CONFIDENTIAL
1
but were prepared to allow them in exceptional
cases. The visiting mission to Aden in 1967 is the
only one to have taken place, and its results illus-
trated clearly the considerable dangers inherent
in such visits. The Labour Government also
invited the Committee to send a Mission to observe
a referendum in Gibraltar, but this was refused
because of the Committee's support for Spain's
claim. The Labour Government's public position
(as described, for example, in refusing the
Committee's request for a mission to Fiji) was that
while they had no objection in principle to visiting
missions, they had a duty as an Administering Power
to decide whether any visit would serve a useful
purpose, and that in reaching this decision the views
of the local government would be a major consideration
22. As Mr Richard recommends, there may now be
scope for accepting rather more visiting missions.
Several of our territories would not present any
targets for such missions as long as the members
were objective. On the other hand, there are still
several territories which would be likely to provoke
criticism. Mr Richard mentions the Seychelles as
one case (though this may possibly change). But
there are others: the New Hebrides, Bermuda, the
Gilbert Islands,
all present problems when viewed against the
Committee's well-established policies, and indeed
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
-57% be compt
comindi
To the extent that these may be the teritories which the prejudices. (Ohio list is considered in greater committee
detail in paragraphs
of the annex). It
birerefore seems essential to maintain the right of
CONFIDENTIAL
/the Administering
would particularly
like to visit, refusad of visits there would diminish the impact of impact of offering missions to places in which the Committee are not so interested. Heveritater
it