Lords Sitting of 26 June 1952

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

SCOTTISH MUTUAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
Read 2ª.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: KOREA
2.36 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, a Question of which I have given him private notice. I may say that I did not give previous notice to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and I well understand that the noble Earl will be unable to give me an authoritative answer until he has had an opportunity of discussing it with his Leader. It is possible that the noble Marquess will think it right to make some statement later on in the afternoon. The Question is this: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the situation in Korea in this House on Tuesday next; and, if so, whether it would be in order for a brief debate to follow immediately on that statement. I have ascertained that, so far as the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, is concerned, he would welcome the opportunity of a brief debate, if it is possible, in order that the whole matter may be cleared up. And I feel that it could be done more effectively in that way than by a series of questions and answers.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl, who did give me notice of his Question. As he says, my noble friend the Leader of the House is absent from the Chamber on other business of State, and therefore I cannot give a categorical answer at the moment. However, I can assure the noble and learned Earl that as soon as I can contact my noble friend I will put the matter before him, and a statement will be made some time this afternoon.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL
Amendments reported (according to Order).

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (ADAPTA TION OF ENACTMENTS) REGU LATIONS, 1952
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hume I beg to move that the National Assistance (Adaptation of Enactments) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th instant, be approved. I believe that these Regulations are non-controversial. They are, in fact, completely consequential on the repeal of the Poor Law and the Unemployment Assistance Act.
Moved, That the National Assistance (Adaptation of Enactments) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I had hoped that the Scottish Minister would appear for once in order to give some explanation of these Regulations. So far as I understand them, it was customary, in days long before most of us were born, for people convicted of breaking certain laws to be fined, and for part of the fine to be allotted to the poor. The passing of the National Assistance Act has abolished the poor—at least, legally—and, therefore, it is impossible now to define "the poor." I understand that it is necessary to make all these Regulations in order that new methods shall be applied. I gather that under the Railways Act, and a number of other Acts of Parliament, the new method will be that, instead of the person who breaks the law being fined, and half of the fine being given to the poor, either through the parish church or the local magistrates, the money will now be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This may not be so romantic, but it is a more practical method of dealing with the situation.
I understand, also, that penalties were imposed upon railway companies when, in the course of constructing railways,

447
they interfered with the waterworks and the gasworks. For some reason which I have been unable to discover, part of those penalties was applied to the poor. Now they are to be applied to the gas boards and the water boards. That, also, seems to me to be a fairer application of those sums. There are other quaint matters concerning burial grounds, smoke nuisance, pawnbrokers and other things, from all of which the poor benefited in the past. Time marches on, even in Scotland, although the last time I was there I remember seeing an advertisement from a tourist agency encouraging people to "Visit the Western Islands of Scotland, where time stands still." The only question I have to ask—I apologise for asking it, and I expect that the answer will be in the affirmative—is whether the authorities concerned have all been consulted in the drafting of these Regulations.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morrison for what he has said. I rise to say, quite shortly, that I hope nobody in the country will think that, because the technical and legal definition of "poor" has been abolished, there are no poor in the country. I have had the honour of drawing your Lordships' attention to a state of things which I say is worse than the state that preceded it. In any case, it shows that there are people who are greatly in need of help, which to-day is not coming along as smoothly and rapidly as we should like. I deeply regret that this change has been necessary, and that the money will now go into the impersonal coffers of the Treasury rather than being publicly devoted conscientiously for the help of the poor. I hope your Lordships' will not think that in saying that, I am exceedingly reactionary, for I am speaking about the state of things in a country which had an educational Act and a legal assistance Act as early as the sixteenth century.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, once again I apologise for the absence of my noble friend, but I believe that the Scottish Office are even more interested in vetting everything, particularly after the address of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, yesterday. Therefore the noble Earl, Lord Home, is doing his duty there,
448
and I am his humble spokesman this afternoon. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, that the various interests which he has mentioned have been consulted and are agreeable to this change. With regard to the remarks made by the noble Lord and also by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, about the Poor Law and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can only say that the Party opposite abolished the poor—so they say—but created more need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's funds.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (AMEND MENT) (No. 2) REGULATIONS, 1952
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am happy to say that these Regulations which it is my duty to put before your Lordships are also non-contentious. The National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations, which these Regulations amend, govern the superannuation scheme provided for persons engaged in the National Health Service as employees or as medical and dental practitioners. As your Lordships know, this is a complicated scheme, and a change even of a minor character may, and in fact does, involve a number of lengthy amendments. This is the case with one of the amendments proposed in the draft which is now before your Lordships. Our purpose is to preserve the superannuation rights of officers who, within the limited period, after an approved course of study or training, re-enter Health Service employment; and this, though it is a comparatively minor improvement in the scheme, requires numerous amendments which cover three pages of the draft before your Lordships.
The other amendments fall under three heads. First, we propose to make an addition to the definition of "National Service," in order to preserve the superannuation rights of employees, and of medical and dental practitioners who enter whole-time service with the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, just as they are preserved in respect of compulsory National Service under the National Service Act, 1948. Secondly, it is necessary to amend existing Regulations in order that sums

449
payable to dentists by patients under Section 2 of the National Health Service Act, 1952, are included in the dentists' gross remuneration for superannuation purposes. Thirdly, there are amendments designed simply to remedy drafting defects or to overcome difficulties met in the day-to-day administration of the scheme. I believe that all these amendments are necessary and non-controversial. I should like to state that the staff side of the Whitley Council of the National Health Service, professional associations, and other interested bodies have been consulted on these amendments which particularly concern them, and no objection has been made. Further, I can tell your Lordships that it will not increase the cost of the scheme very much to bring these amendments into operation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for the statement he has just made. I had proposed to put a question to him, but he has been kind enough to reply in advance. I am very glad to know that in these delicate matters of negotiation the staff side and their organisations have been properly consulted. We do not propose to offer any objection to these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (AMEN DMENT) (No. 1) REGULATIONS, 1952
2.48 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, these Regulations are really a logical extension of the Regulations which have just been moved by my noble friend. Their object is to extend to persons on the medical staffs of all local authorities the right hitherto conferred, by Regulation 47 of the principal Regulations, on the medical staffs of local health authorities alone, to have the benefits conferred by those Regulations in place of the benefits provided by the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. All these Regulations do is to extend to those concerned the option of deciding which scheme they
450
would like to have applied to them. The noble Lord will be glad to hear that these Regulations, too, have been agreed by the local authority associations and the professional associations concerned, and they are an agreed measure. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) (No. 1) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th instant, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1952
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, who, for the reason I stated earlier, cannot be here, I beg to move these Regulations. They are merely to bring Scotland—if that can be done—into line with England. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Amendment Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 18th instant, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Standing Orders of the House, with a view to amendment or revision of the same; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Exeter,

E. Selkirk,

V. Stansgate,

L. Amulree,

L. Rea,

L. Schuster,

L. Milner of Leeds.

—(Earl Fortescue.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, in rising to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I am conscious that it is one of very considerable complexity and difficulty, and if I err by taking up too much of your Lordships' time, or if I err by failing to state matters with sufficient clarity, I hope I may have your Lordships' indulgence. The Bill, as its title indicates, is a Bill to make provision with respect to naval, military and air forces of certain other countries visiting the United Kingdom, and to provide for the apprehension and disposal of deserters or absentees without leave in the United Kingdom from the Forces of such countries, and for other purposes.
Before I come to the terms of the Bill itself I think I should say a word about its origin and background. It is necessary to bring in this Bill to enable this country to ratify an Agreement regarding the status of forces of the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty (Command Paper 8279), which was signed by the previous Administration in June, 1951, and with which no doubt some of your Lordships are familiar. Now, though the Bill owes its origin to this Convention or Agreement, which deals only with the forces of those Powers which were party to the North Atlantic Treaty, it had been convenient at the same time to bring in the same measure in regard to Commonwealth forces, for, of course, it would be quite wrong to put into a different position the forces on the one hand of the Powers—I take the United States as an example—who were party to the North Atlantic Treaty and, we will say, forces from the Commonwealth of Australia, who were not such a party. Obviously there would be the greatest difficulty about that.
I think your Lordships ought to know in the first place what is the position in regard to the other parties to the North Atlantic Treaty with regard to this Convention, or, rather, to this particular part of the Convention. The position is that so far no country has ratified the Agreement. In Canada a Bill which is necessary to implement the Agreement has
452
received the Royal Assent. One may assume, although I do not know, that that is but a preliminary to ratification. In the United States of America the Agreement was taken for ratification to the Senate on June 16 of this year—a short time ago. It is not certain whether it will be ratified before the adjournment, which is expected this month. The French Government report that it is expected that the Agreement will be ratified on July 1 or thereabouts. All the other countries report that they expect to ratify the Agreement very soon. In some cases the Agreement has already been submitted to their Parliaments. It is, therefore, plainly obligatory upon this country, if we can possibly do so, to pass the necessary legislation to enable us to ratify the Convention which was signed on behalf of this country in June of last year.
Again, before I come to the terms of this Bill, I should say two things about it. In the first place it is an attempt to translate into the terms of our municipal law an Agreement entered into by a number of countries having different systems of law but aiming at a common policy in regard to the forces of other countries in their territory. That is not an easy task. But we hope and believe that in the Bill we now present we do carry out the obligations which we have undertaken in the Convention; and we hope that we have made no further concession than is imposed upon us by that Convention. In the second place, I would ask your Lordships, in considering the terms of this Bill, to remember this: that if it appears to any of you that we are making concessions which may create difficulties for our own citizens of this country in relation to members of visiting forces, we are getting reciprocal benefits in that our forces abroad will obtain similar benefits in the countries to which they are visitors; and that, I venture to think, may be regarded as a very important consideration.
The Agreement to which I have referred—Command Paper 8279—deals with a number of matters. In Article 7 it deals specifically with the subject matter of this Bill, namely, the question—necessarily a very difficult question—which arises when the forces of one country are stationed by the invitation of what I may call the receiving country in

453
the territory of the receiving country. I do not want to read at unnecessary length Article 7 of the Convention to which I have referred, but it does in fact provide that, as between what I call the receiving country's courts and the courts of the visiting country, the jurisdiction shall be divided. It is an attempt to give the Service courts of the forces of the visiting country exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters unless those courts choose to waive jurisdiction; and to give concurrent jurisdiction in other matters both to the courts of the receiving and the courts of the visiting country. And, of course, the courts of the receiving country—that is to say, in this case, the courts of the United Kingdom—retain jurisdiction except so far as by this Bill it is expressly excluded.
The Convention, by Article 8, deals also with another matter which is covered by a certain clause of the Bill to which I shall invite your Lordships' consideration. It is a clause which stands quite by itself but it does not deal with criminal jurisdiction. It deals with civil claims. If your Lordships think it proper, I will defer consideration of that until I have concluded what I have to say on the more difficult question of criminal jurisdiction. I think it has come to many people as a surprise that it should be necessary or, indeed, possible that there should be in our midst a large body of persons who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this country. I suppose that fifty years ago that would have come as something of a shock. But we have to look at these matters through the eyes of 1952 and not of 1900; and conditions, as I shall show your Lordships, have changed, so that what then must have been heard with something of a shock must now be received almost as a matter of course.
I want to put this further point about the background before we come to the Bill. Obviously the position in one country of the forces of another country must always create difficulties. But it has apparently long been held by international lawyers that the true position is this—and, if I may, I will read to your Lordships a short extract from an authoritative work, Oppenheim on International Law, 5th edition, page 662 of the 1st Volume:
"Whenever armed forces are on foreign territory in the service of their home State
454
they are considered ex-territorial and remain therefore under its jurisdiction.… A crime committed on foreign territory by a member of those forces cannot be punished by the local, civil or military authorities but only by the commanding officer of the forces or by other authorities of their home State. This rule, however, applies only in case crime is committed cither within the place where the force is stationed or in some place where the criminal was on duty. It does not apply if, for example, soldiers belonging to a foreign garrison of a fortress leave the rayon of the fortress not on duty but for recreation and pleasure, and then and there commit a crime. The local authorities are in that case competent to punish them."
It was that view, strongly entertained by the American authorities, which was, I think, a factor in the passing of the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act of 1942, which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was instrumental in persuading your Lordships to pass in this House.
The next thing which I must tell your Lordships as the background to the Bill which I now present is what has happened in the last twenty years in regard to this matter. In the year 1933 an Act was passed which was called the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933. That was an Act which aimed at setting up and legalising the Service courts of visiting forces. At once in this House and in another place there were protests. It was said: "Here you are proposing to set up Service courts of another country which will have the power to detain, to sentence, to punish persons who are on British soil and are therefore entitled to the protection of the King's Peace." The sacred name of habeas corpus was invoked in eloquent terms by the first Lord Buckmaster in this House and by Lord Atkin, and similar protests were made in another place. But that Act was passed notwithstanding; and, so far as I know, no harm came of it. But the distinguishing feature of that Act was that, although Service courts were set up, no exclusive jurisdiction was given to those courts over the members of visiting forces. On the contrary, there was concurrent jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of the English courts was not ousted. It was a first step towards that which was later done—namely, the setting up of a court which was not subject to our jurisdiction, what one may call a foreign Service court. I believe that when that was done in 1933

