Lords Sitting of 19 June 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

FAVERSHAM NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

VISCOUNT ADDISON
2.38 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I trust you will forgive the irregularity of this intervention, but today happens to be the eighty-second birthday of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I propose to send him a message of affection and good cheer on behalf of the whole House, and I am certain that your Lordships in all parts of the House will authorise me to do so. He is making good progress, and we all look forward to seeing him back here again as soon as may be. We very much hope that when that day comes he will be good and do what his doctors tell him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I, too, wish the Leader of the House very many happy returns of the day. As the Lord Chancellor has said, we hope to see him back soon, but I hope that he will first get really fit. Whenever he comes Lord Addison will receive a very warm welcome from us all.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire to be associated with this message to our noble Leader, wishing him many
116
happy returns of the day and a speedy return here.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, I should like to join in wishing the noble Viscount very many happy returns of the day. We hope we shall have his presence amongst us for many years to come.

DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES ORDER, 1951
2.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any details of this Order. It has been passed by the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords, and also by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in the House of Commons. It amounts to nothing more than this: York and Wakefield are so busy that we have to re-arrange the grouping. I beg to move.
Moved, That the District Probate Registries Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (EMERGENCY FEEDING) REGULATIONS. 1951
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) Regulations, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS (SCUNTHORPE) REGULATIONS, 1951

  CIVIL DEFENCE (PUBLIC PROTECTION) (SCUNTHORPE) REGULATIONS, 1951
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
  Moved, That the Civil Defence Corps (Scunthorpe) Regulations, 1951, and the Civil Defence (Public Protection) (Scunthorpe) Regulations, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (AMENDMENT) (NO.1) REGULATIONS, 1951
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) (No. 1) Regulations, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1951
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (OLDHAM AND ASHTON UNDER LYNE) ORDER, 1951
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I say a brief word about this Order? All previous Orders placed before your Lordships' House to this have carried merely a number, but on the last occasion I intimated to your Lordships that the Special Orders Committee had asked the Minister concerned to include a geographical designation to each Order,
118
and that has now been done. I beg to move that the Order be approved.
Moved, That the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Oldham and Ashton under Lyne) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE FURNISHINGS INDUSTRY (EXPORT PROMOTION LEVY) ORDER, 1951
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT(LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH): My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper, I do not think it is necessary for me to weary your Lordships unduly. This Order follows exactly the pattern of previous Orders which have received the approval of your Lordships, and the money, which will amount to £2,000 in the first six months, rising to £15,000 a year, will be paid over to British Lace Furnishings (Overseas) Limited, for the purpose of export promotion. It will be in a separate account, controlled by my noble friend the Paymaster General, and from time to time the Board of Trade will authorise payments to this company for the purpose set out. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LACE INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER, 1951
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, this Order is before your Lordships to alter the basis of the levy which was set out in the Lace Industry Levy Order, 1948. The reason for the change is that it has been found front experience more administratively convenient, and also more equitable to the industry, to have the individual incidence of the levy clearly set out in the Order, instead of its being computed by the Board of Trade every three months, as has been done in the past. The main purpose is exactly the same, and in this Order, as in the previous

119
Order, it has received the approval of both sides of industry. I beg to move.
Moved That the Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

ROAD TRANSPORTATION OF COAL
2.42 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is now intended, owing to the railway difficulties, to move coal from opencast sites by road; and, if so, whether they will make available to the road authorities concerned increased amounts for road maintenance and improvement.]
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, a considerable amount of opencast coal has always been carried by road since opencast working began. I understand that the National Coal Board have recently decided to switch a small additional part of the opencast coal output in the Midlands from rail to road. The Road Fund provision for road maintenance and improvement is allocated in accordance with need, having regard to the condition of the roads and the volume and character of the traffic using them. In cases where the Ministry of Fuel and Power admit liability for damage caused to the roads through opencast coal working itself, and through the transport of coal from the workings to the screening and disposal points, any such damage is made good from central funds on the advice of the Ministry of Transport. I do not think that any other provision is required. It is conceivable that in certain circumstances a claim might lie against the National Coal Board or merchants in respect of extraordinary traffic in transporting coal from the screening and dis-
120
posal points. This would be a matter for the highway authority concerned.
EARL HOWE: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he does not agree with me that the road system in this country is a capital asset of the first importance, and that the procedure which he has outlined may entail considerable delay in dealing with the various problems? If I understood the noble Lord aright, he said that where liability was admitted damage caused was made good through central funds; but where liability is not admitted, and there is a difference of opinion, it may take the appropriate authority a long time to hammer the matter out. With regard to road deterioration, perhaps the noble Lord will agree with me that there may well be delay in dealing with these matters, which may mean further deterioration. The noble Lord spoke of a "small amount" of coal from opencast. I should be glad to know what in his judgment a "small amount" of coal is, and whether he could arrange for extra sums to be made available to local authorities for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs with the object of preventing this cause of further deterioration.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the only part of the noble Earl's supplementary question with which I can agree is his opening sentence, which was to the effect that the roads are a capital investment of this country. Experience has proved that the procedure at present adopted does not cause any delay and is quite satisfactory. The Ministry of Fuel and Power are as anxious as we are that the roads should not be subjected to undue wear and tear. They have admitted liability in the past, and the matter has been settled amicably and expeditiously. I do not think there is any need at present to change the existing procedure.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS
2.46 p.m.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government (1) whether the small saver is not the backbone of the country; (2) whether

121
his deposits in the Trustee Savings Bank are now limited to £500 per annum up to a total of £2,000; and (3) whether this mixture of encouragement with discouragement is in the best interests of the people.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been asked to reply. The backbone of the country, like all backbones, consists of a number of smaller bones, of which the small saver is undoubtedly one. The noble Lord has correctly described the limits on deposits in the Trustee Savings Banks but, in addition, investments may be made in the Post Office Savings Banks and in National Saving Certificates and Defence Bonds. We believe that at the present time these facilities are still sufficient for the needs of the genuine small saver, but we have the matter under frequent review.
EARL MANVERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his courteous reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that many of the officials of the Savings Bank are in favour of doing increased business?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are aware of that, and discussions have been taking place in respect of it.

BANISHMENT OF TSHEKEDI KHAMA
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to make a further statement on the situation in Bechuanaland and the banishment of Tshekedi Khama; his request for an inquiry into these and other matters touching on the future of the Protectorate; and the effect of this policy on African opinion.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF LUCAN): My Lords, with the 'noble Viscount's permission I will answer this Question rather fully. As the noble Viscount is no doubt aware from statements which have been given publicity,
122
my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has had long discussions with Tshekedi Khama in London, mainly about the effect on the latter's personal interests of his exclusion from the Bamangwato Reserve in accordance with the decision set out in the White Paper on Bamangwato affairs (Command 7913). My right honourable friend made certain proposals to Tshekedi Khama which would have given the latter access, under certain conditions and undertakings, to his property in the Reserve. Tshekedi Khama did not see his way to accept these proposals, and has claimed full liberty of action and movement in the Bamangwato Reserve. This my right honourable friend has been unable to grant, as he is satisfied, from statements of the tribesmen themselves, from reports from his officers and from his own study of the situation on the spot, that Tshekedi Khania's unconditional return to the Bamangwato Reserve would be resented by a large majority of the inhabitants. Tshekedi Khama has, unfortunately, achieved great unpopularity with them, and it is only in his absence that progress can he made with the establishment of a new native authority composed of Africans. The advice of the local officers, which is supported by statements by tribal representatives, is that to grant Tshekedi Khama's request for full liberty of movement and action in the Reserve would lead to non-co-operation arid might result in disorders.
My right honourable friend was therefore faced with a situation in which he had to balance the private rights of an individual against the public good of the tribe. In reaching his decision he has been actuated by one motive—namely, the welfare and the constitutional progress of the Bamangwato people. This decision is, in effect, merely a confirmation of the action which Tshekedi Khama himself took voluntarily, when he left the Reserve with a number of followers in 1949 and declared publicly that he did so to avoid the danger of division and dissension in the tribe. This danger is certainly not less to-day than it was in 1949. My right honourable friend is unable to agree to Tshekedi Khama's request for a further inquiry into this and connected matters. He has himself given the whole matter most careful and exhaustive consideration, and a

123
further inquiry would merely unsettle the inhabitants of the Reserve and arouse again their fears about Tshekedi Khama's future. When the Resident Commissioner recently announced His Majesty's Government's decision to adhere to the White Paper, the people welcomed this, and the Government's intention to establish Councils. The satisfactory rate of tax collection during recent months is evidence of the tranquillity of the Reserve. His Majesty's Government trust that Africans elsewhere will take note that the Government's sole aim and motive is, as I have stated, the welfare and the constitutional progress of the Bamangwato people as a whole, in a matter on which they have expressed strong and consistent views.
2.51 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not always in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but I must say that on this particular occasion I have very strong sympathy, as I am sure a great many noble Lords have, with the preoccupations represented by the Question which he has asked this afternoon. Nor do we suggest that these preoccupations are in any way relieved by the answer which we have heard. So far as I know, Tshekedi has not committed any offence. It is not even suggested to-day that he has committed any offence. On the contrary, he is a most highly respected member of the community; and yet, apparently, he has been banished without any inquiry at all, and the Government are not even now prepared to grant an inquiry. The noble Earl used the words "further inquiry," but, so far as I know, there has been no inquiry into this particular question. All Tshekedi asks, as I understand it, is that he should be allowed freely to enter the territories of the Bamangwato Tribe in order to attend to his private affairs on his own property, and even that permission has been refused him. The noble Earl said that certain conditions were laid down by the Government. I do not see why any conditions should have been imposed. Tshekedi has not committed any crime or any offence of any kind, and the Government's decision appears to me to be entirely contrary to the principles of British justice, as we have always understood them in this country. I would most earnestly beg the
124
Government to reconsider their decision and to allow Tshekedi free entry to look after his own affairs, which is all he asks.
I would add one word. It seems to me that this is pre-eminently a question which your Lordships should debate at an early date. We on this side of the House and, I am sure, the noble Viscount also, would like to see such a debate arranged. I hope very much that the Government will make it possible for facilities to be granted for such purpose.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, before the noble Viscount speaks again. may I say that we, on these Benches, think it desirable that this matter should be properly ventilated in this House, in view of the concern that is felt on this matter in most parts of the country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it is obviously an appropriate matter for a debate, and if the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will be good enough to put down a Motion, with no day named, we will, through the usual channels, arrange an early date for a discussion.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess opposite, and to the noble Viscount, and I accept with gratitude what the Lord Chancellor has said. I will put down such a Motion.

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL
2.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Constitution of Courts-Martial Appeal Court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Before we part with this clause, may put two questions to the noble and learned Viscount, in order to clear up certain doubts which are in people's minds? The first attaches to paragraph

125
(d) of subsection (1) which refers to the appointment, as judges of the Appeal Court, of
"such other persons as the Lord Chancellor may appoint …"
That paragraph has been variously read: either, first, as confining the persons to be appointed to those with legal experience or, secondly, as being wide enough to admit of persons in the Services being appointed to membership of the court. I have always assumed that as this will be a court concerned with legal matters, and sometimes very important legal decisions, the intention was to confine membership of the Court to those with definite and considerable legal experience. In view of the doubts which have been raised, I should like an assurance to that effect, pointing out that the nomination of persons from the Services to deal with any particular matter in regard to Service conditions and customs can be met under Clause 8, which gives power, in case of need, to appoint assessors.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I am concerned, I will gladly give a specific answer. The persons are to be
"such other persons as the Lord Chancellor may appoint"
I apprehend, as does the noble Marquess who has just asked me this question, that this is to be a legal court dealing with legal matters. The only persons I should contemplate for selection and appointment are persons (I use the words of the noble Marquess) "with definite and considerable legal experience." I should not think it right to appoint distinguished officers merely because they had knowledge of Service conditions or anything of that sort: I should look for lawyers, and try to get lawyers of a real, high degree of competence and standing.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I had anticipated that those would be the lines of the reply given by the noble and learned Viscount. In view of the fact that there seemed to be some diversity of opinion, however, I thought it would be valuable to have an official and authoritative statement. My other question is this—and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will give us his view on the matter. The question has been somewhat canvassed, whether persons of
126
experience of military or naval law who are at the same time Members of another place—and it so happens that there are several who fulfil that qualification—would, without special statutory provision being made, be eligible for appointment to the court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to answer that question, too. I think it quite clear that anybody holding this office would be holding an office of profit under the Crown. That being so, I think Members of another place, if eligible otherwise for such appointments, would be disqualified from holding such office.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on the construction of Clause 1? It seems to me perfectly clear that, under that clause, a Lord Chancellor could appoint people with no qualifications whatever. I am bound to say that it never entered my mind that the present Lord Chancellor, whom we have the pleasure of seeing before us, would take any such step—but that is not the question. The question is whether some future Lord Chancellor might take quite a wrong view of what the House at present thinks would be his duty under this clause. I am fortified in that view from what we know happens in the United States of America, where judges have been appointed in high courts without any qualification whatever, because none is required by the Constitution. There might well be a Lord Chancellor here who might follow that example. I venture to suggest to the Government that, as we are all at one as to what should be the duty of the Lord Chancellor under this particular subsection, the Government should insert sortie words to show that it would be his duty to comply with what is laid down.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no objection to doing that. I should like to consider the matter, if I may, and, if I can find a suitable form of words, I will consider putting them down on Report stage. I have expressed what my intention is. I can hardly conceive that anybody holding this office would hold a different view. But as the noble and learned Viscount said, if we can find an appropriate form of words there is no harm in inserting them.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Supplementary provisions relating to the Court.
2.—(1) For the purpose of hearing and determining appeals under this Part of this Act, or any matter preliminary or incidental to an appeal, the Court shall be summoned in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chief Justice with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, and shall be deemed to be duly constituted if—

(a) it consists of an uneven number of judges, not being less than three; and

(b) (subject as hereinafter provided) at least one of the number of judges of which it consists is a judge of the Court by virtue of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.

