Sitting of 27 October 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRANSPORT

    Commercial Vehicles (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to abolish the 20 m.p.h. limit for certain commercial road vehicles and standardise the speed limit at 30 m.p.h.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am impressed by the arguments for increasing the speed limit for certain commercial goods vehicles from 20 to 30 m.p.h., but I do not consider it opportune to propose such a change at the present moment.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that manufacturers' organisations, the trade union and the Committee on Road Safety, together with representative opinion on both sides of this House in the last Parliament, gave general assent to the abolition of this 20 m.p.h. limit and standardisation at 30 m.p.h.; and in view of these considerations would not my right hon. Friend consider more speedy action in the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should be very interested and glad to hear of trade union views in favour of this proposal.
    Mr. Pannell: Would the Minister consider the present stupidity of allowing human freight to travel at 30 m.p.h. while an unladen vehicle is restricted to 20 m.p.h., with all the dangers that arise from overtaking; and in view of his answer to the first supplementary question, would he not consider, in the interests of general national productivity, bringing the two sides together to negotiate an agreement on the outstanding
    1548
    matters between the employers and the trade union?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I quite agree that it is rather an illogical situation, and I should be delighted to do anything I can, on this and many other issues, to bring all sides together to achieve a sensible solution.
    Mr. McLeavy: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure us that before he takes any action on the lines indicated by the Question he will first consult the two sides of industry to get their views upon the matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly.

    De-nationalisation Proposals (Representations)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Transport the number of letters and resolutions of protest he has received against the Government's proposals to de-nationalise transport.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The representations I have received vary greatly in their nature and scope. They do not lend themselves to numerical analysis, and it is not therefore practicable to give the figure for which the hon. Member asks.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that he will have to take on new staff in the immediate future because hundreds of resolutions are being passed by the workers in this industry? Will he see that they are given consideration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is wholly mistaken. The arrival of a certain volume of letters has revived in my Department nostalgic memories of what happened when road haulage was being nationalised. A large proportion of the letters received have come from the hon. Gentleman himself, so in his case and all the cases the great "sell out" has not been a best seller.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Transport and General Workers' Union invited all their branches to lobby Tory and Liberal Members of the House of Commons last May against the policy outlined in the White Paper, and that very few, if any of us, have received any representations from any source?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Indeed, I am. The strange similarity in the words of many of these letters suggests that the Socialist Party, while not agreeing on its own intentions, are united in misrepresenting the intentions of the Government.
    Mr. Jay: To allay the uncertainty felt in this industry, can the Minister either confirm or deny reports that he now means to make major changes in his unworkable proposals?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I made any such statement in reply to the supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain.

    Co-ordination (Reports)
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange to have published, in the form of a White Paper or some other convenient form, the various independent reports for and against the co-ordination of transport, including the 1930 Report of the Royal Commission on Transport, the 1931 Report of the Royal Commission on the Co-ordination and Development of Transport, and the Report of the Conference on Road and Rail Transport in 1932 under the chairmanship of the present Minister of State for Economic Affairs.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I see no sufficient reason for the Government to re-publish in a collection the reports, papers and books on this subject, all of which have already been published.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the fact that there is no one in this country with any knowledge of transport who has a good word to say about the Government's White Paper and policy, and that if he were to publish all these documents he would see that the Government should drop this stupid plan?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is, I think, guilty of a rather unfortunate looseness of language. The question of the co-ordination of transport means two things; either general or special. The general co-ordination we are all in favour of, but as to the special form the co-ordination should take, the experts are, as usual, deeply divided.
    Mr. Hylton-Foster: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Salter
    1550
    Report is out of print? Is he sufficiently optimistic to suppose that if he had it reprinted its content might serve as a check on the statements of hon. Members opposite about it?
    Mr. Edward Davies: Are we to take it that the Minister has received no letters of protest about his proposals and that the Transport and General Workers' Union, chambers of commerce and others have made no objection?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have received a great many communications of various kinds, some of which are couched in language quite unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman and dealing with the previous Act, the faults of which we are now undoing. What I am concerned about is that in the new Bill which I shall shortly present to the House I shall have taken account of the changes suggested to me, because, in this as in other fields, we do have regard to public opinion.

    Travel Facilities, Manchester Area
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a survey of the organisation of transport and the duplication and lack of modern facilities in the industrial area that lies within a 50-mile radius of Manchester, with a view to preparing a plan for the modernisation of all forms of transport.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before arranging for such a survey I would have to be satisfied that the local authorities and others concerned wanted it and that its practical results were likely to justify the time and money which would have to be spent upon it. I have little evidence on either point at present.
    Mr. Smith: Does not the Minister agree that this is one of the most important industrial areas in the country, and that it is making a great contribution to Britain's economic recovery? In view of that, does he not consider that, just as the industry is improving its facilities, so the travelling facilities for the workpeople in the area should also be improved?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do, indeed. As I said last week, Manchester has led the way in railway, canal and airport construction, and I shall be glad to listen to any local representations that are made.

    Car Luggage Boots (Children)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of carrying children in the open luggage boots of private cars; and whether he will take steps to make such practices illegal in the interests of road safety.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): One instance of children travelling in the way mentioned has been brought to my notice. I do not think this is a common practice and I consider that the good sense of parents and the existing law are an adequate safeguard.
    Mr. Hynd: While this may not be a common practice, if such an instance has been brought to the Minister's notice and he finds that it can legally be done, will he take action to see that this practice is made illegal?
    Mr. Braithwaite: The practice is extremely foolish and highly dangerous. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that Regulation 72 (3) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1951, provides that
    "No motor vehicle or trailer shall be used for any purpose for which it is so unsuitable as to cause or be likely to cause danger to any person on the vehicle or trailer or on a road."
    Cases of this kind are, I believe, covered by the Regulation.
    Mr. Hynd: Do I take it that action could be taken in such a case?
    Mr. Braithwaite: Yes.

    Northern Roadways Services, Scotland—London
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport if he has yet reached a decision on the appeal to him against the granting of licences to Northern Roadways to operate services between Scotland and London.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No such appeal has yet been lodged.
    Mr. Davies: Under what authority are Northern Roadways now operating these services, as their licences were revoked and backing has not yet been granted by the Metropolitan licensing authority for the new licences which were applied for?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must have notice of the exact form of that question. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the licensing authority for the Scottish area published its decision on 4th October, that the time limit for appeals expires on 4th November and that no appeal had been lodged against it up to mid-day today. These licences require backing by the Metropolitan licensing authority and the applications are being heard today.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not the practice to refrain from operating services until backing has been received? Are not these services being operated illegally at present?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said, I must consider the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, of which I had no warning, before I give him a definite answer on that point. I have traced out the sequence of dates between the two licensing authorities in this very complicated matter.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that if a licence has been issued but has not received backing these services cannot be operated, and that Northern Roadways are operating services without backing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my answer.

    Road Haulage Depots (Services)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Transport which of the road haulage depots he has visited does not provide traders with a speedy individual and specialised service; and for what reasons.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport if he will indicate which depots of British Road Services he has visited since taking up office; and what were the standards of working and operation he discovered in them.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have visited various depots since taking up office and these visits have confirmed my previous impression that all ranks in the Road Haulage Executive are doing all they can to discharge their responsibilities within the framework of the Transport Act, 1947, and to provide trade and industry with satisfactory services.

    1553
    Whether better services could not be provided by private enterprise rather than by a centrally controlled organisation is quite another matter.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does the Minister recognise that the words "speedy individual and specialised service" are those used in the White Paper as being inapplicable to the Road Haulage Executive, and that they were not able to provide those services for trade and industry? May I take it that the answer to my Question is that he has not found a single illustration of where a depot was unable to provide a speedy, individual and specialised service?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Much of the information on which I relied comes from the volume of correspondence that was received by the late Administration, but I have information from many other sources on which to make up my mind.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister recognise that a great many of these complaints, when investigated, are found to have another side to them and will he not look at the folly which he proposes to introduce again to the House and do away with it?

    Capital Equipment
    Mr. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the necessity to increase the capital expenditure on the British Transport system: and what steps he is taking to achieve this end.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. In common with many other vital services, the British Transport Commission's capital expenditure has still to be restricted, but the needs of transport are fully recognised and the provision for capital investment in 1953 allows for an increased expenditure compared with that in 1952.
    Mr. Davies: Could the Minister say what he means by increased expenditure, because the cost of some services is going up and it might mean that no more work is being done? Is it not obvious to the Minister that unless we regard the transport system as the first part of our industrial equipment we cannot get the optimum results from the nation's economic life and that something more should be done quickly?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By increased expenditure I mean the money required for more materials, but I must point out that last year, unhappily, due to a shortage of materials, the Commission were not able to use all their allocation of capital?
    Mr. Pilkington: Is this necessity for further capital expenditure one of the results of nationalisation?
    Mr. Callaghan: Could the Minister say how much capital investment will be duplicated because of the proposal to denationalise road haulage?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly. There will be no duplication, but a general improvement in the economic efficiency of the industry.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does that mean that the Minister has failed so far to take into account the fact that the railways will have to have additional capital investment if they are to be fully competitive?

  ROADS

    Safety
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport what steps he now proposes to take to reduce road fatalities and injuries following recommendations made by the Committee on Road Safety of his Department and other interested bodies.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Three million pounds are being spent this year and next year to improve the roads at accident black spots. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland hope, with the co-operation of local authorities, for an increase in the number of adult patrols for school children and I propose to have the Highway Code redrafted in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety.
    These measures, together with others such as the improvement of the zebra crossings by lighting the beacons, will, I hope, maintain the present downward trend in the road accident figures.
    Mr. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend omitted reference to a vital consideration which I have been endeavouring to impress upon him for months

    1555
    past? What about the question of the rear lights of commercial vehicles, their height from the ground, and having a minimum standard of glow in order that they may be more readily apparent in darkness?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend's zeal in this matter is very commendable and I welcome it, but there are, of course, different views as to the best way of achieving the same object, and those views are under searching headlights.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult the Committee on Road Safety about the risk that is being taken by the deterioration of road traffic vehicles and the competition on the roads which is likely to follow the introduction of his new transport proposals?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is a complete non sequitur.

    Road Bridge, Clydebank
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport what further consideration has been given to the widening of Mount-blow Road, and to the reconstruction of the road bridge, in the Burgh of Clydebank, in view of the fact that increasing motor traffic over this bridge is becoming an increasing danger to users.
    Mr. Braithwaite: This proposal has recently been reconsidered, but my right hon. Friend regrets that it is not at present possible to allow it to proceed.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is grave concern about this on the extreme west of Clydebank; that there is only one road which passes over a very narrow humpbacked bridge, which is being increasingly used by light motor traffic; that the estate population of over 3,000 have to use this narrow bridge, which is becoming a grave source of danger; and that in view of the reply sent to me the local authority in Clydebank are very disturbed by the fact that the Minister does not seem willing to grant permission to widen and to strengthen this bridge until such time as a large enough number of people in his estimation have been maimed or killed before he will recognise it as a danger spot? It is a serious danger spot.
    Mr. Braithwaite: There are, unhappily, large numbers of these cases throughout the country. The short answer is that there are no funds at present available for this purpose. I should be very pleased to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman after Questions, if he so desires.

    High Level Bridge, Barton
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will allow preliminary work to proceed at once on the proposed high level bridge at Barton, Eccles; and if he will allow Taylor Brothers Steelworks and Partington Steelworks to tip their slag to form the embankment for the bridge.
    Mr. Braithwaite: The Lancashire County Council, who are the highway authority, are at liberty to undertake the preparation of plans and similar preliminaries on their own responsibility. My right hon. Friend's approval has not been sought for any constructional work.
    As regards the tipping of slag, I understand that the ground concerned has not yet been purchased for highway purposes.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister not agree that the County Council are of the opinion that in the national interest the building of this bridge should have the highest priority? Is he not aware that it is very desirable that this road should be repaired as soon as possible, and will he not agree to give a yearly grant to enable the preliminary work to be done?
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated total cost of a high level road bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal at Barton, Eccles; and if this urgently required construction will receive high priority in the allowance of capital expenditure.
    Mr. Braithwaite: The estimated cost of this bridge is about £2 million. Its priority in relation to many other schemes will be decided when it again becomes possible to undertake highway works of this magnitude.
    Mr. Smith: Bearing in mind the previous very disappointing reply, may I ask the Minister if he is aware that there has not been one new bridge built over the Manchester Ship Canal in 60 years, whereas there have been eight built over the Thames? Will he receive a deputation

    1557
    from the Lancashire County Council and other representative people so that he may reconsider his reply?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I shall be only too happy to receive any deputation which the hon. Gentleman may bring. I trust that he was equally active between the years 1945 to 1951.
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would look up the records, he would find that I was.

    "Halt" and "Slow" Signs
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofieldasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the "Halt" and "Go Slow" signs in the country have not been modified in accordance with the revised form as indicated in the Highway Code, where it is shown that the apex of the triangle in this sign should be at the bottom and not at the top of the circle; and whether, in view of the fact that it is not possible to prosecute motorists who fail to conform with incorrect signs, he will issue an early directive to all highway authorities instructing them to alter any incorrect "Halt" or "Go Slow" signs under their jurisdiction without delay.
    Mr. Braithwaite: "Halt" and "Slow" signs of the old type are still legal if they were erected before 14th June, 1950, when the current regulations came into operation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Considering that road safety depends very largely on strict adherence to the Highway Code, does not the Minister agree that it is very undesirable to have this mix-up in road signs, and will he ensure that in the new version of the Highway Code the illustrations contained therein are in accordance with the road signs on the road or, alternatively, that the road signs are made to conform with those in the Code?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we hope to standardise all these signs in due course. If, in the meantime, he has any specific case in mind, I shall be very pleased to look into it.

    Turnpike Roads
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider the desirability of setting up turnpike roads in
    1558
    Britain on the lines that have been successful recently in the United States of America.
    Mr. Braithwaite: No, Sir. Circumstances in this country differ in many respects from those in the United States.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of this most disappointing and unimaginative reply, would not my hon. Friend ascertain from the United States that both safety and speed are increased, and taxpayers' and ratepayers' money saved, by this admirable development? Will he not at least inquire into it because of its great potential advantage to our country?
    Mr. Braithwaite: We have inquired into this matter. The tolls estimated to be necessary in this country would be considerably higher per mile than those in the United States owing to the greater cost of land and because we have in this country more roads in relation to the size of the country and its population than exist in the United States. That is why I pointed out that the circumstances differ.
    Sir I. Fraser: Would the Minister publish a measured reply to this Question, because many who have seen these roads in the U.S.A. feel that it would be well to be in touch with this development?
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the Minister's reference to the difference between conditions in this country and the United States, will he ensure that American army drivers are acquainted with the elements of the British Highway Code because recent court-martial proceedings showed that they were not even aware of the 20 m.p.h. limit for 5-ton motor lorries?
    Mr. Braithwaite: That is another question.
    Mr. Hay: Does my hon. Friend's reply really mean that the Government are opposed to the idea of having tolls upon the road?

    Toll Bridge, River Thames
    Mr. Hayasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to those inhabitants of Whitchurch, Oxfordshire, who work in Pangbourne and in Reading, by the continuance

    1559
    of the toll bridge over the Thames; and whether he will take steps to free this bridge from toll.
    Mr. Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend realises the inconvenience caused by all toll bridges, but with the pressing need to restrict Government expenditure he is unable to make grants towards the cost of extinguishing tolls at the present time.
    Mr. Hay: Does my hon. Friend realise that his reply conflicts with the answer he gave a few moments ago and that it will give great dissatisfaction to my constituents? How would he like to have to pay 2d. or 3d. every day on his way to work?
    Mr. Braithwaite: There is no conflict. I said that we were anxious to close toll bridges where possible and when possible. At present we are concentrating what funds are available on road improvements at accident black spots, which, we believe, deserve high priority.

    Accident Figures (Publication)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to bring a greater sense of urgency to the publication and consideration of road accident figures, he will arrange for the main figures showing the number of persons killed, seriously injured or slightly injured to be issued week by week instead of month by month as at present.
    Mr. Braithwaite: No, Sir. Any advantage which more frequent publication might have would be outweighed by the extra labour and expense which would be required.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Are there not killed on the roads every week nearly as many people as were killed in the recent railway disaster? Is not frequent publicity the best possible means of obtaining a vigilant road safety campaign?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend, but to publish weekly figures would mean extra pressure on the limited police manpower and extra staff in the Department. I believe the House will agree that figures published weekly might not have the same impact on public opinion as those which appear once a month, which receive great publicity.

    Signposting, London
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the routes out of London leading to the chief provincial towns and cities are still inadequately signposted; and if he will make a statement as to what progress has been made with the experiment for improving such signposting.
    Mr. Braithwaite: A working party under the chairmanship of the Department's divisional road engineer and representing the main interests concerned was set up in September, 1950, to prepare a plan for the signposting of London, which was considered by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on 17th October last.
    When my right hon. Friend has studied the Committee's recommendations he will decide what action should be taken.
    Brigadier Medlicott: While the lack of progress is rather disappointing, is it not likely that in directing people in the "Right direction" this Government will be more successful than the last one was?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend that we received the Report only a week ago, and that the promptitude of my right hon. Friend is, of course, proverbial.

    Forth Road Bridge, Fife
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the attraction of light industry to central Fife is hampered by the lack of a Forth road bridge; and whether, in view of the rapidly growing importance of the developing Fife coalfield, he will take immediate steps towards furthering the construction of such a bridge.
    Mr. Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend is aware that this project would benefit many interests, but in present economic circumstances it is impossible to give any indication as to when it will be possible to allow it to proceed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that this answer is now growing very long whiskers? Is he further aware that Fife will be very soon the most important coalfield in Scotland; that this bridge has been in contemplation now for more than 100 years; and that Scotland is getting heartily sick of the same sort of answer?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I am aware of those facts, but the hon. Gentleman would recall that on 26th October, 1948, which, after all, is not 100 years ago, the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board were informed by the Government of the day that they had agreed to this scheme being brought to contract at a later stage on the clear understanding that, in view of present economic conditions, it would be a number of years before constructional work could be considered. Grants totalling £230,000 have so far been authorised towards the cost of preliminary work, and I am afraid that beyond that we cannot go at present.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Scotland then was rather less than half what it is now, that young women and girls in Fife are finding it impossible to get a job because there is no light industry, and that the construction of this bridge would help very much?
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to the Fife coalfield great developments are also taking place in the Lothians and that that part of the country will soon become very densely populated, with tremendous industry? Would he make sure that, while taking into account the economic difficulties of the country and the lack of steel, plans are brought to such a point that if a slackening of employment takes place, or there is any reduced demand for steel, the work can go ahead without delay?
    Mr. Braithwaite: We are as anxious to go forward with the work as the right hon. Gentleman was when he was Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Sir W. Darling: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this project, unlike many others, is backed by the finances of the County of Fife and the City of Edinburgh, and that this is really an important aspect in considering the use of economic resources?
    Mr. Younger: Would the Minister bear in mind that whereas there is at least an existing railway bridge over the Forth, there is no bridge at all over the Humber, and will he keep that in mind when considering priorities?
    Mr. Braithwaite: I recall that the right hon. Gentleman and I went on a deputation
    1562
    on that subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) and we drew a blank.

  SHIPPING

    Port Works (Steel Supplies)
    Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to remedy the deficiency of steel required for urgent port works.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government are fully aware of the need of steel for urgent port works, and recognise this, so far as the general steel shortage permits, in the allocations made to such works.
    Mr. Peart: Has the Minister considered the report of the Ports Efficiency Committee, which especially mentions this, and will he urge the Minister of Supply to give a measure of priority to these urgent projects?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have read the two reports with the greatest possible care, and I think that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power may be making a statement about them shortly.

    Port, Mombasa (Restrictions)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Minister of Transport what is causing the delay in shipping goods to Mombasa; and what action is being taken to improve the situation.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The facilities for discharging and clearing cargo at Mombasa are insufficient to handle all the traffic that is now offering for the port, and, to avoid serious congestion and delays to shipping, it has been necessary to introduce a system of phasing the arrival of cargoes.
    Extensive developments of the port are planned by the East African Administration, some of which are already in hand and are resulting in increased shipments, but complete removal of the present restrictions will not be possible until the port has been expanded considerably.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister appreciate that there is at present a delay of eight to nine months, that some goods ordered before Christmas are not yet called forward for shipment, and that 75

    1563
    per cent. of the shipping space is used by Government and allied Departments?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not quite sure what the exact proportions are, but I know that all those concerned agreed in February, 1952 that the present system of phasing, though no one likes it, was essential under present circumstances.

    Oil Pollution
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the investigation into dealing with the nuisance of oil pollution of the shore by discharge from vessels.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) and Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on Monday, 20th October.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable hardship to people who go to the seaside, and the harm that is done to birds and fish, by oil pollution? Will he take every step that lies in his power, with the shipping companies, to try to prevent it?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Without making any promise I can say that I hope that in this, as in every other respect, next summer will be an even better one.
    Mr. Manuel: Does the Minister recognise that this problem is reaching serious dimensions in some coastal areas, not excluding Scotland, and that it is no use local authorities treating their sewage before disposing of it in the sea if their work is to be ruined by the oil which accumulates on the beaches?
    Sir H. Roper: Is it not a fact that prevention is not possible without international agreement? While the Government are doing their utmost to secure that international agreement, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the facilities at the ports for dealing with sludge are such as to encourage ships to use them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is one of the points to which the committee are directing their attention.

  RAILWAYS

    Accident, Harrow (Inquiry)
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Minister of Transport whether the official inquiry into the Harrow train disaster will be
    1564
    opened at all sessions to members of the public and the Press.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, at all formal sessions at which witnesses are examined.
    Mr. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of giving the maximum publicity to these inquiries, particularly in view of the deplorable and scandalous innuendoes contained in a front page article in the "Sunday Pictorial" recently which made allegations against the Minister's tribunal, suggesting that it would whitewash the inquiry and fob the public off with scapegoats or excuses, and, at the same time, proceeded to blacken all grades of railway servants in connection with the Harrow railway disaster before the inquiry had been held?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the overwhelming mass of opinion in this country is in favour of the procedure which has been adopted and will await with patience and anxiety the publication of the Chief Inspecting Officer's report.
    Mr. Hynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it as widely known as possible that he and this House deplore that kind of article while a case is sub judice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always reluctant to comment on an article without having the article in front of me, but I know that the procedure adopted by the Government, which, I think, would have been adopted by its predecessors, commends itself to everybody's good sense. The interim statement the Chief Inspecting Officer was very welcome and has done something to reassure public opinion.

