Lords Sitting of 23 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  THE LORD SANDYS
  Arthur Fitzgerald Sandys Hill, Baron Sandys, having succeeded to that title on the death of his kinsman, Michael Edwin Marcus, Baron Sandys, by virtue of a special remainder contained in a Patent bearing date the nineteenth day of June, 1802—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.44 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I bee to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with on Thursday next for the purpose of giving precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day to the consideration of Commons Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  WAR HISTORIES BRANCH
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government what is the total staff of the Historical Section of the Cabinet Office; what is the estimated annual cost of the section; how many volumes of the history of the recent war have been published up till now, and on which subjects; how many volumes are expected to be published in 1950 and 1951 respectively.]
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, owing to the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Pakenham, I have been asked
  924
  to reply. The staff of the War Histories Branch of the Cabinet Office on November 1, 1949, numbered 122, of whom 20 were employed part-time. The total included twenty-eight historians and a research staff of forty-eight, divided about equally between Military and Civil Histories of the War. It is estimated that the cost of the Branch for the current financial year will be £79,000. The first volume of the Civil Histories of the War was published in June—British War Economy, by Professor W. H. Hancock and Mrs. M. M. Gowing. It is hoped that five or six further volumes will be published in 1950 and 1951.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask whether he can tell me how many of the staff are in receipt of extra duty pay, and for what extra duties and for how many effective hours work per week that duty pay is paid.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I am afraid that I should require notice of that question. It does not arise on the previous question or answer.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: How many of the staff are qualified historians, and how is the staff selected for employment?
  LORD SHEPHERD: The number of qualified historians, I understand, is fourteen civil and fourteen military, a total of twenty-eight.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Could the noble Lord say what constitutes a qualified historian?
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's answer, having regard to the meagre output of history up to date and in prospect, will His Majesty's Government consider disbanding the Section and making the historical material available to qualified historians from universities, so that the Histories may be compiled and published under time limits, with or without incentive bonus?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I cannot accept the suggestion that the persons employed on this work are not working diligently and with due despatch. If the noble Lord will give the matter a moment's thought, he will realise that there is an enormous amount of research work to be done if a proper history of the war is to emerge.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, are we to understand that the Histories likely to be published next year are all Civil Histories, and that none of them is a Military History?
  LORD SHEPHERD: No. There will be one or two volumes, but the greater part will be Civil Histories. The reason is that the research for the Civil Histories commenced while the war was still on.

  CHRISTIAN NAMES ON GOVERNMENT FORMS
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government in what circumstances and at whose initiative the words "Christian name" as opposed to "Surname" have been omitted from Government forms and replaced by the words "Forename" and "Surname"; and whether, in a Christian country such as Britain with an Established Church, there is any justification for abandoning the well-established custom of the names of individuals to be inserted on official forms being described as hitherto "Christian name" and "Surname."]
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has in mind the form used in the preparation of the Spring, 1950, Register of Electors, which has been the subject of comment on this point in the correspondence columns of some newspapers. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained recently in another place, in the forms relating to the 1949 Register (as in those in use before the war) the expression used was "other names." Some people took this to mean the names of persons other than themselves. It was to remove this misunderstanding that "forenames" was substituted. The expression "Christian names" is not used because of its restricted connotation, since not all forenames are Christian names. My right honourable friend is, however, arranging that when the form is reprinted it will contain a reference to "Christian names or other forenames."
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the last sentence of his reply, I am still at a loss to understand why the old-established use of the words "Christian names," as distinguished from "surname," should not be maintained. Everybody knows what a person's Christian name is in this Christian country of ours. It does not mean that they are subscribers to any particular form of belief. It seems to me inappropriate that a public form which has to be signed by everyone who claims to vote and to elect Parliament should have the common phraseology of "Christian names," taken away.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord hardly seems to have appreciated that the reference to "Christian names" is to be restored.
  LORD BROUGHSHANE: Then that is all right.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  MARRIAGE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  NEWS AGENCY AND DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGE
  2.56 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART LORD VANSITTART rose to call attention to the action of the Soviet Government in claiming diplomatic privilege for a news agency; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am no lawyer, and I note your ready acceptance of that glimpse of the obvious. But forty-five years ago I did pass an elementary examination in International Law. I shall certainly not tell the House what little use it has been to me. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who probably had a similar experience, will preserve a similar reticence. On this terrain, I am in fact in a state of manifest inferiority, to use the stock French duelling jargon when anybody gets a prick in

  927
  the forearm. I shall therefore confine myself to my own ground of diplomatic practice and, if I may say so with respect, of common sense.
  I have read the legal proceedings in this matter of Kraina v. Tass News Agency, but I am neither competent nor concerned to appreciate whether Tass is or is not a legal entity, and what is the effect of the precedent of the good ship "This in the year that." In the words of the psalmist,
  "such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for me. I cannot attain to it."
  Instead, I shall tell you a story. It is an exciting story, a mixture of nobility and dirt. Professor Kraina had a magnificent war record. By the way, this will interest your Lordships on the Left, for he is a fellow Socialist of yours, and you may well be proud of him. I shall expect to find your Lordships exceedingly sympathetic today. But I do not ask you to take my word for his record. One of the most brutal of all Germans, K. H. Frank, described Kraina as "the bravest man in Czechoslovakia." The Nazi Government put a high price on his head.
  During the war, many brave Czechs chose to fight on our side. Professor Kraina elected to fight it out from within. So he set up a transmitter and sent much valuable information, of which we had the benefit, to the Czech Government in this country. He told us of German intentions to invade Scandinavia, the Low Countries and France. He also told us of German intentions as regards ourselves, and he informed us when those intentions were cancelled. He gave us notice of German projects in regard to Iceland which enabled us to forestall them. He gave valuable information of German plans in the Balkans, but, above all, he gave ample forewarning of the German intention to invade Russia.
  But the savage hermits of the Kremlin were already far gone in that superiority complex which has recently led them to claim that they won the Trojan War, on the grounds that progressive Achilles was clad in iron from Russia, whereas the Fascist beasts of Troy had only bronze. One of the greatest dangers of Communism is the fundamental idiocy of so many of its followers. So it came about that the hermits rejected Kraina's warnings as they rejected ours.
  Now Kraina was not only anti-Nazi; he was anti-totalitarian. He therefore told President Benes a great deal about Communist "goings-on" in Czechoslovakia as well, and for that reason the Communists went about to destroy him. They were mainly responsible for his capture by the Gestapo on January 31, 1943. These dates have some significance. Kraina took poison but the Gestapo pumped him out. I may add that his brother was executed by the Gestapo in 1942, that his son died here in the Air Force in 1941 and that his wife was thrust into the abominable camp of Ravensbrück. I think I have said enough by way of preface to show that this country is greatly in debt to Professor Kraina. Before I leave the House this evening, I hope I shall have done my best to see that that debt is paid.
  Now we come to that part of the story which is relevant to this case. In November, 1942, the Czech Government in London dropped three parachutists over Czechoslovakia. Their instructions were to link up with Kraina. They also carried letters from President Benes and General Ingr, the Minister of Defence. But the Czechoslovak Communists intercepted those parachutists; they took away the letters; they deprived the men of their arms and impounded their transmitters—in fact, there was some exceedingly "dirty work at the crossroads." Moreover, these Czech Communists were known to the Gestapo, and your Lordships will therefore not be surprised to hear that these letters found their way into the hands of the Gestapo. In consequence, the parachutists were captured on January 16, 1943. Two of them were slaughtered; the third was kept alive and, by means upon which I need not enlarge, he was compelled under the supervision of the Gestapo to transmit false news to this country. But Kraina, who was arrested a fortnight later, found out what was "in the wind" or "on the air," and he warned the London Government.
  We now come to 1945. My Lords, one of the greatest breeding grounds of hatred is a guilty conscience. Whenever we hear somebody abusing somebody else in unmeasured terms, we shall all too often be safe in asking "What harm have you done him?"; not vice versa. The Communists had by now made up their minds to liquidate Kraina, together

