18
Page 199
Dominion Status
240
70. The mom 30 the Malta Nationalist asteandofthe Maltese Government both include measures which are claimed to be essential to fulfil Maltese aspirations; the former in the direction of Dominion status, and the latter through the new conception of representation of the Maltese people in Parliament at Westminster. Having considered the special circumstances of Malta, we are obliged to reach the conclusion that the road to full self- government is blocked, in that the Parliament at Westminster must, in order to maintain the defences of Malta and the facilities necessary to enable it to fulfil its role as one of the principal Commonwealth and N.A.T.O. bases in the Mediterrranean, exercise overriding powers in Malta in the fields of defence and foreign affairs. These requirements inevitably involve a limitation in possible advances open to the Maltese Parliament itself.
66
71. We are also obliged to conclude that, having regard to the special circumstances of Malta, the proposals put before us for a quasi-Dominion status would not be workable. They lack essential definition and would inevitably lead to conflicts of interpretation and to embarrassment in relations with Commonwealth and foreign countries.
Possible Alternatives
72. In attempting to reach a solution which meet the situation, we have considered other ideas but have rejected them because they fall short, in one or other respect, of what is required. For example, we did not consider that the desire of the Maltese people to have a more direct voice in decisions affecting their livelihood would be satisfied by the appointment of a consultative body of Ministers in London with the more formal constitutional status of a Committee of the Privy Council for Maltese Affairs, to which Maltese Ministers would be invited for consultation.
73. We also reject the idea that there might be Maltese representatives in Parliament who would only have the right to ask questions and take part in debates on foreign affairs and defence, and not to vote. This would be repugnant to the dignity and traditions of our Parliament and would not give the Members from Malta equality of status and responsibility with Members from the United Kingdom. Such an arrangement is also, in our view, unworkable, since it is not in fact possible completely to distinguish matters of defence from more domestic aspects of United Kingdom affairs, any more than it is possible to do so in Malta. We also feel that there is considerable merit in the argument that Maltese representatives at Westminster would be interested in, if not directly concerned with, very many aspects of life in Britain, including the effects of budgetary policy. Finally, we should not wish to encourage, as this arrangement might, the idea that the ties of the Maltese and United Kingdom peoples, within the Commonwealth and under the Crown, depend only on the material and physical effects of their common interest in defence.
74. We do not think that Malta's desire for a voice in the Parliament at Westminster could be met by enabling one or more representatives chosen by the Maltese Parliament to sit in the House of Lords. A proposal designed to make any formal arrangement for representation of Malta in the House of Lords would have wider implications, involving the general question of the reform of the Second Chamber, and would require legislation.* Moreover,
*It will be noted from Appendix A that we received a memorandum from the Nobility of Malta, whose present Honorary President is the Most Honourable the Marquess of Lothian, a member of the House of Lords.