ALLIED POWERS (MARITIME COURTS) BILL. (Hansard, 15 May 1941)

HC Deb 15 May 1941 vol 371 cc1268-357 1268

§ Considered in Committee.

§ [Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

§ CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Allied Maritime Courts in the United Kingdom.)

§ Mr. Shinwell (Seaham)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert: (7) The trial of any person brought before a Maritime Court shall be conducted in public. When this Measure was discussed on Second Reading I drew attention to the fact that no provision had been made for holding the allied maritime courts in public and that I regarded that as being quite contrary to British practice. I therefore asked my right hon. and learned Friend opposite to give the matter consideration before the Committee stage was reached, and I presume that he has done so. The proposal in this Amendment seems to me a very modest and necessary one. It would be quite wrong if we adopted the practice of holding British courts in public while at the same time allowing seamen who are our allies to be arraigned before an allied maritime court where the proceedings were held in camera. I am bound to say that if a distinction of that kind were to be applied, it might give rise to very bad feeling, not only among those concerned, but in the country as a whole. It would be foreign to our practice and might cause considerable resentment. In those 1282 circumstances, I hope that the Government, having given consideration to the matter, may accept this Amendment or at any rate provide that representations should be made on the subject to the Allied Governments concerned.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt)
I think I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I may say that I agree entirely with his object in moving the Amendment. Long experience has taught me that there is no more adequate safeguard for the proper administration of justice than that justice should be administered in public, so that public opinion may be brought to bear upon all that is done. But the objections to this provision being put into this Bill are simply as follow. The essential feature of the Bill is that the maritime courts should be allowed to settle their own procedure. These courts are established by the Allied Powers and we do not want to appear to impose upon those Allied Powers our own procedure, which might, in some cases, be obnoxious to them. On the other hand, since the last discussion on the Bill, the Minister of War Transport has been assured by a representative of the National Union of Seamen which is, of course, closely in touch with all the Allied unions, that this Bill meets with the approval of the foreign unions, so long as they can be assured that hearings by maritime courts shall be in public. The Foreign Office has, therefore, approached the Allied Governments on the matter, and. the Allied Governments all have stated that, in accordance with their constitutional practice, hearings by the maritime courts will be in public. That is subject to one exception which, of course, must apply also to our courts here—that if any case should arise in which publicity would endanger the safety of the State, they have, under their constitutions, just as we have under our Constitution, the right to order that the hearing of that case shall be in camera. Subject to that limitation, we have obtained an assurance such as I have indicated, from all the Allied Governments and I hope that the hon. Member and the Committee will rely on that assurance as being the most satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In view of the assurance given by my right hon. and learned 1283 Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert: (7) Any person brought before a Maritime Court for trial shall be entitled to be legally represented, and his legal representative may be of his own nationality or a British subject. In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I desire to press this Amendment. As I understood him, the Solicitor-General relies on the principle embodied in the Bill, namely that the Allied maritime courts should regulate their own procedure. I venture to say, however, that unless in the regulation of that procedure, the methods of these Allied courts are harmonised with the methods adopted by the courts in this country, exception is bound to be taken to it. This Amendment provides that officers or seamen on Allied vessels who are accused of offences and brought before a maritime court for trial should have the right to legal representation. It may appear that, in the ordinary course of events, such persons would have the right to legal representation but there is no provision to that effect in the Bill, and we were informed during the Second Reading Debate that, in this matter, we must rely on the practice in the Allied countries concerned. I have no information on the subject but doubtless my right hon. and learned Friends will be able to say whether in any of the Allied countries concerned, it is customary to deny the right to legal representation. If so, clearly we ought to accept the principle of legal representation in this country for the persons concerned in this Measure.
A further point emerges, that is whether an accused person who is an Allied seaman, should have the right to be legally represented by one of his own nationals, say by an Allied lawyer practising or entitled to practise in this country. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no such provision in the Bill. It is a matter for consideration whether an Allied seaman accused of an offence should have the alternative of being represented by a British lawyer, or by one of his own nationals. When this matter was being discussed previously, I ventured a remark which was regarded as jocular but in which there is a substantial element of 1284 truth. I said that the main purpose of the Measure appeared to be to provide employment for Allied lawyers in this country, but that many of our own legal fraternity could do with a little more work to-day, and that we ought not to take any steps which would deprive them of the opportunities of such work.
The main purpose of my proposal, however, is that accused persons who are Allied seamen, should have the alternative right of claiming legal representation by their own nationals resident and practising in this country, or of calling upon the services of British lawyers. That seems a reasonable proposition. It may be argued that once we have accepted the principle of establishing these maritime courts, once we have accepted what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described as the principle of full sovereignty, whatever that may mean, we have no right to interfere with the regulations and procedure of these maritime courts, and that these matters should be left to the courts themselves. But, after all, the accused persons have to be protected. Some safeguard must be provided for them. It seems tome, therefore, that if an Allied seaman who is accused of an offence feels that he would prefer to be represented by a British lawyer, perhaps some one of his own acquaintance in whom he places trust, he ought to have the opportunity of selecting such a person, and should not be compelled to have recourse to a lawyer of his own nationality, in whom perhaps he places no reliance.
If legal representation is to be afforded to an accused person and if he can be represented by a lawyer only of his own nationality, can the court provide the legal representation? In our British courts, if a person cannot afford to be legally represented, the court can sometimes provide it without fee. Will that be the practice in these maritime courts? If so, the accused person may suffer a two-fold disadvantage. He will have no recourse to the services of a British lawyer and he may be compelled to accept the services of a lawyer which he would rather do without. I hope that the Solicitor-General will make an exception in this case and impose an obligation on the court to grant the necessary permission to allow an accused person to claim the services of a lawyer practising in this country.

1285

§ Mr. Goldie (Warrington)
I find myself prepared to go further than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. Although I am a member of the Bar Council, I cannot bind that body, but I am sure that the Bar of England and my profession generally would be only too ready to place their services at the disposal of any court that desired them. That is entirely a matter for the foreign courts. The Amendment is limited by the words "of his own nationality." My mind goes back to the days of the last war, when many of us gave voluntary services in connection with courts-martial. I made friendships through that work which have lasted ever since. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the accused person if the Amendment were not restricted to lawyers of the accused's own nationality but were extended to include lawyers of any allied nationality as well as British lawyers.

§ Mr. Silverman (Colne Valley)
The Solicitor-General, in dealing with the first Amendment, said that we did not want to interfere with the procedure of the maritime courts which are to be set up. That is a reasonable proposition, but I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that points of procedure are not all of the same kind. Some are purely questions of procedure, but others go to the base of what we consider to be justice. One of these was contained in the first Amendment. The publicity of criminal proceedings is a basic and important point of procedure. I suggest that the point in this Amendment is of the same kind. It is a fundamental point of procedure that a man charged with a criminal offence before a court which has power to imprison him should have the right to be legally represented. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) that it ought not to be limited to lawyers of British or the accused person's nationality, but that he should have the right of being represented by lawyers of any allied nationality.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I agree that anyone coming before these courts should be allowed to take his pick from any counsel or solicitor belonging to the Allied nations. Have the Allied nations an arrangement like our poor prisoners' defence system in cases where a man is unable to finance his defence? I hope that provision will be made from 1286 some source so that an accused person's case will not go by default because he is unable to afford a lawyer.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
It seems to me necessary that the accused person should be allowed the right to select his legal representative more freely than the Amendment would allow him to do, because a legal person of his own nationality might not be available in the vicinity. Suppose he were a Greek citizen and there were not a Greek lawyer at hand. Is he to seek a Greek lawyer in some other part of the country? That would be a cumbrous system and it would be more convenient if he were able to choose a lawyer nearer at hand. The point would be met if the Amendment stopped at the words "legally represented." I would bow to the Solicitor-General's wider knowledge on the question whether that would embrace legal representatives belonging to any nationality and whether the last words of the Amendment are not of a limiting character. On grounds of practicality and making the individual feel that he has a wider area of selection than the Amendment gives him, however, I suggest that the Amendment ought to be substantially altered.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)
It has been assumed in what has been said that all foreign lawyers in this country will be allowed by the Home Office to do this work. Some of them are refugees, and can the Solicitor-General say whether the Home Office will allow them to practise in these maritime courts?

§ The Solicitor-General
Many persuasive arguments have been addressed to me, and I find myself in this odd position. I entirely agree with everything that has been said. It is wrong from anybody's point of view that a man should be tried before a court for a crime, which may be a serious crime, without having someone to represent him. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It is illogical to limit the nationality of the lawyer. You need not be a British subject to be a member of the English Bar. You have a right of audience in the English courts because you are a member of the Bar; you may be a member of any nationality. There is a great practical difficulty on which nobody has touched, that is, the language difficulty. With the 1287 best will in the worm, it would be difficult for an ordinary member of the English Bar like my hon. and learned Friend or myself, who know, for instance, no Polish, to assist the court in the trial of a Polish seaman who is alleged to have infringed some code of the Polish law when the court, perhaps, understands only Polish and the proceedings are conducted in the Polish language There are obviously great practical difficulties.
What we have done, and the best thing we can have done in the circumstances, is to approach the Allied Governments. They have all agreed that it is their desire that all these men should be properly defended, and I think should be properly defended, even although there are financial difficulties about getting proper defence. But when I have said that, I do not think we can possibly impose upon these foreign courts exact limitations as to whom they shall or whom they shall not allow. In many cases, I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, it is much more effective to have a member of a trade union who is not a lawyer, who in smaller cases perhaps could do it perfectly well. If you cannot get anyone who speaks the language, it may be necessary to go to a trained lawyer, who would have to do the best he could under conditions of appalling difficulty. But the Allied Governments are entirely with us in our desire to see that these men are properly represented. They one and all view with horror the idea that a man shall be condemned without having a chance of having his case put by an advocate who will think of nothing but the interests of his client.
I do not see what we can do except accept these assurances and leave it to the courts, in the very difficult circumstances in which they will be placed, to formulate their own rules and do the best they can and accept the assurance that we have obtained from these foreign Governments. Therefore I cannot ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. It would be quite wrong for us to promulgate and fasten upon all these foreign courts a series of rules and regulations. Think of the poor persons' rules There are pages of them. Are we to promulgate them and to say that they are of necessity to apply to these courts? All we can do is to trust to the good faith and honour of the courts to 1288 observe in the letter and in the spirit the undertakings that they have given.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reply to my point? There will be refugee lawyers from some of these countries. Will the Home Office allow them to appear in the courts?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)
I can assure the hon. Member that the Home Office would give permission to a refugee lawyer in this country to practise.

§ Major Milner (Leeds, South-East)
It has been extremely interesting to hear the Solicitor-General's proper and sincere regard that Allied nationals should be properly defended and have a fair and public trial. He might endeavour to prevail upon the Home Secretary that similar consideration might be given to some of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of aliens who are at present tried by tribunals in secret under the aegis of the Home Office but have no legal representation at all and about whom there is serious disquiet. Perhaps the Under-Secretary for the Home Office would also take note that apparently the Government are willing to give greater consideration to Allied nationals who may only be here for a day, a week, or a month, than apparently they are giving to many hundreds of aliens some of whom have been here for many years. I appreciate the difficulty in which the Government are placed, but I think we ought to have something rather more definite than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us. We are asked, as I understand, to accept the assurance, no doubt given in good faith by the Allied Governments, that these people will be legally represented, but we ought to be quite clear as to the process under the assurance that has been given. If a definite and firm assurance is given by Allied Governments that in all instances an opportunity for legal representation of some kind is given, we need not perhaps concern ourselves whether it is representation by British lawyers or Allied lawyers, or lawyers of any nationality at all, but we ought to be clear on the matter of process under the assurance given so that there is no misunderstanding in the future. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make that clear.

1289

§ The Solicitor-General
The words of the assurance are that foreign Governments will do their utmost to secure that an offender brought before the maritime court shall, if he so desires, be able to obtain professional assistance by fellow nationals. Obviously that means that if a man cannot pay for it himself, they are going to pay for it. I do not think we can ask them to go further than that.

§ Major Milner
It is clear from that that it would not be competent for an accused person to have a lawyer from another Allied Power or to engage an English lawyer if there were an English lawyer, as might well be the case, who spoke the appropriate language. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to get some extension of that undertaking. It is not sufficient in the form in which he has given it, for two reasons. In the first place, the term is used "if he so desires." That may mean that every accused person may have to make a special request. What I would urge is that the accused person should in all instances have his attention drawn to the matter and have an opportunity of asking for a lawyer. It is not sufficient to say "if he so desires." Many of them do not know their rights, and it is essential that their attention should be called to them. The second point is that they should have the widest possible choice and should not be limited to their own nationals. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give us some better assurance than that.

§ The Solicitor-General
I cannot mould or alter the undertaking at the behest of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I must not go a step beyond what I am authorised to say, but I am authorised to say that on the whole matter the Allied Governments have shown themselves exceedingly sympathetic, and that we will go back to the Allied Governments and ask them to extend the undertaking that they have already given in the light of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said. I cannot say more than that, because I am not going to tell the Committee that I have an assurance which is an inch wider than it is, but I have very little doubt that, in view of what I have said, the Allied Governments will give us an undertaking to cover what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Perhaps it will fortify the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his 1290 approach to the Allied Governments if I tell him that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this language difficulty. Emphasis has been laid on the Polish complication. I am not aware that a large number of Polish ships are at our disposal. The bulk of the ships are Norwegian, Greek and Dutch. As regards Greek vessels, I have no doubt that language difficulties might arise, but by far the great majority of Norwegian seamen speak excellent English. It must also be remembered that thousands of the men concerned have been sailing from Norwegian, Dutch and British ports for 20 or 25 years and longer. They have lived in our ports. In Leith you will find any number of Norwegian seamen living. There are Norwegian seamen sailing on Norwegian ships who have families in this country. The same thing applies to South Shields, Hull and many other ports. Practically the whole of the East coast ports are familiar to Norwegian and Dutch seamen. From the terrace of the House of Commons we have seen Dutch steamers sailing up and down the river daily, and those on board converse with warehousemen and stevedores, and are quite familiar with our language.
I have had conversations with Norwegians and Swedes in Scandinavia and found that their command of English was better than my own. I can recall occasions in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Oslo, and other places where I heard the very best Scottish jokes, some told in the vernacular. I am not exaggerating. These men have extensive business interests with this country. There is no language difficulty except here and there, as there is in British courts, where the services of an interpreter have to be called in. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he makes his representations to the Allied Governments, to fortify himself with these facts. The Bill is promoted to satisfy the Allied Governments. All the procedures and the measures that are necessary to prevent infractions of discipline on these vessels are embodied in our merchant shipping laws. Let us not go too far. We accede the principle, but, when we have established these courts, we have the right to say that they should be as far as practicable harmonised with our practice and procedure. I regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a position to accede to 1291 our request now, but before the Bill reappears from another place I hope he will be able to give us assurances in a more definite manner than they have yet been given.

