HL Deb 18 July 1966 vol 276 cc327-46

4.29 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This short and, I trust, non-controversial Bill is made necessary by the establishment of Singapore as an independent sovereign State within the Commonwealth. Since World War II, Singapore has experienced a number of constitutional changes. In 1946, after over a century's existence as one of the Straits Settlements, it was constituted a separate British Colony. Twelve years later, by the passing of the State of Singapore Act by the United Kingdom Parliament, Singapore achieved full internal self-government, with the responsibility for defence and external affairs remaining with the United Kingdom Government. In September, 1963, with the establishment of the new Federation of Malaysia, those responsibilities for defence and external affairs were transferred to the new Federal Government. Noble Lords will recall that a referendum held earlier in Singapore had shown a majority of voters in favour of their State joining the Malaysia Federation.

Within two years however, following certain differences between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, the latter seceded from the Federation and in August, 1965, became for the first time a fully independent State. Although it has adopted a Republican Constitution, Singapore applied to remain in the Commonwealth and was admitted by the other members in October, 1965. Thus in the past two decades Singapore's constitutional status has moved from that of a Colony to a partially independent State, thence to a part of an independent Commonwealth Monarchy, and now to a separate independent Republic, but still within the Commonwealth.

United Kingdom legislation, including authorisation of the changes themselves, was needed for each change up to the last, but the 1965 secession, of course, did not require our approval since United Kingdom sovereignty over Singapore had ended in 1963. However, there are a number of consequential detailed changes required in those parts of British law which relate to Singapore and the Commonwealth, and it is those consequential changes with which this Bill is concerned. When Singapore ceased to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions, on becoming part of the Malaysia Federation in 1963, there was no need to add its name to the list in the relevant naming laws. Malaysia was the State and its inclusion in the list was all that was necessary. On the other hand, it was, of course, necessary to continue the application of those laws which had applied to Singapore before it became part of Malaysia, and this continued application was effected by the Malaysia Act 1963. Now that Singapore has become independent within the Commonwealth, it is necessary to add its name to the list in the naming Acts. This is effected by Clause 1, subsection (2) whilst the Acts themselves are set out in the Schedule. The consequence of Clause 1, subsection (1), taken together with the relevant section of the Malaysia Act, 1963, is to provide that where the law of the United Kingdom had effect in relation to Singapore before Singapore became part of the Federation—that is to say, when it was a self-governing Colony—it will continue so to apply.

Clause 2, subsection (1), ends the jurisdiction of the courts under the Divorce Jurisdiction Acts. This applies only to the Acts forming part of the law of England, and the effect of the subsection is that the decrees will not be registrable in the United Kingdom unless the proceedings were commenced before the passing of this Bill. Subsection (2) merely states that for the saved cases the courts in Singapore shall be deemed to have the same jurisdiction as before. Jurisdiction under the Acts in the saved cases is required to be exercised in accordance with certain rules made by the Secretary of State and by judges approved by the Lord Chancellor. Subsection (3) provides that as an alternative to following the Secretary of State's rules, the local authority may provide alternative rules and, in any event, provision relating to the approval of judges by the Lord Chancellor shall no longer have effect. Subsection (4) is a definition to the effect that proceedings for a decree of presumption of death, with an accompanying decree of dissolution of marriage, is included in the jurisdiction referred to in subsections (1) and (2).

In Clause 3, the law of Singapore is dealt with. -The law of Singapore says that appeals lie from the High Court of Singapore to the Malaysia Federal Court. The law of Singapore, however, has made certain amendments to the Malaysian law regulating the Federal Court so that it can be argued that the Federal Court to which the Singapore law refers is not the same body as the Federal Court as established by the law of Malaysia. In practice this does not seem to give rise to any difficulty, but theoretically there may be snags which could possibly be exploited when an appeal was being heard before the Judicial Committee. For this reason, and also because Singapore may change its appeal structure entirely, Clause 3, subsection (1), enables provision to be made for appeals both from the Malaysia Court and from any other court having jurisdiction under the law of Singapore. The remaining provisions in this clause are consequential upon the power to confer jurisdiction on the Judicial Committee in relation to Singapore appeals. The provisions of Clause 4 were a common feature in this kind of legislation, although recently they have been omitted. However, in this case a similar provision was contained in the Malaysia Act, and it is considered appropriate, therefore, that it should be inserted in this Bill.