3.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (1) to leave out all words from the beginning of the subsection down to paragraph (a) and to insert:
"2.—(1) For the purpose of hearing and determining Appeals under this Part of the Act or any matter preliminary or incidental to an Appeal the Court shall, (a) as regards Appeals from cases heard in England and Northern Ireland, be summoned in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chief Justice with the consent of the Lord Chancellor; (b) as regards Appeals from cases heard in Scotland be summoned in accordance with directions given by the Lord Justice General, and (c) as regards Appeals from cases heard overseas be summoned in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor and shall be deemed to he duly constituted if—"
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the manner in which this Court will be convened, and with the permission of the Committee I should like to take together this Amendment and the next which stands on the Order Paper in my name. I am not in any way wedded to them as they stand, but they raise two broad implications: first, in relation to a court-martial arising in Scotland, that the Appeal Court should normally sit in Scotland; and, secondly, that if it is desired to convene a court in Scotland or to act through it, then normally that will be done through the Lord Justice General. That is what I propose in my Amendments. I have taken Scotland as the example, but I realise that the implications behind this matter are very much wider. Indeed the two broad points to which I would like to draw attention are: first, the effect of distance between the site where the court-martial is held and that of the Appeal Court; and, secondly, that this court has wider powers than
128
have ever been given to an ordinary court-martial, in that for the first time a court, which in genesis is a military court, has certain powers over a civilian.
I should like to develop those two points a little. In regard to distance, the further the distance between the accused and the Court of Appeal the greater, necessarily, the costs. I know that there is provision in the Bill for legal aid to be given, but nobody, I think, knows exactly how that will be applied, or the level at which it will come into force. At this stage I would say only that the further the accused is from the Court of Appeal the higher should be the level at which legal aid is given, because necessarily the costs are higher; and whatever his standard of income may be he will find the costs of the appeal more difficult to meet. I notice that in certain circumstances the accused may be called upon to pay not only his own expenses but also the costs of the prosecution. No doubt that power will be used on only very rare occasions, but, nevertheless, it is there. For that reason anything which diminishes the liability for costs is, to my mind, an advantage.
The second point, I venture to stress, is the importance of the relations between the accused and his counsel. Those relations should be full and confidential. As the Lord Chancellor so properly said on Second Reading: "It is not enough that justice should be done, but justice should be seen to be done." In other words, the accused should be satisfied that his point of view is adequately represented. Personally, I think that that will be difficult if the accused never has an opportunity of actually seeing the counsel and the solicitor who are going to represent him. For that reason, though I realise that Scotland's position is only a part of this business, I suggest that if possible the Court of Appeal should be placed as near as possible to where the court-martial took place.
May I now turn to a further point? In the case of contempt of court, this Court of Appeal is given power to fine or to imprison a civilian, a power never previously held by a military court. I am not for one moment suggesting that this Court would misuse the power; I am saying only that the situation has certain wide implications, and that the Court would be better advised to operate on

129
such occasions as might be required, through the local criminal court. I am bound to say that we in Scotland should not very mach care for the Lord Chief Justice's warrant to run in criminal matters. If ever it were necessary for such action we should prefer it to be taken through the Lord Justice General. It is a situation which is unlikely to arise, but, with respect I suggest that the proposal in the Bill, even in the narrow sphere envisaged, creates a very bad precedent. For that reason, I submit two things: first of all, that a Court normally arising in Scotland—that is to say a Court convened by Scottish Command, or by the Admiral in charge of naval forces in Scotland, or by the two R.A.F. groups in Scotland—should normally sit in Scotland; and, secondly, if any case should arise where for any reason the Court thinks it necessary to issue a warrant, that that should be done through the Lord Justice General. I am sure he would be glad to give it his full support. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GODDARD: I confess that I have considerable sympathy with the contentions put forward by the noble Earl. Whether this clause is in its most convenient form I do not know. When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I did not disguise my dislike of it, and one particular thing which I dislike is the fact that I do not know, and cannot find out, what will be my position as Lord Chief Justice, and therefore as President of this Court, with regard to the Scottish and Irish judges. I have no jurisdiction over the Irish judges or the Scottish judges, and yet they are made members of the Court. When am I to call upon the Scottish judges? Am I to write to the Lord Justice General occasionally and say, "Will you send down a judge to sit in London?" Or am I to say, "I am going to give directions that this case shall be held in Scotland. Will you please man the court?" There is nothing in the Bill which says what will be the position of the Lord Chief Justice in England, except that he is to be President of the Court, and I think it puts me in an exceedingly invidious position. I have very considerable sympathy with the views put forward.
130
The difficulty that might arise in regard to committing somebody for contempt is not one of the things that I had envisaged. It is very unlikely that it will arise. But I think we shall soon reach some sort of impasse with this Bill if it becomes an Act. Scottish soldiers will be tried in England. They may desire to be tried in Scotland, and they may say that they do not see why they should not be tried by a Scottish judge. Am I to ask for judges to come down from Scotland? On the other hand, there will be English regiments stationed in Scotland. Am I to arrange with the Lord Justice General that the appeal shall take place in Scotland? I really do not know what the position is. As I say, one of the objections that I have felt in regard to this Bill all the way along is that it puts me into a very difficult position—in saying "me" I refer to my position as President of the Court. This is not one of the points which has received the attention which I venture to think it deserves. Nothing could be worse than that there should be any danger of the judges in England getting into difficulties with the judges in Scotland. I am sure that is the last thing that we or they would desire. But if anybody will tell me how this Bill is really to be worked—because, unfortunately, I am the person who has to work it—I shall be very glad. I support the noble Earl in his Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that the difficulty envisaged by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment and by the Lord Chief Justice is quite so great as they seem to think. I sometimes think that in these matters the less we try to tie ourselves by definite rules, and the more we leave it to common sense, the better. Very frequently, in my experience, a difficulty which we expect, does not arise. The administration of this part of the measure is to be
"in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chief Justice with the consent of the Lord Chancellor."
The Lord Chief Justice and I have had to make directions in all sorts of matters. Sometimes they have been made by him with my approval, and sometimes, I think, by me with his approval. I am bound to say that we have never had any difficulty yet in coming to a satisfactory conclusion.

131
This is what I visualise—and as the Lord Chief Justice is here he will be able to tell me if he thinks I have it all wrong. I do not want to have a definite set of rules as to when the Court is to sit in Edinburgh, and when it is to sit in London. I visualise, and I think the Bill clearly contemplates, that there will be a considerable number of hearings which will take place in Edinburgh. It is clearly for that reason that Scottish judges are made members of the Court. I should suppose that in a normal case, where a Court has been convened in Edinburgh it would probably be because the soldier concerned was himself in Edinburgh, and because the offence was committed there, and that from every point of view it was typically a Scottish case. I should imagine that in such case, generally speaking, the Court will sit in Edinburgh. And I should also imagine that the Lord Chief Justice will find that if he writes to the Lord Justice General—although he, has no power to command him—he will find in the Lord Justice General a very willing co-operator in making arrangements for the Court. I can well understand that it may be thought desirable to have sitting in Edinburgh one member who habitually sits in London. One wants to avoid anything which would tend to a type of jurisprudence developing and growing up in Edinburgh different from that which is applied in London. One would want also, therefore, by parity of reasoning, to have one of the Scottish members sitting in London.
In my view it would not be wise to fix this matter by rules. I do not think it would be advisable to have a rule whereby a particular type of appeal must be in one place or another. I think it is better to leave it to common sense and good judgment, to consider each case on its merits, and to decide in each case what is the forum conveniens. I imagine that that system will work. Of course, it will work only if there is real cooperation between the Scottish judges, between the Lord Justice General and the Lord Chief Justice. My experience (and I have to deal with the Scottish judges perhaps more than does the Lord Chief Justice at the present time) is that one always receives the fullest cooperation from them. So in my view there is no need to be concerned about difficulties which would arise if you did
132
not get co-operation; you do get it, and you can confidently depend upon getting it. I believe that it will be better to leave matters it this way, so that the Lord Chief Justice will look at each case and will determine, having regard to the facts, whether it is an Edinburgh case or a London case; or, let me add, whether it is a Belfast case—it does not appear that the Amendment covers this last possibility. I think we shall find that if we follow the course which I have outlined, our difficulties will be surmounted, and that the machinery will work pretty smoothly.
I should also be opposed to this Amendment on another ground. No one seeks to alter the proposal, but under the Bill there is to be one Registrar of the Court. I have to appoint him, and it is an important appointment. If he is as good a man, as I hope he will be, he will be a tower of strength, both to the Lord Chief Justice and to myself. But he will be just one Registrar, and he will be in control in whatever jurisdiction proceedings may take place. Therefore, I think that the whole scheme will work happily if we leave it to the Lord Chief Justice, with my concurrence, to decide where an appeal from any particular court-martial is to take place.
The only other point with which I wish to deal is one which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—the point about the difficulty which may arise over getting witnesses. The procedure we have set out in the Bill is almost precisely the same as that laid down for the Court of Criminal Appeal. I believe that no difficulty has ever arisen in the Court of Criminal Appeal in this matter. Section 49 of our Judicature Act allows the High Court or the Court of Session to issue a subpoena whenever a witness is within the United Kingdom. I am told it is done if an affidavit is furnished that the witness's attendance is necessary. That, I think, answers Lord Selkirk's question. Failure to comply with the High Court's order is punishable by the Court of Session, or by the High Court of Northern Ireland, as the case may be. That is how the machinery stands at the present time. So far as I know, this machinery has never been brought into play in the nearly fifty years that the Court of Criminal Appeal has been working; but it is there. I hope that the noble Earl

133
will not press his Amendment. The Lord Chief Justice has heard what I have said, and if he agrees that the way this scheme will be best worked will be by taking each particular case and considering which is the forum conveniens, perhaps that will reassure the noble Earl. If the Lord Chief Justice disagrees with me, of course he will state so now, so that I do not give the noble Earl a comfort and sense of security which is unreal. But I hope that what I have said—if the Lord Chief Justice does not dissent from it—will satisfy the noble Earl.
3.16 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: Naturally I shall be only too anxious to work this Bill when it becomes an Act with what the Lord Chancellor described as common sense and good feeling. Naturally one would wish to do so. But some of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks just now have made me think that this matter is a great deal more difficult than at first sight appears. He suggests—and I should suggest, too—that the best way of working this is to consider the forum conveniens; so that if the court-martial has taken place in Scotland the appeal should be heard in Edinburgh—subject, of course, to this: that by the time the appeal comes on, the unit to which the man belongs may have moved to England or may have gone overseas. I do not know how one will have to go to work in those circumstances; but that is a detail.
As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has pointed out, it would be most undesirable to have two sets of jurisprudence growing up, one in Scotland and one in England, with, possibly, a third in Northern Ireland. I ventured to point out to your Lordships during the Second Reading debate that I thought one of the objections to this Bill was that inevitably a body of case law would grow up around this Act, to he hurled at the heath of bewildered brigadiers when presiding over courts-martial. To prevent that, the Lord Chancellor suggests that one of tie Scottish judges should sit in England when the court is sitting in England, and, I suppose, by parity of reasoning, that one English judge should sit in Scotland when there is an appeal there. It seems to me that it will be somewhat unusual for judges to be changing about in this way. None of us knows how many appeals there will be
134
under this Bill when it becomes an Act. If, whenever there is an appeal from a Scottish court-martial, I have always to send a judge up from England to Edinburgh, and whenever there is an appeal from an English court-martial one of the Scottish judges has to come down and sit in England, I think some difficulties and discontent may arise.
Naturally, there will be more appeals here in London than in Edinburgh. If I am to invite one of the Lords of Session to come down to nearly all appeals heard in England, in order to ensure that the jurisprudence goes parallel, and that contrary decisions are not given, then we must do it. But I would remind your Lordships that in Clause 2(3) there is a provision which says that the Court shall sit in London except in cases where the Lord Chief Justice gives direction that it shall sit at some other place. Obviously, the intention of the Act is that the Court should normally sit in London. If this is simply to be run by way of give-and-take, we may be able to work it; but I should like to know whether the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor thinks that the right way to work this would be for Scottish judges to come down and sit in London, and to have a similar arrangement in regard to the Northern Ireland Bench. I think this proposal is fraught with difficulties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I intervene again? I do not contemplate that Scottish judges should come to England, or that English judges should go to Scotland. I contemplate that the people I am going to appoint, who are going to be more precisely defined, although normally they will sit in England may sit in Scotland; and, similarly, those E appoint in Scotland may sit in England. I do not contemplate that that will be necessary in every case, or in anything like every case, but I thought it would be desirable to have that kind of nexus, to prevent jurisdiction developing on different lines. When the Court sits in Edinburgh, a Scottish judge will preside; and an English judge will preside when it sits in England. Nevertheless, on occasion it may be desirable to have one of the English persons I appoint (he may be a K.C., for instance) going up to Scotland, or one of the Scots coming to England. And there might be exceptional cases when it would be desirable that even a Scottish

135
or Northern Ireland judge should sit in an English court. Sometimes it may be desirable to mix the personnel, so that each Court may sympathise and understand the point of view taken by the other Court. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, will agree with me that it is better not to have this Amendment and to work the scheme on the lines I have suggested.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, for what they have said. I think I am fully met with the principle of the forum conveniens. I think that is the right principle, but I feel that if that is the case, it should not be necessary to include the words "shall sit in London … except …" Why not say that the court shall sit in forum conveniens, which seems suitable to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice? I think that the noble and learned Lords have to a great degree cleared up what has been worrying many people about the manner in which the Court shall be convened, and I shall not press this Amendment at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
Application for leave to appeal.
(".—(1) A person convicted by a court martial may, when presenting to the appropriate authority a petition praying that his conviction he quashed, submit therewith an application in the prescribed form for leave to appeal to the Court in the event of the petition not being granted.
(2) Where such an application has been submitted with a petition, and the petition has not been granted, leave to appeal to the Court may be given or the application may be refused, where the appropriate authority is the Admiralty, by the Judge Advocate of His Majesty's Fleet, or, where the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State, by the Judge Advocate General.
(3) Where in accordance with the provisions of this section leave to appeal to the Court has been given or an application for leave to appeal has been refused, such leave or refusal
136
shall be treated as having been given or made by a judge of the Court, and the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act shall apply accordingly."
The noble Marquess said: This is the most substantial of the Amendments which my noble friends and I have put on the Order Paper. It has one purpose and one only: that is, to expedite the procedure to be established under this Bill for the hearing of appeals. It is not intended to be in substitution for the procedure set out in the Bill, but to be an alternative course open to the convicted person. As the Bill stands, the existing procedure in regard to a petition by a person convicted remains, but over and above that he obtains under the Bill a right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court. That right can be exercised only at a time when either the time for the petition has expired or the petition has been rejected by the appropriate authority. What that involves is that the existing procedure by petition has to go forward to its final conclusion before the machinery for application for leave to appeal under this new procedure comes into operation. It seems to us that that order of events, the postponement of even the originating step of application for leave to appeal until the petition is entirely cleared out of the way by rejection, involves an unnecessarily complicated and dilatory procedure.
If this Court is to commend itself to the Service man, it is essential that it shall acquire as rapidly as possible the reputation of being not only efficient but expeditious. It is not right that a man who has been convicted should have to wait for a long period of time until he knows whether or not the sentence is going to be carried out or whether, as the result of an appeal to the new Court, the conviction may ultimately be quashed. He ought not to be kept in suspense any longer than is necessary for the carrying out of the proper procedure. Therefore, in order to speed that result, we suggest in our Amendment, not, as I say, in substitution for the present petition but as a corollary to it and contemporaneously with its institution, that it shall be open to a man who has been convicted at a court-martial to attach to his petition an application which, if the petition is rejected, automatically gives him leave to proceed with his application for leave to appeal to the Court. That would mean