  929
  with all those who had taken part in the Resistance Movement. The Communists do not like on the premises anybody who is capable of resisting anything, and so they followed the usual Communist technique of accusing their adversary of the very things that they themselves had done—namely, of collaboration with the Gestapo and the betrayal of comrades. A Commission was set up, the President of which was one Adamec, a colleague of Mr. Nosek, the ferocious individual who is Minister of the Interior and, therefore, in control of the Secret Police. And, by the way, Mr. Adamec is himself now Deputy-Minister of the Interior, and has also that connection with the Secret Police. The evidence in Kraina's favour was so overwhelming that he was triumphantly acquitted on all the thirty-six charges put forward—indeed, more: his conduct was rightly found to have been above reproach and he was awarded the two chief Czech military decorations.
  The story moves forward to September 11, 1947, the date on which there came to light the so-called Krcman affair. To Doctor Zenkl, the Deputy-Premier, to the late Jan Masaryk, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and to Doctor Drtina, Minister of Justice, were sent by post wooden boxes bearing the inscription "perfume." But these three men smelt not perfume but a rat, and consequently they did not open those boxes—which was well for them, because all three contained high-explosive bombs charged with tritol, and so the plot failed. Immediately the Secret Police jumped in to hush it up, because they knew very well that the criminals were the Communists. But they had again reckoned without Professor Kraina. He was Member of Parliament for Olomouc and he traced those three boxes to a carpenter at Krcman, a nearby village; and in a very short space of time he had a list of culprits and of witnesses. They were mainly small fry, but the main trail led strongly in the direction of one Cepicka, the Secretary of the Communist Party in Olomouc.
  At this stage, Doctor Drtina, the Minister of Justice, stepped in and took the matter out of the hands of the Secret Police. He proceeded with the utmost vigour and made several arrests. The Communists were then panic-stricken, because it seemed that
  930
  "the gaff would be blown" and that in consequence they would lose a great many votes at the Election which was due to take place in the next year. Cepicka had already been made Minister of internal Trade, but that was not thought sufficient cover. The only safeguard for them was to liquidate Doctor Drtina and to put Cepicka in his place as Minister of Justice. That was duly done, and Cepicka proceeded to liquidate the witnesses and to liberate the criminals. That, of course, was only a stage in Cepicka's career. I understand that he is now in charge of religious matters—and that really is equivalent to a soap-box atheist from the Marble Arch replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  To complete the picture, I should add, after this brilliant list of appointments and activities, that Mr. Cepicka is the son-in-law of President Gottwald. Perhaps some of your Lordships may recall an episode between two British politicians of a long bygone age, both of whom were reproached on occasion for too frequently making appointments from their own circle. One said to the other, "Ceteris paribus, I do not see why one should not"; and the other replied, "Ceteris paribus be damned." Well, that is about the picture.
  A little while ago a voluble supporter of noble Lords on my left, Professor G. D. H. Cole, described my own Department as an "Aegean stable." I sometimes differ from the Foreign Office but I do not like foolish abuse, and therefore, in passing, I observe merely that the Professor's utterance shows that it is sometimes dangerous to take headers into the shallows of one's own learning. But if any noble Lord waits a real example of an Augean stable, he has only to look at the outfit in Prague. Of course, the Augean stable in Czechoslovakia never forgave the men whom they had failed to murder. The Vice-Premier, Doctor Zenkl, escaped from the country by the skin of his teeth; Masaryk and Drtina were less fortunate. Your Lordships will recollect that on March 10, Jan Masaryk was found on the stones below his high window with almost every bone in his body broken, and just about the same time Doctor Drtina was also found on the stones below his window with almost every bone in his body broken. Masaryk was dead, Drtina was not; and your

