of this category, will also automatically become citizens of Mauritius.

The further suggestion was made in another place that there should be a discriminatory power in the Bill to enable the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to persons who, having lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, might, on becoming citizens of Mauritius at Independence or later, show special reason why it should be restored to them. It has, however, never been a principle of our law that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is open to anyone who desires it. Indeed, an arrangement on the lines proposed in another place would be without precedent. There must always be a connection with the United Kingdom or with an existing Colony by way of residence or employment.

If any Mauritian settled, or proposed to settle, in the United Kingdom or in a remaining Colony, or was employed by the United Kingdom Government or the United Nations Organisation, or, for that matter, was in the service of any company or society established in the United Kingdom or a Colony, he could apply under the existing law for restoration of his United Kingdom citizenship after five years' residence, and a shorter period of qualification would be considered in special circumstances. But to make the arrangements sought in another place for anyone would amount to treating Mauritians differently and specially favourably, and I am in no doubt that it would be invidious to do this. Accordingly, I suggest that this Bill should not be amended to introduce this particularly novel feature.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this dual citizenship would apply with regard to France or South Africa? If a boy or girl is born in South Africa of Mauritian parents, or in France, which has close associations with Mauritius, would dual citizenship also apply in these terms?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, that is a particularly "fast one" in the middle of a speech. As I understand it, we are now dealing with the relationship of the United Kingdom and those who are in Mauritius, and with their particular status. I recognise the long connections of Mauritius and France. I will look into the point which my noble friend made, and perhaps I could write to him between now and the Committee stage. However, I think it is fair to point out that, whatever may be the attitude of ourselves to Mauritius, it is not for us to legislate or even provide a status for an independent Commonwealth country with a foreign Government or country.

In regard to the defence agreement, this again received considerable attention when the matter was dealt with in another place. Our negotiating team dealing with this has been in Mauritius for some weeks past, and very considerable progress has been made. Discussions are, however, still proceeding on a few points, and noble Lords will not expect me to go into details at this stage. But I can assure the House that, subject to the final settlement of these points in discussions with the Mauritius Government, a defence agreement precisely on the lines envisaged at the Constitutional Conference in 1965 will be signed immediately after Independence.

My Lords, perhaps I should deal now with another matter about which concern was expressed in another place in regard to the island of Rodriguez. This island is some distance away from Mauritius, but it has been a dependency of Mauritius since the Colony became British in 1814. Rodriguez has been closely linked with Mauritius and the closeness of that link has, if anything, increased in recent years as the output of agricultural produce for sale on the Mauritius market has increased under the imaginative Agriculture Development Plan which the Mauritius Government has fostered for Rodriguez. I myself am absolutely convinced that the best interests of Rodriguez lie as part of this newly independent Commonwealth country of Mauritius and I am satisfied that within this framework scope will exist for the future development of mutually beneficial links.

Since this Bill was read in another place, and in view of the concern that was expressed, I have been in touch with the Prime Minister of Mauritius about Rodriguez. I have in fact received a special communication from him this very morning. It is a very long one. It certainly gives me all undertakings and assurances as to the relationship between Mauritius and Rodriguez. I do not intend to read it now, but I will certainly make it available to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, or to any of his colleagues; and I am quite sure that, if he were to read it, he himself would be satisfied with the views of the Prime Minister and Government of Mauritius. I hope that your Lordships' House will now give this Bill a Second Reading. I trust that we shall pass this Bill at an early date, and that we shall do it with confidence in, and great warmth towards, this new country.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)

3.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given us a careful description of this Bill and the somewhat complicated situation surrounding the forthcoming independence of the Island of Mauritius. We must be particularly grateful to him for the trouble he has taken, especially in view of the fact that, I think, during the past week he must have been more concerned with the problem of Gibraltar than other parts of the Commonwealth. We welcome him back to the House and hope that his negotiations on the Rock, which we shall be discussing on Thursday, will help to bring about a solution of our problems there.

Although I have never had the good fortune to visit it, I have always been fascinated by the island of Mauritius—this island in the South-West Indian Ocean, the idyllic island of Paul et Virginie, this former Ile de France, which ever since we captured it from one of Napoleon's Generals in 1810 has been described as a French Colony, happily under British rule. It was indeed happily so governed by us throughout the last century. Having a French mother, who has lived contentedly under British rule in this country for over half a century, I have always been intrigued by this example of our enlightened administration of a people who have retained their French customs and whose elegant ladies have been well known in Paris and London drawing-rooms.

Mauritius also has some notable links with your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley, whose passing last week so many of your Lordships must deeply regret—he was a friend of many of us—was, as we know, married to a most distinguished Mauritian lady; and I feel that all your Lordships would like to send her condolences. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who promised he was going to be with us this afternoon, has, I believe, a brilliant Mauritian scientist as a son-in-law. I believe, incidentally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that he has dual citizenship. I hope we may be able to get an answer on Lord Brockway's point from the noble Lord at some time. Then, of course, during the last war your Lordships will know that a number of gallant Mauritians served, for example, in the Special Operations Executive and played an important part in the liberation of France.