137
that the two documents would go forward simultaneously, if not as one document with an appendix; but, of course, the notice of appeal part would become operative only when the petition was rejected.
There are two subsequent stages in this procedure included in our Amendment. In the case of an application for appeal being attached to the petition, and only in such a case, we propose that the Judge Advocate of the Fleet or the Judge Advocate General shall have power either to allow the appeal or to reject it. Following upon that, we suggest that where the Judge Advocate of the Fleet or the Judge Advocate General has refused leave to appeal, there should be an appeal from him, not to the one judge who under the Bill deals with applications for leave to appeal, but to the full Court: in other words, that for that limited purpose, and for that limited purpose only—namely, for the granting of leave to appeal—the Judge Advocate of the Fleet or the Judge Advocate General shall be in the same position as a single judge of the Court examining applications for leave to appeal on behalf of the full Court.
The purpose of this particular part of our Amendment is that we do not want it to appear to the Service men that, if the Judge Advocate of the Fleet or the Judge Advocate-General has power to refuse leave to appeal, something like the old state of affairs is re-created, and all that happens is that a functionary, who may be regarded by them, however wrongly, as merely a departmental functionary of the War Office or the Admiralty, as the case may be, has exercised the power conclusively, and that no further steps can be taken. We have, therefore, thought it right to give this power of appeal from him to the full Court.
I have no doubt that it will be said that we are by this Amendment removing what it has rather become the habit to call one of the valuable filters through which these applications pass. That may be so. It may be that if our Amendment is adopted it will cast a heavier burden upon the actual Court. But, at the same time, when on the Second Reading I expressed some doubt about the aspect of over-burdening the Court, particularly in
138
war time—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice appeared to anticipate no particular danger to the procedure from that cause. It may be that this is not the best way of attaining the object that we have in view. I would say at once that we are not irrevocably attached to this particular scheme but what we are most firmly desirous of attaining is some procedure more expeditious than the rather cumbersome and dilatory procedure contained in the Bill as it stands.
It may even be that, from this point of view of saving time, it would be wise and practicable to draw a distinction in procedure between courts-martial which are held in the United Kingdom and those which are held elsewhere. The danger of any considerable period of delay in courts-martial held in the United Kingdom is probably, to all intents and purposes, negligible; but we are greatly impressed by the possibilities of delay under the now proposed system in courts-martial which may be held in Korea. Singapore, North Africa or where you will, where, although the petition can be presented locally, it will be necessary for it to make its way home to the appropriate authority, there to be considered and decided upon, the decision communicated back to the theatre of war in which the man is serving, and only then the machinery put into operation for the application for leave to appeal. That seems to us too slow and too oppressive upon the man who desires to appeal.
As has been said, it is anybody's guess how many of these applications there are going to be. But I cannot help thinking that, except in an obviously frivolous case, anybody advising a Service man under the new conditions to be established by this Bill would almost inevitably say to him: "You have two opportunities here: one the petition, and the other the application for leave to appeal. You will be very unwise if you do not use them both." In those circumstances, the argument that if you have a contemporaneous procedure rather than a successive procedure you will add to the number of appeals, I, for one, do not believe will be found to be established in practice. That is the purpose of this Amendment. We attach considerable importance to the principle behind it, even though we are not pledged to the

139
particular machinery which we have proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My noble and learned friend has explained the reason behind this Amendment so clearly that I should wish to support what he has said in only a few words and from the military point of view. The Lewis Committee, of which I was a member, made a considerable point in their Report—it is paragraph 83—of this question of avoiding delays. One saw it so clearly on the Lewis Committee, and I can see it beginning again in the discussions on this Bill, that as time goes on more and more people try to get the legal aspect absolutely right, and as a result we are in danger of reaching a position which, if one may say so without irreverence, will be the lawyer's delight and the soldier's despair.
I believe it is fair to say that the procedure envisaged in this Bill is largely modelled on the criminal appeal procedure. I am sure that that would be a good thing if the circumstances of the cases corresponded completely. It can perhaps be argued that a court-martial at home, in the circumstances surrounding it, fits fairly well the circumstances of a criminal appeal—although not exactly, because the witnesses in a court-martial are more likely to be posted overseas than are those who are concerned in a criminal appeal. But when we come to overseas courts-martial, the case is entirely altered. There, unless we are careful, with all our good intentions in this Bill, we may produce a state of affairs in which the delays are even worse than those of which the Lewis Committee complained, and where, owing to battle circumstances, cross-posting, invaliding home, and the rest, it becomes impossible to work this machine so as to avoid delay. For that reason, I warmly support this Amendment; and I would particularly say that, whatever may be the circumstances at home, the position overseas calls for an Amendment of the kind which my noble friend has moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before dealing with the detailed provisions of this Amendment, I should like to remind your Lordships of something which you
140
all know already. What is the structure of this Bill? We have left in all the existing machinery governing courts-martial: that is to say, after the court-martial there is the question of confirmation by the convening officer; after confirmation there is the review, which takes place in every case; after the review there is the petition, which can take place; and on the petition, by virtue of the prerogative right, His Majesty may be advised to take whatever course he thinks proper in regard to the matter. All that structure remains untouched. I think it was wise to do that because, as I have said frankly to your Lordships, none of us quite knows to what extent this procedure can work in time of war. We hope it will work; we believe it will work; but any man who asserts positively that he knows it will work is a very unwise and rash person. Therefore, I think it is right that we should preserve the existing machinery for that reason, and also because—and I say this without hesitation. as I have said before—in my experience of these matters the existing courts-martial machinery has worked very well. There have been defects, more of a matter of form than anything else, and in particular it is a weakness of the existing machinery that the person accused is not brought face to face with his judges. That is the main grievance against the existing system.
What we have done, quite deliberately, is to superimpose a new system on the existing machinery when the existing machinery has run its course and when the prerogative rights are exhausted. I say frankly to your Lordships that one of my anxieties about how this thing will work is whether or not the court will become clogged up with a mass of cases. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said just now that he understood that the Lord Chief Justice indicated that he was not concerned upon that point. I was a little surprised to hear that, because that is not my recollection of what the Lord Chief Justice said. I thought he was concerned about it. But whether he is or is not, he can speak for himself, and I have no doubt that he will do so. I confess that I am concerned about it. I am concerned—if I may borrow and use once again this overworked word "filter"—to see that all the titters are in good working order. I hope that the fact that

141
after the review has taken place a petition has to be lodged before this machinery comes into operation will act as a filter.
In a large number of cases, after the review has confirmed the proceedings there is no petition. Long may that continue. I hope that when the petition is over, and all that is done with, there will be a substantial number of cases in which the person accused will not ask for leave to appeal. I hope so, although I do not know. Experience will teach us.
The first vice of this Amendment, as I see it, is that it makes it almost inevitable that wherever there is a petition so also there will be an appeal, because in effect this Amendment provides that where you make your petition you at the same time serve your notice of appeal. I concede the noble Marquess this point: I certainly do not want to have undue delay. He has a point in saying that this Amendment would tend to lessen the delay in the circumlocution which might otherwise take place. But think I am paying too big a price for that avoidance of delay if, at the same time, I am destroying (I must use the word again) the filter, because I shall tend to get my machine clogged up with cases. There was some substance in what the noble Marquess said about differentiating between courts-martial which take place overseas and courts-martial which take place in this country. Suppose you have a court-martial arising out of some incident at Aldershot. I cannot see any reason whatever why, when the petition has been finally disposed of and the prerogative rights are over and exhausted, there should be delay. If he wishes, the man can serve his notice of appeal and it can be considered. It is, of course, a different matter if the case comes from, let us say, Korea. I realise that point, and yesterday evening I was myself a little disposed to think that we might be able to do something on those lines. I have acquainted the Army Council with the trend of my thoughts, but at the present time I gather that they are not very favourably disposed to it, so I cannot commit myself.
I shall take an opportunity of seeing the Service Ministers and discussing the matter with them, to see what we can do. Without in any sense committing myself
142
or the Government, it is possible that we may be able to provide machinery of this sort for courts-martial which take place abroad. It is possible that a scheme may be devised whereby a notice of appeal may be prepared at an early stage. It may be treated, to use the legal phrase, as an escrow until such time as the petition is dismissed, and if and when the petition is dismissed it can then be put before the court so that they may deal with it. That is a possible way out of the difficulty. I do not want in any way to commit myself.
I am quite sure that the principle advocated in this Amendment, to enable the Judge Advocate General or the Judge Advocate of His Majesty's Fleet to grant or refuse leave to appeal, is a bad one. What would the effect be? Leave to appeal is considered in this way. The Court consists normally of three judges. The judges allocate a certain number of cases amongst themselves (the public do not realise that His Majesty's judges at the present time are called upon to do a large amount of homework) and they take them home over the week-end and read them. By a matter of practice one judge reads the case, and one judge can say, "This is a proper case for appeal"; or he can say, "I do not think this is a proper case for appeal". If he says that it is not a case for appeal, then the accused person has the right to apply to the Court consisting of the three judges. In practice, where the single judge, on reading the papers, says he thinks it is not a proper case for appeal, in a considerable number of cases the particular applicant goes no further; and I hope that may continue to be so. If, as is provided here, the Judge Advocate General can give or refuse leave to appeal, consider what will happen. Prejudices die slowly, and he will be regarded, quite wrongly—to use the phrase of the noble Marquess—as a "departmental functionary". He will be considered as part of the Army machine, and he has refused leave to appeal. I think it is almost inevitable that when he refuses leave it will almost incite the person convicted to appeal. What is then provided by the Amendment?—that that appeal has to go before the full Court. By that method we shall not get the useful filter of the single judge. That will be destroyed, and the appeal will go to the full Court. I believe that that will cause delay. It would be a bad

143
step and would make a difficult situation more difficult.
However, I have drafted an Amendment to this effect. If there has been a long and complicated case, which has been the subject of petition, and the Judge Advocate of the Fleet or the Judge Advocate General, though he thinks the petition ought not to be allowed, has come to the conclusion that there is a real case to argue and writes upon the papers: "In my view this is a case where there ought to be an appeal," I think it quite reasonable that the single judge should be able to have regard to that and say. "I will give leave to appeal." Your Lordships will see that I have provided that in Amendment No. 7 on the Marshalled List. It is in these words:
"In considering whether or not to give leave to appeal, the Court shall have regard to any expression of opinion made by the Judge Advocate of His Majesty's Fleet or the Judge Advocate General that the case is a fit one for appeal, and, if any such expression is so made, may, without more, give leave to appeal."
That will be a boon to the judge if there is a complicated question, say, of accounts—of taking money or something of that sort. It will save him having to read through a mass of papers. The Judge Advocate General can say "think leave to appeal should be granted," and the appeal will be heard before the full Court. But the effect of this Amendment is really to take the thing out of the hands of the judge. I think that would be a retrograde step.
On the whole I do not like this Amendment, but I will gladly consider any way possible of speeding up the necessary papers. If we were to accept the Amendment in the present form, however, we should, for the sake of some little celerity, be destroying some of the existing filters and safeguards; and we might bring about that very condition the idea of which fills me with alarm: that this Court in its early days would be clogged up with work. Therefore that is all I can say to the noble Marquess: that between now and the Report stage I will see whether I can do anything on the lines I have indicated. But I must not be taken as making any promise.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is as regards courts-martial outside this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Courts-martial outside. The only indication I have had so far, as I have said, is that the Army Council were not altogether happy; but so long as my position is preserved in that matter I will consider whether there is anything that can be done. I hope that this will give some satisfaction to the noble Marquess and that at a later stage I may be able to do something on the lines I have suggested.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a few observations on what has been said by the noble Marquess and by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The scheme of the Bill as it exists at present is that a man shall first petition and, if his petition has been refused, may apply for leave to appeal. If the noble Marquess's suggestion were adopted, everybody who was presenting a petition would, of course, put in at the same time an application for leave to appeal. Why should he not? He would have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Therefore, it would, in effect, be saying that he could appeal without petition, because if the petition were dismissed, then the leave to appeal would go forward automatically. In the Court of Criminal Appeal there is a somewhat similar filter. At present, when a person desires leave to appeal (and there are an extraordinary number who do appeal, without any grounds whatever: well over 1,200 a year, I think), the case is always sent to a single judge first, unless there has been a certificate by the trial judge that it is a fit case. We find that about 25 per cent. of the people who apply for leave to appeal are content with the decision of the single judge. If the single judge gives leave to appeal, it goes to the court. If the single judge refuses, we find that about 25 per cent. of the appeals drop out. It is only recently that we have adopted this plan as fully as it is now in operation. All sentence appeals go to the single judge, and about 30 per cent. of the appeals are dropped if the single judge refuses. I should be sorry to see the noble Marquess's Amendment adopted, because I am certain that everybody would send in a notice of appeal with his petition, and it would then go forward as a matter of course if the petition were refused.
But, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, I do not think

