MALTA'S FUTURE CONSTITUTION

HL Deb 28 June 1961 vol 232 cc1018-58

2.44 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to draw attention to the Report of the Malta Constitutional Commission. (Cmnd. 1261); and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have ventured to table this Motion on the subject of Malta because Malta has not been discussed by your Lordships for some time, and because I hope it will give the House an opportunity to offer the Government its advice before any final decision is taken about the future of that territory. Your Lordships will remember that the Report of the Constitutional Commission was published as lone ago as February. There has therefore been plenty of time for everyone—including, of course, the members of Her Majesty's Government—to give it careful consideration. What I have no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will agree is that the Government will have to make up their mind in the fairly near future whether to accept or to turn down, in whole or in part, the recommendations of this extremely important Report of the Commission that was sent Out to give its views on the constitutional future of Malta.

I think it is peculiarly fitting that your Lordships should be in a position to express an opinion on this matter before the Government decide about it, because so many noble Lords have an intimate knowledge of Malta. There are at least three noble Lords who took part in the Round-Table Conference of 1956: the noble Earl opposite himself, the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and my noble friend Lord Attlee. There is one ex-Governor of Malta sitting just below the gangway—my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch. And there are other noble Lords who know Malta and have spent many pleasant and agreeable visits to that delightful Island.

I should like first to place on record our gratitude—and I am sure I speak for everyone in saying this—to Sir Hilary Blood and his colleagues on the Commission for the very real help they have given in going to Malta and making such a careful study, and in trying to find a solution to its problems. Whether or not they have succeeded—and that, of course, remains to be seen—they have certainly done their best to find their way round the present impasse of direct rule. We all—and this, again, is something we have in common—share a desire to see a Parliamentary system of government restored in Malta at the earliest possible moment, and we are, of course, anxious (because the one goes with the other) that direct rule through the Governor should cease at the earliest practicable moment. I think the real difficulty is not the objective of policy, which is common to us all, but of choosing a Constitution for Malta which is acceptable to public opinion in the major political Parties and among the public in Malta generally.

May I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what were the alternatives before the Commission? I think there were three alternatives in proposing a new Constitution: there was diarchy, the old system; there was integration with the United Kingdom; and there was a greater measure of self-government than Malta had under the system of diarchy which had prevailed before. Independence for Malta was, of course, ruled out from consideration by the Commission by its terms of reference; so those, I think, were the three alternatives. I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to come back to independence later on, because even if Malta is not offered independence under the new Constitution I think it is entitled to know what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the future. So I shall come back to that question in a minute.

My Lords, I think—and I agree in this matter wholeheartedly with the Commission—that the Commissioners were right to discard both diarchy and integration and to plump for a greater measure of internal self-government. Diarchy—and I think we all agreed at the Round-Table Conference about this—has never worked satisfactorily because of the continuous friction between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Malta over the division of powers. The friction, as your Lordships will remember, has been so great that the Constitution has been suspended several times since it was introduced in 1921. At the Round-Table Conference in 1955 we wanted to see integration with the United Kingdom, because at that time it seemed to us that the majority of the Maltese really wanted that solution. Indeed, I think our opinion was largely justified by the referendum which followed, because your Lordships will remember in that referendum 74 per cent. of the votes cast were in favour of integration. But that climate of opinion was, unfortunately, not to last. In 1956 Mr. Mintoff of the Labour Party rejected integration; and, of course, the Nationalist Party was never in favour of it. So here we had in 1958 both the main political Parties in Malta saying that they did not want integration.

It therefore became clear to all of us that by 1958 public opinion in Malta had turned against integration, and indeed that has been the position ever since. I am sure the Blood Commission were absolutely right in discarding both those alternatives—diarchy and integration with the United Kingdom—and in recommending a return to Parliamentary government, with more power and authority than before for the Government of Malta. Whether in fact Parliamentary government as restored in the new Constitution will work will depend on the willingness of the political Parties and the people of Malta to co-operate; and that remains to be seen. For my part—and I should like to express a very strong personal opinion—I profoundly hope this co-operation will be forthcoming. I hope the political Parties in Malta will be willing to take part in elections and to form a Government from their elected representatives, whichever of them obtains a majority.

The broad outline of the Blood Constitution offers another stage, the next stage, in the constitutional development of Malta, and if this offer is turned down—and it may well be turned down, of course—I cannot see that there is any alternative to a continuation of direct rule—something which nobody, either here or in Malta, wants. But if this very modest advance in the Blood Commission's recommendations towards self-government is to be made palatable to public opinion in Malta—and that is essential if this Constitution is to work—. Her Majesty's Government must do much more than they have done hitherto to meet the political aspirations of Malta.

There are two things which I believe the Government should do, and should do immediately; and perhaps we can have a reply from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, when he winds up for the Government. First, they should say publicly that the detailed proposals of the Blood Constitution are open to discussion and subject to modification by Her Majesty's Government, even if the broad outline must be accepted as something final. They should also say—and I think this is even more important from the point of view of opinion in Malta—that what is now proposed is no more than an interim Constitution, which will be followed, with no unavoidable delay, by full self-government and independence for Malta.

I should like to deal for a moment with both these aspects of policy. There are things in the proposed Constitution which I myself should hope that the Government would seriously reconsider. I will not go into them in detail, because it would take too, long and I do not want to weary your Lordships, but the most important of these matters is the question of control of the police. There cannot be genuine internal self-government in Malta—and I think the Maltese are at least entitled to expect to go as far as that—unless Maltese Ministers control the police and are responsible for maintaining order. I agree, of course, that the British Government should continue to have the last word about external relations and defence. They are matters which go with independence, and are not suitable matters at this stage for control in Malta. But if we deprive the Maltese of the basic and elementary responsibility of any Government of maintaining order, we are really not giving them a fair chance of running their own affairs at home. I know perfectly well—and there is no doubt that this was the view of the Commission, and that anyone who knows Malta will agree—that there are serious risks involved in allowing the Maltese Government to control and direct the police. But I believe that these risks have to be taken. Risks have to be taken at every stage in the advance towards self-government, and we cannot use the argument of risk to put back an advance which seems essential at this stage in the constitutional development of Malta.

The other reason why it seems to me that British control of the police is very undesirable is that the controlling authority, it is suggested in the Report, will be the Governor of Malta. The Report also says—and with this I entirely agree—that the position of the Governor should approximate to that of a constitutional monarch". That would obviously be a good thing; but surely these two things are absolutely contradictory. It would be quite impossible, if the Governor became involved in a head-on collision with the political Parties (as he would be very likely to do if he had to manage the police), for him to remain outside politics and to be a constitutional monarch or the representative of the constitutional Head of State. I do not think this is a responsibility that ought to be given to the Governor.

If the Government insist on the British Government controlling the police, then surely it should be done by the United Kingdom High Commissioner, who will also be responsible—and this is what is proposed in the Report—for external affairs and defence. Why should he not do all these thorny and difficult things, which are bound to cause difficulties and differences of opinion with political personalities in Malta? It is only in this way that the Governor can be kept out of politics, and I think that that is eminently desirable. I cannot help feeling that it would be even worse to involve a judge in politics, as would be the case if the Chief Justice, as is suggested in the Report—sand it is the normal procedure in all Colonies—were to act for the Governor while he was sick or away on leave. In that regard, I should have thought it would be far better for a senior civil servant, such as a Chief Secretary, to act for the Governor when he is not able to carry out his duties in Malta.

I agree wholeheartedly with another matter in the Report, when it say's that it would be a good thing for the economy of Malta for Malta to become the State of Malta. I am sure that that would make a lot of difference in Malta. These suggestions about colonial status are very much resented, and if we could get rid of this word "colony" and show that Malta will have the status of a State, I think it would go a long way towards securing good will from the people of Malta for any political proposals we have to make.

