HC Deb 27 October 1952 vol 505 cc1642-60
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, to leave out from "country," to "the," in line 33.

If I may I will address the House on this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment standing in my name to line 38.

These Amendments are related to the Government Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 26, and in Clause 3, page 3, line 36. Subsection (1) of Clause 17 provides that the forces of a country shall be taken as including reserves and auxiliary forces. This Amendment is to ensure that a reservist shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and authorities of a visiting force as a member of the visiting force unless he is voluntarily called into service or for training. I think that by using the words "actual service," it meets the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Bing

If I may say so, the Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is far better than the one I was going to suggest at any earlier stage. It does meet the point completely, and I do not feel that there is any need to look at the other words again, as I originally suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

The Amendment still does not meet the point which I made during the Committee stage, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would look at the matter. This concerns the position of a member of the visiting force who deserted from that force or was absent without leave as far as the commanding officer was concerned, but who, nevertheless, claimed to be a political refugee. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not found it possible to deal with that particular eventuality, which, of course, may not arise frequently, though it is possible that it may arise. However, subject to that expression of regret on my part. I am willing to accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 38, at end, insert: () For the purposes of this Act a member of a force of any country which (by whatever name called) is in the nature of a reserve or auxiliary force shall be deemed to be a member of that country's forces so long as, but only so long as, he is called into actual service (by whatever expression described) or is called out for training; and any reference in this Act to a person's becoming a member of a country's forces shall be construed accordingly.—(Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.)

7.2 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

We have discussed so many points that I am very anxious to interpret the feeling of the House accurately and not spend too much time at this stage, if that is indeed the feeling of the House, but I think it is right to say that, while this Bill has been before the House, we have all had two main topics uppermost in our minds—the constitutional position of our courts of justice and the rights and liberties of the public. It is these two matters which have animated all the speeches that we have heard, and, if the House will allow me to say so, I think we may take pride that that is so.

I was very struck with the intervention of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) earlier in our discussions today, because his mind was moving in the same direction as my own in estimating the importance of the Bill. I think we must face up to the fact that, as the nations of the free world draw closer for the purposes of defence, we are faced with a situation which to us is quite a novel one in peace-time—the situation of having in our territory contingents of forces of those nations associated with us, and having contingents of our own forces in the territories of some of these other parties. For this new situation new measures are necessary, and the agreement in this Bill constitutes these new measures.

In framing the agreement, each country, including this country, through the mouths of the right hon. Gentlemen who formed the last Government, has had to balance its sovereignty against the requirements of safety and defence and to design a scheme whereby the needs of visiting forces might be met without damage to the fundamental principles to which each country holds. We have done our best to design such a scheme in this Bill, and we believe that we have done it with the least possible damage to the principles which I have mentioned, namely, the position of our courts and the liberty of the subject. Really, it was right that a Bill of this nature should have been very closely scrutinised, and I welcome the safeguards and restrictions introduced into the Bill during its passage through this House, and the constructive attitude towards the important matters dealt with in it that was shown by hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

On this side of the House only.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I think I have made a fair contribution myself.

There were one or two points which I desired hon. Members should keep in mind, because I do not think we have been able to give them the full discussion which some hon. Gentlemen would have liked. For instance, there was the question of the civilian component which worried some hon. Members earlier in the debate. If some hon. Members still have a certain amount of worry at the back of their minds on this point, I should like them to distinguish between what I may describe as the Clause 2 civilians and the civilian component.

The difference which I have just mentioned is deliberate, because the civilian component is a restricted class consisting of civilians so closely connected with the force as to be reasonably regarded as part of it. The Clause 2 civilians, if I may so describe them, are persons who are subject to service law, and different countries have different provisions in regard to people subject to service law, and, in the case of some countries all civilians who accompany the forces are subject to military law when they accompany the forces abroad.