455
it was the first time since Papal jurisdiction was excluded from this country.
In 1940 another step was taken, not in regard to the Commonwealth forces but in regard to the Allied forces generally. Your Lordships will remember that there were on this soil in the early days of the war a number of visiting forces—French, Polish and Norwegian. In regard to those forces, similar measures were provided, but once more there was no question of a jurisdiction which excluded the courts of this country. There was a concurrent jurisdiction in so called Service courts and in the courts of this country. The next and the graver step was taken in 1942. In that year an Act was passed called the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act of 1942. That Act gave effect to an Agreement which was made between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this country and the appropriate United States authority, and it did take what one may venture to think was a grave step, in that it excluded altogether from the jurisdiction of an English court a member of a visiting force who had committed a crime in this country, whatever the nature of this crime. Whether it was a crime purported to be committed in the course of duty or whatever its nature, the jurisdiction of the courts of this country was excluded altogether. I will not say that that Act was passed altogether without protest, but in this House, due, I expect, to the silver tongue of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, it had a very easy passage. That is the necessary background to the Convention to which I have referred.
Now I come to the terms of the Bill now before your Lordships. Your Lordships will see that it does not go the whole length of the Act to which I have last referred—that is to say, it does not in all cases and for all purposes exclude the jurisdiction of the English courts. On the contrary, it marks a dividing line between cases which shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the visiting forces' country and those which are not. If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the Bill you will see that by the first subsection of Clause 1 it is made to apply at once
"to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon."
456
Your Lordships may consider that there is a rather curious inversion here, for, whereas the origin of the Bill lies in the Convention to which the countries I have mentioned, except Canada, were not parties, the Bill applies, in the first place, to what I may call the Commonwealth parties; and then, by subsection (2), it may be made applicable to other countries by Order in Council. If your Lordships' look at subsection (2) you will see that it is so framed as to be appropriate to deal with those countries which are signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty. It provides that:
"Where it appears to Her Majesty…that having regard to any arrangements for common defence to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of that country are for the time being parties it is expedient that the following provisions of this Act, or any of those provisions, should have effect in relation to that country, Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions in question shall have effect in relation to that country, subject however to any adaptations or modifications specified in the Order."
That means that, in order to carry out the Convention, it is contemplated that forthwith the appropriate Orders in Council will be made applying the provisions of the Act to the North Atlantic Treaty Powers, as I have mentioned.
Now we come to Clause 2 of the Bill, which sets up the Service courts and legalises their acts. There is nothing in Clause 2 which has not been covered by the earlier Acts, the Act of 1933 and that of 1940. Your Lordships will see:
"The service courts and service authorities of a country to which this section applies may within the United Kingdom, or on board any of Her Majesty's ships or aircraft, exercise over persons subject to their jurisdiction in accordance with this section all such powers as are exercisable by them according to the law of that country."
Then we come to the persons who are to be made subject to the jurisdiction. They are
"(a) members of any visiting force of that country; and"—
your Lordships will observe these words—
"(b) all other persons who, being neither citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies nor ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, are for the time being subject to the service law of that country otherwise than as members of that country's forces."

457
A convenient term to describe that lengthy sentence might be "camp followers," if that has not a rather invidious meaning. So that the courts are set up and legalised, and there is in the Bill a description of the persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of those courts.
Then we have subsection (3), which is of importance and which reads:
"Where any sentence has, whether within or outside the United Kingdom, been passed by a service court of a country to which this section applies upon a person who immediately before the sentence was passed was subject to the jurisdiction of that court in accordance with this section, then for the purposes of any proceedings in a United Kingdom court the said service court shall be deemed to have been properly constituted, and the sentence shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction of that court and in accordance with the law of that country, and if executed according to the tenor of the sentence shall be deemed to have been lawfully executed."
That is to say, no writ of habeas corpus shall be issued. If it is issued there will be a good return to it. No action can follow in pursuance, and nothing of that kind will lie by the soldier against his commanding officer or other authorities. That is amplified by subsection (4) which says this:
"Any person who—

(a) is detained in custody in pursuance of a sentence as respects which the last fore going subsection has effect, or

(b) being subject in accordance with this section to the jurisdiction of the service courts of a country to which this section applies, is detained in custody pending or during the trial by such a court of a charge brought against him, shall for the purposes of any proceedings in any United Kingdom court be deemed to be in legal custody."

Subsection (5) deals, in effect, with mutual aid being given by the authorities of the visiting forces in the receiving country as to arrest and so on.
Now my Lords, I will come to Clause 3, which no doubt will give your Lordships most concern, for it provides an exclusive jurisdiction ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of this country in respect of certain cases. It provides as follows:
"… a person charged with an offence against United Kingdom law shall not be liable to be tried for that offence by a United Kingdom court if at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed he was a member of a visiting force or a member of a civilian component of such a force and "—
458
these are the particular qualifications—

"(a) the alleged offence, if committed by him, was committed in the course of duty as a member of that force or component, as the case may be; or

(b) the alleged offence is an offence against the person, and the person or, if more than one, each of the persons in relation to whom it is alleged to have been committed had at the time thereof a relevant association either with that force or with another visiting force of the same country "—

the words "a relevant association" are defined in Clause 12 (2). Then there is a further alternative—namely, if
"(c) the alleged offence is an offence against property, and the whole of the property in relation to which it is alleged to have been committed "
is property, in effect, of the forces of the visiting State.
So there are three cases in which the jurisdiction of this country is excluded: first, if the offence is committed in the course of duty; secondly, if it is committed against a person or a member of the visiting force, and, thirdly, if it is committed against the property of the visiting force. In all those cases the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the service courts of the visiting forces. Then in subsection (2) there is a qualification with which I need not trouble your Lordships. But subsection (3) is important because it gives a right of waiver, and it provides as follows:
"Nothing in subsection (1) of this section—
(a) shall prevent a person from being tried by a United Kingdom court in a case where the Director of Public Prosecutions (in the case of a court in England or Wales), the Lord Advocate (in the; case of a court in Scotland) or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (in the case of a court in Northern Ireland) certifies, either before or in the course of the trial, that the appropriate authority of the sending country has notified him that it is not proposed to deal with the case under the law of that country."
That is to say, an opportunity of waiver is given to the authorities of the visiting force if they think fit to take that course. Perhaps it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that there was a similar provision in the Act of 1942, to which I have referred.
It may be within your Lordships' recollection that some little time ago there was a case which acquired a good deal of notoriety, where an American soldier

459
took an English girl with him in a taxi-cab and they "beat up" and murdered the taxi-driver. Under the law as it then stood, subject to waiver, it was the American court which had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the American soldier, whereas, of course, the girl who had been taken with him was subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. The American authorities exercised the right of waiver and the American soldier and the English girl were both tried by an English court. That is an example of the exercise of the power of waiver which is given by this subsection. I do not think I need refer, because they are mere machinery, to paragraphs (b) and (c). Subsection (4) deals with aiders and abettors and puts them in the same position as principals.
Subsection (5) provides as follows:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the provisions of any other enactment restricting the prosecution of any proceedings or requiring the consent of any authority …"
That is a cautionary measure. Your Lordships may remember that in certain Acts, such as the Public Order Act and the Official Secrets Act, special authority is required before proceedings can be instituted. So far, those are the vital sections of this Bill setting up the jurisdiction and giving it exclusively in certain cases, but in certain cases only, to the courts of the visiting country.
Then, my Lords, Clause 4 provides as follows:
"… where a person has been tried by a service court of a country to which this section applies in the exercise of the powers referred to in subsection (1) of section two of this Act, he shall not be tried for the same crime by a United Kingdom court."
I think that is a provision that must make its appeal to everybody, although I believe that, theoretically, it will place the soldier of a visiting force in a different position from a soldier in the British Army, because I think I am right in saying that, theoretically, when a man has been tried by court-martial under the Army Act it is still open to the authorities to try him also in the civil courts. Subsection (2) of Clause 4, goes on to provide:
"Where a person who has been convicted by a service court of such a country in the exercise of the said powers is convicted by a United Kingdom court for a different crime,
460
but it appears to that court that the conviction by the service court was wholly or partly in respect of acts or omissions in respect of which he is convicted by the United Kingdom court, that court shall have regard to the sentence of the service court."
That means that, where two crimes are so closely connected that the one ought to be taken into account in the consideration of the other, then the court has to do so.
Clause 5 is certainly of importance, although it is a machinery clause, because it provides that nothing in the clauses to which I have referred, setting up this jurisdiction, is to derogate in any way from
"any powers of arrest, entry, seizure or custody exercisable under the United Kingdom law."
So that if a policeman finds a soldier of a visiting force committing a crime, he need not pause to ask whether it is being committed in the course of duty and whether there is executive jurisdiction in the service court of the visiting country: his duty is, just the same, to arrest the offender. When he has arrested him, then, in due course, the arrested man may be handed over to the authorities of the visiting force—if that is the correct procedure in the circumstances. Clause 5 (2) makes further provision for this. As your Lordships know, when a man has been detained in prison it is imperative that he should be brought before the proper authority within the shortest possible time, which you may say is, roughly, twenty-four hours. I am not using that figure with absolute precision, but generally speaking a man who has been detained in custody for twenty-four hours should be brought before the proper authority when, of course, he can be remanded. That may not be adequate time when the question is whether the man should be handed over to the authority of the visiting force or not, so Clause 5 (2) enlarges the time to four days. Subsections (3) and (4) make application of the clause to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 6 provides that—
"No proceedings shall be entertained by any United Kingdom court with regard to the pay of any person in respect of service as a member of a visiting force "—
and so on.
Clause 7 is a rather difficult and complicated clause, which deals with the jurisdiction of the coroner. As your

461
Lordships will easily see, there may be conflict of jurisdiction if the coroner proceeds with his inquest and finds it necessary to commit on the inquisition. That he will not do if he finds that the person against whom any suspicion is founded is a member of a visiting force. Perhaps when we come to the Committee stage there may be other points to which we shall give attention but there is nothing else in this clause to which I need specially call your Lordships' attention on the Second Reading, except to say that this harmonises proceedings in the coroner's court with the scheme of the Bill. Clause 8 is a clause which, again, provides necessary machinery. I think I must read the first subsection. It runs as follows:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her to be expedient for the purpose of applying to any visiting force (whether wholly or in part and with or without modification or exceptions) the law relating to the home forces."
I need hardly say that this is an Order in Council of the type which requires an Affirmative Resolution, and that is provided for by subsection (4) of the clause. What we have in mind there is that there will be a variety of enactments—it is impossible to predict precisely what they will be—which it will be necessary to apply to visiting forces in order to make this scheme operate. One or two of them occur to one immediately the question is raised.
Assume that an offender is handed over to the service court of a visiting force, and suppose that it is necessary that the evidence of a British citizen should be given at the trial of that offender. How can such a person be compelled to give evidence? Accordingly, it is necessary to apply the relevant provisions of the Army Act with the necessary adaptation, because, as your Lordships are aware, it is possible under the Army Act to compel the attendance of a witness before a court-martial. Although a court-martial has no power to deal with a recalcitrant witness, a court-martial can report the matter to the High Court, which can deal with it accordingly. That is the sort of enactment—and there will be many of them of many types—which it will be necessary to apply in order to make the machinery of the Bill work smoothly. Clause 8 is on similar lines to the provisions of the 1933 and 1940 Acts, but, I think, with
462
some improvement in drafting. When one is considering these rather important conditions it is, I think, relevant to remember that these earlier Acts have worked perfectly smoothly, with good will on both sides. To Clause 9 I will, if I may, for the moment omit reference at any length, because it deals with a different subject matter—what are called civil claims, which are covered by a different Article of the Convention. I will come back to that clause in a moment.
Clause 10 deals with the question of membership of "civilian components" of visiting forces. It is rather an awkward expression, but I do not know of a better one. As your Lordships will see, the clause provides proper means for determining and ascertaining who are such persons. I think that I need say no more than that about it on this occasion. Clause 11 is a clause dealing with evidence, and there again I do not think there is anything to which I need call your Lordships' particular attention, except that I may perhaps refer to subsection (3). You there find that it is provided that where a certificate is to be issued by or on behalf of the appropriate authority in connection with any charge, to the effect that the charge can be dealt with under the law of the country of the visiting force, the certificate of the appropriate authority is to toe regarded as conclusive. I must call particular attention to subsection (4) because your Lordships will have noticed that when I was dealing with Clause 3 I made specific mention of the class of cases where exclusive jurisdiction is given to the service court of the visiting force, namely under subsection (1) (a) where an offence is committed in the course of duty. At once it will occur to your Lordships: who is to say whether it was committed in the course of duty? And at once a controversy may arise. That is a knot which has to be cut. Subsection (4) provides that:
"Where a person is charged with an offence against United Kingdom Law and at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed he was a member of a visiting force or a member of a civilian component of such a force, a certificate issued by or on behalf of the appropriate authority of the sending country, stating that the alleged offence, if committed by him, was committed in the course of duty as a member of that force or component, as the case may be, shall in any such proceedings as aforesaid be conclusive evidence of that fact."

463
There is no other way I know to deal with such a matter except to give to one authority or the other the absolute right to say whether the act which was done was done in the course of duty.
Clause 12 deals with a number of definitions. I think I should perhaps refer to subsection (2) which reads:
"References in this Part of this Act to a person's having at any time a relevant association with a visiting force are references to his being at that time a person of one or other of the following descriptions, that is to say:—

(a) a member of that visiting force or a member of a civilian component of that force;

(b) a person, not being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, but being a dependant of a member of that visiting force or of a civilian component of that force."

Your Lordships find in subsection (4) definitions of the expression "dependant," defining it as

"(a) the wife or husband of that person; and

(b) any other person wholly or mainly maintained by him or in his custody, charge or care."

