MALTA

HC Deb 10 March 1967 vol 742 cc1895-906

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.

I have to tell the House that the Malta Government have not agreed to our final proposals about the rundown of British forces.

We went very far indeed to meet the Malta case for a breathing space to deal with the problem of unemployment arising from the rundown.

We proposed that during the whole of the first year of the rundown the loss of posts would be limited to 300—compared with the 3,000 envisaged in our January proposals. Natural wastage would mean that there would be hardly any net increase of unemployment in the first year. We guaranteed that no more than 550 jobs would be lost in the first six months of the second year—that is to say, in the first 18 months of the rundown, the posts abolished would not exceed 850. We offered to extend the rundown till October in the fifth year. The corresponding reduction in the employment of Maltese personnel would not be completed till April, 1972—in five years' time.

The extra cost to us of these proposals would be of the order of £10 million in local expenditure.

Simultaneously, the Defence Department, in negotiations with the Malta General Workers' Union. offered new terminal gratuities which would have increased by nearly £900,000 the special terms introduced for the 1962 rundown.

We were ready to start forthwith discussions about the use over the next seven years of the £32 million aid available under the Financial Agreement. We offered to increase this sum by the amounts undrawn during the past three years.

We agreed to the immediate appointment of a high-powered joint mission to make urgent recommendations to both Governments about retraining and the creation of new job opportunities. We offered to provide experts in both these fields. We also agreed to a continuing steering committee to supervise progress and, as necessary, to make recommendations to both Governments.

The reason for the failure to agree was the demand of the Malta Government that, in effect, the rundown should be put off for two years. This we could not accept.

I can say with a clear conscience that we went as far as we possibly could in modifying our defence policy in order to co-operate with Malta in mitigating and coping with the effects of the rundown of our forces.

I made it clear to Dr. Borg Olivier that all our proposals were dependent upon the British forces in Malta resuming the full exercise of their rights under the Defence Agreement. Unless this happened it would be clear that our forces would not be welcome in Malta and we would have no alternative but to withdraw them over the next few months.

I cannot believe that the Malta Government will deliberately precipitate the massive and immediate increase in unemployment that would follow such a withdrawal, nor that it will bring about an abrupt halt of British defence expenditure now running at £12½ million a year, and the loss of improved redundancy payments.

I hope that, on reflection, the Government of Malta will accept the reasonable package deal to which we were, and still are, ready to agree.

Mr. Heath

I am sure that the whole House will greatly regret that these negotiations should have broken down. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Government have, to a very large extent, themselves to blame—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—for the way in which they have handled these negotiations in the past. In particular, the Commonwealth Secretary having said in Malta that there could be no bargaining, the right hon. Gentleman has now spent a considerable time endeavouring to reach a negotiated settlement, putting forward the proposals, for which I give him full credit—[HoN. MEMBERS: "0h."] Will hon. Gentlemen kindly be quiet.

Mr. Heffer

Who does the right hon. Gentleman think he is?

Mr. Heath

The right hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable time—[lnterruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on a serious issue. Noise does not help.

Mr. Heffer

The right hon. Gentleman should be serious.

Mr. Heath

Just because hon. Gentlemen are rattled this morning, there is no need to shout.

The right hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable time putting forward very reasonable proposals which, if they had been put forward in the first instance. might very well have produced the answer.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two particular questions? The talks seem to have broken down on a comparatively narrow point. He said that the Malta Government asked that the rundown should be put off for two years. He has said what he proposed for the first 18 months, which was much diminished on the earlier proposal. Can he tell us what would happen in the second six months of the second year, so that we can get the full picture over the two years?

Secondly, may I ask him whether he will remain in touch with the Malta Government and see whether, even now, when the Malta Prime Minister is in London, agreement can be reached? May I ask him not to pursue his penultimate paragraph. Which has the implications of a threat to Malta. but to try to keep these negotiations on the level of reasonable talks?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the way in which the Government have conducted these negotiations. We have an obligation under the Defence Agreement to consult the Malta Government. Consulting does not mean just laying down a thing and insisting on it. It means negotiating.