§ Mr. Goldie
I am rather disquieted by the terms of the assurance that the Solicitor-General has read. I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that no difficulty arises on the language point. I appeared recently in a case in which evidence was given in Polish, and not the slightest difficulty was experienced owing to the presence of a very able interpreter. Everything went perfectly smoothly, and I am convinced that justice was done. The legal profession are the last in the world to wish to impose their services on these maritime courts, but, if an accused man desires to be represented by a member of the English Bar, it seems to me that the least we can do is to ask the Allied Governments to extend their assurance so that an accused person is not deprived of the services of an English lawyer if he so desires.

§ Mr. Mander
As a member of the English Bar, not practising, I wish to support my hon. Friend and to ask the Solicitor-General whether he will make it clear, as I thought was implicit, that he intends in his friendly approach to the Allied Governments to ask that British as well as Allied lawyers shall be given an opportunity of access to these courts.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne North)
I also can speak as a non-practising barrister. I am certain that what was said from the Front Opposition Bench is true, and I should say that nine out of 10 of these foreign sailors who come to the North-East coast are as familiar with the English language as most of the English sailors who live there, and therefore it is highly desirable that they should have the opportunity of having English lawyers to represent them if it is possible.

§ Mr. Shinwell
In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances, not wishing to divide the Committee, I beg to ask leave, though very reluctantly, to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

1292

§ Mr. Mander
There are certain points which I raised on the Second Reading which perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer. The Government intend to extend the provisions of the Bill to certain Allied countries. May we know which they are? Obviously those which appear to be eligible are Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Is it contemplated that they shall all be brought in? Then what is the intention of the Government with regard to Free France?

§ The Solicitor-General
They are not in.

§ Mr. Mander
And all the others are?

§ The Solicitor-General
Yes.

§ Mr. Mander
Then I ask for some explanation of the words "Associated Powers." What is the meaning of that? Are the Government contemplating an alliance with the Soviet or with some American State?

§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)
I am absolutely opposed to the Clause and to the setting-up of these courts, and I cannot understand for the life of me why Members of the Labour movement have not made an energetic fight against the Bill, and particularly against this Clause. I am against the setting-up of these courts, not because I desire to idealise British courts or British law, maritime or otherwise, nor because I desire to idealise shipping conditions. In this country we have most deplorable conditions for seamen. It has always been recognised that the Norwegians and the Dutch have a very high standard and that there is very considerate treatment for their seamen. I have not had personal experience of Norwegian ships, except on two occasions when I sailed as a stowaway, but I know from associations with Norwegian seamen that their conditions are good. I am not trying to idealise British legal procedure or British shipping conditions, but I do not accept the bona fides of any of these so-called Governments in this country.
I consider it is a shameful thing that with so little consideration we should hand these men over to these people. The Solicitor-General will go and talk to them nicely. These so-called Governments are dependent on the Government here, and, of course, they will do what we ask them to do. In the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member for Ince 1293 (Mr. G. Macdonald), who speaks with great authority and with very deep sympathy for the miners, said I was opposed to these courts because I did not like the Government. Of course, that is correct. I would ask hon. Members to think of the human side of the problem. There is an urgent demand for coal to-day, but in every pit there is gas of a very deadly character, and the question is how you are to get men to go down the pits and dig coal with the knowledge that any day there may be an explosion and men killed and mutilated. Is it not a human problem to organise the production of coal in such a way as will give the best conditions to the miners? Suppose you have a question of Polish miners going down the pits, and one day there is an explosion.

The Deputy -Chairman
If the hon. Member would leave the miners alone and keep to the seamen, he would be more in Order.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I am trying to make an analogy. I am trying to point out that if miners were affected, there is not a miners' representative on these Benches who would allow Polish miners to be handed over to courts of this kind in the manner that seamen are being handed over. They would demand that the miners' trade union representatives should meet the Government representatives in consultation and work out plans to ensure the greatest possible care for the interests of the miners. These seamen are asked to go to sea. Every time they go to sea some of them have to pay the penalty with their lives, and others have to endure sufferings and experiences that will leave a mark on their lives.

The Deputy-Chairman
The object of this Clause is to set up courts. The hon. Member is getting far too wide in his argument.

§ Mr. Gallacher
If you set up these courts to try these men, you can try them for not turning up when their ship sails. It does not take very much to keep hon. Members from the House of Commons. They do not turn up to do their job. But these seamen have to turn up when the know that every time a ship sails some of the men are going to pay the penalty with their lives, some of them will be mutilated and some of them will go through the most terrible experiences. I have been to the Arctic—not under the 1294 terrible conditions of the present war—and I know what it means. It is a shame and a scandal that these courts should be set up and have the power to deal with these seamen. I do not like the Polish Government. I have the greatest respect and sympathy and admiration for the Polish people, who put such a heroic fight against their German captors.

The Deputy-Chairman
It is not in Order for the hon. Member to argue whether he likes the Polish Government or not.

§ Mr. Gallacher
It is the Polish Government so called, that is to set up these courts.

§ Mr. Bevan
Is the hon. Member suggesting that these seamen will be treated more harshly than if they were brought before British courts? If that is his contention, I do not know the facts on which it is based.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I am against these courts. I am not partial to the British courts, but I consider that the correct way to approach this matter is for the Ministers responsible to discuss with trade unions representing sailors the best method of dealing with the quickest possible turn-round of the ships. I am told these sovereign Governments have to be considered. These Governments are what the Americans call "boloney." The Polish Government are the people who ran away at the beginning and deserted their people.

The Deputy-Chairman
Order. It is not allowable to use opprobrious epithets against a Government with which this country is in amity.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I hope hon. Members will take notice of that Ruling when matters concerning the Soviet Union are being considered. I am against these courts, and I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House, especially the miners' representatives, will consider between now and the Report stage the human side of this question and not automatically allow a Measure of this kind to go through.

§ Mr. David Adams (Consett)
I am just as much a lover of liberty as the hon. Member who has just spoken, and I am perhaps equally ardent in the matter of industrial liberty, but what he is appar- 1295 ently asking for is licence on the part of a certain section of the community. He would presumably not take action against foreign seamen who, having undertaken to sail their vessel, either come aboard and decline to do their duty, or remain upon the quay. But examples of this are relatively common, as many shipping firms—certainly on the North-East coast—would agree. Vessels are being held up for this reason. It is quite impossible to deal with the position satisfactorily in our courts, and I believe it will be found that the most humane shipowners and the most humane authorities connected with the various shipping organisations believe that this would be a remedial Measure, beneficial, not only to the shipping industry generally, but to the seafarers themselves. I could quote plenty of cases in regard to which a moment's thought would indicate that vessels have missed convoys in this way. Some that I know of have attempted to go without convoy and have been lost because of the lack of protection. Therefore, lives have been lost and the Allies' aims thwarted for the lack of the powers contained in Clause 1. If any argument had been submitted by any Member of the Committee to indicate that we already had the requisite powers—it has merely been alleged that we had—if there had been any evidence that we had the requisite powers to handle the position, then I, for one, would not be supporting Clause 1. But I believe it to be urgently required in the general interest not less than in the interests of the sailors themselves.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin)
Perhaps I may answer now one or two points that have been put. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked how many Powers would set up these courts. They are Norway, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia. The Free French do not propose to do so. My hon. Friend also asked why we put the words "Associated Powers" in the Title. It was to cover the second part of Clause 1 (2), in which reference is made to any Power for the time being at war with any other Power with which His Majesty is for the time being at war. As a matter of fact, we have no strict alliance, for instance, with Greece at the 1296 present moment, and the word "Associated" was included in the Title to cover that phrase in Clause 1 (2). With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), it is true that many people always think our courts are the best—I do not think he did—but these seamen themselves, strange as it may seem to some in this Committee, do prefer to be tried by their own nationals and by their own courts rather than by ours. We have had an opportunity of testing the feelings of the various unions of foreign seamen which have been set up in this country, and they are in favour of the provisions of this Bill.

§ Question, ''That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

§ CLAUSE 2.—(Jurisdiction of Maritime Courts.)

§ Mr. Silverman
On a point of Order. If it would meet the convenience of the Committee, and if you, Colonel Clifton-Brown, approved, I should be prepared to discuss the first two Amendments standing in my name together, because, although the points raised are different, the argument is largely the same.

The Deputy-Chairman
That was my impression, and if the Committee agreed, we might follow that course. The hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong, but this may also cover some subsequent Amendments which he has put down.

§ The Solicitor-General
I agree with the hon. Member that it would be very convenient if there were some appropriate form under which we could have a more or less general discussion on the main question of Clause 2, namely, as to whether it should be confined to excluding British subjects, or whether we should also exclude persons of nationality other than that of the maritime courts.

§ Mr. Silverman
I entirely agree, but the Amendments which are on the Paper in my name at a later stage would in fact be consequential on the acceptance of, at any rate, the first of these two Amendments, and I should be quite happy to have them all considered now.

The Deputy-Chairman
I am in the hands of the Committee; if it is the general wish of the Committee to have a general discussion on those lines, I shall be quite willing to allow it.

1297

Hon. Members
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Silverman
I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "not being British subjects," and to insert being persons who on the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, had the status of nationals of that Power. Like a number of my hon. Friends who have spoken, I utterly dislike this Bill, but I do not think that this is the time to repeat the arguments about that. The House has accepted the principle that the Allied Powers ought to be given certain authority to administer their own law in circumstances where, if they had not been ejected from their own countries, they would have been entitled to administer their own law. I think it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said, that these Governments are, as it were, at our mercy, and that if we went to them and demanded this, that or the other, they would perforce have to agree. It may be that it is precisely for that reason that we do not feel disposed to go and ask them for things which they are not really free to accept or refuse, and I do not say that I dissent from that principle at all, or that I have no sympathy with it. A number of the Governments are not such as I would choose or desire for this country or for the countries concerned, but I do not think this is the proper tribunal to decide such a question, and we are now considering only what we are to do in these particular circumstances.
We have not been quite logical in this Bill about the principle which we have accepted, because the Bill does except British subjects from the jurisdiction of these maritime courts. That is an entirely illogical and anomalous thing, because if we were really according to these Allied Powers the rights which they would have enjoyed in parallel circumstances when they were still in authority on their own soil, their powers would apply to British subjects too, and we have deliberately chosen not to apply it to British subjects. I do not complain of that—I think it is illogical—but I do not think logic is always the soundest guide in these matters, and I should have objected very much if that exception had not been made.
What I am suggesting in these two Amendments is that that anomaly or illogicality, if it be such, ought to be extended, for the same reasons as have led 1298 the Government to accept it in the case of British subjects. My first Amendment asks that the Government concerned shall have jurisdiction only over those who were their own nationals on the day when war broke out. Why should that not be so? What legitimate complaint would any of these Governments have if their powers were limited to their own nationals? What would be lost? I submit that nothing further would be lost. They could plead that there was some infraction of their sovereignty, but that infraction was made when British subjects were excepted. There is no reason why a Polish court on British soil should try a Norwegian seaman. If you are giving powers to each of these Allied Governments over their own nationals, there is no need to complicate the matter further by giving them powers over one another's nationals which they would not have over British subjects. It is sometimes said, "If you do not do that you might have a multiplicity of courts dealing with the same offence." That is not so; you would have only two courts, the court of the national who is being prosecuted, and a British court. Those two courts you already have under the Bill; so I am proposing no new principle.

§ Mr. Bevan
Suppose there were five members of a crew, all belonging to different nationalities, and all guilty of the same offence. Would you not need five separate courts to try them?

§ Mr. Silverman
I suggest that that is not a necessary consequence of the Amendment. If it were, I should be prepared to consent to any Amendment which made no more than two courts necessary. If one of the five were British, you would, already, have to have two courts. I am not proposing to extend the number of courts. If the person charged is British, he has the right under the Bill to be tried by a British court. If he is a Norwegian, on a Norwegian ship, the Norwegian Government have the right to try him in a Norwegian court. There is no difficulty in those cases. The difficulty occurs in the case of those who are not nationals of the country to which the ship belongs, and who are not British subjects either.

§ Mr. Bevan
I contemplate the possibility of a mixed crew. If there are five persons on a ship, all engaged in the 1299 same unlawful incident, and one is British, it is clear that there will be two courts; but, under my hon. Friend's Amendment, there could be five courts to try the British subject and the nationals of four other different countries.

§ Mr. Silverman
I do not think so. I do not think there is anything in the Bill which would allow any of the other Powers to step in and say, "We are taking our nationals before our courts."

§ Mr. Bevan
Under your Amendment, there would be.

§ Mr. Silverman
Under my Amendment, the maritime court of a foreign Power would not be able to try either a British subject or any other non-national of its own country.

§ Mr. Bevan
That is the point I am making.

§ Mr. Silverman
The consequence of that is, not that the non-nationals of that Power would have to be tried by their own courts, but that they would be triable by British courts. I do not think that there would be any difficulty about that; but if my Amendment leaves that point ambiguous and it is thought necessary to have a further Amendment to provide that non-nationals of any Power who were not tried by the maritime court of that Power should then be tried by a British court, I agree that it might be convenient to insert such an Amendment. I say that the Government concerned ought not to have the right on British soil to try persons who are not its nationals. It has to be borne in mind that this Bill, under paragraph (c) of this Clause, gives a power of conscription in certain cases. There ought not to be any doubt that where the' offence is committed on board ship the powers go no wider than the nationals of the Power concerned.
The other Amendment that I propose to move may, perhaps, be plainer to my hon. Friend. I am suggesting that the Allied Governments ought not to have powers over persons in the case of whom they would not have exercisable jurisdiction if they had been still operating as sovereign Governments on their own soil. It is quite true that their nationals, no matter how long they have lived outside their borders, would remain technically subject to their laws. But, under this Bill, we are giving foreign Powers the right to exercise their laws, by our legal 1300 machinery, on our soil: a thing which they would not have been able to do if it had remained at home. Therefore, unless this Amendment is carried, these foreign Powers will be given rights which they would not have been able to exercise but for their having been expelled from their own countries and having come here. People leave their countries for a variety of reasons, good, bad, and indifferent. I am not going to seek to discuss the merits of those reasons now, but it is indisputable that a large number of people have left some of the countries concerned because they were not given the ordinary rights of citizenship there, because life was made impossible for them; and when they came to this country, they came for refuge. They came, and claimed the protection of our laws. They came, ready to become our citizens as soon as we were ready to accept them. They are loyal to us and to all we stand for; but when they left their own shores, they turned their backs on those countries for good and all; and they were beyond the effective power of their countries. These people are not unwilling to serve. Many of them are anxious to serve. Many of them, indeed, I think, all of them, would not voluntarily choose to serve in the armed forces or in the maritime forces of these Powers. They would serve us; they would not serve them.
What I am suggesting in the second of these Amendments is—I hope it will not be thought unreasonable; I have not taken a very late date or asked that a short period of domicile should be recognised—that none of these Powers shall apply to the national of an Allied Power who was domiciled in this country five years before the war broke out. There can be no question of people having run away in order to avoid this or anything of the kind. There can be no question of their having come within the recent days. In order to be exempted under this Amendment, they must have been domiciled, not merely resident, in this country for seven years. I am saying that this Committee ought not in these cases to give to the Allied Power concerned an authority which but for this Measure it could not exercise, and which but for their expulsion from their own country they could not be brought within it. They should not compel people in that position to serve with Powers that they would not Voluntarily choose to serve.
1301 I ask that, when people have been domiciled in this country for seven years, for the purposes of this Measure, they ought to be treated exactly as British subjects are treated. They ought not to be exempted from any obligation which British subjects may have, but they ought not to have other or alien obligations en tailed upon them against their wish. It would be of no practical advantage to the Government concerned if that were insisted upon.
No one is more useless in a regiment than an unwilling soldier, and no one could possibly be more useless or a greater source of danger than an unwilling sailor in a ship in which he would not have chosen to have served in the battle of the Atlantic. There is no practical advantage to be gained by insisting upon it and by giving these rights to Allied Powers over people of this kind, and there is no derogation of sovereignty involved. I therefore ask the learned Solicitor-General whether, if he cannot accept the first of my Amendments, which I hoped he might have been able to do, he will, at any rate be able to accept the principle of the second, which, I submit, is utterly and completely a reasonable one.