We must on these Benches all welcome the independence of this island. But we must also be deeply concerned about the problems facing the island at this moment. We know, as the noble Lord said, that the population explosion has been particularly acute there, and that their single-commodity economy, sugar, is very vulnerable, being so largly dependent on the fixed prices laid down in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I recognise the difficulties they have had and their attempts to diversify their industry.

Then, of course, only very recently, as the noble Lord said, Mauritius has been undergoing a series of riots, which have taken place since this Bill had its Second Reading in another place. It was indeed as recently as January 21 that a state of emergency was declared by the Government, and this now covers —still covers, as I understand it—the whole island. We can only hope that these riots, instigated, I understand, by rival gangs, will have been completely suppressed when the island becomes independent on March 12 and when, I understand, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra is expected to represent Her Majesty during the celebrations.

I have read somewhat pessimistic articles in the Press about the economy of the country, and in view of this, and of the problem of internal security, I hope we may be assured that the company of Shropshire Light Infantry which recently flew to the country from Singapore will remain there for the Independence festivities, and that all necessary precautions will be taken. At any rate, since this company has been there, as I think the noble Lord indicated, no further incidents of violence have, I understand, occurred.

The noble Lord has referred to the Constitutional Conference which opened in London in September, 1965, and the elections which were held in August, 1967, at which the Independent Party, in alliance with the Labour Party and other Parties, won 39 out of the 62 seats provided and 54 per cent. of the votes cast. However, the fact remains that over 43 per cent. of the population, including the Mauritian Social Democrats, voted for Parties who were against independence. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom stated at the Constitutional Conference that the Independence Constitution would contain important safeguards for the minorities, including the preservation of human rights, the independence of the Judiciary and of the public services and, of course, the police.

The Government also said that they were willing to negotiate before independence the terms of the Defence Agreement mentioned by the noble Lord, and I should like to ask whether negotiations leading to this Defence Agreement are well advanced and when he expects it will be signed. Also on the matter of defence I should like to ask the Government, first, what responsibilities shall we have for the external defence of Mauritius and how, with our withdrawal East of Suez, shall we fulfil them? Is this Defence Agreement really credible? I am a little worried about it. In another place, the Minister referred to optional air transport routes for troops going to Mauritius, and mentioned the Island of Ascension. Is the noble Lord satisfied that on certain possible routes we shall be granted the necessary over-flying rights?

Secondly, on the question of internal security, which I understand will be dealt with in the Defence Agreement, the noble Lord say what our responsibilities will be? I do not see how we can argue that we should not give any undertakings about internal security because we ourselves have helped Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika after their independence. Should we not, therefore, accept some responsibility? But should there not also be a terminal date for this agreement or, alternatively, the possibility of re-negotiation after a stated period? How long do the Government think that a defence agreement should remain in force?

Thirdly, on defence, what facilities shall we continue to have after Independence? We are apparently continuing to have the use of H.M.S. "Mauritius", which is a land-based establishment, and of Plaisance airfield, but what form of supervision of these facilities do the Government contemplate? Can the noble Lord say what has been agreed on these points? Also, what should we do in the most unfortunate event, which I think the noble Lord rules out, of the Island of Rodriguez wishing to secede from Mauritius? The noble Lord did not mention this point, but I think I am right in saying that 90 per cent. of the population of Rodriguez, despite their close links with Mauritius, voted against independence. Might not a similar situation develop as has happened in St. Kitts and Anguilla? I am sure that it is in the best interests of Rodriguez to remain with Mauritius, and I should very much like to accept the assurance from the noble Lord on this point, and that of the Prime Minister of Mauritius. I hope the noble Lord is fully satisfied with the communication which he has received from the Prime Minister. I shall be most interested to look at it myself.

On the question of aid, I have already indicated that Mauritius is getting her independence in a situation of grave economic difficulty. The sugar industry is not healthy, and the country has this appalling population problem. As the noble Lord said, the population has now risen to over three-quarters of a million and is likely to reach 2 million towards the end of the century. As I understand it, we have given in aid a total of £4.3 million to meet the residual deficit of the Mauritian budget. I will not go into the breakdown of that figure, but I should like to ask the noble Lord what he believes will be the effect of devaluation on that sum. I assume that the cost of imports is bound to rise.

I gather from the noble Lord that talks about economic aid have been taking place. Can he say when these talks will be concluded?—for the financial year 1968–69 is not far off. I think I can say that we on these Benches would welcome generosity to this small island which is going into independence under conditions which are certainly far from ideal and which may run into all kinds of difficulties.