  931
  Lordships may prefer not to speculate on his subsequent fate. Kraina also escaped by a miracle.
  I want your Lordships to pause for a minute. I think I have already told you that in the case of the Nazis he had fought out the war bravely from within. He then discovered something that he had never believed, or, indeed, dreamed of—namely, that there was an even worse tyranny, and that this time he could not see it through from within; and he went out. So the Communists again resorted to their usual technique. They decided to try him in his absence, and they could think of nothing better than to charge him with all the crimes of which he had been exonerated in 1945. This was duly done in September, 1948, and he was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. But there is, in this country, a nest of guttersnipe called Tass, which could not even wait for the travesty of the people's court, and as early as May 7 they charged Mr. Kraina in print with these foul and refuted crimes. Mr. Kraina did the right thing. He brought a libel action. He took it to court and lost. He took it to a higher court and lost again, but that higher court graciously gave him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. That gracious permission was, unintentionally, a mockery. How does anyone expect an unhappy exile living on the smell of an oil rag, not knowing where the next pound is to come from, to find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pounds for trial, after trial, after trial? It is impossible.
  We now come to the heart of the matter. How was it that Tass was able to get away with the murder of a good man's reputation? It is very simple. When Mr. Kraina brought his action the guttersnipe got into a flap and they flew for cover to the Soviet Embassy, who were embarrassed "more than somewhat," as Damon Runyon would have put it, so they, therefore, communicated with the Kremlin. The Kremlin said in effect: "That is quite all right. All you have to do is to give them a certificate and say that they are a Department of the Soviet State. The British will swallow anything." That is exactly what was done. The certificate was dished out; it was accepted. From that moment it has been open to any Communist in this
  932
  country to libel anyone he likes, in any terms he likes, provided he can get hold of a false certificate. No wonder that on the morrow of that judgment the caps of the Communists were decorated with the seasonable flower of fellow traveller's joy.
  Throughout my long life I have been taught and I have believed that diplomatic immunity was mainly intended for diplomatists. In my earlier days there was even considerable doubt as to whether that immunity extended to the Consular Corps except in far-off countries. There was never any question of its going further. Indeed, if in the early part of this century it had been suggested that diplomatic immunity should apply to a news agency, the idea would have been not only metaphorically but literally laughed out of court.
  Let us look at Soviet practice in this matter. They are, if I may say so, not only ultra conservative but ultra reactionary. They take the narrowest possible view of this immunity as, indeed, they do of everything. Their maxim is: "The least possible diplomatic immunity for everyone, but what there is for diplomatists only." So, let us watch them on the job. Recently the Communists have arrested in Mukden not only the United States Consul-General but the whole of his staff, and have held them incommunicado, and only two days ago Mr. Dean Acheson was appealing to the whole civilised world against this breach, as he called it, of the basic conceptions of international life. The Communists did exactly the same thing to Mr. Samuel Meryn, clerk of the United States Embassy in Prague. We come to our own cases, and I take only a few instances from among the more recent ones—they have been very numerous. In the earlier part of this year there was the case of Captain Wildash, a member of the Tripartite Military Permit office, holding consular rank, in Prague. The Czech Secret Police burst into his office and arrested him with his staff. They bundled him into a car, took him to police headquarters, put him through third degree and even threatened to arrest his wife if he did not talk according to their taste. Mr. Harrison, who was employed in our Mission at Budapest, was treated with simple sadism. Again, this week-end, your Lordships all saw that Polish

  933
  Communists had arrested a member of the consular staff at Stettin. A few months ago they arrested two more French consuls at Wroclaw. They are, furthermore, throwing out of the country, neck and crop, two members of the French Embassy in Warsaw. That is happening the whole time. I could give your Lordships innumerable instances in support. They are particularly keen to expel from the countries of the Communist empire anyone who knows anything about the particular country and especially anyone who speaks the language.
  Again when British or American or French subjects are arrested in very questionable circumstances and Allied diplomatic representatives ask for access to them, it is very frequently refused in most discourteous terms. Our representatives are treated like stink in all countries of the Communist empire where they are accredited or discredited—the words are interchangeable; it makes no difference— they are boycotted, they are raided, they are thrown into police cars, they are belaboured and "grilled." The older I grow the more incomprehensible I find this British mania for according unreciprocated advantages to people and organisations who most certainly do not deserve them. I sometimes wish, with all respect, that the Minister of Health would make himself better acquainted with the habits of Tass, and then revise his definition of "vermin." The issue of that certificate by the Soviet Government was a piece of impudence. I think it should never have been accepted. We are creating precedents where none ever existed before, and we are creating extremely dangerous precedents. I have explained to this House with chapter and verse, incontrovertibly, that the staffs of the missions of the Communist empire in this country tend more and more to be manned by subversionists, saboteurs and spies. This is a moment when, if anything, we should be restricting diplomatic privilege rather than granting these preposterous and unprecedented extensions.
  I brought up this matter on July 6 in this House, and I then ventured to point out to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack that there was no precedent for any such claim. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor endorsed that and said, moreover, that the whole position was receiv-
  934
  ing consideration. I should like to know how far we have got since July, because this is not a moment for marking time. We want deeds; and we want this abuse remedied. If we let this certificate stand, we shall be carried whither we know not. There is nothing now to prevent the Soviet Government from casting the mantle of immunity over any spy ring in this country. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent them going considerably farther. I do not say it would be done, but the possibility is now open. As I have explained to your Lordships, the one thing the Soviet Government does not like is to send bachelors to this country, for fear they would pick up with Western girls and find out that the West is not so bad after all. In pursuance of that policy there would be nothing illogical in setting up a brothel in this country and classing its inmates as organs of the Soviet Government, with just as good a right as Tass—personally I should consider them the more respectable.
  That is not the end of the abuse. Tass is not the only organ of the Soviet Government in this country. From its inception, the Daily Worker has been subsidised. When I was head of the Foreign Office, I had a good deal of information on that subject. But we do not need any Secret Service to tell us. There are forty thousand paid-up members of the Communist Party in this country, and anybody who thinks that a paper can be run on forty thousand sixpences ought to have his head examined. Moreover, it so happens that the Daily Worker has dealt in exactly the same sort of muck as Tass. In December, 1943, the Daily Worker brought against a Yugoslav Minister called Sain exactly the same charges as it has brought against Professor Kraina. It accused him of having collaborated with the Gestapo and betrayed Communists, and, for good measure, threw in a few little extra accusations of having embezzled State funds and of having been arrested. That was in 1943, and in the fullness of time this case came before the King's Bench on November 3 of this year, three weeks ago. We certainly take some time to cleanse ourselves from the aspersions of the scum of the earth. Four thousand pounds damages were awarded against the Daily Worker, and the Daily Worker, being just about as yellow as it is Red,

