HC Deb 20 May 1941 vol 371 cc1497-516

As amended, considered.

Clause 2. — (Jurisdiction of Maritime Courts.)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out: not being acts or emissions committed more than six months before the passing of this Act. With this Amendment there is a consequential manuscript Amendment: in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert: Provided that the Maritime Courts of any Power shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any act or omission committed before the date of the passing of this Act except an act or omission committed at any time not more than six months before that date and constituting an offence against some law of that Power in force at that time other than the merchant shipping law and mercantile marine conscription law thereof.

Mr. Bevan

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman has moved a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Speaker

Two Amendments have been mentioned, one consequential upon the other. Both are being explained and taken together.

Mr. Bevan

May I ask how many copies of the manuscript Amendments can be made available to the House? In former times it was only necessary to hand a manuscript Amendment to one or two persons who might be presumed to be acting for the Opposition, but now the Opposition is somewhat diffused. May we know how many copies of the manuscript Amendments are available for the House, so that we can know what we are discussing?

Mr. Peake

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. There are only a few copies of these Amendments available, as we are proceeding with this Bill under some pressure. These particular Amendments have been the subject of discussions during the day with the Allied Governments and other bodies interested. I think I can explain it quite shortly and satisfactorily to the House. When we were discussing Clause 2 on the Committee stage, we sought to introduce some words to make it clear whether or not the jurisdiction given to the maritime courts applied to offences which had already been committed. The Clause, as drafted, was doubtful on that question, and it is highly probable that, had we passed the Clause in that form, questions would have arisen later in regard to it. I mentioned to the Committee that there were, for example, two cases of suspected murder which had taken place on merchant ships on the high seas and which, unless it was made clear that some courts had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, would be bound to go untried. It was agreed during the discussions— the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) taking a particular interest in this matter—that it was desirable that serious offences of that nature should come within the ambit of Clause 2. During the discussions, we offered to introduce a time limit into the Clause, and our original offer of a time limit of acts committed within 12 months previous to the passing of the Act not proving altogether satisfactory to my hon. Friend opposite, we reduced it from 12 to six months. What we are now proposing to do goes even further towards satisfying my hon. Friend. We tried appeasing him in small doses without much success. We are now giving him a substantial measure of appeasement.

Our two Amendments provide for these matters. First, they provide that there shall be no retrospective operation of Clause 2 in respect of the types of offences mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1); that is to say, there shall be no proceedings in respect of offences which have already been committed if those offences consist of acts or omissions committed by masters or members of the crew in contravention of the merchant shipping law of any country, or, under paragraph (c), if those offences constitute acts or omissions committed by a seafaring person in contravention of the mercantile conscription law. Such offences, if they have occurred before the passing of the Act, will not be triable by any court. We do, however, wish to retain a power for offences already committed against the ordinary criminal law of these various Allied States to be tried, and therefore, we are proposing that acts or omissions against the ordinary law under paragraph (a) may be triable. But we insert a still further safeguard and that is that they shall not be triable unless they constitute an offence against a law of that Power in force at the time when the offence was committed. That is inserted in order to prevent the possibility of an Allied Government legislating retrospectively and creating a new offence, and then proceeding under its criminal laws against a person who has been on board one of their merchant ships. We have gone rather further than we were invited to do on the Committee stage. This Amendment has been discussed informally with the Allied Governments, and they are perfectly satisfied in regard to it. It has also been discussed with a representative of the seamen unions in this country, who has expressed himself to be satisfied with it.

Mr. Silverman

Can we know whether this Amendment which is now being moved was discussed with the Allied Governments concerned?

Mr. Peake

It was discussed yesterday afternoon with a representative of the seamen unions, and it has been mentioned through diplomatic channels to the representatives of Allied Governments.

Mr. Silverman

Mentioned, and not discussed?