The right hon. Gentleman should realise that what we did in the first place was to make a proposition to Malta based on our own defence interests and needs. Then, during the course of negotiation, we have increasingly and properly taken into account the social and economic needs of Malta and we have subordinated to a considerable extent our strict defence interests to these considerations. We have had, as we must have under the Defence Agreement, negotiations and consultations of this kind.

The first two years put together, as a total, would involve a loss of posts of Maltese personnel of just under 2,000, which compared with the 4,000 under the proposals we put forward in January. The latter would have been according to our defence interesets—the redeployment of our forces, the rundown, and the rearrangement of our troops that we need. That is the fact.

I will certainly be ready to receive any recommendations which the Malta Prime Minister makes to us. But the right hon. Gentleman must remember that our troops are under harassment. It is reaching the point when the loss of mobility by our troops is intolerable. There is a deadline which has been imposed, not by us, but by Malta. It is not possible, therefore, to go on talking indefinitely. We cannot allow our troops to become ineffective through loss of mobility.

Mr. Heath

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the figure. If I understand him correctly, it means that the loss of posts will be 850 in the first 18 months and 1,150 in the next six months, which is a very considerable number. I understand that the anxiety of the Malta Government is that they should be able to see possible employment for this loss of posts which would depend to a certain extent on the recommendations of the Mission which the Government have offered to set up. Is there not room for further discussion on how this matter can be dealt with so that they can see what employment is possible as a result of the mission before such a heavy rundown in six months takes place?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I do not think so. We have had a solid two weeks of discussion. There comes a point when neither side will move, or, if either side moves, there will not be agreement. We do not have much time left. It is true that the 1,150 in the second half of the second year is a large number of men, but this is a consequence of trying to give the maximum breathing space over the first 18 months without going too far against our own defence interests. Obviously, the number would have been smaller in the second half of the second year if the number had been greater in the first half. The consequence of giving as much breathing space as we can must inevitably be to bunch the discharges somewhat a little later. This is an inescapable consequence.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his efforts to reach an agreement during the last fortnight have been appreciated and are in marked distinction to the activities of some of his colleagues? May I ask him, first, whether we regard ourselves as bound by the offers which we have made to the Malta Government; secondly, whether this still represents a 7 per cent. unemployment rate; and, thirdly, whether talks are to continue on any matters, or do we take it that negotiations have now completely broken down?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about me. But I have been working wholly in accord with my colleagues. This has not been a personal operation. This is the Government's policy, and it has been their policy all the way through. Therefore, I take the right hon. Gentleman's praise as praise for the Government.

The question of what an unemployment rate will be in hypothetical circumstances is very difficult to work out. The Malta Government, naturally, make a rather pessimistic assumption—I do not blame them at all—when arguing about the impact of this. We make, perhaps, a slightly over-rosy assumption. I am not sure, and it is very hard to guess. It depends entirely on the capacity of the joint mission to get job-creating undertakings started in the first 18 months. If it succeeds in doing this, then there will not be the rate which the Maltese expect.

As I have pointed out, there will be no effective increase in unemployment in the first year. One must remember that the figures which I have given, like the 1,150, are crude figures and do not allow for wastage or for induced retirement because of the generous redundancy agreement.

I made quite clear to the Prime Minister of Malta that this is a package deal and that it depends on the withdrawal of the measures taken against our forces. Of course, as I made quite clear to him, and as 1 think I made clear in my statement, they will fall if the Malta Government goes on making it absolutely clear that our troops are not wanted. In those circumstances, we must have a withdrawal, not a rephasing. The agreement which we offered them was dependent on the phasing of the rundown. Otherwise there would be a withdrawal, over a few months, of the whole of our forces, because we will not keep our forces where clearly they are not welcome.

Mr. Dalyell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has our total support in these sad circumstances? Is he also aware that we are sad and shocked at the intransigence of our friends the Malta Government? We think that they have been quite unreasonable in the circumstances.

On a particular point, would he say what, if anything, has been done about the possible educational and training schemes about which a private memorandum was submitted to him?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I feel that when there has been time for consideration of the whole matter there will be a general feeling that we have not been harsh or ungenerous in our approach.

