HC Deb 17 October 1952 vol 505 cc644-52

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to naval, military and air forces of certain other countries visiting the United Kingdom and with respect to other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  1. (a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to the provisions of Orders under the said Act applying to such forces the law relating to the home forces;
  2. (b) of any expenses which under the said Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys, being expenses incurred in satisfying claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of such forces or of other persons connected therewith.—[The Attorney-General.]

3.35 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not want to delay the Committee, but I am wondering whether any estimate has been made of what is likely to be the cost to be covered by this Money Resolution. The Bill indicates which of the Clauses may entail a financial charge, and although some of them are not easy to estimate, others may be. I think that one of the matters we ought to have in mind when considering legislation of this kind is what is the total cost and how it is to be borne. I hope that before we part with the Money Resolution the Government will, if they have any information on the subject, communicate it to the Committee.

The Attorney-General

We are not in a position today to give anything more than is in the last paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill. If and when we are, we will give that information at the earliest moment.

Mr. Paget

Is not this Bill being brought forward a little prematurely? After all, we are, as I understand it, the only people who have ratified the agreement which this is to bring into operation. What is the need for the urgency? Here is a Bill which involves expenditure. Money, I am led to believe, is rather tight, and, surely, it would be as well to find out how much money we have to produce before the Bill is brought before us, particularly when there is no hurry.

I think that the debate we have just had has, if nothing else, indicated that there are a number of very difficult points involved which require many second thoughts. Why rush this through at the end of a Session? I feel that one of the things one is entitled to ask the Government when they ask this House to agree to legislation is, what will it cost? When the Government come and say, "We really do not know," then, surely, we are entitled to say to them, "Well, find out, and do not bring the Bill back to us until you can tell us."

Mr. Hale

Perhaps it would speed things if I put my points before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies to my hon. and learned Friend. I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider holding over the Money Resolution which, after all, is only a question of a few minutes' discussion when we have the facts before us. If he held it over today it would give us the opportunity of finding out what is the Government's response to the suggestions made for modification in Committee, and to what extent it is proposed to meet the sort of objections that have been made.

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the very unusual circumstances in which we are now discussing this Money Resolution. It is, of course, as indeed are most of them, of a very general character. It provides for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:

  1. (a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to the provisions of Orders under the said Act applying to such forces the law relating to the home forces;
  2. (b) of any expenses which under the said Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys, being expenses incurred in satisfying claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of such forces or of other persons connected therewith.
The second provision is a quite extraordinary one, because if we refer to the appropriate Clause of the Bill which makes clear the nature of the claims to be met—I am quoting from Clause 9—we find that it says, in italics: The Minister of Defence may make arrangements whereby claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of visiting forces, or of other persons connected therewith to whom the arrangements relate, being acts or omissions of any description to which the arrangements relate, will be satisfied by payments made by the said Minister of such amounts as may be adjudged by any United Kingdom court or as may be agreed between the claimant and the said Minister or such other authority as may be provided by the arrangements; and any expenses of the Minister of Defence incurred in satisfying claims in pursuance of any such arrangements or otherwise in connection with the arrangements shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

The Attorney-General

I think the hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House when I explained it.

Mr. Hale

I do not doubt that for a moment. I was here yesterday from 10 o'clock until 2 o'clock this morning discharging other duties. I have been subjected to criticism on the ground that I spend too much time in this Chamber. Now there is a bitter complaint of my temporary absence. I admit that I do take occasions for leaving the Chamber for discharging other duties in the course of the 24 hours, but it is not very often.

But it does not need explaining; it is quite clear what it means. It means that if a member of the visiting forces knocks down somebody in this country the Minister of Defence will have to pay, even if he is reimbursed subsequently, the whole of the damages assessed by a United Kingdom court, and these are vast sums. These are vast sums. We are not dealing now with the remote possibility of something that may occur. We are dealing with a type of accident now occurring in connection with visiting forces in this country every day.

The hon. and learned Gentleman, who rose a moment or two ago to say what a mass of information he gave, rose only two minutes before to say that he could not give any at all, that he had no due to what it would cost. Let us all remember this. The Minister of Defence, whatever his abilities, is not, of course, equipped for dealing with motor car claims. He has to have some office, some advisory staff, some competent experts to run the whole business arising from this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

My hon. Friend must surely be aware that in the War Department there is a fairly thick claims branch run by lawyers, competent to deal with this sort of thing. Of course, it may have to be extended.