    Automatic Train Control
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Transport whether automatic train control of the improved type referred to by the then Minister of Transport in his reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster on 2nd July, 1951, is in use on the London Midland Region's main line Euston—Rugby, including the Harrow and Wealdstone section; to what extent the automatic signalling and control arrangements exclusively employed by the former Great Western Railway have been adopted and installed by other regions of British Railways; and how

    1565
    the accident rate of the Western Region during the last five years compares with the London Midland Region.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No system of automatic train control is in use on the main line between Euston and Rugby.
    The system in use on the former Great Western Railway has not been installed on any other region of British Railways.
    Information regarding the numbers and types of railway accidents on British Railways is given, region by region, in the annual reports of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways. I will send copies of these reports for 1950 and 1951 to my hon. Friend. I am informed that during the four years 1948–51 for each fatal passenger casualty in a train accident on the London Midland Region, nearly 18 million passengers were carried. During the same period there were no fatal passenger casualties on the Western Region.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 25 years ago the then Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, Sir John Pringle, presiding over a Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend's Ministry, strongly recommended the extension of the Great Western system of automatic train control and signalling to all main lines in the country, and that on 2nd July, 1951—only 14 months ago—the Minister of Transport gave me the following reply in this House:
    "The automatic train control system of the old Great Western Railway Company has not been altered, and the wider extension of automatic train control of an improved type, which is now under large-scale experiment, has been accepted as desirable by the British Transport Commission."—[OFFICTAL REPORT, 2nd July. 1951; Vol. 489, c. 1880–81.]
    In those circumstances, may we inquire what has been done during the last 16 months?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt that the whole matter of automatic train control will pass under the most search-inv review by the Chief Inspecting Officer.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: If there has been any slackness or neglect in this respect in the past, is it not because the privately-owned railways did not extend the system?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that most of us would deplore any attempt to fasten blame on any one ideology, or the other.
    1566
    The whole matter will be exhaustively examined by the Chief Inspecting Officer, and I urge the House to wait until his report is completed.
    Mr. Assheton: Is it not the case that the system employed by the Great Western Railway is not necessarily likely to be suitable on lines which are frequently interfered with by snow?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That has been said in some quarters, and that is the sort of matter upon which I rely on Colonel Wilson's judgment.
    Mr. G. Wilsonasked the Minister of Transport if he will direct the British Transport Commission, under Section 4 of the Transport Act, 1947, to consider the desirability of making obligatory on all British main line railways the safety device known as automatic train control at present in use only on Western Region.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I am awaiting the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer. I should point out, however, that the British Transport Commission are giving immediate consideration, in the light of experiments which have been going on for some time, to the initiation of a practical programme for the extension of automatic train control on British Railways.
    Mr. Wilson: In considering any alternative schemes of automatic train control, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Great Western system of warning continues to operate in the event of an electrical failure?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that no review will ever leave in any doubt the great obligation we are under to the pioneers of the Great Western Railway for the work they did.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport if, in connection with the recent railway accident at Harrow, he will use his statutory powers regarding investigation of accidents to inquire and report when the first practical use of automatic train control was adopted on the former Great Western and London Midland and Scottish Railways; and if he will also inquire and report into the reasons for the slow extension of the system throughout the main trunk lines of British Railways.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The two points to which the hon. Member refers are receiving the attention of the Chief Inspecting

    1567
    Officer of Railways during the course of his inquiry into the recent accident at Harrow, and they will be dealt with in his report.
    Mr. Sparks: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that that report will be placed in the Library for the information of all hon. Members, because it is a very important matter in view of the prolonged delays that have taken place in the extension of this system of safety? Is the Minister also aware that over the years many disasters have been caused as a result of the absence of this system, and that it is most important that action should be taken to speed it up?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I and my predecessors for 80 years have been under the statutory obligation to make these reports public, and I will give this report the widest possible publicity.
    Mr. H. Morrison: As Questions Nos. 23, 25 and 28 deal with the same subject, would it not have saved the time of the House if the Minister had answered them together, as is the general practice?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They do not deal exclusively with the same point. Although they deal with the same tragic disaster, they concern different aspects of it, and I thought, in view of the frightful loss of life and the immense importance of this subject, that it was worth while to take up the time of Parliament a little longer to deal with it.

    Wagon Building (Steel Allocation)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the large order for wagons being placed by the British Transport Commission with private firms, while railway workshops are short of work and railway shopmen redundant; and if he will take steps to secure an adequate allocation of steel to British Railways in order that railway workshops may be fully employed.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This order is in line with normal railway policy of building a proportion of their wagon requirements in private shops. Private wagon manufacturers are subject to the same procedure of allocation of available steel supplies as the railways. I expect that there will be an increase in the allocation of steel to the British Railways workshops for the period beginning 1st January, 1953.
    Mr. Sparks: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that welcome news for next year, may I ask how he accounts for the fact that private firms apparently have a sufficient supply of steel to take upon themselves quite abnormal and exceptional orders for railway wagons? Does it not rather imply that their allocation of steel is rather more than their normal requirements?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are not getting an extra, abnormal allocation of steel. In a later Question, though it is from a different angle, I shall deal with the same point again.
    Mr. Championasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the fact that privately-owned railway wagon building shops are being fully employed on orders for British Railways while railway-owned shops are under-employed because of a shortage of steel; and if he will take steps to secure a larger allocation of steel for railway purposes.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. My information is that the privately-owned railway wagon building shops are, I am sorry to say, still working well below capacity.
    On the matter of the railways' steel allocation, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given today to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks).

    Long Distance Freight Charges
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the White Fish Authority's rejection of the flat rate transport scheme, he will require the Transport Tribunal, under Section 80 of the Transport Act,. 1947, to review the charges for long distance freight traffic, with a view to introducing an extended scheme for tapering charges.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Until there is a merchandise charges scheme in operation, I have no powers under this Section. Whether the present taper in rail merchandise charges should be increased or reduced is one of the many important issues likely to be discussed before the Transport Tribunal when the draft Merchandise Charges Scheme is considered by them.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Has my right hon. Friend given consideration and support to such an idea? Is he aware that the abandonment of the traffic equalisation scheme caused a great deal of concern in

    1569
    Aberdeen and fishing ports in the North of Scotland, and that if they are to produce fresh fish in southern markets it is essential to alleviate the handicap of very great freight charges?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very glad to know that this matter has come before the Commission as the result of a deputation led by the Chairmen of the Committee on Highland and Transport Costs, and that consideration was given to the point of view advanced. My constitutional position is defined by statute.
    Mr. Younger: Will the Minister ponder well the opinion expressed by the White Fish Authority that while the flat rate was introduced in the public interest it will prove unworkable unless both rail and road transport remain in public hands?
    Sir D. Robertson: Is not the answer which the Minister has just given similar to answers which have been given in the last two or three years? Will not my right hon. Friend take action to remove these penal rates from the shoulders of the people who live in the far north?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The law lays down precisely the point at which the Minister enters, in a discussion of this kind. I have pointed that out. In reply to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), whatever the views of the Corn-mission, I am sure that those of us who are consumers of fish are very glad that its catching and landing are not in public hands.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that, so far as traffic from Aberdeen is concerned, negotiations are already going on with the Scottish transport division of British Road Services? Will he see that whatever he may do in the forthcoming Bill he does not interfere with the very good arrangements between the Road Transport Executive and Aberdeen fisheries for the distribution of fish?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall have to look at those rates first.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Helicopters
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in the production of the twin-engine 14 seater helicopter, the Bristol 173; and
    1570
    what encouragement his Department is giving to ensure that it is available for passenger services as soon as possible.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Two prototypes of the Bristol 173 helicopter ordered some time ago by the Ministry of Supply are now completed, and flight tests are proceeding. I have recently ordered three further prototypes incorporating various improvements. Production plans will depend on what orders are received by the firm.
    Mr. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend arrange for an early trial flight over the ideal route for helicopters, the triangle Birmingham—Liverpool—Manchester?
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Supply what encouragement his Department is giving to the production of a 45-seater or even larger helicopter; and what are the prospects in this connection.
    Mr. Sandys: The Ministry of Supply has placed contracts with a number of firms for design studies and development work; but it will be several years before helicopters of this size could be in production.
    Mr. Dodds: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the recent dinner of the Helicopter Association there was much comment about the lack of enthusiasm in Government Departments, whose minds are not working fast enough in connection with the development of helicopters? Can we be assured that they will have another look at the subject?
    Mr. Sandys: I entirely share the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman for helicopters. I used to fly one myself years ago. All I can say is that there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm for helicopters in recent years and that I am trying to rectify it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it not a fact that the House has never yet been told the cost of a helicopter? How can we be enthusiastic about something of which we do not know the cost?

    Air Displays, North and Midlands
    Mr. E. Johnsonasked the Minister of Supply if he will consider arranging an annual air display on the lines of that at Farnborough, in the North or North

    1571
    Midlands so that the aircraft workers in those areas can see the finished products of their work in operation.
    Mr. Sandys: I agree that it is desirable to show our latest types of aircraft in the Midlands and the North, and I am considering with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements can be made.
    Mr. Johnson: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply, may I ask him to bear in mind the outstanding claims of Manchester to stage a display of this kind?
    Mr. Sandys: I do not make a promise, but we shall do what we can. I ought to point out that the Farnborough show was essentially a trade show, organised by the manufacturers, and that it has to be near London. I will see what can be done to show off these newest planes in the North and in the Midlands.
    Mr. Snow: When the right hon. Gentleman says "show off" these latest types of planes, will he bear in mind that there is some public disquiet at the incidence of aerobatics in these displays, and that what the public want to see are the planes in ordinary, typical flight?
    Mr. Sandys: I think that that is what is done, but to show the performance of planes we have to show what they can do.
    Mr. J. Hynd: If it is in order to make bids for suitable sites for displays, may I make one for Sheffield?

    Heavy Electrical Plant Consultative Council (Appointment)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Supply why, in the interests of security, he has appointed a leading member of the Communist Party to the Heavy Electrical Plant Consultative Council, seeing that the members of the Council have access to confidential information regarding national defence and economic planning.
    Mr. Sandys: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the appointment of Mr. Frank Foulkes to the Heavy Electrical Plant Consultative Council. The Council is composed of representatives of various organisations by whom they are nominated. Mr. Foulkes was appointed on the nomination of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.
    1572
    It was not a new appointment, since Mr. Foulkes has been a member of this body for a number of years.
    No information involving any security risks is communicated to this Council.
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Braddock.
    Mr. Baker White: On a point of order. I rose to my feet as quickly as possible, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if I was too quick for the hon. Member. I looked in his direction and I did not see him make any effort to rise, so I called the next Question.

    A.I.D. Staff
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the method and extent of redundancy in the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate and of the number of jet aircraft crashes taking place, he will give an assurance that this Department can operate efficiently with such a depleted technical staff.
    Mr. Sandys: No reduction in the technical staff of the Aeronautical Inspection Directorate has been made.
    Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister make further inquiries, because my information is that this Department has been cut severely? In view of the fact that it is responsible for the maintenance of and attention to jet aircraft, would it not be dangerous if the staff were depleted to the extent which it is suggested it has been?
    Mr. Sandys: The hon. Lady is quite correct about the importance of the Department. I am quite correct in saying that no cuts have been made.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is it not wrong to say that this Department is responsible for the maintenance of jet aircraft when it is only responsible for investigation?
    Mr. Sandys: For inspection.

    Motor Cars (Home Market Allocation)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that in the motor car industry the best incentive to economy would be an increase in home production, in order to use plants to the

    1573
    fullest extent and so reduce costs and, therefore, export prices; and if he will, therefore, reconsider the allocation of cars for the home market.
    Mr. Sandys: I am aware, of course, that the volume of output has an important bearing on costs and prices. Motor manufacturers are, at the request of the Government, endeavouring to export as many vehicles as possible. However, in view of the current restrictions in important overseas markets, the Government recognise that the export targets set may in the immediate future be difficult to achieve in full and that, in consequence, a somewhat larger proportion of the industry's output may for the time being have to be sold on the home market.
    Miss Burton: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will be very encouraging to motor manufacturers in the Midlands, may I ask if he is aware that in the factories the only thing which has been restricting the workers from a larger output has been the shortage of materials? We are glad to hear that this matter will be dealt with insofar as increased costs may well be reduced by full employment in the industry.
    Mr. Sandys: The shortage of steel has been the great difficulty, but the position is getting easier. The allocation to the motor car industry has been increased for the fourth quarter of the year and I do not believe that steel supplies will, in the near future, be a major limiting factor on the output of motor cars.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister how many more cars this is likely to mean for the home market?
    Mr. Sandys: I cannot possibly say.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: Is there likely to be a further announcement on the matter? Is it being discussed with the Motor Advisory Council or has a final decision been made?
    Mr. Sandys: As I explained, we still want the motor industry to export as much as possible, but in view of the recently increased difficulties caused by restrictions abroad we recognise that in the immediate future the industry will probably not be able fully to achieve its export target and, therefore, for the time
    1574
    being, will have to sell more on the home market. I am keeping in close touch, through the Advisory Council and by other means, with the motor car industry, and shall continue to watch the position at home and in the overseas markets.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Since steel supplies can now be increased for the fourth quarter for the motor car industry, can they not also be increased for the British Railway wagon departments, which are suffering from a severe shortage of steel?
    Mr. Sandys: That is a different question.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the Minister bear in mind that much of the materials and men used in the motor car manufacturing industry could be used in the aircraft manufacturing industry? Since the products of that latter industry are much more valuable than the products of the motor manufacturing industry, will the Minister see what can be done to divert materials and men into the more important aircraft manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Sandys: The aircraft industry is not at the moment being held up for lack of material.

    Research Station, Porton (Members' Visits)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Supply if he will arrange a visit of hon. Members to the bacteriological and chemical research station at Porton.
    Mr. Sandys: Various establishments of the Ministry of Supply are from time to time visited by the Select Committee on Estimates. Should this or any other Committee set up by the House require to visit the establishments at Porton, I shall be glad to afford all necessary facilities.
    Mr. Hughes: Could not these facilities be extended to ordinary Members of Parliament who are not on these committees? Could the Minister tell us why there is this iron curtain of secrecy round this bacteriological research station? Is he aware that last week the Prime Minister complained that a large amount of public money had been spent on the atom bomb without Parliament knowing any-think about it? Is this being repeated in the case of the bacteriological research at Porton?
    Mr. Sandys: Visits to any of these establishments inevitably interrupt the work of the senior staff, who have to show people round. I am sure that the House will support me in trying to limit visits to those which are really necessary.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

    Deficit
    Dr. Kingasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will give figures showing the amount of the deficit for the year ended 31st December, 1951, in the annual accounts of the refreshment Department under the following heads: food and services provided for hon. Members, food and services provided for the Press, food and services provided for the staff, and food and services provided for strangers.
    Mr. Steward: The answer is as follows: food and services provided for hon. Members, £7,334; food and services provided for Press, £3,741; food and services provided for staff, £2,098; food and services provided in dining rooms to which strangers are admitted (these rooms are, of course, largely used by hon. Members). £8,204.
    The figures given include wages paid to staff during Recess periods, and overheads for the year, the latter being apportioned pro rata to income.
    Dr. King: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he is aware that when he published the first statement of accounts of the Kitchen Committee in July, the "Evening Standard" published a headline "Commons lose £21,000 feeding Members of Parliament," when it knew that even from the facts given at that time such a statement was false and misleading and damaging? Does he not agree that headlines in the Press ought to bear some relation to the truth? In view of the facts which he has revealed in his statement today, does he not agree that the "Evening Standard" ought to make amends with the truth?
    Mr. Steward: I have no power to influence headlines in the Press.

    Fish
    Sir W. Smithersasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, to what extent the consumption of fish has increased in the House of Commons since October, 1951.
    Mr. Steward: Since the House resumed the beginning of November, 1951, the consumption of fish in the Refreshment Department has been approximately the same each month.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the sea at Morecambe was probably polluted recently, will my hon. Friend ensure that no more Morecambe shrimps are supplied but that a good supply of Scarborough lobsters is supplied instead?

    Private Parties (Staff Duties)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how many week-ends and Saturdays, have been booked for parties at the House of Commons; what staff is recruited to wait on the visitors; how many hours the staff work for these functions; and what arrangements are made regarding the payment to the staff who are on duty.
    Mr. Steward: Since the commencement of the year to date, three Friday afternoons, eight Friday evenings, five Saturday afternoons and four Saturday evenings have been booked for parties. Six further Friday evenings and two Saturday evenings are booked for this year and three Saturday evenings for 1953.
    The number of staff required varies with the number of diners. During afternoon functions the staff would be required to work from 11.30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m. For evening functions, the time varies between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. The Member holding the function pays an extra amount per diner. 3s. 6d. to 4s., which is paid out to the staff on duty.
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the fact that a trade union rate of wages is paid in this establishment, would the hon. Member make certain that the amount requested in payment from the people who book the Dining Rooms for various functions covers completely the trade union rate that ought to be applied to

    1577
    the people who are there to wait, including an extra amount for time over the ordinary time that they work in this establishment?
    Mr. Steward: This is the first time that I have had any complaint with regard to the payment of remuneration to staff in the Refreshment Department. If the hon. Lady will let me have full particulars, I will investigate the matter, but I do not think the staff of the Refreshment Department are treated unfairly. It should be remembered that during 1951 we paid wages for the full 52 weeks of the year although the House sat only on 29⅖ weeks and that in August and September of this year the permanent staff received from six to seven weeks' full holiday with pay, and, in the remaining two weeks, worked only half time and received full pay.
    Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House as a whole accepted the terms and conditions upon which we employ this staff and that if there is to be this sort of cheeseparing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—it should not be done by the hon. Gentleman's altering the terms and conditions of employment in this way? Many of us feel that it is quite unfair that he should take it out of the staff.
    Mr. Steward: Neither I, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, nor the Committee as a whole have made any variation in the terms of engagement of the staff of the Refreshment Department. I have said that if the facts are given to me I will investigate them.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: It is after half-past three.
    Mrs. Braddock: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  VISITING FORCES BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  VISITING FORCES BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1.—(COUNTRIES TO WHICH ACT APPLIES.)
    3.32 p.m.
    Mr. John Strachey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    (5) No such Order in Council shall take effect, or purport to take effect, unless and until the Minister of Defence or other appropriate Minister has certified that satisfactory reciprocal arrangements have been, or are about to be, made with the Government of the designated country.
    The object of this Amendment and other Amendments on the Order Paper is, as the House will see, to write into the Bill some words which will ensure that the principle of reciprocity of the Bill is firmly established. While no doubt it does matter how that is done, what we are concerned with is not the exact words of the Amendment, which may be open to this or that criticism, but with the principle of writing into the Bill the principle of reciprocity, so that the very substantial privileges which the Bill confers on visiting soldiers, sailors and airmen in this country shall be conferred upon soldiers, sailors and airmen in this country in the country which they visit. We feel that this principle of reciprocity must be an all-round one, and that one country to this multilateral convention cannot be excepted from it.
    We think that on this Report stage of the Bill we have come to an important issue, because there is no doubt that the Bill was recommended to us, and recommended to us repeatedly, by Members of the Government at all earlier stages of the Bill as embodying this principle of reciprocity. Therefore, the Second Reading of the Bill was agreed to, and much of the Committee stage was also passed, on the basis that the Bill was reciprocal and that no one would defend it if it were not.
    I ought briefly to recall the Government's statements on this matter. They began in another place, where the Lord Chancellor gave an extremely lucid exposition of the Bill and had this to say about reciprocity:
    "I should think it unlikely that Her Majesty by Order in Council will confer any privileges

    1579
    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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 26th June, 1952; Vol. 177, c. 485.]
    It did not seem to me that that was a perfectly watertight assurance, but it certainly presented the Bill to their Lordships on the basis of reciprocity.
    The House will see that, in the words which have been tabled in the Amendment, my hon. Friends and I accept the principle that it may not be possible to wait until parallel enactments have been made in other countries. We are willing to accept an earlier, in the Lord Chancellor's words,
    "expression of intention on which reliance can be placed"
    in the other countries.
    The Home Secretary, of course, went a good deal further than that. In our discussions in Committee, he made it perfectly clear that he was recommending the Bill to us on the basis of a sure belief that reciprocity was to be given to us. He said:
    "The important point is that we should be sure that the Government are satisfied that there will be reciprocal arrangements and I hope that, on consideration, the Committee will be satisfied with the undertaking that I am proposing to give. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) said that he hoped there would be some assurance and, if I may say so with respect, that is entirely right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1069.]
    And so we had agreement there again that this principle of reciprocity—no one at that stage doubted that that meant all-round reciprocity—was accepted, and that it was on that basis that we would pass the Bill.
    To revert to the Second Reading of the Bill, let me quote from the speech of the Attorney-General, when he gave his assurance to the House. These are the words which I ought to recall to hon. Members:
    "The most that one can be expected to say in this matter is that we shall not apply the provisions of the Act under Clause 1 (2) or (3) until we have done everything we can to satisfy ourselves that the other country concerned is going to make it practical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 641.]
    As I understand those words, they mean that the Government would not apply the Act until it was assured that practical
    1580
    steps were to be taken by the opposite number country, as it were, to give effect to similar provisions there. That was the basis upon which we on this side abstained from any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    No doubt there are many different ways of giving effect to that provision. I do not know whether I speak for everybody on this side of the House, but I, for one, would be satisfied with an unequivocal assurance on the part of the Government to the House that they would abide by that assurance in all circumstances and in all cases and without the major exception to it which became evident later on in the course of our deliberations in Committee.
    Why those deliberations took some time and why we are considering the matter again now is simply that as the debate in Committee proceeded it became clear, first from Government statements and then it was elucidated by my hon. Friends behind me, that there was a huge exception being made to this principle of reciprocity. That was in the case of the United States visiting forces, and we were being asked just in the case of the major example where major numbers of forces actually were on our territories, to go ahead with the Bill—not only to pass it, but to apply it completely unilaterally, and without, as it seemed to us to emerge, any assurance whatever that the United States Government either would or, worse still, could apply it themselves. If that really is the position—and it seemed to be the position in the Committee stage—it is a quite different one from that which faced us on Second Reading.
    I recognise that there are arguments for doing that; I do not say there is no case for doing it. It is true that if one proceeds unilaterally and without worrying about reciprocity in the case of the United States, one can argue that this Measure, by replacing that of 1942, would improve our position and that, without the United States Government taking any parallel action, it may be argued, we should in one sense be better off.
    There is some force in that argument, but against it we must notice that the 1942 Act was never intended to be permanent, whereas this is intended to be permanent. Therefore, a question of principle arises here; the principle of reciprocity is far more important than in

    1581
    a temporary Act. When we are putting a permanent piece of legislation on the Statute Book, surely the question whether it is a reciprocal multilateral arrangement in which one retains the same privileges as one gives becomes of far greater importance.
    I think it might be argued even so that we should not be too "sticky" about this question and that it is really a question of running a little ahead of American action which, it is easy to assume, would soon follow on our action. I, for my part, would remain somewhat uneasy, but I do not think the House would take that very heavily. But again, as the debate proceeded it seemed to me—and I think to most of my hon. Friends—that that was not the situation at all.
    I had frankly imagined that it was merely a case of waiting until parallel legislation had been passed by the United States Congress. I imagined that the action which had been initiated in the Congress in July was of that character. But now, as I understand it, that was not so. If I am wrong, I hope that the Home Secretary will intervene to correct me, because I think it will save time and I do not wish to push this point if it is not well founded. As I understand it, the action initiated in the United States Congress in the summer was not to pass parallel legislation with this, but merely to ratify the convention, which in itself is an empty gesture——
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman but, as I promised, I have made inquiries and I should like to give a coherent picture. I did not agree, and my right hon. Friends did not agree, that it was an empty gesture, but I think it would be better if I gave the whole picture rather than interrupted piecemeal.
    Mr. Strachey: But the action which was initiated was merely that of ratification and not of parallel legislation to this.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is important on this point. The ratification by all countries, including our own, must be done in accordance with the agreement. I entirely agree that it was the initiation of the steps which would result in ratification, but if the right hon. Gentleman will
    1582
    allow me to give the picture of the American procedure, he will see that there is a difference in the point I was making.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. Strachey: We shall await that with very great interest and it will certainly influence me very much indeed if we can be given a real assurance that it is merely a question of time and the fact that the Congress is up at the moment, which means that we have to wait a few months. There would certainly be nothing very terrible in that.
    But the picture, as we saw it, was that the action which had been initiated and for which we would have to wait only a few months, call it what we will, would not in effect give to British, French or other N.A.T.O. forces on the soil of the United States parallel privileges to those which are being given here. If it does, of course that is a different matter, and it means merely that the point is narrowed to whether we run ahead a little. If as I understand it—and I must base my argument on that until and unless it can be shown that that is not the case—the action initiated in the United States would by itself do little or nothing actually to confer parallel privileges such as we are conferring on visiting forces in this country.
    It is of the greatest importance that we should know whether that is so or not because, to go back to what the Home Secretary was saying to us in Committee, he actually accused us on this side of the House of wasting time and labouring the point by the mere suggestion that the United States Government might be not so much unwilling as unable actually to take action—whatever we like to call it, ratification, or a Bill, or whatever is their technical name for the action of Congress—which would in fact confer these privileges on N.A.T.O. forces visiting that country. I think I ought to quote his words. We remember the Home Secretary saying:
    "The other point that has been put to me is whether the United States of America can bring in the necessary legislation, and it is said that I have no evidence in that regard. I have the very good evidence that the United States are one of the signatories of the agreement. If hon. Gentlemen will look at page 15 of the agreement, they will see the signatures of various countries, and of the United States of America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1092.]