Clause 5 is an interpretative clause, and contains a short title and needs no comment.

We have so far as has been possible treated Singapore as an independent Commonwealth country since the date of secession from the Federation. But it is clearly unsatisfactory that this situation should continue, and I trust that the House will agree that it is right and essential for the legal position to be clearly defined and enacted. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will receive a speedy passage. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)

4.37 p.m.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Bill, which I gather from him is really a sort of tidying-up operation to regularise various legal aspects as a consequence of Singapore's seceding from Malaysia. I certainly do not think that, generally speaking, we can have any objection to the Bill, but I would first of all ask the noble Lord this question: how is it that it has taken so long to appear? As we saw, secession took place on September 9 last; that is to say, ten months ago. I would ask the noble Lord what has been the position in regard to this territory between September, 1965, and July 1966? What has been the position of British troops in Singapore during this period? Have they been covered by the Visiting Forces Act 1962? Then again—and this is referred to in the Schedule—what about diplomatic immunity? Whit has been the position there? I quite appreciate that the Government could not have been expected to produce this legislation immediately on secession, because clearly they did not foresee it. Whether they should have foreseen it or not I do not know, but I gather they were taken by surprise. At all events, the delay of ten months in bringing out this Bill seems to me rather extraordinary.

Generally speaking, I think we on both sides of the House were sad that Singapore broke away from the Federation, which we were hoping would remain intact. However, we all understand the reasons and have no intention of criticising anybody for what happened. It was entirely a matter for the Governments of Malaysia and of Singapore itself. We were sorry that friction developed between Malaysia and Singapore after secession, but I was glad to note when I was there earlier this year that this friction was beginning to disappear and relations between the two countries appeared to be reasonably amicable. There were one or two problems concerning the stationing of troops, but those were, I think, being resolved in a friendly manner as between ourselves, Malaysia and Singapore. However, there are certainly some tangled problems which have to be unravelled in regard to defence arrangements in that part of the world, if I may briefly make an observation on this point.

I gather that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's visit to London in April was primarily concerned with the renegotiation of the Defence agreement. I hope some progress was made during the talks between the two Prime Ministers. Already in August of last year it was reported that the Singapore Defence Treaty would have to be renegotiated. If the noble Lord is able to tell us something about this, I feel sure it would be of interest to the House on this occasion. When Mr. Lee Kuan Yew came to this country in April no details of the discussions were given, although in another place Mr. George Brown said, at the end of October, that there were going to be detailed discussions with Singapore and our other allies about the future of the British base. Can the noble Lord say what the position is now? This is most important. Is there to be a further Defence agreement or not? Can we use our troops in Singapore, if they are required to fulfil our obligations to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation; and is this accepted by the Singapore Government? If the noble Lord is able to say something on these matters, I shall be most grateful.

But, above all, this afternoon we must be concerned to know more about the reduction of British troops there which was announced by the Minister of Defence at London Airport on Saturday night. Can the noble Lord say what agreement has been reached between Britain, Malaysia and Singapore about this? I feel that the House is entitled to be given an authoritative statement, confirming or otherwise reports which appeared in the Sunday newspapers and quite extensively on the radio and television. I understand that in the interview Mr. Healey was asked whether there would be a reduction of some 15,000. His answer was to the effect that it would be something of that order, or 5,000 either side of that figure. It seems to me to be rather extraordinary to give these figures in that offhand manner at London Airport. Can the noble Lord clarify the position to the House? I gather that some sort of phased reduction is being worked out, but this uncertainty is most embarrassing and unsatisfactory. What is likely to be the reaction of Australia and New Zealand in this situation? Are we going to leave them out on a limb? I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he can give us further information on a subject which really is of widespread interest.

4.43 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I should like, first of all, to say that, in a way, I think this is a sad occasion. In my opinion Singapore belongs to Malaya and it is quite impossible to separate them from a practical point of view. Singapore is the size of the Isle of Wight, and the old Federation of Malaya is the size of England. I put it no higher than that it seems to me impracticable to think of two States operating quite separately in the world at large when that is the situation, particularly as in this case, to make it a true analogy, the Isle of Wight would have to have a much larger population and also the whole of Southampton Docks and part of Southampton in it. We can see how ridiculous it would be if that were the situation here. But that is the situation in regard to Singapore and Malaysia; and they really belong together.