Then there is the complicated question of citizenship, to which the noble Lord referred. I am grateful for what he said in reply to my honourable friends in another place. As I see it, the position is that, once this Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses, Parliament has no further control. The Constitution is granted by Order in Council and is not debated. I gather that we wish to avoid giving United Kingdom citizenship to a category of people who have no special claim to it. Paragraph 3 of Annex E to the Report of the Constitutional Conference states that the Constitution should either automatically confer citizenship or a right of registration on all those naturalised or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and also all those born outside Mauritius of fathers in this category, provided in both cases that they are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on Independence Day.

I understand from what the noble Lord has said that Mauritian citizenship will be conferred automatically on these people, and I gather that if they obtain automatic Mauritian citizenship they will not be able to claim United Kingdom citizenship. The Minister in another place agreed that this question would be answered by the noble Lord here, and I think that in fact the noble Lord has cleared up this point. I am grateful to him for it but I shall have to look carefully in Hansard at what he has said.

Secondly, there is the question of avoiding taking United Kingdom citizenship away from some of those who are reluctant to lose it. I am thinking, in particular, of all those who have in different ways served this country well and whom I mentioned earlier; and in this connection I had wondered—and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place also wondered—whether the Home Secretary might not have the discretionary power to which the noble Lord referred. I refer to a discretionary power in certain cases to grant United Kingdom citizenship as he thinks fit, and we wondered whether it would not be worth adding a new paragraph (c) to Clause 3(2) to cover this point.

In another place my honourable friend pressed the point about granting British citizenship to those Mauritians who apply for it and can show special reason, and the Minister, Mr. George Thomas, gave the Committee the firm assurance that the answers which he had hoped to give there would be provided by the noble Lord in your Lordships' House. I think the noble Lord may have satisfied us on this point, but I will look carefully at Hansard before deciding whether or not to table an Amendment to-morrow for consideration on Thursday. I hope, however, that this will not be necessary.

Next, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that independence will not affect the position of Mauritians now in Britain as regards their remaining here. Am I also right in thinking that if they or their fathers or grandfathers were not born in Britain they will become citizens of Mauritius on the appointed day and will cease to be British citizens, and that, provided Mauritius remains in the Commonwealth (and this is evidently her intention), this will not affect the question of whether or not they can remain in this country. I gather that either they are here as permanent residents, in which case they will be able to remain, or they were admitted conditionally under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Am I right in thinking that for those who were admitted under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act the conditions will be unchanged and that there will be no question of the Home Office seeking them out and telling them to leave? As I understand it, Mauritians here can in any event apply for registration as British citizens; and if they have been here for five years, or maybe less, as the noble Lord said, and provided that they qualify under the normal regulations, they will then become British citizens.

I hope that I am right about all this, because the noble Lord must know that some Mauritians, who most certainly would have voted for the Party, or one of the Parties, that was against independence, are naturally sensitive about the loss of British citizenship and anxious to know whether they can reclaim it in the future. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me answers to some of these specific questions.

I understand that all existing members of the Commonwealth have now agreed that the island should become an independent member of the Commonwealth. I need hardly add that we on these Benches welcome this Bill, and only hope that independence can be achieved in circumstances which will not further weaken the economy of the island or put in jeopardy its internal security. I hope, too, that the efforts of the Governor, Sir John Rennie, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues, to all of whom I think we should offer our very best wishes, will be sufficient to ensure that this Island, which will be the 23rd member of the Commonwealth, has a happy and prosperous future.

3.31 p.m.

LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS

My Lords, I rise in order to have the great pleasure for me of supporting a Bill for the independence of Mauritius and commending it to your Lordships' House. I had the great happiness of spending some time in Mauritius a little while ago, following an invitation from the Ministry of Overseas Development at the request of the Government of Mauritius that I should go there and see whether I could advise them in any way on the kind of public information service they should set up, both before and after Independence, in order to carry through what they felt to be an essential, and perhaps the most essential, task facing Mauritius: that is, to integrate a multiracial community and make members of many races and many religions feel themselves to be truly Mauritians. One can understand the size of that problem when I mention that I was told at the Mauritius radio station that they commonly put out every evening radio bulletins in, I think, twelve or thirteen different languages and sub-languages. Mauritius, this tiny and very delightful island in the Indian Ocean, is indeed in some ways a laboratory of many of the world's problems of racial intergration. It is only fair to say that my own conviction after being there was that it was making immense strides in that integration and in enabling men and women of many races and many religions to live together.

I spent a good deal of time with the Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam—whom everybody, all his friends, calls "Dr. Ram", and I should like to also. I was very pleased to see that in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth paid great tribute to his wisdom and his statesmanship. He is, indeed, a very great statesman in that small island and in this tiny part of the British Commonwealth one of the great Commonwealth figures. He started life as a doctor. Mauritius rather goes in for doctor politicians, a course that I am sure my noble friend, Lord Taylor, who I see has just dropped in from Newfoundland, will thoroughly applaud. In addition to a doctor Prime Minister, it has Dr. Teelock, the Commissioner in London, a man of great charm and ability with a most delightful and able wife; and all of us who know Mauritius will be most delighted to welcome him as the first High Commissioner.