  935
  did not attempt to defend itself. It simply ran away.
  Mr. Justice Cassels, in awarding damages, used these words: "No greater libel could be imagined." Every word of that applies to Tass. Then the counsel for Mr. Sain, Mr. Roche, used some ambiguous words. He said he had asked for exemplary damages, but doubted whether they would be recovered in money. If he meant that, supposing Mr. Sain is bilked—and that has happened before—there would be distraint on the property or premises of the Daily Worker, that is quite all right. On the other hand, if these words were to be taken at their face value they might conceivably mean that the Daily Worker would get off without any scathe or harm at all. That would be another terrible situation, because again it would be putting Communists above the law. It would be saying to them in so many words, "You can do what you like. You are not like other mortals. You can slander people without having to pay for it." I hope that Mr. Roche will take note of what I have said and assure me that those are not his intentions. After all, why should not the Daily Worker pay to the uttermost farthing? If the Soviet Government can afford the luxury of running it, they can also afford the minor luxury of indemnifying its victims. I do not know Mr. Sain. I have never met him. I do not know where he lives. But if he does not get his damages, I hope he will communicate with me and I would then be prepared to come down to your Lordships' House and propose that the Daily Worker should be closed, as we closed it during the war for its services to Hitler. We really cannot afford to set up a new privileged class.
  I return to Tass. For generations and centuries we have earned the right to live clean and free and in the light which Gainsborough called "God's eldest daughter." Never once, with the gates of our hospitality wide open, did we contemplate that within them there would squat the agents of a hostile Power, flinging mud at those who come in, and flinging it with impunity. We never contemplated that, and we should not tolerate it. It is time that we showed some courage in these matters. Therefore, I urge most strongly upon His
  936
  Majesty's Government that, without further loss of time, they should initiate legislation which will annul this cynical certificate and make sure that no such brazen trick will ever be perpetrated on us again. But, even so, there will be no redress for Professor Kraina in that, so far as I can see, because that legislation must necessarily take some time and it may not be retroactive. Meanwhile, he has left in penury a country for which he did so much and which has done so little for him. Is that to be the end? Surely not. Surely, such a compound of injustice and ingratitude would be alien to all that is best in us. Therefore, again, I urge most strongly on His Majesty's Government to give him the only, form of redress open, and the least we can do in decency, and that is that Tass and its organ Soviet Monitor should be given until the end of the year to print an apology and withdrawal, and if they do not do so, we should then close down the Soviet Monitor and ask the representatives of Tass to leave this country. That is the least we can do for Professor Kraina.
  Last Sunday in church I was given to read for a lesson the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. It contains a tremendous passage which has echoed down the ages:
  "Be not deceived God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
  God is not mocked, but this country is, and so is justice and so is decency and so is common sense. I abjure the Government to stand up for justice and decency and common sense, to ensure that whatsoever the Soviet Government soweth, that also shall they reap, and to see to it that this man gets what is due to him. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.30 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, this is a matter which naturally gives rise to considerable emotion, and for that very reason it is necessary that in dealing with it we should keep cool heads. The form of the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart has put down on the Order Paper—he wandered rather wide at times from it, I thought—is as follows:
  "To call attention to the action of the Soviet Government in claiming diplomatic privilege for a news agency; and to move for papers."

  937
  If we are going to keep perfectly cool heads, I feel that the first thing to realise is that this was not a case in which they claimed a diplomatic privilege or immunity at all; in this case they claimed State privilege. The certificate which they obtained was that the Tass Agency were a Department of the Soviet State. Our Foreign Office declined any certificate saying that they were entitled to any diplomatic immunity. The certificate they obtained was a certificate from the Soviet Embassy here saving that they were a Department of State.
  If that is right—and I am not casting doubt on its being right—according to our law, which has been established for a considerable time, they are entitled to immunity. I shall discuss with your Lordships presently whether or not the time has come, in these days of State trading, when the State does all sorts of things which it did not do in the old days, when we ought to contemplate some alteration in the law. But for the moment all I am saying is that I believe that to be the law. I do not assert it positively, but it was the decision of the Master, the Judge in Chambers and of a unanimous Court of Appeal. I say, frankly, that if it had been considered that the House of Lords were likely to reverse the decision, ways and means might have been found for bringing the action to the House of Lords. Therefore, I want your Lordships to realise, first of all, that we are here dealing with a question of State immunity; and, secondly, that the courts have declared what the law is, and, so far as I know, have declared that law correctly.
  I readily agree that it is strange that any news agency in this country should not be accountable in the courts for its activities; indeed, it is strange that a news agency should be running in any country as part of any Government Department. I fully agree with the noble Lord that there have been ample illustrations of the fact that the material with which this agency deals can be described as "scurrilous." So far as I know the facts—and I have gone into them with some care—I further agree with the noble Lord without reservation in what he said as to the character, the antecedents and the courage of Doctor Kraina. It is deplorable that a person distinguished by his war-time record of resistance to the Nazis should be grossly libelled without
  938
  being able to obtain any redress—at least, that seems to be so, because, through no fault of Doctor Kraina, the question of libel or no libel has never been and cannot be decided. However, I feel that this issue raises wider issues than the reputation of an individual, vitally important though that may In my view, it is intolerable that a news agency which sets up to be a Department of a foreign State should lose no opportunity of publishing material calculated to discredit His Majesty's Government, or individual opponents of Communism, such as Doctor Kraina, and of fomenting internal strife in this country.
  Before discussing remedial action, I should like your Lordships to devote your attention for a moment from principle to practice. What exactly is it that Tass Agency do here? In the first place, they cable British news to the Soviet Union, and they publish three times a day, and without charge, a Roneoed bulletin called the Soviet Monitor, which contains extracts and summaries of Soviet broadcasts. This anthology of Soviet broadcasts, in spite of the fact that it is free of charge, has a very limited circulation. Any offensive item in it would achieve a larger circulation if it were published by a newspaper or magazine. But if it were published in such a periodical, it would be possible to bring an action against the newspaper concerned—though here I would remind the noble Lord that it is one thing to bring an action, another to secure an award of damages, and a very different thing still to get the actual damages. I myself have brought many such actions on behalf of prominent members of my Party, and not one of them has ever succeeded in getting any damages, in spite of the fact that an award was recovered. There is such a thing as a debenture holder, lurking in the background and, if necessary, prepared to come in and foreclose, to prevent any damages being awarded or any satisfaction being obtained. I can well understand what Mr. Roche meant when he said what he did, because, if it turns out that his client does not succeed in getting anything, his client will be following a long trail of distinguished people who have previously suffered a like fate.
  In fact, the items put out in the Soviet Monitor rarely get much further than the pages of the Daily worker, and generally appear there in a somewhat less virulent