For a great deal of their history they were together. In the old days, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, when Singapore formed part of the Straits Settlements with Penang and Malacca, there was one High Commissioner in the Federated Malay States, who was also the Governor of the Straits Settlements. So one had the connection there. From a practical point of view the Civil Service was one, although it called itself by a different title up country; and also Penang and Singapore were free ports. That situation existed for well over a hundred years. Now Singapore has been lopped off, and, as I say, I cannot regard this as other than a most sad occasion, although I appreciate the necessity for this Bill.

I think it is sad also because the Malays and the Chinese have been living together for many years and, on the whole, have managed to do so quite amicably. The Government of Malaysia is one which represents all the races, or at any rate the three main races, in Malaysia, and there is no reason at all why they cannot settle down quite happily in Singapore and Malaya. In fact, to a large extent their qualities are complementary: the Chinese with his great business acumen, with his tremendous energy and with his experience in industry; and the Malay, the rural dweller, the farmer and the policeman— he is the backbone of the police. There is not really any competition between them, if things are worked out in the way in which I hope they will be.

I appreciate that it is difficult for Singapore in some ways, because Singapore not only is an important port for Malaya, but it also has a great entrepÔt trade which we hope at the end of confrontation will become just as large as it used to be in the old days before there were all these wars and strife in South-East Asia. There was always something of a difficulty there when the Federation of Malaya itself wanted to impose tariff barriers and to have some sort of tariff operating with regard to goods coming into the country, while wishing to keep Singapore, with its free trade and its entrepÔt industry for the rest of South-East Asia.

So much for the basic situation with regard to Malaya and Singapore. Now I should like to add to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said about the defence situation. At the moment confrontation appears to be coming to an end, and undoubtedly there will be a demand for the removal of numbers of British troops from that area, and possibly for a considerable reduction in the great base of Singapore. I think it was most unfortunate that at London Airport, on I think Saturday night, Mr. Healey should have announced any figures about a reduction in the number of troops. Surely, if an immensely important matter like that, which affects the whole of that part of the world, was going to he announced, it should be announced in Parliament.

I think it is a most undesirable practice for Ministers to make these statements at London Airport. They come off an aircraft; they have had a long and tiring journey, and they are pushed into a room with bright lights, where some interviewer asks them the most leading questions. I think they are apt to give most embarrassing answers. I do not know why Ministers cannot refuse now and then to answer questions when they arrive at London Airport. They are not bound to answer questions. Their image might suffer a little at the moment if they did not do so, but in the long term I am sure that it would grow a great deal, and so would that of Britain and the Government itself. I say this because I was astounded when I heard that statement of Mr. Healey, and I wondered what would be the result in that delicate situation in South-East Asia.

As to the Defence Treaty itself, your Lordships will remember that both the Finance Minister for Malaya, who is a most experienced man, Mr. Tan Siew Sin, and also the Minister for Information, have said that Britain was bringing extreme pressure on them—in other words blackmail—to enter into a Defence Treaty with Singapore and Britain, in consideration of aid which Britain was proposing to give to them. If it can be avoided I think it is highly undesirable to have strings to aid at all. Certainly to have defence strings to aid is most undesirable. The immediate result was that the Malaysian Ministers just blurted out to the world that this was happening, and were saying how undesirable it was. It was most unfortunate to give that impression to the Malaysian Ministers—namely that unless they signed the Defence Treaty they would not get any more aid. I think that that was clumsy, to say the least of it. I do not know why Mr. Healey has added to the clumsiness to the Malaysian Ministers by his statement at London Airport. Somebody is at fault over this and should get a rap over the knuckles.

What is going to happen in the circumstances in regard to our SEATO allies, the United States and Australia, and to other allies in that area? Mr. Holt said only within the last week, on reaching Washington from Europe: Britain and Western Europe were almost oblivious to the existence of Asia. It was almost as if they had turned their backs on a large part of the life, history and experience of these modern times. He went on to say: It would be no exaggeration to say that a new power relationship is beginning to span the Pacific. It may be unequal, but it is clearly welcomed in Canberra and a great deal more importance is attached to it here than to a British presence East of Suez. In other words, what he is saying there is that in future Australia, in conjunction with New Zealand, is going to rely on the United States and is going to cut off the traditional ties with this country. They do not care whether we are East of Suez or not.