145
there would be any objection to the Judge Advocate, if he were refusing a petition, saying that in his opinion it was a fit case for appeal, because then he would be putting himself only in the same position as that in which a trial judge now stands in civil matters. A trial judge can always give a certificate that a case is a fit case for appeal. I do not see any reason why the Judge Advocate General should not also be able to say, "I reject the petition, but I will give a certificate that this is a fit case for appeal." It need not then go to a single judge at all. I hope and believe that at least as many courts-martial appellants as appellants to the Court of Criminal Appeal would be content with the dismissal of the petition. If an Amendment were agreed by which an application should not be sent forward with the petition—except possibly in foreign countries—but that the Judge Advocate General should have the right to say, "This is a fit case for appeal," it might, I think, be an improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, for their contributions to the discussion on my Amendment. I think it has become plain, from the discussion we have had, that there is a genuine desire everywhere to expedite the procedure so far as possible, and some consciousness that something might be done more than is done in the Bill as it at present stands to achieve that object. I realise that the noble and learned Viscount can give no assurance at this stage. But perhaps it would be possible that something of the nature that he indicated, differentiating between courts-martial which take place at home and those which take place abroad, could be introduced into the Bill—and I should welcome some further addition on the lines which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, has just indicated with regard to the position of the Judge Advocate General. If certain propositions of that kind can be considered between now and Report stage, with the object of seeing whether agreement among all those interested can be arrived at, certainly I should not wish to press my Amendment to-day. As it is my understanding that the noble and learned Viscount is prepared to discuss the matter further between now and the
146
next stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Application for leave to, appeal]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, after ("which") insert ("an")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out ("may he made") and insert ("must be lodged")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"( ) In considering whether or not to give leave to appeal, the Court shall have regard to any expression of opinion made by the Judge Advocate of His Majesty's Fleet or the Judge Advocate General that the case is a fit one for appeal, and, if any such expression is so made, may, without more, give leave to appeal."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the Amendment which I indicated just now. It is to deal with this situation: the Judge Advocate General is not a member of the Court, and therefore he differs slightly from the trial judge of a court, who is a member of the Court of Criminal Appeal. Although I do not think it is appropriate that the Judge Advocate General should give leave to appeal, because we want to indicate that this Court is completely independent of any departmental function (if I may use that unpleasant phraseology about the Judge Advocate General) I believe that, where he thinks the case is a proper one for appeal, he should be able to give his opinion to that end—in spite of the fact that he has dismissed the petition; and may I tell those of your Lordships who are not trained in the law that that very often happens, and there is nothing illogical in it?
A judge may quite rightly say: "I think this petition ought to be dismissed." He may also say: "I think there is an arguable case on the other side." In such

147
cases, the judge is often much happier if the case can be argued, and it is perfectly consistent for him to say: "I think the petition must be dismissed, and I shall so advise. At the same time, I shall be glad if this case can be considered by the Court of Appeal." If he does that, I do not see why it is necessary that that case should ever go before the single judge. It should be treated as though the single judge had given permission. Therefore, I have worded this Amendment in such a way as to take regard of the fact that, because the Judge Advocate General is not a member of the Court, and it is therefore harder for hits to give leave, if he indicates that in his view leave should be given, then, without more, the single judge to whom the case is passed will simply say: "I pass this on to the full Court, and the full Court can consider it." I think this may be a saving of time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD GODDARD: I would remind the Lord Chancellor, if I may, of one thing. He said that the difference between the Judge Advocate General and a judge giving leave to appeal is that the judge who gives a certificate that the case is fit for appeal is a member of the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is not so in every case, however, because a chairman of quarter sessions can do it, and a recorder can do it. And they are not members of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I do not quite understand the object of this Amendment. If the Judge Advocate General, in dismissing a petition, says: "I consider that this is a fit case for appeal." why should not the appeal at once lie to the Court, and not have to go to the single judge who, according to the Amendment, would fall to be really a rubber stamp, as I think? I am suggesting that the "rubber stamp" might be taken out, and that if the Judge Advocate General or the Judge Advocate of the Fleet expresses the opinion that it is a fit case for appeal, the appeal should go to the Court straight away. That is all I have to say about it.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, has just said, and in view of the suggestion made during the dis-
148
cussion on the earlier Amendment, that we should have talks on the point between now and the next stage, would the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor consider withdrawing this Amendment at this stage, with a view to taking it into our general conspectus of the situation between now and Report? It may be that in its present form this Amendment will not fit into any wider settlement that we might reach between now and then.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:I am quite ready to do that. I thought it right to put down this Amendment, so that your Lordships could see what I had in mind. By all means let us discuss it later, and if it would be more convenient for the discussion that this Amendment should not be in the Bill I gladly accept that suggestion. Having indicated the sort of thing I had in mind, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Powers of the Court in special cases.
(3)Where an appellant has been convicted of an offence committed under circumstances involving the higher of two degrees of punishment, and it appears to the Court that the court-martial ought to have found him guilty of the offence as being committed under circumstances involving the lower degree of punishment, the Court may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the finding of the court-martial a finding of guilty of the offence as being committed under circumstances involving the lower degree of punishment and pass on the appellant, in substitution for the sentence passed on him by the court-martial, such sentence as they think proper, being a sentence warranted by the relevant Act for the offence when committed under circumstances involving the lower degree of punishment.
(4)Where, on an appeal to the Court against a conviction by an army or air force court-martial, the Court are satisfied that a finding ought to have been substituted, by virtue of powers conferred in that behalf by the Army Act or the Air Force Act, for the finding of the court-martial, they may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the finding of the court-martial such a finding as, in their opinion, ought to have been so substituted and pass on the appellant, in substitution for the sentence passed on him by the court-martial, such sentence as they think proper, being a sentence warranted by the relevant Act for the offence specified or involved in the substituted finding but not being a sentence of greater severity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, at end insert ("by which he was tried")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3) after "punishment" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"or
(b) an appellant has been convicted of an offence and it appears to the Court that the court-martial by which he was tried ought to have found him guilty of the offence subject to exceptions or variations;".
The noble and learned Viscount said: Perhaps it would be convenient, if I am not breaking the rules of order, to discuss this Amendment together with the next three which stand in my name.
In Clause 6 of this Bill, your Lordships will see that there are four subsections dealing with this sort of matter—I am not concerned for the moment with subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (2) deals with this sort of case. Where the trial court, for instance, has found a man guilty of murder, and the Court of Appeal think that a verdict of manslaughter is the appropriate decision, they may substitute a verdict of manslaughter for the verdict of murder, it being plain, of course, that all the ingredients of manslaughter are already to be found in the decision of murder. Subsection (3) deals with this sort of case—I will give an illustration, because I think that makes it easier to follow. If a man strikes an officer, the gravity of the offence depends upon whether or not he is on active service. Suppose that at the court-martial the soldier has been convicted of striking an officer on active service, and that the appellate court come to the conclusion that the service in question did not constitute "active service" they can then substitute a verdict of "striking him while not on active service," with the appropriate penalty for that offence, which is, of course, a lesser penalty.
Subsection (4) was intended to deal with the case where there has been failure to amend the charge sheet. The charge is, perhaps, lo the effect that a man has stolen £100, and the decision is that he has stolen £95. The charge sheet ought to have been amended, but was not. That
150
is the sort of case with which subsection (4) was meant to deal. On going into this matter carefully, it has been considered that subsection (4), which was inserted in some haste in another place, is not satisfactory, in that it overlaps both subsections (2) and (3); and it has therefore been decided to strike out subsection (4) and to alte7 subsection (3). The substance of subsection (4) is brought into subsection (3), which now comes under two limbs. The Amendment amounts to little more than a drafting matter, but that is the explanation as to why it has been done. Accordingly, I beg to move the first of these Amendments. As I say the next three Amendments really follow one on the other. Number 12 is to leave out subsection (4), and numbers 9, 10 and 11, put into subsection (3) the points that were previously to be found in subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next three Amendments with which I have already dealt.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 38, after ("punishment") insert ("or, as the case may he, guilty of the offence subject to exceptions or variations");
Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 42, and insert ("specified or involved in the substituted finding, but not being a sentence of greater severity");
Page 5, line 43, leave out subsection (4).—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Legal aid to appellants.
10.—(1) The Court may at any time assign to an appellant a solicitor and counsel, or counsel only, in any appeal or proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal in which, in the opinion of the Court, it appears desirable in the interests of justice that the appellant should have legal aid and that he has not sufficient means o enable him to obtain that aid.
4.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to delete "or counsel only." The noble Earl said: After the weighty subject we have

151
been considering, this is a very small point. Clause 10 deals with the granting of legal aid to appellants and it says that the Court may appoint solicitor and counsel, or counsel only. I submit that it is highly unsatisfactory in a high Court of this nature that counsel should be appointed without solicitor. It is our normal practice in Scotland, even in courts of first instance, never to appoint counsel without solicitor. I believe that is not so in England. It seems to me, however, that in such a Court as this, no appellant could be adequately represented unless he had the services both of solicitor and of counsel. I know it is within the discretion of the Court and I am quite certain the Court will use their powers widely; but none the less, if we leave in the words which I suggest should be removed we shall be suggesting to the Court that Parliament thinks that an appellant is adequately represented by counsel only. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("or counsel only.").—(The Earl of Selkirk)
LORD GODDARD: I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment, because it would establish a great difference between the court-martial Appeal Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal. If counsel and solicitor had to be granted in every case in the Court of Criminal Appeal the expense to the country would be enormous, and there is no reason for it except in a very limited number of cases. The ground that is generally put forward on appeal is that of misdirection. One of the most usual pleas put is, "My counsel would not do what I told him to do in the court below," or "I pleaded guilty only because my counsel made me plead guilty." Nowadays there is never any gratitude to counsel. But, quite seriously, I would say that in ninety cases out of a hundred there is no necessity on appeal to grant the services of a solicitor because there is no case to be worked up. Nearly always the question is on a point of law which has emerged or one of misdirection, and counsel can argue that without the assistance of a solicitor. Indeed, he would not take any notice of the solicitor if one were appointed. The serious objection that I see to this proposal is that in the Court of Criminal Appeal we do not grant
152
the services of a solicitor unless there is overwhelming necessity for it, and it would be rather difficult and invidious if two different practices were to grow up: that in courts-martial appeals the services of a solicitor would have to be given, whereas in the Court of Criminal Appeal they would not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Perhaps I can relieve the noble and learned Viscount of the necessity of replying. If it is of the slightest use to the Lord Chief Justice that I should do so, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Suspension of death sentences]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This and the next Amendment are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("made") and insert ("lodged").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("made") and insert ("lodged").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Restitution of stolen, &c., property]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These two Amendments are similar to those I have just moved, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 40, leave out (made") and insert ("lodged").
Page 11, line 41, leave out (made") and insert ("lodged").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Furnishing, on appeal, of proceedings of court-martial, &c.
(2) Rules of court may make provision, in the case of any such appeal or application as aforesaid for requiring the Admiralty or the Judge Advocate General to procure from any member of the court-martial by which the appellant or applicant was convicted, or from the person who officiated as judge advocate at the trial by the court-martial, a report

153
giving his opinion upon the case or upon any point arising therein or containing a statement as to any facts whereof the ascertainment is, or may he, material for the purpose of dealing with the appeal or application, and to furnish the report to the registrar in accordance with the rules.
4.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (1) after "proceedings of the court-martial" to insert "and the petition presented by the person convicted." The noble Marques said: This is a small Amendment and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will find himself able to accept it. The clause provides that certain papers shall be placed before the Court of Appeal. As the Bill stands, these papers are merely the proceedings of the court-martial. We have thought it right to suggest that in addition to those documents the Court of Appeal should have before it the petition containing the man's reasons which he originally presented and which has now been superseded by the appeal procedure. With that simple explanation I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 37, after ("court-martial") insert ("and the petition presented by the person convicted").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see no reason at all to oppose this Amendment. I am not certain whether the Amendment is in perfect form, as a mere matter of drafting, because there is no petition in a case of sentence of death. But, subject to my looking at it from the point of view of seeing whether the form is correct or not, I will accept the Amendment at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: This Amendment is similar to the preceding Amendment, and accordingly I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("and the petition presented by the person convicted").—(The Marquess of Reading.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved, in subsection (2) to omit—
"any member of the court-martial by which the appellant or applicant was convicted from."
The noble Marquess said: We have put down this Amendment at the moment with the purpose merely of raising something in the nature of a discussion upon subsection (2) of Clause 18, because, frankly, we cordially dislike the procedure which is there suggested. To begin with it says:
"Rules of court may make provision, in the case of any such appeal or application as aforesaid for requiring the Admiralty or the Judge Advocate General to procure from any member of the court-martial by which the appellant or applicant was convicted, or from the person who officiated as judge advocate at the trial by the court-martial, a report …"
May I ask, incidentally, would it be the Judge Advocate-General or would it be the Secretary of State? It seems to me doubtful whether the Judge Advocate-General has, in those circumstances, any control over members of the court-martial at all. But that is rather an incidental point. The real substance of our objection is that, as this clause appears in the Bill, it would be open to the Court to disregard the President of the court-martial. I am not suggesting that they would do it, but one wants to safeguard the position. After all, this will be a Statute which will go on the book and remain for many years, and one wants to ensure that the Court shall not have power to short-circuit the President of the court-martial. It seems to us that it will be quite permissible for the Court of Appeal, if it wishes, to ask for reports from members of the court as well as from the President. What does not seem right to us is that it should be open to the Court to leave out the President and to go direct to another member of the court. We have, of course, to guard against a situation in which, when, for some reason, a report is called for, the President may have gone sick or have been killed, or may have been transferred to some other theatre of war which is inaccessible. But, providing communication can be obtained with him with reasonable facility, we think that, whatever other member of the court is approached, the President ought in all cases to be asked for a report.
This point was disc4ssed to some extent in another place. It was there