I should like the House to know that Clause 2 says nothing on the primary right to jurisdiction. It merely says that, if a civilian is subject to military discipline, the military authorities may exercise their powers over him in this country, but unless such a civilian is classed as a member of this civilian component, he has no exemption from our jurisdiction. I am not sure that that point was made clear, but I am sure it will be reassuring to the hon. Gentleman who raised it.

I did look again at Clause 11, subsections (2) and (3), on the point put to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and, after consideration, I did not think it necessary to insert an Amendment such as he had suggested, or similar to that which he suggested, in regard to rather more important matters. Broadly, the point which interested him is met by Clause 11 (1), in which we have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, and, once that point has been decided, we did not think there was need to be in a position to interfere further.

I should also consider the question in regard to Clause 14 (b) which some hon. Gentlemen asked me to consider deleting from the Bill. I would remind hon. Members of the Section of the Army Act which is the one really concerned. If in that particular case it is disputed, provision is made for it; if it is not disputed, is it not of advantage that there should be a simple and practical way in which the British magistrate who is asked to hand over a person as a deserter or absentee should be informed whether, prima facie, and only prima facie, he is a deserter or absentee according to the law that governs him. That only applies where it is not in dispute. If it is disputed, the matter will, of course, have to be gone into. Therefore, I thought it better for it to be done in this way.

I am sorry that I have not been able to meet to the full extent all the points put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). However, I think he will agree that I have come some way to helping him in the Amendments to Clauses 2, 3 and 17 which we have just discussed. I have discussed the other matter, but I have found it beyond the ingenuity of man as it runs at the moment. However, I will bear it in mind as an administrative matter and will always keep a watch on the point.

A question was asked earlier on about the application to overseas territories. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch who on Second Reading raised the question of the application to the Colonies. Although there is no statutory provision, there is an invariable practice to consult with the Governments of the Colonies concerned prior to enactments of this Parliament being applied to them. Of course, the same applies, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows so well, with regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

I am afraid I have taken these points quite shortly, because I think the House has had them in mind very carefully for some time, but I do not want hon. Gentlemen to think that I have come to this stage without considering them. As I said—and I think this is one of the few points on which I received general agreement from the House—this is a difficult Bill, and I want to remind the House whence comes that difficulty.

The difficulty arises from the fact that the agreement is one between a number of countries whose laws are, in some respects, widely different, and in international agreements this difficulty of finding a common factor is always present, and in this case it is very acutely present. To give one example of the difficulty I have in mind, article 17, paragraph 1, of the agreement is very much the case in point because practically everyone in this Chamber is now accustomed to the inherent supremacy of the civil courts over all persons within their jurisdiction.

At first sight they will wonder why it was necessary in the agreement, and why the previous Government allowed it to be introduced into the agreement, that the courts of the receiving State should have jurisdiction over members of visiting forces. That seemed unnecessary to us in view of our concession that the law of a country existed for anyone within its territories.

It is not in our Bill because there is no need for it for that reason, but it is clear from the fact that it is in the agreement that in other countries even that has to be stated. That is an example of the kind of difficulty that faces negotiators and which I think they overcome.

This Bill has taken me outside the situation with which a Home Secretary usually has to deal. I had to deal with points as widely different as the American Constitution and apartheid in the Union of South Africa. But, however that may be, I am quite sure that in the course of our deliberations we have improved the Bill, and I am grateful for all the assistance I have received.

I can well understand why hon. Members have received some of the provisions of the Bill with doubt, but I believe that both the agreement and the Bill in the form it now stands provide a just compromise between the needs of the visiting forces and our fundamental principles, and it is for that reason that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Strachey

Having approached the end of our deliberations on this Bill, I want to say, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, how much we have appreciated the Home Secretary's handling of it. He has been unfailingly courteous and diligent, as he always is, and, what is more to the point, he has made to us some very real concessions on particular points. We are very grateful for that flexibility and open-mindedness, and I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in certain particular respects, the Bill is now a better Bill than when it was first presented to us.