§ The Solicitor-General
I think it would be useful, and for the convenience of the Committee at this stage to make a suggestion as to what we think we can do to meet to a very large extent, I believe, some of the points of the hon. Member. The problem before us is: Are we to limit the class of people with whom these maritime courts cannot deal to British subjects, or are we to limit it further and to say that they are not to deal with anybody except nationals of the particular Power setting up the maritime court? That is the problem. I would point out to the Committee, what is very obvious, that sometimes the ascertainment of nationality is a very complicated thing. You do not merely meet the problem if you assume that the man is one particular thing; the difficulty is in finding out what he is. There are three groups under Clause 2, Sub-section (1) —(a), (b) and (c) —and I think they are fundamental. The Committee will see that as far as (a) and (b) arc concerned, you are dealing with, in (a), an offence committed by any person on board a merchant ship and, in (b), with 1302 any act or omission committed by the, master or any member of the crew of a merchant ship. These are both cases in which the individual, whoever he may be, has of his own volition and free will either gone on board of the merchant ship or signed on as a member of the crew, and in these circumstances I suggest to the Committee that there is no real reason whatever why, having voluntarily subjected himself to the law of the flag, the law of the flag should not apply in his case. The practical difficulty of any other course was forcibly illustrated by an interjection which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made in the course of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He said that if you limit the jurisdiction of the maritime court to nationals of the particular Power whose maritime court is set up, consider the difficulties that would arise in the case of some crime committed on the high seas by five members of the crew, all of whom are different nationals. It is bad enough perhaps to have the two courts which we, perhaps with a lack of logic but, at the same time, with good sense, have established. But to say that you must have one court for each of these people according to his nationality would really be quite unworkable. I therefore say that the ordinary principle which has always been established, that the law of the flag should operate to govern the conduct of those on board, be they passengers or crew, and that there is no hardship what ever in that applying.
When we come to the third question, however—that is to say, (c) —we are rather in a different line of country, be cause we are not here dealing with the case of a man who has voluntarily elected to go on the ship and therefore adopted the law of the flag. The hon. Member made a plea and asked us to consider the case of the refugee who had fled from, may I say, Ruritania, who never wanted to have anything to do with Ruritania again or get into the power of Ruritania. He said that it would be very hard luck if the Ruritanian court decided to conscript him and send him on to a Ruritanian ship. The hon. Member will see that in paragraph (c) at the present time there are two prerequisites before the court can conscript a man. He must be; firstly, both a national of that Power, and 1303 secondly, a seafaring person. The Committee will observe—and I hope they will follow me closely here because it relates to Amendments afterwards, and I am very anxious to make this plain—that a "seafaring person" is defined, at the bottom of page 11 of the Bill, as: a person who, since the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, has been employed or engaged on board ship, either as master or as member of the crew … for a period of six months or more. May I complete the picture? If the Committee will look at Clause 11, Sub-section (2), they will see that our High Court has power to interfere if the jurisdiction conferred by this Act has been exceeded. The jurisdiction, as far as this conscripting Power is concerned, could be exceeded in one of two ways, if they con scripted a man who was not a national of the Power, or if they conscripted a person who was not a seafaring man. In order to meet the point of my hon. Friend with regard to the refugees, I would suggest the following. Let us take as the test of a seafaring person in regard to any particular court the fact that he has done his six months service on ships of that particular Power. Then, and then only, is he to be a seafaring-person since 1934. That is a method of dealing satisfactorily with the refugee point. My Ruritanian who has been expelled from Ruritania would not most certainly voluntarily have gone and served as a seaman on board a Ruritanian ship.

§ Mr. Silverman
But he might have left later than that date.

§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think that can arise. Might I tell my hon. Friend what Amendments I suggest in order that we may carry this out? I suggest this way of doing it. In Clause 2, page 2, line 40, the Committee will see the words "seafaring per son." Let us substitute for these words, "seamen of that Power." Then in Clause 17, page 11, line 42, we have, of course, to alter our definition. Instead of defining a seafaring person, we now define "a seaman of that Power" as meaning, in relation to any Power, a person who, since a specific date, has been employed or engaged on board a ship of that Power.

1304

§ Mr. Bevan
The redefinition of a sea faring person on page 11 will have to have respect only to the third Sub-section of Clause 2.

§ The Solicitor-General
This is very complicated, but in fact a seafaring person only comes in with regard to (I, c). There is no reference to a seafaring person with regard to (I, a) or (1, b). I think the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will agree with me. By doing that, I think we have gone a long way to meet him. I am limiting the power of conscription quite plainly to those cases in which sea service has been sea service on the ships of the particular nationality whose court is adjudicating on the case. I think that in that way we are doing a great deal to meet the difficulty, which I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for bringing to my notice. I do not know whether, in view of that explanation, he thinks it necessary to press his Amendment, but I hope that by making the Amendment I have indicated we shall go a very long way to meet him. We have, indeed, in some respects gone further than he has gone in his Amendment.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I think the Solicitor-General has gone a long way to meet the submissions of my hon. Friend on the details, but I must point out to him that what is here proposed is conscription of seafaring men. That will not be disputed, but we have not yet applied the principles of conscription to service at sea on merchant vessels to our own nationals. If we have, I am not aware of it.

§ The Solicitor-General
There is power to do it under the Defence of the Realm Act. Whether we have exercised the power I do not know, but we have the power that we are giving to Allied Governments.

§ Mr. Shinwell
It may be that there is the power under the Defence of the Realm Act to conscript anybody, but we have certainly not yet invoked that power, and I gather from the Solicitor-General that the Defence of the Realm Act was, in a sense, irrelevant to our discussions.

§ The Solicitor-General
Defence Regulation 58A says: The Ministry of Labour may direct any person in the United Kingdom to perform such services, in the United Kingdom or in any British ship not being a Dominion ship, as he may specify.

1305

§ Mr. Shinwell
There are those general powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, but we have not yet invoked them for the purposes of conscripting our own men to serve on British merchant vessels. If a seafaring man elects to leave his ship in a legitimate way and take a position on shore, either as a longshoreman or a worker in a munitions establishment, there is no power to prevent his doing so. That is one of our difficulties. There has been a distinct shortage of seafaring men at certain ports. Certain categories of men have been exceedingly short. We do not use these powers, yet it is now proposed to concede them to Allied Governments. I agree that the powers are there, but we have not yet invoked them. Here. there is no question of permissive power. It is implicit in this Sub-section that the Allied Maritime Board will have the right to con script their men, and it is intended that they shall so conscript their men. That is as I understand it, although, if I am wrong, I am willing to be corrected. It seems to me that it is quite inconsistent to grant to Allied Governments powers which we ourselves have not yet invoked. I do not want to make any more of it than that, because the Solicitor-General has gone a long way to meet us, but I think my hon. Friend will agree with the point I am now raising. It is a point of principle, and I do not know how it will be regarded by the country as a whole when it is discovered that we are granting powers to Allied Governments to impose conscription in certain cases when we do not adopt the same method ourselves.

§ Mr. Peake
Perhaps I might give the hon Gentleman what information I have on this point. Under Defence Regulation 58A, to which the Solicitor-General has just referred, the Ministry of Labour may direct any person to perform such services in any British ship which that person is, in the opinion of the Minister, capable of performing. My information is that these powers have, in fact, been used by the Ministry of Labour in individual cases, not generally, of course, and that an Order under the Essential Work Order has been made for the shipping industry, for the Mercantile Marine, to come into operation on 26th May.

§ Mr. Shinwell
The hon. Gentleman knows more about this than I do, but I 1306 know that for some considerable time there has been a shortage of marine engineers. During the past few years, because of the depression in the Mercantile Marine, they have elected to take work ashore, and they have simply re fused to return to sea. As far as I know, no step has been taken to compel them to do so, that is to say, to conscript them. In this Measure it is proposed to con script men of other nationalities.

§ Mr. Peake
Is not the hon. Gentleman putting it a little high when he says that under this Measure it is proposed to con script men? What the Measure does is to give the Allied courts power to impose penalties for failure to observe their existing conscription laws.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I have no legal know ledge, and I do not know much about legal abstractions, but with such common sense as I think I possess, I am unable to ascertain any distinction. The hon. Gentleman has not helped me.

§ Mr. Peake
I was endeavouring to do so.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I think there will be a little disturbance of mind in the country when it is realised that one kind of action is proposed for Allied nationals and a quite different kind of action for our own nationals. I may be wrong. Perhaps the problem will solve itself, and there will be no disturbance. I hope that will be the case. However, I see something illogical and inconsistent in the proposal.

§ Mr. Silverman
I entirely share the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) to giving a power to conscript; nor can I appreciate that there is any distinction between giving a power to conscript and giving a means to enforce an existing power to conscript. However, I do not want to say anything more about that matter in view of the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. I appreciate what the Solicitor-General has said, and I agree that in some respects his suggestion goes even further in the protection of the class of persons I have in mind than does my Amendment, but in some respects his suggestion falls short of that Amendment. With regard to Sub-section 1 (a), concerning persons on board a vessel, my right hon. and learned Friend assumed that this necessarily means that the person 1307 involved is voluntarily on board. That is not so. The Under-Secretary of State showed that, by the Defence Regulation from which he quoted, the Minister of Labour may direct any one of these persons to serve on a ship.

§ Mr. Peake
Only on a British ship.

§ Mr. Silverman
I have not overlooked that provision, but that is not the whole story. It is true that the Minister of Labour may direct a person to serve only on a British ship, but I think the Under secretary has omitted to observe Clause 15, which provides that if a British ship is wholly or mainly manned by nationals of an Allied Power, this Bill will apply even to that British ship. It would be possible for the Minister of Labour so to exercise his powers under the Defence Regulation as to put one of these nationals, not on an ordinary British ship, but on board a ship wholly or mainly manned by co-nationals, and therefore he would be involuntarily on board a ship to which this Bill would apply. I think the Solicitor-General will agree with me that the admirable suggestion he has made would not deal with that position. No doubt there will be an opportunity of dealing with it later. However, I think that the Solicitor-General's suggestion goes so far to meet most, though not all, of the points I have made, that I do not desire to press the Amendment or any of the consequential Amendments at this stage. I hope we may have an opportunity for further consultation before the suggestion which the Solicitor-General has made is finally embodied in the Bill.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert: "whether committed before or after the passing of this Act." This Amendment looks rather more for midable than it is in reality. If hon. Members will look at the Bill, they will see that it creates no new offences, but establishes courts and gives to those courts jurisdiction for the trial of offences. Clause 2 gives to the maritime courts of any Power jurisdiction to try persons, not being British subjects, for any of the acts or omissions set out in Sub-section (1) (a), (b) and (c), to which reference has already been made. The only new offences created by the Bill are contained in Clause 1308 4, and that is on account of the exclusion of British subjects by Clause 2 from the jurisdiction of the maritime courts. There are also Government Amendments to Clause 4 which qualify the word "committed'' in that Clause as this Amendment qualifies the word "committed" in Clause 2; but whereas in Clause 2 the words that we wish to insert are: "whether committed before or after the passing of this Act," in Clause 4 the words that we wish to insert are: ''committed after the passing of this Act." The Committee would object, and strongly object, to the creation of any new offences with retrospective effect. We do not pro pose that any retrospective effect shall be given to the new offences created under Clause 4, but under Clause 2 we are empowering the maritime courts to try certain offences.
The purpose of the Amendment is simply to remove a doubt as to whether these courts will have authority to try, not only offences committed in the future, but offences which have been committed already, and very often have been committed in deliberate defiance of the laws of these Allied Powers. After the remarks of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), on the Motion that Clause I stand part of the Bill, when he said that vessels are at the present time being held up for certain causes to which he referred, and spoke of the Bill as being a remedial Measure and told us that lives are being endangered and the Allied cause thwarted for lack of these powers, I think he, at any rate, will see that it is necessary, when we are empowering these courts to try certain offences, that they should have power to deal with offences which have already been committed against their laws. I may mention to the Committee, for example, the case of two aliens who are thought to have committed murder on the high seas, in one of these Allied vessels. Owing to the fact that the courts of these Powers had been driven off their native soil, no court exists in which such a charge can be preferred. By this Bill we are establishing a court in which charges for offences committed on the high seas can be preferred. In our view it would be utterly wrong to limit the jurisdiction given to the maritime courts to offences which may be committed in 1309 the future, and to exclude offences committed against their existing laws in the past.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I am bound to say that we must resist this proposal. It is a complete departure from the practice employed in this country. I cannot recall any case, since I have been a Member, of a Bill which provided for retrospective trials, and, presumably, retrospective sentences. Perhaps the Attorney-General may be able to give us information on that point. But, whether that is so or not, it is a very vicious proposal indeed. The first question I wish to, ask, is one which must present itself to the minds of hon. Members. How far is this provision to be retrospective? If offences committed before the passing of this Bill are to be included, is there any limit? Are offences committed in September, 1939, to be included? Are these Allied courts to be allowed to rake up offences, minor and major, against these seamen? Suppose, for example, a shipmaster on one of these Allied vessels bore a grudge against one of his seamen because of some minor offence committed six or twelve months ago. Having no power to deal with that offence during that period, he will suddenly discover himself vested with powers under this Bill. Is he to be allowed to drag that minor offence into the light of day before one of these courts? Is that the proposal, because if it is, I consider it to be a very vicious proposal indeed, and I hope that it is one which will not be acceptable to hon. Members?
We have accepted the principle of this Bill, but this provision goes beyond it. Since we began our discussions on this Bill I have observed whenever any of my hon. or right hon. Friends opposite find themselves in a difficulty—as they did, for example, during the Second Reading Debate on the Defence of the Realm Act when I made certain submissions—they always drag in murder on the high seas. The Under-Secretary has just now directed our attention to the same topic. Apparently, because there have been murders on the high seas on these Allied vessels, it is considered necessary to invoke the aid of these courts. Is the Under-Secretary of State really serious, or is he simply playing with the Committee? Have any murders on the high seas been committed 1310 on these vessels by Allied seamen during the past six or 12 months, or since the requisitioning of these vessels? If so, how many have there been? —one, two or six? Obviously, if he talks at large about murder on the high seas, he ought to be able to give us some information.