    1583
    Then he went on to say that it was wasting the Committee's time to suggest that that was not evidence that the United States were not going to ratify. No doubt it is evidence that the United States Administration intended to ratify, but it does not seem evidence either that they would necessarily be able to ratify or, much more important, that ratification would convey and grant parallel privileges to our own forces. That is the essential point which we think it vital that the Home Secretary, or whoever speaks for the Government, should deal with today.
    Without pretending to be a constitutional lawyer—I am not one in this country and still less in the United States—I could not but be impressed when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) read the relevant sections of the American Constitution, including Article V, which is perhaps the most important single article in that Constitution, or one of them. It seemed very difficult to understand how the United States Government could grant these privileges to N.A.T.O. forces on its own soil.
    Therefore, unless we can be reassured—it is very difficult for me to see how we can be assured but I hope I am wrong on this—we are being asked to pass this Bill on a totally different basis from the one on which we were asked to pass it. We are being asked to pass it on a unilateral basis, which is completely one-sided, without any hope or expectation of the United States Government, which is the very Government which is really relevant in this matter, can, with the best will the world, do the same for us. That puts us in a very different and difficult position indeed. One has then to make up one's mind whether it really matters whether we give the United States reciprocity or not. There are two considerations of a different character as to whether that matters.
    The first is whether it matters in practice or not. It may be said that we are very unlikely to have great masses of British forces on American territory in the same way as we have large masses of American forces on our territory. There is something in that. It does not matter to us so much if we are unlikely to have great masses of forces there; I quite
    1584
    agree on that; but it is by no means the case that we are sure never to have forces in the United States in the future. There may be squadrons of the Air Force there, as there have been in the past from time to time. I do not want to press that argument too far, but there is a certain point about the actual practical advantage of there being the same privileges for our forces there as the American forces enjoy here.
    Then there is the question of principle. Is it really a good thing to convey the very considerable privileges not only on American but on all foreign forces of N.A.T.O. countries or those of Commonwealth countries in this country when the biggest of the signatories to the convention cannot apparently convey the same privileges to our forces? I am not a man who thinks that these questions of national prestige, as they are called, are necessarily very vital, but there is surely some such thing as national feelings in a matter of this sort, and they cannot be quite brushed aside.
    I say that for a practical reason, that if they are, the instruments, the conventions, the statutes which brush them aside become exceedingly unpopular and exceedingly difficult to work and are apt to do much more harm than good. This is a statute made, as we hope, to regulate and thereby do good, or prevent harm from being done, to Anglo-American relations. If it is too one sided, it may have exactly the opposite consequences.
    It really does face the House with a most important choice. Are we to have these conventions multilaterally signed by all the N.A.T.O. countries and then discover, if we do discover it, that one of the most important of all the signatories to it, the United States, in spite of signing it, cannot, with the best will in the world, go on to implement it? Does it matter—I put the case concretely—or does it not that while the United States, not only on the soil of Britain but on the soil of every other N.A.T.O. State, will enjoy these very substantial privileges, N.A.T.O. forces on United States soil cannot be given these same privileges—not only British troops but French, Italian and any other N.A.T.O. forces there?
    I am bound to say that I think that it does matter. It seems to me that in respect of having good, by which I mean

    1585
    self-respecting, Anglo-American relations and N.A.T.O.-American relations also, it really is very important that reciprocity should be given in these matters. During our deliberations in Committee, there was an important interjection which I am sure most of us on this side of the House heard—"I suppose they are being anti-American again." It came from the Prime Minister himself. Is it being anti-American to insist that reciprocity in this way is really important and really matters? I believe that, far from being anti-American, it is really serving the cause of decent and self-respecting Anglo-American relations much better to be even apparently a little "sticky in these matters, to be even a little punctilious about them. And I think it is worth being more than that because there is a point of considerable substance here.
    Just because we want the N.A.T.O. arrangements to work and be smooth and harmonious, it really will not do to leave the matter where it would be if that assumption were correct. If it can be blown away, so much the better. It would not be in the best interests of Anglo-American and the whole N.A.T.O. arrangements to let these things pass unless we can be completely reassured on this matter.
    It seems to me that we ought either to insert in the Bill some words of the kind used in this Amendment, which I think would be the best way, as these words would seem to serve the purpose well and make it impossible to go ahead without reciprocity; or, failing that, to have a watertight assurance from the Government that reciprocity will be obtained before the Measure is applied.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I gather that the House would rather hear from me before there is any further debate. I should like to point out just one fact regarding the quotation from my speech during the Committee stage which the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) was good enough to make. He quoted from c. 1069 of HANSARD of 22nd October, 1952. I know the difficulty of giving lengthy quotations in full, but I think that the House ought to have in mind that I said, as reported at the foot of that column:
    "I am in a position to give an undertaking to the effect that Her Majesty's Government will, subject to the exemption which I shall
    1586
    mention in a moment, not apply the Measure to any foreign country until they are satisfied that the country can guarantee to offer reciprocal treatment to British Forces visiting its territory.
    The exemption relates to the United States of America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1069–70.]
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to desire to mislead the House and would agree that it is only right that it should be made quite clear that I continued in that way.
    Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree that it was at that point, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "exemption," that this whole issue began to emerge. I did not wish to convey anything different.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Surely the important passage is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention in c. 1073?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was not the column to which the right hon. Member for Dundee, West referred. The point I was making is that, while it is quite fair to quote one part of what I said, it is important that that should be in its context, and that I immediately went on to state the exemption. There was no question then of not informing the House that an exemption had to be made.
    4.0 p.m.
    I have read the undertaking that I gave, and I have now indicated that the exemption which I made was made in view of the unique statutory position of the United States of America. I hope that the House will not press me to go beyond that undertaking when I have tried, as I shall try, to cover the point on which there was some dubiety and difficulty during our discussions on Wednesday night.
    I think it important to begin by remembering that, as regards the United States of America, the position is complicated by the fact that when this Bill comes into force the Allied Forces Act, 1940, and the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, will immediately be repealed. I ask the House to consider the positions that were open to us. It would have been possible to secure that when these Acts were repealed nothing took their place; but I do not think that anyone would seriously put that point forward, because there must be some procedure

    1587
    to enable the American visiting forces to maintain discipline.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask a question?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask—because some of the difficulty we had the other night was due to trying to explain piecemeal the points which arose—hon. Gentlemen opposite to exercise a certain patience until I have given my explanation to them.
    Mr. Silverman: I merely wanted to ask a question of fact. Will the previous Acts which are being repealed on the coming into force of this Bill be repealed before the promulgation of the Order in Council designating the United States as a country to which the Bill applies? If the answer is that they will be, it affects the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at Clause 18 of the Bill, he will see that it says:
    "These are hereby repealed."
    and that refers, in paragraph (b) to the two Acts which I have mentioned. That will operate as soon as the Bill comes into operation under Clause 19 (2).
    Mr. Silverman: Then they will be, and in that case there will be an inevitable interregnum, when the United States forces are not entitled to maintain discipline under any Act, because when this Bill comes into force other Acts will be automatically repealed, but they will not get the benefit of this Bill until by affirmative Resolution we have obtained the Order in Council applying it to them. In any event there will be an interregnum.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is the position I was putting to the House when the hon. Member interrupted me. I was saying that was a position which no one could contemplate, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite nodded in agreement when I made that point—at least I understood him to do so, though I do not want to read too much into a nod. We cannot contemplate an interregnum when the United States forces would not have power to enforce discipline. I say that course is quite unrealistic.
    The alternative is that the provisions of this Measure should apply to the
    1588
    United States, notwithstanding that they have not ratified the agreement at the time the Bill comes into force. It would have been possible to have drafted the Bill in a different way, and to have proposed that the repeal of the 1942 Act, and of the 1940 Act in its application to the United States, should have been made conditional on the application of this Bill to the United States; which was the point about which the hon. Gentleman asked me. But in our view there are two reasons against such a course.
    The first is that, in the view of the Government it was not unreasonable to work on the assumption that the United States Government will ratify the agreement they signed last year. The other is that, as various hon. Members have pointed out, the arrangements made in 1942 whereby exceptional privileges of exclusive jurisdiction were conferred on the United States, while they might be appropriate in war-time and the aftermath of war, are not appropriate for peacetime; and it would be better to substitute our proposals of concurrent jurisdiction.
    That is the position as we see it. The point which has been rather blurred in the course of a very interesting discussion—about which I do not complain for a moment—is that the course we are taking will create an important improvement from the point of view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, in giving us greater powers and the visiting forces from the United States less power.
    I was asked for details of the progress that the United States Government were making towards ratification. I shall deal with that position in a moment, but I wish to make two prefatory remarks. The first is that, as a general matter of international probity, it is not usual for the Governments or Parliaments of other States to inquire minutely whether the State is competent to ratify the agreement; because good faith in international relations depends upon the assumption that Governments do not sign agreements which they cannot possibly ratify.
    The second is that, in the nature of things, we cannot say whether all the countries which have signed the agreement will eventually ratify it; and we cannot say when they will ratify it; but international agreements—as I pointed out with some poetic allusion which the House will excuse—would never come

    1589
    into force if each State waited to see what the other would do before giving effect to them.
    Now may I pass to the information we have obtained about the United States? I hope it will not unduly tire hon. Members if I say in a word what is the ratification procedure, because we had some discussion on it on the last occasion. The process of ratification is that the President sends the agreement to the Senate with a request for their advice and consent to its ratification. The agreement is then put on the calendar of the appropriate committee and, after they have completed their deliberations, they present the agreement to the Senate with their recommendations.
    The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was, I think, in slight error on one point. He thought consent to ratification required a two-thirds majority of the whole Senate. It is a two-thirds majority of those sitting and voting. I checked that point. The agreement is then returned to the President for signature on ratification.
    Mr. Ede: It is a two-thirds majority of those present and voting that is required?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman made a slip when he said it was a two-thirds majority of the whole Senate, and I wanted to correct him on that point.
    It does not go for ratification to the House of Representatives, the other House of Congress. I have stressed that because that is the treaty-making procedure to which I referred shortly the other day, and the effect of ratification by the Senate is that the agreement becomes the law of the United States.
    Although it becomes the law, it may be that certain additional detailed legislation may be necessary for applying it and working it out in some respects; and I am informed that certain detailed additional legislation may be necessary for its implementation concerning article VIII, relating to claims, article VII, relating to criminal offences, and article III (paragraphs 1 and 5), relating to the entry and departure of aliens, and article II concerning customs facilities.
    I was asked during the debate the other day whether State legislation will
    1590
    be necessary. I have been in touch with my advisers, and the advice I have been given is that additional legislation in individual American States will probably not be required, although, on Articles IV and VI, administration regulations will be necessary in some States.
    With regard to the more general position, I am told that a law enacted by the Federal Government within its powers—that is, Federal powers as opposed to State powers—is binding on all States, and that, in general, a law to implement a treaty is within the powers of the Federal Government.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) raised the question of constitutional difficulties with regard to the constitution as a whole. I took the advice which he suggested I should take, and I am advised that there are no constitutional obstacles which would prevent the ratification of the agreement by the United States. With regard to that, and to the difficulties which the hon. and learned Genleman raised, I should remind or perhaps inform him of this fact.
    The facilities given to United States forces in the United Kingdom under the 1942 Act—which, the House will remember, were exclusive jurisdiction in the hands of the United States authorities—were given to us in the United States reciprocally in 1944 by Public Law No. 384 of the 78th Congress and contained in the Presidential Proclamation No. 2626 of 11th October, 1944. That reinforces the advice that I was given: if it was possible under the United States constitution to operate these courts, the position would be not so difficult in regard to concurrent jurisdiction.
    4.15 p.m.
    With regard to the present position, the President sought the consent of the Senate to ratification on 16th June, 1952, but the agreement has not yet been considered by the Senate, and, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, the next meeting cannot be until after the election. Therefore, one has to accept that this matter will be dealt with in the next Session, which begins on 5th January. I understand that it has been recommended to the Senate as important and meriting their early consideration. That is the position with regard to ratification.

    1591
    Legislation to supplement ratification has not yet been introduced, but I am informed that work is being done on it now, and that it is likely to be introduced at about the same time as the Senate Committee begins work on the agreement itself. Hon and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did say that I should have had particulars of the legislation, and I accept the position that, had there been any extract available, I should have had it; but the legislation is still in the stage of drafting.
    I do not think it is reasonable to expect to be given particulars of draft legislation and I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite would expect us to give to the United States particulars of legislation at an early or intermediate stage of drafting. I cannot remember that ever occurring in my governmental experience, though hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may have had it in theirs. As a general principle, although I do not say that it could not happen in an exceptional case, this House would be rather surprised if details of draft legislation had been communicated to a foreign country before it had been placed before this House.
    Therefore, as regards the United States, we are advised that there is no constitutional difficulty, that the agreement has been sent to the Senate for ratification, and that the legislation is in preparation. When we take account of our experience with regard to the other Act, I do not think that we need expect any great constitutional difficulty. Certainly, that is the advice which we have had on the matter.
    I do not want to detain the House by going through a great many other facts, but I told the Committee on Wednesday that each of the Commonwealth countries which enjoyed privileges under the 1933 Act had reciprocal legislation. All the Commonwealth countries have been informed of our proposals in the present Bill, and, of course, Canada, which is a signatory to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Agreement, has passed the necessary legislation.
    There are just one or two other points which I think are worthy of the attention of the House. We are informed that the French Government has deposited its instrument of ratification. During the Committee stage, the hon. and learned
    1592
    Member for Hornchurch said that the United Kingdom had ratified the agreement. That, as I am sure he will realise, was a slip on his part and is not the case. This Bill is to enable us to ratify the agreement; the ratification is provided for in the agreement itself. It was also asked why we are the first country to take action. We are not the first: as I said, Canada has passed the necessary legislation, and France has actually deposited its instrument of ratification, so they are both ahead of us.
    There was one other general point indicated by the right hon. Gentleman today, although he did not make it his sheet anchor. He said, and this was rather implied on the last occasion that we discussed the Bill—that the only visiting Forces in this country or likely to be in this country were those of the United States. At the moment there are also Canadians, and I do not think it is improbable that forces from other N.A.T.O. countries will from time to time be stationed in this country in order to take part in exercises or for purposes of training.
    That brings me to the next point which some hon. Gentlemen made and which I think deserves consideration. It was suggested that there was no hurry about the Bill and that it could easily be put off till next Session. I think that the hon. Gentlemen who pressed that aspect of the matter have, perhaps, forgotten that we ourselves have troops in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, for example, in France, and that the privileges of the agreement cannot be enjoyed by them until the agreement is in force and until we have ratified it. But, as I pointed out to the House a few moments ago, we cannot ratify it until we have changed our law so as to put ourselves in a position to do so.
    I have tried to deal with the points on which I undertook to get information for the House and have got the fullest information that was available to me. With regard to the broad argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not resile at all from the importance I attach to that. I gave an undertaking during the Committee stage that, apart from the United States, we would not apply the benefits to foreign countries until we believed that they were in a

    1593
    position to guarantee their adherence to the arrangement. I am not departing from that undertaking at all; indeed, I am repeating the undertaking I gave in Committee.
    Next we come to the position of the United States. It is certainly not my belief that there is any portending difficulty in this matter, either constitutionally or voluntarily. If I did, I would tell the House. That, so to speak, deals with what the right hon. Gentleman, with great restraint, called a matter of feeling. It is not a question of flouting that feeling at all; it is merely a question of believing it will occur in due process of time.
    Then we come to the sphere of the practical, of what is the practical course to take. I believe the only practical course is to proceed at once to the more favourable position of this Bill, the position of concurrent jurisdiction, rather than to remain in the position of the exclusive enclave, which people like much less.
    I should like to have met the House on this matter, and although it may be slightly irregular to say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that those who have read the Order Paper will see that I have taken great trouble, which it was incumbent on me to take, to consider and answer the points raised generally on the Bill. It is not possible to do that here, but, for the reasons I have given, I hope that the House, even with the reluctance that has been expressed, will accept this undertaking as being sufficient and will also accept the view which I hold. I see no reason for thinking otherwise than that in due course all the necessary steps will be taken and that the position desired by the right hon. Gentleman will come about.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the lucid and painstaking way in which he has addressed himself to the argument which proceeded in Committee stage and which has led to the raising of the question again today. I hope it is no derogation from that tribute to say that, for my part, I still do not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept this Amendment.
    It is common ground that these arrangements, if made, ought to be
    1594
    reciprocal, and that that principle applies as much to the United States as to any other country. Other things being equal, it would then be difficult to understand why any exception should be made in the case of the United States of America, why either this Amendment or some similar Amendment should not be accepted and applied to all countries, or why, in the undertaking given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee, there should be any exception whatever in the case of the United States.
    Clause 1 of the Bill is very widely drawn, and I think that every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to its affecting countries which are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and members of the Commonwealth. But, of course, the Clause is wider than that. The Government can apply the provisions of this Bill to any country with whom we have defence arrangements, and such countries might well include any country which is a member of the United Nations because, in a sense, we have defence arrangements with all countries which are with us in the United Nations organisation, and it is important to realise that its provisions would certainly apply to any arrangement which we made with Western Germany, which is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and which, as at present constituted, cannot be a member.
    I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty in the case of America was that there might be some undesirable interregnum, if any such undertaking were given in that case, when United States forces in this country would not be protected by the 1942 Act or by this Measure and, therefore, would have no means whatsoever of enforcing discipline on their own members while they were in this country.
    4.30 p.m.
    With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, I am not convinced that that is so. I hope he follows me about this, because I quite recognise that I am very likely wrong. I should be really grateful if it could be pointed out early that there is an error, if there is one, because I should not like to take up the time of the House on a point which can be proved to be false.

    1595
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred me to the repeal Clause—Clause 18—and pointed out that—
    "There are hereby repealed—

    (a) sections one to three of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, and subsection (1) of section five of that Act; and

    (b) the Allied Forces Act, 1940, and the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942:"

    But it is important to realise what "hereby" means. "Hereby" means when the Act becomes operative; not when the Bill is an Act, not when the Royal Assent is given to it, but when it becomes operative. That is governed, not by Clause 18, but by Clause 19 (2), where we have the provision:
    "This Act shall come into operation on such date as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint,"—
    and this is the important phrase—
    "and different dates may be appointed in relation to different provisions of this Act."
    It means, therefore, that there need be no such mischievous interregnum as the right hon. and learned Gentleman feared. If he were to accept our Amendment or if, failing that, he were to take the exemption of the United States out of the undertaking he gave, then, in order to make sure that the mischief which he fears does not take place, all he has to do is to make certain that no Order in Council under Clause 19 (2) is promulgated until he is satisfied that reciprocity has been, or immediately will be, attained.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I say at once that I think the hon. Member is right about that. It follows from the view that I put to hon. Members as being my own view of the provision when we discussed this in Committee. I am sorry that that momentarily escaped me when the hon. Member made his point and I want to admit at once that I overlooked it. But that does not take away the other point. As I tried to make clear, I do not like the continuing of the 1942 Act.
    Mr. Silverman: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I understood it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has two principal reasons for not wishing to put himself in the same position as regards the United States as he was quite willing to put himself it with regard to all other countries
    1596
    affected by this Bill. Of the two difficulties which he felt, one is gone, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for kindly conceding the point. There is no need at all to say, and it is not true, that if he does what we would like him to do, and what I rather gathered he himself would like to do, the result would be that the American forces would have no power to enforce their own discipline. It is not so, and it is conceded that it is not so.
    We are left with the other point, and it is a point of substance. If one takes the view that this Bill is very much better than the 1942 Act, then one is reluctant to prolong the 1942 Act longer than one needs and deprive oneself of the benefit of what would be a better Measure. I do not take that view; but let us suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right and that this Bill is at all points better than the 1942 Act. We have had the 1942 Act now for 10 years. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in his arguments, the United States Government will ratify this Agreement in a very short time, because, if they are not going to do that in a very short time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have given us the reassurance which he wanted to give us. If he is right and the United States Government ratify in a very short time, we shall not have to put up with the 1942 Act instead of this Bill for very much longer.
    I suggest to him in all seriousness that it is very much better from our point of view that we should put up with the comparative disadvantages of the 1942 Act for a few weeks or months longer in order to make absolutely certain of the principle of reciprocity, which every one of us, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman, accepts. Surely the balance of convenience is quite clear. We are carrying on very well under the 1942 Act, and in some of the ways in which we do not like that Act this Bill does not improve it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's principal point that there would be an interregnum in the case of the United States forces if we adopt this Amendment having gone, there is really no comprehensible reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should continue to reject the Amendment which has been moved.