We did not have, and I think that it would have been inappropriate to these negotiations to have, detailed talks about retraining and education. But we created a structure under which this would happen very quickly if we could have come to agreement. There was to be a joint high-powered mission which would make recommendations. We should have sent straight away experts in retraining, in gearing such retraining to job opportunities, and so on. The structure would have been created under which these things could have happened.

Mr. Driberg

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we realise that he has been most patient in these negotiations and has made substantial concessions, and that the working people of Malta ought to realise that, if the delegation goes home without even the more-than-half-loaf which was available, the main responsibility for the distress and hardship which will ensue rests on the Prime Minister of Malta?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I thank my hon. Friend. I think that it is very much more than half a loaf.

Mr. Fisher

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me personally—I do not know what my colleagues think—that I believe that these terms are reasonable and that I deeply regret that they proved to be unacceptable to Malta? Could he say whether the Malta legislation for the withdrawal of our forces is now to proceed and, if so, whether the mission will proceed with its work?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I told the Prime Minister that if the Act to amend, or, in effect, to repeal the Visiting Forces Act were introduced, we should have to take this as an absolutely clear sign that our forces were not wanted and, therefore, the withdrawal would commence and none of these offers would hold any more.

Having worked out a careful rephasing which we thought was possible, within reason, for Malta to tolerate and cope with, we cannot be expected to help to cope with a situation in which, instead of 300 men in the first year, there may be 10,000 men out of work in the first few months. This creates a situation against our will which we cannot hope to cope with. It would be quite impossible.

Mr. Paget

As one who was highly critical of the original action with regard to Malta, may I join my voice to those who deplore the Malta Government's attitude in refusing what now seem to be the most generous and helpful terms and express the great hope that they will have second thoughts and not sabotage the working of this agreement which, unless they stop it working, will, I under stand, be put into effect.

May I put a further but quite different question? What would be the possibility in the future of stationing part of our Strategic Reserve in Malta, which is something quite different from the garrison which we are now withdrawing? Last time I asked my right hon. Friend this question, he said that it would be open. Can it be said that this will still be considered in the future?

Mr. Gordon Walker

Following the question asked previously by my hon. and learned Friend, I had this matter carefully looked into by the people concerned and I am afraid that there is no possibility of this. The costs would be disproportionately high and the difficulty of getting the forces to the right place would be very considerable. I will, of course, have the question looked at again. I know my hon. and learned Friend's interest in the matter.

In reply to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I sincerely and wholeheartedly echo his hope that even at this eleventh hour the Malta Government will reconsider their attitude to this offer.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in repudiating responsibility of his Government for the breakdown of the negotiations, and of his remark—I think that I quote his words correctly—that "this has been our policy all along", how does he reconcile that with what his right hon. Friend said shortly after landing in an aeroplane in Malta a few weeks ago? Surely, this could only be calculated to exacerbate opinion in Malta and lay down the very worst conditions under which negotiations and consultations could take place.

May I ask, further, what effect there will be not only on N.A.T.O. forces, but on the British segment of N.A.T.O. forces using Malta in future?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I did not say that it had been our policy all along. We have moved a great deal under the pressure of argument. We have listened, we have negotiated. Throughout the whole of this I have been acting for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary. I have been in the closest touch with him throughout. I have acted at his request for him while he was away.

There is no question of any difference between us. There can be no wedge run between us. We have been working together. I have been working on his behalf and this has been our attitude throughout. We have listened, as he listened, to the arguments of the Malta Government and we have—I would not like to say given away—accepted the force of many of the things they have said.

I do not think that the effect upon N.A.T.O. will arise, but if N.A.T.O. wants to make an inquiry and study of the whole Mediterranean situation, including Malta, we would have no objection. The Malta Government at one point suggested that that should happen. We had no objection to it and we have no objection now.

Mr. Dickens

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every reasonable Member and person in the country will recognise that he has gone as far as anyone could conceivably wish in arriving at a settlement of this dispute? Indeed, some of us think that he has gone much too far.

