HC Deb 27 July 1971 vol 822 cc265-71

6.21 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel)

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) always speaks with considerable authority on defence matters, and I know that the House and people outside attach considerable weight to his arguments. On this occasion, though, he also speaks from a longstanding knowledge of the area concerned and a longstanding affection for Malta and her people. I believe that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) showed the deep regard and warm affection that we have both for the country and for the people of Malta. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to bring the House up to date on the progress of our discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta on the subject of the Anglo-Maltese Defence Agreement.

It may also help the House if I begin by reminding hon. Members of our position in Malta. Under the 1964 Defence Agreement, we were given the right to station armed forces and associated British personnel in Malta in peace and in war, and to use facilities there not only for United Kingdom defence purposes but also in support of our international and Commonwealth obligations.

Except under arrangements between the two Governments, no forces other than the forces of Malta and the United Kingdom could be stationed in Malta or permitted to use harbour, dockyard, airfield, staging or communication facilities in Malta. The Agreement also made it clear that the Government of Malta could accord rights and facilities to the forces of any party to the North Atlantic Treaty.

In this way, we have been able in the past to ensure firstly that we can make full use of the facilities we retain in Malta for our own and for N.A.T.O. purposes—and at the same time ensure that unfriendly forces are not able to make any use of the Island.

The strategic value of Malta rests largely on its geographic situation in the centre of the Mediterranean, in the Sicilian Narrows. However, as a simple statement of fact, the military tasks which we carry out on the island could be carried out, as my hon. Friend indicated, from other places.

The main facilities which we have kept in Malta under the 1964 Agreement are the airfield at Luqa, harbour facilities and a land presence. The airfield is run on a joint user basis, with the R.A.F. providing much of the essential air traffic control and airfield service for civil aviation purposes. In addition the R.A.F. stations two squadrons of reconnaissance aircraft at Luqa and makes use of the airfield for training and trooping purposes. It also has the use of a subsidiary airfield at Hal Far.

We also maintain sufficient harbour facilities in Malta to be able to support visits by a small number of ships and to carry out dockyard-assisted maintenance as necessary. We also station an infantry battalion in Malta. At present, it is the 1st Battalion, the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, together with supporting units and services. As this House is already aware, the unit was due to be replaced by 41 Commando Group but, at Mr. Mintoff's request, we have agreed to hold up this replacement for the time being.

Under the terms of the 1964 Financial Agreement, Her Majesty's Government made available to the Government of Malta the sum of £50 million for the diversification and development of the economy of Malta and a further £1 million for the restoration of historic buildings and works in Malta. These aid payments are, as my hon. Friend made clear, being made on the basis of 75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan and there now remains to be paid out the sum of £9.4 million in the remaining 2½ years of the 1964 Financial Agreement. These moneys can be used to meet the social needs which were so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North and which certainly exist in the island of Malta.

The direct payment of aid, however, represents only a small part of the United Kingdom contribution to the economy of Malta. The stationing of some 3,500 Servicemen, together with their families, on the island provides direct employment for about 5,000 Maltese civilians and, indirectly, provides work for a further 1,400. We also employ some 1,100 Maltese uniformed personel. Over and above the direct payment of aid, our local defence expenditure, including personal spending, in Malta for 1971–72 will, if present arrangements continue, be £12.5 million. The United Kingdom also contributes to the Malta economy through tourism and from the personal expenditure and capital investment of many United Kingdom settlers on the island.

This then, in summary form, is the situation as it has been till recently in Malta.

As the House is already aware, one of the first actions of the new Prime Minister was to issue a public statement to the effect that the 1964 Defence Agreement with Britain was no longer in being; he also made it clear that he wished to have consultations with Her Majesty's Government about a new agreement to replace the Defence and Financial Agreements.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was due to travel to Valletta on 14th July to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his ideas for modification of the existing Agreements and to find out whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which we could recommend to the British Government for approval. The House knows that this visit was cancelled at the last minute, in the light of a message from Mr. Mintoff but, after a further message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Mintoff agreed that discussions should be held in Malta in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement.

My right hon. Friend and I went to Valletta last week to listen to Mr. Mintoff's proposals and to discuss them with him. On our side, we made it quite clear to him that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements are, in our view, still valid. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, Members of both the previous Government and the present Government are clear in their view that those Agreements have not been abrogated.

We also made it clear that the facilities which we currently enjoy in Malta under the 1964 Defence Agreement and the terms on which we can make use of them are basically satisfactory to us.

