CAB129-78 — Page 193

10

Page 193

232

36. There were also differences about the form which arrangements for consultation should take. As regards consultation in Malta, the Maltese Government proposed afcommittee presided over by apMaltese Minister The Malta Nationalist Party appeared to suggest consultation through a United Kingdom High Commissioner in Malta and a High Commissioner for Malta in London, or direct between United Kingdom and Maltese Ministers; but in the interim period, when the Governor still retained responsibility for defence and foreign affairs, he should seek the advice on these matters of a new advisory council consisting of himself, the Prime Minister of Malta, and two other Maltese Ministers. The Progressive Constitutional Party proposed that the Privy Council should be abolished and that the Prime Minister should be given a place on the Nominated Council, which should be renamed the Defence Council.

37. As regards consultation in London, the Maltese Government proposed that there should be a consultative committee of Ministers with powers of decision; the Malta Nationalist Party that there should be a similar body with the power of deciding disputes over the allocation of legislative functions between the Maltese and United Kingdom Parliaments, but only during the interim period; and the Progressive Constitutional Party that there should be a larger and more formal body, with powers of co-ordinating policy.

38. On the economic side, it became apparent that, although all were agreed on the broad lines of economic development, there were some differences about the ultimate objective and, more particularly, about the time which would be needed to attain it. The economic objective set by the Maltese Government was to raise the standard of living of the Maltese people towards that of the people of the United Kingdom over a period of 15 to 20 years, with the ultimate aim of " parity." The Maltese Government made it clear, however, that they did not regard this economic aim as meaning immediate and absolute "parity" of Maltese wage levels, social service standards and taxation with those prevailing in the United Kingdom. Both they and the representative of the Malta General Workers' Union, whom we heard separately, stressed that "parity" did not, in any case, mean equality of wages of Maltese and United Kingdom workers; "parity," to the Labour Party and the General Workers Union, meant equivalence of living standards, having regard to local conditions in Malta.

66

39. The Malta Nationalist Party and the Progressive Constitutional Party criticised, both on grounds of principle and of practicability, the objective of parity "of wages, social services and taxation with those in the United Kingdom, as they had understood it in the light of the Malta Labour Party's programme at the Maltese elections of February 1955. The economic aim of the Malta Nationalist Party was stated to be viability in accordance with Maltese conditions, and not an artificial standard to be achieved in a pre- determined period of time. The Malta Nationalist Party proposed that viability should be achieved by means of a series of plans assisted by grants from the United Kingdom Treasury, to be negotiated in the normal way between the two Governments; they were not prepared to forecast when viability could be achieved, but they were confident that success in achieving it would be easily distinguishable.

40. Finally, there were more important differences of approach between the parties in Malta as to the nature of closer association which they all claimed their proposals were designed to achieve. The Maltese Government emphasised that their proposals were intended to maintain and strengthen the responsibility of the Maltese Parliament for such matters as the Roman Catholic Church, religious education and family life; that they would be

49 Page 194 of 321

11

Page 194of321

-233

opposed to any interference with this responsibility; and that they had given categorical assurances to the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in Mallaage 19hvatican to that effect. They Paged 95 aftBhs of the Malta Nationalist Party and the Progressive Constitutional Party, which were strongly opposed to any form of closer association involving the absorption of Maltese political, social and economic institutions into those of the United Kingdom. In particular, these parties said they were anxious to preserve intact the faith and institutions of the Roman Catholic Church in Malta and were highly critical of the Maltese Government's proposals on the ground that they ran counter to the real wishes of the Maltese people. The Maltese Government denied that their proposals bore any such interpretation and said they would be strongly opposed to integrating Malta with the United Kingdom in that sense.

Disagreement on Ultimate Aims

41. Beyond these differences, there was clearly a strong and profound disagreement on the ultimate constitutional status which Malta should achieve, and about the nature of the constitutional link which should unite Malta and the United Kingdom.

42.

Both the Maltese Government and the Malta Nationalist Party made it clear that, in their opinion, the limited proposals of the Progressive Constitutional Party, directed mainly towards improving the present constitution and administration of Maltese affairs in Malta and in London, and not involving any change in Malta's present constitutional status, were inadequate. The proposals would not, in their view, go far enough to meet the desire of the Maltese people for an advance from their present status. It was, therefore, essential to decide immediately the nature of the ultimate status to be attained.

43. The Malta Nationalist Party maintained that the Maltese people could not surrender their inalienable right of self-determination and that the aspirations of enlightened Maltese opinion were for a status of independence. The Malta Nationalist Party, therefore, regarded the normal road towards self-government within the Commonwealth as the proper road for further advance, but recognised that the end, which was most recently achieved by Ceylon, could not be fully achieved by Malta. We understood them to agree that, in the special circumstances of Malta, whose future is so largely dependent upon defence expenditure, the ultimate goal of complete independence cannot be reached in the foreseeable future, and to have framed their proposals for the ultimate status of Malta in the light of this fact. They were strongly opposed, on a number of grounds, to the proposal of the Maltese Government that Malta should be represented at Westminster. Their most important criticisms were that, in their view, it would not meet the desire of the Maltese people for more independence, the Malta Labour Party having put it forward in their programme at the February elections only as an alternative to self-determination; that it could not be a permanent or satisfactory solution; and that it would inevitably involve, if not their complete absorption, at least the domination of Maltese laws and institutions by those of the United Kingdom. The Malta Nationalist Party would, therefore, continue to oppose representation at Westminster, whatever the outcome of the Conference. In their view, the rights and aspirations of the Maltese people, and the harmony of future relations between the United Kingdom and Malta, could be guaranteed only by the acceptance of proposals on the lines they themselves had put forward.