§ Mr. Peake
I thought I made myself plain. I said that there were two cases of aliens who were suspected of having committed murder on the high seas.

§ Mr. Shinwell
It is reducing the whole argument to an absurdity that we should be told that it is necessary to invoke the aid of this legislation simply because there have been two suspected murders on the high seas among 30,000 Allied seamen. We all know what seamen are, but it is really asking too much of hon. Members to suggest that because of suspicion about murder on the high seas, we should agree to this retrospective legislation. We require a very much closer definition from the Under-Secretary about the kind of offences which will be brought under this retrospective proposal. It is true that the Sub-section set forth: (a) any act or omission committed by any person on board a merchant ship of that Power; (b) any act or omission committed by the master or any member of the crew of a merchant ship of that Power in contravention of the merchant shipping law of that Power. Of course that is not murder on the high seas. There is nothing within the scope of merchant shipping laws of this or any other country which relates to murder on the high seas. It simply will not do. Sup pose that six months ago a seaman had been provided by the shipmaster with what is called a "sub," and that he went ashore and got rolling drunk, as sometimes happens. Suppose that on his return to his ship there was a fracas, and he committed some minor offence. Are we to understand that that is the kind of offence which can now be dealt with by this pro vision? I want an answer to that point before this proposal goes through. I think that we are giving far too much away to these Allied Governments. We have con ceded the principle, but now it is sought to deal with every little tinpot case that has occurred for months and months past, and that is going too far.
Finally, I want to say a word about the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams). I 1311 have a very high regard for him, as he knows, and I know that when he speaks it is not only with feeling but with a perfect knowledge of the subject. But I join issue with him when he tells us that he knows of many cases in which ships have been held up because shipmasters had no power to deal with recalcitrant seamen. I pointed out on Second Reading, and I have done so in conversations with the Solicitor-General, that even on a vessel belonging to an Allied or neutral Power which had been requisitioned by His Majesty's Government—or unrequisitioned if you like, though there are few vessels unrequisitioned—that if a seaman decides to leave his ship immediately before its departure, and goes ashore, he can be frog-marched aboard again. That can be done under the merchant shipping laws of this country, at the request of the shipmaster or at the request of the consul of the nationality concerned. That is the kind of offence which is most common, and the type of offence with which this Bill is intended primarily to deal. Then what is all the fuss about? Is it because men sometimes get drunk and there is a disturbance aboard the ship which the shipmaster cannot deal with? If there is a disturbance on a foreign vessel lying alongside a wharf, if there is a row on deck and men are fighting with each other, a policeman ashore can go on board the vessel and deal with the disturbance.
That being the case, I beg of my hon. Friend not to press this proposal. There is something sinister about it; anyhow it is the kind of thing which my right hon. and learned Friend would never dare to introduce—I am, of course, not blaming him for this Bill—if it were applicable to this country alone. Can any hon. Member conceive the Attorney-General coming to this House with a proposal that offences committed by British subjects before the passing of a Measure shall be regarded as offences under the law? That would be something quite novel to me. I agree that war leads to all kinds of innovations, but let us be exceedingly careful. There are innovations to which I take no exception, if they are intended to assist in the prosecution of the war with greater vigour. If the Government brought forward a series of proposed innovations which in the judgment of myself and my friends were intended to lead to the successful prosecution of the 1312 war we should accept them without any protest. But what relevance has this proposal to the successful prosecution of the war? None whatever. In my judgment it is vicious, it is sinister, and, more particularly, it is unnecessary, and I hope that the representative of the Home Office will withdraw it and not seek to introduce here a practice which, so far as I can recall, has never been proposed by any Government in this country.

§ Mr. Silverman
I should like to rein force the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). Is it argued that the suggested cases of murder which the Home Secretary has in mind could not be dealt with at all but for this Bill?

§ Mr. Peake
Yes, most certainly.

§ Mr. Silverman
Then may I point out that if the offence had been committed by a British subject, it could not be dealt with, even if this Amendment were passed.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell):
Murder by a British subject, wherever it is committed, can be dealt with by our courts. Murder by a British subject on an Allied ship can be dealt with.

§ Mr. Silverman
On a foreign ship at sea?

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, or in a foreign country.

§ Mr. Silverman
I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says and that difficulty, therefore, disappears; but he is saying now that these other offences could not have been dealt with under the De fence Regulation which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sea-ham on Second Reading. Does he consider that a case of murder could not have been dealt with?

§ Mr. Peake
Of what other offences is the hon. Member speaking?

§ Mr. Silverman
Those under Regulation 47 A.

§ Mr. Peake
As the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General said in replying to the Debate on Second Reading, with but one single exception all the offences named in Defence Regulation 47A are offences committed on shore and not on the high seas.

1313

§ Mr. Shinwell
But that is precisely the point upon which there was agreement after I had submitted it. I will read the relevant paragraph: No person lawfully engaged to serve on board any ship to which this Regulation applies shall neglect or refuse without reason able cause to join his ship or to proceed to sea in his ship or desert or be absent without leave from his ship or be absent without leave from his duty at any time. Then there is a further passage which says that the ships to which this Regulation applies are: Every ship belonging to His Majesty, and every ship, whether British or foreign, chartered or requisitioned by or on behalf of His Majesty. So what are the exceptions? There are no exceptions. You can deal under the Defence of the Realm Act with all the offences which are contained in this Measure

§ Mr. Peake
I think the hon. Member is wrong. Defence Regulation 47A deals with three or four specified offences, whereas the Bill gives jurisdiction to the Allied courts to deal with any contravention of their own maritime shipping law.

§ Mr. Silverman
I have the greatest difficult in believing that a case of murder in the circumstances described could not have been dealt with under that Regulation, and I think it very surprising indeed that the attempt has not been made. But let us assume that my hon. Friend and myself arc wrong about that. Let us assume that there was not any power any where in the world to deal with a case of murder on the high seas in these circum stances. Was the Home Secretary unaware of that when he drafted his Bill? Is it a new point which has arisen since the Second Reading?

§ Mr. Peake
I explained when I moved the Amendment that we were introducing these words simply in order to put the position beyond all doubt.

§ Mr. Silverman
I should like to know when the doubt arose.

§ Mr. Peake
Doubt on the drafting of the Bill arose, when we came to look at it after the Second Reading.

§ Mr. Silverman
The doubt which is being resolved by these two Amendments is being resolved in two totally different directions. Apparently nothing is being 1314 done by either of these Amendments that was not implicit before. The Amendments are introduced merely in order to remove doubt, so that if neither of the Amendments had been in, then, under Clause 2 it would have been retrospective, and under Clause 4 it would not have been retrospective. I suggest that that really does not make any sense. If this power were really necessary it ought to have been inserted when the Bill was drafted, and it seems to me to be one of the sinister aspects of it that this power should have been introduced as an after thought during a Committee stage taken only two days after Second Reading.
I suggest that there is really no precedent in the law of out country for such action as this. We have always been extremely reluctant to make any legislation retrospective—I am not speaking now of criminal legislation, but of general legislation. Nevertheless, in spite of that reluctance, we have sometimes made Acts retrospective, when we felt that exceptional circumstances justified it; but I dare to say there is no instance at all of a new criminal enactment being made retrospective in our own country and yet we are proposing to do this, in exceptional conditions, for foreign Powers. I do not think it is of any use to try to establish a distinction between Clause 4 and Clause 2 by saying that offences under Clause 4 are newly-created offences whereas those under Clause 2 are not newly-created. If they could not be punished without this Bill they are created by this Bill. It might have been an offence against some moral code, but that is not in question now. Once it is conceded that we need this Bill in order to try persons for these offences it must be conceded that they are newly created offences, for the purpose, at any rate, of the criminal law.
I beg of the hon. Gentleman not to persist with this Amendment. It seems to me that pressure has been brought to bear by people who are not cognisant of our way of looking at these matters. I do not believe that of his own volition the Home Secretary would have sought to make criminal legislation of this kind retrospective. After, all there may be very serious offences indeed. They may entail not merely fines or short terms of imprisonment but long terms of penal servitude, and you will be trying and 1315 sentencing people when, at the time the offences were committed, they were not offences against any code. You cannot introduce one or two cases and apply very heavy words to them and say, "You have to do something about that."
The hon. gentleman says that nothing could have been done about murder be cause the members of the crew were not answerable to any law. If the master of the ship had taken the law into his own hands and applied penalties no one could have interfered with him, for the same reason. He could have thrown them overboard, and in the past there were masters of vessels who would not have hesitated to do it. But there is no offence committed if there is no law against which it is an offence, if there is no court before which the man can be tried and no means of enforcing a penalty. If the hon. member is proposing to apply in serious and light offences alike, retrospective legislation of this kind, he is certainly giving far more away than we as a British House of Commons have any right to give away to a foreign Government temporarily upon our soil and exercising jurisdiction by our courtesy. Have your Bill if you must have it and apply these remedies if you must, but do not unnecessarily offend against the very basis of our Constitution and our criminal code by making criminal legislation retrospective in this fashion.

§ The Attorney-General
I think my two hon. Friends have completely misconstrued the effect of the Amendment, and indeed the general nature of what the Bill does. My hon. Friend, with great frank ness, said he had not been enlightened by the Under-Secretary, and he attributed that to his own distaste for legal considerations. I think in this matter he has misconceived the nature of the Amendment and its effect and I was trying to put the matter before him as we see it. We have to recognise, in the first place, that the courts to be established under this Bill are to be established because the courts which would normally deal with the offences in question are out of action as a result of enemy occupation. The hon. Member challenged me to say whether there would be any parallel in this country to this Amendment, or indeed to the Bill. I am ready to accept that, and I will indicate the sort of parallel which might, though we hope it will not, arise, and the sort of 1316 reply that I should think it right to suggest to the Committee. You are considering people on a foreign ship. There is a code which applies to them there under the law of the flag. If they commit murder, or ordinary criminal offences, they are subject to the law of that country. In the case of certain offences to which the hon. Member was referring, no doubt disciplinary action can be taken by the master, but major offences would be dealt with in the ordinary courts when the vessel returned to its port and the people, crew or passengers, were taken off and handed over to the ordinary civil powers to be dealt with. One of the reasons why this Bill is necessary is because that cannot happen today. The ships of Holland or Norway or other Allied countries cannot get back to the courts which would deal with offences committed on those ships, and that is why, under this Bill, we are giving them power to set up courts here to exercise that jurisdiction.
Having that in mind, is it or is it not retrospective in the evil sense to say that the courts set up to-day can try an offence committed three months ago? There is no doubt that when a certain act was done, say on a Norwegian ship three months ago, it was an offence under Norwegian law. If the Germans could have been driven out of Norway by to-day, that act could have been tried as an offence in Norway before a Norwegian court. All that this Bill does is to say that the Norwegian court set up here can do exactly what the Norwegian court could have done in Norway. It is wrong to say that an act was not an offence when it was committed because at that moment, owing to German action, the court which would have had the sanction could not function. We are dealing with offences which were offences at the time they were committed, and the only question is this. We are now setting up a court to exercise the jurisdiction which would normally have been exercised by a court functioning in Norway. Should it be able to deal with acts which were offences at the time they were committed?
Let me give an example from our own legislation. Suppose Parliament decides, as it does sometimes, that a particular offence which could previously be dealt with only by the High Court, can be dealt with by justices. It would say that, from and after the passing of the Act, the 1317 offence of such and such could be dealt with by justices. That would give them power to deal with an offence committed before the Act was passed. It would be irrelevant to say that that would be retrospective, for the Act would say that from the passing of the Act a particular court could exercise jurisdiction in respect of a certain class of offence. It would not be creating an offence. Ex hypothesi, the act was an offence at the time it was committed. All that Parliament would say would be that anybody who had been in the past or would be in future apprehended for the particular offence could be taken before the justices. That is all that is being done here.
The Bill simply enables the Allied Governments to set up courts which can do here what the courts could have done in their own countries. In a famous speech last May the Prime Minister said —though he did not envisage it— "Sup pose we had to carry on the struggle from across the sea. If that happened, we should be faced with the sort of problem which arises for the Allied Governments here. If I were Attorney-General across the seas in circumstances of this kind, I should certainly go to the foreign Government which was entertaining us and say," ere are a lot of British ships. Offences have been committed on them which can not be dealt with by the courts. I want you to give us power to set up a court which can do here what our own criminal courts could have done in England."

§ Mr. Shinwell
How far back would the offences go?

§ The Attorney-General
I will come to that in a moment.

§ Mr. Silverman
For what class of offence?

§ The Attorney-General
All offences. It would be expected, of course, that we should act reasonably, as we shall expect the Allied Governments to act reason ably here. I agree that nobody wants people to go searching into the past and it is reasonable to suggest that they should not even have the power to do so. I am, therefore, ready to move on behalf of my hon. Friend that there should be a time limit on this Amendment and that it should read, 1318 Not being acts or omissions occurring more than 12 months before the passing of this Act. That would prevent the theoretical going into the past. My hon. Friend suggested that use would be made of this by the authorities concerned to rake up petty things that happened 12 months ago. I do not believe that that will happen.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I said nothing of the sort. I gave the hypothetical case of a ship master—I never said Government— who bore a grudge against a man having committed a minor offence.

§ The Attorney-General
I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that most countries have not private prosecutions and that a prosecution can only be brought, in most cases, with the assent of some Government or police authority. With regard to the period of 12 months which I suggest, there are at least two cases of serious offences. One hopes there may not be more, and I think it right to have 12 months as a limit in the belief that the authorities of the Allied Governments who will have the responsibility of ad ministering the procedure under this Bill will not use the power taken by it in hunting round for things that should have been buried. I have done my best to explain how I see this Measure. It does not seem to have any of the evils of retrospection. It makes it clear that offences will not go wholly unpunished, and the only reason for the provision is that the Germans have occupied the territories where the courts would normally have functioned.