I am not going to weary your Lordships by going into this detailed criticism of the Report. All I would ask the Government to say at the moment is that this document is not sacrosanct, it is not Holy Writ, and its proposals can be reconsidered and modified, if necessary, to meet honest criticism, both here and in Malta. It may be possible to discuss these matters with the Maltese political leaders. I do not know whether they would be willing to do so; they might not be willing to do so. But, in any event, they are matters which should be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and I hope that, in the light of criticism, they will be willing to modify various points in the recommendations.

The other condition, without which I do not think any Constitution will work in Malta, is an undertaking from the Government that Malta is no exception to the first principle of British colonial policy, which is to bring our Colonies as quickly as possible to the stage of complete self-government and independence. An undertaking on these lines might perhaps be written into the preamble of the new Constitution. I think it would have a very good effect in Malta if it could be put in writing in the terms of the Constitution; but that is a matter, of course, for consideration, and is not in itself essential.

I should like to think that the Government might also be willing to say that they would start discussions with the political leaders about the transfer of power as soon as the new Constitution has been launched and, of course, provided those leaders are prepared to play their part in making it work. I really cannot see how we can secure government by consent in Malta—and government by consent we must have in Malta, as we ultimately achieved it in Cyprus—, any more than we were able to do so in Cyprus without it being absolutely clear that independence is the aim, and that it is not being withheld unnecessarily or without good cause.

There are two arguments, with which your Lordships will be familiar, that are used by those who say that we cannot allow Malta to become independent and in a different position from other colonial territories. The arguments are first, economic, and secondly, strategic. Malta, people say, is not economically viable and, therefore, must continue to receive financial aid from the United Kingdom. I think that this proposition is perfectly true. I do not think that anyone could disagree with it, even though a great deal of effort has been made to start up secondary industries and to make the island more self-supporting. Perhaps the noble Earl could say something about the agreement with Bailey's for the conversion of the naval base into a commercial dockyard, because that is the most important single factor in the economic reconstruction of Malta. It is a very good thing that this agreement has been reached.

But I do not think that the consequences that are drawn from this proposition are valid. I do not think that it follows from the fact that Malta is not economically viable that it cannot be independent. I think that financial aid from the United Kingdom should continue after independence, provided that Malta stays in the Commonwealth; and so far as I know no Maltese political leader of any consequence has closed his mind to Malta's remaining in the Commonwealth. Of course, the decision is for Malta to make, and not for us. But surely the time has come when we must recognise that Her Majesty's Government should continue to give financial aid to dependencies after they become independent Commonwealth countries. What about the West Indies next year? I cannot believe that the Government's grants to the West Indies are going to stop immediately the West Indies become a self-governing independent member of the Commonwealth. After all, we were not ashamed of receiving Marshall Aid. I cannot see that there can be any objection, either on the part of the donor or on the part of the recipient, to financial aid, provided that there is continuing goodwill on both sides, between two sovereign States. I do not want to continue that argument, although the example of France could be given. France continues to give financial aid to what were her territories in Equatorial and West Africa, although now they are all independent. So that we should not be alone in the world, by any means, if we did this.

The other argument is the strategic one. The latest developments in airborne missiles and the use of aircraft render Malta of much less value than it used to be to the United Kingdom as a naval base. The main argument used in this connection is that, whatever value it may have to us, we must deny it to any potentially hostile Power. In my view, this strategic aim is not in the least incompatible with independence. What is needed is a friendly Maltese Government and population. If there is a friendly attitude in Malta, as there was in Cyprus after the Cypriots knew that they were going to have independence, as soon as independence is within sight then we shall be able to negotiate a satisfactory defence agreement and treaty with the Government of Malta.

Of course, we should like to see Malta remaining within the defensive Alliance of the West and making the great dockyard at Valletta and its installations available for the navies of the N.A.T.O. Alliance. Indeed, why could not Malta join N.A.T.O.? Would that not enable an extremely satisfactory solution to the strategic problem? Of course, the decision is not for us: it is for Malta—and it might be a different one. If the decision were different, I think that the worst that could happen, from our point of view, is that the Government of Malta might decide to be neutral as between the two camps, Eastern and Western, as other Commonwealth countries, of course, already are. Even if this were to happen, the island's facilities for ships and aircraft would certainly not be available to any Power which is potentially hostile to the United Kingdom and the N.A.T.O. Alliance. Of one thing we can be quite certain—that is, that Malta does not want to exchange one master for another. But I am only considering this possibility, because we must be frank and recognise that it is for Malta to decide and that her decision may not be exactly what we want. But certainly it will not be so had as we may fear and as some people imagine.

We cannot turn a blind eye to this claim for freedom, for independent gov- ernment, for self-government in Malta at a time when subject peoples all over the world, and more particularly those in the British Commonwealth—because we have always hastened up this process—are moving so speedily towards this goal. All I am asking the Government to do is to tell the people of Malta that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that they should be free and independent at the earliest practicable moment and that their new Constitution, which we all hope they will be willing to accept, will be no more than the penultimate stage in their advance to complete self-government, to complete sovereignty and statehood. I have not wished to weary your Lordships for very long because I think that the essence of a debate of this kind is to insist on the essential points which are required, if constitutional advance and Parliamentary Government are to be restored in Malta. I beg to move for Papers.

3.8 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I should like to express the usual thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for moving this Motion. I would thank him particularly for the wise advice he has given to Her Majesty's Government. I do not think there is anything in his speech with which I would disagree and I support the majority of it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give us some indication that Her Majesty's Government will consider seriously the advice given to them by the noble Earl.

As your Lordships all know, Malta has changed in status very much in the last few years. As an important strategic centre and as a naval dockyard for so long, Malta was one of the pillars of our security. And in the last war, as I have heard from the lips of my friend, Sir Hugh Pughe Lloyd, the Commander of the Royal Air Force there, the Island was of vital importance in the battle for North Africa. People ate inclined to think that Malta is simply a place to which German bombers directed their attention. But, in fact, from Malta went our own bombers and fighters which often created havoc among the German supply vessels to North Africa.

But the situation has changed. We no longer need a naval dock, and possibly in war it would no longer be tenable as a base of any kind. It now has a N.A.T.O. rôle of a kind, although what the importance of it is I am unable to say. The naval dockyard is being turned over to civilian purposes, and that will have a great deal of effect upon the employment of many of the Maltese. The effect of the changed strategic situation in Malta, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has indicated, had tremendous results. First of all, as he said, there were the constitutional implications. There was the proposed integration of Malta within the United Kingdom, under which a certain number of Members from Malta would sit in the House of Commons and, to a large extent, Malta's economy would be geared with ours. I was not very much enamoured of this proposition, although it had the support of all the members of the Round Table Conference and seemed to have the support of a great number of Members of both Houses of Parliament; at all events, they were not very vocal against it at the time. It did not come into effect, however, because Mr. Mintoff raised his sights to such an extent that Her Majesty's Government were unable to accede (in my opinion, rightly so) to his demands. So that has gone.

Now we have the Report of the Blood Commission, which proposes a diarchy, two Governments operating in the same small island. I think that two Governments in a small island are rather like two women in one kitchen, and a lot of problems will be involved. This Constitution will only be possible at all, in my view, if the Government accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that they should now declare that this is purely an interim Constitution, leading to the normal colonial development; that is to say, self-government and independence within the Commonwealth.

At the present moment there is direct rule, and the various Parties have dissolved into bitterness the one with the other. There is a parochial attitude on the part of the politicians there. It really means a completely fresh examination of the problem and an attempt to make the Maltese realise their situation as it is in the world at the moment. When you have a fortress economy, you tend also to have a fortress mentality; and, unfortunately, that is what there is in Malta.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that there are two particular difficulties in this Constitution which will make it unworkable. The first is that the Government are not to have any control over the police. The police are to be controlled by the Governor, who in all other respects is to be a constitutional monarch. How a constitutional monarch can control the police over the head of his own Government, I do not know; but that is the proposition. All legislation for the police and for security is to be under the control of the Maltese Parliament, and the Maltese Parliament, of course, will be guided by the Maltese Government. They will arrange all about pay, conditions of the police and everything like that, and yet they will have no control over them. I do not know why the noble Earl shakes his head, because that is the position. It is the Governor who is to control the police and not the Maltese Government. I think that will be unworkable.