    1597
    Let us be practical about this. It is quite true that the Bill may refer to a great many other countries, but I say—and I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will deny it—that if it had not been for the United States we would not have had a Bill like this at all. We could have made very good arrangements of a more limited kind with all the countries concerned. The United States prefer this. I am not complaining about that. They are perfectly entitled to decide for themselves what kind of arrangements they like and to negotiate those arrangements to the best of their ability. But when we have negotiated these arrangements, when they have been decided—and no one wants to go back on them—let us realise that this is being done at the request of the United States Government rather than at our request or that of any other Government concerned.
    It is really not asking very much to say, "Do it by all means. You have had your negotiations. You have made your bargain. Ratify it and implement it by legislation. Do not go back on it in any way, but make certain that a thing having been reciprocally agreed is reciprocally implemented." There could be no real reason against that, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman's practical difficulty had turned out to be a real one, and he concedes that it is not a real one at all.
    There is one other point which I think is important. We want to see how far this Bill goes. We are going to implement it without being sure of simultaneous reciprocity. In the Committee stage reference was made, and I think I made it myself, to a court-martial which was then proceeding of an American military driver of an American lorry which had collided with a British car in a country road and had killed the driver of it and two children. That man was prosecuted before a United States service court on a charge of manslaughter. He was acquitted I have no quarrel with that, because from my limited experience, on the evidence of the newspapers, I think he would have been acquitted of manslaughter in any court.
    But the evidence disclosed other things. It disclosed that he was driving a lorry on a British road which ought not to
    1598
    have been driven on our roads under our law because it was too big and too wide. That would have been an offence against our law. It is not an offence against United States law. It was also disclosed in the evidence that he drove it at a speed which would have been an offence against our law if the vehicle had been permissible on the roads at all, which under our law it was not. It was also disclosed that the man had had no instruction whatever in our Highway Code. It also disclosed that the vehicle was not manoeuvreable at all except at a speed which was an offence against our law and which made it a danger to other vehicles upon the road.
    Though he was rightfully acquitted, as I think, of any suggestion of culpable homicide, there is no doubt that the evidence disclosed a series of offences, and the old law and this Measure, too, protect him against any penalty for it because he cannot be charged in our courts and the things complained of are no offence in his own courts. [Interruption] I know that there is a doubt about that under the new law because there is a Clause which says that he is answerable in our courts unless there is a certificate to the effect that he should be answerable in his own.
    Mr. Paget: For offences against our law which are not offences against the law of the visiting army, our courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
    Mr. Silverman: That is perfectly true, and it is not the case under the 1942 Act. This is one of the respects in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the new Bill will give us advantages that we did not have under the old law. I think that it was quite right, since the case had been referred to in the Committee stage, to refer to it here so as to show what the position in fact is, and to show how important it is that we should have this principle of reciprocity.
    I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the points that have been put forward, and as it is quite plain that his resistance to the Amendment was based on a misapprehension which has now been removed, perhaps he will reconsider the matter and see whether he can give us satisfaction.
    Mr. Paget: If I shared the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hope that we should eventually get reciprocity here, I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that it would be better for a few months to put up with a worse situation in order that when this permanent post-war arrangement comes into operation the general rule of reciprocity shall be applicable to the United States as well as to any other nation and shall be maintained. But I am afraid that I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hope that reciprocity will be or can be obtained with regard to America.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that ratification was proceeding in America and that the effect of ratification would be to make the treaty part of the law of America. In a sense, and in the same sense, that would be true in England. If we ratify a treaty, in a sense that becomes part of our law; that treaty is binding upon our Government. It is binding in a purely moral sense; that is to say, no sanction can exist to enforce it, nor is there any court, save by express agreement in the treaty, with power to declare a default or to award damages.
    But a treaty ratified either here or in America—and we have the same common law in both countries with regard to this matter—is not binding upon any individual citizen. No individual Englishman can be charged with an offence because he has done an action which is contrary to a treaty entered into—and rightly so—by Her Majesty's Government. There is no such offence known throughout the law.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Of course, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the law here, on which he is an authority, but I do not accept that it is the same in the United States. That is a specific point on which I say there is a difference.
    Mr. Paget: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the law here is different from the law of the United States in this matter. This is highly important, and since neither he nor I are authorities on American law, I feel that the highest authority should be obtained upon this subject, because my information is that
    1600
    the law here is the same as it is in America, that the ratification of a treaty by the American Government does not create any offence on the part of an individual and that no American citizen can be charged with an offence which is based merely upon its being an act contrary to a treaty entered into by the United States. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Constitution of the United States, I do not see how he could find it otherwise.
    Let us consider what the position here is. We enter into a treaty. That treaty we ratify. It is binding on our Government, and if our citizens do not abide by it then our Government must give satisfaction to the other Government with whom we have entered into the treaty. That is the position here. With regard to some treaties there is provision as to the method by which they shall be made binding. For instance the Hague Conventions are treaties which would not ordinarily be binding upon any individual, but they provide specifically by their terms that the countries shall issue orders to their troops to conform to the conventions. It is the order which is binding on the troops.
    Equally here there is no provision in the treaty, but the way by which we bring it into operation is this Bill which is brought before us. Let us see what the Bill provides. It provides that alien courts may function upon our territory. It provides that people may be imprisoned upon our territory by the sentence of those alien courts, and it provides further that our own courts shall be deprived of their jurisdiction. In order to do all those things—for a treaty itself would have done none of them—we have to introduce this Bill.
    Let us see what would happen if the Americans did any of those things. I do not imagine that it can be suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advisers that by making a treaty a law can be made in America which, if it were made in the ordinary way by Congress, would be contrary to the Constitution; or, to put it in a slightly different way, that the Constitution provides that its provisions may be abrogated by the treaty-making Power but not by the legislative power. I have examined the American Constitution and discussed it with some care since the Committee stage,

    1601
    and the American Constitution makes no such provision at all.
    Let us see what it does provide. First, as to the setting up of alien courts to try criminal offences committed in United States, the first difficulty is that Article X provides that:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.…"
    Criminal jurisdiction is one of those powers which are reserved to the States. In those circumstances how can it possibly be said that by a Federal Act the State courts—and they are the criminal courts—can be deprived of their jurisdiction? The law in America is in a state of suspense and, whether it be in connection with a treaty or any other law, it is in that state until its validity has been decided by the Supreme Court. One has to wait and see what the Supreme Court says as to the constitutionality of any Federal Act which deprives a State court of jurisdiction.
    I shall not refer to Article V because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has already referred to it; but Article VI which is highly relevant, provides that:
    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.…"
    According to this treaty, the accused is not to be tried by jury; he is to be tried by court-martial, although he has committed a crime in the State. How could a provision such as we are now passing implement that agreement?
    There are a number of other provisions of the Constitution which seem to be in entire conflict with any law similar to that which we are now being asked to pass. It would seem that legislation introduced in America would either be legislation quite different from that which we are passing today—which would be a good reason for waiting to see what legislation is passed before we pass our legislation—or would be legislation which, even if it got on to the Statute Book, would be in the gravest danger of demise—I should have thought it would be certain—when it reached the Supreme Court.
    These are the difficulties which we have to consider with regard to ratification;
    1602
    but in spite of these difficulties I still think that we need this Bill. Since I have sat on this side of the House I have always made it a rule never to say, on a matter of foreign affairs, anything which I would not say in Government, or to advocate or vote otherwise than I would feel I would have to if I were the Government. In our dealings with the United States, we are in a very peculiar position. One has to remember that the Founding Fathers deliberately designed the American Constitution to prevent America from having a foreign policy. The whole idea was to prevent entanglement, and the Constitution was so designed that nobody is ever in a position to speak for, or to know whether he is speaking for, the United States, and we are seldom in a position to expect from the United States the type of implementation on matters of foreign policy which we should expect from anybody else.
    It is a remarkable thing that with this Constitution the Americans are capable of conducting a foreign policy at all. Although they are practically never in a position to provide the implementation which we should expect from anybody else, they seem to deliver the goods. Let us take any treaty which in certain circumstances requires the Americans to go to war on our side. Under the American Constitution it is not the Government who can declare war; it is Congress, so that the Government of America is never in a position to implement its treaties or foreign obligations in the same way as anybody else. But one can only say that when the Americans have come to an agreement with us, by one way or another they have in fact delivered the goods. I think that we can trust them to continue to do so.
    I do not believe for one moment that they can introduce legislation which is anything like that which we are introducing today. On the other hand, by executive acts, by good will and, it may be, by holding courts-martial in ships if necessary, a workable arrangement may be come to. It is essential that we should recognise the American difficulties; but we should do so with our eyes open, realising that we can never have reciprocity in the ordinary sense and trusting, as we have had to do in the past, that we shall in fact get reciprocity in practice.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I am not quite clear about the latter part of the hon. and learned Member's speech. Do I take it that he still thinks that we should have reciprocity in this matter? Is he still in favour of the Amendment?
    Mr. Paget: I thought that I had indicated my point of view fairly clearly. If I thought that reciprocity were possible, I certainly do not think that we should have this Bill until that reciprocity was available. I do not think that reciprocity is possible and therefore, looking at this matter in that light—and I think that the acceptance that reciprocity will not come is the only proper ground for rejecting this Amendment—I think we should have this Bill.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: I cannot agree with the conclusions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). A vital matter of principle is involved in this Amendment and I hope to show the reasons why I think it should be carried. It is not good enough for my hon. and learned Friend to say that we can trust America. I do not doubt that we can trust America, but that is not the principle which is involved here. I dare-say that the Egyptians thought they could trust Great Britain; but I do not want this country to find itself, with regard to American forces over here, in a position similar to that of Egypt with regard to our forces there.
    In Egypt we had the capitulary system, under which British citizens had their own courts and jurisdiction. It may have suited the conditions obtaining there for a time, but there was no reciprocity about it. One could have said that there were not any Egyptian forces here and, therefore, it did not matter, just as it has been said in this case that there may not be any British troops in America and that, therefore, the question of reciprocity does not matter.
    5.0 p.m.
    I think it does matter, because it is a question of principle; and I think we should get it quite clearly established that, although we welcome the fact that, probably for a long time to come, peace being preserved, there will be American forces in this country, we want them to be here on a basis of equality and reciprocity, on precisely the same basis as
    1604
    that on which British troops would be established in the United States. We do not want to find ourselves in the position of being an occupied country in which foreign forces are immune from the jurisdiction of our courts.
    Precisely the same situation occurred in France. They have had some experience of it. I was in France recently, and it is almost common expression there that today, in the parts of France which are now occupied by American troops, the position is not very different from that which existed when the same parts were occupied by German troops. That is not a situation which any self-respecting country can tolerate. It would be particularly humiliating for us and there is no necessity for it. The only basis on which Parliament should be asked to pass the Bill is on the basis of complete equality, on the basis that we have an equal status as allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with all our other allies and are in no way in an inferior position.
    I am sure that the Home Secretary accepts that. He accepts the principle of reciprocity, because our national prestige is at stake. He has given no reason today, and certainly he did not give one in the Committee stage, why this principle of reciprocity with America should not be written into the Bill so that it is there established for all time, just as it will be, pursuant to his undertaking, in connection with all other N.A.T.O. countries.
    The Home Secretary's arguments were completely exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and it is now quite obvious that his only case for seeking the withdrawal of this Amendment is a practical point on which I found him far from convincing. This was the Home Secretary's analysis of the situation: he said, "Let us consider the possibilities which were open to Her Majesty's Government. First of all, there could not be an interregnum." We all agree that there should not be an interregnum, but it is clear that under the various options to the Government, enabling them to bring different particulars of the Bill into operation at different times, in certain circumstances there need not be an interregnum.
    He continued, "Granted that there should not be an interregnum, there were

    1605
    two possible alternatives: we could either apply the new Bill before American ratification or we could apply it conditionally upon American ratification." But they are not the only two alternatives. Another alternative is that we should apply the Bill only upon American legislation giving effect to American ratification, and that is what I should prefer.
    Let us accept the view that American ratification would be followed by American legislation because we think we can rely upon the Americans to introduce the necessary legislation. Let us assume that, although it is not an assumption which I am prepared to make, and it is obvious from what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that he is not prepared to make it, either. He thinks it is very unlikely; he thinks that the United States constitution is so complex—necessarily complex—that the necessary legislation can never be introduced. He is not worried about that. We are agreed, apparently, that it is very unlikely that legislation will be introduced.
    But, even so, if we reduce the matter to the single issue—whether we should apply the Bill to America before American ratification or without American ratification—then, on that single issue—and this Amendment narrows the issue between us—I should have thought that if we want American ratification, it would be better not to apply the Bill until we get it.
    Let me pursue that point. The Home Secretary refers to the Act of 1942, and his argument is that this will supplant the Act of 1942. But that is not the way in which we ought to approach it. We are not obliged to have the Act of 1942; there is no international agreement with the United States which requires that the Act of 1942 should still be on the Statute Book. We are a free Parliament and if we wanted to do so we would repeal that Act. That is within our rights. America is, therefore, entirely dependent upon our good will as to whether that Act remains in force or whether we have a Bill bringing into effect the recent agreement.
    I am anxious that eventually we should have a Bill giving effect to the recent agreement, but I am anxious that we should have it on the basis of reciprocity. Are we more likely to get American reciprocity
    1606
    if we apply the Bill to America now or are we more likely to get it if we do not apply the Bill to America until we have that American reciprocity? That is the issue.
    Suppose we applied the Bill unilaterally now, then, despite all the Home Secretary's professions of optimism about what some future Congress of the United States, not yet elected, might do—and that is a pure guess—there is no real promise from what has been said that, unless there is some measure of compulsion behind it, we shall get the measure of American reciprocity which, in my view, and in the view of my hon. Friends, it is essential that we should place on the Statute Book in order to preserve our national prestige.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: It has been said several times in our discussion that the Bill makes a complete innovation in our legal and consitutional procedure. I see that the Home Secretary shakes his head, and I think he has in mind the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act of 1942. I should have said that the Bill will put permanently into our law something which we have never before recognised as a permanent feature—that is to say, foreign military courts exercising jurisdiction, in some cases to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of our own courts.
    We ought to be aware that the Bill is doing that. I have never regarded it as a valid argument against the Bill, but what I think it means is this: that a Bill like this is one of the many signs which we have today that we are entering into quite a new area in the relations between sovereign States. In my judgment, and in the judgment of any one who hopes to see the absolute sovereignty of sovereign States diminished for the common welfare of mankind, I think it is an advancement, but it can be an advancement only if the modifications of national sovereignty which are applied in a Bill of this kind apply equally to nations all round. That, I think, is why we have laboured the question of reciprocity.
    We are doing something in the Bill which is far more important than the numbers of us present would give any one to suppose. We are altering the whole nature of relations between sovereign States, and future historians will notice legislation of this kind as the beginning

    1607
    of a totally new era in legal and political relations. It has been remarked that in a sense we might be regarded as going back to the position of mediaeval days, in which, when a man travelled, he carried with him certain legal rights and did not always come under the courts of the area in which he was travelling. It may be that for certain purposes it is desirable to pick up again what was a mediaeval practice, but—I say again—a change of this magnitude can be satisfactory only if it is reciprocal.
    I would emphasise that, no matter how great the change may be for some of the nations concerned, it appeared at one time, particularly from the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), that it would be impossible for the United States of America to grant reciprocity in this matter without an actual alteration in their constitution. It now appears, from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, that, so far from its being impossible, the thing has already been done once.
    I confess that I find difficulty in assenting to a proposition that something is impossible if it has already been done. But I am bound to say that I have the profoundest respect for the abilities of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, and we may all still see cause to modify that opinion before he has finished, if he should catch your eye, Sir.
    Mr. Ede: Remember MacManaway.
    Mr. Stewart: I do indeed remember MacManaway, as my right hon. Friend advises me to. Consequently, like the layman in that famous quarrel between lawyers in the Temple Garden, I shall stand aloof and not pluck a rose on either side in this quarrel until the truth is a little more plain.
    But I would say this. If my hon. and learned Friend here is right and it would be a formidable constitutional and legal task for the United States to grant us reciprocity, I still say, with the very great respect that citizens of one country should always have when saying anything about the legal and political processes of another, I think they would be well advised to undertake that task because of the enormous importance of getting this
    1608
    new relation between sovereign States well established and cordially accepted on all hands.
    But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and the thing can be done again with whatever ease it was done in the past, then there is surely nothing unreasonable in our urging that reciprocity should be a prior condition in the Bill. If we cannot be represented as being unreasonable, if we are merely saying we do not want this to be brought into force until similar legislation has been introduced in the United States, and we can say that with more confidence because we know from past experience that they have introduced legislation of that kind before, and we are not asking them to do anything impossible, then it seems to me that the case for pressing this Amendment is actually strengthened.
    I think we ought also to notice this. It is necessarily the case, in view of the great population and military power and standing of the United States of America in the Atlantic alliance, that they are more likely in fact to be claiming this kind of immunity for their troops than is any other State. Consequently, if that immunity for American soldiers—or partial immunity—is to be acceded to by other parties in the Atlantic alliance it is, I think, particularly desirable that the United States should almost go out of their way to show that they are anxious to grant reciprocity in this matter.
    If we can be sure of reciprocity it will be so much harder for those who wish the Atlantic alliance ill to represent it as something whereby the United States have completely ignored the law and constitution of the States with which they are in alliance.
    5.15 p.m.
    There is, I think, one possibility that may make this Amendment, perhaps, a little less necessary. If I understand the working of the Bill correctly, it will not, in fact, apply to any State, except the members of the Commonwealth mentioned in the Bill, until an Order in Council has been introduced; and such an Order in Council can be made subject to limitations. I wonder whether the Government have considered that, when such Orders in Council are brought in, to begin with they should be subject to a limit of time, so that, without having

    1609
    to take the perhaps undesirable step of revoking the Order later, we should be able to look at the question again, after an efflux of time, to see how far we had got in regard to reciprocity. I do not regard that as an improvement on this Amendment. I say no more than that if we thought this procedure would be adopted the urgent necessity of this Amendment would not appear to be quite so great as it does appear at the present time.
    I should like to make what I have in mind clear. Suppose the position is that an Order in Council is being introduced to apply it to the United States of America, and that, at that moment, we really do not know quite what reciprocal steps the United States propose to take. In such a situation I think it would be desirable for any Order to have a definite time limit, so that, at the elapse of that time limit, we should be able to look at the thing again and ask once again the question, What reciprocal steps have been taken?
    I rather hope that the Government will give some indication of what ideas they have about the form which Orders in Council under this Bill ought to take, but, even so, I think we are still left with the position that, on the Home Secretary's own argument, we ought to have an amendment like this Amendment in the Bill. The easier and the simpler it is under the processes of American law for reciprocity to be granted the more reasonable it is for it to be stated in the Bill that reciprocity should actually occur, and that is why I still feel that it would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Geoffrey Bing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Act No. 384 of 1944 of the United States Congress as one which showed that it was possible for the United States to produce reciprocal legislation. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Act in question he would have showed it proved just the contrary. The nature of the Bill now before us, and the nature of the previous Act, is to oust the jurisdiction of the British courts. The Americans were very careful to do no such thing by that American Act. It was to make it possible for British deserters and people
    1610
    of that sort to be arrested and tried under certain conditions when courts-martial were held under particular conditions in the United States.
    Let me just remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what that Act says, and read to him the operative Section, which is Section 2:
    "Upon a specific or general request of the officer commanding any friendly foreign force, having service courts of an appropriate jurisdiction within the United States, it shall be lawful for any person in the civil, military, or naval establishments of the United States having authority to arrest, summarily to arrest any member of such force designated in such request—"
    in other words, an American policeman can arrest a British sailor—
    "—and to deliver him to the custody of any officer of such force or to the custody of the military or naval authorities of the United States who shall deliver him forthwith to the custody of an officer of such force, for trial in such service courts within the United States for such offenses as shall lie within the jurisdiction of the service courts of such friendly foreign force."
    Then follows an interesting proviso. The right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at me as much as to say, "It is not so." But there is not one word to oust the jurisdiction of the American courts, not one word to say they have repealed jurisdiction in any way the same as we in the much stronger type of legislation have. This does not approach that at all. And then there is a most interesting proviso, because even with the courts-martial already, under these conditions, there is this proviso:
    "Provided, That the trial of any member of such friendly foreign force for an offense against a member of the civilian population shall be in open court (except where security consideration forbids), shall take place promptly in the United States and within a reasonable distance from the place where the offense is alleged to have been committed, for the convenience of witnesses."
    The rest of the Act is machinery, and those are all the provisions.
    Well, that is not reciprocal legislation as compared with the legislation we had here. It is in no way reciprocal with the provisions by which the American soldier here was taken completely outside the English law, so that it was impossible to sue him if he ran down someone with his motor car it was impossible to have an inquest. All those things are left out.
    Why are they left out? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to

    1611
    say that the proclamation says that they are attempting to have reciprocal legislation. The reason is that it would be impossible constitutionally, as I was arguing earlier with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to introduce legislation which ousted the jurisdiction of the United States courts. In any event, these matters took place during the war-time, and since the war-time, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know if he has pursued his researches into this, the Supreme Court of the United States has considered, and considered again, the extent to which military jurisdiction may be exercised by court-martial.
    One of the most interesting cases arose, and was decided by the Supreme Court at the end of 1945 and beginning of 1946, out of the situation in Hawaii. After the attack on Pearl Harbour the whole of Hawaii was placed under military law, and a rule was made—which seems to me in some ways a sensible one—that anybody who assaulted a military policemen could be tried for that offence by court-martial.
    It so happened that some one whom we describe as associated personnel, related personnel, people who were attached to the forces, a civilian artificer working in the naval dockyard, by name of Duncan, for some reason had a quarrel with a military policeman, hit him a number of times and deprived him of his weapons, and for this offence was tried by a military court and convicted. The matter went before the United States Supreme Court, and it provided an opportunity for the reviewing by the United States Supreme Court of the whole question of how far military jurisdiction could be exercised in the United States.
    I will not burden the right hon. and learned Gentleman by reading what was said by the judges of the Supreme Court, but I will refer him to the very interesting article on the whole matter in the Harvard Law Review by Professor Fair-man of Stanford University. I will just read the dissenting judgment of the court below which afterwards became, as it were, the whole basis of the point of view taken by the Supreme Court. Professor Fairman, summarising it says:
    "The dissent covers a good deal of ground, but its central position is expressed by the
    1612
    following propositions. That the writ had been suspended by the executive in pursuance of a congressional enactment"—
    the writ, of course, is the writ of habeas corpus.
    "and that the suspension had not been revoked was not conclusive of the question: '… the suspension cannot be legal unless there is as a fact imminent danger and … because of imminent danger the public safety requires the suspension of the writ.' Evidently, as he saw it, this was a political question but one for judicial determination. On the fundamental problem of the validity of the trials by provost court, he concluded that on the facts found in the court below there was 'no colour of authority for the military to arrest a civilian, try and convict him, and send him to jail by order of a provost court, and that without the right of a jury'."
    Now, British troops in the United States are, so far as United States law is concerned, all civilians. So far as the United States look at this, they are entitled to the same right as civilians, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now telling the House that in face of the decisions taken by the United States Supreme Court he is absolutely sure that the United States can enact legislation which would seem on any construction to fly absolutely in the face of those decisions—decisions which said that even an associated person like a civilian artificer working in a naval dockyard cannot be tried by a military court in war-time in a war area such as Hawaii was in those days.
    If that was the position there, how can the United States enact permanent legislation—because that is what we are enacting here, permanent legislation—giving powers of military law to be exercised, not by an American court, not by a court set up under the American constitution, under the powers to govern the Army which are contained in the American constitution, but in some other way altogether? That does not seem to me to be very practical.
    When the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to buttress it by producing an Act which he says is reciprocal, does he suggest that the Act the United States will pass will be stronger than the one they passed in the war? Is that his case, that they are to pass a more drastic Act, one that gives us more powers to try people than was given to our troops during war-time in the United States? Unless he says that, the legislation envisaged is not reciprocal at all.