I spent, as I say, a good deal of time with "Dr. Ram" and I also met all the members of the Council of Ministers, all the leaders of the Opposition parties, including Mr. Duval, the leader of the Parti Mauricien. I had long sessions with all the permanent civil servants, both British and Mauritian, with leading businessmen and sugar planters, with chairmen of young farmers' clubs and youth clubs, and with indeed people representing every aspect of the country's life, including a great many newspaper editors. If there is one thing Mauritius is certainly not short of it is newspapers. It has far more newspapers than London has, all activated by the belief which, as some of your Lordships may remember, is said to have been the driving force of a young man who once applied for a job on the old Morning Post and who, when asked what he was good at said, "Invective", and when pressed as to what invective in particular said: "Oh, just general invective". That is the guiding principle of the Mauritian newspapers. But it is, on the whole, invective written with charm and wit, although not always with a great deal of responsibility, and it is one field of Mauritian affairs in which a little consolidation would perhaps be desirable. It might be a good thing if we could persuade Mauritius to develop something like our own Press Council. But freedom of the Press, along with all the other democratic institutions, is much prized in Mauritius and I am sure will stay.

As a result of this wide survey of the many people that I saw in Mauritius I came back convinced of the general desire of all sections of the population to avoid any development of racial antagonisms. They are convinced and determined that they must build a genuine inter-racial community, and I think that under "Dr. Ram" they will be able to do so. It is important to point out that although the recent riots have been a great disappointment to everybody and obviously created immense problems at the time, they did not in any way reflect, as they might have done and as many people assumed they did at first, a kind of clash between the dominant Hindu group and the Moslem groups, such as has sometimes been seen in India.

The dominant Hindu group was not involved at all and although the difficulties may have been triggered off in the first place, I understand, by some quarrel as to who should be the Lord Mayor of Port Louis—problems of local government which rarely in this country lead to such consequences—they were then taken up as an excuse by non-political, although obviously dangerous, youthful gangs. They were, in the main, as your Lordships are aware, clashes between Moslems and Creoles, and I think it is to their great credit that not only the Prime Minister himself but the Leader of the Opposition Party, the Parti Mauricien, Mr. Duval, spoke and acted with the greatest strength they could to try to bring those riots to an end and to make the Mauritian people see that this conduct offered no possible hope of progress.

While I was there with my wife I spent some time staying with the Governor, Sir John Rennie and his wife. At this moment one perhaps ought to pay a tribute to the British Colonial service, in this case represented by Sir John Rennie, the Governor, by the Chief Secretary and by other Colonial officers. It is not an easy business to be an eminent Colonial officer in a Colonial Empire that is running down, when you know that your time is short and that your main business is to make possible that the place where you have worked will not miss you too much when you are gone. I have a great affection and admiration for Sir John Rennie and his wife, and I hope that he will have many years of valuable service in the future.

Of course, as has been said on both sides of the House, it is no use pretending that Mauritius starts out on independence with favourable winds blowing and the sun shining. It has serious economic problems. Some of them are perhaps inevitable, because its climate and nature make it so dependent upon the one crop, of sugar. But I cannot help feeling that after more than a century and a half of British colonial overlordship we ourselves must accept some responsibility and must, as a consequence, be prepared, as I was most delighted to hear the noble Earl opposite say, to be generous in our approach and in our aid in the future to Mauritius.

I remember when I was a young man, and platitudes tripped perhaps more easily from one's tongue than they do as one grows older, saying something to Ernie Bevin, who had just returned from a world trip, about colonial exploitation. He replied, "The problem is not exploitation it is neglect." To some extent, I think we must take the responsibility that, because Mauritius was obviously a natural sugar plantation, we explored with the Mauritians too few alternative possibilities. Such alternative possibilities are now being sought. Plans for growing tea are well under way. Agriculture which will enable other crops to be grown between sugar lines is being developed.

A number of new industries have been started up. I was rather fascinated, when I was there, to go over a Swiss watch factory which had been set up, where Mauritian girls were, with great skill, polishing and perfecting rubies for Swiss watches which were flown in and then out again. I think there is a possibility for a number of new industries in which I hope British capital may be able to help. There are great links between Mauritius and Britain, a great fund of friendship for Britain in Mauritius, and I hope that we shall develop it as much as we can.