The second defect as I see it, is the Commissioner. He is an odd sort of fish—I do not mean him personally, of course, but his office. We do not know who he is to be, but he will be a remarkable man if he can carry out the tasks imposed upon him. He is to be in charge of the United Kingdom interests. Those words are very wide, and may include commercial interests, defence interests, foreign affairs interests or any others. He will have overriding powers where certain of these interests are concerned. Then he will be able to see Cabinet Papers; that is to say, he will be able to see the Papers of the Cabinet of the elected Government of Malta, although not a member of that Government. And he will be a direct servant of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That is a very odd situation, and does not seem to be in accordance with any doctrine of Cabinet responsibility that I have heard of. That, I should have thought, was a difficulty which would take a little putting right.

The reality of the situation is, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, that we should treat Malta as we have treated and are treating every other colonial territory or dependent territory. Malta should evolve to full self-government and independence within the Commonwealth. And that it would do, if it were not for this element, however much it may be, of strategic importance. But how does it differ from Cyprus? Why is it not possible to have the same sort of arrangement with Malta as we have with Cyprus; that is to say, an independent Government which is a member of the Commonwealth, and a Treaty or Agreement with this country and with N.A.T.O. (I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that we should try to bring N.A.T.O. into this) to deal with the question of the strategic value of the Island.

After all, the situation in Malta is not nearly so difficult as that in Cyprus. There, as we know, we had this long campaign against us. There are the Turks and the Greeks, and these communities had to settle down one with the other. In Malta there is none of these problems. I am happy to say that there is a good relationship between them and us, and there are not the religious and racial problems that there are in Cyprus. If this can be done in Cyprus, why cannot it be done in Malta?

Whatever is going to happen constitutionally, we know that a great deal must happen in the economic field. I, too, should be interested to know what is happening with regard to Bailey (Malta) Ltd.? We have had a statement from the noble Earl. Lord Perth, though not a very long one, saying that additions have been made to the board of Messrs. Bailey's and that it is hoped that things will now progress. But my information is that, however great progress is made in the civilian dockyard, in fact, Messrs. Bailey's will not employ more than 2,000 to 2,500 men in the dockyard. That will mean that about 3,000 men—

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OP PERTH)

My Lords, I think it is important to say straight away that there is no foundation for that information about the number who will be employed.

LORD OGMORE

No doubt the noble Earl will be interested to know whence it came. It came from Malta. But I am glad to hear what he says. May we now take it that all the men at present employed either by the Navy or by Messrs. Bailey's will in future be employed in the civilian dockyard—that is to say, about 6,000 men?

THE EARL OF PERTH

since the noble Lord asks me the question, I think I should interrupt again. Equally, there is no ground for taking that to be so. It is not what I said. What I said was that there was no foundation for saying that the total number employed will be from 2,000 to 2,500. As has been often said before, we hope that the great majority of those at present in the employ, either of the Admiralty or of Bailey's, will continue to be so employed.

LORD OGMORE

I hope so, too. But if it is only a hope, I would point out that anybody can hope—that is one of the cheapest forms of amusement. There is nothing difficult about that. I think the people of Malta would like to have something more concrete than that. There are roughly 6,000 men employed in the dockyard, and as this is the only real basic industry in Malta they would like to be assured that at least that number will have continuity of employment in the future. In spite of the interruption of the noble Earl, I am not altogether happy, and I do not think the Maltese will be happy either. If the noble Earl could give us something more than a pious hope, we should be pleased.

What is the alternative to employment in the dockyard for, say, a Maltese eighteen years of age, or something like that, with the future before him? If he does not entirely rest upon the hope of the noble Earl—and perhaps there are some doubts on the point; the noble Earl may be mistaken, although with the best possible intentions—what does the future hold out? First, emigration. That has been one of the chief exports of Malta in the past, as we know. Secondly, there are a small number of little industries. Again, let us have the figures. If there is an opportunity of possible employment in new industry, let us have the figures. But I would say that a comparatively small number can expect to be employed in industry, other than the dockyard, in Malta. If I am wrong, let us have the figures.

Thirdly, there is the tourist industry. That is one way in which I think Malta could improve the situation. I think the British Government have been a little bit "cagey" on this—they have "stonewalled" a good deal. There was the unhappy experience with the Tourist Board in Malta. I think tourism has not been encouraged as it should have been, partly because of vested interests and partly because there has been a complete lack of imagination and initiative by all concerned. What is wanted is a number of the chalet type of hotels. The Island has lovely bathing beaches, and with a cheap service from this country by air people could go there at a reasonable price instead of going to Majorca and the other places in the Mediterranean.

When I visited Malta, I was most struck with the beauty of the churches. The dry island air maintains their colour, and I have never seen more beautiful churches anywhere in the world. Others perhaps will be more interested in other features. As I have said, the bathing beaches are delightful. It may be that the Catholic Church will have to turn a blinder eye than it has up to now on bikinis and things of that kind, because believe there is some difficulty in that way. The Catholic Church has managed to get along with them in Spain, Italy and other Catholic countries, and I have no doubt they will be able to do so in Malta.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Bikinis are not allowed in Spain.

LORD OGMORE

Perhaps we could come to some sort of arrangement which would allow young ladies to sunbathe in Malta without too much upset to the Catholic Church.

Finally, may I say a word about local government? The Report expresses surprise that there is virtually no local government in Malta. I, too, am surprised about that. The Commissioners suggest that it would give a good deal of encouragement to the Maltese people if they could take part in local government. I should like to know why there is not a town council for Valletta, for example, together with a mayor. I quite agree that in a small island there cannot be a proliferation of local government, but I should have thought that one or two towns——Valletta in particular—could well have a town council and a mayor. That would give experience to the Maltese people in government. It would also add a great deal to local patriotism.

My Lords, I have nothing further I wish to say on this Report. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, did, I should like to thank the Commission for the Report. They had to act, of course, within the terms of reference, and they have certainly given us much food for thought. Once more I should like to thank the noble Earl, and I hope that the Government will listen to the very wise words he said to them.

3.26 p.m.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I should like at the outset to express my admiration for the most statesmanlike and restrained speech the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made in introducing this debate, and I think all your Lordships will be grateful to him for doing so. He has dealt with so many matters of major importance with which I am in entire agreement that I need not refer to them. But I should like to refer to certain other matters. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, if he will allow me to say so, has also made a useful contribution to this debate, though I disagree with him in one particular.

Very properly, your Lordships like to know, when any of us takes part in a debate, what is his locus standi for doing so. Mine is that I have many Maltese friends, because I spent several happy weeks with my wife in Malta at the time of the referendum on integration, and I think I can make some useful observations on what I was able to see at that time. I am afraid that I shall not be as restrained as the noble Earl. I shall be in some respects very critical of the Government and the manner in which they have handled the situation.

May I begin by saying that I am a friend of Mr. Dom Mintoff, though I naturally differ most fundamentally from some of the views which he has expressed lately. He was most hospitable and kind to me when I was in Malta, and enabled me, with my wife, to see a lot of the work which was being carried on to advance social reform. I think it is only fair to Mr. Dom Mintoff and the Labour Party to say that, in the view of most Maltese, though not, of course, the supporters of Dr. Borg Olivier, his was the first Government which tried to tackle social reform in the Island. They built a number of excellent Government buildings to house the workers, and I was allowed to inspect several of them. I also saw some of the schools.