§ Mr. Shinwell
My right hon. and learned Friend has explained this matter with his customary lucidity, and if I found difficulty about the legal abstractions, he has removed them. He has not, however, convinced me or even shaken me. On the contrary, I have shaken him because he has already made a con cession. He has made a point of great substance that the Allied Governments, finding themselves without the usual legal provision to deal with offenders, required to have resort to a Measure of this kind. Minor offences of the class to which I referred, offences of infraction of discipline, which are by far the largest number that might have to be dealt with, and cases of drunkenness and assault on board ship, can be dealt with, either 1319 under our own merchant shipping law, or under the Defence of the Realm Act, and in any case are not very serious, and as they had been committed six or 12 months ago and are unlikely to have any -effect now, the retrospective part of this Clause should relate only to cases of alleged murder.
The basis of the Government's demand for this Measure is that there have been cases of murder on the high seas. We have discovered that there have been two such cases, and if the alleged criminals are to be brought to book, and if, in the opinion of the Allied Governments, it is desirable to bring them before a representative court associated with the particular nationality concerned, it is proper that cases occurring six or twelve months ago ought to be embraced within this Measure. Why go beyond that? Can the learned Attorney-General give me a closer definition of the class of case that is intended to be dealt with—burglary, for example, embezzlement or arson? What class of case has he in mind? Apparently he has only murder on the high seas in mind. It is an obsession with the Government. I leave them to their obsession. They can have it, if it does them any good. If they want to allow the Allied Governments to deal with cases of murder on the high seas, two in number, that may have occurred six or twelve months ago, or at any rate before the passing of this Bill—I agree. I take it my hon. Friends would have no objection to that. But if minor cases, of drunkenness or assault or some small infractions of discipline are to be brought in, I would beg my right hon. and learned Friend not to press the matter unduly. We have already gained a concession from the Government—a very valuable one—in point of time. Is it not possible for the Government to agree to a more rigid and closer definition of the class of crime which is to be brought within the purview of this Clause? I see no reason why they should not do that, unless they want to give Allied Governments Comprehensive powers to deal with every trumpery case that may have occurred on board ship in the past 12 months. That surely cannot be their object.
I have come to the conclusion, after hearing the speeches on the Government side, that the Government introduced this Bill without full knowledge of the sub- 1320 ject. I think I am entitled to say that. They have introduced this Measure per haps in a mood of sympathy, which I can understand, and they have been inclined to concede greater powers to Allied Governments than in a calm moment, without emotion, they would have granted. I beg them not to press the matter too far. I agree with the right hon. and learned Attorney-General that some retrospective legislation is required for certain classes of cases, but to go beyond that is too much.

§ Mr. James Hall (Whitechapel)
I, as a layman, listened very attentively to what the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said, and it appeared to me that the argument he used was one which should have been considered when the Bill was being prepared. I fail to see that any argument was advanced by him to justify the introduction of this Amendment at this time. The Attorney-General has agreed, I think because of the arguments from this side of the Committee, that some time limit should be set for retrospective action and the limit he suggested was 12 months. That appears to me an excessive period. Surely it could be reduced to, say, three months and only very serious crimes regarded as coming within the scope of retrospective action. None of the minor offences committed by seamen ought to be held against them because some ship master may dislike a man and take the opportunity of paying off an old score. This Bill is regarded by hon. Members on this side with many misgivings. I think it was truly stated that if the Bill had been presented to a party meeting in the way it was presented by the Home Secretary on Tuesday, the members of the party to which I belong might have taken entirely different action. I am not sure that I, personally, am not absolved from the decision of the party meeting.

The Deputy-Chairman
I do not think the question of a party meeting comes within the scope of this Amendment.

§ Mr. Hall
The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General explained that the Bill had been discussed with representatives of the foreign seamen's unions and if they are prepared to accept the Bill I think I ought to accept their point of view. But here we have a very subtle Amendment which, I assume, has not been presented to the foreign seamen's 1321 unions. We are dealing now with the question of retrospective punishment, which we regard as being vindictive. Therefore I think that if the Attorney-General is unable to give us any greater concession than he has already given—I admit he has gone a long way—we should be prepared to vote against the Amendment.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I also listened very care fully to the Solicitor-General and I have never heard a legal man so effectively destroy his own case as he did in presenting the case for this Amendment. When the Government tell us that the Allied Governments will be very careful and considerate in handling these courts, I would like to remark, "If the Allied Governments are as vindictive and malicious as this Amendment, then God help these seamen." What is the Solicitor-General's argument for this Amendment? His main argument is the need for continuity from the time when the courts were operating in their respective countries until the time they are set up here. He said that what ever offence was committed on a ship was an offence against the code of the country to which that ship belonged, and would have been tried in that country if the courts had been sitting. But although the courts were driven out, it was still an offence, and therefore continuity of the code demanded that when these courts were set up they should be given retrospective power. But as soon as he puts a time limit on that power he destroys his own argument of continuity, and puts it completely out of court. What is the result of the time limit? According to the Solicitor-General, if a murder was committed on the high seas 11 months and three weeks ago, the perpetrator would be subject to trial by these courts, but if the murder were committed 12 months and one week ago, he would not. That is the argument the Solicitor-General has put forward. It cannot in any circumstances whatever be justified. I quite admit that from a legal point of view the question of continuity can be argued, but there is another point of view apart from the legal one. It is what we might call the moral and humane point of view, something in which the Solicitor-General is not interested.

§ The Attorney-General
I think my hon. Friend means the Attorney-General, for he is referring to my speech. As he is 1322 now making moral criticisms, I think I had better make it clear that he is referring to me and not to the Solicitor-General.

§ Mr. Gallacher
I am sorry I made the mistake; the title is different, but the principle is the same. The Attorney-General said that had conditions been normal these courts would have been operating in their own country. But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take note of this; if conditions had been normal, the principal offences with which these courts will be concerned would not have arisen. Is not that clear? It is a fact. If conditions had been normal, should we have had the arguments we have heard from the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams)? Is any body going to argue in justification of the Bill that the courts are to be set up to try cases of murder or larceny on the high seas? The whole idea of the Bill—and this is the only reason for which hon. Members of this House even tolerate it—is to assist in the turn-round and the sailing of ships. What was it the Home Secretary argued when he was presenting the Bill? He argued that it was necessary as a contribution towards the successful issue of the Battle of the Atlantic, and right through, although the Government representatives have not come out with it, is the question raised by the hon. Member for Consett, who said that on the North-East coast vessels were lying in port for weeks at a time because they could not get the men. But if conditions were normal, would there be any trouble about getting the men? If conditions were normal, would there not be normal conduct in the ships themselves? In present conditions, considering the hardships the seamen have to face, it may be that seamen, tensed up to face danger, may be provoked into assaulting their officers, but in normal conditions that happens very seldom.

The Deputy-Chairman
This is not an occasion on which the hon. Member can discuss the general subject of crime on board ship. It is the question of time in which the hon. Member is interested.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of Order. I think that is precisely the point we are discussing—the question of the nature of the crimes which are to come within the scope of this Clause.

1323

The Deputy-Chairman
The point is as to whether it was committed before or after the time limit imposed.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Precisely. But surely there must be a crime of some kind committed within the 12 months, otherwise there would be no reason at all for this Bill, and I should have thought we were discussing the question of alleged crimes that have been committed within that particular period.

The Deputy-Chairman
I think we are at cross-purposes. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) was discussing the general conditions under which crime was committed, while the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was discussing the nature or the alleged amount of crimes, which are two different things.

§ Mr. Gallacher
We have heard what was said by the hon. Member for Consett regarding trouble on the North-East Coast. I do not accept his statement, although he has always been a particular friend of mine. But I ask the Attorney-General, and I would ask the representative of the Home Office if he were here, whether it would not be possible, if these foreign seamen refused to join a ship, for the master to report them to the police? It is quite natural and easy for a seaman at Newcastle, Glasgow or Liverpool to be persuaded to spend another day or two ashore instead of joining his ship. In the present circumstances, it is quite natural; I am quite certain that if the Members of this Committee were seamen at the present time, we should not need much persuading not to join a ship. Of course, we should manage to pull ourselves together after a bit and join a ship, but in the circumstances which obtain at present, and in view of what they have to go through, it is easy to put temptation in the way of the seamen and persuade them to hang fire as far as joining a ship is concerned. It may be that a seaman has missed a voyage, but has joined the ship for the next voyage, and has sailed with her ever since; yet if there is some vindictive master, that seaman can be charged with an offence. According to this Bill, he will have to be tried. Seamen may have endured the most terrible dangers and sufferings during the past six months, bringing goods to this country; yet, on 1324 the strength of a complaint by some vindictive master, they will be hauled before the court, and perhaps sent to gaol—where they may be much safer than on board ship. [Interruption.] That is just incidental; no seamen desires to obtain safety in such circumstances.
My feeling about the Bill, and especially about this Amendment, is that, instead of strengthening the seamen to carry on, it is a nasty, pin-pricking business. The greatest possible harm may be done by controlling and repressing the men's spirits. I have always advocated that, instead of having the maximum of rules and regulations, which everyone was expected to break, it would be better to have the minimum of rules and regulations, which everyone was expected to keep. I have discussed that point frequently with the man who was responsible for the prison reforms at Wakefield. We should give more encouragement to the spirit of the free seamen to carry on in the valiant way they have done.

§ Mr. Mander
We have had a very en lightening picture of the three jolly tars, but it seems to me that the opposition to this Amendment is founded upon mistrust of the Allied Governments. I think that that mistrust is unjustified.

§ Mr. Gallacher
What have the Allied Governments to do with it? If a vindictive master of a ship complains to a court, the court has to deal with the complaint.

§ The Attorney-General
A vindictive master can do nothing. He cannot start proceedings before a court. The only person who can start proceedings before any of these courts is a person authorised by the Government to do it.

§ Mr. Silverman
Why cannot that be the master?

§ The Attorney-General
It must be some one authorised by the Government. The Government, therefore, authorise the prosecution.

§ Mr. Mander
I believe that the Allied Governments could be relied upon to act in a fair and reasonable way. I have found them, in my dealings with them, most anxious to avoid doing anything which would raise the kind of questions which have been referred to here. It seems utterly wrong to deprive them of 1325 rights to which they would have been entitled in their own country if they had not: been overrun by Germany. That would have been retrospective legislation of an entirely novel kind—retrospective legislation in favour of the criminal. The Attorney-General put forward the reasons for this Amendment in a way which seemed to me entirely convincing. He has made a concession with regard to the 12 months which has greatly improved the position. There is only one point about which I should like to ask a question. He has referred to two cases of murder. Have the Government any other cases in mind? Is there a long list of offences of different kinds? If so, what sort of offences have they in mind? If there is nothing much beyond the two cases of murder, it seems to me that there is something to be said for the argument that the Act shall come into force from the date of the passing of the Bill except in respect of more serious offences.

§ Mr. Silverman
Everyone appears to be satisfied that the Amendment ought not to be accepted in its present form, so that the discussion we have had has been fruitful to that extent. No one wants the Amendment which the Home Secretary put down; that is quite plain. I would like to make a confession myself. The Attorney-General's argument convinced me that the speech that I made at the beginning of the discussion probably went too far, and that some retrospective effect ought, probably for the reason that the Attorney-General gave, to be afforded. I make that admission because I think it ought to be made. What concession has been offered? It is a concession purely of time. I most earnestly suggest that that is not sufficient. I would like the Government to consider the matter by analogy with our own law. Under our own law, if I am not mistaken, for criminal offences of a really serious nature, there is no time limit after which a person cannot be prosecuted; but for offences which are normally triable by courts of summary jurisdiction, there is a time limit, and the period usually is not 12 months, but six months. The Attorney-General's suggestion amounts to this, that you shall telescope the two things together, and have a 12 months' time limit for all offences, whether it is a case of murder or of getting drunk. I do not think that, on consideration, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Home Secretary, 1326 or anybody else would be satisfied with that.
To have exactly the same limit of time for murder, at one end of the scale, and for an argument with a superior officer in moments of nervous strain, as my hon. Friend suggested, at the other end of the scale, is wrong. I suggest that the Amendment should be taken back, and the whole thing reconsidered. The proper way to deal with the matter is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) suggested, to divide offences according to their character. I am content that for murder there should be no time limit at all. If you cannot deal with that offence in any other way, deal with it as the Amendment proposes. Even then, the alleged murderer will get an advantage which he cannot get under our law, because no death penalty is possible under this Bill.

§ Mr. Goldie
By the law of murder, the death must occur within a year and a day. I do not know whether that affects the hon. Member's argument or not.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am content that, in a case of murder, the maritime court should have the same power as our own courts have. I do not want it limited by a 12 months' period or any other period, except in so far as our own courts might be similarly limited, but when it comes to trivial offences, those of the kind so easily committed in times of nervous strain, why ought you to have a longer period within which to institute prosecutions than the master of a British ship would have in instituting such proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Act? I think that that period is six months, and it is long enough. Let me say to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that I do not know how many sailors there are in Wolverhampton or to how many people in Wolverhampton this may apply, but there are a great many sailors in Liverpool. Let me assure him that this question about distrust of foreign Governments does not arise in this matter at all. With all respect to him, it is absolute nonsense to say that questions of this kind are involved in this Amendment. I do not think that he heard the original speech that was made or that he has heard more than one-third of the Debate devoted to the Amendment, and I believe that if he had waited a little 1327 and had considered what the Amendment really was about, and what arguments were being presented for and against, he might have hesitated before he had spoken.

§ Mr. Mander
I was deprived of listening to the opening speech because I required a certain amount of nourishment in order to carry on, but I have heard the whole of the rest of the Debate. I took part in the Debate because I thought that some arguments ought to be presented in support of the Measure.

§ Mr. Silverman
What the hon. Member says merely confirms my point. He does not now know what Amendment it is.

§ Mr. Mander
I do.

§ Mr. Silverman
I did not make an introductory speech on this Amendment at all. The introductory speech was made from the Government Front Bench. The Amendment is theirs.

§ Mr. Mander
I heard it.

§ Mr. Silverman
The hon. Member says he heard that Amendment, and again that he did not hear the Amendment moved or the arguments in favour of it.

§ Mr. Mander
I did hear it.

§ Mr. Silverman
The hon. Member must make up his mind what he means; he said just now that he did not hear it. The interpretation of the Attorney-General was intended to lead us to suppose that no individual prosecution could be instituted unless some person was authorised by the Allied Power concerned to institute the particular proceedings. That is nowhere to be found in the Bill. Clause 5 says: Where it appears to a justice of the peace, on information on oath laid before him by a person authorised by any Power to institute proceedings. That is a general power. Surely, nobody imagines that the Allied Power concerned is going to authorise a separate individual in every case where proceedings are contemplated. On the contrary, what will be done, one imagines, is, what is done in British ships under the Merchant Ship ping Act, that they will make the master of the ship the authorised prosecutor. It is obviously the most convenient thing to do. You cannot wait until consultations have taken place. It is not like a prose- 1328 cution in this country, which can be instituted only on the authority of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The normal thing to do undoubtedly will be to appoint the master of the ship and give him the power to be the prosecuting authority under the Section. It is exactly that which we fear. In the case of light offences, they would under our law be tried by a court of summary jurisdiction. I suggest to the Attorney-General that that is the way to deal with it. If you have a period of limitation—and everybody agrees that you should—you must have different limitations for serious and for light offences. For the most serious offences there ought to be no period of limitation at all, but with regard to light offences—you do not want to be raking over the ship's log for the last 12 months to see for what kind of offences a man can be prosecuted—there ought to be no more than a period of six months. I prefer a three months limit. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he ought to with draw the Amendment and reconsider the whole matter.

§ The Attorney-General
It would be quite impossible—and I think I may convince my hon. Friend of this too—to draw, in this Bill, the distinction which may exist under Norwegian, Dutch and other laws between major and minor offences, because that is the suggestion. We do not know the words, and obviously it would be inapt to try and describe such an amendment. In so far as under their law they have periods of limitation after which you could not take proceedings for minor offences, those would operate, I think, within the time limit.

§ Mr. Silverman
They might not.