    1613
    The whole essence and the whole complaint of this Bill is that it sets up what has not yet existed outside countries of a very low civilisation, or at any rate in a very weak position, namely, a kind of extra-territorial situation in which offences cannot be tried by the people of the country, but in which they are responsible to somebody else, and in which the jurisdiction of the Home courts is completely ousted. That is the principle of it. The Act of 1944 in the United States did nothing of the sort. It never diminished one whit the power of the United States courts to try any single British soldier it liked in any place it liked.
    There are two sets of rights, in a sense, which a citizen of a country possesses. The first is, of course, the right when he himself is tried to make certain that he is tried before his own type of court. But the citizen of a country also has the right to go to the courts of his own country for redress. If he suffers some injury he is entitled to prosecute.
    It happens every day in our courts. The magistrates' courts are filled with people—generally on cross-summonses—summoning people for assault. That is the exercise of a right. But what happens if an assault takes place now and an American soldier is one part of it? There is no right to prosecute in an English court at all. All that can be done is to invite the American authorities to embark on a court-martial.
    Now, when we come to deal with reciprocal legislation, what we are asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman is: Has he received any intimation from the United States that that Government are prepared on behalf of their citizens to give up their right to go into the courts and prosecute somebody who they say has assaulted them? That is the essence of it. But, of course, that was not given up under the 1944 Act. All that happened under the 1944 Act was that the American military police could arrest a British person and bring him before a British court to be charged with an offence in that court but that did not prevent him being tried elsewhere. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, unlike in this country, in the United States a conviction by a court-martial is no bar to civil procedings, is no bar to being tried for the same offence under a civil court if also it is a
    1614
    civil offence, so that there was a complete remedy left to the citizen of the United States.
    What is the position? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had more time to look at it. He has had time to look at the Act. Surely he sees this essential difference between the Act of 1944 and the present Bill, that in one case there is an ouster of the jurisdiction of the court—that is the thing we complain of here—and that in the other case there is not? Or does he say that there is?
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have not taken part in any of the complicated discussion on this Bill because I thought that it was largely a matter for the legal experts on either side. But this question is going to be far more widely discussed than we realise at the present time. We now have American forces in all parts of the country. This morning, when I came on a plane from Prestwick, I was among members of the American Forces. When the plane landed at Burtonwood, Manchester, American forces were there, too. The whole question of offences in which American soldiers are likely to be involved may be a burning one in many parts of the country.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) has pointed out, it is conceivable that this may lead to embittered feelings between the population of this country and the American soldiers, if it is thought that the American soldiers are given more freedom than the local people. It is not difficult to see what is likely to happen, and what has, I believe, happened in different parts of the country. On a Friday or Saturday night American soldiers may go to a dance hall, or to a public house, and become embroiled with local civilians. That has frequently happened with visiting soldiers. If, as a result, the local man is sentenced to, say, three months' imprisonment, and the American soldier is arrested and tried secretly by court-martial, so that no one really knows what has happened to him——
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. In that state of affairs, the soldier can, of course, be tried by a

    1615
    British court; there is no question about that. The hon. Gentleman is putting the case of an American in a dance hall becoming involved with a British subject. There is no question of his being on duty or of this being a matter concerning only American personnel, and therefore he can be tried in a British court. I would not have interrupted, but I did not want that sort of suggestion to go out, because that will not happen.
    Mr. Hughes: I am very glad that the Home Secretary has relieved my apprehension. Owing to the legal technicalities, I was under the impression that might happen. I am indebted to the Home Secretary, and I apologise to him if I have indavertently made a mistake. At least, I have given him the opportunity of denying what is a common misapprehension in places where there are American soldiers.
    There is another point. This is a visiting forces Bill and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East has pointed out, it is not merely confined to American soldiers. The whole position has changed since 1942, and we may conceivably have German soldiers stationed in this country. Sometime ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War about a statement that was made that German soldiers were likely to trained in this country.
    I received a reply that this had certainly been contemplated, but that they would be soldiers brought here to learn some of the more technical developments of modern warfare; so I think that we are safe in saying that in 12 months' time we may have German soldiers stationed in this country. Some of them may be highly technical experts, and we may have some of those military experts who have been making orations during the last week-end. I submit that it is not beyond the bounds of probability that we shall have German soldiers in this country who are here presumably to learn new tank methods of warefare, rocket firing, or something of that kind.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman appreciates that what we are discussing at the moment is reciprocity. I have given an undertaking, and the whole discussion has been on the undertaking I have given, that with regard
    1616
    to every other foreign country, apart from the United States, we shall not apply the provisions of this Bill unless we are satisfied that that country will guarantee to make similar provisions. On the question of reciprocity, the only matter which we have been discussing which is outstanding between us is the question of the United States. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not like to proceed on any mistaken basis, and so I think it is only right to tell him that.
    Mr. Hughes: I am again indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I see quite clearly from the Amendment that the Government of the designated country has to be defined by Order in Council.
    Mr. Paget: Germany is not in N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Hughes: Apart from the question of whether Germany is in N.A.T.O. or not, I am putting forward a reasonable suggestion that the provisions of this Bill may apply to Germany in 12 months' time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that the hon. Member will be wrong if he continues on those lines.
    Mr. Hughes: I regard you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as the chief arbiter in whom I have complete confidence. I want to pursue this question of German soldiers being in this country to see how that applies if this Amendment is not carried. It is conceivable that there may arrive in this country German technical experts with whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was familiar in another connection.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the Home Secretary has made it clear that this point can only apply to American soldiers because reciprocity arrangements will be made for German soldiers.
    Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have cleared up that point, but not to my satisfaction, and that is why I am supporting the Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that so far as the Amendment is concerned, that is the position.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is perfectly in order for any

    1617
    hon. Member of this House to say, "Much as I admire and respect the undertaking given by the Home Secretary, I prefer that it should be in the Bill and, therefore, I would rather we had the Amendment incorporated in the Bill."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not in the House when this point arose before, but I understand that the Home Secretary had given a satisfactory answer with regard to every country except the United States.
    Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but as a layman these points are rather obscure to me. I want to put the point about the possibility of complications which may arise if this Amendment is not accepted. We have heard in this debate a great deal about United States forces, and I submit that this Amendment is wide enough to cover the possibility of German forces. Unless we get it incorporated in the Bill, I think that I am entitled to have further explanations so that my doubts may be cleared up. I want to know exactly what reciprocity is to be definitely inserted in the Bill in order that we may be quite clear as to what is our position in regard to German forces.
    I can conceive the possibility in which German forces would be quartered in this country, and that some of the German technical experts will come along. Supposing that one of these German experts is an old S.S. commander and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going down Whitehall. The German might say, "I remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman he was connected with certain trials. I have met him before," and the result may be a common assault and a breach of the peace. This German officer would not be liable to be tried by the courts of this country, but he might be tried by a German court-martial, and it is conceivable that the German court-martial might acquit him saying, "It is quite all right, this was perfectly justifiable in the circumstances."
    Mr. M. Stewart: To pursue my hon. Friend's supposition a little further, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were at the time coming down Whitehall towards the House of Commons and the German
    1618
    prevented him from getting here, might not proceedings for breach of Privilege lie?
    Mr. Hughes: It is apparent that these hypothetical questions and misunderstandings are not confined to my innocent mind. My hon. Friend was formerly the Under-Secretary of State for War and has a very comprehensive knowledge of these questions, but he is in some confusion, and, therefore, as a layman, I feel I am entitled to have this point cleared up. If the Home Secretary may be subject to an attack, either physical or verbal, in our own country by persons whom he formerly accused of being war criminals, there is a strong case for reciprocity and the Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. Ede: I am sure that those of us who have listened to the whole of the debate today feel indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the care with which he has explained the position and the urbanity with which he has since listened to the debate and interrupted when it has appeared likely that by doing so he could further enlighten us.
    I have had a fairly long acquaintance with the Bill and the preliminary negotiations, and I have always felt that the point of reciprocity would be a difficult one to explain and justify to the House. I do not view it so much from the point of view of what happens in this country. I am more concerned with what happens to a member of the British Forces who is ordered abroad and finds himself in a foreign country where his knowledge of the civil law will not be very great and where he will not be able to have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) briefed at five minutes' notice to defend him if he gets into trouble. That point may quite easily be as difficult as anything that happens in this country.
    We have also narrowed down the debate to the point that we are concerned only with the United States of America. I should have thought that in all the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), unless it was a cross-summons because the right hon. and learned Gentleman assaulted, either first or second, the German who was thought likely to accost him, there was hardly any doubt as to what the situation would be on all the arguments that we have had.

    1619
    5.45 p.m.
    While I was very anxious to find in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said justification for feeling that we could be certain of reciprocity, I did not think that his argument was quite strong enough when it came to the end. I was further shaken in that belief when the American Act of 1944, which did begin to give me a bit of assurance, was quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Homchurch. As I reminded the House in an interruption I made during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), I have very lively recollections of the way in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, although regarded as a rank outsider in the legal race for the MacManaway Stakes, managed in the end to land the odds in a manner which was most convincing to all concerned.
    Is it not possible to make the arrangement conditional upon reciprocity? My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) disposed of one of the points which had been raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that there was likely to be an interregnum which would be difficult. It may very well be that we shall have in the United States and other countries, for purposes connected with mutual defence, members of regiments which are actually older than the United States itself, men of regiments which have a very great history and who are proud of that history, and even some regiments which may have been in America when the United States was forming itself. Those of us who have read the book "Sergeant Lamb," which gives an account of a soldier's life in America while the United States was being formed, will have some idea of the kind of feelings which may be aroused in the breasts of men who have received the ordinary instruction which is now given to the British soldier in the history, exploits and fame of his regiment.
    I want to make one matter clear. I also heard the remark made by the Prime Minister when we were last discussing this matter. He said in a voice which could, unfortunately, be heard on this side of the House as well as on his own side, in what was meant to be a whispered aside to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, "I suppose they are anti-American
    1620
    again. "I want to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are not anti-American. Certainly I am not anti-American in any way. I have a great many friends among persons of liberal thought in America, and I resent very much the idea that if one is pro-British—at least, I have a right to be that—one is of necessity anti-American.
    That is not the ground on which this matter is being pressed. I am certain that the best way to maintain good relations between any men or women in our Forces who are in the United States at any given time would be to give them the feeling that they are being treated in exactly the same way under the American constitution and laws as United States citizens are being treated in this country under our constitution and laws. That seems to me the simple point which at the moment separates the two sides of the House.
    I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can prove to us that the 1944 Act went beyond what my hon. and learned Friend said. If it was merely the power to arrest a member of an alien force in the United States and hand him over to the tribunal, it did not go as far as we are going in this Bill. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the issue between us is a narrow one. We accept his view that it is con-fiend to our relationships with the United States Forces. What we are anxious about is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman shall be able to say that he can assure us that these rights and privileges will not be granted to the United States—or, for that matter, any other nation; he himself narrowed it to the United States—until we can be assured that at the time they become operative here similar rights will be secured for men and women of our Forces in the United States.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I, with the leave of the House, say a few words? As he stated, we have narrowed down this question to the United States, and I have given an undertaking which covers all other foreign countries. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has given his view about Public Law 384. I treated it with great respect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member

    1621
    for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was good enough to remind me—and I take it with a smile—that I was wrong and the hon. and learned Gentleman was right on the question to which he referred.
    Apart from that, I am always prepared to consider any point, and I told the House on the last occasion that I would do what the House wanted me to do, and that is inform myself not only as to the position but as to the view that was taken by those who advise Her Majesty's Government on matters of American law.
    I have reported to the House the advice that was given to me. I happen to be possessed of a book which summarises the matter, and there I have confirmed pro tanto that the view of which I have been informed is correct. In this book it is stated:
    "Public Law 384, brought into force as regards United Kingdom armed forces by Presidential Proclamation 2626 of October 11th, 1944"—
    to which I have referred—
    "assumes the existence of this exclusive jurisdiction under international law and implements it. That this is the legislative intent"—
    and this is the point I thought would interest the House—
    "is clear from the Debate in the Senate reported in Congressional Record for June 22, 1944."
    I myself have no doubt, and I give my opinion, realising the limits of my own legal knowledge of which the House has been reminded, that it is possible and constitutionally within the powers of the United States Congress to pass the necessary legislation. That is the advice I have received from those whose advice I was asked to seek.
    The other question was the point which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) as to the possibility of the repeal of the 1942 Act. I think that would be an unrealistic method. So we are really left with two possibilities—and it is this narrow point that we come down to—either to continue with the Act of 1942 or to pass this Bill remembering that the signature is on the agreement and that the agreement has gone to Congress. We are told that legislation is in preparation and I am advised that legislation is intra vires Congress. I think that can be accepted as showing that reciprocity is likely to
    1622
    come, and that we should make the improvements straight away. That is the difference between us.
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: From what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says now, he would be able to certify in accordance with the Amendment, and if what he says now is correct I fail to appreciate why he cannot accept the Amendment.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: To be quite frank, I have not directed my mind to that point, but I have expressed the position as I see it. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have accepted the position. I cannot accept the Amendment and, therefore, I hope that, having had a full discussion to all of which I have listened with attention, the House will come to a decision now. I cannot go further. This is the only point in the Bill where I have not gone further, and I must ask hon. Members opposite to consider whether they feel the need to divide—I hope they will not, but if they do I respectfully suggest that the House should come to a decision now.
    Mr. Strachey: By leave of the House, I want to say a word or two as to the course which I suggest my hon. Friends might take in this matter. The first thing I want to say is that the Home Secretary has impressed me with the view that reciprocal legislation or action on the part of the United States Government is more likely, and will come about, I believe, quicker than I thought was possible. He has been able to put before the House evidence which suggests that there will be some sort of action by which the United States will do the same for us—to use popular phraseology—as we are doing for them and this at any rate is an advance on what we thought possible.
    Of course, I may be credulous. Some of my hon. and learned Friends think I am credulous, but I was interested. I do not pretend to be able to decide on this highly technical legal point, but it seems to me that the Home Secretary has given us impressive reasons, and it seems to me incomprehensible, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) said, why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot accept the Amendment if we are going to get this

    1623
    reciprocity from the United States. I cannot understand why there should be this extraordinary exception.
    The Home Secretary has agreed that in the case of every other foreign country we are to have reciprocity and that he will not bring the measure into force until we have that reciprocity. Why, then, cannot the same principle apply to America? I do not think the writing into the Bill of these words would improve it very much, and I should be prepared to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment if we could secure from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an assurance in respect of America similar to that given in respect of every other country. If at this late moment he will assure us on that point, then certainly I am willing to withdraw the Amendment; and I cannot see why he should not do that.
    On the other hand, if the Home Secretary cannot give us that assurance, then it seems to me that there must be at the back of his mind a fear that, after all, the Americans cannot or will not reciprocate, in which case I would suggest that this Amendment be pressed to a Division, because it seems to us that for the proper working of N.A.T.O., and the self-respect of this country, we need words of this sort inserted in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The difference between the two sides of the House is so narrow that in my view it would be unreasonably obdurate on the part of the Home Secretary to refuse to make any concession. I feel that he either misconstrued or has not fully appreciated the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about the comparative virtues of the 1944 Act and the present Bill. If the difference is as narrow as the Home Secretary makes out, then it would do no harm to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. If there is a wide gulf there then it is more essential than ever that this Amendment should be written into the Bill.
    6.0 p.m.
    It is perhaps unfortunate that we should be discussing this Amendment a day or two after the reports appeared in the
    1624
    Press about an unfortunate case in which three British subjects lost their lives in a car accident in which an American car driver was involved. It is of the utmost importance that in the public mind it should clearly appear that there is no unfair distinction or discrimination.
    I would again ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make the concession for which we ask. It cannot prejudice or interfere in any way with the Bill. I would quote one undertaking that was given by him in the Committee stage. No reference has yet been made to it either by the Home Secretary or by any other hon. Member. He was dealing with a point that had been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and he said:
    "As he appreciates, there is power not only to apply the Act but to disapply the Act."
    A little later on the Home Secretary said:
    "I only point out, as a matter of constitutional law and procedure, which is what we have been discussing tonight, that there are avenues open, and we have kept them open, to deal with the situation should it develop in an unfortunate way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1116.]
    The interpretation I place upon those words is that if there were some unfortunate delay in the legislative arrangements in the United States of America, it would be within the competence of the Government of this country to disapply the Act, so far as it relates to the United States of America. How much better it would be to use the machinery which we are trying to incorporate in the Bill, rather than, if the worst came to the worst, to use the powers that still reside in the Home Secretary and in the Government for the purpose of disapplying the Act. I therefore, very respectfully and earnestly, ask the Home Secretary to grant this concession, failing which my hon. and right hon. Friends will have no hesitation in going into the Division Lobby to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 178.

    Division No. 244.]

    AYES

    [6.5 p.m.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Popplewell, E.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

    Porter, G.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hobson, C. R.

    Reeves, J.

    Ballour, A.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Bence, C. R.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Benson, G.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Beswick, F.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Ross, William

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Royle, C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Short, E. W.

    Bowen, E. R.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Keenan, W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Slater, J.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Balper)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Kinley, J.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Snow, J. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Clunie, J.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Coldrick, W.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Collick, P. H.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Cove, W. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Malialieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Deer, G.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Monslow, W.

    Tomney, F.

    Ewart, R.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Morley, R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Foot, M. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

    Walkins, T. E.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    Moyle, A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Murray, J. D.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Glanville, James

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Orbach, M.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Padley, W. E.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Paget, R. T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Grey, C. F.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Parker, J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Paton, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hannan, W.

    Pearson, A.

    Mr. Wilkins and

    Hardy, E. A.

    Peart, T. F.

    Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Poole, C. C.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crossthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Heath, Edward

    Banks, Col. C.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Barlow, Sir John

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hollis M. C.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hope, Lord John

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Drewe, G.

    Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Birch, Nigel

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Black, C. W.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fisher, Nigel

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Kaberry, D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Bullard, D. G.

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lambton, Viscount

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Clarks, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Gower, H. R.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Raikes, H. V.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Touche, Sir Gordon

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Turton, R. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

    Russell, R. S.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Scott, R. Donald

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Shepherd, William

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Wellwood, W.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Speir, R. M.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Partridge, E.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Wills, G.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Peto, Brig C. H. M.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Vosper and Mr. Oakshott.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause 2.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS BY SERVICE COURTS AND AUTHORITIES OF COUNTRIES SENDING VISITING FORCES.)
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "Kingdom." to "exercise," in line 14.
    The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the operation of the Bill its present application to Her Majesty's ships and aircraft. This is not an Amendment on which we need to spend a great deal of time, and I hope the House will come to the conclusion that whatever may be the case for giving foreign service courts jurisdiction in our territory, it is difficult to make out a case for giving a foreign service tribunal jurisdiction—let alone exclusive jurisdiction as would obtain in certain circumstances—either on Her Majesty's ships or in Her Majesty's aircraft.
    As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Agreement which requires the extension of the Bill from ordinary jurisdiction exercised on land to jurisdiction in Her Majesty's ships or aircraft. If, however, the Home Secretary thinks otherwise, we shall be interested to know whether he will be able to satisfy us that reciprocal arrangements will be made by other countries with regard to their ships, their aircraft and, in particular, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that the reciprocal legislation in the United States, of which he is so confident, will apply equally to American ships and aircraft.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I beg to second the Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment, the effect of which is to exclude the jurisdiction of a visiting force in one of Her Majesty's ships or aircraft. On any mature consideration, I am sure it must be considered ancillary and incidental to what we are putting into effect.
    I ask the House to imagine a contingent of the forces of a sending country being in one of Her Majesty's ships or aircraft. It is obviously essential that the commander of the contingent should be able to maintain discipline, and I cannot imagine how he could maintain discipline in the way suggested with less offence to the feelings of Her Majesty's civilian subjects, even on the most exaggerated view of the possibility of offence taking place. This is simply a small and necessary ancillary provision, and therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.
    Mr. Bing: I hope the Home Secretary will look at this again. If he looks at the so-called reciprocal legislation passed in the United States to which he drew attention earlier, he will see that there is no provision in it for the exercise of any jurisdiction in any United States aircraft or vessel. So that on the ground of reciprocity, in the first place, there is an argument, as things stand, for excluding the words.

    1629
    Secondly, I do not see the circumstances which are envisaged. Not very large bodies of troops are carried by air, and therefore it would not seem necessary to court-martial them while actually in the aircraft. The reasonable thing to do would be to wait until the aircraft had descended at some spot within the territory where this might be administered and to hold a court-martial there. I can understand the necessity in war-time where transports are used for carrying troops. Indeed, in war-time it used to be a way of passing the time to court-martial people for offences committed previously. It does not seem desirable, however, when normally speaking they will be carried, not in transport ships, but by battleships of the Navy.
    In maintaining the authority of the captain on a vessel of that sort, there is an argument for not having under him a body of people who do not owe any allegiance and are not in any way amenable apparently either to the discipline of the aircraft or vessel but who have to be prosecuted by some other court. So it would be sensible to provide that, where American or other forces were present, either in an aircraft or ship, they should come under the jurisdiction of whoever was the captain so that he would be entitled to maintain discipline over them in exactly the same way as over everybody else. Everyone knows that, both on an aircraft and on a vessel, far stronger powers of command need to be in the hands of the captain than in normal conditions on land. I hope the Home Secretary will look at this matter again, because it is highly undesirable to have in the Bill this provision which may interfere with the normal running of a battleship or aircraft.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton rose——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak by seconding the Amendment. He can speak again only by the leave of the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If I may have the leave of the House, although I have already seconded the Amendment by standing in my place, I shall be most grateful.
    It is, of course, possible to push the principle of extra-territoriality into the air and on to the sea, but it seems to me,
    1630
    in the light of the arguments that have been adduced, to be pushing the principle a little too far. Imagine the ridiculous position that could arise under the Clause as it stands if, for example, as could easily be the case, there might be one or two American soldiers travelling on a British transport where there might be three or four thousand British troops. If any trouble arose, notwithstanding the fact that there might have been only one or two American troops on the transport in question, the jurisdiction of the captain of the vessel, and of the O.C. Troops, would be immediately ousted by reason of the Clause as it stands. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that we are not asking him to make a vast and unreasonable concession when we ask him to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a person shall not be treated as a member of a visiting force of a country if he became (or last became) a member of that country's forces at a time when he was in the United Kingdom unless it is shown that he then became a member of those forces with his consent.
    This Amendment is designed to meet a suggestion which was made in Committee by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). Its effect would be that the courts and authorities of a visiting force would have, under the Clause, no power over a person who was conscripted into the visiting force against his will in the United Kingdom.
    There are related Amendments in Clause 3, page 3, line 36, and in Clause 17, page 15, lines 31 and 38. I hope that this meets the point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the matter.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having accepted our suggestion. The Amendment entirely meets the point that we put in the Committee stage. It is a necessary provision and, as I think we recognised in the Committee stage, it really is an extension of the historic precedent set by Lord Mansfield in Somerset's case.
    Mr. Bing: As one of those who pressed this matter, I express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the Amendment. There is, however, one small point which

    1631
    I wish to query in relation to it. There is some slight difficulty in the wording. I do not know whether, when we make Amendments at this stage, they go back to another place where there is any opportunity of looking at the wording again.
    People who are on the reserve may be members of the forces. Most of us are Z Reservists; we may be members of the Armed Forces who are at the moment simply on reserve. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider, instead of
    "became a member of those forces …"
    the use of some such words as "became embodied in those forces" or words which would record the fact that, although somebody might be a reservist and might be here today, he was not called up when he was outside the country.
    I do not know that it is a very important point, but I call the Home Secretary's attention to it in case it is possible to alter slightly the wording to make it clear that it is the call-up in this country that is involved. Even though a man may be a reservist, like a Z Reservist, and liable to service, he may be technically a member of the forces, as many of us are.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the last Amendment on the Paper deals with that point, but I will certainly look at it again, even though I think it is covered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    () Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, a sentence of death passed by a service court of a country to which this section applies shall not be carried out in the United Kingdom unless under United Kingdom law a sentence of death could have been passed in a similar case.
    It was suggested in the Committee stage that a visiting force should not in effect have power to impose a sentence unknown to United Kingdom law, and particular reference was made to capital punishment. It was suggested that article VII, paragraph 7, of the agreement, which provides that—
    "A death sentence shall not be carried out in the receiving State by the authorites of the sending State if the legislation of the receiving State does not provide for such punishment in a similar case."
    1632
    should be written into the Bill. The Amendment meets the point, and it now will be written into the Bill.
    Mr. S. Silverman: It cannot be denied that the words reproduce the words of the agreement, or something like them, and are ample to read into the Bill the literal terms of the agreement which was negotiated. Nevertheless, it does not afford the protection which the House, I think, would desire, because the words "in the United Kingdom" really take away the whole of the protection.
    It means that with the Amendment drafted in this way, we can use our forces to arrest a man, that on our soil the Queen's Writ shall not run, that the offence shall be tried by a service court within service law and shall attract a capital sentence which is permissible under that law but not permissible under ours. The only thing that the Amendment does is to say that if all those conditions are satisfied, the death sentence may be carried out, but it must be carried out somewhere else. I doubt very much whether the House will think that that is what it intended to ask the Home Secretary to do.
    Limiting the issue to the one point of the capital sentence, if we are excluding the jurisdiction of our own courts and are conferring on foreign courts on our soil a jurisdiction which, but for the Bill, they could not possibly exercise, surely what we want is that in doing that they should not have the power to pass sentences which would be repugnant to our law—not merely that they should have full power to pass sentences which we might regard in our way of looking at things as wholly undesirable and unjustified, but that, having done so, they should take them to Northern Ireland, or to Malta or back home, and carry out the sentence there.
    I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman, whose good will in the matter we all recognise, to consider whether in this form it is worth adding the Amendment to the Bill and whether he ought not to consider—I suppose it could be done now, if the Home Secretary wished, with the leave of the Chair, or, if not, in some other way at some other time—taking out the words "in the United Kingdom." In that event we could ensure that foreign courts on our soil which exclude our own jurisdiction do