155
suggested that the right way to meet the difficulty was to reconstitute the court. I am bound to say that that seems to be an extremely clumsy method, and in many cases it would probably prove impossible to operate. You cannot be sure of being able to collect again from all over the place officers to whom any kind of pleasant or unpleasant thing may have happened in the interval and to re-form the court. You can certainly ask for a report from the members but, in our submission, in doing so it should always be assumed that you ask for a report from the President if he is in a position to be asked for one. It was suggested, again in another place, that it might be desired that a member of the court should be asked for a report in cases where it was suggested on the appeal that undue pressure had been brought to bear by the President upon a junior member of the court. It might he that in a case of that sort a report would be required from the member, but surely that is essentially the kind of case where one would ask the President, whose own conduct is challenged, for a report, with no less certainty than one would ask the junior officer. It does not seem right to us that perhaps a junior subaltern should be asked for a report about what had happened at a court-martial, and that the President, who might be very much his senior officer, should be entirely left out of account.
We have not put down any specific Amendment. It is not, I agree, a very easy matter to draft one which would meet the point and create the situation which we desire. We hoped that by putting down an Amendment in this form we should obtain from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor some expression of his opinion, some statement of his reaction to the clause as it stands, and, we hope, some ground for expectation of a more reasonably conceived procedure, before we get to the Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 6, leave out from ("from") to ("the") in line 8.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Once again I should like to support my noble friend in the Amendment which he has proposed. I feel that the wording of the clause as it stands, making it possible for
156
a report to be called for from a member of the court-martial other than the President, is wrong in two ways. In the first place, it is undesirable from the military point of view, for all the reasons which my noble friend has given. In the ordinary way, should the Judge Advocate General apply for it, the President can supply all the information that the Court of Appeal require to deal with any points that arise. If there were a chance of bypassing the President, and going to some other member of the court-martial for a report, it seems to me that it would be establishing a procedure which would be most undesirable from a military point of view and likely to produce little result from the legal point of view.
The second objection is that you can read into the Bill an invitation to do something which is militarily undesirable. Even if it is necessary, on occasion, to obtain a report from a junior member of a court-martial, it is surely unusual in a Bill to invite anyone to do so. I submit to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that this right to obtain a report is inherent in the ordinary power of command. If necessary, the Judge Advocate General—or whoever the appropriate officer may be—can make the request to the General Officer Commanding, or whoever is the commanding officer, the President or a member of a court-martial. That can be done, I submit, without any special provision in this Bill. And I have no doubt that it would be clone in cases where such procedure was warranted. For these reasons I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, having listened to what has been said, will give this matter consideration before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I am rather sympathetic to the arguments which have been adduced. It is not very attractive to me to contemplate that you shall pick and choose in this way and leave the President altogether out of account. I realise that it may be necessary to send for reports from any members of courts-martial. The noble Lords do not question that: they merely say that, if it is necessary, then, provided the President is available, it is desirable to ask him. I confess that the bent of my mind also is rather that way. I will look at this point, if I may, and perhaps the discussions which we are to

157
have between now and the Report stage will extend to this matter also, and we may find we can devise something to put in here to meet the situation.
I will also look into the question whether it is appropriate that the Judge Advocate General should have this power. I may be that this is a power which should not be his, and which should be reserved to the Court itself. If that is right, I think it should appear in the Bill. There would be no sort of inherent jurisdiction. This Court is a creation of the Statute, and the Statute must contain this power. It might be undesirable to have the Judge Advocate General put in the Bill in this way at all. I visualise circumstances in which he might be functus officio. Your Lordships will realise that I am only thinking aloud, as it were, to show you what is passing through my mind. It might be that there would be circumstances in which the Judge Advocate General would have nothing more to do with the matter at all, and that it would be for the Court to act. If noble Lords will allow me to leave it in that way, I will see whether we can get something rather more satisfactory than this Amendment. I realise that it is not by any means an easy matter to draft an appropriate provision, but I will do my best, if noble Lords are agreeable to that Course.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in considering what sort of wording may be appropriate, will bear in mind that in most court-martial cases, or at any rate in a great many, there is no report of what took place, what witnesses were called and what evidence was given. I have been distressed by the fact that in a large number of trials under the ordinary Army warrant for crimes against the laws and usages of war, which have been so numerous on the Continent, there has been no way of knowing what took place, apart from the decision, except from what the Judge Advocate General has said in reference to the case. That is a most unfortunate circumstance, and it may be desirable that some person—I will not say whether it should be the President or some other person—should have a right to make a report of what took place and of the decision reached. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will bear that in
158
mind when considering the form of the substitute clause.
LORD MERRIMAN: I had not intended to intervene, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount for information. There was a time in the last war but one when I had something to do with this sort of procedure. I have never heard of a court-martial in which there was not a record of the names of witnesses, and of the evidence which they gave, and I strongly suspect that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, is mixing up some form of military court in occupied territory with court-martial procedure under the Army Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so. What the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, said seems to have reference to military courts in occupied territory. In the majority of courts-martial a shorthand note is taken of everything that takes place; and where there is no shorthand note, a full note is made by the President of the Court, so that in the Court of Appeal we always have the necessary material.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I think our action in putting down this Amendment in this form, in order to raise discussion on it, has amply justified itself. In view of what has been said, and in the expectation that in subsequent discussions we may be able to arrive at some more acceptable formula, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Exercise of certain powers of the Court by a fudge thereof]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 34, leave out ("may be made") and insert ("must be lodged").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Interpretation of Part I]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is to describe the Judge Advocate General in precisely the way in which he is described in the letters patent

159
by which he is appointed. I cannot think there will be violent hostility to this Amendment from any quarter of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 42, leave out ("reserve and auxiliary") and insert ("auxiliary and reserve").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Operation of provisions of Part I relating to appeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the next two, if I may take them together, are all designed to make the clause apply to special references to the court under Clause 20. They are little more than drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 27, at end insert ("against convictions by courts-martial and the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to references to the Court, in cases of convictions by courts-martial, of the findings of the courts-martial").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("apply to persons convicted") and insert ("have effect in relation to convictions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the third of the drafting Amendments to the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, leave out ("apply to persons convicted") and insert ("have effect in relation to convictions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Exclusion of appeals from certain Dominion naval courts-martial]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As now drafted, Clause 26 does not apply to special references under Clause 20 of the Bill. This Amendment would prevent a reference under Clause 20 when the person convicted was at the time of conviction by a naval court-martial borne on the books of a ship of the Royal Australian or Royal New Zealand Navies which
160
was not at the time placed at the disposal of the Admiralty. As it now stands, the clause is defective, and the Amendment is little more than drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 40, at end, insert ("and the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to references to the Court, in cases of convictions by courts-martial, of the findings of the courts-martial shall not apply in the case of any such conviction as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Salaries of Judge Advocate General and assistants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to put a question on Clause 33 to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I observe that the Judge Advocate General and persons appointed under this part of the Act may be called, for example, from Scotland to London; and if the case is a long one, considerable expense may be incurred. It seems to me, though I am open to correction, that there is no provision for the remuneration of these people for payments such as are given to a judge of assize when he is on assize.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble and learned Viscount will find that this comes under Clause 1, subsection (3), which says that, with the approval of the Treasury, which, of course, is necessary. I can arrange to make travelling and subsistance allowances.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount is satisfied with that, I am content.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Pension of Judge Advocate General]:
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ROCHESTER: While independent of Party affiliations, I am by and large a supporter of the present Government, although I have felt at times there was something rather sinister and disquieting about their attitude on some

161
moral and ethical issues, and I have therefore not hesitated to criticise the Government in your Lordships' House on occasions. But I feel that makes it all the more incumbent upon one to commend and eulogise their work when opportunity offers. On the Motion, therefore, that Clause 34 shall stand part, I desire to express appreciation of the Government's action in their undertaking such essential and overdue legislation as this Bill provides. I am especially glad to note the contents of this and the immediately preceding clauses, because I believe with the fullest conviction that the personal equation is fundamental to this scheme. Clearly it is of crucial importance that the emoluments of the office, and especially the pension rates attached to the position of Judge Advocate General, should be such as to secure the services of lawyers of skill and insight. Otherwise we cannot expect to secure men in future of the calibre of the present holder of the office, with his legal training and military experience. I desire, therefore, to thank the Government, and especially the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, for the care and precision with which they have dealt with this matter in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am also glad to have the opportunity of saying that I entirely agree with his view that it is a most unwise policy to try to get people to occupy the great office of Judge Advocate General "on the cheap." We must get men who are really capable of fulfilling that immensely important office. We are most fortunate at the present time in our Judge Advocate General, and I hope that he will be with us for a long time to come. However, I am sure that when it comes to appointing someone new it will be wise that we should be able to make the office attractive to the man, and not impose upon him, while he is holding that position, which should occupy his whole attention, great personal and pecuniary worries.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

TELEGRAPH BILL
4.45 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, this is such a short and simple Bill that it requires very few words from me in submitting it for your Lordships' approval. I could have wished that the first Bill which I had the honour of submitting to your Lordships' House might be of a more cheerful nature, but this Bill, unfortunately, is a necessity. I will take only a few minutes, and will not at this stage try to present all the arguments that might be advanced. The purpose of the Bill, as set out, is to increase the maximum rate for ordinary written telegrams. Naturally, it is with the deepest regret that the Postmaster-General has found it necessary to ask for an increase in telegraph charges; but as to the necessity for an increase there can be little, if any, argument. The Post Office commercial accounts for 1949⁃50 show that the telegraph service suffered a loss in that year of some £4,400,000; for 1950–51 it is estimated that the loss will be about£5,000,000—and further wage increases recently awarded, and other rising costs, may, indeed, make the loss rather more than that. There can be no question of raising charges to an extent which would enable the service fully to pay its way. Such an increase would make telegraph charges prohibitive and would bring the service practically to a standstill.
As noble Lords will see, Clause 1 increases the maximum rate, and new statutory regulations, which will be laid after this Bill is passed, will prescribe that rate—namely, 1s. 6d. for a telegram of twelve words, minimum charge, plus l½d. for each additional word. The present rate is, of course, 1s. for nine words, and ld. for each additional word. These revised charges are expected to reduce the deficit by about £450,000 in a full year. They therefore do no more than, if as much as, to bring the deficit back to around the 1949–50 level. These increased charges are particularly regretted because it is recognised that the telegraph service is

163
widely used by the poorer of our people when urgent messages have to be sent, often in time of trouble. For their sakes, amongst others, the service must be maintained and its charges kept as low as possible. Moreover, the telegraph service is still of considerable value to the business community, and is a vital means of communication in times of emergency. It must therefore be maintained, although it has operated at a loss for many years. With the increase in the use of the telephone, which cuts into the field of the telegram, the telegraph service is unlikely ever in the future to be able to pay its way. Much has been done, and is being done, to cut the operating costs of the service and to improve its efficiency and attractiveness.
I do not think I need detain your Lordships with the details of the increased costs—wages, materials, and so on—which, despite the economy measures, make increased charges necessary. Nor need I go into details of the economies, which are mainly in the field of mechanisation. There is a grain of comfort, however, which I can offer to noble Lords. Even with the increased charges provided for in this Bill, the cost of sending telegrams in this country still compares favourably with the cost in many other countries—for example, the United States, Canada and France. It is not too easy to get exact comparisons, because of differences in the methods of charging—for example, in some countries there are higher rates for longer distances—but a fair test might be the cost of sending a fifteen word telegram between places, say, 150 miles apart. In the United States the cost is 70 cents; in Canada it is 45 cents, if it is within a State, and 65 cents if it is inter-State; and in France it is 180 francs. With the proposed new charges that telegram would cost 1s. 10½d. here. Whether one takes the current rate of exchange or the pre-devaluation rate, the cost in this country is less than it is in the three countries I have quoted. The comparison is: in the United States, 5s., against our 1s. 10½d. at the present rate, Or 3s. 6d. against our 1s. 10½d. at the pre-devaluation rate; in Canada, within the State, 3s. 0d., or 2s. 3d. at the present rate of exchange, as against our 1s. 10½d.; and in France, 3s. 8d. as compared with our 1s. 10½d. As I said in opening, this Bill does not provide for a scale of
164
additional charges which would enable the service to pay its way—that would be impossible. What it does is to provide for a modest sum—the estimate is £450,000—to meet the rising deficit. It is on that basis that I commend this modest Bill to your Lordships, and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Archibald.)
4.51 p.m.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to preface the few remarks I have to make upon this small Bill by congratulating the noble Lord who has just sat down on making his maiden speech from the Government Front Bench. He has used an economy of phrase which justifies his Scottish ancestry and augurs well for his future in our House. This Bill is simple, though unwelcome, and I think it raises points rather more important than those upon which the noble Lord has touched. It raises certain points about both Post Office finance and general economic problems. First of all, as the noble Lord has said, the new rates for inland telegrams will provide about £300,000 in the present financial year, and £450,000 in a full year. As the noble Lord has made clear, this adjustment will not in any measure make up the deficit which exists in the telegraph service—at least as published in the commercial accounts of the Post Office. The alteration is a general alteration or adjustment on postal, telephone and telegraph rates, and I think we ought (I hope that I shall not be trespassing on the rules of order) to consider the general rise in Post Office rates.
The effect of these general adjustments of rates is estimated to be something over £5,000,000 in the financial year 1951–52, and £8,000,000 in a full year. On first view, the innocent would think that this great national commercial concern must be running at a loss; but that is not so. I have done my best to study the rather complicated accounts of the Post Office, and I find that in 1948–49 there was a surplus of something like £15,000,000; in the year 1949–50 nearly £14,000.000; and there was an estimated surplus for 1950–51 of £11,000,000. One might well ask: Is it possible that

165
the Government, who are always preaching to private industry the limitation of profits, can justify piling another £8,000,000 on its existing profits at a time like this? I think we should remember that what is sauce for the private goose never seems to be sauce for the public gander. In fact, the Post Office leads a double life. In the market place it parades itself as a hard-faced, tough business man. But in its domestic life it is the powerless and cringing creature of the Treasury. It is not allowed to keep its own bank account. It has to bring all its earnings home to mother; and mother pays the bills, and makes the "young hopeful" work for the rest of the family for nothing. The proud service turns out to be purely a notional figure.
The Post Office keeps a record of what it does for the Departments of State, but the bills are never paid. Indeed, according to the Estimates, the value of the services provided for other Government Departments in 1951–52 will be in the region of £22,000,000 or £23,000,000. The point is—and I think it is an important point—that since 1943 the charges which the Post Office makes upon other Government Departments are not included in the Estimates for those services. Since the Treasury look upon the Post Office as a revenue department, just like Customs and Excise, the Post Office, in increasing its charges, is increasing the general revenue. So the Postmaster-General is put up a week before the Budget to raise the revenue for the National Exchequer by increasing the general charges of the postal services. In my submission, it would be a better way of reckoning the National Exchequer if the charges for postal services undertaken by the Post Office on behalf of the Departments were included in Government Estimates, and had to be borne by the body of general taxation. To take a parallel, why should not the charge for nationalised electricity, coal or gas be considered in the same way? Why should the Post Office services he treated in a different manner?
I am not speaking here entirely for myself or my Party, because other independent persons have uttered the same views. Very much the same view was expressed, although more guardedly, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his comments on the Post Office Accounts, 1948–49; while the Select
166
Committee on Estimates in another place made a similar recommendation in their Report in 1950. Because these recommendations have not been adopted, the users of Post Office services have to pay not for the value of the service, plus a fair profit, or even the value of the service plus a fair profit plus an ad valorem duty, such as purchase tax; they have to meet a concealed subvention of Government Departments which has never received due Parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot help thinking that the present system of Post Office finance—and this is not a Party matter but it is a matter of great importance—is a retrograde system.
In 1932, a Committee under the late Lord Bridgeman made a Report. In that Report it was suggested that the Post Office should make an annual contribution of something over £10,000,000, and should retain a balance as a reserve on which it could act and deal in a far more businesslike method rather than that it should be regarded purely as a revenue department. I think those who have studied the Select Committee's Report will see that senior officials in the Post Office valued the freedom which would have been allowed them, following the creation of such a reserve fund. Certainly the Postmaster-General, in certain views to which he gave utterance this year, seems to have supported that view; and I think he was right. The Post Office should have more freedom of manœuvre. Yet, poor man! the Postmaster-General had to "toe the line" a week before the Budget and increase the charges for the Post Office services, which increase went directly into the Treasury pocket.
I submit that in a great commercial concern like the Post Office, telegraph rates should be fixed in accordance with commercial considerations. It has been clearly shown by the noble Lord that at present the telegraph service is making a great deficit. But he did not tell us (I am sure he did not wilfully conceal the fact; perhaps he felt it was not relevant to this small Bill, although it is to the whole question) that the telephone service is making a very large surplus. I do not quarrel with that, but in my submission those two should be closely integrated. The evidence before the Committee indicated that the telegraph service is obsolescent, and that in its functions it must work in very close

