HC Deb 14 March 1933 vol 275 cc1773-4
23. Sir HERBERT SAMUEL

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which of the Dominions have enacted legislation on the lines of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Bill now before Parliament; whether any other of the Dominions have intimated that they propose to do so; and whether such legislation contains provisions which would deprive members of United Kingdom forces which may visit those Dominions in future of the right they have hitherto enjoyed, if it is alleged that a military court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or otherwise acted illegally, of recourse by writ of habeas corpus to the civil courts of part of the British Commonwealth?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

As regards the first part of the question, legislation on the lines of the Visiting Forces Bill has already been passed by the Parliament of the Union of South Africa. As regards the second part of the question, I understand that similar legislation has recently been introduced into the Canadian Parliament; the question of legislation in other Dominions is still under consideration. As regards the third part, the legislation already passed by the Union Parliament is in terms substantially identical with the terms of the Visiting Forces Bill. I have not yet seen the text of the Bill introduced into the Canadian Parliament, though it is understood that it was the intention of the Canadian Government to introduce legislation in identical terms.

Sir H. SAMUEL

Will the right hon. 'Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely, whether such legislation would deprive members of United Kingdom forces visiting these Dominions of the right of recourse by writ of habeas corpus to the civil courts of the Dominions?

Mr. THOMAS

The object of this particular legislation was clearly to give the Dominions the power of governing their own particular forces according to the circumstances of their own agreements but if my right hon. Friend puts specifically to me whether the legislation denies the right to which he refers, that is a legal point which I cannot answer.

Sir H. SAMUEL

That is precisely the question which is on the Paper.

Mr. THOMAS

It is because we have no reason to anticipate that that right will be interfered with that I have given the answer which I have given.