Mr. Shinwell

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just told the House of his anxiety to appease me, but this is not appeasement: it is abject surrender. My only regret is that my hon. Friend should have been charged with this irksome task. The villain of the piece is the Attorney-General. Why is he hiding himself, and why is he skulking? I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take part in the discussion on this proposed Amendment, and that he will seek to justify the amazing statement he made in the course of our previous Debate. Let us recall the circumstances. What is proposed in this Government Amendment is precisely what I ventured to ask the Government to accept on that occasion. I agree that major offences of a criminal character, for example, murder on the high seas, which, as I remarked before, is an obsession of the Government— and there were only two cases of the kind within the knowledge of the Government—should surely come within the category of retrospective offences. What I ventured to point out was that to rake up every minor offence which took place on board ship 12 months or six months before the passing of this Bill, was bound to create serious trouble among the seamen concerned. What has been the purpose of this Measure? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he opened the Debate on this Bill, indicated that he knew nothing about the provisions of the Measure at all. I do not blame him for that, and I make no complaint because my right hon. Friend has many preoccupations.

Mr. H. Morrison

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I make a complaint.

Mr. Shinwell

I shall be delighted if my right hon. Friend will participate in the Debate and explain. Perhaps we may have it right away. [Interruption.] I am not sure why my right hon. Friend is interjecting. He is asking me to hide my antagonism. There is no antagonism. Are we to understand that because we criticise that is antagonism? Is my right hon. Friend immune from criticism? Surely not. I know my right hon. Friend has many qualities, but I never knew he was sacrosanct. What I am pointing out is that when my right hon. Friend came before the House with this Measure he had had no consultation with any of the foreign seamen unions on this retrospective proposal.

Is that right or wrong? I shall be delighted if the hon. Gentleman deals with that matter. Let him, however, say whether he had any consultations of the kind with the Ministry of War Communications. That is the point of substance that I put in the course of the earlier Debate. I pointed out that there had been consultations with the Norwegian and other unions on the general provisions of the Bill, but there had been no consultations as to whether it should be retrospective in character. That argument has never been challenged. Not even my right hon. Friend, with all his ability and flair for political controversy, can dispute that.

Knowing the circumstances, I asked the Government not to press this retrospective legislation, but the Attorney-General was stubborn, obstinate, recalcitrant, refractory. He would not budge an inch and, to the cheers of the Parliamentary Private Secretaries behind him, and particularly the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss), he succeeded in impressing on the Committee that it was unwise for the Government to accept my proposal. Four days have elapsed and the Government have suddenly discovered that I was right and they were wrong. That is putting it shortly and bluntly, but it is the fact. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not come and say that the Government were wrong and admit their mistake? Moreover, a great deal of time was wasted on Thursday. We argued the matter for nearly two hours. The Solicitor-General was there, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Communications said a word or two, the Under-Secretary for the Home Office said a word or two, and the Attorney-General said more; than a word or two. What has emerged? That the Government were wrong. Now the Government have to come forward with a complete recantation. I object to the time of the House being wasted by the Government.

Mr. Peake

I should have thought that one of the advantages of having a Committee stage of a Bill and discussing Amendments was that it sometimes led to the improvement of the Bill, and to the adoption of suggestions made by hon. Members.

Mr. Shinwell

That is all very well if the hon. Gentleman had accepted the suggestion I made, that between Committee and Report there should be further consideration of the matter so that we might be completely informed on the Report stage, as we are now, after representations have been made and after the Government have given the matter meticulous consideration. The Government stood on their dignity, they would not give way an inch, they forced me to divide the Committee, a thing I had no desire to do, they divided the Labour party. I was not responsible for dividing the Labour party. It was the Government. Many of my hon. Friends followed the Government into the Lobby. I do not object to that, but I ask the hon. Gentleman, and all Members, to consider the substance of the proposal and all the arguments involved before they so blindly and sheepishly follow the Government Whips into the Lobby. The 14 or 16 Members who voted for the Amendment have been fully vindicated in their action.

Representations were made by both the National Seamen's Union and the Navigating Engineers' and Officers' Union and by the Norwegian Seamen's Union yesterday to the Home Office in connection with this matter. They convinced the Home Office that the Government were wrong. That is why we have this Amendment. The Attorney-General would not be convinced by the force of my arguments or by the oratory of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). He would not even give way when I tried to appease him and spoke quietly to him. What has convinced the Government is not the House of Commons or hon. Members' arguments or oratory, but external representations. I have the greatest respect for these external bodies and the representations they make but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a question, and he can take it as he likes. I do not put it in a spirit of antagonism, although he seems to regard everything I say as antagonism to himself; perhaps he does not like my style, but I am not going to cramp my style even for him. I would ask him whether he pays more attention to external representations than to Members of this House. We have protested on this side over and over again in the past when representations of an external kind have been made to oppose the Government on mining and other questions. We have said that the House of Commons ought to exert its influence. Apparently the House has had no influence in this matter. The action of the Government which is embodied in this Amendment has been induced by external representations.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke)

It has served a good purpose by drawing attention to this question.