  939
  form. British newspapers really cannot be expected to go on printing samples of the same old melodramatic nonsense about Western warmongers and Communist doves; about the "hysterical speeches" of the Prime Minister, and what are called "Right Wing Labourites," who are accused of being either "lackeys or errand boys of the bankers in the City." If I may give an illustration, sometimes the absurdity reaches such a pitch that it attracts attention. It is not long since a writer in the Soviet Literary Gazette—observe the words "Literary Gazette"—told his readers this:
  "On Sundays Londoners, armed with guns and traps, set out for the suburbs to hunt wild rabbits, starlings, squirrels, hedgehogs and polecats. These are not amateur naturalists, but workers who hope somehow to supplement their starvation rations."
  If these persons, who seem to have some superfluous energy, do go hunting polecats in the suburbs, I will, so long as they do not raid the Zoo, give a special Lord Chancellor's prize of £5 for every polecat captured.
  To my mind, when the Tass Agency produce rubbish of that kind—I do not say they produced that particular example, but they have produced similar ones—in so far as it gets a wide circulation, they completely defeat their own object. Everybody must realise what utter nonsense it is, and in that way I think they do us considerable service. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there are very few persons in Great Britain who are not already impervious to reason who are likely to be affected by this Soviet propaganda, even where it is much more insidious and less obviously untrue than the example I have quoted. We must remember that it has been going on for the last thirty-two years, and on the whole I think it has had comparatively little effect. I do not wish to give the impression, however, that the activities of Tass and their kind need not be taken seriously. I simply want to make it clear that it is possible to overrate their extent and their effectiveness. None the less, it should not be thought that the agency will be left to carry on scurrilous activities without any check.
  To my mind, the real force behind the Motion raises a wider issue—namely, whether the law of this country affords
  940
  to organs of foreign States a wider immunity than is desirable or strictly required by the principles of International Law observed in the countries of the world. That question is one of considerable importance and difficulty. I believe it to be the fact that our law differs in this respect from the French law, and it is wider than the project of law formulated in the United States. Its importance increases owing to the general increase of State activities of the present day and their extension into the realm of commerce and trade. We have therefore decided to set up an inter-departmental Committee to consider and report on this question, which raises issues of very considerable difficulty and in which, of course, International Law and our relationship with foreign countries is concerned. We must remember that anything we do here must be reciprocal—it must affect us as it affects others. In the meantime, until the report of this Committee has been received and has been considered, it is not possible for me to make any further statement on the matter, because your Lordships realise that what is here involved is an alteration in our existing law which has been established for many years. Accordingly, I can give the noble Lord who moved the Motion this amount of satisfaction: that we intend to set up this Committee at once and to ask them as soon as may be for a Report on a matter which, as your Lordships will realise, is an exceedingly complicated and difficult one. It may be that after consideration of that Report we shall decide that we are driven to have new legislation to alter this principle of State immunity.
  3.43 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, I should like to say, with regard to his opening remarks, that my head is perfectly cool—but I do not like injustice. As to the point about diplomatic immunity, again I disclaim any legal authority whatever, but I think we may perhaps be splitting hairs, because I have always understood that we diplomatists enjoyed diplomatic immunity precisely because we were a Department of His Majesty's Government abroad. I myself have enjoyed diplomatic immunity for many years. In fact, I have enjoyed it a lot, but I never thought there was

  941
  anything personal about it. I thought it was departmental.
  Part of the burden of the speech of the noble and learned Viscount seemed to me to point in the direction that. Professor Kraina ought not to mind what was said about him by the Soviet Monitor. Of course, there is much in that argument. I have had a whole lot of dirt spilt about me, and I have not minded about it. Professor Kraina does, and he is entirely entitled to mind. That is why I think we are bound to take action on his behalf. There was a further passage in the Lord Chancellor's speech which disquieted me not a little (although I fully expected it), and that concerned the difficulty of getting damages from any of the lower order of newspapers. I myself have frequently been libelled in the Daily Worker—I have had a whole lot of sewage, and I have always been told by my legal advisers (I am paraphrasing what they say): "Do not pay any attention to them." And indeed, I am not disposed to. My advisers say: "Please do not, because you would not get a penny out of the blighters, anyway." That is what it amounts to. I think that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs; it puts a premium on libel and creates a privileged class. I cannot see what is the matter with closing down the Daily Worker if it will not pay or expelling Tass if they will not apologise.
  I come to the second of my recommendations. I am extremely grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount has said. It does open up new perspectives, and satisfactory ones. Obviously, on purely legal ground I can push the matter no further until the inter-departmental Committee has reported. I sincerely hope that its Report will ibe a good one. If it is not, it will always be open to me to return to the oharge; but I expect good results. I should be grateful—on this I feel strongly—if the ndble Viscount will also bring to the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government my second recommendation—namely, that we should make an example of these cases where we can, and that these people, in view of the awful travesty which I have described to your Lordships this afternoon, should be made to feel that there are things which are too dirty to be condoned. I hope the whole House feels that. If that is so, I think my recommendation, the
  942
  alternative of an apology or closure, should be brought to the serious consideration of His Majesty's Government. If the noble and learned Viscount will do so, I will withdraw my Motion—I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  REDUNDANT CLERICAL WORKERS
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD HAWKEhad given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government what arrangements they have made or propose to make to enable men and women [becoming redundant in clerical occupations to take courses of training to lit them far manual occupations in factories and elsewhere. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Question purely in the thirst for information and, curiously enough, I did not know the answer before I put it down. I hope the information, when we receive it, may be of some slight comfort to some of our fellow citizens, either in the present or in the future. Periodically the Delphic Oracle speaks, and we have a survey of how things are to be during the coming year. The survey includes figures of man-power, a so-called manpower budget or man-power target. Unfortunately, time elapses, and we tend to find that facts are obstinate and recalcitrant; and the outcome proves to be quite different from what the Oracle suggested. That means that there remain in this country quite a few industries which are seriously under-manned. And the situation has hardly improved or, if it has improved, has done so at a very slow rate indeed. Some of these industries are industries which do not require workers with any long training or great skill.
  On the other side of the picture we see the President of the Board of Trade having his periodical bonfires of controls; and, of course, every bonfire releases, or should release, the ladies and gentlemen who are working those controls in Whitehall; and it should release what may be an equal or even a greater number of people who are at the receiving end of the forms in industry. As a rule, these people working the controls are not skilled. They are performing menial tasks—counting coupons, and so on. What sort of outlets