167
harmony with the telegraph service. In fact, as long ago as 1932, when the Bridgeman Committee reported, they favoured a tele-communications set-up. Therefore, when we are considering telegraphs we must consider them in the light of telephones as well. It is a well-known commercial practice that you may have an obsolescent line of goods, so to speak, which you have to support by a new and expanding one. Now, my Lords, the telegraph revenue in 1950 was rather over £6,000,000, and the telephone revenue for the same period was something like £89,000,000. If we combine the turnover of the two in 1949–50—which is the latest period for which I have been able to obtain figures—we find that the revenues of telephones and telegraphs total about £92.000,000. On that turnover, the Post Office made a surplus of something over £14,000,000—that is to say, about 14½ per cent.
I think those are the figures which ought to be considered when telegraph rates are fixed. The matter ought not to turn upon the revenue for a particular year. The telephone service is one in general public demand. It is an expanding service; and like the motor car, television and other things, it is becoming part of our lives. It is enjoying an increasing revenue, and it is not unfair that it should carry the cost of this obsolescent side of tele-communications. Therefore, it is not in the light of the dwindling telegraph revenue but of the generally increasing tele-communication services that we ought to regard an increase in rates. It is true that expenses are rising, but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said in a debate the other day, quoting a private tractor maker, when you have a service which is in general demand you have to pay every attention to effecting economies in the service, and to increasing revenue, in order to carry the burden of rising costs.
The Post Office is in this difficulty: that something like 10 per cent. of its services are given to the Departments, who do not pay and have no incentive to economise. The general consumer has to bear the extra burden. In my submission, the Post Office should be considered as a commercial concern, and those in charge of its affairs should be given every incentive to regard themselves as a business. They should be constantly thinking how,
168
by increased efficiency and expanding revenues, they can avoid increased charges to the public. They should think, not from year to year but in periods of years. They should be given as great financial latitude as possible so that they can plan. This is not the case at present. Although we on this side of the House shall not oppose the increased charges—much as we regret them—we feel that we cannot allow this Bill to pass without considering these various elements in this most important part of our national economy. I am not happy that under the present set-up the public are getting either the most efficient or the cheapest possible service. I make no reflection upon the Post Office officials or staff. I think it is the responsibility of the Government to see that the technical and financial set-up of the Post Office is so arranged that it is not the milch-cow of the Treasury, but that it is a businesslike, efficient and technically up-to-date service —the best service which can be rendered to the public at the cheapest rate.
5.6 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him on the general argument of the propriety of other Departments paying charges to the Post Office for services for which they do not at present pay. That is a big subject on which we may not find ourselves very far apart—but it is obviously outside the scope of this Bill. These increased charges provided for by the Bill cannot be said to be going in the direction of swelling the general Exchequer revenue, as the noble Lord seemed to suggest. They do not, in fact, entirely succeed in meeting the increased costs of the services; and to that extent it can be said that, despite these increased charges, the Post Office telephone and telegraph services are in large measure being regarded in exactly the way as the noble Lord recommended—as being combined services whereby the profits of the telephone service are, in fact, meeting the losses of the telegraph service.
But there is one point which has to be considered. This telegraph service may be obsolescent, but as it declines it is necessary to consider whether its losses should be allowed to be met out of the profits of the expanding department, or whether they should he reflected by a measured and balanced increase in the

169
charges so that there is not an undue burden on the expanding telephone service. It is a question whether that burden should be always increasing or whether it should he held in check by some modest increase in the charges for the obsolescent service such as are proposed in this Bill. No one regrets the necessity for the Bill more that I do: no one in these days can possibly like recommending increased charges. But I am afraid this is a case of disagreeable necessity, and I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee, according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without Amendment.

PET ANIMALS BILL
5.10 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

COMMON INFORMERS BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend, Viscount Simon, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Common Informers Bill, gives his consent, so far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TAXATION
5.12 p.m.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE rose to call attention to the conflicting policies of His Majesty's Government in relation to pioneer development in Colonial Territories by private enterprise; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Motion is to draw your Lordships' attention to certain anomalies which occur owing to the present method of charging United Kingdom taxation on overseas income, which is stultifying the measures taken by certain British Colonies to further their economic development—a cause which has the blessing and the declared support of His Majesty's Government. The facts arc that, in order to attract capital into the development of new industries, certain West Indian Colonial Governments have introduced legislation which exempts from taxation for a specified number of years, known as the tax holday, the profits from any pioneer industry established in the Colony.
Before developing the case further, I feel that I should declare my interest—that was always the procedure in another place where I sat, and I feel I should like to do so now. The legislation to which I have referred does not affect sugar, and the growing and the manufacture of sugar are my interest. It does not affect my business because we are not a pioneer industry: sugar has been established for a long time. Therefore, I can say that, to that extent, I am not interested. Bat there are certain prospective developments in the Colonies in which it is quite possible I may be interested in the future. To give an illustration: there is a suggestion for the manufacture of paper pulp, a matter which is very much to the fore at the moment and which concerns a problem which is causing grave uneasiness. One knows (it has been proved; it is beyond a matter of doubt) that paper pulp can be produced from what we in sugar call bagasse, which is the fibre of the cane. That is something which relates to the future, and one cannot say more about it, but it is a subject which certainly should interest us very much because it is of such grave importance at the present time. That is a matter which might well develop under the scheme which these Colonies have introduced.
I think it is generally conceded that there is an imperative need to increase our industries throughout the Colonial Empire, and particularly in the West Indies. The establishment of new industries must be gone into seriously if the rapidly expanding populations are to be absorbed. As your Lordships know or may have heard, many people compute the population in, for instance, Jamaica as likely to double itself in a period of thirty-five years. Therefore it is of the utmost concern that more industries should be developed in that Colony. The Colonies themselves have no illusions about the need to attract outside capital. They have, indeed, shown imagination and foresight in taking exceptional measures to attract the capital required. As I have said, these measures take the form of legislation which provides exemption from taxation for a specified number of years, known as the tax holiday, on profits from any pioneer industry established in the Colony which is approved by the local Government as being in the interests of the development of the Colony. That industry is then scheduled as a pioneer industry and in many cases obtains exemption from taxation for a period of five years.
The tax exemption also extends to the dividends paid out of profits earned during the tax holiday period. Capital on the scale required is not available locally. It has to be found principally from the great industries, institutions and companies of this country. On the face of it, one might think that the tax holiday granted in the Colony would prove a great incentive to the prospective British investor, but here I come to the anomaly which I mentioned a few moments ago. The tax holiday arrangements offer no inducement whatever, for the reason that the tax which rightly belongs to the Colony, but which is voluntarily forgone as an inducement to investment in the Colony for the development of the Colony, is transferred by a simple but effective process of arithmetic to the British Exchequer. Let me make my point perfectly clear. This tax would not be payable in the United Kingdom but for the exemption given in the Colony. For instance, supposing the income tax in Jamaica is 7s.—it is approximately that—then the tax over here is
172
2s. 6d.; that is all we take. We take up to 9s. 6d. only; there is no payment of double income tax. But, if the Colonial Government, in order to Give an incentive to British business to go and develop in the Colony, say: "We will let you off the 7s.", the British Government say: "You have not paid any tax at all: therefore, you must pay us 9s. 6d." Those are actual facts.
I should like also to emphasise that the extra tax taken in this country does not apply only to income received over here. If the Colonial enterprise is controlled in this country, as it almost certainly will be, because normally the bulk of the capital is supplied from here and therefore the control would be here, then the whole of the profits earned in the Colony, including the share attributable to local investors who have participated in the enterprise, also becomes liable. The whole purpose of the tax holiday is nullified and, what is more, at the expense of the Colony's revenue. I should hesitate to prophesy what might happen, but here we have a case where the whole effort of the Colony in granting this tax holiday is being nullified. If we do not put this matter right, it is most likely that we shall get the extraordinary thing happening that these loyal and magnificent British Colonies will make special terms against Britain and give preferential treatment to foreign nations, because in the case of the United States, this liability to further taxation does not apply. As I have said, the whole purpose of the tax holiday has been nullified. I do not wish to use strong language in your Lordships' House, but I feel I am entitled to say that it is a monstrous state of affairs and is in sharp contrast to His Majesty's Government's declared policy of Colonial development. I submit to your Lordships that it should not be allowed to continue for one moment. It is not merely a question of doing justice to the British investor; it is a question of removing a great injustice to the Colonies. I make a most strong and urgent appeal to His Majesty's Government to tackle this question and to give the necessary relief without delay. I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, in a few short sentences I should like to support my noble friend in the plea which

173
he has made to His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord who is to reply may take one of three courses. He may turn down the request; he may say that the Government will think it over; or he may say that the Government will meet the point which the noble Lord has so forcefully made. I should have liked to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the simple reason that I look upon him as a sensible man and I should have liked to be the first to congratulate him on accepting the proposition that has been put forward, and on announcing the good news that His Majesty's Government were going to meet this case. Although the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has gone to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (and perhaps I may congratulate him on that appointment), his acceptance of this proposition would show that he still has his feet firmly on the ground.
What is this unanswerable case which I am hopeful that the noble Lord will meet? We all want development in the Colonial Empire—I think that is common ground between us. We should all like to encourage these pioneer enterprises, particularly in a country like Jamaica, where, as I understand it, there is considerable unemployment at the present time. We should all like that pioneer enterprise to be conducted with British capital. I notice noble Lords opposite assenting to those propositions, but I may not get their assent to my next proposition: that most of us would rasher see that done by free capital than by the Colonial Development Fund, or by the Overseas Food Corporation, two organisations which may properly come in where other capital is not available. That is to say, if we can do it by f tee enterprise let us do it in that way; but if there are gaps, let the Colonial Development Fund come in and fill them.
As I understand the case, the Jamaican Government have offered for a period of years, the pioneer period, to remit any income tax on these pioneer enterprise concerns. The simplest way of running one of these concerns is for a company which already has dealings in a place like Jamaica to run it under a headquarters staff, and Lo retain the control here in London. If the control is kept in London, there is not the slightest doubt that the remission of the Jamaican income tax, by which the Jamaican Government are
174
trying to get these pioneer ventures started in their country, will be completely nullified, because the Treasury will say, "There is no double taxation, and therefore you must pay the full 9s. 6d. in the £, and although the Jamaican Government may have let you off their 7s. we are not going to let you pay any less than 9s. 6d." As a result, of course, one can see the Colonial Government, who are sensible people, saying, "Why should we remit our 7s. taxation to benefit the taxpayer in the United Kingdom and not ourselves?"
I am told that this matter does not work in the same way in regard to United States taxation, and that American capital may well be encouraged there by this 7s. remission which the American companies will receive. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will tell me if I am wrong; but, if that is the position, it seems to me an unanswerable proposition that we should try still to encourage development there by British capital, and that we should make the same concessions to our people who start new enterprises there as are given to American citizens doing the same thing. I hope that that is the line the Government will take. It is no good priding and preening oneself that we have full employment in this country, as I am glad we have, if we have considerable patches of unemployment in the Colonial Empire, for which His Majesty's Government are equally responsible. I should like to see these concessions made, because I am afraid (I am not going to discuss it now; indeed I should be out of order if I were to do so) that, by legislation which will shortly be coming to us, the Government are rather showing that they do not mind weakening the position of London and this country as the issuing centre of the world, and as a place from which capital ought to flow. And that capital should flow especially to the extremities of the Empire, so that they may be financed and guided from here—as, indeed, they have been through the centuries—and enabled to develop.
It is for these reasons that I say that there is an unanswerable case. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already shown himself inclined to grant the request which is made. But the least that we hope to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is that he thinks—and these words car be used here, although perhaps not is another place—