I would recommend some of your Lordships who may wish to get away from the world to take a holiday in Mauritius. It is a long way away, but it is a beautiful island with wonderful scenery and a charming people. Although the fare is high, I am told it is steadily getting lower, and I can think of no nicer place in which to spend an away-from-it-all holiday. It has wonderful fishing, silver beaches, coral reefs. There are no sharks at all except outside the coral reefs, and I am told that even they have never been known to attack anybody. So Mauritius might almost be called the island where even the sharks are friendly. Perhaps that might seem to be going a little too far, but I hope that we shall conceive it our responsibility and our pleasure to retain close and the friendliest possible links with Mauritius.

I wonder whether it would be possible, because not many persons would be involved, to extend more short-term holiday-work permits to Mauritians, perhaps for six months, extended, if everything went well, to a year or eighteen months. No more than a few hundred would probably be involved, but to Mauritians, and particularly to the young people of Mauritius who are bound to feel themselves rather lonely in the world, it could be a great advantage. I think we must also prepare for the fact that although there is a great desire to make it into a truly inter-racial community, a desire which emanates certainly from the Prime Minister and all members of the Government, there are great social problems which will have to be overcome. In Mauritius it is still possible to find immense disparities in wealth and poverty such as elsewhere have mostly disappeared. I think it is fair to say that some of the French sugar planters, delightful as they are, are still living not merely a century but sometimes two cen- turies ago. They have a life of culture and privilege which is delightful but which has, to some extent, kept them aloof from the problems of the modern world. One lady said to me, I remember, with great tragic horror, that things were beginning to get so difficult that she feared that soon she would no longer be able to have a man chef and might have to put up with a head woman cook. Because of this difference, there are bound to be problems as the independent Government presses on, as I believe it must and will, with social reforms. If those problems arise I hope that they will meet with great sympathy in this country, and that if we can help with technical or economic assistance we shall do so.

We are saying goodbye to a Colony, a little island which was once inhabited by the dodo, which, as your Lordships know, is dead. It is a Colony which, by the accident of history, has become in miniature a sort of laboratory for many of the world's racial problems and which perhaps can contribute a great deal to the world in the way in which it handles those problems. Ultimately I believe that it will solve them. Although to-day we say goodbye to an ancient Colony of ours, I am sure that we shall all welcome, with the greatest of good will and best wishes for the future, the newest and one of the smallest members of the Commonwealth, but a member which, although small, has a great deal to contribute to the human family.

3.52 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, this is not a controversial Bill, and I do not often seek to intervene in debates which are not controversial; but I have such a warm feeling for the people of Mauritius, such a love for the people of that island, that I cannot possibly allow this historic occasion to pass without expressing good wishes for its independence. It is fourteen years since I visited the island, yet the memory is as vivid as though it were yesterday. I had been to Madagascar, which was then a police State. I had been under the care of the secret police during the whole of that visit. When I went to meet Malagasi leaders, the secret police were always there. I am glad to say that nearly all those leaders are now members of the Government. One of them is now the Ambassador in Paris, and only last week he sent me a message of greeting. In addition to the strain of those difficult psychological conditions, I had a high fever, and the French gave me a day to leave that large island. I went to Mauritius and I got well in a day. The wonderful welcome which its people gave me, the loveliness of the island, the friendship and the freedom there—all these have meant that ever since I have felt an intimate relationship with the people of the island of Mauritius.

To-day, I do not want to do much more than welcome the fact that Mauritius is now to become independent. I do not think anyone can speak on the subject without paying a tribute to the man whom we always call "Dr. Ram"—now "Sir"—and the Prime Minister, a man we have always loved as a comrade and a fellow human being, as well as admiring his almost philosophical statesmanship. Equally, I should like to pay my tribute to the Leader of the Opposition. After the critical election which was held to decide whether Mauritius should have its independence, although M. Duval opposed that independence at the election, when he was defeated he said, "We must accept this democratic decision and do all we can to make Mauritius a success." I also pay my tribute to the British Governor, and, like my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, I want to pay a special word of tribute to Dr. Teelock and his charming wife. Dr. Teelock will soon be representing independent Mauritius as High Commissioner in this country.

I believe that our Government have been courageous—and I welcome their decision—in agreeing to recognise Mauritius's right to independence at this moment. After that General Election there, in which the Opposition parties opposed independence and obtained a 43 per cent. opposition vote, Her Majesty's Government must have wondered in face of that strength of opposition, whether they should proceed with the granting of independence. I am glad that they went ahead, and I am quite sure that the responsible leaders of the Opposition will now co-operate with the new independent Government in Mauritius in a constructive effort for the future of the island.

The second reason why I believe that our Government have been courageous in this matter is that their decision has been against the background of the recent troubles in St. Louis, although in fact those troubles occurred after the decision for independence had been reached. I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, emphasise that these disturbances in St. Louis were not due to the opposition of political parties, or to any fundamental antagonism among the different races. The explanation for those disturbances in St. Louis is rather curious. They were the direct result of the closing of the Suez Canal.

