HC Deb 01 August 1963 vol 682 cc653-61
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

I should like to make a statement about the Malta independence conference.

The Malta conference met in London on 16th July, and ended an hour ago.

The main task of the conference was to provide answers to two questions: should Malta now become independent? And, if so, what should be her constitution?

Before addressing themselves to the basic question of independence, the conference considered the form which an independence Constitution might take. Large parts of the Constitution did not raise any acute controversy and a wide measure of agreement was reached. How- ever, it was not possible to reconcile divergent views on certain important issues, some of which raised questions of principle and conscience.

The differences between the delegations centred upon the following matters:

  1. (a) the status of the Roman Catholic Church;
  2. (b) the choice between Monarchy and Republic;
  3. (c) Commonwealth membership;
  4. (d) the electoral system;
  5. (e) the extent to which certain provisions of the Constitution should be entrenched; and
  6. (f) the question whether fresh elections should be held before independence.
The Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party pointed out that, in their manifestos at the last General Election and throughout the campaign, they had both come out strongly in favour of early independence, and that together they had polled 76 per cent. of the votes cast. There was, therefore, in their opinion, no doubt about the wishes of the Maltese people on this question.

On the other hand, the three smaller parties, who together polled 24 per cent. of the votes, maintained that independence had not been a central issue at the last election, and urged that the views of the electors should be sought on this specific question through a referendum.

I explained that, in the opinion of the British Government, the results of the 1962 elections were evidence that a substantial majority favoured early independence. However, to meet the wishes of the three smaller parties, I proposed to the two main parties that any possible doubts should be removed by a referendum, and that, in the meantime, further discussion of the Constitution should be deferred.

The Nationalist Party expressed the view that a referendum on independence was unnecessary, since the people of Malta had already given a clear decision on this issue at the last general election. Nevertheless, it said it would be prepared to agree, provided that all parties accepted the proposal for a referendum and would participate in it.

The Malta Labour Party, whose delegation had meanwhile withdrawn from the conference, was separately consulted. It declared itself unwilling to participate in a referendum, unless it was given a firm undertaking that a number of amendments which it proposed to the draft Constitution would be accepted in advance and that fresh elections would be held before independence. The other parties felt unable to accept these conditions, since they involved prejudging controversial issues which, in their view, could be settled only in relation to the constitution as a whole, after the prior question of independence had been decided.

After consultation with individual delegations on the situation thus created, I reached the conclusion that, in view of the probability of a boycott by a large section of the electorate, a referendum would be unlikely to produce a reliable result and that the proposal would therefore have to be dropped.

In these circumstances, there seemed to be no longer any justification for withholding a decision on the Malta. Government's application for independence. I accordingly announced that Her Majesty's Government had decided that Malta should become independent not later than 31st May, 1964.

In the light of this definite decision, I have invited the Prime Minister of Malta to hold discussions in Malta with representatives of all political parties, in a further endeavour to agree upon joint constitutional proposals. The British Government cannot divest themselves of their share of responsibility for Malta's future constitution; though we shall probably feel able to accept any provisions agreed by the Maltese parties among themselves. Should the parties fail to reach agreement, the outstanding issues could be referred for decision either to the people of Malta or to the British Government, as might be most appropriate.

A full report of the conference will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Bottomley

Is the Secretary of State aware that more than one leader of the delegation has expressed to me the feeling that the whole conference has been a shambles? Really, it is distressing that a settlement has not been reached. Now the Secretary of State himself has said that Her Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of responsibility for Malta's future Constitution. In this connection, will he give consideration himself to framing a human rights statute which will get the support of all the political parties?

Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not possible to have a General Election now? Finally, can he say what consideration has been given to the resolution passed by the United Nations on 13th May this year?

Mr. Sandys

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remark about the conference being a shambles, it certainly was not the chairman's fault. In these conferences it is quite normal for delegations to walk in and out and to issue all sorts of ultimatums—I am quite used to that—but although some of these delegations were not always present in the plenary sessions they were quite ready to have meetings with me on the side, and we managed to do our business perfectly satisfactorily without anybody losing face.