Mr. Hale

I would suggest as a modest amendment to that intervention that I was quite aware that there is a claims department. My own view was that, on the whole, I always got on rather well with them. I think I got on rather well with them, because they did not seem to me—some of them—to know the ropes quite as well as those who had been in practice quite a long time.

I do not suppose that under the present Government that will continue. No doubt, all that will be improved. But that is, of course, a very large item of expenditure—expenditure which we are now being asked to pass when considering a Money Resolution which gives no indication at all of what amount will be expended in connection with the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman

Except the last sentence of paragraph 10 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that, although we have no idea whatever of what the total is going to be, nevertheless we will bear 25 per cent. of it.

Mr. Hale

Well, yes, that is true, of course. It says: The accounts are settled half-yearly between the Parties to the Agreement, normally in the proportion of 25 per cent. of the costs as a charge to the receiving State and 75 per cent. as a charge to the sending State. In other words, if an English national is killed by the fault or negligence of a member of service personnel, first of all our courts then can say that as to the person killed there should be 23 per cent. on the one side and 66 per cent. of the costs——

The Chairman

Order. We cannot discuss that now. The House has agreed to that.

Mr. Hale

Yes, I agree, and, of course, I was not discussing it or making observations, but was only trying to make quite clear to the Committee the ambit of the Financial Resolution we are now considering. I was only trying to urge the Committee to take the view that it would be on the whole for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides if it took a little time to consider the Resolution and to obtain a guarantee of what it was intended to cover.

I will pass from that point, because I do not want for a moment to go outside the narrow terms of reference on a Resolution of this kind. Clause 8 also imposes a financial obligation, and, in my view, a substantial obligation. It says: (1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her to be expedient for the purpose of applying to any visiting force (whether wholly or in part and with or without modifications or exceptions) the law relating to the home forces. (2) An Order in Council under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions [(including financial provisions)] as appear to Her Majesty in Council expedient for the purposes of the Order, may provide for applying, modifying, adapting or suspending any enactment … and may be made so as to apply to visiting forces generally or to any visiting forces or force … And further, of course, there is nothing to ensure the rights of representation where members of the visiting forces are tried by our tribunals.

3.45 p.m.

The Chairman

That has already been agreed to by the House.

Mr. Hale

I am sure you will agree, Sir Charles, that in giving our modest assent to the Second Reading we are not agreeing to the details but merely accepting the general principle. At the moment we are considering whether, having given that modest assent—and it was not unqualified assent, because there has been a long debate—we shall bind ourselves to a Money Resolution which will rigidly affect the debate in Committee, or whether we consider the Money Resolution is drawn so that it needs reconsideration and Amendment.

It is a little unreasonable at this time of day to produce a Money Resolution so wide in its scope, and referring to Clauses so wide in their drafting, that it is utterly impossible for any hon. Member to know to what financial obligations we are committing ourselves. That they will be very substantial is quite obvious, and I am glad to see the implied assent of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate).

I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether in the circumstances, at this comparatively late hour on a Friday, he could not allow this matter to be the subject of some reconsideration, and whether he could not carry out the proposal that was made so constantly by Members of his party when there was another Government in office, that Money Resolutions should be drawn so as to indicate clearly the amount of the obligation the House was assuming, and also so that they did not limit discussions at the Committee stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I should like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend. It seems to me that the Committee is being asked to buy a pig in a poke when the Attorney-General asks for our assent to this Money Resolution. We do not know to what we are being committed in specific financial terms. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum points out—and I readily concede it—it is impossible to forecast with certainty what sums will be required for the satisfaction of claims arising out of this Bill. It is not possible to be precise about the amount involved, but it should be possible for the Committee to be given some figure, even if it is only to the nearest million pounds or so, as to what is involved.

What makes me even more curious is that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum goes on to say, dealing with the financial aspect: it is expected that claims arising in 1952–53 can be met from moneys already provided in the Ministry of Defence Estimate for compensation for losses, damage, etc. If that is so, it seems obvious that the moneys already provided in the Ministry of Defence Estimate were in excess of what was reasonably expected. It is apparently anticipated that out of the unspent portion of that Estimate it will be possible for the Government to meet the commitments we are asked to accept by virtue of this Money Resolution.