I would remind your Lordships that half the world's tin and half the world's rubber come from Malaya. We have tremendous interests there. Not only do we get immense sterling contributions from Malaya, but we also get immense dollar earnings, too. I think that this whole issue of Singapore and the future of the Singapore base, the Defence Treaty with Malaya and Singapore, must be treated with the utmost delicacy and not in the blundering way in which, unhappily, it seems that it has been treated lately by Ministers in Her Majesty's Government. As have others of your Lordships, certainly the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I have had a long experience of Malaya and of the Malays and Chinese going back some forty years. From that experience I know—and I know Lord Milverton will agree with me—that one thing about which they are most particular is that they shall be treated with the utmost courtesy; that there shall not be these brusque statements made at airports. I could give instances in the past where great events have turned upon rudeness or imagined rudeness to a distinguished Malay, but I will not do so.

Finally, I would say that the position in Singapore, which, as I have said, is the size of the Isle of Wight, brings into the limelight once more the situation of these little island states in the world to-day. Here is Singapore being pushed off into the world as an independent sovereign State with a vote in the United Nations which, in theory, is as great as that of the Soviet Union, the United States, or Great Britain. It seems to me that sooner or later the United Nations will have to get down to the problem of what really is the practical status of these little island States which have no power of their own, which are dependent upon neighbours or well-wishers to come to their aid in times of difficulty, and which can at times be a source of considerable weakness, because where there is a vacuum of power it may in time lead to strife. There are a number of others coming up for independence soon. We have seen several already—Malta; Cyprus; now Singapore. Barbados is in the pipe-line, and no doubt there are others like them.

What is the future for these little States? Quite frankly, I do not know. When I was in the Colonial Office we never envisaged that such places would in the foreseeable future have independent sovereign status. I think that it is largely illusory today. With those words, it may seem rather absurd for me to say that I wish Singapore a happy and successful future, but nevertheless, so far as they can have a happy future in the modern world, I wish them well.

4.55 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON

My Lords, perhaps it might be said—and I rather expected it to be said—that since we all welcome Singapore as a member of the Commonwealth, there is no excuse for anyone to make a speech on this Bill. None the less, there are one or two things which I should like to say very briefly, beginning where the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, ended. It is an interesting reflection that, with Singapore electing to become a separate sovereign State, Malaysia, by losing a section of its territory, will have two representatives at the United Nations and will thereby have the equivalent voting power, presumably, of the United States and the Soviet Union united. I merely note that in passing.

In rising to support the Second Reading of this Bill, it is perhaps not inappropriate to make a brief and regretful comment, with the Lord Ogmore, on the turn of events which has led to Singapore's seeking independent status. I know, of course, that it is the free choice of her people under the leadership of their very able Prime Minister, and as such it has every right to be accepted and respected. One can, however, express a hope that in the future friendly co-operation with the Malaysian States may ripen into the closer partnership which geography and economics seem to indicate as beneficial to all sections. Unity, as we are often told, is strength, especially in the modern world, if it represents a common purpose. My excuse for speaking like this is that what is now Malaysia and Singapore became to me a second home, since I spent 25 years of my life in service comprising all the Malay States, and including five years in Singapore and three in Borneo.

Singapore, this little island, 27 miles long and 14 miles wide, was virtually uninhabited when, in 1819, it was ceded by the Sultan of Johore to the East India Company at the instance of Stamford Raffles. In the next hundred years it became one of the major ports of the world, the halting place on the great trade route to the Far East and the resort of sailing craft from all parts of the Malay Archipelago, the entrepÔt for much of the trade of Indonesia, the main seaport for the growing wealth of the mainland Malay States which are rich in agriculture, minerals, and timber, and which also include a number of industries. Until the Second World War, Singapore was the focal point of the administration of the Straits Settlements of Penang, Province Wellesley, The Dindings, Malacca and Singapore itself. The Governor of the Straits Settlements was also High Commissioner for the four Federated Malay States and for the five Unfed rated Malay States, with each of which the British Government had a separate treaty. In addition to that, the Governor was a combination of High Commissioner and British Agent, and controlled the external relations of North Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak, and also had a colonial status in the litle island of Labuan off that coast of Borneo. I mention this to show what a bundle of separate States that country had in its early days, and how it slowly grew.

