31
Mr Llbyd
This has come to me in Mr Caine's absence.
My personal view, which I believe is in general line with Mr Caine's, is that while the Far Eastern territories have obviously not
been treated by H.M. G. with the same generosity as has Malta, there is not much toxbexgained that we can hope to gain by raising the issue of
principle with the Treasury just now.
Malta, of course, scored because the issue of financial assistance for the repair of her
war damage first arose when the spotlight of public sympathy was focussed upon her at the haig
height of the seige. It was then that the statement was made in Parliament promising the
£10 million gift, and it was the wording of
in the Circumstances of that statement, which not unnaturally at the
time was couched in terms of less than the
usual cold legal precision, that created the
moral commitment to very substantial further assistance which is now being provided by the
bill now before Parliament. When the proposals
embodied in this bill were first discussed with
the Treasury Mr Caine and I were rather perturbed by the differing standard of treatment which tha they represented as compared with anything we could hope to achieve for other territories, but as the Malta proposals flowed from H.M.G's wartime
commitment and for that and other reasons were
being strongly pressed on political grounds, and
ak as it was also clear that the only result of pressing at that jucture for uniformity of
treatment would have been, not to gain more for
other territories, but merely to imperil the Malta settlement, we concurred in the proposals
made to the Treasury on Malta.
+
I have set out the above past history relati
ng