As to human rights, I made it clear that we have our share of responsibility for the future Constitution of Malta. But so do the people of Malta, and it is much better that they should try further to hammer out a Constitution that is produced by agreement than that I should try to impose one here.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that no settlement has been reached; that nothing has been decided. We have decided the most important thing of all, which is that Malta is to be independent before 31st May next year, and I believe that that is a very important step—it resulted in no less than three parties walking out. But I think that we have come to the right answer, and I felt that this one decision was quite big enough—as much as the patient can take—and I now hope that, in the light of that firm decision, the parties will try to come to some agreement about what their future Constitution should be.

As I mentioned in my statement, a further election is one of the issues between the parties.

Mr. Wall

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his courageous decision, may I ask him whether he will undertake that we shall continue generous economic help to Malta, not only in the few months before her independence, but in the years immediately after independence?

Mr. Sandys

We fully realise that Malta will continue to need financial support from us. I made it quite clear that our support will not be cut off, and that Malta will be neither one penny the better nor the worse off as a result of independence.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Does the Colonial Secretary realise—I am sure he does—that the changes made in our defence programme—the island has, for instance, been dependent for a century and a half on the Royal Navy—make any kind of independence mean very little unless there is a new and firm economic foundation for the life of Malta? What specific proposals has the right hon. Gentleman made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that will enable Malta to have independence with a prospect of holding and increasing its people's standard of life?

Mr. Sandys

At this conference we considered the constitutional aspect. As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience as a former Colonial Secretary, it is not normal at such a conference to consider financial arrangements. Those are normally dealt with between Governments.

Sir W. Teeling

Is it not true that my right hon. Friend just did not get a chance to discuss economic questions, even if he had wanted to? It is quite clear to anyone who followed the last General Election in the island that the whole question of independence was clearly raised, and that the vast majority of the people were in favour of it on the lines that my right hon. Friend is now advocating.

Mr. Sandys

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Castle

Is it not a fact that some of the main points of disagreement were centred around the issue of human rights, which are an intrinsic part of our way of life and without the adoption of which there cannot possibly be any fair and free elections or consultation with the Maltese people? Would it not be quite intolerable for this country to launch Malta into independence without first ensuring that those human rights are injected into the Maltese way of life without following the common practice on these occasions of having elections before independence is introduced?

Mr. Sandys

We have not prejudged any of these issues.

Sir P. Agnew

While I do not dissent from the proposal that Malta should receive independence, is it not also true that any rights—whether by Bill of Rights, or entrenched in the constitutional instrument, or however enshrined they may be—can, after independence, be changed at will by the sovereign independent Maltese Parliament? Would not my right hon. Friend, therefore, be right not to insist on the embodying of such rights as some precondition of granting independence, but to trust the Maltese people to use it sensibly is they have it?

Mr. Sandys

I trust the Maltese people to want a Constitution that does entrench human rights.

Mr. H. Wilson

While recognising the difficulties of this conference, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more specific at this stage on the two crucial points? First, would he not give an assurance that on the question of free elections he will insist—because we have, as a House, the right to insist—on the incorporation into their Constitution of the same provisions that we have in our Representation of the People Act? I am thinking, as he knows, particularly of Section 101. Will he not, at any rate, say that it is his view, as it is the view of the House, that the Maltese people should have the same rights and protection as we have in that Act? That could be said now.

Secondly, on the question of whether there should be an election before independence becomes effective, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this issue is not prejudiced either way by his statement, or by his answers this afternoon?

Mr. Sandys

I can certainly give that assurance.

The right hon. Gentleman's question about human rights is the same as that asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Now that we have settled that there will be independence, I want the Maltese parties to make a further effort to get closer to one and another on this question, because I believe that there is room for narrowing the gap. At the end of the day, we shall have to consider our own position.

