MALTA CONSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 30 June 1932)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there are certain Amendments which look rather formidable, but they only refer to one matter. The original intention of His Majesty's Government was to provide in the Bill that under the new system the Judges should hold office during His Majesty's pleasure. This provision, it was proposed, should apply to the existing Judges as well as to those appointed in future. The object in view was to assimilate the tenure of judicial office in Malta to that which now prevails throughout the Colonies generally. Your Lordships will recollect that there has been considerable unrest in Malta, and since the introduction of the Bill representations have been received from the Maltese Judges which make it clear that they have felt some uneasiness with regard to the contemplated change. They have represented that the tenure "during good behaviour" is considered constitutionally to be higher than the tenure "during pleasure," and that the former tenure has always been that upon which the Judges in Malta have held office since the island became a British Possession.

His Majesty's Government have no wish to cause any apprehension in the mind of the Judges on this important point, and they are, therefore, prepared to amend the Bill so as to allay any doubts which may have arisen. They desire to make it clear, however, that, under the tenure of "pleasure" and the proceedure laid down by the Secretary of State, they consider that the same independence would have been secured to the Judges as under the tenure of "good behaviour" and it has never been their intention in the slightest degree to detract from the security of that tenure. All that they wish to do is to make quite sure that the present Judges during their tenure of office can only be removed for misconduct, and that any future Judge during his tenure can only be removed for the same reason. All the Amendments deal with this point. I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper.