§ 2.39 p.m.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have made to the Government of Malta with reference to constitutional changes and what reply they have had to their proposals.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, I can best answer the noble Lord's Question by reading the text of, I regret to say, a fairly long message which was sent to the Prime Minister of Malta on September 19 last, and which has not yet been made public in this country. This conveyed the reply of Her Majesty's Government to a suggestion that responsibility for matters relating to Malta should be transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. My right honourable friend informed Dr. Borg Olivier, as follows:
"I have been considering very carefully in consultation with my colleagues the Memorandum which you handed to the Minister of State on June 17 and am now able to let you have our comments as promised by him. I must say at once that I am very sorry that we do not find it possible to meet you on your proposal for transfer of responsibility for handling business relating to Malta in London to the Commonwealth Relations Office. In the allocation of responsibilities of government here, the function of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is that of handling relations with the fully independent members of the Commonwealth. It is true that he is also charged with the responsibility for relations with the Central African Federation and the South African High Commission Territories, but these are wholly exceptional arrangements for which there are special historical reasons.
"We are very clear that we cannot agree to any further extension of his functions beyond the proper one which I have indicated. I have noted what you say of Malta's constitutional status and that in your recent response to the Acting Governor's letter about the 1112 stationing of American airmen in the island (on which you will very shortly receive my comments) you indicate that you have been considering a radical revision. I must, however, say in all frankness that it seems to me that the position of Malta as a fortress (which has given her a famous place in history and is also the source of her livelihood) must unavoidably entail some constitutional restriction on full self-government in the fields of defence and external affairs. On account of this and of her relative size and the disabilities imposed by her lack of natural resources, Malta is not, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, eligible to be considered for full independent membership of the Commonwealth. We have, however, considered with the utmost sympathy the arguments in your Memorandum and we appreciate the unique position of Malta as a fortress in Europe with a long history of civilisation and of service in peace and war most recently recognised by the exceptional award of the George Cross.
"In these circumstances we consider it would be appropriate to transfer responsibility for handling business relating to Malta here to the Home Secretary, who is the Secretary of State immediately concerned as the Queen's Minister in relation to the United Kingdom and neighbouring islands. I am authorised to inform you that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree in principle to such a transfer. The formal arrangement would be that Malta would be under the authority of the Queen in Council with the Home Secretary as the responsible Minister. There could not be more signal recognition of Malta's unique character, and I commend this proposal to the consideration of yourself and your colleagues. I need not say that I should be very ready to provide any further explanations which you may require. To me personally it is a matter of regret that it should fall to me to put forward a proposal that will sever the long association between Malta and the Colonial Office, but if the change would accord better with the aspirations of the people of Malta and contribute to closer and more cordial relations between us, I shall gladly defend it."
1113 Shortly after receipt of this message, the Maltese Government was defeated in the Legislative Assembly. A dissolution followed and Dr. Olivier has indicated that a firm answer cannot be given to the offer at the present juncture, although the first reaction of the Nationalist Ministers now in office pending the General Election has not been favourable.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the full reply he has given on this important constitutional issue. May I point out to him that the problem in Malta will affect, in time, some thirty to forty other territories which all fall within the description contained in the Secretary of State's words where he says:
On account of this and of her relative size and the disabilities imposed by her lack of natural resources…They are all in the same position as Malta and they will be affected in the same way by those considerations. Therefore, may I ask whether, instead of there being this highly anomalous situation in which Malta, and possibly other territories, will be placed in the same position as that of the Isle of Man, Her Majesty's Government would consider a comprehensive plan which would meet the position of these thirty to forty territories, either by the method I have suggested, of a Council of Empire, or, if that is not thought the best possible way, by some plan which they themselves will think up and put into operation to meet the circumstances which will undoubtedly arise?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERI can only say, in reply to the noble Lord, that the offer of the transfer to the Home Office of responsibility for Maltese affairs is not, and indeed cannot be, regarded as a precedent for other smaller territories which are at present under the Colonial Secretary. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I do not think I have anything to which to reply except to refer him once again to the answer which I gave him on October 28 last.
§ LORD OGMOREWhile thanking the noble Earl for his courtesy in replying 1114 to my supplementary question, may I ask him whether it is not entirely anomalous to try to bring a territory as far away geographically as Malta into the sort of relationship which we have with the Isle of Man which is on our doorstep, and which also at one time I believe was the personal possession of the Stanleys—the family of the noble Earl, Lord Derby? It has come to us through them. It never achieved its present constitutional position in such a manner as we are now trying to devise in the case of Malta. It came to us as the result of a pure historical accident, through the Stanley family quarrelling with the Lord Protector. That is why we have this association with the Isle of Man. May I also ask the noble Earl whether he is not aware that we cannot achieve this same relationship with the thirty to forty other territories, even if we do it with Malta. The whole thing would become cumbrous and the Home Secretary, instead of looking after the United Kingdom, would spend all his time looking after remote islands in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERIf the noble Lord will read with particular care the observations I have made, he will observe that Malta is, in point of fact, entirely different from the many other territories which he has mentioned, not by name but numerically.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWould it be necessary for the, Maltese customs duties to come before Parliament for approval, as is the case with the Isle of Man customs duties?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERThat is not contained in the original Question, but I will make inquiries and let the noble Viscount know.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI should have thought that if Malta were going to be consigned to the Home Office—I am not complaining—the Government would have considered the effect upon the tariff arrangements. I should have thought that would be already in their minds.