HC Deb 27 October 1952 vol 505 cc1636-42
Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, at the end, to add: (2) The said Minister shall take such steps as may be requisite for securing that persons concerned with any arrangements made by him under this section shall be informed of the nature and operation of the arrangements. The Government were strongly pressed in Committee to ensure that the arrangements for dealing with civil claims should be made by Order in Council. One of the grounds for this suggestion was that people would not know what were their rights. The Amendment, which obliges the Minister of Defence to notify persons concerned of the nature and operation of the arrangements, does something to meet that point.

I should like to tell hon. Members interested from that point of view that we hope that one of the methods by which this can be done will be by disseminating to the legal profession, through the medium of the legal journals, as helpful statements as we can.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I thought I noticed that the Home Secretary made only a rather modest claim for the improvement which these words are designed to make in Clause 9. It is perfectly true that the result of the addition of these words is to ensure that the public will know what arrangements are made. The addition of these words does not do anything to meet what was an even greater criticism of Clause 9 as it stands, namely, that as things are there is no method by which Parliamentary control can be exercised over these arrangements. The Amendments to Clause 9 which we had put down on the Order Paper were, as the Home Secretary knows, aimed at going much further than this.

It is certainly very satisfactory that the public should have full knowledge of the methods whereby they will be able to get adequate compensation in the event of suffering injuries at the hands of foreign service personnel in this country. It is very desirable that such information should be circulated and made available as widely as possible. It is not always easy in existing circumstances for persons who suffer injuries, particularly if they are persons of limited means and perhaps of limited education, to know how to obtain justice for wrongs which have been done to them, very often inadvertently. It is even more difficult for such persons to know how to set about getting any compensation if they have been injured, perhaps in a road accident as a result of some careless, or perhaps not even careless, driving by an American service man, for example.

6.45 p.m.

The Home Secretary has said that these arrangements, when made, will be published. I hope that something will also be done—perhaps the Home Secretary will consider how it can be done; it may be done as a result of the passage of this Bill into law or by some other method—so that the public will know that they have the same opportunities of redress if they are injured as a result of accident on the road or elsewhere in which American service personnel are involved as they would have in the case of either British military personnel or British civilians. That is a fact which cannot be too widely known, and if adequate publicity is given to this, it will go a great deal of the way towards meeting the criticisms made in Committee.

There is a further point which I hope the Home Secretary will be good enough to consider, in the measures which I gather he is responsible for taking—to see that there is better Parliamentary control over all matters of delegated legislation. Here is a case in which I should like the benefit of the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could inform us by what means the House will be able, at the appropriate stage, to offer its comments and advice about the arrangements which the Minister of Defence is to make in pursuance of the powers given to him under this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said, I should like to suggest that the Home Secretary or the spokesman for the Ministry of Defence should, when the arrangements contemplated in this Measure are ready, perhaps make a statement in the House for the benefit of hon. Members. That would help to remind us that the Minister of Defence has carried out his work.

It would enable us to refer to the legal documents, either in the Library or elsewhere, and would give hon. Members an opportunity, if necessary, of putting questions or taking advantage of the procedure that is available in order to ventilate any doubtful points or grievances that appear to be inevitable on the face of the regulations as they may be drafted.

An announcement might also be broadcast by the B.B.C., because the important thing is to ensure that as many non-legal people as possible are acquainted with this publication or with the arrangements made by the Minister of Defence. I know that whatever steps are taken to notify the public, as we had experience in connection with the War Damage Commission, there are always some people who say that they have never heard about the matter in question or have not been able to find out about it; but in this case, where important questions affecting the lives of ordinary people are involved, every possible endeavour should be made to ensure that the widest possible dissemination of information is embarked upon; and that, in particular, hon. Members of this House should be told, by devices not unknown to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that such arrangements have in fact been made.

Mr. Bing

There is one further point regarding this question of compensation at which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look. In the course of the discussions, we have had some references to the case of Mr. Cobb. Someone has kindly sent me a full report of this case which appeared in the "Biggleswade Chronicle." I am sure the House will recall that Mr. Cobb was arrested at his work and marched with his hands up for some two miles, and was not very well treated in the process.