§ The Attorney-General
I am gratified by the admission of my hon. Friend that to some extent I moved him by argument, and many people could perhaps claim that distinction. We want to get on with this important Bill, and we would be prepared to accept six months for all offences, if my hon. Friends would accept the proposal. It really is difficult to draw a distinction between major and minor offences in this Bill. We will take the lesser period under our law. I shall be prepared to put that forward, and I hope that the Committee will think that it is reasonable.

1329

§ Mr. Shinwell
I do not want to divide the Committee, more particularly because it might give a wrong impression. The Allied Governments might feel that we were not disposed to concede their claims so promptly as we might be expected to do. I say that more particularly because of the observation of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I have expressly stated throughout the Debate that we have no desire to run up against the Allied Governments. We all appreciate the difficulty in which the Allied Governments find themselves in this country. It cannot be a pleasant situation for them—far from it—but it so happens that a few of us know what sea men are and what goes on aboard ship, even in war-time. I feel that this point has not been regarded as seriously as it might be by hon. and right hon. Friends opposite. Seamen on Allied vessels and on British vessels are undergoing agonising ordeals at this moment. Does any body appreciate what is going on, that some of these men have been torpedoed four, five and six times, and that on top of that there are superimposed difficulties about wages or overtime, and perhaps disputes and quarrels ensue, and men are inclined to take a little more liquor than is good for them, and engage in a little violence between themselves, especially when, occasionally, they have been ashore?
If all these offences of a minor character are to be raked up, is it any wonder that some of us complain? We happen to know that shipmasters are human and that they have to go through the same ordeals. It is quite natural that if they bear a grudge against a particular seaman or a junior officer, they will take advantage of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in order to rake up the whole affair and deal summarily with the man, and that is what we are trying to protect the men against. The Attorney-General has gone a certain way with us. He convinced us on some points by the force of his argument, and we have convinced him by the force of our arguments, or perhaps the oratory of my hon. Friend behind me. He has made concessions, but what I cannot understand is this: The Government seem to be more stubborn and obstinate over a matter which does not concern them than if we were considering legislation primarily affecting this country.
1330 I can understand part of the reason. They may be anxious to satisfy and appease these Allied Governments, but let it not be forgotten that it is not only the Allied Governments which are concerned. It is the seamen aboard the ships. Try to understand that. No members of these Allied Governments will go to sea. They are all very fine people, and I have not the slightest doubt that they are possessed of heroic qualities, but none of them will be conscripted under this Bill. It is the officers and men who are to be dealt with. Let me bring the Committee sharp up against the point at issue. Ostensibly, the purpose of this Measure is to impose discipline on officers and men on Allied vessels. It is essential in the existing circumstances, and we accept that, but then we are met by this argument, that because there have been two cases of murder on the high seas, we must make this legislation retrospective. That is the Government's case. If it is necessary be cause Norwegian or Dutch law has been in abeyance, as the Attorney-General convincingly proved to us, that legislation of a retrospective character is essential, then why not confine it to the major class of crime which cannot be dealt with, or could not have been dealt with, by ordinary merchant shipping law or under the Defence of the Realm Act within the last six months? That is my case.
I may not be presenting it with the subtlety of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, but that is how it appears to me. The Attorney-General has offered another concession. First he said 12 months, and now he says six months. But the same difficulty arises, in that minor cases of drunkenness, disputes aboard ship and the like may be raked up by shipmasters. Could not something like this be done, that no case should be considered in a retrospective sense unless it is the kind of case, like alleged murder or some other major offence, which in our courts might have led to a sentence of penal servitude? It seems that I cannot convince the Attorney-General. I want to make my position clear. If there is a case of alleged murder on the high seas, alleged to have been committed by a foreign seaman on board an Allied vessel requisitioned by His Majesty's Government, I do not care how far back you go. Alleged crime of that kind ought to be 1331 considered by some court, whatever interval goes by and I am prepared to go a long way with the Government on this matter. But surely you will not collect all these heterogeneous cases and present these men with all sorts of difficulties. If this Bill passes in its present form, there will be literally thousands of foreign seamen wondering when they will be brought up before an Allied maritime court for some little offence which has been committed a few months ago.
Are we to understand that although a shipmaster or Allied Government may not avail themselves of these powers of retrospective legislation, and bring a man before a court immediately on the passing of this Bill, they may do so within the next six months, twelve months, two years or at any time within the duration of the war? Surely that is possible. They are not bound, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, to pick a man up, after having received the necessary authority from a justice of the peace, and bring him before an Allied court.

§ The Attorney-General
That depends on their own law, as with us. No doubt they have limiting powers as we have.

§ Mr. Shinwell
That depends on their own laws, but it does not vitiate my argument or dispose of the real difficulty. Suppose you have the case of a man who might have been responsible for some infraction of discipline six months ago. The Bill becomes an Act, and the ship master and his Government take no action. The shipmaster may hold it over the man's head. He may say, "If you do not do as you are told or are not prepared to accept the rates of pay I am offering you, apart from standard pay, if you become refractory or recalcitrant in any way, I shall take action." Is it in tended that this shall be held over the man's head? The shipmaster may not like the man's political colour. So I repeat what I have said. I am convinced more than ever, and particularly because of the modifications which have been made, that when the Government introduced this Bill they had not the faintest conception of its implications. I think that is going a bit too far. [Interruption.] I have not gone too far. If I had gone as far as I wanted, the Government would not have got this Bill. If I 1332 had been present when an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite addressed a party meeting, the Government would not have got the Bill, if I had been able to prevent their doing so.
This is a thoroughly bad Bill, about which not a good word has been said even on the other side of the Committee. Everybody admits that it is a complete departure from precedent and that it is entirely foreign to our conception of what ought to happen. We are anxious to appease the Allied Governments and to impose discipline on board their ships as on board British ships, and in the circum stances we have to do something of this sort. I say that it could have been done without having recourse to this Measure. That is something which has never been denied. Because I. argue in that way, the Government say that they cannot, by means of the Defence Regulations, deal with murder on the high seas. That is their case. To that I respond, if that is what the Government are after, if they want to deal with these two cases of murder —

§ The Solicitor-General
Who said that?

§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General.

§ The Solicitor-General
I never said it.

§ Mr. Shinwell
It was said by the Under secretary of State for the Home Department. Who dished us these cases of murder on the high seas? It was not we. Whence did it emerge? Perhaps the Committee have not informed them selves of what has been going on. We have been told about murder on the high seas, and two cases have been discovered. Because of that and because, we are told, some Allied Governments have been unable to deal with the alleged criminals, it is necessary to bring forward legislation of this sort, and, moreover, it is necessary to make it retrospective. That case has been presented to us, and I respond to it by saying that if that is the main purpose of the Bill—because all other crimes can be dealt with within existing legislation— the Government ought to make that quite clear beyond peradventure in this Clause. If, for some technical reason, they cannot do that, I beg them at any rate to make it clear that the only crimes that will be dealt with in a retrospective fashion are the kind of crimes which, if the accused 1333 were brought before a British court, might lead to a sentence of penal servitude. Surely, that is fair. It is not fair to keep hanging over the heads of these seamen all those little crimes that will be raked up against them throughout the period of the war.
I doubt whether the Allied Governments ever asked for as much as the Government are prepared to concede. If they have done so, perhaps we may be given a little more information as to their representations. But of one thing I am certain, and no hon. Member opposite will convince me to' the contrary. We were told by the Solicitor-General that the Norwegian sea-men's union were consulted about the principle underlying the Measure. I accept his word, and I believe that to have been done, but I am certain that the sea men concerned were never consulted about the retrospective provision. I am willing to be corrected on that point. The Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Lord President of the Council, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—the whole bag of tricksv—are present. If they can correct me on that point, I am willing to give way to them. Have the seamen been consulted on this very important afterthought? They were consulted on the principle as to whether they ought to be arraigned before their own courts. They answered "Yes." They accepted that. But all their little crimes are to be raked up against them in this retrospective manner, and on that they have never been consulted. I challenge the Government on that issue. Why will not the Government give way? Why not be a little more resilient and responsive to these sub missions? We are as anxious as they are to win the war. That does not divide us. We want to see these seamen get a fair deal, which I do not believe they will get if this retrospective legislation is imposed upon them. Perhaps the Attorney-General will agree to take the whole thing back. I agree that the period of six months represents a big concession, but I ask him to take the whole thing back and present it to us later in a different form.

§ The Attorney-General
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Shinwell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, 1334 stubborn to the last. Perhaps if I tried to appease him, it might help; perhaps if I spoke softly to him, it might help; but when I speak as I feel, he resents it. Is there something wrong with my argument? If so, let the Attorney-General get up and refute it. Were the Norwegian seamen consulted on that afterthought? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not take exception to the force of my argument, what is it that makes him stubborn? Is it that he is not quite sure of himself, or that he is prepared to give the Allied Governments anything they ask? Or has be gone to sleep? Obviously, I cannot make anything of him. I have noticed that the loudest cheers have come from the right hon. and learned Gentle man's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who has to cheer sometimes, because otherwise he is inarticulate. He gives expression to his enthusiasm by shouting in the chorus. That leaves me cold. Still, perhaps the Parliamentary Private Secretary will reply to my point. Were the Norwegian seamen's union consulted on this afterthought about the legislation being retrospective? Is there any hon. Member who will give a reply, or is the point one of no substance? It must be a point of substance, because already we have gained two concessions on it. It is a complete mystery. [An HON. MEMBER: "Time."] There is plenty of time. If the hon. Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell), who is also a Parliamentary Private Secretary and belongs to the chorus, does not like my argument, there is nothing to prevent him—

§ Sir Edward Campbell (Bromley)
I do not want to argue with the hon. Member. The last time we did so was on a Board of Trade Vote about eight years ago, when the hon. Member got the worst of it.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I should be out of Order if I discussed the Board of Trade Vote which came before us eight years ago, but at any time when it is in Order, I shall be ready to discuss it with the hon. Member. I make a final appeal to the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. I do not want to divide the Committee. I should be very sorry if that happened, because it would be the first Division on this Bill. I may raise serious difficulties elsewhere, but I feel so keenly about the matter that, unless there is some further concession, I shall have to divide the Committee on the matter.

1335

§ Mr. Gallacher
I want to make a friendly proposition to the Attorney-General in the hope that we may come to an amicable understanding, but before doing so, I want to refer to the efforts of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) to settle things. The hon. Member considered it necessary to get up to support the Attorney-General very emphatically, but he ended his remarks by supporting the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). That was not a very helpful attitude.

§ Mr. Mander
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that I asked the Attorney-General to consider the point which my hon. Friend had been pressing, and to give us some information. I think it is important to bear in mind that, apart from the two cases of murder, he has not been able to tell us anything about the number or class of cases which might be brought before the courts.

§ Mr. Gallacher
That is my point—the hon. Member got up to support the Attorney-General, and then agreed with the argument of the hon. Member for Seaham. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton listened to the Debate, but in his remarks he did not separate the wheat from the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham, and the chaff from what was said by the Attorney-General. It is interesting to know that he has met members of these Allied Governments, but I would rather he had met some of the seamen.

Division No. 18.]	AYES.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)	Harvey, T. E.	Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)	Henderson, T. (Tradeston)	Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ.)	Hopkinson, A.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Jagger, J.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.
Blair, Sir R.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)	Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Boulton, W. W.	Lathan, G.	Southby, Comd. Sir A. R. J.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.	Llewellin, Colonel J. J.	Storey, S.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.	Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)	Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Campbell, Sir E. T.	Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard	Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cobb, Captain E. C.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Sutcliffe, H.
Colman, N. C. D.	Macdonald, G. (Ince)	Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'rS.G's.)	Mander, G. le M.	Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Touch, G. C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)	Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)	Paling, W.	Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)	Peake, O	Westwood, J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Wilkinson, Ellen
Frankel, D.	Power, Sir J. C.	Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)	Reid, W. Allan (Derby)	Woolley, W. E.
Goldie, N. B.	Rickards, G. W.	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Ridley, G.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)	Robertson, D. (Streatham)	Mr. Munro and Major Sir
Grimston, R. V.	Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.	James Edmondson.

1336

§ I ask the Committee to consider the case of two seamen on a Norwegian or some other ship who have committed the same offence. The first, as a result of nerves, may have hit an officer on the head with a spanner—I have known such things to happen—six months and one day ago, and the second may have committed the same offence six months ago. We find that the seaman who first committed this offence and set the bad example cannot be tried, whereas the other is liable to be tried and imprisoned. Is there anyone here in his senses who will support legislation of this kind? The proposal I wish to make, which I consider is fair and sensible and will bring about unanimity, is this: The Minister and the Attorney-General first proposed a time limit of 12 months, which the Attorney-General has now cut down to six months. I propose that he should cut it down by another six months, and then we on this side of the Committee will be prepared to support the Government.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert: not being acts or omissions committed more than six months before the passing of this Act.

§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted"

§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 14.

NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Gallacher, W	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bevan, A.	Granville, E. L.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davidson, J.J (maryhill)	Groves, T. E.
Davies, S O (Merthyr)	Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Dobbie, W	Shinwell, E.	Mr. James Hall and Mr.
Edwards, N (Caerphilly)	Sloan, A.	Silverman.

1337

§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "seafaring person," and to insert "seaman of that Power."
This is an Amendment which my right hon. and learned Friend suggested in his opening remarks upon the first Amendment on Clause 2, with a view to meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman).

§ Mr. Silverman
I hope that the respect in which this Amendment fails to meet the objections which I raised upon the other Amendment will not be overlooked between now and a later stage of the proceedings on this Bill.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Mr. Silverman
I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after "forming," to insert "the whole or."
This is an Amendment to meet a small technical point which I hope the Government will accept. It proposes to prevent double trials and double offences. As the Clause stands, it seems to me that it exempts a person from being tried twice for an offence "forming part of" an offence for which he has been tried by a British court but does not exempt him from being tried twice if it is the whole offence which is involved.

§ The Solicitor-General
It seems to us that this Amendment is unnecessary and really wrong in its form, because if the act or omission forms part of the offence referred to it is covered, and if it forms the whloe of it, it constitutes the offence. The phrase is in respect of: any act or omission constituting or forming part of an offence. If it forms the whole of the offence it obviously constitutes the offence and is covered by those words, and in that case this Amendment is unnecessary.