Mr. Shinwell

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his observation, but it does not vitiate the argument I am voicing that the House of Commons has been studiously ignored in this matter. It has been combated, and not only has it been combated in the usual way of Parliamentary tradition, but the very suggestion that one Member should offer an Amendment and go into the Division Lobby is regarded as disloyalty. Disloyalty to whom? There is no disloyalty to the House of Commons or to the war effort. If it is disloyalty to individuals, they do not matter in this regard. It will be asked why I should complain when the Government have given me all I ask. I agree that when you get what you want you ought not to complain, but, after all, it does not lie in the mouths of any Member of the Government to use that argument. They have had to recant. They have had to give way and make this surrender. It means that they have wasted several hours of their own valuable time. How often are we told that Members of the Government are so fully occupied that they have little time to attend to Debates in the House? They have had to occupy their time quite unnecessarily on this matter because of the stubborn attitude and the obstinacy of the Attorney-General. I blame him, and if I had the power I would move for a reduction in his salary.

Let me put the point that emerges from this Amendment. It is, of course, satisfactory to the Norwegian Seamen's Union and to the other seamen's unions. It is precisely what they wanted. They have no desire to prevent these maritime courts being set up, and I have ascertained—I am prepared to concede this to the Government—that they would rather come within the jurisdiction of these Allied courts than within the jurisdiction of British courts. Having obtained that information, I give it to the House. The point here is that although the men are willing to come within the jurisdiction of courts under the control of their own Governments, they are not willing to have minor past offences raked up against them. That is not the only consideration. We were told that this Bill was intended primarily to assist the war effort. Anything that will assist the war effort will command my immediate support, and there will be no hesitation or fumbling.

But the case which the Government put to us when first they rejected the proposal would itself have impeded the war effort, in this way. There are thousands of Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian and Greek seamen on Allied ships in ports in the United States of America. There has been a good deal of trouble among them. Some of us here have been doing our best behind the scenes, as probably the Government are aware, to try to induce the men not to desert their ships, to respond speedily to the demands made upon them by their respective shipmasters and not to engage in subversive activity, of which there is far too much in the United States. If those men had known that if they returned to this country on allied ships they might be picked up by their own Governments for offences committed within the last six months, obviously they would have taken immediate steps to desert. That would not have speeded-up our war effort. The merchant shipping law of the United States is of such a kind that men are stimulated to desert their vessels. I need not go into details, but that law by no means assists the British war effort, and I understand that representations have been made to the United States asking them to modify the law, or to operate it in such a form as to assist the war effort. But obviously those men would have left their ships. Can we imagine a man remaining on a Norwegian vessel which is in Baltimore, Boston or Halifax if he knew that when the ship returned to a British port he might be immediately arrested? Of course not. He would not take the risk.

That was the objection we raised to the proposal when it was first enunciated, and I think I am entitled to express my resentment when I find that although the Government first resisted our proposal they now come along to recant. I say they have wasted the time of the House and of hon. Members. It has impeded the war effort. If there had not been so long a discussion on this issue on the Committee stage the Government could have got their Bill last Thursday. I was approached by the Patronage Secretary who said, "Let us have the Bill?" I said, "If the Government will concede my point, and the point of my hon. Friends behind me, we will do so," but the Government would not agree, and as a result the Bill was held up. That is not speeding up the war effort. Now they have to come along and agree that they made a mistake and are responsible for impeding the war effort. I object to that.

I regret that I should have had to speak with so much feeling on the matter. It was not done because of antagonism to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but simply because I resent this ineptitude on the part of the Government. Now that the matter has been cleared up and the House is fully informed of the facts—and I have stated the facts— [Interruption.] An hon. Member states that I am not giving the facts, but I can quote the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he looks at it he will find that the facts are as I am stating them. I am within the recollection of hon. Members behind me. There were very few hon. Members in the Chamber at the time, and that is a pity, because if hon. Members had been aware of the situation the Government might have been defeated on this proposal—not that I want to defeat the Government on an issue of this kind or upon a major issue. I recognise that that would by no means assist the war effort. I have put my case with some feeling because I thought it was necessary to do so. Now that we have got this change of heart on the part of the Government, I hope that we can get the Bill through with the utmost expediency.