But, while we consider that the Defence and Financial Agreements are still valid, we said that we were, of course, prepared to consider any proposals which the Malta Government wished to put to us.

Mr. Mintoff, for his part, proposed a radical revision of the 1964 Agreements under which Britain would have to pay a higher price for defence facilities, with more restricted conditions of use, for example, with regard to the availability of facilities in Malta for the N.A.T.O. Alliance.

The House will understand that it would be wrong for me to go into greater detail while these proposals are being considered. I can, however, say that the difference between our two approaches is very wide indeed. As things stand, it will prove very difficult to reach a settlement.

We have made clear to the Malta Government that we would not wish to maintain troops in Malta against their wishes. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, they are a sovereign nation, and we have made quite clear that we would not wish to maintain troops in Malta against the wishes of the Malta Government. Equally, we felt bound to explain, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the strategic value of Malta is not so great that we could not reprovide these facilities elsewhere.

Nevertheless, we would rather remain in Malta than break the links which have united our countries for so long. A tour of duty in that lovely island is greatly appreciated by our Forces, and for a long time there has been a most happy and friendly relationship between our two peoples and between all those Service men who have served in Malta and the friendly and hospitable people of Malta themselves. We have no wish to see these links broken because we already have good defence facilities on the island. We would much like to have an agreement with the Malta Government, but, clearly, there is a balance which has to be struck between the terms and conditions for our use of defence facilities on the island and the value which we can put on the facilities.

I cannot at this stage forecast the outcome of our consideration of Mr. Mintoff's proposals. Clearly, it will be necessary to consider them in detail, not only at home but also with our N.A.T.O. allies who share our interest in this matter. The House should be aware that we are keeping N.A.T.O. full informed of developments in Malta.

At the time when we decided to hold up for the time being the replacement of the 1st Devon and Dorsets by 41 Commando, there was an advance party of the Commando in Malta. We have now instructed the advance party to return to the United Kingdom, where it will rejoin its parent unit at a camp near Tavistock. The whole unit will deploy to the Mediterranean on an exercise in September. We have decided, also, to allow the families of the 1st Devon and Dorsets to return to the United Kingdom in advance of the units if they wish to do so.

I am sure that the House will not expect me to be drawn into further detail on Mr. Mintoff's proposals, and I certainly should not wish to comment on the detailed conditions which he is seeking to impose, or on the amount of money which he has requested, except to say that it is a very high figure indeed.

Mr. Wall

Could my noble Friend give some idea of when he thinks the negotiations will reach finality? Is it likely to be before the date of the first sitting of the Malta Parliament?

Lord Balniel

It is extraordinarily difficult for me, more particularly in view of the wide difference of opinion and differ- ence of approach which exists, to give any indication of when these negotiations can reach finality. However, we have very much in mind the point made by my hon. Friend, that the Malta Parliament will reassemble towards the end of August, and we are anxious to study the proposals as quickly as we can.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton)

The House understands the Minister's difficulty in giving any great detail, but could he give some indication of the Government's attitude to the question of principle whether N.A.T.O. or the members of N.A.T.O. should make a financial contribution in any of the pending negotiations, or does he feel that this must remain a purely bilateral agreement between Malta and the United Kingdom?

Lord Balniel

The hon. Gentleman asks a question of great importance. We feel that the strategic value is primarily to N.A.T.O. itself, and, therefore, it seems to us reasonable that we should consult our N.A.T.O. allies, keeping them closely informed of the proposals which have been put to us. We are in the process of such consultations with our N.A.T.O. allies.

Dr. Owen

I do not want to press the Minister, but the question of principle is one of financial contribution. I think that the whole House will accept that N.A.T.O. is seriously involved in this issue, but there has been some speculation in the Press—for example, in The Guardian today—about the Government's attitude towards an actual financial contribution coming from N.A.T.O. countries.

Lord Balniel

We should certainly not object to a financial contribution coming from N.A.T.O. There is no difficulty of principle so far as we are concerned in such a proposal.

To sum up briefly, the future of the Anglo-Maltese Defence and Financial Agreements raises issues of importance not only to the United Kingdom but to her allies, to the new Government of Malta and to the Maltese people. I think that it is generally agreed by the House that we should study these problems carefully. However, I must regretfully underline the fact that, at present, the two sides to the discussion are very far apart and that there is a long way to go before we shall be able to see whether a new agreement is a possibility. I am sure that the House will understand that I would not wish to elaborate further while the negotiations are proceeding.