Having said that, however, I am bound to say that I regret all the more that on what is unquestionably the most substantial point of all, that of reciprocity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was really unable to meet us at all in the essence of the matter. For the life of me, I still cannot see why he was not able to met us. If he thinks that the United States Government will not or cannot reciprocate, then surely he cannot deny the need for some sort of provision of the kind we seek to introduce, or for some sort of assurance on the matter. If, on the other hand, he takes the view that the United States Government both can and will reciprocate, then what possible objection can there be to some sort of provision of this sort?

On either reading of the situation—and I agree at once that both are possible—I find it terribly difficult to understand why he has not been able to meet us in the matter, a really essential matter on which we on this side of the House have asked all along for some assurance.

I want to say one more thing about it, and to reiterate what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the predecessor in office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that we strongly rebut any charge that we are urging this for reasons of anti-American-ism of any sort. It is not, for example, that any of us have doubts as to the impartiality and fairness of American courts of law. As a matter of fact, I have very good reason to have very considerable confidence in American courts of law. I dare say I am the only Member of this House who has twice been tried by American courts of law in circumstances which might certainly produce the maximum degree of prejudice.

I have been tried by them as an alien charged with the crime which in the United States goes by the name of radicalism, which, I hasten to add, is in the American interpretation of that word and not in the interpretation given to it in this country. I say that for the benefit of the Liberal Party were there any of its members present to hear it. Nevertheless, in those circumstances—which are quite a severe test, I think, of the impartiality of courts—my experience was, and it is a personal and therefore a vivid experience, that American courts show a real desire to proceed in the strictest legality.

Mr. S. Silverman

Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to give us the dates of those very interesting trials?

Mr. Strachey

Speaking from memory, they were in 1934 and 1936.

Mr. Silverman

Does my right hon. Friend think he would get away with it today?

Mr. Strachey

I do not know, but, as I say, my confidence in American courts was considerably reinforced by these experiences because in the New York District Circuit Court of Appeal I won the case. That, of course, makes an effect on one's mind. I had excellent lawyers but I had also, in my opinion, naturally, excellent judges. I say this in all seriousness and not as a joke. I think that anyone who has any dealings with American courts is always impressed, at any rate in the intermediate higher courts, with their great scrupulousness in the strict interpretation of their own legal system and in the learned judgments which are handed down, and their real desire to live up to the best legal tradition.

I introduce that personal note only to say how my own prejudices and experiences would lead me to judge. Therefore, I do not fear that if we did not secure reciprocity under this Bill our men would necessarily suffer or be likely to suffer injustice at the hands of American courts. I do not think that that is the fear at all. Nevertheless, that does not seem to me any good reason at all for failing to include really watertight conditions of reciprocity in this matter.

We have heard from the Home Secretary, echoing something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) that we are doing something quite important here—and I agree with him—making an innovation in principle, introducing new considerations and new machinery in the law of nations. I do not deny the need for all that.

I think that watertight national sovereignty is no sacred principle, but something which must be modified from time to time in the interest of higher causes. That is quite a possible view to take, but surely it should be done always on a reciprocal basis. It really seems to me very dangerous indeed that one State, a major State—for that, after all, is what we are—should make these very important modifications in the framework of its legal system unless it is really convinced that the other States with whom it is dealing are going to take parallel action. That is the case, in principle, which it seems to me remains unsatisfied.

To put it in very colloquial language, I object to our doing for other countries things which they are not doing for us. And we have not been satisfied that there is any adequate prospect of the United States, with the best will in the world, being able to do anything really comparable to what is being done here. It may be old-fashioned, but it seems to me that it would be humiliating if a position arose, as I fear, in which United States troops in this country enjoyed a privileged status different from that enjoyed by British troops in the United States.