175
that there is at any rate a good prima facie case to be placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he is prepared to put it. If he will do that, then encouragement will be given to the people of Jamaica and to those people in this country who still want to use their brains and their money to develop our Colonial Empire. For these reasons, I have very much pleasure in supporting the case so ably made by my noble friend Lord Lyle of Westbourne.
5.31 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments only to support my noble friend who moved this Motion. Instances have been brought to our notice of questions which arise in the Colonies which, in my view, ought never to arise at all. And the reason they arise, so far as I can make out, is that there is not sufficient intimate liaison between the Government here and our Colonial Governments. As your Lordships will remember, in the course of a certain debate which I raised in this House a little while ago I spoke about Barbados. I feel certain that if there had been a more intimate relationship between the Government here and the Government of Barbados, the situation which I described would never have arisen. My noble friend has referred to the possibility that, in the event of matters remaining as they are, Colonial Governments may look elsewhere for assistance in developing the natural resources which are of such great importance to them. In the particular case which I have in mind, it actually happened that an American company was offered better terms than a British company. I do not know whether Lord Llewellin referred to this matter—I did not quite catch what he said—but it is a fact that the American Government go out of their way to give relief in taxation in cases in which American industry and American companies go out to develop in other countries oil and other national resources. That, of course, immediately puts American industry and the American contractor in a preferential position as compared with ourselves.
At the present time, as many of us well know, there is in certain Colonies antagonistic feeling towards the Government here. The reason for that antagonism is clear: there is not enough
176
liaison. The people in those Colonies find that certain things which affect them happen here without their ever being consulted. An instance I give—though in this connection there may have been a reason for the lack of consultation—is that of devaluation. So far as I know, there is no evidence to show that our Colonial Empire was consulted at all in that matter. It may be said: "You cannot consult other people on a question of that sort." I understand, however, that in one Colony the people were furious about devaluation. They knew nothing whatever about what was happening; all they knew was that an assurance had been given, on the highest authority, that devaluation was not going to take place; and then, within a fortnight or three weeks, it was launched upon them. That is the sort of thing that annoys anyone. When there are such occurrences, which affect not only industries of the Colonies but the whole existence of Colonial peoples, without their ever being consulted, it is, I feel, a very grave matter. It is a matter which should certainly engage the most serious attention of the Government.
I should like to see definite arrangements made for an annual conference with the whole of our Colonial Empire, a conference at which would be discussed matters of high moment, such as the one raised to-day by my noble friend Lord Lyle. If this were done, everyone would be contented and happy, and business would flow to this country, whereas, so far as I can see, in present conditions it is bound to go elsewhere. If we had an annual conference, at which all the Colonies were represented, to discuss matters of high moment affecting them, I believe that soon we should find a very much better feeling growing up throughout the whole Colonial Empire in regard to many questions which now cause irritation. I put that point to the Government for their consideration.
Nothing, in my view, should be done here to discourage capital investment within the Empire, particularly as in many cases the Government here will not—and I put this very strongly—be a party to any freely negotiated scheme and will not be called upon to provide the finance. The analogy I draw in regard to this matter is that of a farmer who has a cow and a milkmaid who milks the cow, while the Government step in and lap up

177
the cream. That is the sort of thing that is going on to-day. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will pay serious attention to this very important Motion. I was very glad to see in the Press this morning a report that delegates from Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and British Guiana have arrived here. I hope that this debate will give a line for the Government to follow in their discussions with these delegates on matters of trade. That is all I have to say, except that I wish, most sincerely and with all the force at my command, to support my noble friend's Motion.
5.39 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to make a brief contribution to this debate, I should like to start by expressing my unmixed appreciation of the artistic economy, however foreign it may have been to him, with which the noble Lord who moved this Motion set forth the facts and then loft them, without much comment, to stand there in all their naked iniquity. I was rather struck by the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who complained of lack of liaison between the Government in Whitehall and the Colonial Governments. I should like to look at this matter from a different angle: the lack of liaison between members of the same Government in this country. In dealing with the Government of the day, at times I am rather confused to know whether I am dealing with the right honourable Ali Baba or the forty gentlemen generally associated with his name. There is so marked a difference between what is said by one Minister and what is done by his colleagues who have it within their power to help carry those policies into effect. I should like to give one or two instances of this, and then offer a few general comments on the Motion.
The policy of the present Government in Colonial matters, as from time to time declared by the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, scorns to me to he unexceptionable. It is the policy that all are welcome; that the harvest is truly plentiful and labourers are few. We all recognise that. But do the Secretary of State's ministerial colleagues subscribe to this doctrine. I should say that experience gives the reply, "Certainly not." I should like to male reference to what is now known throughout the West Indies as the
178
Black Pact—the contemplated agreement between His Majesty's Government and Cuba (or has it already been signed?). That pact threatens one pioneer industry, the Jamaica cigar industry, with extinction. I recently asked a Question concerning this industry in this House and received what seemed to me to be an unsatisfactory reply, which said that the Jamaican interests would be fully taken into consideration. We now know much better what that reply was worth.
In the Black Pact it is proposed to allow the importation into the United Kingdom of Cuban cigars to the value of 500,000 dollars in 1952–53, and in 1953–54; and thereafter, from 1954–55 onwards, perhaps in unlimited quantities. Is it any wonder that there are headlines in the leading West Indies papers which read: "Jamaica betrayed." Before Mr. Bottomley revealed what was going on, the leading West Indies paper contained this statement:
"Mr. Bottomley must tell us exactly how far down the river we have been sold, so that we can in good faith discuss with him how to get back into the fuller economic freedom which British statements led us to believe we enjoyed as reciprocating partners in Commonwealth trading arrangements."
They now know the answer to that question. Later on, the same paper wrote:
"We agree with the West Indies spokesmen in Barbados who consider the present British trade proposals with Cubs a betrayal of the British Caribbean."
Incidentally, if that matters, so do I. I am dealing with only one section of this agreement, that affecting the cigar industry, because it is a pioneer industry. In its present form it is only twelve years old, and I should have thought it would have had the particular care of any British Government. I am prompted to ask whether the Socialist Party are the friend of the Colonial working men and women only when in opposition. When they are in power, and able to give or withdraw employment from so many thousands of working men in a Colony like Jamaica, why should they apparently go out of their way to throw these people out of employment?
The Black Pact will mean thousands of more unemployed in Jamaica in the cigar industry alone. This industry grew up after 1939, based on the chance given by the exclusion of Cuban cigars from the British market. I speak here with a

179
certain amount of knowledge, because I was Governor of that country at the time. Apart altogether from things like this new Pact, what has happened since that time to encourage this infant industry? The British duty on tobacco has gone up from 14s. 2¼d. to 64s. 9⅝d. per lb., and the preference given to Jamaica has sunk from 22 to 4.35 per cent. This alone hits the Jamaican tobacco farmer, worker and factory owner, by hitting the British smoker, who, faced with an oppressive increase in price, because of the duty, buys fewer and fewer cigars. Incidentally, but for Government policy in this country there is no reason at all why cigars should be a luxury. They are not so in America, or in many other countries; and there is nothing, save Government policy, which causes them to be so here.
Let me return to Cuba and look at that side of the question. The Cuban cigar industry has a heavily protected and secure market in the United States, where it enjoys a preference of 60 per cent., compared with the British preference to Jamaica of 4.35 per cent. This advantage will enable Cuba, once the British market is thrown open to her, to operate on the basis of making profits in the secure American market and underselling Jamaican cigars in Britain. Cuba, of course, has also the good will of 150 years of advertisement and tradition in the cigar trade, as against the past ten years in which Jamaica has been painfully trying to build up this infant industry. She has been reasonably successful in improving the quality of her products. To strengthen my statement that this Pact will mean the extinction of this pioneer industry in Jamaica, I might also mention that the Cuban Government have recently given permission for the importation of cigar-making machines. One operator can produce 5,000 cigars a day on a machine, as against a daily average of 150 when made by hand, so it would not be long before Cuba could completely capture the entire British market. It will be clear that every assistance is being given to Cuba to do this, because there is no limit to the number of cigars that she may export to Britain under the Pact, which says that we may import 500.000 dollars' worth; and it is left to Cuba to decide at what price it may suit her to dump cigars in this country, and so put her rivals out of this market.
180
Two years ago the United States did what we are told the British Government cannot do: they dealt a serious blow to the Jamaican rum industry by increasing the import duty on rum by 2 dollars 50 cents a case, and then remitting to the Puerto Rican exporters the value of the new duty levied in return for a corresponding reduction of price by the Puerto Rican to American buyers. That was preference in a new guise. We are told that that is not possible for the British Government. The United States and France help their friends and relations in this way, and apparently the United Kingdom cannot do so. I have selected the cigar industry as a most striking recent instance of this deep gulf, to which attention is called in this Motion, between the professions of the Government here, the desires expressed in some quarters, and what actually happens in the operations of other Ministries.
I should like to quote from an editorial in the Daily Gleaner of Jamaica on May 22. The writer said:
"The United States treats her political Colonies almost identically with the metropolitan country: France does the same. But Britain, the greatest of all Colonial powers, the nation which above all has created a tradition of justice and equity, treats her Colonies, when she chooses, as mere appendages. Yet if Britain were to adopt a policy designed to achieve a vital expansion of Colonial production and wealth, she could restore her strength and her power more rapidly than by any other method."
That, surely, is the real gist of the matter. If this Government were to go out and to protect by every means within their power these pioneer industries, that would be the way to prosperity. It is, surely, mere mockery to complain that private enterprise is not enterprising, when the Government spend their ingenuity in paralysing the power to be enterprising, and only too often in denigrating the past achievements of private enterprise. It is not merely the desire and, in a narrow field, the intention to encourage pioneer industries, but the whole field that has to be considered. After all, the encouragement of pioneer enterprises in the Colonies cannot be isolated from the political conditions of the Colony and the political stability there, without which nothing much can be expected—as, indeed, they

181
are indispensable to any sane expectation that commercial companies will take the risk of pioneering work there.
Furthermore, the matter of communications is essential to development. I mention all these things to show the diversity to which this Motion calls attention in the two sides of our policy. There is, on the one side, the Colonial policy of the Government, upon which we all agree, in favour of development; and, on the other, there is the fact that the various Ministries which could do so much to bring that policy into effect fail to do it, Again, in the Caribbean so much hangs on shipping communications. It is no use having Evans Reports, and talking grandiloquently about Colonial development, if the ship ring is not there to carry away the produce when it is grown, and to serve the import and export and passenger needs. I see here little evidence of overall planning. Indeed, it seems to me that the overnight dreams of the Secretary of State for the Colonies are negatived by the next morning's indifference of his colleagues. In the last publication (Command 8243) entitled The Colonial Territories 1950–51, we read on page 86:
"West Indies. The passenger position on the West Indies route showed a little improvement during the year. The French lines introduced the reconditioned 'Colombie' on the run to the Eastern Caribbean in November. It is hoped that two new French liners will he ready for service on the route late in 1951 or in 1952. The Government has continued to explore the possibility of providing additional British services between the United Kingdom and the West Indies, but no suitable scheme has yet been submitted by the shipping industry. The problem is still under active consideration."
The French possessions in the Caribbean area have about 600,000 inhabitants, with an area of 36,000 square miles the Dutch have 275,000 inhabitants, with an area of 55,000 square miles; and the Americans have 1,900,000 inhabitants, with an area of 6,600 square miles. Britain has the responsibility for a population of 3,000,000 inhabitants, occupying 103,000 square miles. Yet the shipping lines of these other countries serve their possessions—and ours, too—far more adequately than do British lines. Are the British Government simply letting things drift, in the hope that foreign shipping lines will ultimately improve their services sufficiently to meet the requirements of the British Caribbean? If so, it is a sad day for British maritime prestige, and
182
for the prosperity of the Caribbean Colonies.
I have concentrated this evening on the Caribbean area, but it would not be difficult to make out for other areas of the Colonial Empire a similar case, illustrating the divorce between words and deeds, between the crusading eloquence of public speeches and the valiant indifference of public action. Ministers of the Crown who deal with these territories overseas do not seem to act in collaboration, or with proper liaison with each other, to carry out the Colonial policy of the Government. In conclusion, I would say that a split personality is a considerable handicap to the inspiration of confidence in the individual; and surely political schizophrenia is no basis for confidence in a Government. I beg to support the Motion.
5.59 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyle of Westbourne, is drawn in wide terms, and this debate could readily resolve itself into a debate on the economic development of the Colonial Empire generally. But the noble Lord has confined his remarks to one particular issue—namely, that of taxation—which is so flagrant in its injustice to British enterprise in the Colonies as really to need no further elaboration. He quoted only one case—that is, a case where a company (say the subsidiary of a company in this country) as a result of the action of the Treasury will not enjoy the benefit of the reduction or remission of taxation in the Colony itself.
One possible way out which might have occurred to a Colony which found itself in that position vis-á-vis our Treasury here would have been to pay an equivalent amount in subsidy in place of the remission of taxation, but it is only reasonable and Tight to draw attention to the fact that, under the present proposals in the Finance Bill, that way out will also be effectively closed, because there is an interesting and important provision which reinforces the contention which has been advanced of inconsistency in fiscal policy in relation to Colonial development. I am referring in particular to a provision which makes it possible for the Treasury here to tax a subsidiary in the Colonial Empire which, as a result of local conditions, is enabled to sell at

183
a lower rate than the parent company would have been able to sell in its operations in this country. In other words, not only does the present application of the provisions in regard to double taxation have the effect which Lord Lyle described, but powers have been taken to make the difference taxable if a subsidiary of a company in this country were to enjoy a subsidy in the Colonial Empire which would enable it to produce and sell more cheaply.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD OGMORE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is the noble Lord alluding to the various clauses—Clause 32 in particular—of the Finance Bill which is now going through another place? If he is, I am wondering to what extent I shall be able to deal with a matter of that kind in reply. I understand that that Bill has not yet passed through another place, and no doubt it will be considered here in due time. Of course, various alterations may be made in its progress in another place. I do not want to be hampered in giving a full reply to whatever the noble Lord is going to say, and I should like to be sure that I am not going to be hampered in dealing, with this matter.
LORD RENNELL: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his intervention. He will be aware that in the course of a debate in your Lordships' House about ten days ago we discussed certain provisions in the Finance Bill. An answer was given on a specific point by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that the matter was being considered, and subsequently statements were made in another place. This is an analogous case but it deals, as a matter of fact, with another clause. I bring it forward as an example, because it seems to me that powers are being taken and are being exercised in this country by the Treasury to nullify any advantage which may be extended in other places to pioneer development in particular.
We have had numerous statements made in the course of debates, such as that on the Colonial Development Corporation, in regard to Colonies who are dependent solely on one product, or mainly on one product, and who might find themselves in serious economic difficulties
184
if that product failed or there was a lack of demand for it. It has been said that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to try and encourage the production of other commodities in those areas. That is precisely the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, was referring. He mentioned the creation of new industries—in other words, pioneer industries. If they are successful, they are not going to be allowed to enjoy the benefits which the Colonies are perfectly prepared to extend to them. My point in quoting the particular provision on which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has replied, is that it is not confined solely to the application of double taxation. It goes further than that, and it may well be that where a concern in the course of developing a pioneer industry in Colony A can produce more cheaply than it can in another place, the benefit of this cheaper production will not be allowed to enure to the benefit of that enterprise. That seems to me to display precisely the inconsistency to which Lord Milverton referred.
Indeed, by anomaly it goes even further. We have been told that the Colonial Development Corporation will, in the event of establishing a successful enterprise which makes profits, pay the taxes which are necessary and are requested in the area. We therefore get into the rather anomalous position of finding a national company, sponsored by the Government, not enjoying the benefits which it might enjoy in the Colony in which the enterprise has been promoted, because the Treasury in this country remove the benefit from the hands of one Department of the Government to the hands of another.
It seems to me that the case has been fully made out this evening for a review of the application of taxation in the Colonial Empire and the policy which governs the collection of taxes in this country where an enterprise in this country is involved, either by way of subsidiary or by direct enterprise, in the Colonial Empire. I feel, therefore, that I should go rather further than the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, and ask the noble Lord who is to reply not only what steps His Majesty's Government are considering taking in this specific case of double taxation and the reduction of taxation in the Colony, but whether they will review the provisions for taxation in this country of