So there is undoubtedly a somewhat large class of persons who fall within the scope of the Bill.
Part II deals with a somewhat different subject matter. It deals not only with members of visiting forces, but also with deserters and absentees without leave, and provides for the apprehension and disposal of deserters and absentees without leave within the United Kingdom from other forces. In Part III, Clause 15 provides for the extension of the Act to the Colonies and Dependencies. Clause 16 provides for the proof of facts by certificate, and Clause 17 for interpretation. I think there is nothing else in the Act until I come back to Clause 9, but, if you look at the Schedules, you will see that offences against the person and offences against property are there defined.
Finally, I return to Clause 9 of the Bill, which is designed to carry out the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention to which I have referred. Article 8 aims at settling in a convenient way the claims which are likely to be made by civilian persons against members of visiting forces. It is clear that these claims must be fraught with all sorts of difficulties:
464
the difficulty perhaps of identifying the man—it may be a soldier who was driving a lorry; the difficulty of service upon him; the difficulty, indeed, the impossibility, of making his employer—namely, the authority of the visiting forces—responsible, since State Immunity will at once be pleaded by such an authority. Accordingly, the Convention aims at a settlement for which the several States make themselves responsible for dealing with claims. The provisions of the Article of the Convention are very elaborate and I do not think I need say more about them.
Clause 9 of the Bill provides that:
"The Minister of Defence may make arrangements whereby claims in respect of acts or omissions of members of visiting forces, or of other persons connected therewith to whom the arrangements relate, being acts or omissions of any description to which the arrangements relate, will be satisfied by payments made by the said Minister of such amounts as may be adjudged by any United Kingdom court or as may be agreed between the claimant and the said Minister or such other authority as may be provided by the arrangements; and any expenses of the Minister of Defence incurred in satisfying claims in pursuance of any such arrangements or otherwise in connection with the arrangements shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
It is the need for the financial provision contained in the last three lines that makes it necessary to insert this clause. The Minister of Defence could not make arrangements and carry them out satisfactorily unless he was authorised to use moneys provided by Parliament. In fact, arrangements either already have been made or will be made by the Minister of Defence by which this clause will be implemented. The common case will be where a man who thinks he has suffered some wrong makes a claim to the Claims Department of the War Office—the body which deals with claims made by any person who conceives himself to be wronged by any act of the War Office or of any Forces of the Crown. A claim is made, it is considered, an award is made, if it is thought fit, and the claimant can accept the award if he thinks fit, or if he does not think so, he can sue.
Under Clause 9 of this Bill claims against visiting forces will be treated in the same way. There is nothing in this which will abrogate any legal right which a citizen of this country may have against

465
a member of a visiting force whom he conceives has wronged him and nothing to prevent him from pursuing this action as he thinks fit, although, as I have said, many difficulties may stand in his way. This Bill makes additional provision for his assistance. He can make his claim; it will be considered, and if the authorities think he has a good claim, and that it can be met by a proper payment, he will be offered that sum. If he rejects it, he is left with his claim against the person who he thinks has injured him, if he can find him. As I have said, the arrangements are very elaborate and perhaps on a later occasion, if it be necessary, I can go into them. That is not the major part of the Bill. The major part is that which deals with criminal jurisdiction. With these words, which I am afraid may not have been altogether clear or altogether adequate, for a Bill which, admittedly, is of great importance, I commend it to your Lordships and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE: KOREA
3.38 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I intervene for one moment on another topic. First of all, I should like to make my most sincere apologies to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and to the House for not being in the House when his private notice Question was asked, but I was detained by an official engagement; nor had I notice that the Question was going to be asked—and I do not complain. I should like to say at once that I shall be very glad to accede to the request of the Opposition that, following the statement of the Minister of Defence at about 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday next, a debate should take place on the situation in Korea.
I should not like it to be regarded as a precedent for all Government statements, nor, I imagine, would the Opposition themselves suggest that; for, as your Lordships all know, the strict rule of the House is that debates should take place
466
on Motions. But I gave an assurance yesterday, and was very glad to give it, that we would always try to find time for topics of really urgent public interest, and this is certainly one of those. The Minister of Defence has already intimated to me that he will be very willing to answer this debate, by leave of the House. Indeed, I think he is probably the only person who could capably do so. I would suggest—though, of course, I wish in no way to curtail the rights of debate of the House—that this discussion on Korea should not be prolonged unduly, for as the House knows, we have already a great deal of business on the Order Paper, including two Bills the passage of which is urgently required.
3.40 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess Leader of the House for what he has said. I agree that it is undesirable that the debate should be unduly prolonged. When I made the request earlier this afternoon I made it plain that I had given the noble Marquess no notice of it, and I make not the smallest complaint because, owing to his many public engagements, he was not able to be here.

VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care which he has taken in expounding to us what is undoubtedly an extremely difficult Bill. But for the events which have taken place, I have no doubt that. I might well have been expounding this Bill to your Lordships. The Convention on which it is based was one which was agreed to in the lifetime of the previous Government, and, in the main, this Bill is designed to carry out that Convention. I do not pretend for one moment that this is not a matter which should cause us considerable anxiety. Yet, haying said that, I think this Bill is framed upon the right lines, and that, on the whole, this is the best way out of a difficult situation.
As the Lord Chancellor said, it is odd, when we look at Clause 1 of this Bill, to find that it applies to the various Commonwealth countries, who in the main,

467
save in the case of Canada, were not parties to the Convention. It is only when we get to Clause 1 (2) that we see contemplated a system whereby the provisions of the Bill may be extended to other countries, including those who did sign the Convention. In view of the fact that the Convention is, in all human probability, shortly to be ratified by a number of these countries, I rather wish that the Bill had been a little delayed, because I am not too happy about Clause 1 (2), under which it may be extended by Order in Council to other countries, subject to any adaptations or modifications which may be specified. That is a very wide power indeed. I presume that the Order in Council which will specify the adaptations will have to be passed by this House, at least in the Negative Resolution procedure form, and I think in the Affirmative Resolution form.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; that is not so provided.
EARL JOWITT: Then it ought to be so provided. I think it would be quite wrong that the Government should be able to make modifications to this Bill when it becomes an Act, without coming to Parliament and getting approval beforehand of what those modifications are to be. May I say that I hope we shall not be unduly rushed into the Committee stage, because this Bill obviously needs much more consideration than I have been able to give to it at present? I feel that we, should consider Clause 1 carefully; and I certainly feel that Parliament ought to be consulted before the adaptations or modifications are passed, because this is a very wide power—it might include almost anything.
There is another difficulty which I feel arises under Clause 3. The Lord Chancellor has reviewed the previous legislation. I believe that the Acts of 1933 and 1940 gave concurrent jurisdiction—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is so.
EARL JOWITT: —whereas the Act of 1942, as the Lord Chancellor said, gave exclusive jurisdiction, though there was a power to request the courts of this country to operate, and in the case to which he referred that is what took place. If that is so, in either of those cases this
468
possible conflict of jurisdiction is avoided. I want to point out to your Lordships how important it is that on this matter there should be no ambiguity at all. If a man commits an offence, or is accused of committing an offence, it would be quite intolerable that there should be an ambiguity as to which court has jurisdiction to try him. If he comes to the English courts, his counsel may raise some point, and the English courts may say that they have not jurisdiction. Then perhaps he may go to the other court (if he ever gets there), where the contrary argument may be used, possibly with different results. We see such a phrase as that contained in Clause 3 (1) (a):
"the alleged offence, if committed by him, was committed in the course of duty…
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I made specific reference to that point, and called the attention of the House to Clause 11 (4), pointing out that it was necessary to solve just that difficulty by providing that the authority of the visiting, force should have the power to certify that it was done "in the course of duty."
EARL JOWITT: I realise that the authority may exercise that power; but they may not. If they do not, then the question still has to be decided, and it may be a difficult question. For instance, we all remember the case many years ago of that shocking incident at the Horse Guards in Whitehall, where two girls went in, were taken in or were lured in—I have forgotten the precise details of the case—and an offence was committed. In one sense, I suppose, those men were acting "in the course of duty," because they were on duty at the time. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to suggest that it was their duty to do anything of the sort. Arguments might arise in that way. I agree that the argument can be resolved if, under Clause 11 of the Bill, the authorities of the visiting forces choose to give the certificate. But if they do not choose to give the certificate, then the matter has to be resolved. I have no criticism of the words, but we must be careful to consider whether they are as precise as they might be, because in all these questions of jurisdiction it is of the utmost importance that there should be as little room for controversy as possible
I do not repeat the same point with regard to paragraph (b) of Clause 3 (1). I can imagine, in regard to that again, that

469
difficult points might arise, and we must look at the Bill between now and the Committee stage to see whether we have exhausted all the possibilities of getting the matter absolutely clear, because it would be most unfortunate if controversy should arise. I feel that this should be said (the Lord Chancellor has already said it, but perhaps I may repeat it): that the difficulties which might have arisen under the Acts of 1933 and 1940 have been avoided by the exercise of good sense; and in the case of the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act of 1942, under which they have exclusive jurisdiction, it is the fact that the Americans have been most careful to punish all cases which are properly proved against their men—and I may add that they have given punishment to an extent and of a severity which is far more drastic than that which we habitually give in our own courts. So that, in fact, whatever the theoretical objections may be against it, the Act of 1942 has, thanks to the willingness of the American authorities to see, so far as they can, that their men observe law and order in this country, worked well.
I now pass briefly to consider the different matter with which the Lord Chancellor dealt under Clause 9. The difficulty we had here in the old days, before we passed the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, was well illustrated by what happened in regard to running-down cases. It often used to happen that somebody was able to prove that he had been run down and injured by the reckless driving of some Army lorry, but that he was unable to identify the particular lorry or the particular driver. Though our authorities were most anxious to help in every way they could, there was a real technical and procedural difficulty. That is hound to happen. The Lord Chancellor pointed out that there will be the right of the liege who is injured in this country to bring his action against the man who has injured him. But he may not be able to find him. So far as our War Office are concerned, when this happens now, the man can, if necessary—I think I am right in saying this—bring his action against the Secretary of State for War. In that way he can get redress, if he establishes the fact that he was knocked down by an Army lorry, even if he is unable to identify the particular
470
lorry which did it. But there would be no corresponding right against the American authorities. It is well worth considering whether it would not be possible to arrange with them that they should confer upon the people of this country the corresponding right which they have as regards our own War Office.
I realise that the Minister of Defence and the Claims Commission of our War Office have the right to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack called attention. It is not quite the same thing, however, as giving anybody who has been injured—and unfortunately this is a very common thing in this country—an absolute right to proceed in the courts of law in respect of that accident. I think it is worth while considering whether that should or should not be done.
There are many other matters which need to be considered on the Committee stage, but I should be breaking my own rule and my own suggestion against long speeches were I to go on. The matter needs to be looked at most carefully. It is an important matter. We are all exceedingly grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the admirable way in which he expounded this difficult Bill, and I think we shall all wish to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope that we shall be allowed some little time, though not an undue time, to consider it before the Committee stage is taken.
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble and learned Earl opposite in thanking my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for the very clear explanation he has given us of this technical Bill. So far in this debate we have been proceeding on the assumption that the countries who are expected to ratify the Agreement will do so. I suppose that that is all right. Certainly it would be no good our binding ourselves to certain conditions which, as the Lord Chancellor said, would affect our troops in other countries, if it later turned out that the Agreement as it stands was not ratified by the countries in which they might serve. However, I suppose that is a risk which it is justifiable to take to-day.
The Lord Chancellor said that this Bill might surprise any old-fashioned

471
student of law, but I think it certainly would not surprise anybody who has tried to follow the progress of our arrangements for Western Defence, N.A.T.O., and so forth, because, looked at from another point of view (and I do not want to follow either of the previous speakers on the legal points) this is practical evidence that the detailed arrangements made necessary by the strategic requirements of Western Union are slowly and surely being tied up. After all, notwithstanding the Act of 1933, this is the first time that we have ever really envisaged a state of affairs in which visiting forces in large numbers would spend an indefinite period on British soil in what is technically a time of peace—a "hot peace" or a "cold war." That is a situation which has never arisen before in this country, because between the wars the only visiting forces who were here were individuals or small parties of Dominion troops, or possibly foreign troops on courses of instruction in British military establishments. Now, for the first time, we have formations of Commonwealth troops and Allied troops staying in this country under peace conditions for an indefinite time. That makes a great deal of difference.
One reason why it makes a great deal of difference is that under the so-called peace conditions troops, whoever they are, have considerably more leisure than they have under war conditions. Training is not so intensive; the recreational periods are longer; travel is easier and, therefore, those troops will be mixing a good deal more with the civil population than perhaps they did in war time. I am quite sure that that is a good thing, because the way to make an Act like this work must surely be to have the best possible relations between the visiting forces and the people in the locality where they are stationed. That has always been obvious. It was not so easy in the last war to do what one would have liked in the way of entertaining visiting forces, simply because of the food difficulties and the difficulty of sharing the Sunday joint. But the background for the working of the Visiting Forces Bill, when it becomes an Act, must be the best possible relations between the visiting forces, the
472
people and the police authorities in the places where they are stationed.
From the Service point of view, anything which can be done to clarify the relations between the visiting forces and the people of the country is all to the good, bearing in mind, as the Lord Chancellor said, that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that we must expect our own troops when stationed overseas to be treated in exactly the same way by the local police and the local inhabitants. To look at it for a moment from the point of view of the local police, I think it would be fair to say that this Bill represents a considerable advance on any previous Bill, because it does allow jurisdiction in the local courts in certain cases concerning offences of a type which are clearly not going to have anything to do with the visiting forces' service duties. But we do come across one problem which the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, mentioned a moment ago—the question of whether people are, or are not, on duty. Now I am not suggesting that we can better this arrangement, because the present clause corresponds very closely with what is written into the Agreement. Any attempt to alter it would involve an attempt to alter the Agreement, which I should think would be very difficult indeed. But there are going to be a good many conflicts of interest over this question of duty.
The noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, mentioned the case of rape, or whatever it was, in the Horse Guards. That may be serious, but what will require a good deal more attention in practice is the question of driving vehicles on duty. Unless a man from a visiting force takes a vehicle out for a joy ride, it can be assumed that he will always be on duty when driving a Service vehicle; therefore, unless I am wrong, it stands to reason that every traffic accident, with the exception of the small percentage of accidents caused by joy-riders, will be an accident caused by a man on duty. I should be very surprised if I were wrong in saying that the great bulk of offences—or a very high percentage of them—caused by visiting, troops anywhere are traffic accidents, all of which, with the few exceptions I have mentioned, will come into the category of accidents on duty because the vehicles will be Service vehicles.