    1633
    not in any case pass sentences of death in cases where we ourselves would not do so.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I gather that the Home Secretary had intended to meet the point made in Committee, but I must say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not done so. If it was his intention to meet the point, very considerable criticism could be directed to the form of words used. I concede at once that the points I raised in Committee were twofold; they were concerned both with the death penalty and also with other sentences which at present are repugnant to our law.
    The Home Secretary has said that by attempting to deal with the capital sentence he has introduced words which give precise effect to the strict terms of the agreement. But I am not sure even that is the case. I should have thought that the agreement contemplated that in any country which is a party to it and where capital punishment has been banned the agreement, in its spirit if not in its terms, was intended to provide that the sentence of death would neither be passed nor carried out.
    The effect of the addition of these words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has said, is that a sentence of death could be passed by a foreign service tribunal which had first been able to use the apparatus of our own civilisation by calling British witnesses and so forth, if necessary. If then a sentence of death were passed, on the assumption that capital punishment had been abolished in this country I think the effect of these words would be that the execution would be carried out elsewhere; the man in question would have to be deported and executed outside the jurisdiction of this country. That is not a very desirable thing to propose.
    The phraseology of this Clause strikes me as being rather ambiguous and unsatisfactory in this respect. It says
    "… shall not be carried out in the United Kingdom unless under United Kingdom law a sentence of death could have been passed in a similar case."
    What is meant by "a similar case"? Does it mean a case in which the charge
    1634
    was an identical charge, or does it mean in circumstances which would almost certainly have produced the same result if United Kingdom law had applied? If these words are designed to have the latter meaning, I should have thought that any court or any military authority which attempted to carry out such a sentence without being quite sure that under United Kingdom law the sentence of death would have been passed in a similar case would be taking a very grave risk indeed. It would expose them to the very serious criticism that they had not established that in precise and identical circumstances a sentence of death would have been passed in the ordinary English case.
    I imagine there is machinery available even in the short time before this Bill is sent for the Royal Assent for the Home Secretary to consider the points we are making on this Amendment. Speaking for myself, if he will say that he will be good enough to try to deal with the matter in that way, I think he will be meeting the points we have tried to raise.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: This Amendment makes the most microscopic concession that could have been made to the points we submitted in Committee. All it does is to lay down that a service court can pass a sentence of death on one of the people coming within its jurisdiction whether a sentence of death would have been passed in an English court or not.
    The only restriction to which a visiting force would be subjected as a result of the Amendment is that a service court could proceed just as though this Amendment were not on the Order Paper at all and it could pass sentence of death for any crime whether punishable by it in this country or not, take the unfortunate man on a boat to the three-mile limit, and proceed to carry out the sentence of death it had already decided upon. Sentence of death in those circumstances would not be carried out in the United Kingdom. All that it would be necessary for the service court to do would be to make arrangements for one of its vessels to come to the three-mile limit. It could then take the man, hang or shoot him, or tip him overboard, as the case might be. For those reasons, I do not think that the Home Secretary has made any concession whatever by asking us to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not going to deal with any of these points?
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I speak with the leave of the House. I am afraid I cannot make any approach to the views advanced, because in my view that would conflict with the agreement. This is the limit to which I can go; I am quite willing to consider it from the point of view of whether one can get better phrasing, but I did not think it was worth saying that to the House.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if this remains as it is, people can be sentenced to death on charges which are by no means capital charges in this country? There are two people now in Sing-Sing Prison awaiting execution on charges which, whether they are moved or not, some people think the offences were not committed——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought to ask leave of the House before speaking again. He has already addressed the House on this topic.
    Mr. Silverman: I beg the pardon of the House and I ask leave of the House. I thought I was making a short intervention. I was pointing out that there are two people in Sing Sing awaiting execution on a charge which has never been a capital charge in this country and which, I understand, has never before been a capital charge in peace-time in the United States.
    Surely if the agreement does not provide for this case, we could negotiate an amendment? It is a preposterous thing if a foreign court should be allowed to inflict on our soil capital penalties which would be repugnant to the moral sense of the whole of our community. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to think again about it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3.—(RESTRICTION, AS RESPECTS CERTAIN OFFENCES, OF TRIAL BY UNITED KINGDOM COURTS OF OFFENDERS CONNECTED WITH VISITING FORCE.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move in page 3, line 20, to leave out "was committed in the course of," and to insert:
    "arose out of and in the course of his."
    1636
    This Amendment arises out of a discussion we had in Committee as to whether the expression "in the course of duty" included an offence committed while the offender was on duty although the act constituting the offence was outside the scope of his duty. I submitted that the words did not bear that interpretation, but there was some difference of opinion and it is much better when one can to allay any fears which may exist. Therefore, the drafting has been strengthened by the proposed Amendment. There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 11, page 11, line 11.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I wish to thank the Home Secretary for having put down this Amendment. It substantially meets the point which I made in Committee. The Home Secretary was disposed, in Committee, to take a rather light view of the criticism which we made, but I am personally very grateful to think that, as a result of the discussion we had and his further reflection, he has met our point. I am convinced that in this form the language of the Clause is considerably strengthened. I repeat that, so far as I am concerned, it meets the point that I raised.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    Provided that this subsection shall not apply if at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed the alleged offender was a person not subject to the jurisdiction of the service courts of the country in question in accordance with the last foregoing section.
    As I told the House, this Amendment is related to the Government Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 26. Its purpose is to provide that a person who is conscripted into the visiting forces in the United Kingdom against his will shall not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9.—(SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST VISITING FORCES.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, at the end, to add:
    (2) The said Minister shall take such steps as may be requisite for securing that persons concerned with any arrangements made by him under this section shall be informed of the nature and operation of the arrangements.
    The Government were strongly pressed in Committee to ensure that the arrangements for dealing with civil claims should

    1637
    be made by Order in Council. One of the grounds for this suggestion was that people would not know what were their rights. The Amendment, which obliges the Minister of Defence to notify persons concerned of the nature and operation of the arrangements, does something to meet that point.
    I should like to tell hon. Members interested from that point of view that we hope that one of the methods by which this can be done will be by disseminating to the legal profession, through the medium of the legal journals, as helpful statements as we can.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I thought I noticed that the Home Secretary made only a rather modest claim for the improvement which these words are designed to make in Clause 9. It is perfectly true that the result of the addition of these words is to ensure that the public will know what arrangements are made. The addition of these words does not do anything to meet what was an even greater criticism of Clause 9 as it stands, namely, that as things are there is no method by which Parliamentary control can be exercised over these arrangements. The Amendments to Clause 9 which we had put down on the Order Paper were, as the Home Secretary knows, aimed at going much further than this.
    It is certainly very satisfactory that the public should have full knowledge of the methods whereby they will be able to get adequate compensation in the event of suffering injuries at the hands of foreign service personnel in this country. It is very desirable that such information should be circulated and made available as widely as possible. It is not always easy in existing circumstances for persons who suffer injuries, particularly if they are persons of limited means and perhaps of limited education, to know how to obtain justice for wrongs which have been done to them, very often inadvertently. It is even more difficult for such persons to know how to set about getting any compensation if they have been injured, perhaps in a road accident as a result of some careless, or perhaps not even careless, driving by an American service man, for example.
    6.45 p.m.
    The Home Secretary has said that these arrangements, when made, will be published. I hope that something will
    1638
    also be done—perhaps the Home Secretary will consider how it can be done; it may be done as a result of the passage of this Bill into law or by some other method—so that the public will know that they have the same opportunities of redress if they are injured as a result of accident on the road or elsewhere in which American service personnel are involved as they would have in the case of either British military personnel or British civilians. That is a fact which cannot be too widely known, and if adequate publicity is given to this, it will go a great deal of the way towards meeting the criticisms made in Committee.
    There is a further point which I hope the Home Secretary will be good enough to consider, in the measures which I gather he is responsible for taking—to see that there is better Parliamentary control over all matters of delegated legislation. Here is a case in which I should like the benefit of the advice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he could inform us by what means the House will be able, at the appropriate stage, to offer its comments and advice about the arrangements which the Minister of Defence is to make in pursuance of the powers given to him under this Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has said, I should like to suggest that the Home Secretary or the spokesman for the Ministry of Defence should, when the arrangements contemplated in this Measure are ready, perhaps make a statement in the House for the benefit of hon. Members. That would help to remind us that the Minister of Defence has carried out his work.
    It would enable us to refer to the legal documents, either in the Library or elsewhere, and would give hon. Members an opportunity, if necessary, of putting questions or taking advantage of the procedure that is available in order to ventilate any doubtful points or grievances that appear to be inevitable on the face of the regulations as they may be drafted.
    An announcement might also be broadcast by the B.B.C., because the important thing is to ensure that as many non-legal people as possible are acquainted with this publication or with the arrangements

    1639
    made by the Minister of Defence. I know that whatever steps are taken to notify the public, as we had experience in connection with the War Damage Commission, there are always some people who say that they have never heard about the matter in question or have not been able to find out about it; but in this case, where important questions affecting the lives of ordinary people are involved, every possible endeavour should be made to ensure that the widest possible dissemination of information is embarked upon; and that, in particular, hon. Members of this House should be told, by devices not unknown to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that such arrangements have in fact been made.
    Mr. Bing: There is one further point regarding this question of compensation at which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look. In the course of the discussions, we have had some references to the case of Mr. Cobb. Someone has kindly sent me a full report of this case which appeared in the "Biggleswade Chronicle." I am sure the House will recall that Mr. Cobb was arrested at his work and marched with his hands up for some two miles, and was not very well treated in the process.
    I do not know whether Mr. Cobb's account of the matter is right or not, but it is quite clear that incidents of this sort, and reproduced in this form, create harm to our relations with the United States troops here. Therefore, it is highly desirable that actions of this kind, which would clearly entitle people to compensation; acts which, if done at all, could not possible, I should think, have been justified by the military concerned, should give a right to compensation. I see that in his statement Mr. Cobb says:
    "I want my name cleared and the person responsible punished. I want compensation for going through such an ordeal. I have done no wrong"——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman does not relate to the small point covered by this Amendment, which merely relates to ensuring that publication of the arrangements will be made.
    Mr. Bing: With respect, as I understand the Amendment it provides for publicity of the way in which one recovers sums of money to which one may become
    1640
    entitled as a result of an act by visiting personnel of any sort. The point I was trying to make, and which I hope is relevant, is that while there may be obvious cases—the most obvious are the running-down cases—there are also other cases where people assume that troops are acting within their jurisdiction when, as in this case, clearly they are not. People ought equally to know that they have the opportunity to claim and that this procedure is such that they will get some redress, for what would be a wrongful act if committed by a British soldier or civilian or policeman, and which would entitle them to some recompense.
    I hope that the Home Secretary will not restrict himself to referring to running-down cases and cases of that sort, but will make it clear that there is an opportunity to secure redress for any wrongful act which anyone may think he has suffered, if he can prove that a wrongful act has been committed. It would be much better that matters of this sort should be judged in this way than that accusations should merely be made and left unanswered in the very unsatisfactory way in which the case to which I referred has been dealt with.
    If some kind of claim had been made for compensation, there would have been an issue to hear, and it would have been decided whether the man was right or wrong. Now it is merely a statement not answered from the other side, and we are left in a highly unsatisfactory position. I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with that aspect of the matter, and one or two more general aspects of these running-down cases and the like.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether his Amendment is sufficient to cover the case of making known to members of foreign forces concerned what are their obligations when breach of those obligations might give rise to the kind of case with which this Clause and this Amendment deals? I was referring in particular to the question of making known to foreign service men driving vehicles on our roads the provisions of the Highway Code. If this is a convenient place to ask about it, I will do so; otherwise I will do so on the Third Reading.
    The other day, and again today, reference was made to the case of an American soldier who unfortunately was involved in an accident which caused the

    1641
    death of three British subjects. I have a report of the case, in which the man said he had never been told of the British ban on a heavy lorry exceeding 20 miles an hour, nor had he been given a copy of the Highway Code.
    The most specific assurance on this point was previously given to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and it is that which makes the thing so important now. Under the Bill that we are now passing, the member of the forces would become, as he is not now, answerable in our courts for any breach, and therefore it is extremely important that he be made aware of his obligations. On 5th May, 1952, my hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) asked the Minister of Transport:
    "what steps are taken, in the interests of road safety, especially in rural areas, to ensure that drivers of American military vehicles are acquainted with the British Traffic Code."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 5th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 21.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think this is wide of the Amendment. It does not arise on the topic that we are now discussing.
    Mr. Silverman: It may well be. I do not know whether it does or not. But what the Amendment deals with is making known to persons concerned the details of the arrangements being made for dealing with cases arising precisely out of this kind of thing. It may be that the publication contemplated in this Amendment is only publication to the possible victims. What I am wondering is whether it also covers the case of publication to the possible tort feasor.
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is clear that the arrangements contemplated in the Amendment are arrangements made by the Minister for the specific purpose of enabling people to claim. It would not include such things as the Highway Code, for example, which is not made by the Minister.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With your leave, Mr. Speaker and that of the House, I would say that I am prepared to look at all suggestions for improving the arrangements; and even though it is outside the scope, I would look at the very fruitful suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to see whether we can find some method of
    1642
    giving practical effect to the idea behind his words.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(DEFINITION OF MEMBERSHIP OF CIVILIAN COMPONENT OF VISITING FORCE.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 9, line 24, at the end to insert:
    "not being a passport issued by the passport authorities of the United Kingdom or any colony."
    This Amendment arises out of the Amendment put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and which I accepted subject to drafting. The effect is that a person holding a United Kingdom or colonial passport cannot be accepted as a member of a civilian component.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF PART I.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 11, leave out "was committed in the course of," and insert:
    "arose out of and in the course of his."—[Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.]

    Clause 17.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, in page 15, line 31, to leave out from "country," to "the," in line 33.
    If I may I will address the House on this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment standing in my name to line 38.
    These Amendments are related to the Government Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 26, and in Clause 3, page 3, line 36. Subsection (1) of Clause 17 provides that the forces of a country shall be taken as including reserves and auxiliary forces. This Amendment is to ensure that a reservist shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and authorities of a visiting force as a member of the visiting force unless he is voluntarily called into service or for training. I think that by using the words "actual service," it meets the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bing: If I may say so, the Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is far better than the one I was going to suggest at any earlier stage. It does meet the point completely,

    1643
    and I do not feel that there is any need to look at the other words again, as I originally suggested.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The Amendment still does not meet the point which I made during the Committee stage, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he would look at the matter. This concerns the position of a member of the visiting force who deserted from that force or was absent without leave as far as the commanding officer was concerned, but who, nevertheless, claimed to be a political refugee. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not found it possible to deal with that particular eventuality, which, of course, may not arise frequently, though it is possible that it may arise. However, subject to that expression of regret on my part. I am willing to accept the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 38, at end, insert:
    () For the purposes of this Act a member of a force of any country which (by whatever name called) is in the nature of a reserve or auxiliary force shall be deemed to be a member of that country's forces so long as, but only so long as, he is called into actual service (by whatever expression described) or is called out for training; and any reference in this Act to a person's becoming a member of a country's forces shall be construed accordingly.—(Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe.)
    7.2 p.m.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    We have discussed so many points that I am very anxious to interpret the feeling of the House accurately and not spend too much time at this stage, if that is indeed the feeling of the House, but I think it is right to say that, while this Bill has been before the House, we have all had two main topics uppermost in our minds—the constitutional position of our courts of justice and the rights and liberties of the public. It is these two matters which have animated all the speeches that we have heard, and, if the House will allow me to say so, I think we may take pride that that is so.
    I was very struck with the intervention of the hon. Member for Fulham, East
    1644
    (Mr. M. Stewart) earlier in our discussions today, because his mind was moving in the same direction as my own in estimating the importance of the Bill. I think we must face up to the fact that, as the nations of the free world draw closer for the purposes of defence, we are faced with a situation which to us is quite a novel one in peace-time—the situation of having in our territory contingents of forces of those nations associated with us, and having contingents of our own forces in the territories of some of these other parties. For this new situation new measures are necessary, and the agreement in this Bill constitutes these new measures.
    In framing the agreement, each country, including this country, through the mouths of the right hon. Gentlemen who formed the last Government, has had to balance its sovereignty against the requirements of safety and defence and to design a scheme whereby the needs of visiting forces might be met without damage to the fundamental principles to which each country holds. We have done our best to design such a scheme in this Bill, and we believe that we have done it with the least possible damage to the principles which I have mentioned, namely, the position of our courts and the liberty of the subject. Really, it was right that a Bill of this nature should have been very closely scrutinised, and I welcome the safeguards and restrictions introduced into the Bill during its passage through this House, and the constructive attitude towards the important matters dealt with in it that was shown by hon. Members.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On this side of the House only.
    Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think I have made a fair contribution myself.
    There were one or two points which I desired hon. Members should keep in mind, because I do not think we have been able to give them the full discussion which some hon. Gentlemen would have liked. For instance, there was the question of the civilian component which worried some hon. Members earlier in the debate. If some hon. Members still have a certain amount of worry at the back of their minds on this point, I should like them to distinguish between what I may describe as the Clause 2 civilians and the civilian component.

    1645
    The difference which I have just mentioned is deliberate, because the civilian component is a restricted class consisting of civilians so closely connected with the force as to be reasonably regarded as part of it. The Clause 2 civilians, if I may so describe them, are persons who are subject to service law, and different countries have different provisions in regard to people subject to service law, and, in the case of some countries all civilians who accompany the forces are subject to military law when they accompany the forces abroad.
    I should like the House to know that Clause 2 says nothing on the primary right to jurisdiction. It merely says that, if a civilian is subject to military discipline, the military authorities may exercise their powers over him in this country, but unless such a civilian is classed as a member of this civilian component, he has no exemption from our jurisdiction. I am not sure that that point was made clear, but I am sure it will be reassuring to the hon. Gentleman who raised it.
    I did look again at Clause 11, subsections (2) and (3), on the point put to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and, after consideration, I did not think it necessary to insert an Amendment such as he had suggested, or similar to that which he suggested, in regard to rather more important matters. Broadly, the point which interested him is met by Clause 11 (1), in which we have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, and, once that point has been decided, we did not think there was need to be in a position to interfere further.
    I should also consider the question in regard to Clause 14 (b) which some hon. Gentlemen asked me to consider deleting from the Bill. I would remind hon. Members of the Section of the Army Act which is the one really concerned. If in that particular case it is disputed, provision is made for it; if it is not disputed, is it not of advantage that there should be a simple and practical way in which the British magistrate who is asked to hand over a person as a deserter or absentee should be informed whether, prima facie, and only prima facie, he is a deserter or absentee according to the law that governs him. That only applies where it is not in dispute. If it is disputed,
    1646
    the matter will, of course, have to be gone into. Therefore, I thought it better for it to be done in this way.
    I am sorry that I have not been able to meet to the full extent all the points put by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). However, I think he will agree that I have come some way to helping him in the Amendments to Clauses 2, 3 and 17 which we have just discussed. I have discussed the other matter, but I have found it beyond the ingenuity of man as it runs at the moment. However, I will bear it in mind as an administrative matter and will always keep a watch on the point.
    A question was asked earlier on about the application to overseas territories. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch who on Second Reading raised the question of the application to the Colonies. Although there is no statutory provision, there is an invariable practice to consult with the Governments of the Colonies concerned prior to enactments of this Parliament being applied to them. Of course, the same applies, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows so well, with regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
    I am afraid I have taken these points quite shortly, because I think the House has had them in mind very carefully for some time, but I do not want hon. Gentlemen to think that I have come to this stage without considering them. As I said—and I think this is one of the few points on which I received general agreement from the House—this is a difficult Bill, and I want to remind the House whence comes that difficulty.
    The difficulty arises from the fact that the agreement is one between a number of countries whose laws are, in some respects, widely different, and in international agreements this difficulty of finding a common factor is always present, and in this case it is very acutely present. To give one example of the difficulty I have in mind, article 17, paragraph 1, of the agreement is very much the case in point because practically everyone in this Chamber is now accustomed to the inherent supremacy of the civil courts over all persons within their jurisdiction.
    At first sight they will wonder why it was necessary in the agreement, and why