185
Colonial enterprises in the light of the taxation in the Colonies themselves. In the past there has been a great deal of independent thinking which has led to the anomalies to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, has referred. In these circumstances, I feel very strongly that the Motion which he has moved should receive the support of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
6.8 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for his references to myself. Although I am not sure that I am going to take any of the three courses he outlined, at least I hope I shall give him some slight satisfaction—though perhaps he may regard it as only slight—before I sit down. When I first looked at this matter, when the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, mentioned it to me, I must admit that my reaction was somewhat the same as that of many of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I thought there seemed to be a considerable difference of view between Colonial development, on the one hand, and the requirements of the inland Revenue—with whom we are all in contact from time to time—on the other.
Being much more friendly towards Colonial development than to the Inland Revenue, I at first looked at the matter with a certain amount of trepidation. In fact, I thought I should have to follow the example of a well-known and somewhat eccentric counsel who practised on the home circuit about 100 years ago. I am sure that the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will know of this, because it is a perfectly true story. This counsel's name was Codd. He was defending a man on a charge of larceny—he was charged with stealing a duck. When he came before the jury—the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions being the then Marquess of Salisbury—he said he had seven defences. The first was that his client had bought the duck; the second was that his client had been given the duck; the third was that he had been asleep and someone had put the duck in his pocket; and so on for seven defences. At the end Lord Salisbury said: "Mr. Codd, any one of these defences seems to be a perfectly good one, but they are not compatible. Which do you propose to put to the jury?" Mr.
186
Codd said: "I do not mind; the jury can choose whichever they like." The jury were a little confused by this time, and acquitted the accused. I did not think your Lordships would wish me to treat you to-day in the same manner as Mr. Codd treated the jury—appearing on the one hand in the name of the Treasury and on the other hand for Colonial development, and allowing the House to choose.
And, of course, the case is different. There is much more compatibility between the two points of view than would appear at first sight. In the first place, the Colonies concerned, Trinidad and Jamaica, in order to attract capital for development, have made these concessions to pioneer industries; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyle, has rightly said, Colonial tax is allowable as a credit against United Kingdom income tax. Where there is no Colonial income tax, where there has been a remission of all income tax, then, of course there is no income tax to credit and therefore none is credited, and the company which is operating from this country has to pay the full amount of tax. That is common ground between us. The answer to that point is that it is no part of the system of relief for double taxation that a United Kingdom company operating in a Colony should be relieved of tax which it would bear if it were operating in the United Kingdom. In other words, we cannot give to a company which for a period operates from this country in a Colony a credit which it would not get if it were operating in the Metropolitan area. The double taxation agreement has, I am glad to say, already made a considerable contribution to Colonial funds and it has resulted in Colonial Governments retaining an amount of the order of £5,000,000 more than they previously retained as a result of the old Dominion Income Tax relief provisions.
The Government's view is that Colonial Governments are perfectly free to enact this legislation—that is to say, the pioneer legislation of which Lord Lyle spoke. The Secretary of State does not, in these cases, recommend any disallowance, and does not enter into the picture at all. These Governments are perfectly free to make the allowances if they so desire. Besides making allowance for taxation, the legislation to which the noble Lord

187
has referred does contain a provision for freeing material for capital development from import duties in the two Colonies; and the tax concessions themselves, although of no immediate benefit to United Kingdom companies which propose to distribute the dividends immediately, are nevertheless of considerable benefit to local companies which are registered in the Colonies and which operate in one or other of the two. They are also of benefit to local subsidiaries of a United Kingdom company where those local subsidiaries do not distribute the profits as dividends but plough them back in their early years.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Is the noble Lord quite right in that last statement? Subsidiary companies have to show all profits in the consolidated accounts of the parent company.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that observation. As there is some little doubt I will look into the matter and will get in touch with the noble Lord. But that is what I am advised by the Treasury.
Lord Teviot and one or two other noble Lords referred to the position concerning the United States Government. It is perfectly true that the United States Government do allow for tax purposes remission such as Lord Lyle would like to see granted in the case of United Kingdom companies. But the position is different, because there are very few companies there compared with the number of companies in this country operating in these Colonies.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: There will be a great many more.
LORD OGMORE: They are few in proportion to the aggregate number of companies in the United States, as compared with the aggregate number of companies in this country. It may be more in total, but as a percentage I am advised that it is much fewer.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: I am merely trying to say that under the scheme as worked by the British Government there will be a good many more American companies.
LORD OGMORE: That may be so, but the impact upon the United States economy through remission of this kind would not be as great as it would in this country. Therefore, as there are not nearly so many companies operating from the United States in these Colonies as there are British companies, it is a very small matter so far as the United States is concerned, though a considerable matter so far as the United Kingdom Treasury—and, of course, the Inland Revenue—is concerned.
LORD TEVIOT: Has the noble Lord any idea of the amount involved?
LORD OGMORE: I am afraid there are not any figures available. I tried to get exact figures, but was informed that it would mean writing to the Colonies concerned, finding out what were the individual figures and then making an aggregate—and there has not been sufficient time to do that.
The comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, between United Kingdom and United States policy was, in my view, very unfair. Taking the position broadly, we act in a perfectly just and honourable manner towards the Colonies. We try to help them and they try to help us. Our policy as a whole is certainly quite as good as that of the United States towards the territories for which they are responsible. I think it is unfair to hold us up as being in any way behind or inferior to the Americans in our treatment of these dependent territories. As a matter of fact, a considerable number of new industries have been started in Jamaica and Trinidad in the last year or two. In Jamaica a new factory for the production of cement is due to go into operation shortly. There are various other manufactures. The manufacture of gypsum plasters and blocks, which are a kind of plaster board, for the building industry, and laundry blue, has started, while in Trinidad new industries have been started for the manufacture of textiles, boxes and cartons, and there is a new brewery.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has also referred to the cigar industry. I should like to point out that we are most anxious to do everything we possibly can to support the economy of Jamaica. I do not recall that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, with his intimate knowledge of

189
Jamaica, gave any figures showing the position before the war and the position as it is to-day. Before the war, the Jamaican cigar industry was a very small one. It exported to the United Kingdom cigars to the value of about £6,000 a year. During the war, in order to cut down dollar expenditure, we prohibited the import of Cuban cigars into the United Kingdom, and the trade in Jamaican cigars has now reached the value of about £200,000. So, to represent the position in the cigar industry before the war, when the noble Lord was Governor, as being a flourishing one and the position to-day as being a deleterious one, is, I think, rather unfair; in fact, it is not quite compatible with the facts.
LORD MILVERTON: I think the noble Lord must have misunderstood me. What I was endeavouring to say was exactly what he has said now: that in those days of 1939 there was a negligible industry with one factory, and then, within three or four years, there were six factories. When the noble Lord says that it has risen from £6.000 or £7,000 to £200,000, he omits to say to what height it did rise. Did it not rise to be the third or fourth industry in Jamaica? Did it not rise to something nearer £1,000,000 than £200,000? Has it not sunk since and is it not still sinking?
LORD OGMORE: At all events, whether it has sunk or whether it is sinking, it is nothing to do with Cuba, with which the noble Lord linked it, because as yet no agreement has been reached with Cuba. The "Black Pact," as the noble Lord called it, is riot a pact in being at all. If and when agreement is reached, then no doubt the noble Lord will be able to make his comments, properly and rightly, upon it; but it is a little early—I hope the noble Lord will not interrupt me; I did rot interrupt him—I suggest, to state that this Jamaican cigar industry has been in any way affected by the Cuban pact, which has not yet been entered into.
Although it is rather off the general line, I must refer to a statement of the noble Lord, which no doubt will be very widely reported in the Colonial Press in the West In lies, and in the Caribbean. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, talked about our attitude towards the West
190
Indies and the Caribbean. He said that when we are out of power we want to do everything for the working people in the Colonies, but that when we get in we do not care about them. That is really a most outrageous thing to say. The noble Lord himself knows perfectly well that all Parties in this country are most anxious to develop the Colonial territories, and to do their best for the economic welfare of the people. All Parties may dispute the best methods, and may have differences of opinion as to how the object can best be brought about; but I suggest that the desire is in no way in issue. It has always been said by both sides in this House that both sides are anxious for the betterment of the Colonial peoples, and both sides are doing their best, according to their lights, to bring about that end. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will not dispute that fact.
It depends on how one looks at these things. I will here bring in a personal note. Before I was a Minister, I was a director of the Jamaican Banana Producers Company. That was not an office of profit; we did not get paid for it. It was a purely advisory and honorary position. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was Governor of Nigeria, and lie was a sort of bugbear of ours. Of course, he acted in an entirely honourable and straightforward way. I am not suggesting that he acted otherwise than he should have done, according to his lights; but we looked upon him as being one of the most narrow-minded and arrogant Governors ever to appear in the Colonial Empire since his predecessor, old Henry Morgan. He wag looking purely and simply at his own parish, the Cameroons. He was not prepared to help Jamaica. He did not care what happened there—this is what we thought. I am not saying that we were right or that he was wrong, but we felt that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was not prepared to help the poor people of Jamaica. He was not prepared to help the peasant proprietors who were trying, under great difficulties, to grow bananas in Jamaica. Why?—because he wanted to develop the banana industry in the Cameroons. I am only instancing this to show that it depends on how you look at these things and which hat you have on when you look at them.
LORD MILVERTON: May I say one word? Is not the noble Lord overlooking one fundamental difference: that it is no part of the duty of the Government of Nigeria, which I represented, to engage in philanthropy in other parts of the Empire? It is difficult enough at home, but it is the duty of the metropolitan mother country to do that.
LORD OGMORE: I remember asking the question of the noble Lord at that time. I said: "Are you interested in the British Empire or only in the Cameroons?" I felt at that time that the whole was greater than the part, and that even though one was Governor of one part one had a responsibility for the Empire as a whole. I repeat, I do not want in any way to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was wrong or that we were right, and I will leave it at that.
I can assure the House that these matters of the development of Jamaica and the Caribbean are always in our minds. Noble Lords know that it is one of the most difficult areas with which to deal. There are many scattered islands, differing in many ways, having their own local troubles and problems. The shipping question which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, mentioned is a hardy annual. The Colonial Office are looking into this matter. It depends very much on what area of the Caribbean or the West Indies, or what traffic one is dealing with. I think this is a matter that could be debated on a separate Motion, because it is an entirely separate matter. I should get into rather deep water if I tried to distinguish between the inter-island traffic and the trans-ocean traffic. It is an interesting subject, and one that I should be glad to debate at some time, but I do not think that now is the proper time. I should like to finish answering the noble Lord.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: May I ask the noble Lord what he is going to do about the point I raised?
LORD OGMORE: In a debate of this sort, if the noble Lord frames his Motion widely enough, other noble Lords are fully entitled to raise their own points; and, when they are raised, I must answer them, because, as I say, these debates in your Lordships' House are, properly and
192
rightly, widely reported, especially in the Colonies. If no answer is given to these important questions, especially from noble Lords like Lord Milverton, who has great Colonial experience, then often the wrong impression is given in those territories. All I can say to the noble Lord on this point is that, after listening carefully to all the noble Lords who have spoken, I will bring this matter before both my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I cannot hold out any great hope—it would be misleading if I did—that my right honourable friends will change their views. But at least I will bring before them the views of noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, and I shall ask them to give very careful consideration to those views. I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to do more than that to-night. In fact, I am sure you will clearly realise that I could not possibly do more; but that I will do.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one thing? He referred to the United States having a much smaller problem if they were to remit this tax from their companies than we should have. But does he realise that we are asking only that where a Colony remits this taxation of its own accord—and of course the Treasury would not get the money if the tax were paid in the Colony—some arrangement should be made to help those pioneer companies in Trinidad and Jamaica, so that the Treasury do not come in and grab what the Colony was entitled to but decided, in its own interests, to give up?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I appreciate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin; indeed, it is the main burden of Lord Lyle's Motion. The point of view of the Treasury is that this raises a very much wider principle, and it may be that acceptance of the point would bring in all sorts of other places and other conditions, which would cost the taxpayer in this country a considerable amount of money. The Treasury regard it as a matter of principle. As I have said, I will definitely and clearly put to my right honourable friends the point which the noble Lord has just put to me.
6.33 p.m.
LORD LYLE OF WESTBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to thank Lord Ogmore for his courtesy and his kindness in getting all these facts together and giving us such an interesting and entertaining speech. He certainly amused us, and we appreciated it; but I can tell him that this is really a very serious matter. He even brought out the point that it was a small matter to the United States to arrange their duties in a certain way and to lose a certain amount of revenue, but that it might be a very big matter to us. My Lords, I think that is begging the whole question. The noble Lord talked about honour. I believe he would desire to be the most honourable man in the whole world in regard to this matter. But are we acting in an honourable way in taking advantage of money which properly belongs to a Colony and adding it to our Exchequer? That is the point I have been arguing, and I venture to think that if this great British nation does that, it is doing something which savours of dishonesty. If you search your soul and ask yourself the question, "Is this an honest thing we are doing, to take from the Colony the equivalent of the benefit that they arc remitting?", I believe your answer will be that it is as good as taking their money. Goodness knows! they want money from us far more than we need it from them, though we need it pretty badly, too.
My Lords, I cannot do more to-night. I thank the noble Lord for his speech, for the trouble lie has taken, and for what I believe to be his obvious sympathy with us. But I cannot thank the members of the Government who supplied him with his reply. I am not satisfied with the answer, and I do not think that anybody in this country or the many people on the other side of the ocean who believe in the Empire will be satisfied. My friends and I will choose another opportunity to bring forward this matter again. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
  ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.