New Clause.—(LIABILITY OF MINISTER OF DEFENCE IN RESPECT OF ACTS AND OMISSIONS.) (Hansard, 22 October 1952)

§ Mr. Bing
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is, I am sure, apparent to all hon. Gentlemen who have sat in silence on the benches opposite, and the fact that they have taken so little part in our deliberations, except from the Front Bench, shows the universal support we have had for our arguments. This Clause makes certain that there is some legal obligation against the Minister of Defence for all visiting forces as there would be against an appropriate Minister where such forces were United Kingdom forces.
It is, I think, a modest proposal. I am sure all hon. Members opposite will agree that it is unfortunate that when we deal with the rights of British subjects they should be so silent and that it should be taken at so late an hour of the night. But that is no reason why the Committee should not consider the rights of British citizens with some care. This Clause is a small but commendable provision to safeguard their rights.

§ The Attorney-General
I am sorry that we cannot accept this proposal. There are several objections with which I will 1226 not weary the Committee in detail. The substantial objection is to be found in the fact that by the terms of Article VIII of the agreement there is no contemplation of adopting the principle of a nominal debt or anything of that kind. Instead of that, and in view of the state of unity, provisions were made for full arbitration and reference is made to on and off duty and so forth. I am sorry, but we regard this as quite inconsistent with the whole basis of the agreement and we cannot accept the new Clause.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
It is quite obvious from what the Attorney-General said that he does not understand the new Clause. I regret to say that it seems equally clear that he has not understood the agreement about which we have been talking. If he looks at Article VIII of the agreement he will find that the whole object of that Article is agreement between the various governments to see, first, that they waive claims amongst themselves and then that those claims are assumed by the government of the receiving State.
It seems an essential corollary of the refusal of the Government to accept my Amendment to the previous Clause that they should accept this Clause. I do hope we shall get this straight. Are British subjects injured by foreign military personnel to have legal rights to recover damages or are they not? My original suggestion was that there should be an Order in Council made under this Bill which would set out machinery whereby they were in a position to recover compensation for their injuries.
I understood both from what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading and from the passage which the Attorney-General quoted just now that that was the intention of the Government. If that is the intention of the Government, why do they not give effect to it? If, on the other hand, the Government do not mean to give British citizens any rights at all, why do they not be frank with the Committee and say so? The Committee and the country are entitled to know where the Government stand.
This Clause was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and I apologise for his absence. It is fair to point out that during the Second Reading 1227 assurances were given that we should have ample opportunity for considering the Bill in Committee at reasonable hours. The simple object of the proposed Clause is to ensure that the Minister of Defence shall assume liability. If he does not assume liability, will the Attorney General tell us what are the arrangements by which there is any liability on the Government?
I had hoped that he would have understood the substance and purport of Article VIII. This Article makes fairly elaborate arrangements whereby each contracting party first waives its claims against the other contracting party for damage to property, and then makes arrangements for each contracting party to pay certain claims arising out of the acts or omissions of members of the forces or their civilian components.
There are elaborate provisions. In Article VIII (2, f) each contracting party waives its claim in any such case where the damage is less than, in the case of Belgium, 70,000 Belgian francs. In the case of Iceland it is 22,800 kronur. Even Iceland is in this and it is no use pretending it is not important. For Portugal it is another amount. All these matters are set out in detail in the agreement.
What we are anxious about is to ensure that British subjects have some easily ascertainable and defined method by which they can obtain compensation. If, as I had hoped, the Attorney-General had understood my previous Amendment as he ought to have done, he could have given an assurance quite simply that machinery would be set out in an Order in Council so that people could see what their rights were and take the appropriate steps not in the law courts, but by submitting to the claims tribunal and obtaining an award. It seems that the corollary flowing from the refusal of the Attorney-General to accept the Amendment is that he must make the thing watertight and have a provision inserted whereby liability is assumed by somebody.
As it is the Minister of Defence who will be responsible for making the payments on behalf of the other contracting parties it is logical that the Minister of Defence should assume qua British 1228 subjects the liability which, but for State immunity and this agreement, would otherwise fall on the members of foreign forces and their civilian components.
I have done my best to explain this in the simplest possible terms to the Attorney-General. I do not think we should be able to accept any excuse for we have made the position intelligible and cogent. I hope now he has had the opportunity of understanding quite clearly what is required, that we shall have his assurance that in the interests of elementary justice this Clause will be accepted either now, or if he prefers it in the form of words he chooses, on the Report stage.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I shall put the points which I have to raise very briefly in the hope that I shall gain the support of hon. Members opposite for them. Could the Attorney-General make it quite clear whether the Minister of Defence will accept any liability at all? We are entitled to a specific answer to that question. It is a matter of importance, because it would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs if, as a result of our discussions, there were some doubt on the point. The public and possible claimants under these provisions are entitled to know whether the Minister of Defence will be liable in respect of acts or omissions by members of visiting forces to whom the Act relates. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give a specific answer.
Secondly, if he says that it is impossible or undesirable that the proposed new Clause should be included in the Bill, will he indicate whether or not some provision to this effect will be included in the Agreement which is to be published in some form, the manner of which has not yet been disclosed to us? I hope that we can have a reply from the hon. and learned Gentleman to these two points.