Clause 59.—(EVIDENCE AS TO PER FORMANCE OF RELEVANT SERVICE.) (Hansard, 30 July 1951)

§ Mr. Wyatt
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes the securing of a certificate obligatory on the Service Departments.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I am a little surprised that the Under-Secretary 1097 should have moved that we agree with this Amendment in such brief remarks. He ought to have expressed his indebtedness to us for the way in which we pressed the Government to make this Amendment, which obviously improved the Bill. May I remind him, because he was absent very often from Committee discussions, that we raised this on Committee and advanced powerful arguments in support of it? Under the Bill as it stood, a certificate might be issued by a Government Department that a man was serving, had served or would serve, or could not be traced.
Both on Committee and on Report, we pointed out that if creditors were being exposed to liability for exemplary damages, as under Clause 13, if they do not conform to the provisions of the Bill, then at least there ought to be an obligation on Government Departments, and the Ministry of Labour especially to provide them, on application, with a certificate which would enable those who are trying to conform to the requirements of the Bill to ascertain the facts which would facilitate their determination of the true position.
The Solicitor-General strenuously resisted this proposal, both in private discussions, on report stage and in Committee. I must say we are delighted to find that, on reflection, the Government have come to the considered conclusion that the arguments we advanced are right, and have sought to give effect to them by this Amendment, which, from our point of view, is entirely satisfactory. I am glad at last we have convinced the Government that this Amendment is a good one, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that if they had only listened to us a little earlier much Parliamentary time would have been saved and that if they listened to us more often their Bills would be much better.

§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. and learned Gentleman should not put his case so high.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The Under-Secretary of State for War might have told us more about what caused the Government to change their mind at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has 1098 fought this particular issue stage by stage throughout the passage of this Bill and has received nothing but the most stubborn opposition from the Government until now. I think we ought to have some explanation why the Government have changed their mind, for it is a little surprising that this Government of all Governments should show such deference to arguments addressed in another place, when it has treated them with something approaching contempt when advanced in this House.
While I welcome this concession. I think it would have been frank with the House if some indication had been given of the reasons for it. In the Standing Committee the opposition of the Government could not have been more direct to this proposal. The Solicitor-General for Scotland was put up on the morning of 3rd July to say that they—the Service Departments—were unwilling to accept the statutory obligations, and indeed the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who I think is the only Minister concerned with the Bill who has not spoken this evening, made a remarkable speech in which he said acceptance of this obligation would make the issue of certificates more slow than otherwise it would have been.
In face of that attitude, it is remarkable for the Under Secretary of State for War to come here and in a couple of sentences asked the House to agree with the Lords Amendment. Though I welcome it, unlike my hon. and learned Friend I do not think it is completely satisfactory, because there is omitted from it the provision we sought to add to the statutory obligation at an early stage relating to a time limit.
This Amendment, as I understand it in its present form, imposes a statutory obligation on the Service Departments and the Minister of Labour but sets no limit of time in which they must discharge that obligation. From a drafting point of view that does not seem to be wholly satisfactory, because I suppose technically so long as the Department said that sooner or later they felt inclined to issue a certificate they would be carrying out their duty under the Bill as amended, and this seems to diminish the enthusiasm with which one could accede to the Government's deathbed repentance.