Mr. Mander

I was going to make some reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) with reference to a previous Amendment of mine, but after his pitiable collapse in the last discussion, I feel that it is unnecessary to do so. It was impossible to see him for dust when he was running away from his own speech at a very rapid rate. With regard to the Amendment which the Government have moved, I am gratified that they have done so, because it is exactly in accordance with what I suggested to the Minister during the recent Debate. I do not find myself in quite the same paroxysm of anger as the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). I feel gratified that the suggestion has been accepted.

Mr. Shinwell

The hon. Member voted for the Government.

Mr. Mander

Certainly I did. I happen to be a supporter of the Government, and I do not mind saying that.

Mr. Shinwell

And a very queer one, too.

Mr. Mander

I support the Government, as I have shown in the past, and I do not wish to embarrass them in any way. I think they showed wisdom in listening to the arguments put forward last week. They have conducted negotiations which have resulted to giving satisfaction, in spite of the vehement protests of hon. Members.

Mr. Bevan

I thought that all that need be said had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and I was astonished when I heard the shrill tones of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) complaining about me. The fact is that the hon. Member now welcomes the proposal against which he voted last week. He must look up his own Parliamentary record. He is always prepared to wound but never prepared to kill.

Mr. Mander

If you are supporting the Government you do not attempt to beat them down by voting against them. You plead with them and try to persuade them, and you put forward practical proposals. That is the way to get results, and it has succeeded in this case.

Mr. Bevan

I did not think that the fate of the Government was involved in the Division last week.

Mr. Mander

It would have been if the Government had been defeated.

Mr. Bevan

That is nonsense. Hon. Members who were here last week will be aware that the hon. Member's statement is complete and utter nonsense. All that was involved was the fate of the Amendment. The hon. Member says he is delighted that the Government have realised what a mistake he made last week. That, in effect, is all he has said. If the Government had accepted the advice which he gave them, we should not be discussing the Amendment to-day. He has been in the House long enough to know that no question of the defeat of the Government was involved. We should have had a much longer and a much more effective discussion on Clause 12, had it not been for the fact that the Prime Minister came here to make a statement. I thought he could have given me the credit for intervening several times to get the Prime Minister's statement made earlier in order that we might have had a discussion on Clause 12. I must say the hon. Member's sense of fairness is obscured by his desire to be self-righteous.

In this particular matter I wish to make one protest. The Government knew some time ago that they were going to bring forward this Amendment. They have had plenty of time in which to get out copies of it. This unique situation exists: The Government moved an Amendment last Thursday which was carried by the House; it was a manuscript Amendment and is not embodied in the Bill. We now have a manuscript Amendment to the manuscript Amendment, and only three or four copies are available to Members. Any third-rate provincial debating society could have circulated more copies than the Government have provided of this Amendment. The Government treat the House with absolute disrespect in this matter, and the reason is that the last two years have taught them that the House of Commons is composed of docile sheep. It is time the Government started to treat the House with more respect, and the only way in which they can be forced to do so is to vote against them on such matters as this. It is perfectly clear that last week the House thought the Government had made a great mistake. When 1 was going into the Division Lobby I was told by a large number of Members of my party that we were quite wrong, that we had against us the legal learning of the Solicitor-General and of the Attorney-General, and that if we carried our Amendment, the situation would be far worse than it would be under the Govern- ment's Amendment. That is what I was told by hon. Members outside. The hon. Member now says that that was wrong, but it was so right last week that he supported the Government. Accordingly, when we voted against the Government on that occasion, we were described as very naughty boys, and not only naughty, but wholly misinformed. Now we find, to-day, that we were right and the Government were wrong. But even now the hon. Gentleman does not say we were right. What he says is that he is making a concession to us, whereas, as a matter of fact, we know that in the meantime pressure has been brought to bear on the Government from outside when we ourselves were not able to exert it.