473
There may also be some points to tidy up about cases where—as in the case quoted by the Lord Chancellor—an American and a civilian jointly commit the offence. There may be other points which will arise as time goes on. With regard to those points, I think it will be found that our powers of amending this Bill will be very limited indeed, unless we are prepared to face any alteration in the draft Agreement, which I imagine is not a thing which will be welcome at all. If that is so—and I rather think it is so—we have either that very difficult alternative or we have to make up our minds not to meet our troubles halfway but to see how the present arrangements work. Provided that we can get good will between the local inhabitants, the local police and the authorities of the visiting forces, then I believe we shall have solved the greater part of the problem. For that reason, I should like to support the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill and join with the noble and learned Earl in hoping that we may have a little time to look at it more closely before the Committee stage.
4.0 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, as previous speeches have indicated, this is a matter both complex and important. We must all be grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the great care he has taken in making the provisions of this complicated measure as plain as may be to the House. Parliament must always be jealous of any infringement of die prerogatives of the Crown in relation to the Sovereign's courts administering the municipal law. It is inevitable, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said and as others have repeated, that, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves and which we have to contemplate, a jurisdiction, be it wide or narrow, must he given in certain regards to the courts operating under the auspices of visiting forces.
It is interesting to note the history of this matter, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack drew some attention. Hitherto, by the Acts of 1933 and 1940, the position, broadly speaking has been, I think, that in association with concurrent jurisdiction, there was an exclusive jurisdiction of military tribunals of the visiting forces limited to matters of discipline and internal administration
474
only. In the course of the 1914 war, it is true, the American forces claimed far wider jurisdiction over their forces in this country than was claimed by or allowed to other forces—or, indeed, allowed in the event to United States forces, because that war came to an end before the discussion was concluded. But under the 1942 Act during the recent war, the American forces achieved an exclusive jurisdiction, or to all intents and purposes an exclusive jurisdiction, in all matters affecting their armed forces here.
My noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt has drawn attention to the provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill, whereby the provisions of the Bill may be applied to countries other than the Dominions mentioned in subsection (1) of the same clause; and he has drawn attention in particular to the fact that power is given by Order in Council to adapt or modify the provisions of the Bill. I do not know—I ask for information—whether it may be that the adaptations or modifications by Order in Council could extend the rights of military courts of visiting forces beyond those contained in this Bill, or whether those adaptations or modifications would be by way of limitation. That is, could they be by way of extension or must they be by way of limitation? The reason I ask that question is because if the adaptation be by way of limitation only, then the position of the American forces in this country after the passing of this Bill into law will be different from what it is at present, and the jurisdiction which thus far the American forces have been enjoying will be much more limited than it is at the present time. That may be the intention; I hope it is, but I should like to know.
I do not want to delay your Lordships by dealing with matters of detail which, on this complicated Bill, may well arise—indeed, must arise on the Committee stage. I must say, however, that while the Bill deals so largely with criminal matters and to so small an extent with civil matters, the question of civil action is one of great importance to private citizens in this country. It is perhaps a little disturbing, although it may be inevitable, that the certificate of the military authorities of the visiting forces should be final and conclusive on the question of whether a person alleged to

475
have committed an offence or to have been liable in a civil matter is a member of the armed forces or not. However clear it may be that he was not on duty, if he is a member of the armed forces, or a member of a civilian component, a certificate to the contrary by the military authorities will, as the Bill stands, be final and conclusive. That is the position as I understand it, and it is, I think, a matter which may need to be looked into a little more.
There is another small point which arises on the Agreement, though it is not in the Bill. It occurs in Clause VIII of the Agreement, and it refers to claims not being made between the contracting parties below a certain specified figure. I hope that that means as between Governments themselves and that it is not intended in any way to limit the right of the private citizen who may, perhaps, go to a court in this country to obtain judgment for £490. I mention that figure because in the case of the United Kingdom £500 is the limit mentioned in the Agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Those clauses to which the noble Lord refers are intended to confer exemption only as between State and State—at least, so I read them.
LORD NATHAN: I thought that must be so, and I mentioned the matter for no other purpose than to obtain that statement from the Lord Chancellor. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for it. It is quite clear that a Bill along these lines is inevitable and necessary. I would not myself comment adversely as to the general purport of the Bill, but it will require, as has been said, very precise examination in detail at the next stage. We are dealing here with a situation in which the prized jurisdiction of the courts of this country is to be excluded in favour of other courts exercising jurisdiction within this Realm. We ought to be slow to allow such a state of things without providing proper protective provisions.
4.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to make one or two observations—not in a critical spirit, because it will be generally agreed that this is a very difficult Bill to understand in detail. We are
476
indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the most careful exposition of the Bill which he gave us; but there may be one or two points on which we should like to be further informed. I find myself in a great deal of sympathy with the first criticism which was made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. When one looks at the Bill, it is a rather striking circumstance that though it is presented to us, and, of course, quite properly presented to us, as a Bill necessary to carry out our part of the Agreement regarding the state of the forces of the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, none the less the Bill itself says nothing about the North Atlantic Treaty, either in its Title or, I think, in any of its clauses. You might read the Bill from beginning to end without knowing that it refers specifically to the signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty. That is some confirmation of the first point made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, because in those circumstances it certainly is rather surprising to find that under Clause 1 (2), by Order in Council—which is a purely executive act—the application of this measure may hereafter, subject to "any adaptations or modifications specified in the Order," be applied to other countries.
I would add in respect to that matter, that in a later clause of the Bill there is a different kind of provision relating to an Order in Council made under the Bill. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 8 (1), you will see that:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as"
she thinks expedient
"for the purpose of applying to any visiting force … the law relating to the home forces."
Then, subsection (4) provides:
"No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section"—
that is, Clause 8—
"unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
Without presuming to express any final opinion on the matter, I would suggest for consideration the question whether some such limiting and guarding provision might not be proper in relation to an Order in Council which is contemplated in Clause 1. Before passing from

477
Clause 1, I wish to make an observation which occurs to me as I read it. I expect there is a good answer to this point: the draftsmen usually have a good answer. I do not understand why the first words of the clause are:
"The following sections of this Act shall have effect"—
because I have not been able to find any "following section of the Act" which does not apply to Canada, Australia and so on. Therefore I should have thought that "The following sections of" were four wholly superfluous words. That is, of course, a pure technicality.
Then I must join with others in saying a word about Clause 9. It is perfectly true, as the Lord Chancellor said, that it occupies only a small space in the Bill, and it occupied a very small space in his observations, but, having regard to the topic with which it deals, it is difficult to think of anything that is of more importance, because it proposes an enactment with reference to alleged claims made by ordinary citizens against members of visiting forces, and provides a special machinery for dealing with them. I do not for a moment say that some such provision is not necessary. I think that, by the time you work it out, you will find that it will have to be very elaborate indeed. As the Lord Chancellor told us (as I understood him) that such arrangements were already in contemplation and perhaps in draft, I wonder if he would consider, for the better information of the House, whether before the clause is discussed in Committee it would be proper to issue, not, of course, the final Agreement, but at any rate the general nature of the Agreement which is contemplated. I am certain that a large number of important points must arise on it.
May I, therefore, ask the noble and learned Lord to give us a slightly fuller explanation of the clause itself? It begins:
"The Minister of Defence may make arrangements …
I should have thought that, if an Act of Parliament talked about an arrangement being made by somebody, it would be natural to say with whom the arrange-merit was made—for an arrangement certainly involves two parties. A phrase that begins "The Minister of Defence may make arrangements" and leaves
478
everything after that to be inferred, is perhaps a little sketchy. Would it not be well to consider inserting in the clause, when the time comes, words which will show rather more clearly the parties with whom the arrangement is to be made? I presume it must be with the other Governments concerned. The clause goes on to say:
"…whereby claims …"
I am not quite clear whether the claims there referred to are all what in our English law we should call claims of tort. Contractual claims are also claims and, when I look at the Agreement in the White Paper, it seems as though it is not limited to claims arising out of tortious acts. If your Lordships have the White Paper before you, you will see at the top of page 9 in Article VIII of the Agreement a paragraph numbered 6, which speaks of:
"Claims against members of a force or civilian component arising out of tortious acts or omissions …"
which rather suggests that that is one kind of claim. I think that is confirmed if one turns back to page 7 of the same document, where at the bottom, there is a paragraph numbered 5, which begins:
"Claims (other than contractual claims …"—
and so on—
"arising out of acts or omissions…
It would be helpful to me, and I think it might be helpful to some members of the public, if, at an appropriate moment, the Lord Chancellor would expound the practical working of Clause 9 a little more clearly.
Take, as an example, a case where an ordinary citizen contends that he has been induced to part with his money to some member of a visiting force in circumstances which entitle him to a claim to be paid back. That is not necessarily, of course, a criminal proceeding; it may be a civil proceeding. How will it really work? What will happen in such a case? He will have to make his claim—I suppose it is possible that he might issue a writ—and there is provision as to what is to happen in that case in Clause 9 if the United Kingdom court gives a judgment in his favour. Or again, I suppose it might be a claim which he says is genuine and important, in which he does not issue a writ but, none the less, puts forward his claim.

479
There again, I should be rather glad to have an illustration of how the procedure is going to work. It is not that I am criticising the Bill, except to say that Clause 9, as it stands, has necessarily been dealt with a little summarily, having regard to the great importance of the topic.
I do not know whether the other suggestion made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, is at all likely to receive consideration. I was very much impressed with what he said. As he reminded the House—it happened not so many years ago—we in this country now have an arrangement by which the ordinary citizen who says he has been injured by the reckless driving, say of an Army car, but who cannot identify the driver, may none the less, in case of need, take proceedings in the ordinary courts in the ordinary way against the Crown itself. He is entitled to serve his writ and prove his case, even though he may not be able to identify the driver, if he is able to show that it was an Army car and, perhaps, to give its Army number. It is not to be presumed that Army cars will go careering about the countryside unless they are driven by Army drivers. At any rate, it would certainly be for the defence to prove otherwise.
That is very satisfactory as between us and the British Army authorities. I quite appreciate that it would not necessarily be so easy in the case of visiting forces. If the result of this reckless driving was a smash, and things came to a standstill, I suppose that the British policeman who came up would be entitled to demand the name of the driver. What would happen if the driver refused to give it? I am not clear on that. At the moment I am not quite clear at what point the British policeman (acting, of course, in the interests of British law and order on the roads) would cease to have authority to discharge his ordinary police duties. I appreciate that at some point, if he thought a member of the visiting forces was concerned, it would be a question of a report through his superior officer to the visiting authorities. If I may say so with respect, it would greatly assist the public, and I think probably some other people who claim to be specially instructed in this matter, if at an appropriate time the Lord Chancellor could
480
give us a little more information in regard to the way in which this will work. I have no doubt at all that it has been thought out very carefully, and I am not at all criticising, except to say that I think it is a little difficult to understand at present. That leads me to reinforce my suggestion, that before we discuss Clause 9 in Committee we should see in outline what sort of arrangement is contemplated with a given visiting force.
Lastly, I wish to make this observation—it is a point which often arises in this class of Bill. When an international Convention is agreed, with a large number of signatories, your intention is, of course, that your own law in accordance with that Convention shall apply only if the other signatories act in the same way. It is meant to be an all-round arrangement. One very common way of providing for that is to say in the terms of the Bill that, although the Bill has been passed, it will not come into force until ratification of the Convention has been made by a certain proportion of the total number of signatories. There is nothing of that sort in this Bill. Whilst I am not disputing that it is quite right to have such a Bill, and whilst I do not for a moment question the good faith of all the other signatories to the Convention that they mean to do the same, I feel that there is something to be said for the view that we cannot be expected to enact this law unless the other nations effectively put it into force in their own countries. Whether that is provided for, or whether we are simply relying on their assurances I am not at present quite clear.
My Lords, I have made these observations with not the slightest desire to "crab" the Bill, or to oppose it, but because I think we must all recognise that it is an extremely difficult, important and rather novel kind of Bill. I have no doubt that it is the right kind of measure to take, largely for the reason mentioned just now by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, that it is the way to get good co-operation with those who are our colleagues in these visiting forces. At the same time, it is our duty to look at it as carefully as we can. I am quite sure that neither the Lord Chancellor nor any one else will resent these inquiries, which are intended not as criticisms but as an application for enlightenment.
4.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for the criticisms which they have made of the Bill. I have no doubt that they will be taken into consideration and will be found very helpful. In regard to the final words of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I certainly assure him that I have no objection of any kind to the criticisms that he has made indeed, I regard them as most helpful.
There are just a few comments that I should like to make upon the speeches that have been made. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, emphasised the importance of avoiding ambiguity and consequent controversy. With that sentiment, of course, I am wholly in accord. Although he has left the House he was courteous enough to inform me why he had to leave. But I cannot resist saying that the example which he gave of "intolerable ambiguity" really fell to the ground. I agree that it might be a matter of intolerable ambiguity if the phrase "in the course of duty"—a very important phrase in this Act—were left undefined. It was just for that reason that in the Act the authoritative right to say that an act was done "in the course of duty" was left to the single arbitrament of the authority of the visiting force. And his suggestion, when I pointed that out to him, that, after all, the difficulty might still arise because the authority might refuse to give the certificate, was, I thought, really rather shallow. Clearly, the visiting authorities would be bound to say, and as a matter of courtesy and common sense would say, whether an act done by the offender was or was not done "in the course of duty." But I agree with the noble and learned Earl that, so far as possible, all controversy should be avoided.
That leads me to this general observation, which covers what was said by more than one noble Lord. This is an Agreement which was come to as a matter of good will by the contracting parties signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty, and it is implicit in it that, having made such an Agreement, the parties must show the utmost good will and good sense and accommodation in making it work. I can see all sorts of difficulties if parties in several contracting States
482
do not act with good will, candour and good sense towards each other. But we must assume that, just as for many years past the system has worked—I agree a slightly different but still a somewhat similar system—so, with good will, this scheme will work.
The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, referred to the fact that Clause 1 of the Bill does not provide for an Affirmative, or indeed for even a Negative, Resolution procedure in regard to the Orders in Council which are contemplated in respect of other countries with regard to whom an arrangement for common defence has been made. That is true. But let me say this about it. It is true that the application of the provisions is to be subject to any adaptation or modification specified in the Order. I had not read that as contemplating the possibility of an adaptation or modification which amounted to an extension. We shall certainly give consideration to the suggestion which the noble and learned Earl made. But your Lordships will remember this. What we have to do is to fulfil our obligations under the Convention. Therefore, in any Order that is made we shall have to comply with those obligations. We shall not go beyond, and I hope that we shall not fall short of them. The difficulty is, as I pointed out in my opening speech, in interpreting. As I pointed out, there you have a Convention in the English and French languages which is meant to cover an Agreement which relates to the systems of law—and the different systems of law—of many countries.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but he has said something which I do not quite follow. Do I understand from what he has just said that the need for an Order in Council is in order to apply the Bill to one or other of the Signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty? I should have thought that it was applied without that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so—except, of course, in the case of Canada, which is not only a Signatory of the North Atlantic Treaty but also is specifically mentioned in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill and has already passed relevant legislation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Surely no Order in Council is needed to apply the Bill to Canada.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No. I am sorry if there is any misunderstanding. Canada is mentioned in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill. Therefore, there is no need to make an Order in Council. It will be necessary to make Orders in Council under subsection (2) in regard to the other Signatory Powers of the North Atlantic Treaty, and it may be necessary or desirable to make an Order in Council in relation to other States of whom it can be predicated that they have made arrangements for common defence to which Her Majesty's Government and the Government of that country are for the time being parties. Subsection (2) clearly covers the North Atlantic Treaty Signatories and it is because it is necessary to provide for other countries with which arrangements of this kind are concluded that it has been inserted in this way. We will, however, consider what has been said by noble Lords in regard to the desirability of the Order being subject either to the Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was good enough to say that he thought—and I fully agree with him—that the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act will, of course, depend very largely upon the good relations between the authorities of the visiting forces and the authorities here. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Nothing could be more important than to cultivate, by every means possible, good relations between these parties. I am sure that he, for his part, in that part of the country where he lives, will do his best to that end. There was one point—I think perhaps a rather minor one—to which he referred. He was not fully aware of the provisions of paragraph 8 of Article VIII, which provides—as I say, this is rather a minor matter, but it does deal with the point he had in mind—that,
"If a dispute arises as to whether a tortious act or omission of a member of a force or civilian component was done in the performance of official duty or as to whether the use of any vehicle of the armed services of a sending State was unauthorised, the question shall be submitted to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with paragraph 2 (b) of this Article, whose decision on this point shall be final and conclusive."
484
That is part of the arrangement which will no doubt be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, referred to the earlier Acts of 1933 and 1940. I think he made a slip, as one well may, in describing the import of the earlier Acts for, in fact, as I pointed out in opening this matter, it was in 1942 for the first time that an exclusive jurisdiction was given to a visiting Power. The Acts of 1933 and 1940 give only a concurrent jurisdiction, except, of course—and this is where the noble Lord may have been misled—that there may well be cases where a member of a visiting force does something which is an offence against his own law, an offence against discipline, but not an offence against the law of this country. In such a case, of course, the service court of the visiting authority would alone have jurisdiction, because it would be against the law of the visiting country alone that the offence had been committed.
LORD NATHAN: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I had intended—and indeed I hoped that I had succeeded in so doing—to express myself in the way he now tells me that I should have expressed myself, because that was how I understood the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a passing matter. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord—I expect I did. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, made a number of—if I may say so—very helpful criticisms. One minor one for which I have full sympathy—so far as I can see it is well-grounded, but I will discuss it with the draftsman—is to the effect that the first four words of Clause 1 (1) might usefully be omitted. It may be, as the noble and learned Viscount himself said, that there is a good answer to that. If there is no good answer to his criticism then those four words shall certainly disappear. The noble and learned Viscount also criticised the fact that there is no reference in the Bill to the North Atlantic Treaty, though that Treaty was itself the genesis of the Bill. That is perfectly true, but I do not think it is a very forcible point for, after all, the Bill is intended to cover not only the Signatories to the Treaty but any other Powers who come within similar arrangements.