That is really the essence in the matter, and assurances against the possibility, if no more—I am afraid the probability—of that situation arising are the assurances for which we have asked, and unfortunately have asked in vain. Therefore, I am bound to say that I still deeply regret that this Bill does not now contain some such words as we have urged from this side of the House or that, alternatively, we have not had some such assurance as that for which we have asked.

Nevertheless, at this stage we can urge upon the Government that, although we have not had an assurance on this matter, that does not prevent their abstaining from applying the provisions of this Bill, as they can under Clause 19 (2), until and unless they are assured that parallel action is at least well under way in the United States. It is still perfectly open for them to do that, as the Minister recognised fully in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

There is no inconvenience in that. It does not create any hiatus. They can still abstain from issuing the necessary Order in Council until United States parallel action has come along to the point where we can see that it is going through, where we can see what it is and can see that it is really on all fours with and adequate to balance the action which we are taking here. As our parting word here from the Front Bench on this side of the House we urge that, although they have not pledged themselves to it, the Government should take that action. I cannot help feeling that if they do that they will be interpreting the general opinion of the House.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I want to add only one or two words before we conclude the Third Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to repeat anything of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has said with regard to our great disappointment that the principle of reciprocity with the United States has not found a place in the Bill. It is a little curious to remind ourselves that it is only 10 days ago that we gave this Bill a Second Reading and that during the Committee and Report stages a great many changes have been made in the Bill as a result of the criticism we have made, all of which, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, have been constructive criticisms intended to improve the Bill.

Speaking for myself, I acknowledge also the numerous concessions which the Home Secretary has made to the points of view which we have expressed. It is perfectly true that most of these criticisms have been directed to points that have appeared to us of great importance, either because of our long-standing, cherished constitutional usages, or because of our respect for the liberty of the subject. We have, in accordance with our duty, been zealous to protect the country against inroads into our legal and constitutional system.

Having said that, and having discharged our primary task of criticising and improving this Bill, we must now look at the Bill from another point of view. We must recognise that this Bill which will be given a Third Reading introduces into our legal and social system something entirely novel in time of peace. We should hope certainly that our friends in the United States and elsewhere will not regard any of the criticisms that have been made of this Bill as having been directed in any sense either against the United States itself or against their principles of justice and its administration. The exceptional rights we are giving to the United States Courts are not grudgingly given.

We are giving this Bill a Third Reading as an earnest of our good will and our desire to do everything we can to ensure the harmonious workings of N.A.T.O., involving as it does the presence of foreign troops in a number of different countries—American troops here, in France and elsewhere, British troops in France and Belgium, German troops and so on.

It would not be a waste of time if we looked at the effect of this Bill on the large numbers of American troops, their wives and dependants who, as far as one can tell, will find a home in this country for a long time to come. After all they have a difficult task to perform. Their lot is not an easy one. They are absent from their homes. They are a class apart from the ordinary stream of our social life. We are giving them the benefit of these immunities. They are our allies.

Once this Bill is passed we must not let the subject matter pass from our minds. We must make quite sure that everything possible is done, under the machinery which this Bill sets up, to ensure that it works as smoothly and harmoniously as possible. Cases in which American soldiers are involved in courts-martial, such as the one of manslaughter which has been cited and the incident involving Mr. Cobb, the farmer in East Anglia, are matters which naturally arouse public attention and notices in the Press.

If these matters which this Bill deals with are going to function smoothly and harmoniously, it seems to me of the greatest importance that British subjects living here who happen to have any cause of complaint should know that there are well recognised forms of redress. It may well be that as the American courts continue to try and punish those crimes committed here for which, under this Bill, they will have exclusive jurisdiction, and in other cases a primary jurisdiction, which they will undoubtedly use, we shall come to recognise the merits of American jurisprudence.

