VISITING FORCES ACT, 1952 (OPERATION) (Hansard, 11 March 1954)

§ 88 Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON
TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home De partment whether he will now make a statement on the coming into operation of the Visiting Forces Act.

§ 89 Mr. ERIC FLETCHER
TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to state when the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, will be brought into operation.

§ 92 Lieut-Colonel LIPTON
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, will be put into effect.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)
I will, with permission, answer these Questions.
It is the intention of the Government to bring the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, into operation in the near future. For this purpose three Orders in Council must be made and must all come into force at the same time. These Orders in Council are, first, an Order under Section 19 (2) appointing the date on which the Act shall come into operation. Secondly, an Order in Council under Section 1 (2) designating the foreign countries to which the Act is to apply—the Act applies automatically to the Commonwealth countries as soon as it is brought into force. Thirdly, an Order in Council under Section 8 applying to members of visiting forces, with the necessary adaptations, certain provisions of the law relating to the home Forces.
The Act requires that no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under Section 8 unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of each House. A draft Order will be laid before Parliament in a few days, and if and when this draft has been approved, this Order, and the Orders under Section 19 (2) and Section 1 (2) of the Act, will be made to take effect simultaneously. It is the Government's intention to designate in the Section 1 (2) Order only those foreign countries which have ratified the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Status of Forces Agreement.
I am informed that in the countries which have ratified the Agreement no further legislation is needed to enable effect to be given to the Agreement, except that in the United States legislation is pending to implement the provisions of Article VIII, which deals with claims against members of visiting forces. The United States Embassy has, however, given an assurance that the United States Government, in ratifying the 2431 Status of Forces Agreement, have undertaken to meet the claims for reimbursement submitted to them under Article VIII of that Agreement.
I should also like to take this opportunity of stating that the draft Order in Council will not apply Sections 144 and 145 of the Army Act to members of visiting forces. One effect of this will be that, where an affiliation order is made by a United Kingdom court against a member of a visiting force, it will be enforceable, if payment is not made, by the ordinary process of the law. I hope, however, that payments will be secured without the necessity for enforcement proceedings in the courts, and I shall remain in close touch with the American authorities on this matter. I shall also seek to make satisfactory arrangements with the authorities of any other visiting force if this becomes necessary.

§ Mr. Henderson
May I ask whether all the N.A.T.O. countries have in fact ratified the Agreement?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
Not all of them. About half-a-dozen have, and they will be shown in the Order when it is laid.

§ Sir H. Williams
On a point of order. May I be informed of the urgency which required this answer to be read now? Could it not perfectly well have been printed in HANSARD tomorrow?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not a matter for me. I was quite unaware of what the answer was to be.

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
May I explain? When I was answering Questions a week ago I mentioned that this matter would be introduced, and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me specially if I would make a statement for the convenience of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is the answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams).

§ Mr. Strachey
Do we understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that this is being done on the assurance of the American Administration that they will secure legislation in Congress or that they will act before this legislation is passed? With the best will in the world on the part of the American 2432 Administration, can we rely on an assurance that they will get legislation passed or that they can act without such legislation?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I am afraid I have not made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry. There are two points to be considered. For all the Act, except that concerned with civil claims, no legislation is necessary and Mr. Bedell Smith made a statement to the Senate Committee to that effect. With regard to the civil claims part, legislation has been introduced but is not passed, and until it is we have an authorisation that the United States will stand behind the defendant in any such claim.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
Would the Minister be good enough to clarify two points? When the Bill was being discussed he gave an assurance that if this status was given to American and other N.A.T.O. troops in this country, there would be reciprocal provisions for British troops in other countries. Is he satisfied that these provisions for British troops operate in the United States? Secondly, are we to understand that maintenance and affiliation orders against American troops may now be enforceable, either in America or here, by the act of the American Government?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
As to the first part of the question, I am satisfied that, save in the point I mentioned to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the N.A.T.O. Agreement has been adopted as the law of the other countries and, therefore, reciprocity exists. On the second point, our processes of law apply within territorial limits. There is nothing in our law which allows enforcement of an affiliation order against someone outside the territorial limits, and there is no change in that direction.

§ Mr. Attlee
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the Order which he will lay will relate to all these countries, or whether there should not be separate Orders, because the question of how far there is reciprocity, how far arrangements are satisfactory in other countries may differ a great deal, and the Order being unamendable, it would be convenient to have separate Orders for separate countries?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I considered that very carefully. I have not the draft Order before me but I think it covers five or six countries. I think it would be convenient, and would not make any difficulty, to deal with these together. But, of course, as each country ratifies the Agreement there will be a special Order for that country in the future. I think that meets the situation very conveniently.

§ Mr. Attlee
Is there not considerable difference between the Commonwealth countries and foreign countries?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I tried to read my answer quickly in order not to occupy the time of the House unduly, but I did point out that in Commonwealth countries the Act applies automatically as soon as it is brought into force by an Order under Section 19 (2). There is no question of an Order in that case.

§ Mr. Ede
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider the last part of his answer, because if it were necessary to object to some arrangements with regard to one country it would be invidious to have to do so in the form of an objection in respect of all the countries involved?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that this is draft Order procedure and no recommendation can be made lo Her Majesty in Council until the draft Order is approved. That gives an opportunity, in fact if not in theory, for meeting such a point if it should arise, but I hope it will not arise.

§ Lieut-Colonel Lipton
Is it not clear that this so-called reciprocity on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman sets great store is quite meaningless until or unless the British Government establish large military bases in the United States of America? In those circumstances, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman now entitled to the melancholy distinction of being the first British Minister to establish a State within a State in occupied England?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong on both counts. Had he been right on the first point, none of the eloquence on the Bill by his right hon. and hon. Friends would have been usefully expended. Therefore he 2434 obviously must be wrong on that point. On the second point, the application of this Bill diminishes the special powers that any other country has, and I am sure that to that extent it will be received with free consent by every hon. Member in the House.

§ Dr. Summerskill
Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman about affiliation orders? Am I to understand that an affiliation order can be made against an American Service man in this country but that, in the event for his returning to his own country, the American authorities are not prepared to enforce it?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
The position is that no affiliation order made in this country can be enforced against anyone who leaves the country. If a British subject leaves the country an order cannot be enforced against him when he is abroad, and that applies to every nationality. That is one of the defects of intra-territorial legislation which all countries experience.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Collick.

§ Sir H. Williams
Further to my earlier point of order. Might I draw attention to the fact that back benchers have now been deprived of 11 minutes of their debating time?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am aware of that, but I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that I called Mr. Collick.

§ Mr. Collick
Having regard to the statement that the Home Secretary has made, what is the position in cases in which affiliation orders have already been made by British courts against American Service men but up to now have been unenforceable? Do they remain unenforceable, or is it now otherwise?

§ Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe
I must have notice of that. It is wide of the Question.

§ Mr. Speaker
We are to have Orders in Council laid in draft, and there will be an opportunity to discuss the merits of the matter later on. We have really spent a long time on this subject.

§ Mr. Collick
On a point of order. Having regard to the entirely unsatisfactory statement by the Home Secretary, I propose to take the first opportunity of raising the whole matter again.