  943
  will there be for them when they become redundant in their existing occupations? Industry will be releasing the same sort of people, because the less control from Whitehall means less clerical labour required in industry. The distributive trades are a possible place to which they might go. These again, however, provide one of the obstinate and recalcitrant figures, because although the number of employees in the distributive trades is supposed to go down, it generally seems to go up; so that the going of these people from their existing employment into the distributive trades could hardly have the support of His Majesty's Government.
  The State has accepted the duty of maintaining a high level of employment. In this particular case the duty of the State combines with the needs of the State in respect of industries which are still under-manned. I know the difficulties well. I know that the cart of industrial construction has tended to get in front of the horse of human effort and progress. I know well that there are many difficulties of that sort. But let us hear what His Majesty's Government propose to do to overcome these various difficulties. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name.
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this Question. Although he has limited his Question to the specific matter underlying it, I believe that there is a far wider implication. We have continually pressed for a reduction in the man-power employed in Government Departments and we are given to understand that some active steps in this direction are possibly in sight. As I see it, the numbers that can be freed in relation to the total working population of the country will, of necessity, be relatively small; but even such small numbers, whether of men or women, may, if they are placed in the right quarter, have a profound effect. To my mind, it is therefore of very real importance that when Government Department or other employees are made redundant every encouragement should be given to see that they can be, if they so desire, usefully employed in the national effort. Otherwise, the whole purpose of any reduction will be only partially achieved.
  944
  My noble friend has referred specifically to the possibility of these people being trained for manual work. I should be extremely interested to see what the noble Lord who is to reply will have to say on that proposal. It is an extraordinarily attractive proposal and one that should in many respects meet present needs. But, as my noble friend has said, it would obviously introduce some difficult problems. From the actual facts, which I have no doubt the noble Lord who is to reply has at his disposal, as regards persons coming from Government Departments, I hope he will say what chances he feels there are of attracting and persuading some of the younger people to go voluntarily into some form of productive work, and maybe, either initially or permanently, taking up some form of manual work. He may say that, in the case of Government Departments, all cuts are to be made in the older age group of temporary civil servants; that they, if they have not previously been used to actual manual work, are a little too old to begin. As regards younger people I hope he will say something about what he thinks will be the attitude of the trade unions in cases where skilled trades are involved.
  As my noble friend has pointed out, in theory the effect of the reduction of Government staffs should be reflected to some extent in a reduction in similar staffs in industry. But that, of course, may not occur to the full extent; there may be only a tendency in that direction. It is not always easy, particularly in small firms, to reduce these staffs by even a single individual when only part of a job is removed from them. But it is often much easier to start than to stop a tendency. This is a case in point. The glorification that persists in certain quarters of clerical work, as opposed to manual work, will make this problem a far bigger one than is implied by this particular Question. This is a problem which may well take a generation to solve, even if it is started now; but that is all the more reason why the Government should take active steps in the right direction now. I feel for these reasons that it is proper that my noble friend should have raised this Question at this time, and I await with interest what the noble Lord who is to reply has to say.
  3.59 p.m.
  LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord seems to imply that clerical workers who become unemployed are unable to find employment in their normal occupation. This should not be the case, as there is demand rather than redundancy in clerical occupations as a whole. If, however, in any individual case, training proved to be necessary to effect resettlement, it could normally be given under the vocational training schemes. Noble Lords will know that there are some 150 such schemes agreed with the industries concerned. Approximately one-half are carried out in the twenty-nine Government training centres, which I believe were set up about 1945, and one-half in employers' establishments or technical colleges. Broadly, the rules are that men or women can be trained for skilled occupations—that is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale—if they are ex-Servicemen, if their career was interrupted during the war, if they are disabled or if they have fallen out of employment and training is essential for resettlement in employment.
  As I gather from both the noble Lords who have spoken, they appreciate that the question of training people for an occupation to which they are not accustomed is one of extreme difficulty. As in the case of persons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, age is a very important factor. Even more important is their degree of mobility. As we all know, there are men who would be most satisfactory men to pass into a training scheme, either at one of the centres or in industry direct, who simply cannot be accommodated, merely because if they happen to have a wife and family there is not housing accommodation. In the case of people who are mobile, however, the difficulty is not so great; indeed, in the light of the fact that most industries are crying out for labour—the potteries is one example and cotton is another—it follows that there is no real difficulty in training the people. Employers are only too willing to take them to train them themselves. Especially is that so in the case of young people.
  When we realise that the total number of unemployed is only about 1.3 per
  946
  cent. of the whole employed population, we can see that the scheme of training can be adapted, modified and used in almost every case where training would be helpful. We are not overwhelmed with candidates for training. I assure noble Lords that the whole machinery of the Ministry of Labour is directed to guiding people into the industries which are already classified as having priority for employment, if there are any vacancies available. I am unable to say what is the attitude of the unions generally to this question of training labour, but, in so far as my own knowledge goes in the matter, the unions are very much alive to tie need for feeding their particular trade from below. That being so, obviously they would be sympathetic to the bringing into their trade of young people from school. I take it that when the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said that steps had already been taken, he was then thinking of the new educational system bat is designed in some degree to guide people or teach them something more than "the three R's."
  It is correct, and same of us deplore the fact, that so much glorification (which was the word used, I believe) is given to clerical work as against manual work. It ought to be stressed rather more strongly than it has been that there is no shame in taking off one's coat to do a job. But an alteration of that kind cannot be achieved in a moment. May I be permitted to say that some of us on this side of the House and most of those who hold the beliefs that I hold have had personal experiences of unemployment and the fear of unemployment. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest to noble Lords that those who are at the moment concerned with the direction and formulation of policy with regard to this matter are mindful that, whatever statistics may show—and statistics regarding unemployment are, on the whole, good—the fact of unemployment is a tragedy to the individual whoever he is. Therefore we should direct all our energies to guiding these people into occupations that are beneficial, not only to themselves but to the country as a whole.

  STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) (SUBSTITUTION) ORDER, 1949
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper takes the form of a Prayer to His Majesty asking that the measures set out in the table should, so far as orders are concerned, be subject to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. The main difference is that at present orders issued come under the Provisional Order procedure, which is longer

  TABLE

  Session and Chapter

  Short Title of Statute

  Sections and Subsections of Statute

  Subject matter

  24 & 25 Vict, c. 45, and 1 Edw. 8. & 1 Geo. 6. c. 28.

  The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, as modified by the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937.

  Section 15 of the Act of 1861 as modified by sections 4 and 5 (1) of the Act of 1937.

  Construction of marine works.

  31 & 32 Vict. c. 45.

  The Sea Fisheries Act, 1868

  Sections 29 and 39.

  Oyster and mussel fisheries.

  38 & 39 Vict. c. 55.

  The Public Health Act, 1875

  Paragraph (5) of section 297 and section 303.

  Repeal and amendment of local Acts, &c.

  5 Edw. 7. c. 23, and 14 & 15 Geo. 5. c. 20.

  The Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924.

  Section 1 of the Act of 1905, as extended by section 1 of the Act of 1924.

  Validation of marriages.

  13 & 14 Geo. 5. c. 16.

  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923.

  Section 16 (3) and (4).

  Compulsory purchase or hiring by fishery boards.

  Section 37.

  Regulation of fisheries.

  Section 55 (2).

  Pollution of waters.

  15 Geo. 5. c. 15, 20 & 21 Geo. 5.c. 40, and 25 & 26 Geo. 5. c. 41.

  The Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925, 1930 and 1935.

  Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1930 and section 15 (1) of the Act of 1935 as read with section 86 of the Act of 1925.

  Compulsory purchase orders relating to commons, open spaces and allotments.

  20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 44.

  The Land Drainage Act, 1930.

  Section 2 (2).

  Catchment areas.

  Section 4 (3).

  Schemes for Catchment Boards.

  Section 8 (3).

  Variation of awards.

  Section 11.

  Transfer of functions to Catchment Boards.

  Section 17 (1) and (2).

  Drainage districts and drainage boards.

  Section 41 (1).

  Variation of navigation rights.

  23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 51.

  The Local Government Act, 1933.

  Section 112(1).

  Union of districts for appointment of medical officers of health.

  Section 270(1).

  Transfers of functions to county or county borough councils.

  Paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 285.

  Repeal and amendment of Acts confirming provisional orders.

  Section 293 (2).

  Application of provisions of Act to joint boards and joint committees.

  and more expensive. It would be easier, therefore, if they could be placed under the measure I have just mentioned. I beg to move.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, be applied to orders hereafter to be made under any of the enactments specified in the following table, in substitution for the provisions of any such enactment providing that such orders shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament.

  Session and Chapter

  Short Title of Statute

  Sections and Subsections of Statute

  Subject matter

  26 Geo. 5. & 1 Edw. 8. c. 49.

  The Public Health Act, 1936

  Section 2 (2).

  Constitution of port health districts.

  Section 6 (1).

  Union of districts.

  Section 9 (2).

  Amendment and revocation of orders as to port health districts, union of districts and joint boards.

  Section 109 (2).

  Exemption of industrial processes from provisions as to nuisances.

  Section 314.

  Amendment of orders relating to port health authorities and joint boards.

  26 Geo. 5. & 1 Edw. 8. c. 51.

  The Housing Act, 1936

  Sections 29 (1), 36 (1) and 38 (2) as modified by section 143.

  Compulsory purchase orders relating to commons, open spaces and allotments.

  2 & 3 Geo. 6. c. 40.

  The London Government Act, 1939.

  Sections 165 (1) and 166 (1) and (3).

  Transfers of functions between public authorities.

  Section 188 (1) (e).

  Repeal and amendment of Acts confirming provisional orders.

  —(Lord Shepherd)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  REGISTERED DESIGNS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  4.7 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 1:
  Extension of jurisdiction of High Court in certain matrimonial proceedings.
  (2) Without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable by the court apart from this section in proceedings for nullity of marriage, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to proceedings for nullity of marriage or for a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage as they apply to proceedings for divorce.
  LORD LLEWELLINhad given notice of three Amendments in subsection (2), of which the first was to omit "in proceedings for nullity of marriage." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these three Amendments, which perhaps your Lord-
  950
  ships will allow me to deal with together, all touch on the same point. As the Bill stands at present, Clause 1, which gives the High Court jurisdiction in divorce proceedings by a wife who has been resident in England for three years, notwithstanding that her husband may be domiciled abroad, applies also to proceedings under Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, for a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of the marriage. Until a recent decision of the court, it had been assumed that jurisdiction in such cases would be dependent upon the petitioner being domiciled here at the time of the commencement of the proceedings. In the recently reported case of Wall v. Wall, it was held that the court's jurisdiction in proceedings for a decree of presumption of death was dependent only on the residence of the petitioner. This decision has caused some difficulty in regard to Scotland, because the Court of Session has held that in proceedings in Scotland, under the corresponding provision of the Scottish Act, it is essential that the petitioner should be domiciled in Scotland. It is clearly desirable, in order to avoid the risk of decrees pronounced by the courts of this country not being recognised in Scotland, that the basis of jurisdiction in the two countries should be the same. That is the intention of the Amendment which I now beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 16.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("marriage") to ("as") in line 18.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
  ("() In proceedings under subsection (1) of section eight of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937 (which enables the court to make a decree of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage) the court shall have jurisdiction in the following cases only, that is to say—

  (a) in any proceedings, if the petitioner is domiciled in England;