I should like here to pay a tribute to the Maltese as a people. Mr. Mintoff suggested that I should go by myself, or with a guide, but without disclosing who I was, to see some of the overcrowded tenements which eventually they hoped would be emptied and provision made for the inhabitants in new buildings. I remember going into one tenement where there was a room where a whole family of seven lived, slept and ate. It was their only room. The place was scrupulously clean; everything was sweet, and there was none of that horrible slummy smell which one finds in slums in this country. The people were absolutely delighted to see me. I should like to say here that the Maltese, even the illiterates—and there are quite a number of them who are illiterate—are, if I may use a phrase without offence or patronage, natural ladies and gentlemen. They are most polite, friendly people, and it is wholly deplorable that there should be this gulf between us and them—a gulf for which Her Majesty's Government—not so much the present Government as the past Government—must bear a large share of responsibility.

I was there at the time of the famous referendum on integration. An unofficial delegation or deputation of Members of another place came out, headed by Sir Roland Robinson. They were good enough to ask me to attach myself to them and to see what they were going to see. I went with a well-known Member of another place whose name I think I had better not mention because I have not his authority to do so; but he is a friend of mine and is well known to your Lordships. We went, without notifying Mr. Mintoff that we were going to do so, to one of his meetings which took place in a comparatively small hall with a large gathering outside because the hall was not big enough to hold them. To our surprise when we arrived we were treated with the utmost enthusiasm. People patted us on the backs and said, "Good old English! Good old Members of Parliament!" My Labour friend and I had not received a more enthusiastic welcome in our own constituencies. He said he had never received greater acclamation from a political meeting.

We went into the meeting and two things deeply impressed us. One was the attention given by the audience to every word the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mintoff, said. I have not seen a more attentive audience. The other thing was the absence of the qualities indulged in by some alleged demagogues—gesticulation, and waving of arms and shouting. Mr. Mintoff spoke in a slow, even voice, and obviously had the huge audience on his side.

I thought I would also go to a meeting held by my friend Miss Strickland. I have the highest admiration for her as an individual but none for her as a politician. I went to her meeting; she does not speak a word of Maltese, only English. It was an open air meeting and there were about 30 bored people present—and almost as many police, because one of her meetings had been attacked. Her main theme was that if the Maltese voted for integration they would be under a Protestant Parliament, a statement which I must say rather shocked me. There is no doubt whatever, in my opinion, that the majority of the people of Malta were in favour of integration despite the overt, or covert, hostility of the Roman Catholic Church. The hostility was expressed in many ways. I was told on authority for which I can vouch that priests were warned not to support integration in any way or they would receive the rebukes of their superiors.

Now what happened? Here, in my opinion, was a clear mandate for the British Government to proceed with integration, but they did not do so. They had a double responsibility in the matter. They had said that they were in favour of a referendum, and, if I may say so with the deepest respect, they had another responsibility through the fact that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was a member of the official delegation which went out to Malta and which, with other very distinguished members of both Houses, advocated integration. To this day I do not know why they did not act. The rumours behind the scenes were that they were frightened of the effects in this country of the extreme Protestant and extreme Roman Catholic points of view. But they missed their opportunity, and all the troubles have stemmed from that missed opportunity.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore is quite fair to Mr. Dom Mintoff in saying that he raised his sights too high at the time of integration by asking for too much money. I think that if the Government had said quite boldly, "We accept the referendum" and told them that we must now think about the method by which the money would be found, an agreement could have been reached. But an agreement was not reached and ever since there has been this series of most unfortunate events.

I come now to a delicate matter but one which I think should be mentioned. I ought to say that Mr. Dom Mintoff is not my only Maltese friend; I have a number who supply me with information. The Administration in Malta is very weak. The Governor is a man of great ability, great integrity and great charm (he also is a friend of mine), of great eminence in his own field, but absolutely no experience of civilian administration. Why on earth in the circumstances they sent an Admiral to govern Malta when obviously the sort of Governor required is one who would try to bring both Dr. Borg Olivier and also Mr. Dom Mintoff together to negotiate with the British Government, why on earth they did not send someone of the calibre of Sir Hugh Foot or any of the admirable people they have in the Colonial Service who have had in Africa and elsewhere experience as difficult as any Governor of Malta has had, I just do not know. It is only another instance of the astonishing way in which the affairs of Malta are controlled from this country.

In addition, it is the general opinion of the Maltese, and an opinion which I share, that they have a very weak administrative body, and I hope we shall hear something from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, on the allegations which have been made in another place and which have also been made in Malta concerning the mismanagement of the island's Tourist Board.

I ought to return for one moment—.I am sorry to do so—to my friend Miss Strickland. She is always quoted in British newspapers whenever anything has happened in Malta. She has no political power in Malta; she could not get a single Member returned at the last election. She not only owns the principal English newspaper in Malta, but she is a correspondent of most of the English newspapers. They do not keep a correspondent there and therefore they quote her opinion. It would be a profound mistake to think her small Party has any influence. The only people who have influence are the two other Parties, and they agree on only one thing, namely, that they will not work the new Constitution.

I have only a very few other observations to make. I must say that there is the strangest contrast between the treatment accorded to Maltese opinion and Maltese representation and that accorded to the views of African nationalist leaders. Take this example. If a distinguished Maltese comes to this country and has anything to say he is almost ignored; but if some African nationalist leader whose principal characteristic is the power of demagogy and that of terrorising his opponents comes here, the B.B.C. immediately gives him an interview. He may be a man who has insulted and abused this country, but the B.B.C. treats him with the utmost deference. He probably appears on television; he rushes off to see Mr. Macleod. Newspapers give him tremendous coverage. What a contrast between that and the attitude adopted towards a representative of the people of Malta! I should say that this is an entirely wrong approach.

This is a point with which I must deal with in this debate, although your Lordships would very properly say it is not in order except very briefly: the very curious Negrophile movement which exists in Britain. It takes the form among the young of admiring Negro dance and music, and among the old of assuming that Europeans are always wrong and the Africans are always right in African matters. It has a very unfortunate effect in Colonies where there are people of European descent, as there are in Malta. I should like to say here—and I think the whole of your Lordships would be in agreement with me—that it would be difficult to find a people with a finer historic background, with more charm, culture and great courage, than the Maltese. They have done wonderful work for us and for the British Empire in the past. It is wholly deplorable that we should be on the terms that we are with them to-day.

My last words are these. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that the Government must make up their minds what they are going to say about the future of Malta—the ultimate future. Are they going to say, "Of course, we will give self-government to Kenya or to any other African country that asks for it, but we are not prepared to give self-government to a European nation"? What are their reasons going to be for it? I do not think they can be strategic, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. What are their reasons against making an announcement now that this is only an interim Constitution and that Malta will be granted full self-government within the Commonwealth or full independence if they ask for it?

Of course, Malta has not got the influence that the Afro-Asian bloc have at the United Nations. It has not got that sort of influence. It has only a moral right to be told these things, and I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government pay as much attention to moral right as they do to the Afro-Asian bloc in the United Nations. I am certain that if Malta were in the middle of Africa and consisted of an African population and not a European one it would be told to-morrow it would get independence whenever it wanted it and however unfitted it might be for it. I hope we shall be told to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. Might I make a suggestion to him? It would be an excellent thing if he, or his colleague, Mr. Hugh Fraser, who would be persona grata particularly in Malta, because he is a Roman Catholic, could be sent there for some long period to see whether some consultations could not go on with the leaders of the two existing Parties. What is quite certain is that those Parties will refuse to work this new Constitution unless they get some assurance about the future. I admit that the question of money is a difficult one; they may want more money than could be given.

Finally, I would say this: there are many of us in this country, and I hone many in your Lordships' House, who will do our best for this wonderful Island people, this G.C. Island, for the nation to which we owe so much and which owes so much to us and from which it is tragic that we should be parted in spirit at the present time.