When the Canal was closed the ships which had passed through the Canal centred on the Port of St. Louis. As is often the case when ships of different nations arrive at a port, they brought with them the problems of prostitution and drug distribution. The riots which began in St. Louis were nothing whatever to do with opposition parties or with race differences. In the beginning they were disturbances caused by gangs who were concerned with profiteering out of prostitution or with the drug trade. It was only the fact that one of these gangs was from Istanbul, Muslim in background, and that two of the other gangs were associated with the other side, that brought any racial conflict into the situation. I think the British Government were right in accepting the invitation of the Mauritian Government to send forces there. But I am quite confident that that is a problem which can be overcome, and I am glad that the Government did not accept it as a reason for postponing independence.

I do not want to hide the fact that there are racial problems in Mauritius. One was fascinated by meeting representatives of the different races. There was the French owning class. I have never met them in France itself, and never met them in Paris. They were the French aristocratic élite—handsome, beautiful in manners with all the cultures which came from the last century—and they were there in a British Colony owning the greater part of the economy, such as the great sugar plantations. They were the élite, distant from the people, and yet when one met them personally they were extraordinarily charming. There was the Indian community of the professional classes, doctors, journalists, teachers and perhaps the higher range of the working class. There were the Creoles of mixed race, representing mostly the less well-paid working class. Then there were the Chinese traders—small in numbers, but rich.

The task was somehow to integrate not only four different races, but four races which represented different class structures. I am not suggesting that under British administration we have solved that issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, has said, it is a social problem of the relationship of classes as well as a problem of the relationship of races, which the independent Government of Mauritius will have to solve.

There are two other matters to which I would refer. First, there is the problem of population. I am very glad that the Government of Mauritius has assisted the Roman Catholics in the distribution of their education regarding natural methods of control of the family. I am very glad that it has also helped to subsidise the family planning activities of those who are not Roman Catholics. But quite clearly the problem is not going to be solved like that. I will tell your Lordships what one feels as one goes to Mauritius, whether one flies from East Africa, from Tanzania, or calls in at Madagascar on the way. One feels the absolute absurdity of our present political divisions in the world, because under British administration the island of Mauritius has been crowded, over-populated, while nearby Madagascar remained nearly empty, with all the possibilities of development. If it had not been that one island was in the British sphere and the other was in the French sphere, that problem could have been solved long ago. I am only expressing the hope that when Mauritius is independent and Madagascar also is independent, there may be consultation between those two independent Governments so that the distribution of population may be made easier. I hope this may also extend to East Africa, Tanzania, and other countries.

The last problem at which I want to look is the neceessity for the diversification of industry. Mauritius is now almost entirely a sugar planting island. Sugar may fail, but even if it does not fail prices may fall, and obviously one of the great necessities is the development of new industries. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, refer to the Swiss watch factory, of which I had heard. But there are now all kinds of possibilities of diversification. There is the possibility of the development of a soap factory, there is the possibility of the development of a shoe factory and there is the possibility of the development of a brewery. However, I hope that the British Government will think not only in terms of money aid to Mauritius, but, perhaps even more, will think in terms of giving Mauritius that technical advice and association with us, such as introductions and negotiations, which will enable a diversified industry to be developed.

This is a daring and great time upon which Mauritius is entering, and all of us will wish it well. We have problems which cause us to go into a panic, and to be under the mental malaise which there is in this country, but the problems in Mauritius are far deeper and far more intractable. On this occasion we want to extend our affection for the people of Mauritius, together with our hope that they will overcome their problems, and our desire to be associated with them in making their island not only a beautiful place, but the happy place which it can become.

4.8 p.m.

LORD TAYLOR

My Lords, purely by good fortune I find myself in the position of being able to bring greetings from Bitain's oldest Colony to the newest Commonwealth country. I am very pleased to do this, because I had the pleasure of presiding with my right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Greenwood over the Mauritius Constitutional Conference. They really are the most delightful, lively, vigorous, controversial people in the world. They are a highly literate and wonderful race, and I am quite delighted that they should be getting their independence now, because I am sure they will use it well. It so happens that a colleague of mine from the University of Edinburgh is now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mauritius, and I think that possibly one of the most important things which Mauritius can do, and which we can help to do, is to develop that University.

It is interesting when one meets Sir Sewoosagur and Mr. Duval, and the other politicians of the Parti Mauricien and the Labour Party of Mauritius and the Mohammedan Parties, to find that, strangely enough, they went to the same public school. They have a common British-style public school, and this has the strange effect of making them very much less inclined to cut each other's throats, other than verbally, and much more inclined to indulge in the acrimony of debate and friendship after debate; and that is why I think hopes are very high. Mr. Duval played a splendid part in the Constitutional Conference with a very difficult wicket to bat on, because some of the Parti Mauricien were indeed old-style French aristocrats, and were indeed somewhat conservative in their outlook. Mr. Duval led them a long way towards co-operation, even at that stage; and had he been able to swing his friends a little further, there might have been complete agreement at that Constitutional Conference. There was not; but good has come of it, and everything has come out all right.