This is something entirely new in our island history, and it results from the fact that we are no longer in a position to defend ourselves by our own efforts. It results from the conception of the N.A.T.O. Organisation which derives from the fact that in these days no one country in Western Europe can rely entirely upon its own military forces for its self-preservation and defence. Therefore, while I regret, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, that expression has not been given to the principle of reciprocity which we urge, and which I think is of great importance, I hope that in passing the Bill we shall see that it works as harmoniously and smoothly as possible.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

I hope the House will forgive me if I detain it for five further minutes—I promise not to be longer—because I do not want to have to part with the Bill, even on Third Reading, without saying one word that no one else has said, and perhaps with which no one else agrees.

I agree with two things that have been said, and it is right that I should say so at once. The first is in recognition of the extreme patience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary throughout the Committee and Report stages, and of his willingness and, indeed, his anxiety to meet all the points we raised so far as he felt able to meet them within the limits of the agreement that the Government had negotiated. I think we are all indebted to him for that.

Secondly, I agree that the Bill is a far better Bill now than it was when it was introduced. Having regard to my own personal point of view, perhaps I ought to put it negatively rather than positively and say that it is not nearly so mischievous a Bill in its present form as it was when it was first introduced. That is partly due to the accommodating spirit with which the Home Secretary has met us.

But it is true, as has been pointed out—and it is right that the point should be made—that the careful examination of this difficult Bill which the Home Secretary said we had had, and ought to have had, has been limited entirely to Members on this side of the House. Throughout the whole of the Second Reading, I think—I am not quite sure about that, but certainly throughout the Committee and Report stages—I do not think we have had the advantage of a single contribution from any hon. Member opposite at any stage——

Mr. Ede

Or from the Liberals.

Mr. Silverman

Or from the Liberals—in the careful, detailed and necessary examination of a difficult Bill involving points of the greatest constitutional importance. It really is a sad reflection upon the lack of responsibility of Members of this House, except my right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, it was not because they were not in the House. When it came to defeating in the Division Lobbies Amendments which they had not heard considered or had the opportunity of hearing arguments about, they were here in great force to say "No" to a case which they had never heard and could not have understood. It is a great pity. It is not the way in which a Bill of this kind ought to be dealt with.

It is all very well when we are dealing with cases in which the two main parties have taken up their known positions so that people who are elected to this House as Members of those parties and committed to those policies can very well say that it is not necessary to hear the same arguments over and over again. But here we are dealing with a House of Commons Bill, a Bill which had no party divisions of any kind, which was equally important to everybody and in which nobody had taken a decision against which he could not argue. This Bill involves points of great difficulty, and it is a sad reflection that they were examined only by Members of the party to which I have the honour to belong.

The only reason I wish to take up any time on this is that I do not like this Bill now. I am not going to divide the House against it. The number of Members who would take my view about it is certainly very small, and it would not be right to put the House to the trouble of a Division concerning it. But for that very reason I should like to have recorded my own personal opposition to the Bill, even at this stage and even in its present form.

It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said in his admirable Second Reading speech is not fulfilled even as the Bill now is. He said, "Let us do what is necessary, but no more than is necessary, to give effect to the defence arrangements out of which the agreement first, and then the Bill, have arisen." Well, I am bound to say that it seems to me that we could have amended our law, if it required amendment—I suppose in some respects it did—in a much more limited way, and still have given complete authority to foreign forces on our soil with our consent to exercise their own service law in respect of their own service personnel, without all these extra concessions such as the exclusion of the jurisdiction of our courts in a wide variety of matters, which are by no means necessary to give effect to these defence arrangements.

To say that in cases concerning the use of the roads, the civil courts and crimes against the person, if they happen to arise in the course of military duty, involving people on our soil, the Queen's writ shall not run in our own courts, seems to me to be a hopelessly retrograde step and one only to be undertaken if the defence arrangements which are required could not possibly be carried out without such a step. No one has said that that is the position. No one has said that it is necessary to our defence arrangements, unless what they mean is that the United States of America would not have agreed to all these arrangements except on these terms. But that has not been said, and I do not know whether it would be. We do not seem to have made much of an attempt to find out.