The House of Commons is suffering very badly indeed in its legislation from the absence of an organised Opposition. There is no doubt about that, and it will have to be our duty to scrutinise the Government's legislation more microscopically in future, because the Government obviously cannot be trusted to deal justly with these matters. They treat the House frivolously, draft legislation loosely, without proper regard to the consequences, and it is only when a few hon. Members of the House who are alive to their public duties criticise the Government that we are able, not to evoke a response from the Government, but to stimulate intelligent action outside the House which influences the Government to make concessions which they ought to have made in response to criticism in the House. Why do not the Government understand that there is no body of Members of the House of Commons who oppose them on the general principles of the war effort? Why do they not understand that it is the desire of hon. Members to improve the legislation before the House without in any way affecting the general prestige of the Government? Why do the Government not approach Debases in that spirit and make concessions when it seems desirable, instead of taking up the attitude of a Government which has an Opposition, when in fact there is no Opposition? I submit that the Government have made themselves quite ridiculous. This is a lesson that Members will have to assert against the Government if the House of Commons is to do its duty to the country, and they must scrutinise legislation as it was scrutinised when there was an organised Opposition in the House. I hope that hon. Members will not scruple to vote against the Government, whenever necessary, on such matters as this, which do not necessarily involve the life of the Government or the prestige of the British war effort.

Mr. Silverman

The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who has just been getting it in the neck, may remember that I had a passage at arms with him last Thursday, when this Amendment by the Government, which we are now amending again, was before the Committee. I heard the hon. Member say that he welcomed this Amendment because it was his own suggestion. If he says that he made the suggestion, I accept that from him; but he did not make the suggestion here.

Mr. Mander

I can show you the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Silverman

I have his speech, and he did not make the suggestion there. He began by saying: We have had a very enlightening picture—" and then went on to say: I believe that the Allied Governments could be relied upon to act in a fair and reasonable way He paid what is, no doubt, a well-deserved compliment to them. I will read the whole of his speech if the hon. Member would like it.

Mr. Mander

Oh, no.

Mr. Silverman

He went on to say: It seems utterly wrong to deprive them of 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. Because he was entirely convinced, he voted for it.

Mr. Mander

My hon. Friend has omitted to read the passage of the speech which was against the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman

I cannot read it all.

Mr. Mander

Perhaps I might be allowed to remedy the omission, which is rather important. The final passage of my remarks is as follows: 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." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1941; cols. 1324-5, Vol. 371.]

Mr. Silverman

It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend said that. But what the Committee were then discussing was whether my hon. Friend's proposal should be accepted by the Government or not; and the speech of the Attorney-General was a speech giving reasons why my hon. Friend's proposal should be rejected, and the Government's proposal accepted. It was that speech which my hon. Friend said had put forward reasons in a way which seemed to him entirely convincing. They did not entirely convince us; they did not entirely convince the hon. Member himself, on reflection; they did not entirely convince the seamen in their unions, who were to be affected; and it is clear to-day that they did not entirely convince the Government themselves. I would like to make a point that is not a purely personal one. I entirely sympathise with, and would endorse, the view that has been expressed already. I do not want to repeat that, but to add something to it. What has happened here proves that the Government have dealt with this legislation in an entirely haphazard, ill-advised and unconsidered way.

What was the Bill before the House? It was a Bill dealing with criminal legislation which was admitted on all sides to be unprecedented. It was something entirely new. We were dealing with special circumstances. One would have thought in those circumstances that, before bringing the Bill before the House, the Government would have considered whether the legislation which they were enacting was to be retrospective or not. It is not a small point in any kind of law, and it is certainly not a small point in criminal law. When the Government decided to have a Bill of this kind they ought to have had present in their minds in those deliberations the question, "Shall we make it retrospective or not?" As I understood the speech of the Undersecretary when he moved the Amendment that was on the Order Paper last time, he said that they had, in fact, considered it, and that the question of whether the legislation should be retrospective or not was always present in their minds. It was not a new point and something that they had just thought of; they had considered it. Ultimately they admitted that this particular point of retrospective legislation had not been discussed with foreign seamen but that they had discussed it themselves.

When they presented the Bill on Second Reading they were of opinion that Clause 2 was to be retrospective for all purposes, and that is what they wanted, but in that Second Reading Debate or thereafter doubts occurred as to whether the Bill, as originally drafted, really would carry out the intention of making this criminal legislation retrospective for all purposes. In order to make certain that it should be retrospective for all purposes they moved the Amendment which was on the Order Paper last time. We then proceeded to discuss in Committee whether it ought to be retrospective or not, and the Government began to be convinced that their consultations or advice or whatever discussions they had had on this point had led them completely astray, and they said, "We will make it retrospective for all offences, but only for 12 months."