I remember very well that we had to try to entertain them at the end of the Conference, and Mr. Greenwood and I had a long consultation as to what would be the best thing to do, what was the best show to take them to. I said, "Let us take them to The Sound of Music; and we went to The Sound of Music. The Mauritians had all seen the picture, but they had not seen the play, and they were delighted. Most of them wept: they are a very lively, emotional people. I wept with them, too: and a good time was had by all. It was very exciting, this last summer, when my university, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, were running an extension course under the External Aid Department for Canada for fishery co-operative work, and among our students, who came mainly from South-East Asia and Africa, I found a student from Mauritius. It was a big step from one tiny island to one rather larger island, across nearly two oceans, and it was very nice to be able to find this warmness and friendship surviving the transition.

I hope Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can, through the Ministry of Overseas Development, to foster and nourish and help the University of Mauritius. I am sure that in the long run that will have the integrating effect that my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams was speaking about as being so vital and so important—as indeed was my noble friend Lord Brockway. The University has not found it too easy to recruit staff in this country. I hope that anything that can be done will be done. One can assure any university staff who are wanting a really exciting and interesting pioneering job that here is somewhere well worth while working, in a really delightful society, full of vigour and enthusiasm, and full of hopes for the future.

We in Newfoundland are very proud to have been a British Colony and to have been Britain's oldest Colony. We do not regard colonialism in any unfavourable light. In fact, we always fly the Union Jack alongside the Canadian Flag; and we sing all three anthems—O Canada!, God Save The Queen and The Ode to Newfoundland—which makes it a rather long performance on all public occasions. I hope Mauritius will never be sorry that it was a British Colony. I think this is something of which to be very proud. We are very proud to have had Mauritius with us, and we are very proud that they are going to be with us still. I am very proud that Sir Sewoosagur, who was a graduate of University College Hospital, is to play a part, and I am very proud and glad that their High Commissioner will be our dear friend Dr. Teelock. We wish them well; and I am delighted to be here on this occasion.

4.15 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I feel it a privilege to reinforce from these Benches the expressions of good will and good wishes which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, expressed at the beginning of this debate. I say this because, as your Lordships know, the ties between Mauritius and Western India are very close, and I am prepared to wager that a number of the dialects to which the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, referred as being broadcast in Mauritius are the dialects of what used to be the Province of Bombay. Also I cannot help but refer to the predecessor of the present H.M.S. "Mauritius", the cruiser of that name, whose stay on the East Indies station I well remember and with whose personnel we all had such close and friendly association.

Of course, my Lords, there are anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, this is a courageous step—perhaps an over-courageous step—but that does not in any way lessen the sincere good will which we all have for this wonderful little island. Of the many problems that there will be, I wish to refer to only one, and that is this problem of the population explosion. Your Lordships may remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House on the problems of U.N.O., I spoke on the subject of the world population explosion and asked what Her Majesty's Government were doing about it and whether they were doing enough. It is along that line of thought that I ask the only question I propose to ask of the noble Lord, which is this. Can he assure us that the Ministry of Overseas Development will keep in the closest touch with the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and, if possible, when the matter of aid (which is hard enough to come by) is discussed, will they encourage the Federation to use some of their massive resources—massive in terms not only of finance but of personnel and the like—to help in this matter? This problem is complex enough in most parts of the world, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out, with the great multiplicity of creeds, of races, in Mauritius, the problem is even more complex than it is in places where one ethnic group represents the predominant number.

My Lords, with that remark I feel that all I can do is to reinforce again from these Benches the good will which we all feel towards Mauritius in this bold and great step forward, and to express the hope that the anxieties which we all have in our minds may before too long become as dead as the dodo.

4.18 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams has two advantages over many of us in your Lordships' House. I say that with some diffidence. In the first case, he clearly knows Mauritius very well; and, secondly, as a journalist he has the power to paint a word picture so that those of us who have not been to Mauritius can see this lovely island in pretty clear perspective. Therefore one is very grateful that he should have intervened this afternoon.

Another illustration, if I may say so, of the warmth and friendliness felt for Mauritius is that it was possible for my noble friend Lord Brockway to rise from his seat on this occasion, admitting that normally he took part only in controversial debates. Whether it was the sunshine of Mauritius which he experienced some forty years ago, or whether it is your Lordships' House, he has clearly turned over a new leaf, and I am glad that he was prepared to participate in a debate which is non-controversial and in which we can all, in all parts of the House, have a united view. It was also a great delight to hear from my noble friend Lord Taylor, who has just returned from the great new university in Newfoundland. I hope he is going to spend a little time with us, for there is much that I, in a Department new to me, should like to discuss with him in regard to Commonwealth affairs.