  (b) in proceedings by the wife, if she is resident in England and has been ordinarily resident there for a period of three years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings;

  and in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether a woman is domiciled in England, her husband shall be treated as having died immediately after the last occasion on which she knew or had reason to believe him to be living.")—(Lord Llewellin)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to say, with regard to these three Amendments, that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin has stated the law with perfect accuracy. I would add that the President of the Divorce Division, who is unable to be here to-day, has given a great deal of time to the consideration of these matters, and he is in agreement with all the Amendments which are down in the name of the noble Lord. I also agree, and I think that between us we have succeeded in putting forward a very useful little Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the clause:
  "() In any proceedings in which the court has jurisdiction by virtue of this section, of section thirteen of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, or of section one of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act. 1944, the issues shall be determined in accordance with the law which would be applicable thereto if both parties were domiciled in England at the time of the proceedings."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this raises a slightly different point. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear what law is to be applied by a court when it assumes jurisdiction under the provisions of Clause 1, or of Section 13 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, or of Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act, 1944. In all these cases it is possible for the court to have jurisdiction in divorce proceedings though the parties may not be domiciled in this country. Before the passing of the Act of 1937 this was not possible. The court had jurisdiction in divorce only if the parties were domiciled here, and accordingly it applied English law without having to decide whether it did so because it was the law of the parties' place of domicile or the law of the court in which the proceedings were taken. It has generally been thought that the procedure set out in my Amendment is the law. That is the view expressed by all the leading textbook writers, as well as by the President of the Divorce Division, to whom I should like to extend my thanks for the great help he has given in regard to this clause. But despite those authoritative views it has been suggested that there may be some doubt on the point, and the new subsection is intended to set these doubts at rest. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Extension of jurisdiction of Court of Session in certain consistorial proceedings]:
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal with the next four Amendments to Clause 2 at the same time. They make exactly the same alterations in the clause applying to Scotland as your Lordships have just assented to in the four previous Amendments to the law relating to England. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("section") to ("the") in line 12.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("marriage") to ("as") in line 14.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() In proceedings under subsection (1) of section five of the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938 (which enables the Court of Session to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of presumed death of one party) the Court shall have jurisdiction in the following cases only, that is to say—

  (a) in any proceedings, if the petitioner is domiciled in Scotland;

  (b) in proceedings by the wife, if she is resident in Scotland and has been ordinarily resident there for a period of three years immediately preceding the commencement of the proceedings;

  and in determining for the purposes of this subsection whether a woman is domiciled in Scotland, her husband shall be treated as having died immediately after the last occasion on which she knew or had reason to believe him to be living.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() In any proceedings in which the Court has jurisdiction by virtue of this section or of section two of the Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Act, 1944, the issues shall be determined in accordance with the law which would be applicable thereto if both parties were domiciled in Scotland at the time of the proceedings."}—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Power to vary orders for maintenance in the event of remarriage
  6.—(1) The power of the court under section fourteen of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938 (which provides for the discharge, variation or suspension of certain orders) shall be exercisable—

  (a) in relation to any order made tinder section four of this Act; and

  (b) in relation to any order for the securing of a gross or annual sum made under subsection (1) of section one hundred and ninety of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, or any similar order made under any enactment repealed by the last-mentioned Act,

  in like manner as it is exercisable in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section fourteen.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, these two Amendments to Clause 6, the first of which really makes way for the second, are intended to meet the objections which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman raised during the previous stages of this measure. Under the new proviso it will still be possible for the court to alter a trust, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merriman, called it last time, but, as your Lordships will see, only where the case is one of exceptional hardship. That meets the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, with all his experience in the Divorce Court. I am glad to think that he agrees with this new form of words, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("1925") to end of line 27.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
  ("Provided that in relation to an order made before the commencement of this Act under subsection (1) of the said section one hundred and ninety, the powers conferred by this section shall not be exercised unless the court is satisfied that the ease is one of exceptional hardship which cannot be met by the discharge, variation or suspension of any order made under subsection (2) of that section.")—(Lord Llewellin)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, in line 25 of page 3 we have just taken out the words
  "or any similar order made under any enactment repealed by the last-mentioned Act."
  Having taken that out, we have to put something in, because there may have been orders made before 1925, and I am now proposing that we should insert the words as printed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
  ("() References in this section to an order made under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section one hundred and ninety of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, shall be construed as including references to any order which has effect as if it were so made.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Evidence of access
  7.—(1) Notwithstanding any rule of law, the evidence of a husband or wife shall be admissible in any proceedings in England to prove that marital intercourse did or did not take place between them during any period.
  (3) Section four of the Adoption of Children Act, 1949, shall cease to have effect.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "in England." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the clause which seeks to overcome the difficulty of the decision in Russell v. Russell. That rule, as we thought, had never applied in Scotland, but on looking into the matter a little further we see that it was only in an original court in Scotland (I believe they call it the Outer House of the Court of Session) where this decision was reached; it has never been on appeal to the Court of Session, the Inner House, or to this House. If we are altering the law in regard to Scotland, as is the case with this Bill in Clause 2, it is as well to make certain that when we are doing away with the rule in Russell v. Russell in English courts, we also intend to do away with it in Scottish courts. We should not be doing that, perhaps, if we left in the Bill the limiting words "in England." For those reasons I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 35, leave out ("in England"). —(Lord Llewellin.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this measure I got into hot water in regard to this matter. I am glad to say that when I was being taken to task for referring to the Adoption of Children Act, 1949, at a time when that measure was still only a Bill, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack came to my rescue and said that he had done similar things. This was only an attempt to cover in subsection (3) what perhaps I may term, without any disrespect, a draftsman's point, 'because in Clause 4 of the Adoption of Children Bill, at any rate as it left your Lordships' House, exactly the same provision was made as is made general by Clause 7 of this Bill now before your Lordships. It was perhaps tidier not to have it partially
  956
  repealed in one Act, if the Adoption of Children Bill ever becomes an Act, and wholly repealed in another. I undertook then that we would not send this measure back to another place until we had put ourselves in order by ensuring that we did not call a measure which is still a Bill an Act, especially as the other place has not yet agreed to Amendments made in your Lordships' House. Furthermore, I am told that there has been some delay in the passage of the Adoption of Children Bill in another place. So I am asking your Lordships to let me put the matter right. Let us get on with this measure, which contains some valuable provisions, and do all we can to see that it becomes law as soon as possible. Perhaps the House will allow me, in moving this Amendment, to acknowledge with gratitude the great help which I have received in my work in connection with this Bill from the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack and from the able officers in his Department. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Llewellin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has correctly stated the position. I was luckier than he has been; I moved an Amendment in similar form and, as events proved, I had not to wait very long. In his case, unfortunately, there has been a rather longer delay. It is possible that when this Bill goes to another place the Adoption of Children Bill will have become an Act. In that case they will, in another place, put these words back again. If they do, we shall, of course, accept their Amendment. In the meantime, I think the noble Lord is wise to omit these words.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
  4.22 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past four o'clock.