In those circumstances, it would appear that the whole Estimate was extravagant; we were asked to provide more money than we should have been asked to provide, and as an afterthought the Government now come along to us and say, "Agree to this Money Resolution, because although we did not have this in mind when the Ministry of Defence Estimate was drawn up we shall still have sufficient funds in the Estimate already provided to enable us to meet our commitments under this Money Resolution." For these reasons, it seems to me that the matter requires further consideration and explanation.

It is surely not essential for the Money Resolution to be carried today. I am sure that with a little good will on both sides this Money Resolution can be dealt with some time next week, by which time hon. Members on both sides will have had time further to consider the matter. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will then be able to give us more specific information than we have at our disposal at the moment.

The whole object of the Money Resolution procedure is to give to the Committee of this House some measure of control over the financial expenditure incurred by the Government of the day. If we are asked to agree to a sum of this magnitude, the purpose of which has not been explained to us, and the effect of which we have not been told, that is surely a derogation of the duties and responsibilities of hon. Members as representatives of the public.

Hon. Members opposite have always attached very great importance to this particular right, probably the most important right that is invested in the Committee of this House—the right to control financial expenditure which Money Resolutions of this kind seek to impose. If, by processes such as we are asked to assent to today, that power is minimised or weakened in any way, then it is, in my submission, a very bad day for the working of democratic institutions in this country.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

It is a little remarkable, bearing in mind the usual practice of the party opposite when they are in Opposition, to see how easily they are prepared to accept financial provisions of this kind when it is left to anybody's guess as to the actual amount which may be involved. I am amazed at the wording of the financial provisions. I would draw the attention of the Committee to that wording which is. I consider, a classic contradiction in terms. The Financial and Explanatory memorandum says: It is impossible to forecast with certainty what sums will be required for the satisfaction of claims arising out of this Bill. … and it then goes on to say with equal certainty: … but it is expected that claims arising in 1952–53 can be met from moneys already provided in the Ministry of Defence Estimate for compensation for losses, damages, etc. If the first part of that sentence is correct, the last part cannot be correct. I think that is apparent to everyone who studies the wording of the Clauses. I suggest, therefore, that it is not fair to the Committee for the Government to expect us to pass these financial provisions, as it were, on the nod. I think that the Government has a duty to the Committee to take back this Resolution, look at it again and give us at least a provisional estimate of what amount is likely to be involved in the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

As I said earlier, there were no keener critics, often on very insecure grounds, of the financial policy of the last Government than hon. Gentlemen opposite. I ask them now to live up to their former attitude in examining as closely as possible the provisions of the financial commitments of their own Government and give us evidence of their total impartiality on such subjects. I ask the Government seriously to consider taking this Resolution back and giving it closer consideration and giving the House what it is the Government's duty to do, a firm estimate of the amount which will be involved, instead of leaving it to anybody's guess, which might result in conflicting estimates of the amounts involved. The Government ought to think this over three or four times and then give us something definite to work on.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth)

I want to refer hon. Members opposite to the paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which says that is impossible to forecast with certainty what sums will be required for the satisfaction of claims arising out of the Bill. It is not that the Government have not taken the trouble: it is impossible to forecast.

If I were to ask the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) what will be the claims for and against his clients next year he would say it would be impossible to forecast. No forecast can be made in this case. Guesses can be made but they will not help anyone. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that this is a truthful statement and that no useful purpose could be served by guessing.

Mr. Paget

Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of actuaries? This involves risks. Every insurance company makes estimates of what its risks will cost. We have had years of experience of these forces and of their size, and it would be possible to give an estimate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I understood, Sir Charles, that the Attorney-General desired to reply to the debate, and I said that if he wished to speak I would give way. Are we to understand that——

The Chairman

There can be no point of order about whom I call.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to naval, military and air forces of certain other countries visiting the United Kingdom and with respect to other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  1. (a) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to the provisions of Orders under the said Act applying to such forces the law relating to the home forces;
  2. (b) of any expenses which under the said Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys, being expenses incurred in satisfying claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of such forces or of other per sons connected therewith.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    c652
  1. PRIVILEGES 9 words
Forward to