I am sometimes thought to be anti-American. I am not anti-American. I think that America is a very great and civilised country with a great contribution to make to the progress of civilisation and the peace of the world. I know of many, many people in the United States of America whose opinions are not necessarily those of the particular persons in charge of policy, and it would be absurd to suppose that because one disagreed with a particular policy in particular respects at a particular time of a particular administration one must therefore be actuated by motives of malice or intolerance towards the country concerned.

I am nothing of the kind. It is perfectly true that I have not always liked American policy since 1945. It is equally true that I have not always liked British policy during that period, and I have not liked the policy of my right hon. Friends in all respects since 1945.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the argument.

Mr. Silverman

I do not propose to go into the matter any further. I would just say that the mere fact that one does not agree with people about a particular thing does not necessarily amount to being hostile or "anti" in regard to them. I am no more anti-American than I am anti-Socialist.

Nevertheless it is right that it should be said that we do not all agree that these extensive inroads upon our ancient common law, upon the jurisdiction of our courts and upon the comity of nations—as I think it to be—were made necessary by these defence arrangements, even by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It may be true that nowadays no country can defend itself by its own efforts alone. I take the view that there never was a time when any country in the world could do so. But we did not form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to put that right; we formed the United Nations Organisation—and the Bill could apply to any of the members of that organisation.

I deprecate such phrases as "the free world" and all similar cant. It seems to me that the more this kind of legislation is adopted by countries the less free the world will become. I do not want to delay the House any longer. I think the House will realise the point I am making. I am sorry that we are passing this Bill. Although I shall not oppose it I think it is unnecessary.

7.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

It would be churlish if no one on this side of the House were to acknowledge the graceful tribute which was paid to our efforts by the Home Secretary when he expressed gratitude for the useful and constructive contributions made by the Opposition during the preceding stages of this Bill. In considerable measure that was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Nevertheless, if a Labour Government had been in power at the time when this Bill was being brought before the House, I am quite sure that the Conservative Opposition Benches would have been crammed with hon. Members protesting against the action of Her Majesty's Government in selling the pass and giving something away for nothing—or giving something away and not getting an adequate response or reward in return. However that may be, the Bill is to some small extent better now than it was when it was first introduced; but it is a reflection on the unhappy state of affairs that exists in the world when such a Bill as this becomes necessary.

I should have preferred to concentrate on the causes which bring about a Bill of this kind rather than spend too much time in criticising one of the consequences arising from an unsatisfactory and uncertain international situation. The principle of reciprocity has not been put into effect to anything like the extent that we on this side of the House would have wished to see.

The Bill we are now asked to accept introduces a novel and, indeed, a revolutionary change in our legal administration. In allowing a Measure like this to go through in peace-time we are making a really big sacrifice of many legal principles that we have hitherto held sacrosanct. It is not too much to expect that some effort should be made by the commanding officers of visiting forces, whoever they may be, to ensure that the men under their command know at any rate some of the elements of English law. That is all the more necessary in view of a recent tragedy, where it was asserted that service men from one visiting country at least did not know that there was such a thing as a 20 miles per hour speed-limit for heavy commercial vehicles.

There are one or two things of that kind in respect of which we are reasonably entitled to demand that those responsible for commanding visiting forces should make sure their men know something about. In that connection Her Majesty's Government also has a responsibility to discharge. It is surely not unreasonable to expect, for example, that the Minister of Transport should have made it his business a long time ago to see that visiting forces should be acquainted with the elementary principles of the Highway Code. It appears that insufficient steps have been taken in that direction.

I hope that the recent tragedy and the discussions which have taken place in the House today will lead to a far greater degree of co-operation between our Government and the commanding officers of visiting forces staying in this country for any length of time, as a result of which we can be quite sure that some of the elmentary things which the average citizen here knows almost instinctively—or can find out quite easily—are also made known to those who come here for a temporary period either as members of visiting forces or as tourists.

