asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he is aware that the interpretation section of the chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual in the constitution for independence proposed by the Government of Malta provides that nothing done by the Roman Catholic Church in the exercise of its spiritual powers and duties shall be held to be in contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter; and if, in view of clerical pressure on the voters at previous elections in Malta, this provision has been or will be approved by Her Majesty's Government.

I would refer to hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) on the 24th April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the inclusion of this important qualification in the constitution—its inclusion almost surreptitiously, in a mere interpretation section—goes far to nullify the effect of having a civil rights or human rights section in the constitution at all? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during his recent conversations with Archbishop Gonzi, he took the opportunity of drawing the Archbishop's attention to the late Pope's Encyclical, or indeed to the existence of the Vatican Council?

I do not think that I want to go into what I said to the Archbishop and what he said to me. I do not propose, and I do not think that it would be right, to comment on any particular aspect of the draft constitution on which I may have to take a decision very shortly.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Church of Malta has always done, and will continue to do, its duty to guide its flock in spiritual and moral matters? Would my right hon. Friend, agree that the difficulty is to define the overlapping area where moral issues and political issues may conflict?

That is precisely the difficulty.

Is it not odd that this important Clause should appear in an interpretation section, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that the people in Malta can form a judgment when the document which is issued contains 65 pages, is written in legal jargon, and costs 2s. 6d. to buy?

I did not draft it, but I think that broadly speaking the people of Malta have a very good idea of what the controversy is about.

Since the right hon. Gentleman appeared to assent to the terms of the supplementary question by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), can he say whether he really regards it as the duty of a local hierarchy in the Roman Catholic Church to invent new mortal sins, such as reading a Labour newspaper?

I have no comment.