Mr. H. Wilson

But since, apparently, there has not been agreement even in a conference chaired by an independent chairman—the right hon. Gentleman—and while we all hope that there may be an improvement in the position, is it not rather difficult now to leave this to a conference of the Maltese parties under the chairmanship of their own Prime Minister, who, in this matter, is a very controversial figure?

Would it not be right for the right hon. Gentleman to declare what is, I am sure, his own view and the view of everyone in this House—and it would help as a catalyst in this matter—that before we grant independence the Maltese people should have the same rights and protections in their electoral practices as the British people have?

Mr. Sandys

In the course of a fort-night's conference and discussion of these matters I think that my views have become pretty well known to the members of the Maltese delegations. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to make a public statement——

Mrs. Castle

Why not?

Mr. Sandys

The House knows how I feel about these things—I do not need to say. I want the parties to try to agree. There are about fifty different questions that have to be settled by the parties, and I do not want to pick and choose odd ones here and there, and say, "This is a condition; otherwise, we will not agree." I have already made it quite clear in my statement that we do not divest ourselves of the responsibility for ultimately seeing that this is a Constitution that we can recommend to the House.

In the end, there has to be an Order in Council. That has to be laid on the Table of the House, and the House will be able to ask me to explain why I have recommended Her Majesty to produce an Order in Council of this kind. I therefore cannot get away from my ultimate responsibility. But I would ask the House to leave me to do the tactics so that hon. Members can concern themselves later with the policy issues involved.

Mr. Grimond

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most people will think this to be at least the least bad solution open to a difficult problem? The right hon. Gentleman seems quite content that his head should be bloody but unbowed, and perhaps that is the most we can hope for. Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? Do I understand from his last answer that he may have official conversations still with the Maltese parties? When the Order in Council comes before the House, could the right hon. Gentleman, if not undertake, say that there will be some hope that he will be able to say something more then about the conditions mentioned? On the economic side, isit intended to have further discussions about this in the coming year? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this might be an opportunity of getting international agencies involved in the difficult problem of sustaining the Maltese economy?

Mr. Sandys

The Order in Council, of course, will be debatable by the House, like all Orders laid before the House. It is a matter for the House to decide what it wishes to discuss.

As for international money, first of all there will be talks on this matter between Her Majesty's Government and the Maltese Government. One of the advantages of independence in the economic field—and we have heard a lot about the disadvantages—is that an independent country is better able to attract international money than a Colony.

Mr. Driberg

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, there will never be agreement between the Maltese parties until the Maltese hierarchy begins to learn something of what has been going on in Rome since last October and refrains from exercising the spiritual tyranny by which it succeeded in distorting the last elections in Malta? In any Constitution in the framing of which he has a share—and he has agreed that he has ultimate responsibility to the House—will the right hon. Gentleman see not only that there is an adequate human rights clause, guaranteeing freedom of worship and freedom for religious minorities, but also that it does not contain a long list of exceptions which would have the effect of nullifying that clause?

Mr. Sandys

I fully understand the hon. Member's point of view. That is very delicate ground on which I do not propose to tread this afternoon.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one point which cannot be left where he is trying to leave it? When the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has made his own views clear on the question of electoral procedure to the parties to the conference, that is not good enough for the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that—I am sure through no fault of his own—the different parties to the conference have different ideas on what his views are on this point? This is the important point to single out from the 50. It is absolutely crucial. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to make his view clear and say now that he is in favour of applying the same protections that we enjoy when the Constitution comes about?

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that when an Order in Council is placed before the House it cannot be amended and that, therefore, the House has no powers in this matter? Does he not feel that he can help the process of agreement in Malta if he says that he supports corrupt practices provisions on the lines of Section 101 of the Representation of the People Act?

Mr. Sandys

I think that I have already explained that I do not want to pick out individual points. If the right hon. Gentleman had presided over this conference I think that he would agree with me that it is better to let tempers cool off for a little while rather than to add any more to the controversy.

Several Hon. Members rose

—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot pursue this further now.