485
The noble and learned Viscount said a good deal about Clause 9. The first thing I want to say about Clause 9 is that it does not take away any right at all from anyone. What it does is to provide additional rights. It was for that reason that I did not think it was important to go into the clause in any detail. But I see the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, and I will see whether, before the Committee stage of this Bill, we cannot issue something in the nature of a White Paper, or a statement of some kind, which will indicate what are the arrangements which have been made, or are in course of being made, under that clause. Then the noble and learned Viscount has criticised, perhaps justly, the wording of the clause in which it is stated that the Minister of Defence is to make arrangements, and he said that apparently the Minister is to make arrangements "in the air." I should have supposed that the Minister of Defence, when he makes arrangements, makes them with that personal authority which he holds, but with the co-operation which is necessary, so that the subject matter is brought to fruition. No doubt that may be stated more precisely. Again, in regard to claims, I think it is clear from the text that "claims" mean civil claims which can be compensated for by money payments, as distinguished from the offences which are the subject of other parts of the Bill.
With regard to the noble and learned Viscount's final point, whether it is proper to include in this Bill any qualification that it should not be brought into force until other Treaty Powers have indicated their intention, or have carried out their intention, of giving similar privileges to the visiting forces of this country, I should have thought that reliance could be placed upon the fact that, in Clause 19 (2) of the Bill, it is set out that:
"This Act shall come into operation on such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint, and different dates may be appointed in relation to different provisions of this Act."
I should think it unlikely that Her Majesty by Order in Council will confer any privileges or benefits upon visiting forces of other countries, unless assured by the fact, or by an expression of intention on which reliance can be placed, that reciprocal advantages will be given to this country. I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have assisted me by
486
their criticisms. All these criticisms will be taken into careful account and an opportunity for their further consideration will be given upon the Committee Stage of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE TELEPHONE SERVICE
4.41 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM rose to call attention to the Telephone Service; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have set down this Motion, first, in the interests of economy, and secondly, to press Her Majesty's Government through the Treasury to give more facilities to the Post Office, so that the telephone service can be improved. I should like to take, first of all, the point of economy. I understand that during the war years the Treasury agreed that Government offices need not pay cash for their telephone and telegraph services, as was previously done, and that merely book entries should be made. I cannot help feeling that this system must lead to grave extravagance, and I rise to suggest a return to a cash basis as soon as possible. I understand it to be the fact that up to 1922 the practice of book settlement was in being, but it was then changed to a cash basis, and striking results occurred almost at once. I believe that in 1922, when a cash basis was established, there was an immediate saving of about 50 per cent. in the number of telegrams sent out by Government offices, and, what is more, the average length of telegrams became very much less. A year later, when a cash basis was instituted for the telephone service, there was a decrease of 11·5 per cent. in Government office use of the telephone service. These are striking figures, and I cannot help feeling that they might well be repeated if the cash settlement basis were re-established.
It may well be argued, what does it matter whether one Department or another pays the Bill? Surely, there is nothing like having to account for a precise and actual bill. That is bound to induce a sense of reality. I think this view was certainly held by the Select Committee on Estimates and was set out in their Report which was issued in 1950.

487
Again, what about prospective telephone subscribers? I think it is true to say that something like 500,000 people are waiting for telephones and there seems little prospect of many of them getting such a service for a considerable time. What is holding up these necessary installations? The real reason is to be found in the fact that the necessary material for the buildings for telephone exchange installations cannot be secured by the Post Office. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that a certain degree of priority should be given to the Post Office for these essential materials. I would go so far as to say that I believe that if new telephone buildings for switch gear, and so on, cannot be erected, in two or three years' time we shall find that any extension of the telephone service will come to a dead stop. There is no doubt that this would be a serious matter, not only to the business community but also to the general public.
From time to time complaints have been made about the telephone service, but I think that on the whole it is not too bad, when taking into account the difficulties of material supply at the present time, the necessity of working on defence measures and the shortage of manpower and of womanpower—I am sure many noble Lords appreciate the golden voices we hear when we pick up the telephone for a trunk or a toll call, and I am certain these women do their job well. On the other hand, charges for the telephone service are going up. It is true that costs have gone up perhaps in greater proportion but the Post Office is making a substantial profit. I think it is essential that telephone charges should be kept down to a minimum. I wonder how many noble Lords realise that the Corporation of Hull have a telephone service which extends a radius of some ten miles and that this service was not amalgamated with the Post Office service when that was set up. Their charges are certainly cheaper than those of the Post Office. It is true that in July the Hull Corporation charges are to rise, but even then a local call will cost only 2d., as against the Post Office charge of 3d. up to 5 miles and 4d. up to 7½ miles for calls from a local call-box. With the Hull Corporation the private subscriber pays £7 10s. per annum, which includes 500 free calls, and any excess calls up to 100 are charged
488
10s. These charges are certainly more favourable than those of the Post Office, and the Corporation make a profit after paying royalties to the Post Office and income tax. I cannot help feeling that the Post Office should be able to do just as well as Hull Corporation and perhaps even better, with all the facilities they have at hand.
I think it is true to say that what is really happening is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting a tax on telephones for purposes of revenue. I suggest that it would be far better if this tax were shown clearly as a flat rate percentage on the bill, rather than worked into a wide number of charges and rentals. The charge could then be varied up and down, just like purchase tax or petrol tax, and everyone would know how much he was contributing to the Exchequer for the use of the telephone. There is no doubt that the increases in charges are arbitrary and in some cases severe. What is more, so far as I know, there was no consultation with representatives of users about the way in which the charges should be levied. In fact, I go so far as to say, although I may be wrong, that even the Post Office Advisory Council were not consulted.
I believe that in other countries the telephone service is considerably cheaper, but, on the other hand, it is not always so good. Perhaps the Postmaster General would try to give your Lordships some indication of the comparative charges. The telephone service has a direct bearing on the whole life of the community, and our vital export trade might be interfered with seriously if a good telephone service were not available at reasonable cost. We must provide additional telephone lines as soon as we possibly can. It is interesting to compare the figures of telephone users in other countries. For instance, in the United States, 28 per cent. of the population have a telephone, whereas in the United Kingdom it is only about 11 per cent. In Canada it is nearly 21 per cent. and in Sweden nearly 24 per cent. I think it is true to say that in some countries having a generally lower average standard of living than ourselves the percentage of telephone users is still higher than that of the United Kingdom—in Norway and Iceland, for example.
I understand that considerable technical developments have occurred recently in a telephone service. I believe it is now possible to have some 600 lines in one cable of quite a small size. No doubt the Postmaster General will be able to tell us something about this to-day. What I would say, however, is this: that it is no use having these technical developments unless the Government give facilities for materials to enable the necessary installations to be made. That, of course, is absolutely vital. I also feel that the telephone inspection service might be greatly improved. How often is it that one endeavours to use a telephone on a railway station, only to find that the telephone is out of order, and on going to a further telephone box finds that that is out of order, too? There is no doubt that that sort of thing brings the telephone service into disrepute with the public generally. I hope that the Government will make energetic efforts to reduce the telephone and telegraph bills of the various Government Departments. I believe that something like 20,000,000 trunk calls are now made every year and nearly 100,000,000 local calls, which I think involves the large sum of approximately £13,500,000. I believe that this might well be halved if care were taken to see to it. The telephone service should have a high priority, because it is vital to the country both in peace and in war. If we let it slide back, it will be most difficult to catch up again and have a really efficient service. I beg to move for Papers.
4.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for raising this subject. The Post Office is something that is always with us. Many of us are not entirely conscious of the great services rendered by the Post Office. While on that subject, I would suggest to the Postmaster General that his public relations, good as they are in many ways, might still be improved in order to educate the public in the great achievements that his Department have carried out in the difficult years since the war. Most of us probably do not know that one in every five of all the telephones now in use have been installed since the war; that in five years after the war the Post
490
Office installed as many telephones as they did in the ten years before the war; that nearly 5,500,000 telephones are in use now; and, lastly, that the service is one of the most modern in the world. For the last two years the Post Office have issued reviews of Post Office activities. These are most admirable books, giving a very good picture of the whole activities of the Post Office, but they are rather bulky, and I think there should be means of making the information contained in them more widely known.
I believe that it is only too well known to everyone that what holds up the expansion of the telephone service, which everyone wants, is the restriction on capital investment. That is the obstacle which the Post Office have encountered at every step since the war when trying to meet the immense demand for telephones. I do not know whether your Lordships appreciate that the average annual demand since the war has been 60 per cent. higher than it was in the three years before the war: something like 250,000 telephones are asked for every year. The capital allotted to the Post Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said, is severely restricted. We have heard from the Assistant Postmaster General in another place that something like one-third of the capital allotted to the Post Office is required for the defence programme; and he also said that 92 per cent. of the capital required by the Post Office is needed for the telephones. That works out that over the next couple of years £25,000,000 or more is going to be spent purely on the needs of the defence programme. What I should like to ask the Postmaster General is whether any of that expenditure will ultimately be of benefit to the service for civilians. It is no doubt difficult to arrive at a figure of that sort, and we know that there are security reasons for his not being too explicit. But can we hope that any of that expenditure will, in the course of time, make a contribution to the improvement of the service to civilians which is so badly wanted?
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, recommended that Government Departments should be required to pay for their calls as they make them, and that there should be direct accounting for all the services that the Post Office renders to the Departments. That sounds admirable in theory, but I wonder whether