We are now parting with this Bill, but it may still be possible for the Home Secretary—although he was not able to give any guarantee on the subject of reciprocity—to use the powers that will be vested in him as a result of the passing of this Bill in such a way as to bridge one further gap, namely, that which may exist chronologically between our adoption of this Bill and the similar action that will, we trust, be taken by the American and other Governments concerned.

7.49 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald)

It would not be courteous for me to refrain from saying one or two words in reply to the debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would like me to say a word of thanks on his behalf for what has been said about his work in connection with this Bill. The House might allow me to add my own personal tribute because, although I have not taken very much part in the discussions, I have sat here during the 15 hours during which this Bill has been before the House and have also taken part in discussions outside the House, and I can assure hon. Members that the time, thought and patience which the Home Secretary has devoted to this Bill are very great.

It is, I know, difficult for us from this side of the House to say that the Bill has been greatly improved during its passage—although, perhaps, it is not so difficult, for, after all, we in this House believe that that is why we are here. We therefore pay proper tribute to the Opposition for doing what I hope they will not mind my saying is their job.

Mr. S. Silverman

With little help from hon. Members opposite.

The Attorney-General

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that because he has to get in a party dig somewhere, and I suppose he was glad to be able to find somewhere in which there would be unity on his side of the House. In fact, it would be difficult to suppose that anybody on this side of the House could have added to the diversity and ingenuity of the points which were raised.

We were unable to satisfy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the reciprocity point. I do not propose to fall into the trap of returning to the vomit on the subject, but I think it desirable to point out that it was asking a great deal of the Home Secretary—we venture to think that it was asking too much—to suggest that he should be prepared to give such an assurance, particularly in the circumstances which we have heard and having regard to the quite strong remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who told us of his knowledge on the subject; I am not sure whether he said he was one of the greatest living experts on American law, but at any rate he said he was an expert on American law. He said he had a fellowship, and I hope that in order to get a fellowship in that subject, if it is worth having, one has to be an expert in it. In view of what he said, I should have thought that to ask the Home Secretary to certify that the United States were about to ratify something, or to put something into operation, was asking too much. At any rate, that is the view which we have taken.

I want, if I may, to draw attention to the brighter side of the question. There is no doubt whatever that there is a substantial benefit in the Bill in the substitution of the new provisions for those of the Act of 1942. I think we are all agreed about that. Indeed, although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was apparently using the illustration for a different purpose, it was interesting that he underlined the point very strongly today, when he pointed out that in the recent case which he quoted, the man responsible appeared to have been guilty of several other offences apart from the offence of which he was found not guilty by the court-martial, and that those were offences under our law; for he should be glad to know that if this Bill had been applied in that case, it would have been possible to deal with the man under our law for the offences for which he could not be dealt with under his own law.

Mr. Silverman

I said that.

The Attorney-General

But I did not gather that it was being used by the hon. Gentleman as something in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman

I said in my speech that that was the case and I added that it was one of the effects of the provisions of the Bill which we are discussing which was, in fact, an improvement on the old provisions.

The Attorney-General

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and that is at any rate something on the credit side of the Bill. I think that probably the less I say on the subject, the better, because I might say something which would mar the harmony of the proceedings. In spite of the provocation which we have received from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I will leave the subject.

May I, in conclusion, refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart)? When the historian of the future comes to consider the Bill, I hope and believe that he will not concentrate his attention so much upon its provisions, which in many respects are an unfortunate necessity, but will concentrate his attention upon the occasion of the Bill, which is the implementing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which we all regard as something vital.

This occasion gives us an opportunity to show once more that, although we may have disagreements with them and may criticise them, and although sometimes things may be said about them which may be misunderstood, we are all nevertheless anxious to co-operate with our American cousins and to do great work for the world in combination with them.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.