In response to further questions they said, "We will still make it retrospective for all purposes but only for six months." It was impossible, they told us, to draw any distinction between one kind of offence and another. You are to have a six months' period of limitation for murder and a six months' period of limitation for being drunk and disorderly. The Attorney-General was good enough to offer some remarks. I did not know whether they were intended to be taunts or not. I rather thought that they read just a little like that. Some of us were not quite ready to accept the arguments he advanced as convincing, as the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) thought then that they were. We were not amenable to argument; it is only the hon. Member who was amenable to argument. But they were quite wrong in imagining that there was any method at all whereby you could distinguish between being guilty of murder and being drunk and disorderly, when it came to a limitation of the time for prosecuting in that offence. They carried that on a Division, and now on the very next Sitting Day after that Division we have an Amendment entirely satisfactory in itself, but which concedes the whole principle which they condemned. Nobody complains of that, but we do most seriously complain about dealing with the criminal law in this country in that light-hearted, frivolous way. When my hon. Friend talks about the embarrassment of the Government, I do not think he has begun to consider what embarrassing the Government means. I think the Government would be far more embarrassed by a tame, uncritical acceptance of everything they did than by constructive criticism which, however belated, at last puts them on the right road and gives us the legislation everybody wants.

Mr. Mander

Such as mine.

Mr. Silverman

such as the hon. Member's. If the hon. Member had been alone in the Committee last Thursday, this point would never have been heard of at all. [Interruption.] I understand now that he means that he heard all the Debate except my own speech.

Mr. Speaker

There is a Standing Order against tedious repetition.

Mr. Silverman

There may be, and I hope not to offend against any Standing Orders. All I am pointing out to the hon. Member is that he did say in an interjection that he was intervening in the Debate only in order to support the Government. We understand now that he thought the Government were wrong and that he accuses people who tell the Government they were wrong, when they were wrong, of being embarrassing. He thinks it helpful, thinking the Government wrong, to tell them that he is convinced by them and support them in the Division. That is not my conception of the matter. I think we who persisted in the Debate last Thursday and persisted in a Division rendered greater service than those who followed the Government tamely into the Division Lobby against us.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Colonel Llewellin)

Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words to clear the matter up and give some consolation to those who voted with the Government last time. When this Bill was printed it was questionable in some people's minds whether Clauses 2 and 4 had a restrospective effect or not —a retrospective effect in creating new crimes in the case of Clause 4 and in the case of Clause 2 a retrospective effect in allowing crimes committed before these courts which are to be set up to be tried in courts which had only been set up subsequent to the committing of the crime. That being so, the Government put on the Order Paper Amendments to make it clear that Clause 4, a Clause which did create a new crime, shall not be retrospective. Similarly, they put down an Amendment to make Clause 2, as to venue, retrospective. The Government amendment was withdrawn. What we were voting on then was to leave Clause 2, as drafted, or to insert words to make it clear. I, and those who voted with me, voted to insert the words: not being acts or omissions committed more than six months before the passing of this Act. Those who voted to insert those words were limiting the effect of a doubtful provision in the Bill, and those who voted against it were leaving it either retrospective or not. It is not merely a most ingenious argument as my hon. Friend who interrupts says it is something which we were, in fact, all doing. I would prefer to be one of those voting in the Lobby to limit the provisions of that doubtful Clause than to be one of those who pat themselves on the back and say that they think they are the only righteous ones.

Mr. Bevan

Why is it in this matter, which involves so many complicated matters of law, that the defence is again left to the lay Members on the Front Bench?