I do not know whether Mr. Cobb's account of the matter is right or not, but it is quite clear that incidents of this sort, and reproduced in this form, create harm to our relations with the United States troops here. Therefore, it is highly desirable that actions of this kind, which would clearly entitle people to compensation; acts which, if done at all, could not possible, I should think, have been justified by the military concerned, should give a right to compensation. I see that in his statement Mr. Cobb says: I want my name cleared and the person responsible punished. I want compensation for going through such an ordeal. I have done no wrong"——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman does not relate to the small point covered by this Amendment, which merely relates to ensuring that publication of the arrangements will be made.

Mr. Bing

With respect, as I understand the Amendment it provides for publicity of the way in which one recovers sums of money to which one may become entitled as a result of an act by visiting personnel of any sort. The point I was trying to make, and which I hope is relevant, is that while there may be obvious cases—the most obvious are the running-down cases—there are also other cases where people assume that troops are acting within their jurisdiction when, as in this case, clearly they are not. People ought equally to know that they have the opportunity to claim and that this procedure is such that they will get some redress, for what would be a wrongful act if committed by a British soldier or civilian or policeman, and which would entitle them to some recompense.

I hope that the Home Secretary will not restrict himself to referring to running-down cases and cases of that sort, but will make it clear that there is an opportunity to secure redress for any wrongful act which anyone may think he has suffered, if he can prove that a wrongful act has been committed. It would be much better that matters of this sort should be judged in this way than that accusations should merely be made and left unanswered in the very unsatisfactory way in which the case to which I referred has been dealt with.

If some kind of claim had been made for compensation, there would have been an issue to hear, and it would have been decided whether the man was right or wrong. Now it is merely a statement not answered from the other side, and we are left in a highly unsatisfactory position. I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with that aspect of the matter, and one or two more general aspects of these running-down cases and the like.

Mr. S. Silverman

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether his Amendment is sufficient to cover the case of making known to members of foreign forces concerned what are their obligations when breach of those obligations might give rise to the kind of case with which this Clause and this Amendment deals? I was referring in particular to the question of making known to foreign service men driving vehicles on our roads the provisions of the Highway Code. If this is a convenient place to ask about it, I will do so; otherwise I will do so on the Third Reading.

The other day, and again today, reference was made to the case of an American soldier who unfortunately was involved in an accident which caused the death of three British subjects. I have a report of the case, in which the man said he had never been told of the British ban on a heavy lorry exceeding 20 miles an hour, nor had he been given a copy of the Highway Code.

The most specific assurance on this point was previously given to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and it is that which makes the thing so important now. Under the Bill that we are now passing, the member of the forces would become, as he is not now, answerable in our courts for any breach, and therefore it is extremely important that he be made aware of his obligations. On 5th May, 1952, my hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) asked the Minister of Transport: what steps are taken, in the interests of road safety, especially in rural areas, to ensure that drivers of American military vehicles are acquainted with the British Traffic Code."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 5th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 21.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think this is wide of the Amendment. It does not arise on the topic that we are now discussing.

Mr. Silverman

It may well be. I do not know whether it does or not. But what the Amendment deals with is making known to persons concerned the details of the arrangements being made for dealing with cases arising precisely out of this kind of thing. It may be that the publication contemplated in this Amendment is only publication to the possible victims. What I am wondering is whether it also covers the case of publication to the possible tort feasor.

Mr. Speaker

I think it is clear that the arrangements contemplated in the Amendment are arrangements made by the Minister for the specific purpose of enabling people to claim. It would not include such things as the Highway Code, for example, which is not made by the Minister.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

With your leave, Mr. Speaker and that of the House, I would say that I am prepared to look at all suggestions for improving the arrangements; and even though it is outside the scope, I would look at the very fruitful suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to see whether we can find some method of giving practical effect to the idea behind his words.

Amendment agreed to.