3.45 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHELMSFORD

My Lords, on a prominent tablet in Valletta there is carved a statement in Latin that the Maltese invited the British to come to their Island at the beginning of the nineteenth century. At about the same period of our history the British occupied certain other islands, including, for example, the Island of Mauritius, and some of the British West Indian Islands. Those other islands, I think it would be true to say, have absorbed in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries a characteristic which has come increasingly to be associated with our Commonwealth, namely, a genuine desire that those who live in them should enjoy complete freedom of conscience.

We have looked very carefully at those particular sections in the recommendations of the Blood Report which concern human liberty, human rights. The currency of this phrase, "human rights", is very wide; it is included in the United Nation's Declaration. It is also found in many parts of the Commonwealth around the world. In the Blood Report we welcome the recommendations that the new Constitution proposed for Malta should include an appropriately worded Preamble referring to the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights and also should contain provisions modelled on the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, adapted, of course, to the particular circumstances of Malta.

We fully recognise that no two countries can be exactly the same. While it is to be noted that the Blood Commission do not propose so full a provision regarding religious freedom as the Nigerians have, it is indeed recommended that the substance of Section 49 of the Malta Constitution Order-in-Council, 1959, should be incorporated in the new constitutional provisions. This Section reads as follows: (1) All persons in Malta shall have full liberty of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective modes of religious worship. (2) No person shall be subject to any disability or be excluded from holding any office by reason of his religious profession. We welcome the recommendation that these provisions, dealing as they do with fundamental human rights, should be entrenched—I use that phrase in its technical sense—in the new Malta Constitution. Although they do not deal so fully as does the Nigerian Constitution with religious freedom, they are nevertheless very wide and comprehensive.

It would be less than frank if I gave the impression that in the past there have not been difficulties, sometimes grave difficulties, over the free exercise of religious freedom by persons other than Roman Catholics, particularly as regards mixed marriages, both inside and outside Malta. The Maltese people are almost entirely Roman Catholic in their faith, and other Christians—I refer to the Orthodox, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, as well as the Anglicans—are in a very small minority. In some other parts of the Commonwealth, Roman Catholics themselves, and indeed all who profess the Christian faith, are in a very small minority. Yet in those parts they are allowed full freedom of conscience and of religion. We are glad that in recent years there have been signs that the Maltese people have increasingly recognised that in a free community there must be full respect for freedom of conscience. This, indeed, is what we should expect as Malta approaches nearer and nearer to independence.

The Blood Commission have included a recommendation that the new Constitution shall provide for redress from the courts if human rights are infringed. While I note that this is so and believe that such provision ought to be included, it may well be that full rights of religious freedom would be found to be exercisable now if appeal were made to the higher Courts. However that may be, we hope that recourse to the courts in this matter may never prove necessary. It is because we are ready to believe that the Maltese people will willingly accord and allow full freedom of conscience and religion as an essential element in their way of life that we shall be happy to welcome this great step forward.

3.50 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords. I intend to detain you only very briefly this afternoon; in fact, I address you at all only because during the war years I spent the best part of a year in Malta. As other noble Lords have said, I immediately realised what a friendly and capable race the Maltese are. I made many friends there which I keep to-day, and I have been back once or twice since.

Before I make the one or two very small points I should like to discuss, I would comment on something my noble friend, Lord Ogmore, said: that in the war years the contribution of Malta, strategically, has not always been quite appreciated. He confined his remarks to the Royal Air Force's contribution, whereas in fact in the higher realms of strategy in the war years, the submarines of the Royal Navy based on Malta made far the biggest contribution to the winning of the war and in round figures were responsible for the sinking of about one million tons of Axis shipping. I rather doubt whether at that time Rommel could have been prevented in North Africa from getting to where he wanted to get had it not been for the activities of the Malta-based submarines. This is a point which has not been publicised to any great extent, but I think it is right to say that that was a most important factor at the time, and the Maltese always gave their full support to the Royal Navy in every way. Therefore it is a pity that this rather sad story of the dockyard is developing in perhaps an unsatisfactory manner.

It is a year or two since the noble Earl, Lord Perth, made an announcement in your Lordships' House regarding Messrs. Bailey's. On that particular day my noble Leader was not able to be in the Chamber, and he asked me, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, to say how glad we were to hear of this arrangement. I did so, but I qualified it at the time by saying that I thought it would be a pity to be too enthusiastic in the early stages about the arrangement which had been made regarding the dockyard because I did not believe it was going to be accepted with quite the enthusiasm that some people seemed to think. I was not trying to be a prophet of doom. That was what I thought at the time, and that is what I still think. Indeed, in paragraph 43 the Report says: the conversion of the yard has been delayed and some industrial equipment has been removed. I do not know what equipment that was, or why it was removed; but certainly in the Report there is doubt on this matter. The Report goes on to say: it is necessary that the general position vis-à-vis Bailey (Malta) Limited should be clarified and that it is highly desirable that the conversion should be visibly progressing. I am sure the noble Earl is fully aware of that, and that there is no need to press him on a point which no doubt he has much in mind.

I seem to remember on that day a year or two ago asking him, perhaps in the Chamber or it may have been outside (I have not checked with the OFFICIAL REPORT) if he could give any figures at all showing whether any redundancy in local labour in the dockyard was or was not being absorbed at Luqa Airfield, or at the R.A.F. aerodrome at Takali or the naval base at Kalofrana. Luqa was a strip of sand at the time I was there, with a tent at the end of it. It is now a quite different place. These places require a lot of labour. How much of it is redundant dockyard labour I do not know, but. I should have thought a great deal of it must be.

One is of course glad to hear of the new industries to which the Report refers. What form those industries will take, I do not know. Malta has come a long way from the days when no ship was allowed into the Grand Harbour at Valletta coming from the Delta of the Nile unless a proportion of the cargo was mud from the Delta to fertilise the land, the earth to be unloaded on to the Island which is, of course, composed mainly of rock. Those were the days of the Phoenicians, and Malta has come a long way since then. One notices that new industries are foreseen and are even starting.

On the subject of the tourist trade, I know that my noble friend Lord Ogmore will not mind if I disagree with him to some extent. I believe that to rely too much on the tourist trade is demoralising. I have seen it happen in the country where I am living at the moment. One finds the Tourist Board right, left and centre. For three months there is tremendous prosperity in a certain area. Up go the prices, up go the rents and everything else. People work extremely hard in those months and then live on the proceeds for the rest of the year. I believe that to be generally demoralising; though I appreciate that in Malta, where the seasonal aspect is not so much the point—the weather is good all the year round except perhaps from December to March—that objection has less application. Generally speaking, however, I think that to rely on tourists, outsiders coming in, produces, to use an un-Parliamentary expression, a "grabby" attitude among the people. I know that your Lordships will have had experience in the past of itching palms confronting you. I think it is rather demoralising to make too much of this industry.

Before I conclude I should like to mention something that I had intended not to deal with, but since the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, I find I cannot omit it. In paragraph 32 of the Report it says: Malta is a Roman Catholic country, and the Church is still a potent, if imponderable, factor in Maltese life. That seems a curious phrase to use. I should have thought that if the Commission were in any doubt whatever as to the attitude of the Church on any subject they had only to go and ask the Archbishop. I notice that in the list of visits that were made they did, in fact, call on the Archbishop of Malta, who is also Archbishop of Rhodes. Perhaps they had only a cup of tea and felt that he was not the right person with whom to discuss constitutional matters. If that was their attitude, then I think they were wrong, because the most powerful man in Malta to-day is certainly the Archbishop. I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that, rightly or wrongly, that is the case.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I was not attacking the Catholic Church. I merely said that they were opposed to integration. They were entitled to that opinion. I did not attack the Catholic Church. If anybody did, it was the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Perhaps I rather muddled up the noble Earl's strictures about Miss Strickland, whom he described as a friend. I knew her very well in the war years. I only wish that my old friend and commanding officer Lord Gort had been here to hear him say what he did. I feel sure he would not have liked it at all. He would have flatly contradicted the noble Earl. The noble Earl hits hard, and I am sure he will not mind my doing the same.