491
there is not a snag to it, in that the staff required for this additional accounting might counterbalance the saving made in the use of the telephone. I throw out that suggestion for consideration.
The most serious news that has been given lately on the question of telephones was that contained in the recent speech of the Assistant Postmaster General, when he said that no new telephone buildings were to be started in the next financial year—I think that is the substance of what he said. I should like to endorse most heartily what Lord Teynham said—namely that this decision is likely to have the most disastrous consequences. Your Lordships will realise that the number of new subscribers that can be put on to the telephone is limited by the capacity of the exchanges. We are told that one-fifth of all the exchanges are filled up and have no more spare lines and that another one-tenth is so nearly full up that it can take only priority subscribers. From that it seems to follow unanswerably that fresh subscribers cannot be accepted until new exchanges are built; and the building and equipping of new exchanges is going to take a long time. Is this not a shortsighted measure of economy which will have the most serious consequences lasting over a number of years to come? We know that in 1950–51 the waiting list for telephones was reduced by some 56,000, representing about 10 per cent., but the Assistant Postmaster General said that he hoped to reduce it by 100,000 during the coming year. I should like the Postmaster-General to reconcile those statements, because to me they seem to be difficult to reconcile.
On the question of telephone rentals, which, as your Lordships know, are to be raised on July 1 all over the country, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, when he says that the charges on the telephone should be kept to a minimum. After all, every rise in the cost of a service of this sort is a contribution to the general rise in the cost of living, and the Government should do what they can to damp down this rise. I hope there is no idea in the mind of the Government that raising the cost of a telephone will, in fact, reduce the waiting list. I hope this is not a form of rationing by price, but that the increases are being made because they are unavoid-
492
able. The problem of demand exceeding supply in telephones has been with us, as we know, for a number of years. When the last Government were in power two measures were taken to cope with this situation. One was the institution of a system of priorities, whereby only limited classes of people were allowed telephones, the remainder having to go on the waiting list. The priority classes were the defence services, the health and life-saving services and public utilities. I should like to know whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to a priority system of this nature.
The other measure which helped to solve the shortage was the shared service system. That has been in force now for four years. We know that it has been increasing to the extent that over 300,000 subscribers are now sharing telephones. We hear also that the early suspicions and dislike of the system have largely been overcome, and that increased public experience of the system has made it more popular. We hope that the Government are extending that system and making the utmost use of it wherever possible, thereby making a contribution to the problem of the shortage of telephones.
There are two other small points that I should like to throw out for the consideration of the Postmaster General. Although the great majority of telephone lines are now carried underground, there are still a large number of overhead lines carried on poles. Those poles have to be imported from overseas, and I wonder whether consideration has been given to replacing them with concrete poles, of the type which are so commonly seen on the Continent and elsewhere. One other point is the question of the radio links for television. Do they compete in the use of the Post Office resources with the provision of telephones? I think it will be agreed that nowadays the telephone is a necessity. Television is, after all, an amenity—I will not say a luxury—but the telephone as a means of communication at the present time is a necessity. If there is any competition between these two resources, I hope that the telephones will not suffer by reason of the need for radio links for television. We all want to hear what the Postmaster General has to tell us about the service. I close by saying that I think all your Lordships

493
will agree that the service rendered by the personnel of the telephone service, numbering some 50,000, is quite admiraable. We should like our congratulations and our thanks to go out to them.
5.6 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper, I certainly admired the enterprise of my noble friend Lord Teynham, because I felt sure it would serve a good purpose in ventilating a question which was very much in the minds of many. I must say that I expected there would be a large attendance of noble Lords bursting with a desire to express comments on the telephone service. The fact that there is such a thin attendance here to-day must be a great encouragement to the Postmaster General, because he must feel that, so far as members of your Lordships' House are concerned, there is not that widespread impatience with regard to matters connected with the telephone service which I think exists in many commercial circles at the moment.
I was interested to see what line my noble friend would take, because there are so many possible angles to a debate of this character. There is the administrative, the financial—which includes capital development—the commercial and the service angle. In making the observations I intend to make, it is an encouraging thought that anything we may say in criticism will be dealt with in that gracious and considerate manner with which the noble Earl the Postmaster General always meets his task in this House, and I have no doubt that he will be considerate, as well as helpful, in anything which is put forward. This is a service which seems to me to involve salesmanship. Therefore, any user of the telephone who is paying for the service is a customer who should be treated by the operator as a valued customer. In a large service like this it is inevitable that there will be a wide difference in the personal manner in which members of that big family behave. I have no doubt that traditionally, under the guidance of many former eminent predecessors of the noble Earl, and the succession of eminent engineers and administrators who have been at the head of the Post Office, the inspiration for courtesy is something which has been drilled into the staff.
494
Before I make any further comment, may I say that long residence in North America—I am going back now as a telephone user there over the past forty years—has habituated me to regarding the North American telephone service as the ideal and the standard which the world as a whole ought to aim to emulate. The majority of those who make that comparison are inescapably compelled to admit—though, if they be Englishmen, they may dislike doing so—that the standard attained in this country is appreciably below the conventional standard in North America.
One of the singular things about it is this. I readily recognise that, as a general rule, the standard of courtesy in North America is far below the standard of courtesy and consideration observed by all those who serve the community in such spheres as railroads, hotels, public offices, and so on, outside North America. It does not approach the high standard of courtesy and humane consideration which exists in this country. In North America in contradistinction to the deplorable lack of courtesy on the railroads and elsewhere, more particularly in the East than in the West and certainly the Middle West, there is a telephone service which stands out as a shining example of consideration for other people, based or the principle that the company is selling a service to the community. Every member of that staff is trained to remember that he or she is a member of a team which is selling service to the community, and that any insufficiency at any time on his or her part is going to modify and lower in the minds of the clients the ideal of the high standard which has traditionally been observed. If I may be forgiven for explaining that at some length, it is because I have for so long been mystified by this apparent enigma: that a standard which is achieved, contrary to the prevailing current, as it were, in the United States cannot be achieved in this country. In other words, why cannot we have a still higher standard of efficiency in the post office telephone service? I have no doubt that when the noble Earl has had a longer period of office he will have brought about considerable progress in that direction.
Of course, if one looks at the matter of construction from all angles one must recognise that over the past decade there

495
has been much greater difficulty in this country in the obtaining of up-to-date equipment than there has been in North America; and this must have made a substantial contribution towards the difficulties which the service has had to encounter. I would add, from my observations during a recent visit to Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, that it is fairly clear that other parts of the Commonwealth have had even greater difficulties than this country has had in obtaining up-to-date equipment. Anyone going to a Commonwealth country other than Canada would probably return to this country with the satisfying reflection that a brilliantly high standard has been achieved in the telephone service here.
I should like to make an appeal to the Postmaster-General in regard to a small matter. It often happens that a harried caller has sat dialling "Trunks" for a long time. Eventually he gets the operator, gives his desired number, and is told to hold on—and does so, very often for a prodigious number of minutes, at the end of which period a voice says: "Are you there?" There are, I am sure, many who are inclined to say: "Where the 'something' do you think I have been but here? I am waiting for that call." In North America and elsewhere there is a considerable saving of breath by the use of the one word "Hullo." I wonder if that system could be adopted here. If so, I am sure it would soothe the nerves of many telephone users. Perhaps the Postmaster General will not object to my introducing that minor point.
And this gives me an opportunity to raise one other matter which I have particularly in mind, and of which I have given notice to the noble Earl. I hope he may find it possible to give me some reply. I refer to the question of long-distance calls—and incidentally I hope it may soon be possible to introduce the expression "Long-distance" instead of "Trunks," which is out of date. I should like to see the system adopted in this country whereby, as in North America, a caller making a long-distance call involving perhaps considerable charges may hang up the receiver and expect to be called back. Again, in the case of a personal call when a particular person is wanted. I should like to see the system
496
whereby the person desired can be brought to the telephone and the person who has made the call need not be sitting by the telephone but may be brought back to the instrument—and, of course, charged only from the moment when the two are actually connected. After all it was only after agitation by industrialists some time ago that the system of reversed charges for calls was instituted. The principle of reversed charges is often not understood by operatives when they are called upon to operate it.
Another point of which I gave the noble Earl notice was with regard to the Sunday service. Is it not possible that we should have, as in North America, reduced rates for the whole of Sunday instead of only for the afternoon? The view taken in North America on this matter is that the equipment is there and that the best use should be made of it from the revenue-earning point of view. Therefore, it seems probable that reduced rates here, as in North America, would bring in a large amount of revenue if the system operated all through Sunday when the lines are not burdened with the usual commercial traffic. As regards personal calls, in North America the personal call is incorporated in the charge if the person is obtainable. Here the charge is made even if the person sought is not obtainable. That seems to be a matter for consideration. I conclude with a repetition of the hope that nothing said in this House which may reach the ears of any operators of the telephone service, who doubtless intend as servants of the State to do the best they can, will discourage them. But it is often felt by users that some more enlivened direction from the top is needed to make every member of the staff recognise that he or she is selling something which brings revenue to the undertaking, and that every client should be given proper consideration. That is the dominant hope which inspired me to intervene.
5.21 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, visitors have long memories and generally come back to those countries in which charm with efficiency is the key-note of the telephone system. A first-class system, therefore, is at once a great national advertisement and a vital public service, as has been said by noble Lords to-day. As my noble friend Lord Teynham has

497
pointed out, there is not only room but a loud demand for more telephones and for a greater rapidity of service. If I may, I should like to make a few observations on the technical aspects, embracing research and development and the translation into practice of the fruits thereof.
There was, perhaps, a time when our system could claim to be nearer to the front line in the technical application of the art as then known. In recent years, technological advance has been made of which we have not taken advantage. The electro-mechanical system in use to-day, provided, as your Lordships know, jointly by concerns in America and in our own country, is, like the piston engine in the aircraft world, on the way out: it is obsolescent. I would appeal to my noble friend the Postmaster-General to speed its departure. Your Lordship will naturally ask, Why? What will replace the electro-mechanical exchanges now existing? The answer is the electronic exchange, which is scientifically related to the electronic brain or computer, of which your Lordships know. The electronic exchange, in which very few moving parts will be found, in comparison with the largo number of moving parts demanded by the present system, will be cheaper in labour to erect and maintain, and will also require fewer materials for its construction, especially those in short supply. This new type of exchange is one especially suited to Britain, since it demands the full use of the printed circuit technique, one of the most interesting of British developments in the last decade. The printed circuit development, like most British inventions, is making great strides in many directions in the United States of America. It is also making some strides on the Continent. But I am sorry to say that it is making few here, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said the other day about our being a nation which appreciates new developments in science and is anxious to see them taken up—a statement with which I find myself in complete disagreement.
I want to say something about the scientific and technical staff in the General Post Office. As a technician, I am glad and proud of this opportunity of paying them a sincere tribute. The
498
noble Earl the Postmaster-General is fortunate in having so many keen scientific and technological people under his hand. They have faced up to these many intricate problems. Not long ago, one of the noble Earl's leading technicians, a Mr. Flowers, of the Dollis Hill Research Station, delivered before the Institution of Electrical Engineers a most interesting paper, in which he forecast the coming of the new type of electronic exchange and pointed out that such an exchange would demand the full use of printed circuitry. The printed circuit technique, to which I have referred, is not just a technique that embraces one or two clever inventions. It is a fundamental contribution in the electrical field which touches every aspect, whether it be the new exchanges which the noble Earl visualises, guided missiles or the excellent deaf-aid device that the noble Earl the Postmaster-General is developing, presumably for the Ministry of Health, at Dollis Hill, which employs the printed circuit technique. This is a great British development and one of which we can justly he proud. It would be very fitting indeed if more use could be made of this new development in the Department controlled by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr.
As I have said, the scientific and technological staff in the G.P.O. are worthy of, and, if I may respectfully say so, will receive in my words, very high praise. Why is it, therefore, that these able men controlled by the Postmaster-General cannot translate their own views into practice more rapidly? I would beg the noble Earl to look very carefully into this question of the new type of telephone exchange, the electronic exchange. And if this system under which he has to place orders in industry is such that he cannot persuade industry to get busy and accept those orders, and to translate them into practice, surely, under the Experimental Vote, the noble Earl could arrange to have an electronic exchange set up. Then the advantages, which I submit to your Lordships are real advantages, not only in the saving of labour but also in the saving of materials and maintenance charges, will be made apparent, and we shall see the value of the new electronic exchange. At present, telephone exchanges are being made in this country for different countries. They are being made in accordance with the old

499
technique, which means that an obsolescent article is being exported for installation in countries abroad. That should not happen. I am sure that in this matter the Postmaster-General can give a great lead by translating into practice, through the Experimental Vote, the recommendation of his own able scientific and technological staff that the electronic exchange, and not the electromechanical exchange, is the exchange of the future.
In conclusion, may I just touch on one other small and simple matter with which the noble Earl the Postmaster General can perhaps deal? I appealed to him about it once before. On that occasion, from those Olympian heights from which Ministers speak, he looked down on me and, whilst he was very nice, said, in short terms, "Nothing doing." It used to be possible, not long ago, when we Scots rang up the Southern parts or rang North to our own folk, to persuade the operator to ask the number, that is generally engaged, whether a call from, say, Aberdeen will be accepted. It is extremely difficult to have that done. One is told that it is not allowed, but that possibly the supervisor, in the generosity of her spirit, might do something about it. But a great deal of quite unnecessary delay takes place. Quite obviously, it will be some years before the telephone system will be adequate to meet the demand, and whilst thanking the noble Earl for the very courteous letter that he sent to me saying that nothing could be done, I do beg him to think again, to consider whether a simple expedient of that kind would not ease the tension on the telephone exchanges particularly in relation to trunk calls.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am not competent to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, into the realms of science, about which he knows so much; but it is indeed refreshing to think that here is yet another industry with great export potentialities, where British invention and development point a path to something that might be extremely fruitful in half a dozen or ten years' time. I am going to make only one simple point in this debate, and that is on the question of economy. We all know how extremely difficult it is to attain Government
500
economy as a matter of principle, and as a result of five years of war and of the last six years government has spread very much more widely than ever before; therefore the field over which it is difficult to practise economy is so much larger than ever before. It is difficult enough, as we know, in the case of cash and stores. All these meticulous Treasury regulations, and so on, which we are apt to ridicule, have been created by long years of precedent, because the Treasury really knows how extremely difficult it is to curb the spendthrift habits of Departments. But when we get on to services, by which I mean light and heat, telephones and telegrams, and so on, it becomes doubly difficult to control because no cash passes.
The present system of accounting in the Post Office is a simple cash account, accompanied by what are termed the commercial accounts. The commercial accounts are not accounts in the true sense of the word because a great deal of that income is merely recorded; it is an estimate of the services they have performed for some Department or other. It may be a fairly accurate estimate of the services, but the Departments themselves do not have to show in their Estimates the precise amount of expenditure that they propose to embark upon in regard to telephones and telegrams. The measure of the importance of this, in very rough figures, is that something like one-ninth of the Post Office services of the country is carried on for Government Departments—that is, Government Departments proper, and not, of course, nationalised industries—and of this one-ninth, approximately one-half represents telephone services. In the figures of millions of pounds, as we know them to-day, £11,750,000 or £12,000,000, that is not an immense sum of money. But, viewed in the light of the fact that we have half a million customers waiting for telephones, and viewed in the light that one telephone in every five is now sitting on a civil servant's desk, those figures do begin to assume some significance. Anything we can do to lessen Government use of telephone apparatus is almost bound to have some corresponding effect in releasing the use of that apparatus to the civil consumer, who is in sore need of it.
Once upon a time the Post Office used to send bills to the Departments for their