    1647
    the previous Government allowed it to be introduced into the agreement, that the courts of the receiving State should have jurisdiction over members of visiting forces. That seemed unnecessary to us in view of our concession that the law of a country existed for anyone within its territories.
    It is not in our Bill because there is no need for it for that reason, but it is clear from the fact that it is in the agreement that in other countries even that has to be stated. That is an example of the kind of difficulty that faces negotiators and which I think they overcome.
    This Bill has taken me outside the situation with which a Home Secretary usually has to deal. I had to deal with points as widely different as the American Constitution and apartheid in the Union of South Africa. But, however that may be, I am quite sure that in the course of our deliberations we have improved the Bill, and I am grateful for all the assistance I have received.
    I can well understand why hon. Members have received some of the provisions of the Bill with doubt, but I believe that both the agreement and the Bill in the form it now stands provide a just compromise between the needs of the visiting forces and our fundamental principles, and it is for that reason that I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. Strachey: Having approached the end of our deliberations on this Bill, I want to say, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, how much we have appreciated the Home Secretary's handling of it. He has been unfailingly courteous and diligent, as he always is, and, what is more to the point, he has made to us some very real concessions on particular points. We are very grateful for that flexibility and open-mindedness, and I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in certain particular respects, the Bill is now a better Bill than when it was first presented to us.
    Having said that, however, I am bound to say that I regret all the more that on what is unquestionably the most substantial point of all, that of reciprocity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was
    1648
    really unable to meet us at all in the essence of the matter. For the life of me, I still cannot see why he was not able to met us. If he thinks that the United States Government will not or cannot reciprocate, then surely he cannot deny the need for some sort of provision of the kind we seek to introduce, or for some sort of assurance on the matter. If, on the other hand, he takes the view that the United States Government both can and will reciprocate, then what possible objection can there be to some sort of provision of this sort?
    On either reading of the situation—and I agree at once that both are possible—I find it terribly difficult to understand why he has not been able to meet us in the matter, a really essential matter on which we on this side of the House have asked all along for some assurance.
    I want to say one more thing about it, and to reiterate what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), the predecessor in office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that we strongly rebut any charge that we are urging this for reasons of anti-American-ism of any sort. It is not, for example, that any of us have doubts as to the impartiality and fairness of American courts of law. As a matter of fact, I have very good reason to have very considerable confidence in American courts of law. I dare say I am the only Member of this House who has twice been tried by American courts of law in circumstances which might certainly produce the maximum degree of prejudice.
    I have been tried by them as an alien charged with the crime which in the United States goes by the name of radicalism, which, I hasten to add, is in the American interpretation of that word and not in the interpretation given to it in this country. I say that for the benefit of the Liberal Party were there any of its members present to hear it. Nevertheless, in those circumstances—which are quite a severe test, I think, of the impartiality of courts—my experience was, and it is a personal and therefore a vivid experience, that American courts show a real desire to proceed in the strictest legality.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to give us the dates of those very interesting trials?
    Mr. Strachey: Speaking from memory, they were in 1934 and 1936.
    Mr. Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend think he would get away with it today?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know, but, as I say, my confidence in American courts was considerably reinforced by these experiences because in the New York District Circuit Court of Appeal I won the case. That, of course, makes an effect on one's mind. I had excellent lawyers but I had also, in my opinion, naturally, excellent judges. I say this in all seriousness and not as a joke. I think that anyone who has any dealings with American courts is always impressed, at any rate in the intermediate higher courts, with their great scrupulousness in the strict interpretation of their own legal system and in the learned judgments which are handed down, and their real desire to live up to the best legal tradition.
    I introduce that personal note only to say how my own prejudices and experiences would lead me to judge. Therefore, I do not fear that if we did not secure reciprocity under this Bill our men would necessarily suffer or be likely to suffer injustice at the hands of American courts. I do not think that that is the fear at all. Nevertheless, that does not seem to me any good reason at all for failing to include really watertight conditions of reciprocity in this matter.
    We have heard from the Home Secretary, echoing something said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) that we are doing something quite important here—and I agree with him—making an innovation in principle, introducing new considerations and new machinery in the law of nations. I do not deny the need for all that.
    I think that watertight national sovereignty is no sacred principle, but something which must be modified from time to time in the interest of higher causes. That is quite a possible view to take, but surely it should be done always on a reciprocal basis. It really seems to me very dangerous indeed that one State, a major State—for that, after all, is what we are—should make these very important modifications in the framework of its legal system unless it is really convinced that the other States with whom it is dealing are going to take parallel action.
    1650
    That is the case, in principle, which it seems to me remains unsatisfied.
    To put it in very colloquial language, I object to our doing for other countries things which they are not doing for us. And we have not been satisfied that there is any adequate prospect of the United States, with the best will in the world, being able to do anything really comparable to what is being done here. It may be old-fashioned, but it seems to me that it would be humiliating if a position arose, as I fear, in which United States troops in this country enjoyed a privileged status different from that enjoyed by British troops in the United States.
    That is really the essence in the matter, and assurances against the possibility, if no more—I am afraid the probability—of that situation arising are the assurances for which we have asked, and unfortunately have asked in vain. Therefore, I am bound to say that I still deeply regret that this Bill does not now contain some such words as we have urged from this side of the House or that, alternatively, we have not had some such assurance as that for which we have asked.
    Nevertheless, at this stage we can urge upon the Government that, although we have not had an assurance on this matter, that does not prevent their abstaining from applying the provisions of this Bill, as they can under Clause 19 (2), until and unless they are assured that parallel action is at least well under way in the United States. It is still perfectly open for them to do that, as the Minister recognised fully in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
    There is no inconvenience in that. It does not create any hiatus. They can still abstain from issuing the necessary Order in Council until United States parallel action has come along to the point where we can see that it is going through, where we can see what it is and can see that it is really on all fours with and adequate to balance the action which we are taking here. As our parting word here from the Front Bench on this side of the House we urge that, although they have not pledged themselves to it, the Government should take that action. I cannot help feeling that if they do that they will be interpreting the general opinion of the House.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I want to add only one or two words before we conclude the Third Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to repeat anything of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has said with regard to our great disappointment that the principle of reciprocity with the United States has not found a place in the Bill. It is a little curious to remind ourselves that it is only 10 days ago that we gave this Bill a Second Reading and that during the Committee and Report stages a great many changes have been made in the Bill as a result of the criticism we have made, all of which, as the Home Secretary has acknowledged, have been constructive criticisms intended to improve the Bill.
    Speaking for myself, I acknowledge also the numerous concessions which the Home Secretary has made to the points of view which we have expressed. It is perfectly true that most of these criticisms have been directed to points that have appeared to us of great importance, either because of our long-standing, cherished constitutional usages, or because of our respect for the liberty of the subject. We have, in accordance with our duty, been zealous to protect the country against inroads into our legal and constitutional system.
    Having said that, and having discharged our primary task of criticising and improving this Bill, we must now look at the Bill from another point of view. We must recognise that this Bill which will be given a Third Reading introduces into our legal and social system something entirely novel in time of peace. We should hope certainly that our friends in the United States and elsewhere will not regard any of the criticisms that have been made of this Bill as having been directed in any sense either against the United States itself or against their principles of justice and its administration. The exceptional rights we are giving to the United States Courts are not grudgingly given.
    We are giving this Bill a Third Reading as an earnest of our good will and our desire to do everything we can to ensure the harmonious workings of N.A.T.O., involving as it does the presence of foreign troops in a number of different countries—American troops
    1652
    here, in France and elsewhere, British troops in France and Belgium, German troops and so on.
    It would not be a waste of time if we looked at the effect of this Bill on the large numbers of American troops, their wives and dependants who, as far as one can tell, will find a home in this country for a long time to come. After all they have a difficult task to perform. Their lot is not an easy one. They are absent from their homes. They are a class apart from the ordinary stream of our social life. We are giving them the benefit of these immunities. They are our allies.
    Once this Bill is passed we must not let the subject matter pass from our minds. We must make quite sure that everything possible is done, under the machinery which this Bill sets up, to ensure that it works as smoothly and harmoniously as possible. Cases in which American soldiers are involved in courts-martial, such as the one of manslaughter which has been cited and the incident involving Mr. Cobb, the farmer in East Anglia, are matters which naturally arouse public attention and notices in the Press.
    If these matters which this Bill deals with are going to function smoothly and harmoniously, it seems to me of the greatest importance that British subjects living here who happen to have any cause of complaint should know that there are well recognised forms of redress. It may well be that as the American courts continue to try and punish those crimes committed here for which, under this Bill, they will have exclusive jurisdiction, and in other cases a primary jurisdiction, which they will undoubtedly use, we shall come to recognise the merits of American jurisprudence.
    This is something entirely new in our island history, and it results from the fact that we are no longer in a position to defend ourselves by our own efforts. It results from the conception of the N.A.T.O. Organisation which derives from the fact that in these days no one country in Western Europe can rely entirely upon its own military forces for its self-preservation and defence. Therefore, while I regret, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, that expression has not been given to the principle of reciprocity which we

    1653
    urge, and which I think is of great importance, I hope that in passing the Bill we shall see that it works as harmoniously and smoothly as possible.
    7.33 p.m.
    Mr. S. Silverman: I hope the House will forgive me if I detain it for five further minutes—I promise not to be longer—because I do not want to have to part with the Bill, even on Third Reading, without saying one word that no one else has said, and perhaps with which no one else agrees.
    I agree with two things that have been said, and it is right that I should say so at once. The first is in recognition of the extreme patience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary throughout the Committee and Report stages, and of his willingness and, indeed, his anxiety to meet all the points we raised so far as he felt able to meet them within the limits of the agreement that the Government had negotiated. I think we are all indebted to him for that.
    Secondly, I agree that the Bill is a far better Bill now than it was when it was introduced. Having regard to my own personal point of view, perhaps I ought to put it negatively rather than positively and say that it is not nearly so mischievous a Bill in its present form as it was when it was first introduced. That is partly due to the accommodating spirit with which the Home Secretary has met us.
    But it is true, as has been pointed out—and it is right that the point should be made—that the careful examination of this difficult Bill which the Home Secretary said we had had, and ought to have had, has been limited entirely to Members on this side of the House. Throughout the whole of the Second Reading, I think—I am not quite sure about that, but certainly throughout the Committee and Report stages—I do not think we have had the advantage of a single contribution from any hon. Member opposite at any stage——
    Mr. Ede: Or from the Liberals.
    Mr. Silverman: Or from the Liberals—in the careful, detailed and necessary examination of a difficult Bill involving points of the greatest constitutional importance. It really is a sad reflection upon the lack of responsibility of Members
    1654
    of this House, except my right hon. and hon. Friends. Indeed, it was not because they were not in the House. When it came to defeating in the Division Lobbies Amendments which they had not heard considered or had the opportunity of hearing arguments about, they were here in great force to say "No" to a case which they had never heard and could not have understood. It is a great pity. It is not the way in which a Bill of this kind ought to be dealt with.
    It is all very well when we are dealing with cases in which the two main parties have taken up their known positions so that people who are elected to this House as Members of those parties and committed to those policies can very well say that it is not necessary to hear the same arguments over and over again. But here we are dealing with a House of Commons Bill, a Bill which had no party divisions of any kind, which was equally important to everybody and in which nobody had taken a decision against which he could not argue. This Bill involves points of great difficulty, and it is a sad reflection that they were examined only by Members of the party to which I have the honour to belong.
    The only reason I wish to take up any time on this is that I do not like this Bill now. I am not going to divide the House against it. The number of Members who would take my view about it is certainly very small, and it would not be right to put the House to the trouble of a Division concerning it. But for that very reason I should like to have recorded my own personal opposition to the Bill, even at this stage and even in its present form.
    It seems to me that what my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) said in his admirable Second Reading speech is not fulfilled even as the Bill now is. He said, "Let us do what is necessary, but no more than is necessary, to give effect to the defence arrangements out of which the agreement first, and then the Bill, have arisen." Well, I am bound to say that it seems to me that we could have amended our law, if it required amendment—I suppose in some respects it did—in a much more limited way, and still have given complete authority to foreign forces on our soil with our consent to exercise their own service law in respect of their own

    1655
    service personnel, without all these extra concessions such as the exclusion of the jurisdiction of our courts in a wide variety of matters, which are by no means necessary to give effect to these defence arrangements.
    To say that in cases concerning the use of the roads, the civil courts and crimes against the person, if they happen to arise in the course of military duty, involving people on our soil, the Queen's writ shall not run in our own courts, seems to me to be a hopelessly retrograde step and one only to be undertaken if the defence arrangements which are required could not possibly be carried out without such a step. No one has said that that is the position. No one has said that it is necessary to our defence arrangements, unless what they mean is that the United States of America would not have agreed to all these arrangements except on these terms. But that has not been said, and I do not know whether it would be. We do not seem to have made much of an attempt to find out.
    I am sometimes thought to be anti-American. I am not anti-American. I think that America is a very great and civilised country with a great contribution to make to the progress of civilisation and the peace of the world. I know of many, many people in the United States of America whose opinions are not necessarily those of the particular persons in charge of policy, and it would be absurd to suppose that because one disagreed with a particular policy in particular respects at a particular time of a particular administration one must therefore be actuated by motives of malice or intolerance towards the country concerned.
    I am nothing of the kind. It is perfectly true that I have not always liked American policy since 1945. It is equally true that I have not always liked British policy during that period, and I have not liked the policy of my right hon. Friends in all respects since 1945.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the argument.
    Mr. Silverman: I do not propose to go into the matter any further. I would just say that the mere fact that one does not agree with people about a particular thing does not necessarily amount to
    1656
    being hostile or "anti" in regard to them. I am no more anti-American than I am anti-Socialist.
    Nevertheless it is right that it should be said that we do not all agree that these extensive inroads upon our ancient common law, upon the jurisdiction of our courts and upon the comity of nations—as I think it to be—were made necessary by these defence arrangements, even by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It may be true that nowadays no country can defend itself by its own efforts alone. I take the view that there never was a time when any country in the world could do so. But we did not form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to put that right; we formed the United Nations Organisation—and the Bill could apply to any of the members of that organisation.
    I deprecate such phrases as "the free world" and all similar cant. It seems to me that the more this kind of legislation is adopted by countries the less free the world will become. I do not want to delay the House any longer. I think the House will realise the point I am making. I am sorry that we are passing this Bill. Although I shall not oppose it I think it is unnecessary.
    7.43 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It would be churlish if no one on this side of the House were to acknowledge the graceful tribute which was paid to our efforts by the Home Secretary when he expressed gratitude for the useful and constructive contributions made by the Opposition during the preceding stages of this Bill. In considerable measure that was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
    Nevertheless, if a Labour Government had been in power at the time when this Bill was being brought before the House, I am quite sure that the Conservative Opposition Benches would have been crammed with hon. Members protesting against the action of Her Majesty's Government in selling the pass and giving something away for nothing—or giving something away and not getting an adequate response or reward in return. However that may be, the Bill is to some small extent better now than it was when it was first introduced; but it is a reflection on the unhappy state of affairs that

    1657
    exists in the world when such a Bill as this becomes necessary.
    I should have preferred to concentrate on the causes which bring about a Bill of this kind rather than spend too much time in criticising one of the consequences arising from an unsatisfactory and uncertain international situation. The principle of reciprocity has not been put into effect to anything like the extent that we on this side of the House would have wished to see.
    The Bill we are now asked to accept introduces a novel and, indeed, a revolutionary change in our legal administration. In allowing a Measure like this to go through in peace-time we are making a really big sacrifice of many legal principles that we have hitherto held sacrosanct. It is not too much to expect that some effort should be made by the commanding officers of visiting forces, whoever they may be, to ensure that the men under their command know at any rate some of the elements of English law. That is all the more necessary in view of a recent tragedy, where it was asserted that service men from one visiting country at least did not know that there was such a thing as a 20 miles per hour speed-limit for heavy commercial vehicles.
    There are one or two things of that kind in respect of which we are reasonably entitled to demand that those responsible for commanding visiting forces should make sure their men know something about. In that connection Her Majesty's Government also has a responsibility to discharge. It is surely not unreasonable to expect, for example, that the Minister of Transport should have made it his business a long time ago to see that visiting forces should be acquainted with the elementary principles of the Highway Code. It appears that insufficient steps have been taken in that direction.
    I hope that the recent tragedy and the discussions which have taken place in the House today will lead to a far greater degree of co-operation between our Government and the commanding officers of visiting forces staying in this country for any length of time, as a result of which we can be quite sure that some of the elmentary things which the average citizen here knows almost instinctively—or can find out quite easily—are also made
    1658
    known to those who come here for a temporary period either as members of visiting forces or as tourists.
    We are now parting with this Bill, but it may still be possible for the Home Secretary—although he was not able to give any guarantee on the subject of reciprocity—to use the powers that will be vested in him as a result of the passing of this Bill in such a way as to bridge one further gap, namely, that which may exist chronologically between our adoption of this Bill and the similar action that will, we trust, be taken by the American and other Governments concerned.
    7.49 p.m.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): It would not be courteous for me to refrain from saying one or two words in reply to the debate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would like me to say a word of thanks on his behalf for what has been said about his work in connection with this Bill. The House might allow me to add my own personal tribute because, although I have not taken very much part in the discussions, I have sat here during the 15 hours during which this Bill has been before the House and have also taken part in discussions outside the House, and I can assure hon. Members that the time, thought and patience which the Home Secretary has devoted to this Bill are very great.
    It is, I know, difficult for us from this side of the House to say that the Bill has been greatly improved during its passage—although, perhaps, it is not so difficult, for, after all, we in this House believe that that is why we are here. We therefore pay proper tribute to the Opposition for doing what I hope they will not mind my saying is their job.
    Mr. S. Silverman: With little help from hon. Members opposite.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that because he has to get in a party dig somewhere, and I suppose he was glad to be able to find somewhere in which there would be unity on his side of the House. In fact, it would be difficult to suppose that anybody on this side of the House could have added to the diversity and ingenuity of the points which were raised.

    1659
    We were unable to satisfy right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite about the reciprocity point. I do not propose to fall into the trap of returning to the vomit on the subject, but I think it desirable to point out that it was asking a great deal of the Home Secretary—we venture to think that it was asking too much—to suggest that he should be prepared to give such an assurance, particularly in the circumstances which we have heard and having regard to the quite strong remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who told us of his knowledge on the subject; I am not sure whether he said he was one of the greatest living experts on American law, but at any rate he said he was an expert on American law. He said he had a fellowship, and I hope that in order to get a fellowship in that subject, if it is worth having, one has to be an expert in it. In view of what he said, I should have thought that to ask the Home Secretary to certify that the United States were about to ratify something, or to put something into operation, was asking too much. At any rate, that is the view which we have taken.
    I want, if I may, to draw attention to the brighter side of the question. There is no doubt whatever that there is a substantial benefit in the Bill in the substitution of the new provisions for those of the Act of 1942. I think we are all agreed about that. Indeed, although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was apparently using the illustration for a different purpose, it was interesting that he underlined the point very strongly today, when he pointed out that in the recent case which he quoted, the man responsible appeared to have been guilty of several other offences apart from the offence of which he was found not guilty by the court-martial, and that those were offences under our law; for he should be glad to know that if this Bill had been applied in that case, it would have been possible to deal with the man under our law for the offences for which he
    1660
    could not be dealt with under his own law.
    Mr. Silverman: I said that.
    The Attorney-General: But I did not gather that it was being used by the hon. Gentleman as something in favour of the Bill.
    Mr. Silverman: I said in my speech that that was the case and I added that it was one of the effects of the provisions of the Bill which we are discussing which was, in fact, an improvement on the old provisions.
    The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and that is at any rate something on the credit side of the Bill. I think that probably the less I say on the subject, the better, because I might say something which would mar the harmony of the proceedings. In spite of the provocation which we have received from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, I will leave the subject.
    May I, in conclusion, refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart)? When the historian of the future comes to consider the Bill, I hope and believe that he will not concentrate his attention so much upon its provisions, which in many respects are an unfortunate necessity, but will concentrate his attention upon the occasion of the Bill, which is the implementing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which we all regard as something vital.
    This occasion gives us an opportunity to show once more that, although we may have disagreements with them and may criticise them, and although sometimes things may be said about them which may be misunderstood, we are all nevertheless anxious to co-operate with our American cousins and to do great work for the world in combination with them.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [Lords]

    Clause 5.—(EXEMPTIONS FOR NONCOMMERCIAL EXHIBITIONS.)
    7.56 p.m.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "or by any organisation which has been approved by the Education Authority and in respect of which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have certified that the organisation is not conducted or established for profit."
    I think I need not apologise for having handed in this Manuscript Amendment, for it follows conversations and the discussion which we had on the Committee stage on this point. On that occasion the Home Secretary was good enough to say to me, as reported in column 1489 of the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    "… if the hon. Gentleman would care to put down an Amendment again for the Report stage I will look into the matter specifically."
    The reason I put down the Amendment for further consideration, and in the hope that the Home Secretary will find it acceptable, is that although he gave specific views as to why I should withdraw it in Committee, I notice, on looking at the matter very carefully, that he is reported in column 1488 as having said this:
    "If an organisation such as the hon. Gentleman has described—the example I had in mind was a youth club, a film society, a church organisation, or, of course, the organisation he mentioned"—
    and the organisation which I mentioned was the N.C.C.C.C.—
    "gives similar shows for children, such shows would not be subject to licensing simply because the children are members of a club, society, or association."
    And then he said these important words, which have caused me to put my Amendment down again—
    "provided that its objects are wider than attendance at cinema exhibitions."
    Later, as reported in column 1489, the Home Secretary again did his best to reassure me, and when I ask whether there would be any difficulties, he said:
    "I cannot see any. I am told there would not be. I do not want there to be any doubt about it at all. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1488–89.]
    I have been advised that there may be doubts about it, and that, if there is,
    1662
    what would happen would be something like this—that the very type of children's club which we wish to encourage would find difficulties put in its way. I need not go into this at length, because we discussed the matter at length on Friday. The typical examples are those of the Stoke-on-Trent club, which is specifically mentioned and praised in paragraph 111 of the Wheare Report, and the type such as the Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council.
    The reason why we feel they may fall outside the range of exempted organisations is this. The wording in the subsection ends as follows:
    "as part of the activities of an educational or religious institution."
    I am advised that the group of teachers who are responsible for the Northern Counties Children's Cinema Council could not in themselves be considered as an education institution, for they are a body of private citizens with special knowledge of children's needs. Indeed in Stoke-on-Trent, although the Council is formed by the Director of Education, some members of the Education Committee, and teachers and parents and senior children from a number of schools—prefects—they cannot be considered part of an educational institution.
    8.0 p.m.
    It is reassurance, therefore, on this point that we are seeking, knowing full well that the Home Secretary would do nothing—none of us would ever do anything—to prevent the extension of the work of the people who know most about the children, and whose work has been highly commended by the Wheare Committee. In fact, in this Bill we have had to develop the safeguards for our children; but we do not want to hinder anything positive for the good of the kind of activity they need.
    Dr. Horace King: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth): As Clause 5 (2) stands, a cinema show specially organised for children who are members of a club would always be an exempted exhibition if it was part of the activities of an educational or religious institution, or if the purposes of the club were wider than the narrow purpose of attendance at cinematograph exhibitions.

    1663
    The hon Member, I see, agrees with that. The intention of the subsection is to ensure that children's cinema clubs run by commercial exhibitors do not escape licensing control, and this, I can assure the hon. Member, will be made clear in the advice which the Home Secretary will give to the licensing authorities when the Bill becomes law.
    In his speech the other day, and also, I think, today, the hon. Member referred to the activities of the Northern Counties Cinema Council and other organisations of teachers, parents and children who put on special cinema shows and have regular meetings for the benefit of young children, and he has described the objects of these organisations as essentially educational. I think that is the effect of what he has said.
    I can assure the hon. Member that there really seems to be no doubt at all that the wording of this clause as it stands now would not deprive shows organised by such organisations of the exemption which is desired. I can give him a firm assurance. If the position is as he states it, the wording of the Clause is adequate for the purpose needed. Indeed, it is hard to think that there would be any children's cinema club, except those run by commercial exhibitors, which would not have a wider object than attendance at cinema exhibitions or be connected in some way with activities of an educational or religious institution.
    It does not, therefore, seem necessary to make any further Amendment to the Clause, but, beyond that, there is some objection to the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, as it might give the impression that it was necessary for any organisation other than a religious or educational institution to obtain a special exemption from the education authorities and it does not seem necessary, I think the hon. Member would agree, or desirable to put it to this trouble. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: May I put a question before the hon. Gentleman sits down? There is a kind of marginal case which, I think, is illustrated by a church cinema in Edinburgh—the Gateway Theatre, they call it. I am not quite sure whether that can be described as being used for other
    1664
    purposes except entertainment. I understand the purpose of it to be to put on films, shows—theatre shows—of a kind free from any objections whatsoever either for adults or children, and also entertainment which is to have a moral purpose; but it is run, I think, on semi-commercial lines, and it would appear to me, from what the Joint Under-Secretary of State has said, that that would not be subject to any exemption at all. I take it it would come in the ordinary cinema regulations?
    The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly know about the particular case, but I can see in the future the church may decide to set up some sort of cinema entertainment in order to get round the difficulty that this Bill is trying to get round, namely, to provide entertainment for children as free from any objection at all—children's entertainment for church development—and charging commercial entrance fees. I take it it would be subject to the same conditions as the ordinary cinema?
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would hesitate to give the right hon. Gentleman or the House an undertaking on a particular case of which I have not seen the particulars, and I really am anxious not to say anything to take the matter further, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the words of the Clause and what I have said. It is intended to cover, and, indeed, does cover, the specific case of an educational or religious institution, or the case where the purposes of the club are wider than the narrow purpose of attendance of cinematograph exhibitions. It may be that the case the right hon. Gentleman has referred to would fall clean within those latter words, but I could not give him a specific answer without detailed knowledge of the facts.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for raising this matter. When we dealt with it on the Committee stage it seemed to me from what was said on both sides of the Committee—even what was said by the Home Secretary—that there was some doubt here as to whether this type of organisation, excellent in itself and doing wonderful work, would or would not come within the four corners of this subsection, and it turned, in our view, on the emphasis to be placed on the word "institution."