The right reverend Prelate mentioned the subject of mixed marriages. When I was in Malta there were at least 30,000 British troops all crowding into the place. Inevitably, they got to know the girls and many of them said they wanted to marry there. There is no doubt that the Church discouraged these mixed marriages, because they knew perfectly well what was going to happen. It did happen. The units moved off and they were never seen again. The wives were left there with one or two little ones, where they are still. The Church is not basically opposed to mixed marriages—it never has been. But if the results are going to be unsatisfactory then they are going to stop them if they can. One battalion particularly of Irish Fusiliers went abroad and made 120 marriages. Of that figure I believe six found their way back to Malta, and the others just did not see fit to return. I know that the right reverend Prelate will agree with me that that produces a most unsatisfactory and unhappy state of affairs. It was for that reason that the Church did its best to discourage these war marriages. I had not intended to get on to that sort of subject when I put my name down to speak but I was rather drawn into it in the hope that the noble Earl would at least agree that there might be something in that attitude. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl who moved this Motion. I think that the Report is comprehensive and most interesting, and that the noble Earl put his Motion to us in a most responsible and easily understandable way.

3.59 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, during the now lengthening time—indeed, a quarter of a century—during which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have tried to make it a rule not to repeat for your Lordships' boredom the points that other people have provided for your Lordships' edification. To-day, however, I am going to offend against my own rule, because I feel that, as I am the only resident of Malta in your Lordships' House I ought to say at least one or two words, even though they may be only in support of what other people have said.

I find myself in almost complete agreement with all the speakers to-day. I think that our debate has been, as the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, pointed out, extremely careful, wise and moderate. The noble Lord said that he was speaking because of the kindness which he had received in Malta and because of his personal acquaintance with the Maltese, and with Dom Mintoff in particular. Such acquaintance I have the honour and pleasure of sharing. I have known fairly intimately nearly all the leaders of the Maltese Labour Party and I have been in fairly close touch with them over a number of years. For these reasons, my Lords, I hope that your Lordships will tolerate me if I say a few words on the present situation.

I agree with (I think it was) the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who said that it was quite fantastic to set up yet another form of diarchy. Because, my Lords, diarchy was a not unnatural solution, and not perhaps an uningenious solution, of the Maltese problem—a problem which, of course, as all your Lordships are aware, arises from the fact that Malta is not only an island with a population of some 300,000 souls but also a naval base. And I think the problem set for successive British Governments is how to reconcile those two facets of the Maltese position. Nowadays I suggest that this is no longer true. In fact, I am assured by those who know—I cannot pretend this is personal knowledge of my own—that Malta is quite valueless as a naval base for modern warfare. Though I am not sure that it is a creditable argument, it is, I think, a perfectly natural one to plead that the safety of one's own country is involved in control over another. But, my Lords, I believe that that no longer exists.

I myself have never found it possible to think of any good reason for denying to any people who ask for it control of their own affairs. It may be that one doubts whether perhaps their demand is wise; whether, in fact, they have the facilities, the resources which are necessary to make a territory viable. But if these people ask for independence, I could never be party to their frustration. I believe that this is the attitude which all of us in this country who are democrats should support. Alas! this is a great deal less than the independence which is being offered to Malta under the recommendations of the Blood Commission. My Lords, it is yet again a form of diarchy, diarchy which has shown itself repeatedly in Maltese history to be unsatisfactory and to lead to conflict, a conflict which (I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, will agree with me) those of us who know the Maltese people, and have met and experienced their warmth and hospitality, could not deplore more than we do.

The Maltese have know the British intimately for 150 years: they are very old friends. It is to be presumed that they know our faults. But they appear to think that we have sufficient virtues to make us a tolerable and even likeable people. I have never in my life—and this is why I live in Malta—been to any other country where I have been made to feel so fundamentally welcome as I have been in Malta. There is an immense amount of good will in Malta which could be used to make a permanent settlement which would be creditable and satisfactory to all concerned. I hope we may draw upon that. But I am afraid that this latest version of diarchy is one which cannot bring a permanent solution. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this, and that even though not at the present moment, they will in the near future be prepared to think in terms of independence and of a treaty with Malta for the use of her facilities. My Lords, I believe that we could make a really important gesture.

I deeply deplore the failure of the integration idea, which I thought incredibly ingenious, and one that might have solved all our problems in Malta and in other territories. I know of others who were as distressed and depressed as I was by the failure of the integration movement. But that is past history and, I submit, no longer possible. But what is possible is that the Maltese people could be given the independence that they want and, as an independent country, live in terms of the closest amity with ourselves.

4.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, first, I would wish to join with the other noble Lords who have welcomed the opening of this debate by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It was not only an extremely helpful opening—although I know he will not expect me necessarily to agree with certain of the things he said—but it provided an opportunity for us all to follow a constructive line in regard to the matter of the Blood Report. I am less sure that I found some of the other speeches quite as helpful, but we can come to that later.

The first thing that strikes one, I think, on reading the Blood Report is how eminently readable it is. So often these constitutional documents are rather dry and hard work; but here is something which is written almost as a best-seller might be written. Our thanks—I have said this before and I know that other noble Lords have said it—are very deep to Sir Hilary Blood, as the Chairman, and to Mr. St. John, Q.C., who came from Australia to the Commission—and it is an interesting development that we should have had someone from Australia helping to try to find a solution of this problem. We have also to thank Sir Alfred Roberts, who for some time was able to take part, and his successor, Mr. Hayday, both of whom came from the Trades Union Congress. It is clear what we were trying to do, which was to get a group of men who were very great in experience and very widely chosen; and therefore I think we have to pay particular attention to the recommendations that they make.

I am not going to go into great detail about our position. If the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, looks at my statement of March 8, he will see that we said that, broadly, we were accepting the provisions of the Blood Report and were preparing to draft a Constitution accordingly. That does not mean to say that if there had been some small detail we should not have been prepared, or are not prepared, to consider amendment. Indeed, we invited such advice from the political Parties. They were not prepared to give it—I am thinking particularly of the Labour Party and the Nationalists—except under certain conditions, which were not possible. Nevertheless, I feel very certain that in its broad outline the Report represents great wisdom in the present circumstances.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question which has never been answered? He talks of drafting a Constitution. Are the Commission going to draft it although both political Parties refuse to have anything to do with it? What are they going to do?

THE EARL OF PERTH

The answer to that is "Yes", my Lords; we are going to draft it. I do not know that the two leading political Parties are going to have nothing to do with it. Perhaps the noble Earl has better advice than I have, but I do not know this.

Now various noble Lords have said that this is another form of diarchy. I do not think that is fair to the Commission's recommendation, which to me is both an imaginative and an ingenious one. What is it that the Report recommends as a fundamental point? It is that there should be no reserve matters for the Maltese Legislative Assembly. They should be able to debate and to legislate on anything to do with Malta. The only stipulation is that if, in matters of foregn affairs or defence, they suggest or pass a law which is incompatible with our interests on those subjects, then the British Parliament would be superior. But if there is good will on both sides—and I see no reason why there should not be good will, because I do not accept that there is a lack of love of this country in Malta; I believe it is very deeply founded, and that the great majority of people are friends of this country—then we need interfere, perhaps, not at all. What is needed is good will and understanding. This is something new as an experiment, and I am full of hope that it will succeed.

We see it epitomised in the suggestion that in the future it should be known as the State of Malta. There would be the State of Malta and there would be a Queen's representative, very much along the lines of other representatives, who are Governor-Generals, in other territories. It is true that there would also be a U.K. Commissioner who would have certain tasks to perform. I think somebody said that it was a unique provision that he should be allowed to see what is going on by way of access to Cabinet papers. That is not so. It is exactly the same position, for example, in Singapore. If we are to have this experiment in partnership, it is impor- tant that the United Kingdom Commissioner should know whether things are going on which impinge on our defence or foreign affairs interests; but, with good will, these things can be made to work. There is a very important paragraph in the Report which talks about the need for arranging close consultation on all these matters, and that certainly is both necessary and right, not only in Malta but also over in this country.