The whole tendency of history was of a growing cohesion. In those early days we dreamed of a future in which all those countries would constitute a close and independent partnership. We worked for that, with the idea that they would then maintain intimate, friendly relations with Indonesia and the Philippines. We pictured that as a very powerful partnership of allied States, which could bring nothing but benefit and peace to that area. Some of us who have known and loved the Malaysian countries must wish them well, and hope that their ultimate destiny may still be the closer unity to which friendship points and which economics demand.

Superficially, the position which we are considering to-day looks like a recession from the historic progress of over a century. Until recent times Malaysia, including Singapore, has always had central overall guidance from the main Government in Singapore, and for 120 years its story has been one of increasing cohesion, prosperity and power. I can only hope that in reality the present division represents merely a pause to be used for laying a stronger foundation for closer union. So I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

5.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I think we have all listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who has very long experience in this part of the world. I hesitate to speak, except that I have been there a little more recently though for a very much shorter period. To look at this Bill one might think it a most curious Bill. I would only ask the noble Lord whether it has been agreed with the Government of Singapore. If it has been agreed with the Government of Singapore, I really have no comment to make, though there are passages in it which seem to read rather curiously.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that in a way it is a sad story which lies behind the present position, but I certainly would not be despondent, because I have great confidence that the people of that area will be able to solve, in their own way, many of the problems, which in some ways look much more difficult than they do when seen from that country. I am quite certain that we were not wrong to encourage the closer federation of the peoples of Malaysia. It would be foolish, indeed, to say that there has been a backward step; to say that this was wrong. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that these two territories are really indissoluble, in that both geographically and for defence they cannot be separated. Nor, indeed, can they be separated for trade. They are bound to work in close co-operation, or they will be at daggers drawn.

But what I rose to say was this. I think that we must recognise our responsibility, particularly in regard to Singapore. There is practically no part of the world which has been more artificially created by the stimulus of British enterprise, in co-operation with Chinese, Indian and Malayan enterprise in that area. That has, of course, created a racial problem which we all know about, but it is our responsibility that it is there. Nevertheless, my experience of Singapore was that it was truly a multiracial society, in which there was no sense of inferiority at all as between one race and another. Certainly I have attended services in which Hindu, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist and Christian ministers or priests took part, and I believe that that sort of joint activity will continue. I am glad that both the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, emphasised the extraordinary changes that have taken place in this community. I think it is true to say that up to about 40 years ago Singapore was a sort of workshop, to which people of all races—European, Chinese, Indian—came to make their money and to work, and then went home. It is only in comparatively recent times that it has become a residential centre, with a life and sense of unity all its own.

May I for one moment ask your Lordships to think of the experience of a young man of, say, 30 or 35 in Singapore? His father may have come over as a labourer, perhaps as a coolie, to Singapore. He started learning English at school. Then came the fall of Singapore, with all its horrors, many of which we can never know of. Certainly I knew hardly a family which had not had one member disappear in circumstances which they were never able to explain. The people then had to learn Japanese, and after that the British returned and they had to learn English again. Then they started a democratic Constitution; and remember, my Lords, that democracy is a European invention. It is not very well known in that part of the world, and it was entirely new to them. After that, they had full self-government, and they voted to join Malaysia. They joined Malaysia and they were then faced with the confrontation, with a substantial cutting-off of trade with their nearest neighbour. Finally, they had the dissolution of Malaysia.

My Lords, in these circumstances are we not trying to take political stability a little too much for granted? People brought up in these surroundings would not find it easy to settle down very easily. We have had years of experience, and we have had a pretty bloody history in this country: there is practically nothing that has not happened here. But it has taken us a very long time to set up our political institutions. May I remind your Lordships that we had a Union of the Crowns of England and Scotland for 100 years before we had one Government. So I am not despondent at what will happen, and I believe that these coun- tries will learn to work together in close proximity.

I should like to pay a compliment to the way in which the Singapore Government have carried out their work. Their house-building programme stands out as a monument—certainly in Asia, and probably in any other part of the world. Their education is an astonishing development, and although they have no compulsory education, no child would for any reason be a truant. I believe that one of their punishments is to send the children away from school for a couple of days—though perhaps that is a punishment which would not be very successful in this country. Their industrial development is also striking. They have no natural resources, and their only assets on which they can live are their unskilled manpower and their geographical position. Theirs is a remarkable achievement and is one of which, in so far as we have been associated with it, we may well be very proud.