§ Mr. Silverman
In view of that explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end, to insert: 1338 (4) No Maritime Court shall have power to inflict for any offence a penalty greater than such offence would entail under British law. The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that no sentence passed by any of these allied Maritime Courts shall be more severe than the sentence which would be imposed for a similar offence in a British court of law. Let me furnish an example which I think will fortify my point. A case in which a seaman is charged with refusing to join his ship or with deserting his ship may be brought before, say, a Norwegian court. I do not know what the Norwegian law provides in such a case, but it may be that he would be sentenced to, say, six months' imprisonment, whereas for a similar offence a British subject might receive a sentence of only 30 days from a British court, or be subjected only to a nominal fine or even be let off with a reprimand. It would be a very bad thing to have such a distinction, because these seamen talk among themselves, and if it were known that in the allied Maritime Courts sentences were more severe than in British courts it might give rise to considerable friction. The whole purpose of the Bill is to avoid friction and to secure the smooth running of the vessels. A Norwegian seaman who had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment would feel much annoyed if he learned on his discharge from prison that a seaman on a British ship, or even a British seaman on a Norwegian vessel who had committed a similar offence, had been merely fined or sent to prison for a few days, and he might give further trouble. At any rate, it seems to me that the sentences which these courts have the power to impose should be as nearly related to the sentences that can be imposed for similar offences in a British court. I hope that it may be able to con cede the point in the form in which I have drafted the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General
I think that the Committee will agree with the hon. Member's desire and that there is nothing more undesirable than diversity of sentences. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get anything else. One knows that magistrates in some parts of the country 1339 take a rather different view from that of other magistrates in other, parts of the country. The only way in which we can compare them is by looking at the maxima. I agree that it is undesirable that there should be diversity in sentences as between the various maritime courts. On the other hand, I think that the hon. Member, who has given great thought to this matter, will realise that it is difficult for us to superimpose our code, as it were, upon the existing codes of the various countries. In these circumstances, as I told the House on Second Reading, we have approached, through the Foreign Office, the various Allied Governments and have indicated to them the undesirability of such circumstances as the hon. Member has pointed out. They have agreed that they will do their utmost to see that the method of approach of their courts is as near as may be to the method of approach of our courts, and that the sentences that they pass will be as nearly as may be the sort of sentences which a British court would have passed in like cases. That is as far as we can go short of imposing our code on their codes.

§ Mr. Silverman
We appreciate the difficulty of drafting our penal code on the penal code of one of these other Powers. At the same time, it would be unsatisfactory if two men, one a British subject and the other not, committed the same offence and were brought before different courts and were subject to different penalties. Following on what the Solicitor-General has said, I would like to ask whether the rules of procedure or the kind of code to be applied will be submitted by the Allied Powers to our Government. They say that they will do their utmost to see that certain things will happen. Are we to have any opportunity of seeing whether they succeed? I accept their undertaking and believe that they wish to carry it out, but they may find a difficulty in ascertaining what our code is, or they may make a mistake as to the alignment of the two and may think that they have brought them into reasonable comparison when they have not done so in fact. Is any step to be taken to examine how the maritime courts do the work and to see whether the Powers concerned have succeeded in carrying out the assurances which they have given? These are the acts of a foreign Power, and normally anything they do will not be questionable 1340 in this House. Yet what they will do will be done by our authority, on our soil, and by the employment, to some extent, of our legal machinery. It may be that in that respect a Member of this House who was not satisfied in a particular case ought to have the right to ask a question about what happened and whether any representations should be brought to bear. Who will be responsible for the Government in this House for answering questions of that kind?
One of the great objections to establishing foreign courts on our soil in these circumstances is that there is, in the case of those countries, through no fault of the Governments concerned but because of enemy action, no communal or social sanction behind them that the administration of a court of law requires. We have done something towards it by getting an assurance that the courts will sir in public so that there will be an opportunity of knowing what is going on, but that is not enough. In our country the courts, for the most part, sit in public, and what they do is generally known, commented upon and discussed. If what happens makes it appear that there is some injustice in the law which the courts have to administer, the law may be subject to review in this House, and there may be questions or legislation as a result. In the case of these maritime courts there will be nothing of that kind. They will not operate in their own countries and there will be no public opinion by which the acts of the courts may be reviewed. There ought to be something to take its place and it seems to me that the proper thing to take its place is the opportunity for questions to be asked in the House about any case which seems to be unsatisfactory from a general point of view. Will the Solicitor-General, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, or any other Minister take the responsibility in this House for answering questions relating to proceedings before these courts?

§ The Solicitor-General
These Governments are recognised by us as sovereign Governments, and they are, perhaps, all the more because of the circumstances, not unnaturally jealous to preserve their status and their privileges. It is impossible that we should ask them to submit to us a code of procedure or of sentences or anything of that sort, as though they were asking for our approval. We are 1341 enabling them to administer in our territory their laws before courts in just the same way as they would have administered them in their own territories had it not been for the incident of invasion. Therefore, there cannot be anything which implies any position of inferiority or anything which enables this House to exercise a check on these Governments as it properly does on its own Executive. When I have said that, I can add that the whole circumstances and the very odd nature of the circumstances indicate the necessity for a constant interchange of views and for give and take, and the Foreign Office, through the ordinary diplomatic channels, will always do every thing they can to smooth over any difficulties if they arise, and will do their best, by friendly advice and suggestion, to prevent difficulties arising. I am afraid that we can hope for nothing better than friendly relationship between the Governments and an earnest desire to carry out their pledges. They are the best credentials we can offer that these misfortunes will not arise.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Mander
I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, at the end, to add: An inter-Allied court of appeal shall be set up with jurisdiction to decide disputes arising under that Act as to nationality except as otherwise provided.'' There is a gap somewhere which re quires to be filled up, and this is one of the questions which the Solicitor-General said he would look into in Committee. The matter is all the more important in view of the fact that conscription is to be applied to a number of these foreign subjects. When a question of nationality arises it is extremely important, therefore, that an accurate decision should be given as to what nationality an individual be longs to. I want to be quite clear where the final authority for that decision lies. As far as I can see at present, it lies with a British court. It seems to me, under Clause 11 (2), that if any question of jurisdiction arises, it goes to a British court to decide. Is that really satisfactory, that in a matter affecting a number of equal Allies, a court of one of the Allies only should be the body which comes to a decision? The Solicitor-General referred to the possibility of a dispute whether a man was a Dutchman or a Belgian. There might be a question 1342 whether he was a Greek or a Yugoslav. He might not be one of the Allied nationals at all but might belong to some neutral State. It seems to me that it is wrong to leave to the court of one nationality only the question of deciding a matter of this kind where a particular court of that nation might say he belongs to it and some other court of another nation might say he belongs to their nationality. It seems to me, therefore, that there ought to be an appeal court of some kind to decide issues of this sort and that it is not desirable, as in the Bill, that it should be a purely British court, because that does not give real equality of status, but that it would be desirable to set up an inter-Allied court where judicial representatives of the various Allies could sit together and come to a decision on these disputed points. We have found in practice that the Permanent Court of International Justice, where you had representatives of all nations sitting in a judicial capacity, worked very well. This would be, on a very small scale, a body of the same kind. Whether the Government can accept it or not, I can not help feeling that in theory and in justice there is a great deal to be said for the Amendment.

§ Mr. Silverman
On a point of Order. I should like to ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis. I have certain Amendments in connection with Clause 9 which, although they do not go to quite the same point as this, involve very similar considerations. May I ask if it is your intention to call them?

§ The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert)
It must depend a little on the result of this, but I think it most likely that I should not call them.

§ Mr. Silverman
In that case perhaps I had better say what I have to say about it now. By Clause 9 a local tribunal is set up which may decide, for the purposes of this Bill but not for any other purposes, whether a man who claims to be a British subject is a British subject or not. I think everyone appreciates that that is a quick and convenient procedure. But if the Bill remains as now drafted, you have this anomaly, that, if the Ruritanian Government were to arrest a British subject, the question of whether he is a British subject or not would be decided by a British local tribunal. But, 1343 if the Ruritanian Government arrested a man who claimed to be a Norwegian, the question whether he was a Norwegian or not would be determined by the Ruritanian Maritime Board. That is an anomaly which, surely, this Committee ought not to allow to be enacted. The same procedure as is adopted to determine whether a claimant to British nationality for this purpose is entitled to that claim or not could quite as easily be applied to any of these other cases, and it is in any case wrong that the question whether a person is a Ruritanian or a Norwegian should be determined judicially by the Power which claims the man's service. I think the hon. Member's suggestion of an inter-Allied tribunal to decide all these questions would be an admirable way of dealing with it if the Government thought right to accept it, and I certainly am not offering any opposition to that proposition. But, if the Government do not feel that they can accept that suggestion, I invite them to accept mine. The question to be decided is simple. It ought to be decided quickly and easily and can be decided for the other nationals exactly as the Bill proposes to decide it for British nationals.
It was said on the Second Reading that these questions of nationality are very difficult questions of mixed law and fact. There are cases which are difficult, complicated and intricate, but in the vast majority of cases there is nothing complicated or intricate about them. It is easy to determine whether a man is by inter national law a national of a particular State or whether he is Stateless. I do not think we ought to legislate only for the difficult, complicated case. I do not think it is enough to say, "We cannot have either of these suggestions, because in some cases the court may have to decide very complicated questions." If in the majority of cases the question to be deter mined is not difficult, there is no reason why, for the purposes of this Act only, it should not be decided as the question of British nationality is decided.
I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept one or other of these proposals to prevent the Power concerned being judge in its own case. It may be said that that would be an excess of jurisdiction which could be challenged in the High Court under this Bill, but it 1344 could only be challenged by those who know their rights under the Bill, and ex hypothesi a great many of these people will not know their rights. Even where persons know their rights it can be challenged only if they have the very considerable means necessary to go to the High Court. Over and above that, such a procedure before the High Court would not be advantageous to the Allied Power concerned. It must necessarily be a slower process. It will take more time, and it can only take place in London, which might be a very inconvenient thing both for the Government concerned and for the claimant. Therefore, I suggest that the existence of that power of review of the High Court is no answer to the argument of my hon. Friend or to my argument. It is better to have something quicker. If persons on arrest are told of their rights, there is no reason why the question at issue could not be disposed of in a short time by either of the two suggestions which have been made.

§ The Solicitor-General
However much might be said for the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) if we were living in the spacious days of peace, when we could afford to litigate from court to court the often difficult question of nationality, we must face the fact that, in addition to our other difficulties here, we must beyond everything else consistently with justice get speed in our decisions. If the hon. Member looks at the proposal in this Bill, he will, of course, observe that nationality is not material to any of the questions in this Bill except to what has been some what loosely described as the conscripting power. We have suggested Amendments which the Committee have accepted generally which make it plain that the conscripting power is only to apply if the person is both a national of a particular Power and also a seaman of that Power. We are going to define later on that a seaman is a man who has actually done his sea time on board a ship of that Power.
We have gone a very long way, but we have still this question of nationality: Nationality in some senses is a matter of international law, but as the two hon. Members who have just spoken will know, because they both have legal training, the question as to whether or not a man does or does not possess, say, 1345 Norwegian nationality depends by inter national law upon Norwegian law. We have got a Norwegian tribunal sitting here concerning itself solely with questions of Norwegian law as applied to these facts. The proposal we make is that if that Norwegian tribunal goes wrong, our High Court can step in because the Norwegian court has exceeded its jurisdiction. If that relevant law, the law to be discussed, is Norwegian law, is not a Norwegian court much better able to form a view about Norwegian law than an Allied court? Incidentally, will not a Norwegian court, set up for this purpose, be very much more speedy and prompt in its function than an Allied court?
It is for those reasons that we have hit upon what is probably the best com promise here. We have now" made it clear that the conscripting power is to relate only to seamen who have actually done their sea time on ships of a particular nationality. I cannot, of course, speak from my own knowledge, but I understand that practically all these men will have papers and that practically all the papers will show the nationality of the men concerned. I hope that what may theoretically seem difficult legal problems will not arise. In some cases they may arise, but I hope they may be simply dealt with. By letting a Norwegian court —if I may use that illustration—lay down Norwegian law in the light of the relevant' facts, which I hope will very seldom be disputed, we shall, having regard to the check we can obtain by Clause 11, be able to say that no injustice is done.

§ Mr. Silverman
With all respect to the Solicitor-General, I suggest to him that his argument is fallacious. He has assumed that, under the Bill, disputed questions will be determined by the tribunal of the Power which claims the nationality, but that is not so. It may not be a Norwegian court which is called upon to determine whether a man is Norwegian or not. Under the Bill, the Polish court may be called upon to determine whether a man is Norwegian or not.

§ The Solicitor-General
That is just the fallacy. The Polish court cannot deter mine whether a man is Norwegian or not. It can determine only whether he is or is not Polish. That is a vital distinction.

1346

§ Mr. Silverman
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows so very much more about these matters than I do that I feel a certain temerity in venturing to differ from him. I am not sure that that is so.

§ The Solicitor-General
May I—

§ Mr. Silverman
Perhaps I might first put a hypothetical case to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and then, if he will tell me how that will work out, we may be able to find out whether his argument or mine is fallacious. A Polish official, say, arrests a man and says, "You are of Polish nationality, and you are also a seafaring man in the sense de fined by the Schedule." The man replies, "It is true that I am a seafaring man, but not in the sense defined by the Schedule. I have not served on Polish ships, and I am not a Pole." If he says, further, "I am British," then the question will be decided by a local tribunal. If he says, further, "I am Norwegian," the question which he raises will be decided by a Polish tribunal. It is true that the Polish tribunal will not presume to say whether he is Norwegian or not. I concede that, but it will presumably say whether he is a Pole or not. That is a purely artificial distinction.

§ The Solicitor-General
Why?

§ Mr. Silverman
Because the real question is whether the man's claim to be a Norwegian is right or wrong.

§ The Solicitor-General
He may be both.

§ Mr. Silverman
I know he may be both, but he may be Norwegian only.

§ The Solicitor-General
But he is not a Pole, which is all that matters.

§ Mr. Silverman
I know he is not, but that question will have to be decided by the Poles. That is the point. In practice, what the Polish tribunal in that case will be considering is the validity of the man's claim to be a Norwegian. They will not put it in that way, they will not pose the question to themselves in that way, their decision will not be promulgated in that way, but in fact that is the question they will be considering. Sup pose we apply the same consideration to a British subject. It is quite true that a man may be a Norwegian and a Pole at 1347 the same time; it is equally true that a man may be a British subject and a Pole at the same time. If the man claims to be a British subject, why, in logic, should he not be tried by the Polish tribunal? The Polish tribunal would not be presuming to say whether he was a British subject or not; it would only be deciding whether he was a Pole or not, but the Bill does not permit them to do that, and that is the anomaly which I am pointing out and which I respectfully suggest to the Solicitor-General is not healthy.
If a man claims to be a British subject, it does not matter whether he is a Pole, the question has to be determined by a local tribunal. Now I saw that if a man claims to be a Norwegian, there might be something in it if the Solicitor-General replied that that question should be deter mined by a Norwegian tribunal, but he does not so reply. He says that it should be determined by the Polish tribunal, al though not in that form and not in that way. I suggest that the simplest way to deal with it is either the way suggested by my hon. Friend or the way that I suggest. I leave my hon. Friend to defend his proposal for himself; mine is that we have a local tribunal already; it is there on the spot and presumably will be there in the port. If a question of disputed nationality arises, let it be decided in the first place by that tribunal, irrespective of whether the dispute is as to whether he is a British subject or a subject of any Power other than that of the maritime court seeking process against him.