There are one or two things over which, for the time being, we shall keep a particular protection, and I have particularly in mind when I say that the question of the police. Many of your Lordships have questioned the recommendation of the Blood Report in that connection. We do not like having to have this any more than the Blood Report says that it is a desirable thing. But if those of your Lordships who criticise it would read the reasons for it, I think you would be bound to agree that, at the present time, this is necessary. If you would look, for example, at paragraph 37, I think it is, and the background of what happened at the time that Mr. Mintoff was in power, I think you would understand why, at this time, and only temporarily, this is recommended. At any rate, we gave a pledge that we would see that there was not victimisation of the police or of the Civil Service; and when we give a pledge we are not going to break it.

On the question of how the police arrangements would work, there was some criticism that the Queen's representative should be responsible for the police. This is a problem which caused the Blood Commission considerable headache, if I may put it that way, on what should be the right answer. In the end, they came down to the thought that the Queen's representative was the best person, because he is responsible in the ultimate. As the Queen's representative, he is obviously a man of fair mind: and in this country you do not necessarily have Ministers who are responsible for the police. I know that the Home Secretary has certain responsibilities, but the position in relation to the police forces is always one in which one attempts to keep it as far as possible outside political control. Therefore, I find nothing wrong—indeed, I think it is right—in the choice that they made, although it was a difficult one: that, for the time being (and I repeat, "for the time being"), it should be the Queen's representative who should have the control or who should be responsible in the last analysis for the operation of the police, while the Commissioner, of course, would deal with the ordinary day-to-day running of them.

Various noble Lords have touched on the economic side, and it might be useful if I made one or two comments on that. I think one has to go back a little and remember that until a few years ago the Island of Malta was almost entirely dependent upon the United Kingdom Services; on the fact that it was a defence base. I recall that the Round-Table Conference Report found that 90 per cent. of the imports to Malta depended on payments from United Kingdom Departments and on grants from the United Kingdom Treasury. Now a dependency of that kind is not a happy state of affairs. It is always open to a change in policy which may be very serious—and that is just what happened. As will be remembered, and as is referred to in paragraph 42 of the Report, in 1957 the defence policy said that, from the point of view of the Admiralty, Malta was no longer going to be used as a base in the same way as hitherto.

Our aim under those conditions was to ensure that a change-over was made to a wider, industrial base as smoothly and as painlessly, if may put it that way, as possible. Perhaps the first and most important question was the dockyard, and in that connection I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that at the present time the number of those who are employed in the dockyard is about 5,700. I am not going to forecast and I am not going to give a guarantee. Nobody can give a guarantee of exactly what is going to be the employment in any one industry all the time. It depends on the fortunes of the industry. But what I do know is that we and Messrs Bailey together are doing all we can to ensure that it will be the finest dockyard in the Mediterranean. It was only a short while ago that I made an announcement about that, and I recall to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the statement I made on May 18, when I told your Lordships about the proposals for going ahead with increasing the capacity in one of the docks to such as would take an 85,000 ton ship.

Apart from the dockyard, we wanted, as I have said, to broaden the base, and Dr. Adler, who is an economist of the World Bank, helped to work out a five-year plan. Her Majesty's Government said that they would make available to that end £29 million, of which a proportion was for the dockyard. About two-thirds of that money, more or less, will be spent on what I call the basic requirements for getting industry going and changing the character of the Island—for example, increasing the supply of electricity. Already, in the last three years, the use of electricity has risen by about 40 per cent. and there are plans afoot for doubling output. There has also been built a magnificent new, deep harbour. Further, water, which is a difficult problem always on the Island, has, since the present Government came into office, increased in use by a quarter. We have come very close to the end of the natural resources, although I do not say entirely; but it is a great problem. There are plans afoot for putting in a distillation plant, all with the aim of helping to widen the base for industry. Industrial estates have been built, roads, and so forth, and that is what I call the basic requirements of preparing the ground for industrial development.

Then there is the question of what has actually been done in the last two years. It is quite a job to attract new industry to any place. It takes time, and I think the results to date are really very remarkable. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, indicated that, so far as he knew, nothing, or virtually nothing, had happened. What are the facts? The facts are that already 20 firms—some of them not small—have been attracted to the Island, and the estimate is that in those firms alone no less than 3,600 people will be employed. That is something over one half of those who were employed in the dockyard.

LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble Earl for a moment. It is on the question of emigration. The reason I raise that is that, when I was in the Middle East some years ago, there was a very considerable emigration from Malta. We had a large Maltese community in Egypt. They were an extremely fine community, among the most loyal we had there—I should like to pay that tribute to them right away. One of the problems then, as I understood it, was the question of emigration from Malta. There was too big a population for the island. The noble Earl has not touched on that matter, but perhaps he is going to do so.

THE EARL OF PERTH

Yes, I am going to do so.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I think I was somewhat misquoted. What I said, or intended to imply, was that the amount of industry in a place like Malta is bound to be very limited. In my view, although I may be wrong, there is no possibility of any great industrial expansion in an island which is in the middle of the Mediterranean, where you have no raw materials and where water is very limited. That is why I wanted to put it in relation to the other proposals I made for the development of Malta. But I am very glad to hear that it is likely that 2,000 or 3,000 people will be employed in industry.

THE EARL OF PERTH

I am grateful for the noble Lord's remarks. I hope this is only a beginning and, of course, there will be other methods of finding employment. I have particularly in mind the tourist industry, which I think the noble Lord, and others, have mentioned. Already the number of tourists has increased. I think last year they were about 12,000. This year (perhaps I may be one year wrong, but it does not much matter) they are up to 19,000. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, raised some question about the stories that there was trouble with regard to the Tourist Board. I can only say on that that it was referred to in another place. The Governor was quite clear that there was no reason or ground for an inquiry, and I think the figures I have quoted show that Mr. Barker Benfield and others of the Tourist Board have already done a pretty good job in attracting people to the island. On the question of hotels, they have not yet developed as quickly or as fast as we should like; but there are plans for important ones afoot, and I am hopeful that we shall see new hotels built there, because it is certainly a most attractive island to visit.

Emigration has certainly an important part in dealing with the problem of the continuing increase in the population of Malta, but we want to be careful not to overdo it and take away too many skilled workers. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to it, and we are, in fact, pulling back on emigration figures. In the last year of the Mintoff régime they dropped to about 1,600. To reverse the trend is quite difficult, but we now have it over 3,600. I recognise that it is an important part of this problem.