Can my right hon. Friend answer two detailed points? First, what would be the cumulative defence saving in Malta over the period of the revised rundown, and in what year will the full saving of £6 million be made? Secondly, did the Malta Government at any time during the negotiations show any willingness to mobilise the considerable private resources of the Maltese rich, at present held in Central Europe and in this country for the benefit of the island?

Mr. Gordon Walker

The question of the saving is a rather difficult sum. I have worked it out as well as I can. The extra cost of £10 million which I mentioned in my statement would be due to the prolongation of the rundown and the phasing of it so that the greater part of the rundown occurred in the last years and not in the first years as originally suggested. We would still save quite a bit of money over the one year longer period of the rundown and, of course, we would reach the saving intended, which is about half of the £12½ million a year that our forces cost us now, one year later than we would have reached it under the January proposals.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

I am sure that the whole House has great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the great advance which he has made on previous offers to the Malta Government, but I wonder whether we may look at a rather wider issue which the Ministry of Defence rejected on strategic grounds.

Considering the immense investment to be made over the next few years in very fast aircraft, further consideration should be given to using Malta far more widely than it has been used as an area for training and using these aircraft, because I am certain that the excellence of the weather and the facilities available would make a positive saving over the years to the defence budget. I hope that this will be considered. It puts the whole argument on a quite different level.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Of course, that would be considered. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, because this is a matter relating not to these specific negotiations but to the general redeployment of our forces. If the right hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to my right hon. Friend, I know that he will get a careful and persuasive answer.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem here may well be due less to the terms of the offer, which most people would agree are now extremely reasonable, than to internal difficulties in Malta as between the Government and the Opposition? If this is so, and if it is at least possible that had the Leader of the Opposition been able to come to this country agreement might have been reached, would my right hon. Friend, even at this stage, consider the possibility of going to Malta, if a joint meeting could be arranged which would be attended by both the Government and the Opposition, with a view to a final attempt to reach an agreed solution?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I was scrupulously careful throughout the negotiations not to interfere, or appear to interfere, in any way in internal Maltese politics. I cannot, therefore, comment on the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made about the possible causes of the breakdown. I cannot agree to fly out or to continue these talks now. A deadline is imposed upon us by the measures taken against our troops and it would be quite unreal to suggest that we could have any more talks now. We simply cannot go any further than we have gone. I hope and pray that the Government of Malta will realise that they will be bringing untold, unnecessary harm upon their own people if they do not accept an offer which I think the whole House has agreed is now a reasonable one.

Sir F. Bennett

As regards the past, would not the right hon. Gentleman be much fairer to the House if he admitted that a lot of his troubles have stemmed from precisely the fact that a very rigid interpretation of consultation was adopted in the first instance? This has had repercussions ever since, not only in Malta, but elsewhere. It would be fairer to say this.

As regards the future, the right hon. Gentleman said on a rather detailed point that during the two years a total of 2,000 people, in crude figures as he gave them, would be unemployed as a result of what has happened. He said that this figure would depend to some extent upon the progress that was made in the finding of new jobs by the joint Mission.

The right hon. Gentleman did not give any idea how he envisaged the joint Mission operating. He thought that one of the matters which had been concerning the Malta Government must be that definite jobs would be in sight during that period and that—2014;

Mr. Speaker

Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I said that the figures would be reduced by natural wastage and by a factor for induced voluntary retirement due to the redundancy payments, which no one can calculate. I could not, of course, say that there would be jobs for all these men. That was why we negotiated very generous redundancy payments, because there would be some men who would be discharged—let me say so frankly—and would not be re-employed.

With the 18 months' breathing space, the amount of money available in aid which ought to be injected into the Maltese economy, and the work of a high-powered mission, I am sure many jobs would be created over the first 18 months not only to absorb those thrown out during the 18 months, but to absorb a considerable number of those who would be thrown out thereafter.

I really cannot accept the first part of what the hon. Member said. This was consultation. We put forward proposals at first, as was right, based on our defence interests, and during the course of the consultations, which we were bound to have, we subordinated those interests to the other considerations. It was right for us in the first place to put forward proposals—not laying them down absolutely—but proposals on that basis in the first place. That is how the consultations have gone from the beginning until now. In any case, it is the present, not the past, which matters at this moment.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We must proceed.