I would only add this. I hope that the Government will not turn their backs on helping this community in its development, first because we have a very real responsibility here, and, secondly, because the people of Singapore can in very large measure act as a bridge between Europe and China. That is important. Although they have a strong feeling of kinship with their fellow racial brothers in China, they are, nevertheless, a community on their own. That is something they feel deeply. It would be very sad indeed, I believe, if our responsibility were to lapse. I regret, I may say, that any statement the Minister of Defence had to make was not made in conjunction with Ministers in Malaysia and Singapore. That is where that statement should have been made; but, even though it was not made in that way, I hope it was agreed with them, because statements made from here for (if I may put it in this way) our own reasons do give an extremely bad impression in parts of the world where they may have a far-reaching effect. So far as I know, we are still wanted by the pepole there to continue to maintain stability in this area, and I think we should be failing in our duty if we were to give up this charge.

5.11 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, on previous Bills dealing with new member States of the Commonwealth I have been able to express unqualified gratitude for the way in which noble Lords welcomed them. I am not sure whether to-day I can go so far as to say that, without some kind of qualification. Noble Lords have traversed a very wide field, and I am not certain I can follow them there this afternoon. I shall endeavour to follow them, but with particular trepidation, because I know that the combined experience of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, constitutes a very formidable body of experience. Indeed, so far as this part of the world is concerned I think that in many ways they are much more qualified to talk about it than I. However, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been put to me.

First of all, may I say that I appreciate what has been said about the sadness with which we regard this secession of Singapore from the Federation? I think that was put very well by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. When we consider the physical facts of life, the technological facts and the facts of production and communication, all of which lead to closer unions, it must surely be a matter of some regret when, in that part of the world, they appear to be, instead of uniting—I will not use the word "disintegrating", hut at any rate separating for a period. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, am not despondent about this—I think that was the actual word used by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I believe that, given time, given patience and given these facts of life, we can see the relationship ripen again. It may well be that there will be other unions, if not exactly on the same basis as that Federation, at any rate an association on one basis or another.

I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, why there had been this delay. May I first of all say how pleased I was to hear him report that there was this feeling of friendliness to be found in Singapore, and that after recent changes he sensed that things were settling down again? But he asked me why we had not been able to produce this Bill before. Of course, as he recognises—indeed, I think he himself referred to it in his speech—this is not a case in which we are dealing with a newly-independent country. In the case of the other territories with which we have been dealing, there have been long discussions beforehand, there have been careful negotiations and there have been preparations for a Bill; but in this case—and it was an action taken quite rightly so far as Singapore was concerned; they were entirely right to take the step if they so wished—there was no previous period of discussion and negotiation, and so, therefore, there was no Bill on the stocks.

Subsequent to the actual decision, it was necessary to make certain investigations. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked whether this Bill had been produced in consultation with the Singapore Government. It would be wrong to say that they were consulted at all stages. They were informed of what we were doing, and to certain of the provisions it was necessary to get their agreement. For example, I think that on Clause 3, dealing with certain judicial matters, it was necessary to dovetail their law in with ours; and there has been agreement as between the Singapore Government and ourselves as to the form of this clause of the Bill. The noble Earl said that the Bill struck him as being slightly curious. Of course, it is largely the work of art of lawyers, and it is not without precedent that laymen have found the product of lawyers' work to be somewhat curious.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question, as he says this has not been agreed upon by Singapore? Clause 2(2) seems to confer power on the courts of Singapore, and this seems to me very odd indeed. It says this: Except as provided by the foregoing subsection"— and that is a reference to the Colonial and Other Territories (Divorce Jurisdiction) Acts— all courts having jurisdiction . . shall …be treated …as having the same jurisdiction under the said Acts as they would have had if this Act had not been passed". That looks to me as if we are conferring some power on the Singapore courts. I do not understand it. If the noble Lord cares to let me know afterwards, well and good.

LORD BESWICK

I think the answer there is that this is a retrospective provision, and we are in effect dealing with a position which has existed as between the secession of August 9 and the present time. There have been cases before the Singapore courts, and in so far as they have passed through those courts, the courts are deemed, as the wording goes, to have had jurisdiction as if this section had been in force. I think that is the position. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Earl know.