501
charges. This was suspended during the 1914–18 war, but was reinstituted in 1922 in the case of telegrams and in 1923 in the case of telephones, with, I believe, some appreciably beneficial economies. During the last war, the system was suspended again in order to save manpower, and I understand that it would not be entirely unwelcome to the Post Office were the system to be reintroduced. In that they certainly have the support of the Select Committee on Estimates, for in 1950 that Committee reported:
"Whatever internal control may achieve, there remains the fact that, if Departments are presented with telephone accounts, a more realistic attitude towards the use of the telephone is created. A sudden rise in the charges made to them would certainly demand explanation. To present the accounts half-yearly would entail an increase of staff of 60 to 70 in the Post Office and a small increase in the Departments. The work is unproductive and the Post Office hesitate to press for this additional staff at the present moment"—
that is, of course, at that time.
There are two ways of regarding the statement that that staff are unproductive. It may be that they are not producing anything very definite, but neither are Treasury officials. If they achieved some substantial economy, thus freeing apparatus for commercial use, I would maintain that that staff were being used in a most productive capacity. It is only a matter of which way one looks at it. It stands to reason that if a Department has to estimate for its telephone calls and those are broken down through the various subsections, so that ultimately, the man in charge of a section or a subsection becomes personally and managerially responsible for the telephone charges of his own assistants, then there is bound to be a greater economy exercised in the use of the telephone. To what degree that would actually spare apparatus for sale to or use by the general public, I personally am not aware, because that is a matter of considerable technical difficulty. So much for that point.
I suggest that the reason why we have got into the present state of affairs, with enormous waiting lists, and so oil, is not only what I believe to be over-use of telephones by Government Departments, but also the fact that a Government service never tends to plan ahead in a large enough manner. The influence of the Treasury is all-pervading, and though
502
it is easy enough, perhaps, to get authority for carrying out a programme which can be realistically based on scientific estimates, when one has to base a programme on a "hunch" for the future—which is what one often has to do—that is never good enough for the Treasury. For that reason I feel that in the matter of the services, the capacity of the trunk lines, the exchanges and so on, this country has lagged behind. Whether it is possible ever to produce a different attitude towards these things I do not know. But that is a much wider point. I appeal to the Postmaster General to give most earnest consideration to this question, and once again to submit bills to the Departments for their telephone calls.
5.41 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, in the very few moments for which I propose to address your Lordships, I should like, in common with other noble Lords who have spoken, to thank Lord Teynham for putting down this Motion to-day. I think it is a matter of extreme importance that we should have a very efficient telephone service in this country. To begin with, however, I should like to say that I think there has been great improvement in the service in the last few years. One can now get trunk calls much more quickly than one used to be able to do, and local calls, too, are much better. But there is still a long way to go. The Post Office, as we know, has been much hampered by this question of capital allocation. I have recently been privileged to attend the opening of both a new telephone exchange and a new post office in my home town of Newmarket—the old establishments were bombed during the war. I was able to study closely this new telephone exchange and the repeater station they are now building, and also the new post office. The modern improvements which have been made, especially in the matter of through lines for telegraphic purposes on a code basis, are tremendous.
But the postal authorities are always up against this question of capital allocation, and the main reason why I have risen is to speak on this question in its relation to building work. We cannot get many more telephones in many more areas unless we can have more buildings. Now the buildings used for telephone exchanges are very heavy, and a tremendous

503
amount of steel is used in their construction. But there have been many improvements made lately in the building of such places—notably on the Continent—especially in regard to the use of pre-stressed concrete and reinforced concrete. Exchanges in this country, as I have said, are built with a very large amount of steel in the framework, and I suggest that further consideration should be given to these new methods of building with a view to saving steel. Perhaps, if this could be done, a few more exchanges could be allocated. It is vital that we should have more exchanges, because many people coming to this country—and we want to do all that we possibly can to encourage visitors from overseas—make considerable use of the telephone service, and it is essential that the service should make a good impression on them. Moreover, if we are to have increased productivity from our industries, those industries must get the telephones which they need. We must not say that we cannot do these things. We must try to see whether we cannot do better than we are already doing with the material which we have available; we must use it to the best possible advantage in order to get built in the next few years these exchanges which are going to be of such vital importance to this country.
5.44 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, really this is a most extraordinary House. There seems to be a fund of information in the possession of noble Lords on all sides. I myself was staggered at some of the facts and figures which some of your Lordships have adduced, and which I thought were confined if not to the cellars at any rate within the portals of the G.P.O. May I, at the outset of my speech, join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for bringing this subject before us? I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if in showing my appreciation of the value of this Motion I reward you by speaking at some length. I apologise in advance for that.
If I may, I should like first of all to refer to something which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said. He said that it was our duty to educate the people, and I agree with him entirely; there are certainly things which need saying on behalf
504
of the Post Office and the telephone service, and I should like to say them to your Lordships this afternoon. It is always much more fun to attack an "Aunt Sally" than to speak about things we are really doing well. I cannot help feeling that in this country we have cultivated far too much, in a great many spheres, the habit of self-criticism. All of us, I am sure, enjoyed Lord Barnby's speech, although I could not help being a little sorry that much of it was devoted to comparing what is done in other countries with what is done here—to the disadvantage of this country. I particularly regretted that in one passage the noble Lord should have thought it necessary to say certain things that he did about the staff. I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord is very much out of date. Perhaps he has been away, and so does not know very much about the changes which have taken place. I feel strongly that he is out of date in suggesting that our telephone girls are lacking in courtesy. I am not going to contend that you will not find a certain percentage of black sheep in any walk of life, but I do say that if we approach our telephone girls in a courteous manner we get an extremely courteous reply. In saying that, I do not mean to suggest that they are justified in returning discourteous replies even if the public are discourteous to them. If reports were made to the authorities in such cases the girls concerned would certainly be rebuked. I telephone a good deal myself—indeed, I suppose we all do—and I think we shall all agree that the standard of courtesy among our telephone girls at the present time is extremely high.
LORD BARNBY: May I interrupt the noble Earl to say that I coupled lack of efficiency with my reference to discourtesy? What we may expect with regard to courtesy is quite a different matter from the question of efficiency.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true that the noble Lord said they were inefficient as well as discourteous. I will deal with that matter in a moment, and I shall be happy to do so.
I do not mind saying that it has been to me a very great experience, joining the Post Office and going round—as I have endeavoured to do—the various Regions. In so doing I have discovered convincing

505
evidence of the amazing keenness of the staff, of their unfailing devotion to the Post Office and of their pride in it. They are really a grand team. Whatever criticisms may be made—and, after all, criticism can be immensely useful to a service—I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in paying a tribute to all (the number is well over the 50,000 mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan; in fact it is well over 300,000) the men and women, boys and girls concerned.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I was referring to the staffs of the telephone service.
EARL DE LA WARR: As I was saying, I am sure your Lordships will wish to join with me in paying a tribute to the men and women, boys and girls, who are serving us in our daily life by helping us to communicate with one another, and on whose behalf I feel that, in some part, I am speaking to-day. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, particularly for what he said on that subject.
A large number of points have been raised in the debate. First I would refer to this question of charging Government Departments for their telephone calls. The position is that the Post Office does, in fact, give about £24,000,000 worth of free service to Government Departments, of which about £13,000,000 relates to telephone and telegraph service. Never in the history of our organisation has there been any question of our charging Government Departments for postal services, any more than we are charged for the services that other Departments now give to us free. But, as the noble Lord has said, from about 1922 to 1943 Government Departments were charged for their telephone calls. I think your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have been able to persuade the Treasury to undertake to apply a system of charging the Government Departments who are in fact the major users of the service. These will be the Ministry of Defence, the three Service Departments (they are fairly bad "criminals" in this respect), the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury. These Departments account for almost three-quarters of the problem, and by confining this new system for the moment on an experimental basis to these few Departments who are the major users, I think we shall get the best value for the inevitable increase in staff, and we shall
506
be able to see how the system works. I am confident that it will cut down considerably the use of the telephone in Government Departments.
In addition to that, an important and drastic circular has gone round all Departments. I need not worry your Lordships with the details of it, but I assure you that if you saw it you would agree that it is likely to have its effect also. I am convinced that this is the right thing to do, but do not let us delude ourselves into believing that it is going to produce a vast effect. It has been said that one in five telephones belongs to a Government Department. But as these are frequently mere extensions from a Private Branch Exchange, generally carrying twenty or thirty lines, this does not give a really accurate picture. The new arrangement is not going to help us tremendously with the waiting list, because the majority of Government Departments are in the central area of London and use such exchanges as Whitehall, and Abbey, where there are hardly any waiting lists. We are not so badly off for cable and exchange equipment in these areas. Where we should get some relief is in the trunk service. There is no doubt that the Government Departments average longer in their conversations than any other user of the telephone service, and I think the measures we are taking will free some of the busiest trunk lines and help us to improve the service. That in itself is well worth doing.
I come to another point raised by my noble friend Lord Teynham. I noted the words he used: "a substantial profit." Alas! there is no substantial profit. Over the last twenty or thirty years, the tradition has grown up that a Post Office surplus of £10,000,000 is not an excessive contribution from the Post Office to the Treasury. After all, the Post Office do not pay taxes like traders and the general public for services which we receive like all others. I hope your Lordships will not mind if I talk of the Post Office in general terms for the moment, rather than of the telephone service, because we look on our finances as a single whole.
There is a good deal of confusion between commercial and cash accounts in the Post Office, and I propose to deal only with our commercial accounts. On assuming office, what I was faced with was not the question of what to do with

507
a £10,000,000 surplus but the question of how to make good a £2,000,000 deficit which would have arisen had there not been some increase in charges. That compares with the average surplus over the ten years before the war of £11,000,000 and since the war of about £15,000,000. I budgeted for a surplus of between £7,500,000 and £8,000,000, but by April (here I must emphasise that I am dealing with estimates which at the end of the year may be slightly wrong, one way or the other) that surplus had already gone down to £6,250,000. I cannot say what has happened during the last two months, but considerably increased costs have been imposed on us and they are likely to bring that figure down yet further. I venture to say that that is a full answer to the complaints that we are imposing higher charges in spite of the fact that we are making an immense profit. That profit is not there to-day. I give your Lordships the assurance that so long as I am at the Post Office, there is not going to be any excessive surplus. I should be just as critical as anybody else if there were, because I think that if the Post Office was being used as an instrument of taxation, for which it was not designed, it would be most improper.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, may I interrupt to suggest that the House now adjourn during pleasure for the Royal Commission?
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

New Towns,

Corneal Grafting,

Family Allowances and National Insurance,

Distribution of German Property,

Cremation,

Electricity Supply (Meters),

London County Council (General Powers),

Port of London,

Blackpool Corporation,

London County Council (Money).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE TELEPHONE SERVICE
6.12 p.m.
Debate resumed.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, before the adjournment I was saying that there was no immense profit available and that I should be as critical as anyone if there were. I should like to add to that the reaffirmation of what I think one noble Lord said—that cheap communications are essential to trade and industry and, in fact, to national morale. That really brings me to the next point—namely, our increases in charges. The main increase in our Post Office budget is on telephone rentals. That increase is to 50 per cent. above pre-war. I do not know how many of your Lordships are engaged in trade or industry, but I should like to know how many of you are selling goods at only 50 per cent. above pre-war. I regret even that increase most deeply, but I should like to put before your Lordships certain facts and figures to show that it just could not be avoided.
The total increase to the public for the whole Post Office is about £9,500,000. There was also about £8,500,000 last year, imposed by my predecessor. Over the last two years increased costs have amounted to between £49,000,000 and £50,000,000. Wages, salaries and pensions account for £33,000,000 of that, and my own view is that those increases were inevitable unless Post Office workers were to be asked to drag behind increases for other workers. It would have been unjust, and I think it would have made our recruitment position impossible. Perhaps I can give your Lordships two instances of other costs. Poles which used to cost just over 30s. now cost £8 15s. Cable that used to cost £2 12s. now costs £11. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned the question of concrete poles, and we have that possibility in mind. Rises just could not be avoided in all the circumstances. But even after our rise of 50 per cent., I think we shall find that we still compare well with charges in other countries. It is fair to make comparisons, because it is the only way in which we can judge our efficiency. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that if we were prepared to have our charges as high as those of other countries we could improve some of the