The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, paid tribute to the numerous Mauritians, from many different walks of life, who in the course of our long association with the Colony have rendered fine service to the Crown, both in peace and in war. I am happy to associate Her Majesty's Government with what the noble Earl has said. Many Mauritians have given long service to the Crown, and it is pleasing to know that although Mauritius is to become independent she will not be breaking her connection with the Crown, for she has decided to remain a Monarchy.

The noble Earl spoke about the clash of opinion between the two major political Parties over the question of independence. I thought it was opportune that my noble friend Lord Brockway should have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the Opposition Party, which has from the very beginning opposed independence, said that they would accept the verdict of the electorate at a General Election. I must say that in their activities, while clearly they have a reluctant approach to this matter, the Opposition have not in any way challenged the right of the Government to proceed to independence.

I think it is right also to say that in the case of Rodriguez—where, it is perfectly true, the Opposition Party received some 90 per cent. of the votes—the Government Party did not put up candidates, although it may be that they gave support to others. I do not think that this should be taken in any way as a possible secession from Mauritius. I think this would be disastrous, particularly to those in Rodriguez who are so dependent upon Mauritius. As the noble Earl will see when I show him later the communication I have received from the Prime Minister, all the safeguards and assurances are there; and it will show him, I think, when he reads it, the spirit in which the Prime Minister approaches this difficult subject of Rodriguez.

The noble Earl asked me whether it is intended that the company of Shropshire Light Infantry should remain in Mauritius until, or perhaps after, Independence. This clearly must depend on the local circumstances and on the advice we receive from the authorities who are responsible for internal security. For our part, we should not withdraw them unilaterally and certainly not prior to Independence. In regard to the defence agreement, our discussions are very well advanced. As the noble Earl will appreciate, they cover both external and internal matters, and will also have some connection with our own installations and facilities in Mauritius. I hope that the noble Earl will not press me to go into detail in this matter, particularly as the discussions are still continuing. In regard to our capability of assisting Mauritius in the event of need, and our agreement to participate, I am satisfied, having discussed this matter with the Ministry of Defence, that with our capability particularly now based in Europe we should be able to meet any of the requirements we are likely to be called upon to fulfil if ever the defence agreement had, unfortunately, to be brought into operation.

In regard to aid, we are going to have further discussions. Certainly, we have given an increased sum for 1967–68 and we are now considering with the Mauritian authorities what will be required for 1968–69 I know that the House will wish us to treat this matter with great generosity and to bear in mind that we have an obligation, in the sense that we created the basis of the island. But I think it is fair to say that we also have other very heavy demands placed upon us by other countries—some of them perhaps not so badly off as Mauritius but others perhaps in some ways worse off. Therefore we shall approach the problem of Mauritius with fairness, taking into account both our own ability to assist and the needs of other territories.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter of the economy of the country, and in connection with aid, may I remind him that he has not answered my point about devaluation? I do not know whether he will answer it later.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, devaluation must have an effect. The ceiling which we have provided for the current year will, I think, be sufficient but clearly the effects of devaluation will have to be taken into account in future talks.

The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Brockway asked me about dual citizenship. I understand that the Mauritian Constitution will not prohibit dual citizenship; although I do not know whether countries such as South Africa or France will permit their citizens also to be citizens of Mauritius. The noble Earl also asked about the position of citizens who may be resident in the United Kingdom—people who may have lived here for some long time, or who may have been admitted under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Their position in regard to remaining in the United Kingdom will remain as it now is. In the case of Mauritian who has been resident in this country for less than five years, the Home Secretary has discretion to register him as a United Kingdom citizen; and any application will be looked on sympathetically if the applicant had connections in this country before coming here or if there are any other special circumstances. If a Mauritian is ordinarily resident here and wishes to leave the country he has a right to return within two years, provided that his residence in this country before leaving was free of conditions under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I think it can be said that a Mauritian resident in this country will not be subject to undue harrassment.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke about the problems of population. I am sure that this is a matter of education; and particularly important in this connection are the activities of the family planning organisations. Further, as the noble Lord knows, the Ministry of Overseas Development takes a very active interest, particularly through the United Nations' organisations, in this very difficult and important problem. I do not have the information with me at this moment, but I will see that the point he made is considered by the Department.

I hope that I have dealt with all the questions that were put to me. There is no doubt that certainly Doctor Teelock, who is to be the first Mauritian High Commissioner in this country, when he reads the Report of this debate—or he may have heard it—will appreciate the warmth of expression of those who have spoken and the sympathy of those who have listened. We in your Lordships' House, like those in another place, wish this new independent country Godspeed and great success and happiness. My Lords, in closing, I think it would be right to pay a tribute to all those persons, past and present, who have served this country so loyally. I hope that you will now agree to give this Bill its Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.