I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, about the general position—apart from the specific, particular and rather peculiar case of the courts, which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has asked about—which has existed subsequent to secession, and will exist until this Bill reaches the Statute Book. The fact is that, consistent with our powers, we have in this interim period treated Singapore as an indepedent Commonwealth country. Administratively, this has been possible over a certain field for a limited time. However, it is clearly unsatisfactory, even within that limited field, that the situation should continue; and, as in the case of the courts, to which I have already referred, it is essential for the legal position to be clearly defined as quickly as possible.

I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the position of British troops in Singapore. The position there has not been changed by the secession from the Federation of Malaysia. The Government of Singapore has agreed to regard the arrangements previously in force as continuing to be valid. The Republic of Singapore Independence Act (which was, of course, the Singapore measure) continued the validity of the Visiting Forces Act 1960. That, I think, deals with the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.

So far as diplomatic facilities are concerned, we have accorded the representatives of the Singapore Government in this country the normal diplomatic facilities and privileges. As a matter of fact, the High Commissioner of Singapore has not yet taken up residence here, but had he done so we should have accorded him those facilities, and in the case of his deputy we have been pleased to treat him as if the legal position had already been settled by this Bill. I trust this is in accordance with the general wishes of the House.

I have been asked several questions about the Defence agreement. I really do not think that this is the occasion for me to go into a discussion about our defence position there. It is not quite true to say, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, that when Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, came to this country he discussed a new Defence agreement. There was, in fact, only a general discussion. The matter was referred to in general terms. At the moment, the arrangements, so I am advised, are satisfactory to us, and until there is a new Defence agreement—which may or may not be the case—the position remains exactly as it was before secession. In other words (and I am now replying to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough) our troops in Singapore are in the same position as they were previous to secession; and the definition in the Malaysia Agreement of 1963 lays down that they are there for the purpose of (and I quote): assisting in the defence of Malaysia and Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia". That, I think, is fair enough. I cannot go further than that, and I think it answers the question put to me by the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think that what is in the minds of most of us on this side is whether the statement made by Mr. Healey at London Airport on Saturday night is in fact Government policy and is correct.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I have stated what the position is as far as our defence facilities are concerned, as far as the troops are concerned, what their legal position is and the purpose for which they are there. I am now asked whether the position has been changed by the statement made under the bright lights of the interview room at London Airport. I am not aware of what my right honourable friend said at London Airport. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gives us the benefit of many wise words in these discussions, but none wiser than those about the inadvisability of having these television interviews. By that I do not mean to say that what my right honourable friend said was unwise. I simply say that I am not aware of what he said. I cannot, therefore—

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH

My Lords, I find that a little hard to accept. Here is the headline in the Observer: "Far East Forces to be Slashed". It is quite easy to get a recording of what Mr Healey said at London Airport. Many of my friends heard him talk about the figures in this rather curious manner, saying it will be about 15,000 or it may be 5,000 more or less. This is really not satisfactory. I do not think that we on this side of the House can let it go by as easily as that, as a joke under the neon lights.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, certainly I am not disposed to discuss it frivolously at all. Certainly it is not a matter about which we should joke. But neither do I think it right—if the noble Earl really wants to have an authoritative statement about the forces in that part of the world—to expect it to arise from a discussion on this Bill. I have heard what has been said. I have no doubt statements will be made on this subject in the near future. I would suggest that it would be better for us to await a further statement. As for newspaper headlines and newspaper articles, we have all had experience of those. I have also given interviews in this notorious chamber at London Airport. What has eventually appeared in the Press, if anything at all, has very often only slight resemblance to what I have actually said. I have not had the opportunity of getting a transcript of Mr. Healey's remarks; but I will certainly read with care the questions that have been put to me. If it is possible to give any further information I shall be delighted so to do.

I was asked noble I think, one other question by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but I believe I dealt with it earlier. It was about the position of the courts in Singapore. In conclusion, having dealt in this possibly unsatisfactory reply with the question of defence forces in Singapore I should just like to add, together with other noble Lords, my good wishes to Singapore. They are coming a little late, almost a year after the event; but, nevertheless, we trust she will prosper as a commercial country comprising many races. In this latter respect, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said what was in all our thoughts: we hope that there will be no question of racial dispute; that they will build on the commercial success that characterised that part of the world in the past; and that Singapore will have no reason to regret this change. I hope it may be possible in the future to unite with other countries in that part of the world.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.