Colonel Llewellin

Not so lay, some of us, although not quite such distinguished lawyers. I think we have settled that matter. We took a step on the last occasion, and we have now gone a step further. Having cleared up that matter, I want to clear up another point. We were not pressed by the National Union of Seamen or by the Allied seamen. It was rightly or wrongly—and I think rightly—on the initiative of the Ministry which I represent that, after the discussions in Committee—and we were asked a number of times by the hon. Member opposite whether we had done so—we consulted the National Union of Seamen, and we got them to consult, on our behalf, the international federation which is dealing with these matters. Ought we to be blamed for doing that? The points were raised by hon. Members, we had time before the Report stage to do something further, and we took the initiative from the Ministry. Now it seems that someone is blaming us and saying that there is pressure from outside. I believe it is right, if we can, to carry these seamen with us. They are doing wonderful work on our ships in the high seas. If I were asked to apologise for having consulted them, I would not do so. We consulted them, they said that they would prefer the Amendment to be put in, and I ask the House, having persuaded the Government and the Government having confirmed that the seamen wanted the Amendment, and the, Government having prepared and moved it, to give us the Amendment and, very shortly the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 42, at the end, insert: Provided that the Maritime Courts of any Power shall not have jurisdiction to try any person for any act or omission committed before the date of the passing of this Act except an act or omission committed at any time not more than six months before that date and constituting an offence against some law of that Power in force at that time other than the merchant shipping law and mercantile marine conscription law thereof." — [Mr. Peake.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Shinwell

It was indicated at an earlier stage that I might be able on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill to raise a point which I regard as one of substance. I placed on the Order Paper a proposed new Clause which I learned was out of order, and, of course, I accepted the Ruling of the Chair. The point I want to put is a very short one. There is in this country, as is known, a National Maritime Board which deals with all questions of wages and working conditions. There has been established also since the beginning of the war an international federation of foreign seamen's unions. It is called the International Federation of Seamen's Unions. The Dutch, Norwegian, Greek and the others are represented through their own organisations on that Federation, and they deal with wages and conditions of Allied seamen. All that I am asking for is an assurance from the Government that they will make representations to the Allied Governments, who are concerned in this matter, with a view to co-ordinating the activities of these associated bodies, dealing with wages and conditions, with the decisions of the National Maritime Board. I am not proposing that there should be established an Allied Maritime Board; I withdraw that proposal. 1 want to be sure that the National Maritime Board, representing British shipowners, shall be fully informed of the decisions and negotiations preceding decisions which affect Allied seamen, so that there may be effective liaison and effective functioning of both bodies. It would be invidious if decisions affecting seamen, as regards wages and conditions, were reached by the foreign seamen's negotiating organisations which were not similar, having regard to all the known factors, to the decisions reached by the National Maritime Board. The wages and decisions should be as uniform as possible. Although there may be variations which apply to the different countries—and it is desirable to continue these variations where they are helpful—we are anxious to avoid any depreciation of conditions appertaining to British seamen. That is a point I wish to put to the Government.

Mr. Mander

There are one or two points I should like to raise on the Third Reading of this Measure. The first is with reference to the Allied appeal courts referred to in Clause 2, Sub-section (4). It is stated there that certain of the Allies have these courts. I should be glad if the Minister would say which of the Allies have these courts. During the Debate, last Thursday, I asked for and was given information as to which Allies were to be given these maritime courts. I was given a list which excluded Free France. I ask the Government whether they will not reconsider that decision, in view of the fact that it is now shown clearly that the Vichy Government is a treacherous Government, working inside the Axis organisation, and hostile to the interests of this country all over the world where they are of any influence. I ask the Government whether they will not reconsider the possibility of giving proper recognition to the Association of Free Frenchmen, under General de Gaulle, and whether it would not be right to have done altogether with the traitors of Vichy, and establish maritime courts for those who really represent Free France, and so extend the number of countries that can be brought within the category of this Bill.

Mr. David Adams (Consett)

I only want to augment and emphasise the appeal made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) with respect to the operations of the—

Mr. Speaker

As a matter of fact the hon. Member for Seaham—I gave him a good deal of latitude—was discussing something which had already been ruled out of Order during the Committee stage. His remarks were outside the scope of the Bill, and I cannot allow the matter to be further discussed.

Mr. Adams

All I intended to do was to make a supplementary appeal.

Colonel Llewellin

In view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, it is for me to reply only to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). In regard to the remarks he made about General de Gaulle, this Bill will not, of course, apply to any Power which has not got the ships or seamen to place at our disposal. No doubt if a number of Free French merchant sailors come over here, and we had some ships in which they could serve, we would reconsider their positions, but for the moment it is no good saying that the provisions of this Bill will apply in a case in which there is no one to whom it can be applied. The other point is that the Allied Governments are recognised Governments and there is some different position, I am told, in International Law with regard to the Free French Government. But I am now getting into foreign affairs questions, on which I am not competent to speak. I shall have to let my hon. Friend know about the appeal courts. We have not a list at the moment.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.