509
services which he now thinks inadequate. But are the public prepared to pay? There is a good deal of complaint, with which I feel very sympathetic, about even the present rise in charges. If we charged as much as other countries for rentals or trunk calls we could greatly increase our staff, and the whole service would naturally improve. But what would the public say about the cost?
Let me give your Lordships a few comparative figures. After July 1—that is, after we have raised our charges—the charge in Cardiff for a residential telephone, plus 100 free calls, will be £6, and in London it will be £8. Incidentally, there was an interesting letter in the Daily Telegraph this morning asking why there should be differences between London and the Provinces. The answer is very simple. The charge for local calls is 1½d., and in most provincial areas the distance they cover is about five miles. In London it is generally ten miles, and when it is across London it may be up to fifteen miles. Therefore, the Londoner does get infinitely greater value for his rental. We have it, then, that the figure for Cardiff is £6 and the figure for London is £8. What is it in Paris? It is £13 15s.; in Sydney it is £9 12s., and in Wellington it is £13 5s. I have not been able to work out figures on the 100 free calls basis for America, but I have some other figures. In London, for a shared line with just over 700 free local calls, the payment would be £10 7s. and in the United States it would be £17 3s.
You may say: "Yes, but what about a comparison of actual trunk charges?" I should like to give your Lordships some interesting figures there, because I have had them taken out, and I find that not only are we cheaper in rentals but cheaper on our charges for trunk calls. Take, for example, a charge for a call of 50 miles. In Great Britain it is 2s. 3d., in Canada it is 3s. and in the United States 2s. 10½d. For 100 miles the British charge is 3s., the Canadian 4s. 4d. and the United States 3s. 11¼d. For 200 miles our charge is 3s. 9d., the Canadian charge is 8s. 4d. and the United States charge is 5s. 8d. For 300 miles our charge remains at 3s. 9d., because we cannot charge more than 3s. 9d. in this country. Mark you, 300 miles means ringing from London to a little north of Newcastle, shall we say. The Canadian charge for this is 11s.
510
and the United States charge 7s. 2d. I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, said that charges in other countries were cheaper. He will forgive me if I say that on that point in his excellent speech he did make a slight mistake.
LORD BARNBY: Would it not be well to remember that the wages paid in Canada and particularly in the United States are about three times what they are in this country?
EARL DE LA WARR: We know that these comparisons are difficult in view of differences of exchange, and naturally we base our figures on the official rates of exchange.
Now we come to the quality of the service. As regards the speed of answer for trunk and toll calls, the last figure that I can give is for March. In March, 1951, the speed of answer on trunk or toll in any part of the country was 10.1 seconds. In March, 1952, it was reduced to 5.6 seconds. Before I assumed office the time it took when one dialled "Trunks" or "Toll" between 6 o'clock and about 8.30 in the evening seemed to me almost scandalous. I cannot give the actual figures of improvement yet, because these figures take some time to calculate; but I never go into a friend's house if he is on a different exchange from mine without dialing and timing the speed of answer. I hope your Lordships will take note of this claim of mine when you are seeking to make a cheap call between six and eight in the evening in London. I am confident that you will find that the improvement has been even more sensational than the difference I have given—that between 10.1 and 5.6 seconds, the overall figures.
There are one or two other points that the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, raised. He complained of the fact that when we ask for a trunk call we are asked to hang on. During the war we went over to the other system, and there were many people who complained about it. It meant a much lower standard of service; it meant a much larger staff. The operator, instead of putting you straight through, had to book the call, get your line and then call you back. The system, which we have gone into very carefully, means increased staff for an inferior service. The noble Lord then suggested cheap Sunday calls. I must

511
say I looked at that with a very friendly eye, as I think other Postmasters General have. But I find that there does not seem to be any public demand for it, and there is no doubt that it would cause considerable staff difficulties. Staff are not anxious to work in increasing numbers on Sundays, and I am sure the noble Lord will agree that unless there were a strong public demand it would not really be justified.
Now I come to a point that is obviously worrying your Lordships as much as it is me, and that is this terrible waiting list. First, I should like to give the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, a full assurance that we certainly are not putting up the charges in the hope of reducing the waiting list. The reasons I have given for putting up the charges are conclusive in themselves. That waiting list is, as the noble Earl said, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500,000—actually 480,000. It is about 50,000 less than last year, but there are new demands all the time, You may put in 100,000 or more new telephones and find that you are in exactly the same position as before, with the waiting list no smaller. I can at any rate give the noble Earl this encouragement. My honourable friend the Assistant Postmaster-General gave recently in another place the figure of 100,000 new telephones this year. We have looked at that again and I hope and believe that we can get it up to 150,000. This is a net increase, in that it does not include 100,000 or possibly 200,000 transfers caused by people changing their addresses, and so on.
The position in which we find ourselves at the moment should be a lesson to us all. What has happened is that the expansion since the war has been very great. There are two and a quarter times as many trunk calls being made as before the war. There are 2,000,000 more telephones than before the war. What I think has to some extent been happening—and this is no criticism: it is just the difficulty caused by control over capital expenditure, which affects so many things—is that there has not been a long-term policy in the provision of fundamental equipment, such as exchange equipment. Meantime, more and more people have been put on the telephone, and nearly all our resources have been eaten up.
512
There is another lesson, and this concerns not only equipment but the long-term policy which enables one to provide these needs on a balanced basis. I find I have a considerable amount of cable that could be used for connecting new subscribers—but frequently in areas where there is no spare exchange equipment. At the same time I have spare exchange equipment, but, all too frequently, in areas where I have not got the cable. That is the lesson which it is my duty to impress upon my colleagues to the greatest extent possible. We are bound to get that lack of balance when we are driven to work on a day-to-day basis. There have been shortages of money and of materials; and when we have been able to get hold of anything, cable or equipment, it has all gone in. That is not what we want for a properly developed telephone service. Sometimes we find that there are perhaps only a few people in a street who want to be connected; the street is not developed; and it would be necessary to take individual lines to each one from a point a long way away. But if cables can be taken down a street which is to be developed and the houses connected to points on this cable route, that is much better.
And there is something else, even more important. We must keep up the development of the main trunk system all the time. It is no good putting more and more people on the telephone and thereby cluttering up the lines, if this would lead only to a worse trunk service. Unless we get our development going and a balanced basis there is bound to be a hold-up in the comparatively near future. Therefore I ask noble Lords, when they judge the efforts of the Post Office Telephone Service, not to judge it only by those people who have been actually connected. The most important work has to go on behind the scenes, and underground, and in the exchange buildings. There is one other point—that of priorities.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: For new exchanges.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thought that the noble Earl meant priority for individual applicants. I shall certainly see that I let him have this information. But priority does not always settle the question. It is very important to get this fact

513
over to the public, because so often people think that injustice is being done. They hear of a neighbour going on the telephone who they think has not very much of a claim, while they have been waiting for two or three years. They may be in a priority class whilst the neighbour may not be in a priority class. The answer is that we may have spare line equipment going down one street but not the other; and it may be that the priority person is living in a street where there is not a line to spare. I wanted to make that point clear.
LORD HAWKE: This is a very important point in public relations for the consumer. Will the noble Earl take steps to give it a little more publicity? The consumer cannot understand the state of affairs in which a person in one street can get on the telephone while another in the next cannot. It is a matter of public relations.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have been able to get it over more effectually in the provinces than in London. These are technical points. They do not always interest the Press a great deal. If I go to the provinces and make a speech I can get very good publicity for what I say, but in London there are many other things interesting the national Press, and it is not always easy to get this point publicised. It is most difficult to get it over to the public. Yet there is often a deep sense of injustice.
In the meantime, we are adopting a number of expedients. I refuse to think of them as anything more than expedients, important though they are. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, referred to perhaps the most important—that is, the shared line. He is quite right in saying that there is much less public objection to that system now than there was, for the simple reason that there are now 490,000 people (that is, just under half a million people) on shared service. They are finding it very much less tiresome than they thought it would be; but of course one instinctively has the feeling that it is an invasion of one's privacy. People resent it, and I sympathise considerably with that feeling. On the other hand we have been able to put well over 200,000 more people on the telephone than we should have been able to without this system. We have separate meters
514
now, so we do not get quarrels about the bills. There are also separate ringing arrangements so that each party to the shared line—there are never more than two—is rung only for his own calls. Therefore, public objection is getting weaker and weaker all the time.
There is another service, which I admit I myself have rather "pushed," not because it is very attractive, but because we must look for every point which will help: I refer to the "restricted" service. There are a limited number of exchanges (Oxford is one of them; that is where I first came to grips with the problem) where this service is in operation. I was told that there was enough underground cable to allow more people to be put on the telephone, and enough exchange equipment, but that there was no capacity at the switchboard for dealing with more calls during the peak hours—that is, from half-past nine to half-past eleven and from half-past two to four o'clock—when all the business people make their telephone calls. We have said: "If you are prepared to go on the telephone subject to not being allowed to use the telephone for trunk or toll calls during those hours, we can put you on." It is admittedly second-best, but it enables people to do their shopping by telephone, to call the doctor and to have conversations with their neighbours. Then they can get their trunk calls outside the busy hours.
There is one other device that I should mention. I am trying to help the farmers in the remote areas with another admittedly limited scheme. To put farmers, particularly those in some of these outlying areas, on to the telephone is a very difficult problem for the Post Office, owing to the amount of wire, poles and labour so often required. There are a great many farmers who are so far from the nearest exchange that we shall be unable, with our limited resources, to provide telephones for them for a very long time to come. But I am anxious to meet their needs wherever we can. Therefore, I propose to introduce a scheme of self-help, under which the farmer will be able to lay and maintain his own line from his farm to connect up with the nearest point on the existing Post Office pole route leading to the exchange. The farmer will buy insulated wire of approved standard

515
from the Post Office and will be given a rebate of rental, based on the length of line he provides. The Post Office will be ready to give him full advice on methods of laying and securing the line. The scheme will be useful to farmers for whom there is spare exchange equipment and a spare line to the end of the Post Office pole route. The scheme has been discussed with the National Farmers' Union who recognise, as I have told your Lordships, that it is limited in scope, but I think they welcome it for trial in individual cases. I want to make it clear that this is not intended to be a substitute for putting as many farmers as possible on the telephone by normal methods. It is an addition, not a substitute.
I have mentioned those three devices because I want to convince your Lordships that we are trying in every way to meet the difficult situation with which we are faced. We must try to get a human picture in our minds of the housewife, perhaps living on the outskirts of a town, having to tramp off to do her shopping when she might be doing it by telephone; of someone being unable to get the doctor, or of the farmer forced to leave his farm to do his marketing, when he ought to be on the farm doing his farm work, or unable to get labour because he lives in an isolated area.
I come now to a point raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill—that is, the question of future technical developments. This I will deal with briefly, because time is getting on. Before the war it needed two pairs of wires between, say, London and Birmingham to conduct a speech in each direction. Even before the war, by means of what we call "repeaters" (I shall not attempt to explain "repeaters" to your Lordships for I do not really understand them myself, and I am quite sure that your Lordships would not either) it was possible to multiply the conversations on those same pairs of wires by twelve. With coaxial cable plus repeaters, we have been able to take up to 600 conversations on one coaxial tube. It is hoped in the near future to increase that number to 960. This device has immensely reduced costs and has been a great saving on ducts and cables.
516
The noble Lord mentioned the possibility of radio relay links where no ducts or cables exist. Already we have made considerable development in this direction and the television network may be not a competitor but a help to us in working along those lines. We are also developing long-distance dialling for trunk purposes by operators; and those in London and all the main provincial trunk centres are now able to dial into houses in our great provincial centres, say from London to Manchester, or from Cardiff to Liverpool. They dial straight into the house. It is a great speeding-up of service and a great saving of staff. There is no real technical reason why we should not dial trunk numbers from our own houses to other people's houses. It would mean immense engineering work and equipment, and my own opinion, and I am sure that of your Lordships, is that we must put first things first and accommodate these unfortunate people who are still waiting for telephones.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, mentioned the question of electronic exchanges. My advice is to the effect that they are some way ahead. But let me assure him that there is no question of the scientists and experts being held back by the Postmaster General. It is the other way round, in that the Postmaster General, who does not understand the technical difficulties, is continually bothering the scientists and experts as to when they are likely to be ready to proceed. Quite naturally, and rightly, they say that they feel they need more information than is available at present. I can assure your Lordships that we are in no way behind other countries in this development. We are in fact in the closest touch with all other countries in regard to their research work in this field. I have myself seen the work at Dollis Hill, where we are making great progress. Not only is there a small model of an electronic exchange at Dollis Hill, but at the moment we have in operation at the Richmond exchange a number of directors for steering calls to the exchange required. But that is on a very small scale, and reluctantly I am convinced that we cannot go faster than we are doing at the moment. The advantages of the system are obvious. It will mean a great saving in building, in that the weight of the present exchange equipment

517
is so colossal that we need a very large amount of steel for it.
My Lords let me, in conclusion, come back to the main problem. I warned your Lordships that I should be long, but I felt that I must say some of these things. The position is serious, but I do not believe that it is yet too late to avoid a breakdown. We are handicapped by defence requirements and by the shortage of capital and materials, and we have to fight for the limited amount of what is available. But other public services are being cut too. I can assure your Lord-ships that the Government see this particular problem as affecting a vital part of the capital equipment of this country. Communications are not a luxury. In answer to a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, we are concentrating our building efforts this year on completing existing buildings, and the new work that we are doing is mainly on extensions; but I am confident that we shall be able to start new building next year. I have also been able to come to an arrangement with my right honourable friend at the Ministry of Works whereby we can forgo the usual rule that his architects cannot prepare plans for new buildings until financial approval has been given. Therefore, I hope that I shall actually have my plans ready, and that may save anything between six and twelve months.
My Lords, in the difficult economic times in which we live, the efficiency of trade and industry is the only real solution to our present dilemma. We believe that telecommunications are an essential factor in that efficiency, and I want to assure your Lordships that the Post Office is being regarded and treated as essential national equipment. Finally, because I believe that it is almost the most important thing that I can say, I want to close by repeating that the Post Office must never be used as an instrument of taxation. I am justified in saying this by the fact that to-day I have the lowest expected surplus that there has been, with the exception of one year, since 1927.
6.44 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that this debate has been a useful one. It has certainly covered the telephone services very thoroughly, and there is no doubt that a great deal can be done to improve them. I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General on the points he has put before us. I think the proposed farmers' service and also the restricted telephone service—of which I had never heard before—are excellent. I am certainly pleased to hear that Her Majesty's Government intend to bring back the cash basis for payment of telephone services in certain Government Departments. I cannot help feeling that in the end that will be of great assistance. I should like to thank the noble Earl for his helpful and informative speech, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
LORD TERRTNGTON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Belstead be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Kershaw be named of the Committee in his place.—(Lord Terrington)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

NORTH WALES HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before seven o'clock.