§ The Solicitor-General
Will the hon. Member realise that a British tribunal is at least supposed to know the British law, but it is certainly not supposed to know the Polish law, and that makes a very great difference? Nationality depends upon the application of law to facts. How does he suggest that the local county court judge is to acquire his knowledge of the relevant Polish law? What he will find in practice— we always do when we consider these things in courts—is that there will be one Polish lawyer to make one affidavit and another who will make another affidavit in the exactly contrary sense, and then the unhappy English court will have to do the best it can to determine which is the law. Surely, on a question of Polish law, if you have a 1348 Polish tribunal actually sitting in this very country, it is sensible to allow that tribunal to determine Polish law. If they go wrong on their facts, our High Court can check them. Further, is it not fallacious to treat the cases pending before the courts as though the Government them selves were deciding the case? If their courts are like our courts, let me assure the hon. Member—as he knows without my assurance—that our courts exercise a very healthy control over the Government, and do not give the Government its case unless it is quite obvious that the Government is right.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am very grateful to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, but I do not think he is really meeting me. Every one of the considerations he advances will apply to the British tribunal too. He says it may be a very difficult question to determine. It may be that the British local tribunal knows all about British law on the subject, but not about Polish or any other law. But as the Solicitor-General himself said in his first speech, in the vast majority of cases the papers are there, and it will not be a difficult question to decide. And, dealing with his last point, I do not think that for this purpose you can draw a hard and fast definition between the maritime court and the Power concerned. Where questions of conscription arise, the foreign Power wants men, and the court is appointed to see that people who ought to be in their forces do not evade the obligation. That is their primary consideration. But will you not get all sorts of anomalies?
Something has been said about double nationality. Let us suppose that a man. is at the same time a Norwegian and a Pole. Under this Bill, both Governments have claims upon him. He is brought before the Polish court, which decides that he is a Pole, and sentences him for not going into a Polish ship. [Interruption.] I know that there are objections. There is the seafaring point as well. Both points have to be proved. I am trying to separate them, for simplicity of argument. The man may have served since 1934 on both Norwegian and Polish ships. I think I am putting a perfectly reasonable possibility. If he is a seafaring man, earning his livelihood on the sea, it is not at all unlikely, particularly if he has double nationality, that he will have served on ships belonging to both nations. He is brought before 1349 a Polish Maritime Court, and they say, "We are not concerned about whether you are a Norwegian or not; we are only concerned about whether you are a Pole. You have served on Polish ships, and you have refused to continue serving on Polish ships. You have committed an offence, for which we shall convict, and punish you. It is no defence for you to say to us that you prefer to be on a Norwegian ship as you are both a Norwegian and a Pole." That may not arise; but you would avoid any possible conflict of allegiance of that kind if you allowed the question of whether a person shall be subject to Polish maritime conscription law or to Norwegian maritime conscription law, if there is such a thing, to be determined, not by the two Powers competing for the body of the man, but by the local tribunal which you have set up for that purpose.

§ The Solicitor-General
How would that avoid the difficulty? Suppose that the local tribunal, or the Allied tribunal, decided that this unhappy gentleman was of both nationalities, and a seafarer of both nationalities? Are you any "forrarder?"

§ Mr. Silverman
You are this much further forward—that both Powers know that there is a conflicting claim, which they are to decide between them, or which they might give the man himself the option of deciding. I am not certain that this would avoid every kind of difficulty; but it would, at any rate, expose the difficulty, whereas if you allow the question to be decided by whichever of the conflicting Powers gets in first, you will be doing an injustice to the other Power, and an in justice to the man—a quite unnecessary one, which could be avoided if the power of deciding were allowed to reside in an impartial tribunal set up by yourselves. I suggest that there are sufficient difficulties about this question to prevent the Committee rushing it through without further consideration.

§ Colonel Llewellin
Might I make an appeal to the Committee? We want to get this Bill through to-day if we possibly can, and if the House will allow us to. We have decided, as a House, that we shall proceed with the cases which are holding up shipping at our ports—the Committee will take that from me—on the principle which these foreign Powers are adopting. Some ships are being held up, as the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) has said, in our ports now 1350 because these men will not sail. The House has decided in principle, by giving this Bill an unopposed Second Reading, that this action shall be taken by the foreign Powers. Our ports are not the safest places for ships to be held up to day, and we need the ships to bring food and other things to our shores. I would ask the House not to let another week go by before we can pass these powers.

§ Mr. Mander
I desire to do nothing to prevent the Bill from passing, but I would like to say, however, that nothing that the Solicitor-General has said has made me feel that my proposal is not entirely sound and logical and one which in peace-time might well have received consideration. I still maintain that there is a gap. Where you have a case of a man claimed to be a Pole and a Norwegian, some third party who stands above the court ought to decide. I should have thought that an inter-Allied body would have been the right one to come to a decision whether any individual was a Pole or a Norwegian. The Solicitor-General seemed to suggest that such a body might say that he was both, but I would put it to him that, if such cases, as it might well have been, had come before the Permanent Court of Inter national Justice, they would, by a majority, have come to a decision as to the nationality of such a man. That is exactly the kind of proceeding I am suggesting in the Amendment. However, it may be, as he said, that in practice, owing to a definition which has taken place, not much difficulty will arise. In these circumstances, and in view of the urgency of this Measure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That. the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

§ Mr. Silverman
I had intended to raise a question on paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1). I cannot now propose the Amendment which I had on the Paper, but I would point out that the Clause as a whole, with that paragraph in it, contains a power of conscription. A great many of the disputes and controversies that have arisen in Committee over this Bill would have had only an academic importance but for that power to impose conscription. Nobody is suggesting that the nationals 1351 of these Powers should escape any obligation which lies upon British subjects in these times. It is not within the power of the Allied Governments to impose upon the appropriate people the same obligations as we impose upon our citizens. The refusal to do that seems to raise doubt about the wisdom of introducing conscription in this way. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that this question of conscription does not arise only in connection with ships. There are other questions pending about conscription. When the House passed the Allied Forces Act, which was designed to give to the Armies of these Powers rights corresponding to those which this Bill proposes to give to them in relation to ships, no power of conscription was given. It might well have been, by analogy with this Bill, because all of those powers, as far as I know, are powers within the military conscription laws. That Act might well have given a power to punish offences against the conscription law, such as is given in this Bill in respect of offences against the maritime conscription law. But it deliberately avoided doing that, and the most specific pledges were given in the House that that Act would not be used for conscription powers. It is in every way more desirable that if powers of conscription are to be given they should be given as a whole in one enactment for that purpose and not introduced by a. side wind in this way.
I know the two questions are not entirely parallel and that the number of persons affected by conscription for maritime purpose will probably be very much less than those who might possibly be affected by military conscription laws if they are given to the Powers, but in this particular instance I fear you have the thin end of the wedge. I fear it will be said on some future occasion, if some of us object, not to general conscription without the option, and safeguards for conscientious objectors, that we have already given these Powers the right to conscript people for maritime purposes and that it is illogical not to give similar rights for military purposes. I suggest that the Government should reconsider this question and leave out of the Bill any reference to conscription of any kind, save that of some general proposal that will ultimately have to be made to deal with 1352 the rights of these Powers to apply their conscription laws for military purposes to-their nationals under conditions and safe guards which this House would like care-fully to consider, and not to deal with it in the piecemeal way in which this Bill deals with it.

§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

§ Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ CLAUSE 4.— (Offences by British subjects.)

§ Mr. Peake
I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, after "committed," to insert after the passing of this Act."
This Amendment will, I think, be generally acceptable in view of the discussion on Clause 2 and the explanation I then gave about it.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 36, after "committed," insert "after the passing of this Act." — [Mr. Peaks.]

§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ CLAUSE 5. — (Institution of proceedings before Maritime Courts.)

§ Mr. Silverman
I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from "forth with," to the end of the Sub-section.
I can deal with this Amendment quite shortly. The part of the Clause which I want to leave out by this Amendment is that part which gives power to issue a warrant where there is reason to apprehend that the person summoned will not appear before a maritime court. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that that is entirely unnecessary. Nobody wants warrants to be issued where summonses are sufficient, and there is in the Clause already sufficient power to permit war rants to be issued for serious offences and on good grounds. I do not know what evidence would satisfy a justice of the peace that a man was not likely to attend. It might be the mere ipse dixit of the authorised prosecutor, without evidence at all, because he might prefer to proceed in that way owing to its being more convenient. If a man who is served with a summons does not attend, there is, after all, power to proceed against him and compel him to do so by warrant, if, in fact, a summons has been served. I think 1353 the point is a clear one, and I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to accept the Amendment.

§ The Solicitor-General
I should have thought that of all the reasons for granting a warrant instead of a summons, the best and most formidable was that the man was not likely to turn up. For years the magistrates in this country have been exercising this jurisdiction, and whenever any information is laid before a magistrate, it is entirely within his discretion whether he will cause a warrant or a summons to be issued. We merely pro pose in this Bill to give the same power as magistrates have had in this country of exercising unfettered discretion, which, on the whole, I think they have managed to exercise pretty satisfactorily. For that reason, we cannot in this case depart from the ordinary practice.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ CLAUSE 8. — (Detention for purposes of Maritime Courts, and recovery of fines and forfeitures.)

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out Subsection (3).
This Clause provides for the transportation overseas of persons who are sentenced to detention by one of these courts for a period of one year or over. Obviously, this could apply only in the cases of Holland and Belgium, because Norway has no overseas possessions under her own control of which use could be made. In the case of Greece, it might be possible to apply the provision. It would be a very serious thing if we added to the penalties which could normally be incurred under the laws of these countries by offenders against those laws. It would not be a normal thing for a Belgian who had been sentenced to a year's imprisonment for such an offence as would come before the maritime court to be sent to the Belgian Congo, and it would not be a normal thing for a Dutchman to be sent to Surinam or Curacao or the Dutch East Indies in consequence of an offence of this character. Perhaps the Solicitor- 1354 General can inform us whether transportaion overseas is part of the normal criminal code of Belgium and Holland. If it is not, we are here making an entirely new penalty hitherto unknown to their practice, and one which cannot be applied in the case of Norway, the largest maritime Power with which we are concerned. In the case of Norway, there is no possibility of this power being used, and if the Norwegian Government and the Norwegian maritime court are satisfied with the provision which would be given under the terms of my Amendment for sentences to be served here, surely the other Powers concerned might be satisfied with a similar arrangement. I hope very much that the Government will be willing to accept this Amendment. Surely it is a matter of elementary justice that we should not, out of consideration for the feelings of the Governments of these countries, inflict a penalty hitherto unknown on a number of their citizens. It is because I wish to avoid that that I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Peake
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) has misunderstood the purpose of this Sub-section. It provides that if a man is sentenced to a term of imprisonment which exceeds one year—which may, of course, in a case of a serious offence like murder, be a great deal longer—that man shall not be compelled under the terms of this Bill to serve the whole of his sentence in this country, which may be long after the termination of the war. After all, we do anticipate that the war will come to an end in rather less time than some of the sentences which may be imposed under this Bill. It may be necessary, therefore, to send some of these condemned criminals back home to their own countries to serve the remainder of their sentences. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that under the proviso the transference cannot take-place without the consent of the Secretary of State, and before the Secretary of State can give his consent he must be satisfied that the jurisdiction of the Allied maritime court is no longer open to challenge.

§ Mr. Shinwell
If that is the position, and if it is not intended to transfer a man from this country during the war to territory under the control of an Allied Government, why not say so? At present 1355 the result is that no person shall be so transferred except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Peake
My hon. Friend does not appreciate the fact that some of these nationals may belong to Colonial territory and it may be perfectly right and proper to transfer them to that territory for the purpose of their imprisonment.

§ Mr. Shinwell
If the provision is in tended to apply to the colonials of Allied Governments, why not say so? Nothing of the kind is stated in the Bill. I regard this point as of very great substance in deed, and I am bound to say that I over looked the matter when I analysed the Bill, otherwise I am certain an Amendment would have been down on the Order Paper in my name. There are two Governments or nationals likely to be involved. One is the case of the Nether lands, where a person may be transferred to territory in the Dutch East Indies, and the other is the case of some remote islands which, I believe, are under the control of Norway. I am not sure what is the position with regard to seamen of Danish nationality; if they are included, Greenland will obviously be one of the places to which persons might be sent. I understood it was intended that no person upon whom sentence had been imposed by a maritime court should be sent out of the country at all. Indeed, I thought that was made plain in the course of the Second Reading Debate, but now I find that this Sub-section gives power to transfer a person on whom sentence has been imposed, so that the man concerned may serve the whole or part of his sentence in territory under the jurisdiction of the Allied Government concerned.
I think that is thoroughly bad, and I am not satisfied that the proviso is a sufficient safeguard. I suggest that if, as the Under-Secretary says, it is not in tended to transfer such a person during the war, that point should be put in the Bill and should be stated. As an assurance to that effect has been given, surely it can be embodied in the Bill. The Government have conceded the point, and all that is required is a form of words to embody it in the Bill. Transfer at the end of the war is a totally different matter. I agree that at the end of the war there is no reason why we should 1356 detain in this country criminals who come under the jurisdiction of another nationality and have been tried by an Allied maritime court, but it should be explicitly laid down that, for the duration of the war, no person upon whom sentence has been passed by an Allied maritime court shall be transferred to any territory out side this country.

§ Mr. Peake
I am afraid that I cannot give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks, for the very obvious reason that there may well be cases where it would be perfectly proper for, say, a Dutchman who comes from the Dutch East Indies to be transferred there to serve his sentence. I would point out that to do that there has to be the consent of the maritime court imposing the sentence, and it has to be the maritime court of the nationality of the man concerned. Therefore, there is no question whatever, as I think the hon. Member suggested in his opening remarks, that a Dane might be sent to Greenland, because Denmark is not one of the Allied Powers and therefore will not have a maritime court, and therefore no Dane will be transferred under this jurisdiction.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Then what becomes of the Dane?

§ Mr. Peake
He is kept here.

§ Mr. Shinwell
That is a still more puzzling situation. Here is a Dane serving on a Norwegian vessel. He is found guilty of a criminal act, and he is dealt with by the Norwegian maritime court, because he "comes under the flag." He cannot be transferred to any other country. But somebody else on that ship who commits a similar offence and has been sentenced may be transferred to territory out with this country. Surely that is wrong. We cannot treat the seamen in this varied fashion; there must be some kind of uniformity. On the point about the colonial from the Dutch East Indies, if you want to pro vide that a Dutch colonial should be transferred to a Dutch colony, why not say so? If that is the kind of case you have in mind, why not make it explicit? There is a good deal of vagueness about the Bill and of ambiguity in this Sub section.

§ Mr. Harvey
I hope that if the Government are not able to accept the Amendment, they will give an assurance that in 1357 another place if not here, the words of this Sub-section will be reconsidered, because they clearly imply that this pro vision is to be operative during the war. It refers to the territory of that Power (not being territory in the occupation of any Power with which His Majesty is for the time being at war) That clearly refers to proceedings that will go on during the war. If that be so, it is surely desirable that the Sub-section should be remoulded to correspond with the assurance that has been given by the Under-Secretary.

§ Mr. Peake
It is obvious that we cannot complete the Committee stage to-day, and if my hon. Friend will communicate with me any points about the drafting of this Sub-section that he has in mind, I will have a careful look at them.

§ Mr. Harvey
In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§ It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.