I do not know that there is much more I need say on the general theme of the economic side, but I would just make the point that, at this very difficult time of changeover, when the working population since 1958 has increased by some 3,000 and when some 7,000 have left either the Admiralty Dockyard or the Services, none the less unemployment from that time is at the moment only 400 up. It is my hope and belief that very shortly the building of new houses and so forth, now going on apace, will in fact absorb those, and there will be less unemployment than ever before. That would indeed be a satisfactory outcome. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, who made an attack on the Governor, which frankly I do not understand.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I made no attack on him as an individual. I made an attack on his capacity to be Governor of an Island, in view of the fact that he had had no previous experience. I must say that there is a tendency now in this country to say: "You must never attack anybody. It is a wicked thing to do; it might upset them". I do not attack him as an individual. I said that the Governor needed in Malta was someone of the capacity of Sir Hugh Foot.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I understand that very well. I said that I was surprised at the attack, and the reason is not because the noble Earl has not the right to attack—I think all noble Lords recognise that—hut because the record of the Governor and his Executive Council, as I have shown it in regard to this very difficult period, is one which would stand challenge anywhere. But the problem we faced was the administrative and executive problem of carrying out a very difficult task. I think all your Lordships know that for this sort of job you cannot do better than seek help from the Navy.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I am sorry, but may I interrupt once more? That really was not my point. It is not a question of the administrative capacity which may have been shown by the Governor. I may have been wrong there. What is needed is a Governor who can come to terms with the leaders of political Parties; and I say, with all his good qualities, that Sir Guy Grantham is not the equal of a man like Sir Hugh Foot. If he could come to terms with Makarios, he could come to terms with the political leaders in Malta.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I understand the point the noble Earl is making. I personally believe that at this particular time, in these particular circumstances, the right person to have was somebody like the present Governor and his Executive Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred, quite rightly, I think, to the question of local government. It is a curious fact that in Malta, until quite recently, there has been no local government; everything has been centred in the Government of Malta. But recently there has been a change. There was a Civic Committee of the Island of Gozo, which was determined to get going with running its own affairs, and they got Sir John Imrie to give them advice and to draw up a scheme. The Island has been divided into fourteen districts. They had elections the other day, and in those elections the polling was over 70 per cent. of the people. I think that your Lordships will agree that that is a very remarkable poll for local government. One's hope and belief is that this may spread considerably further.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, Gozo is the small island near Malta. What about the main Island, and particularly Valletta?

THE EARL OF PERTH

Yes, it is a small island, but one has to start somewhere; and if you have a good example and model, one may well hope that that will spread to the main Island itself.

The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, expressed—"declared", if I may put it that way—his interest in his friendship with Dom Mintoff, and no-one criticises him for that. But I was surprised at some of the words he used about Miss Strickland. Whether she is a successful politician or not—and he mentioned the fact that one or two of her meetings had broken up—I would ask, who broke them up? Whose Party was it who broke them up? I will come back to that point, but so far as Miss Strickland is concerned, I think we all recognise what a loyal friend she is to this country.

EARL WINTERTON

The only trouble is that she has no political influence. It is all very well to say that she is a good friend. Of course she is a good friend, and I have the highest opinion of her. But she is treated as if she is an important personage. In fact she has no political influence whatsoever in Malta.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, that, of course, is a matter of opinion. I am afraid that I cannot take up other points which the noble Earl raised because, frankly, I did not understand them. He said, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church is hostile to the policy of integration and that the Archbishop was against it. He has no ground for saying that. I was a member of the Round Table Conference and followed the whole history of this with the greatest care and closeness, and in no time did the Archbishop declare against integration.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I never mentioned the Archbishop. I made the statement, based on very good authority, that there was overt or covert hostility to integration. The Roman Catholic Church has taken that attitude. If the noble Earl is trying to pretend that it is in favour of integration, he is trying to pretend something that does not exist.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I did not say that the Roman Catholic Church was in favour of integration or hostile to it. The noble Earl has no ground at all. He knows perfectly well that the head of the Church is the Archbishop and that the people of a Church will take their lead from him. The noble Earl said that the Round Table Conference was not in favour of integration.

EARL WINTERTON

My Lords, I did not say anything of the sort. I said that they were.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord, but let me also make the point that Her Majesty's Government declared their readiness to carry forward integration. I could point a finger to those whose fault it was, but I will not continue on that. Speaking personally, I would say that even to-day I would wish that as a solution.

EARL WINTERTON

But, my Lords, would it not be very interesting to your Lordships to know why the Government did not accept integration?

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, the Government did accept integration. If the noble Earl will look back and read the documents, he will find that they did. But let us leave it at that.

I turn for a moment to the speech of the right reverend Prelate, who spoke on religious toleration. I am glad that he finds that Section 49 of the 1959 Constitution, which he read out, is wide enough. I think that his speech was the more impressive by its moderation on this important question, and I am sure that he is right to believe that the Maltese people will recognise freedom of conscience and of religion.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am sorry I have not been able to be present during the debate because I had a lot of work to do, but on this point may I say that I have in my office a cutting from the Catholic paper, Universe, in which the Archbishop declares it to be a mortal sin for any of this people to read any one of the three Labour papers.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in the question of what the Church may be doing. That is not the issue. The issue is whether there should be toleration in the new Constitution.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Freedom of conscience!

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, if I may, I would turn to something of great concern to all your Lordships—namely, the future of Malta. I am not going to get into an argument about But I would say that we cannot compare whether or not Malta is or is not important strategically. Several noble Lords have spoken on this point and frankly I do not wish to debate with them on it. Malta with Cyprus. Surely noble Lords forget that the solution in Cyprus was that we kept two sovereign areas for purposes of our own defence. That is neither possible nor desirable in Malta. I think that noble Lords who compare Cyprus and Malta in this context are misguided.

It is significant that the Report, in paragraph 120, brings out that the Commission did not find themselves in any way impaired by the limitations under which they had to work. However wide their terms of reference had been, they could not have envisaged Malta progressing at the present time and in existing circumstances to a more advanced stage of constitutional progress than that which they have recommended. I think that it is again worth recording that this Commission included among the members not only experts on constitutional matters whom we alone appointed but also members from the Trades Union Congress and a member from Australia. I think that the conclusion to which they came should impress your Lordships.

Noble Lords have asked about the future. The next step will depend on the working of the present constitution. The proposals of the Blood Commission are not envisaged as representing a final stage in Malta's constitutional development. Perhaps I may go further and recall that when, almost a year ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, asked whether the new Constitution was to rule out self-determination for all time, I replied: Of course, the answer to that is, No. But at this moment"— and I emphasise these words— we are proposing to get back to representative Government through elections as soon as possible. That is our hope, based on what has been outlined by the Blood Commission.

I hope, with the noble Earl, that all Parties will take part in the elections. The Maltese are politically mature and it is of first importance that they should run their own show. Quite simply, the less Her Majesty's Government have to do with it, the better pleased we shall all be. And here is their opportunity. But having said that, I also recognise that we have our part to play, if only in providing money for economic development to smooth the changeover or perhaps in giving advice. We are determined to do all we can to smooth the changeover so that there will be no hardship and unemployment for a people who have such a proud record and who have for so long been our friends. I believe that the proposals set out so ingeniously in the Blood Report, together with our economic help, will secure a happy future for the people of Malta. For our part, we will do all that we can to this end.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

My Lords, before my noble friend finishes, may I ask him one question on the economic side of the future of Malta? In the course of his speech, he mentioned that sonic 5,700 will be employed in the dockyard and some 3,600 in twenty small firms which have been set up, or are about to be set up, in the island, and added that there was a future for the tourist industry In view of the large population of Malta, can my noble friend offer anything better for the employment of the people?

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl asked this question, because I think that he slightly misunderstood the point I was making—namely, that the 3,600 are employed in new industries, which have grown up directly as a result of the economic planning on which we have been working, as an outcome of the report drawn up by Dr. Adler. At the present time, out of some 90,000 people employed in the island there are only from 3,000 to 3,500 unemployed. Our hope and belief is that in a short time the figures will be even less.

4.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I would say, in conclusion, how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for what they have said, because I am sure that it will have immense value in Malta. There has been a remarkable degree of unanimity of the part of speakers on both sides of the House, and they have shown the Maltese that we have immense affection and admiration for the people of Malta and that we in Parliament desire their freedom.

I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I am grateful to him for his speech, and especially for what he mentioned about the economic development in Malta, which gave us many new facts and much information which has not hitherto been available. The noble Earl was particularly valuable to us, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will agree, at the Round Table Conference in our dealings with the Church in Malta, and we know from that experience that he has followed Maltese affairs with special care since it became his responsibility to deal with colonial matters at the Colonial Office.

I must express profound disappointment at what he said on the political side. I am afraid that the failure of Her Majesty's Government to give any undertaking to the Maltese about their future independence and full self-government will make it impossible for this new Constitution to work. I hope the noble Earl will convey the views that have been expressed in this House on that subject to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who has shown so much imagination in matters of this kind in dealing with other Colonial territories. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.