    1665
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State has made it quite clear to the House that the Home Secretary—and, I take it, also the Secretary of State for Scotland—will make it perfectly clear to the licensing authorities that this type of organisation, these clubs, others similar, will be taken care of whether we put these words into the subsection or not.
    At first I was inclined to think, if the Joint Under-Secretary of State thought the words were covered, and that it was the intention that this should be done, that there was every reason to make this entirely clear, and that the words put down in the Amendment might be included, but, on reflection, I think what he has said has a good deal of weight in it, and, therefore, so far as I am concerned, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central may see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Joseph Reeves: There is one word I should like to say on this aspect of the Bill. First of all, let me say how glad we are that the interpretation we hoped would be placed on this Clause has been officially placed upon it. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) may not know it, I was personally associated with this experiment that was held in that part of England in the early days. I remember that the purpose of the scheme was not only to provide exhibition films but to create some measure of film appreciation among the younger people. We hear of classes for the appreciation of literature, music and other arts, but we do not organise courses in the appreciation of films.
    Educational bodies ought to be doing this. People ought not to go to the films by habit merely because that is their type of entertainment. They ought to be discriminating and select their films. I hope most hon. Members go to see a film because they want to see it and not merely because it is being shown at a particular cinema. Children ought to be taught to be discriminating. Co-operation among local authorities, teachers and parents in this respect is valuable educational work. I am delighted to have had opportunities in days gone by of being associated with this work.
    We are exempting societies for adults, and it is proper that societies involving children should also be exempted. I am
    1666
    very glad that this broad interpretation has been given to the Clause.
    Dr. Stross: In view of the assurances which have been given to us, if I had any doubt about the meaning of those words I should be lacking in understanding of Parliamentary language. I am delighted to have had further assurances that those who know best what our children need at different ages can go forward with their experiments in positive treatment. This is not merely the negative treatment of preventing children from seeing unsuitable films, but of enabling children to see films which are suitable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    8.13 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): In speaking to this Motion, I should like to assume the pleasant duty of thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House for their helpful and constructive approach to the Bill. We had a most useful debate in Committee last Friday. I should like to refer to one or two points which I then promised to consider further.
    The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) expressed some concern about the proviso to Clause 5 (3). He thought it might interfere with the activities of film societies and other noncommercial organisations. I have considered this matter very carefully, and I do not think there is any real cause for alarm. The proviso relates only to exhibitions to which the public pay for admission: most film societies do not throw their shows open to the public, and very few of them would wish to give as many as three performances in a week. For shows to members, or to which the public are admitted without payment, there is no limit to the number which can be given in a week.
    Where an organisation gives regular cinema shows consisting of entertainment films in no way connected with the objects of the organisation, and where money is taken at the door from members of the public, the dividing line from ordinary commercial shows is very narrow. The

    1667
    Government are satisfied that this provision is necessary, both in the interests of public safety and to prevent the exemption being misused for purposes for which it is not intended. We do not think there is any danger that it will interfere with the legitimate activities of film societies.
    I would like to tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that I was going to deal with his point in the remarks which I am making on the Third Reading, but as he put down an Amendment, and as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has dealt with it, I do not think the hon. Member needs any further reassurance.
    Perhaps I might for a moment enter the wider sphere. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley criticised the Government in a very friendly way for having failed to introduce this Bill in such a perfect form that it would require no Amendment at all. On reflection, he may think his criticism was a little severe. I readily acknowledge that the Bill has been improved by the Amendments made to it in Committee, but its main structure has not been greatly altered. The only Clause to which many Amendments have been made is Clause 5, and even here the House has accepted the general principles on which the Clause was drafted.
    It has always been the intention of the Government that film societies, religious bodies and other non-commercial organisations who use films as a means of educational propaganda should be free from licensing control, except where control is necessary for reasons of public safety. Apart from the fact that such organisations will no longer be subject to any safety control unless they give their shows in licensed cinemas, there has been no important change in the proposals of the Bill. The discussion in Committee showed very clearly that in this matter, as always, whether discussing visiting Forces, cinemas or practically any subject to which we may turn, there is a conflict between freedom of expression and the danger that freedom will be abused—a conflict which it is not easy to resolve.
    It is one of the few consolations in introducing Bills into the House, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will fully realise, when the Government's proposals are criticised from both directions
    1668
    as being too liberal and too restrictive. I hope there will be general agreement that the Amendments made to the Bill hold the balance fairly between those two extremes. If that is so, we need not feel that the time we have given to consideration of the Bill has been wasted.
    I hope hon. Gentlemen will not misunderstand me when I say that is an example of something at which this House is particularly good when dealing with a subject which is not a first-class political matter and concerns the daily lives of ordinary people. We can get together, pool our knowledge and critical faculties, and work out something which we hope will resolve the problem that our constituents have tacitly set us.
    8.20 p.m.
    Dr. Stross: If, by what he has said to us, the Home Secretary wished us to understand, that this House is greater than any party that has ever sat in it—then we all agree. When this Bill came to us we were not happy about some of its provisions, but by now, with the help of hon. Members from all sides of the House, it has become vastly improved. Between us we have been able to remove some of its original anomalies.
    I think we are all agreed that the Bill is now a good one. If it suffers from anything, it is from the handicap of its original birth, for it attempted to do two diverse things. It attempted to protect children on the one hand and, on the other, to do something connected with the change-over from inflammable films to non-inflammable films. The complications and anomalies which seemed to be present in the Bill were due to attempting to remedy two defects in one short Measure.
    As the Home Secretary mentioned on the Second Reading, there were four main recommendations of the Wheare Committee. Three of them are now well covered and without any distress to any citizen. The fourth, which was not accepted, was that a central committee on children and the cinema should be established in order to classify films in the interests of children. We have not included that and, I think, quite rightly. The voluntary organisation, the Consultative Committee, with its sub-committee, which has upon its board people with special knowledge in the handling of

    1669
    children's films, is a better setup than any central organisation could ever be.
    Quite rightly, we in this House are always afraid of giving too much power to the executive or any central authority. This Bill gives us sufficient safeguards to enable us to swallow a dish which is unpalatable to all of us, namely censorship of any kind. So we are left with the fact that the Bill, as far as it goes, is a good one. But however good the Bill may be by now, it is fair to say that it is still negative. It offers protection without doing anything decisive in the way of a positive remedy for the need which we all have in mind.
    In my own division we know from experience that when we ask for films suitable for children we get them in the ratio of about one to six. The reason is not far to seek. It is because there are not enough films for children available and, until there are, we shall never be successful in solving the problem we have been discussing. The sum of £100,000 is not enough, and I hope I am not out of order when I say that if we had an extra £60,000 it would be possible to have an opera film for children which would be unique and which would give joy to each successive generation of children. Benjamin Britten is ready to write the score. The libretto is ready. The Children's Film Foundation would give almost anything in the world to receive this little extra gift.
    On that note, perhaps I had better sit down. May I conclude by saying that we are all grateful for the courteous consideration which we have received from the Home Secretary?
    8.24 p.m.
    Mr. Norman Cole: I want to endorse what has been said at greater length by various hon. Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has drawn attention to the fact that there have been two parts to this Bill. Let me put them in a different order. The raison d'etre for this Bill at the present time has been mainly the change to the use of noninflammable film. The children's part has come in as a necessary part, not as the main part.
    As we are legislating not only for the present but also for the future, we have to remember the effect of films on
    1670
    children for good or ill. I do not want to exaggerate either the good or the ill. As regards the films which we hon. Members of the House of Commons see, it was inferred that we have so little time that we are rather more selective than to go merely as a habit. The remedy lies in the hands of the parents and children in selecting films. If films are not attended because of their poor quality, in due course the film producers will give us better films. As a filmgoer for 35 years I know that is happening. Over the years the public have become more selective, and that is why we have a better standard of films today than we had 35 years ago and have films for children which were largely unknown then.
    I want to pay tribute to what has been done by the film producers, particularly by large organisations, to meet the special needs of children. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) said on Second Reading, they need assistance in carrying out this project either by guidance or by financial help. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central also said that we cannot have adequate showings for children in this country until there is a sufficient supply of the appropriate films. A number of cinemas in London show interest films and cartoons, but those give a limited supply and we must apply our minds to the producing end as well as to the viewing end.
    What this Bill is doing, and what has been done in the film world up to now, has been a compromise. We have had various stages. We now have the Universal film which is regarded as being suitable for children as well as adults. All the time we are working to the end of having a children's film of "C" category. We cannot go on indefinitely with the compromise of allowing children to go to Universal films merely because they have the magic letter "U" attached to them. We must have special children's films just as we have special children's books.
    Let me point out the analogy of the theatre. The theatre has had a longer impact than the film upon the public and the children; it has brought about its own solution to this difficulty. One of the greatest theatre arts in the world today is in the form of pantomime, and here, I suggest, is the answer to the hon.

    1671
    Member for Southampton, Test. The pantomime is the family entertainment, both for adults and for children. I look forward to the day when we shall have something of the same character in the film world to which all can be taken with safety.
    This Bill of 1952, like the Bill of 1909, deals with the position as it stands. It still leaves out many matters which I should like to see included a regarding the welfare of children. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), during the Second Reading, remarked that:
    "if their children go to the cinema under the conditions laid down they can have reasonable grounds for believing that no great harm will happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 929.]
    The right hon. Gentleman was talking then of physical harm on the grounds of safety, but equally important is the question of the moral, mental and spiritual harm.
    I speak with some knowledge of this matter when I say that we need have very little fear of responsible cinema owners not paying proper attention to safety precautions. It is in their own interests that they should have safety. No cinema owner wants a fire—it is bad for business, bad for public opinion, and bad for the industry. But what it is not always possible for them to see to, and what it is our duty as the House of Commons to consider, is the spiritual harm which may result from the wrong kind of film being shown.
    Therefore, I welcome very much what my right hon. and learned Friend has offered in the way of consultation. As in all other matters, he has been most helpful in this, and I pay tribute to him. At the same time, I look forward to the day, within the foreseeable future, when we shall have a Cinematograph (Children) Bill, which will be directed not only to the protective side of the welfare of children, but will give due attention to an objective understanding of what we must provide for children in the film World.
    8.32 p.m.
    Dr. King: This is a useful little Bill, and as a contribution to the great problem of providing the children with healthy and good entertainment, I am
    1672
    sure that everybody in the House welcomes it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has said, however, the Bill is a negative Bill. It is a skeleton which has to be given flesh and become a body. If we take from it its merely negative character, I think that the Home Secretary and the local authorities will be able to do that if they use their powers under Clauses 2 and 4 to create wise and positive regulations.
    I hope that the passing of the Bill will be taken by the local authorities as an inspiration and an opportunity to imitate the example of Stoke-on-Trent and the northern counties in setting up children's cinema committees in various parts of the country in order to tackle this question. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Reeves) was right when he said last week that we needed a second Bill. I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) re-echo that we need a children's cinema Bill.
    Some of us are distressed because the Minister proposes to set up only the Children's Advisory Committee that he has mentioned, and we regret the failure to carry out what we regard as one of the vital parts of the Wheare Committee's Report—the setting up of a central committee on children in cinemas. It may be, however, that we are wrong, and that under the Bill we shall yet be able to create, both nationally and locally, bodies keenly interested in children which will make a positive approach to the various questions that we have raised during the debates on the Bill.
    I sincerely congratulate the Home Secretary on the skill and kindness with which he has taken the Bill through the House. We are very pleased with it indeed.
    8.34 p.m.
    Mr. Peter Legh: In the midst of the general satisfaction that the Bill is almost on the Statute Book, it is only right that, before we give it the Third Reading, tribute should be paid from the back benches on this side of the House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for the courtesy and charm he has shown in piloting the Bill through its various stages. When we reflect upon the

    1673
    remarkable patience that my right hon. and learned Friend has shown, we should remember that in the last 10 days or so he has had to spend what must have been for him a formidable number of hours upon the Front Bench. So far as this Bill is concerned, he has not only been charming, courteous and accommodating, as indeed he always is, but he has also, almost without exception, either accepted or met every point which was put to him by hon. Members who thought they knew how the Bill could be improved.
    I think I am perhaps the only person who did not get all he wanted; nevertheless I want to express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for the assurance he gave me in Committee that any safety regulations made under this Bill in respect of commercial exhibitions of non-inflammable films in unlicensed premises, such as village halls, are unlikely to be much more strict than the regulations which already apply when those halls are used for public music, dancing or theatrical entertainment.
    That assurance was very welcome, and I am quite confident that so long as my right hon. and learned Friend and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State remain in charge of the Home Office—and we all hope that will be a very long time—they will watch over and safeguard the interests of the small travelling cinema operators who go from village to village exhibiting commercial noninflammable films in the local halls, thereby giving a great deal of simple pleasure to the inhabitants of those villages.
    8.37 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Home Secretary, as we all realise, has had a very busy day. On the Bill which preceded this an enormous number of bouquets were flung at his feet. I should like to feel I also had an opportunity to cast a few modest violets in the same direction, but I am very inclined to divide my bunch and distribute some of them to hon. Friends behind me. It is quite obvious to those of us who have sat through the debates on this Bill that if it had not been for the Amendments put down, in the main but not entirely, by hon. Members on this side of the House, we should not have made the Bill as good as it is. The Bill has had a very easy
    1674
    passage, far easier than it would have had if perhaps it had been another Minister in charge on the other side.
    There is something about the right hon. and learned Gentleman which does predispose us on this side of the House to assist him when he is putting a Bill through. If I had to analyse the reason, I would say that he is extremely forward-looking for a Conservative in matters of this kind. We found when we came to talk to him that he saw that our proposals were things which should go into the Bill. We are very grateful to him for his courtesy, for the assistance he has given and the acceptance he has accorded to the Amendments moved by us and spoken to, I freely admit, by some hon. Members opposite.
    But for our combined efforts on this Bill and the willingness of the Home Secretary to meet us this would have been a quite shocking Measure and a disgrace to the Statute Book if it had remained in the form which it came to us from another place. It attempted to bring the law up to date so far as safety conditions were concerned due to the changeover in the commercial cinema by users of the 35 mm. film from inflammable to noninflammable film and thus to put them outside the licensing regulations and conditions provided for in the 1909 Act. Therefore, as we have all realised, something had to be done.
    The most interesting part of this Bill to all of us has been, I think, the provisions made to include in it some of the recommendations at least of the Wheare Report. When all is said and done, so far as the Wheare Report is concerned, the Bill is little, if anything, more than an enabling Measure. On this side of the House we shall most certainly look forward to the regulations which are to be promulgated in due course. Still more shall we be interested to watch the effect on the attendance, the health and the welfare of the children who go to the cinemas.
    One of the good things that has come out of this Bill so far as we on this side of the House are concerned has been the very ready promise of the Home Secretary not to let things remain here. He has made a promise, if he remains in his present position long enough—we have grave doubts about that—to see that a newer and better Bill dealing entirely with

    1675
    children and their attendance at cinemas is, introduced. I am positive that when that Measure comes before us we shall all, regardless of party, welcome it if it does what we all want to see it do, namely, to implement the recommendations which the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Professor Wheare has suggested.
    We welcome this Bill so far as it goes. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for the reception he has given our Amendments and I am also grateful to my own party for the way in which it has helped, and materially helped, to make what I consider to be a poor Bill into something worth while. We shall watch with the utmost interest the effect of the regulations which will become possible under the Act, quite certain that if the Home Secretary carries out his promise to consult the various interests which are affected, we shall in them secure something of benefit to the children not only of this country and Wales but also of Scotland.
    8.43 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: It would be a pity if the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) were allowed to escape with the suggestion that his friends and his friends alone had been responsible for the attention and consideration given to, and in some cases the improvements made in, this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say so."] He did not say so in actual terms but he certainly claimed the lion's share of the credit, I think with a certain amount of ungenerosity to people who put in a good deal of work on this matter.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We did miss the presence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman here on Friday, when the real work on this Bill was done. We felt that as he had put his name to certain Amendments the least he should have done was to have been here to help to argue them before the Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was precisely on that point in relation to the right hon. Gentleman's exceedingly ungenerous reference that I wish to speak for a few moments.
    I think it is generally accepted in the House that engagements in one's constituency have to be carried out, and there are
    1676
    many occasions upon which those duties and our duties here clash. If we attacked the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends on every occasion on which they were attending to their duties in their constituencies instead of being present at all stages of the passage of a Bill through the House, we might have to animadvert pretty severely on their conduct.
    I simply say this, that we did bring certain points to the attention of the House on Second Reading and that those points were further put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) speaking for all of us, which fortunately we can do on this side of the House. We were able to put certain points with sufficient force to impress the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and to obtain from him what we considered were useful and valuable concessions. There was, in particular, the concession when he said that he would not expect Scottish cinemas to
    "… impose the 'A' film Regulations in Scotland until the Committee had reported, because the Committee may well report that there should not be such a condition at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 1464.]
    That seemed to us a useful concession which was not obtained by pressure from that side of the House but from this side.
    Although I wish to tender my apologies to the House for a clash of engagements, I think it is accepted on all sides that a clash of engagements between constituency work and work in the House——
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not return to that.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to return to it at all. I was merely animadverting on the somewhat excessive claims made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley on behalf of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends as to the moulding effect they have exercised on the Bill. This has not been a party Measure and moulding has been exercised, I think rightly and properly so, by hon. Members on both sides. We on this side of the House are only too willing to pay tribute to the kindly and forthcoming attitude of the Home Secretary and his colleagues in charge of the Bill, and it is right that testimony should be offered from both sides of the House today.

    1677
    It is a difficult problem and does not raise a purely party issue. It is difficult to deal with the problem of the young and the effect of many powerful dangers turned upon them at the outset of their careers. It may be that we shall find ourselves having over-safeguarded the young, in that there is always a danger that they may bolt violently away to some more extreme sources of information about the facts of life than those we are willing to offer to them. I tremble to think of what would happen if the young really began to read the plays of Shakespeare or some of the editions of "The Arabian Nights." It is not the easiest thing in the world to deal with this matter, and I am sure we shall get no further if we approach it on a party basis.
    We welcome the Bill so far as it goes. We consider that at some points it could have been improved, as I said on Second Reading and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark said when he was putting forward our case. We hope these matters will be further considered when the operative parts of this Measure are submitted for our further consideration.
    8.50 p.m.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would wish me to thank hon. Members for the things which have been said about him during this short debate. It has been positively uncomfortable to be sitting on this bench in the rain of bouquets which were descending. I am glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was able to throw one last bouquet—as I understood it to be—at my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
    I do not think there is anything in the debate that calls for a reply. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) described the Bill as having been a shocking Bill as it arrived in the House. I think possibly that was rather strong language. It has not been fundamentally altered, though I quite agree that it has been altered and improved as the result of the efforts of all parts of the House; but the Bill itself is still very largely on the same broad lines as when it first came before the House.
    1678
    The debate has been concerned mainly with the future administration of the Bill, and perhaps I may say this finally. Everything that hon. Members have said in all parts of the House will be carefully noted, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do his best to see that the Bill proceeds in the future with the same co-operation from all those interested in this matter.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the protection of employees against risks of poisoning by certain substances used in agriculture, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister in carrying out that Act.

  AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [Lords]

    Clause 1.—(PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES AGAINST RISKS OF POISONING.)
    8.52 p.m.
    Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, at the end, to insert:
    (j) requiring persons to undergo medical examination prior to exposing themselves to contact with a substance and requiring workers to undergo regular periodic examination to ensure that dangerous quantities of toxic substance have not accumulated in their bodies.
    This Amendment is concerned with two simple points. First, that there should be a medical examination before men should be called upon to carry out the class of work mentioned in the Bill, and second, that provision should be made for periodic examination. We believe that specific mention should be made of these two points in the Bill, in order that the regulations which may be issued cover fully the matters about which we are concerned.

    1679
    On the first point, that of examination for fitness before undertaking this work, this is a matter upon which we place some importance. I make no pretence of having any medical knowledge at all, but it does appear to me that some men will have a greater susceptibility to the class of poisons that will be used and are being used in agriculture than will other men.
    We know that there are two ways in which, particularly, people get an accumulation of these poisons into their bodies. One is by inhalation and the other by absorption through the skin, and we have wondered whether men who were gassed in the war or men suffering from chest complaints of any kind, or others suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis, might not have a greater susceptibility to the inhalation of these poisons than men who are not so affected.
    The second point concerns absorption through the skin, and it would seem to me, at any rate, to be the case that men suffering from certain skin diseases might be very much more susceptible to these poisons by absorption through the skin than is the case with persons whose skin is perfectly healthy. If this is the case, if there are indeed men whose skin conditions are such that they ought not to be made subject to close contact with these sprays, then that fact should be found out before they actually begin work. That is why we suggest in this Amendment that all men who have to use these sprays should be carefully medically examined before they are allowed to work either for a contractor or a farmer, in the use of the poisonous sprays mentioned in the Bill.
    This leads me to the second point, which is that here we are asking that provisions should be made in the Bill for regular periodic medical examinations. We want the Minister to be rather more specific about it than he is in paragraph (f) of subsection (3), under which he might, in fact, make regulations. I think, however, that we ought to be a little more specific than is the Minister in that subsection.
    Representations on this point particularly were made to the Zuckerman Committee. They have reported upon it, but the representations, which I imagine came particularly from the trade unions concerned, were to the effect that medical
    1680
    supervision should include routine medical examinations at weekly intervals with the suspension of workers who show any trace of early toxic symptoms, and also expert supervision of first-aid and prophylactic measures.
    There is undoubtedly a case to be made that the greatest danger lies in an accumulation of these poisons over a period. They have a cumulative effect, and for that reason we think there should be these regular periodic examinations made of the workers concerned and that a provision to this end should be contained in the Bill itself so that when this Measure becomes an Act the Minister will make regulations under this head to cover the point.
    We ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, which is designed to add to the safeguards which we recognise already appear in the Bill in its present form. It is, of course, a Bill which we welcomed on Second Reading, but we think that by accepting this Amendment the Minister will improve the Bill and will add to those safeguards which we all want to afford to the men who have to come into contact with these poisonous sprays.
    Mr. Denys Bullard: I wish to say a word about this Amendment from the farmer's point of view. I can readily see the force and importance of regular medical examination of men who are employed by contractors and who are doing this type of work for a considerable period, but I think we ought to have a sense of balance on the question. I quite admit that these are highly dangerous chemicals. However, I am one of those who believe that they are of extreme use in agriculture and that we ought to be very sure that we are not imposing an unnecessary damper upon their use.
    These chemicals, which in the one case are used against the aphides, which in their turn are carriers of the virus diseases from which plants suffer; and, in the other, the D.N compounds, which are so useful in weed control not only D.N.O.C., but the ones used for controlling weeds in pea crops, are extremely useful in agriculture. I am wondering how far what this Amendment proposes could be carried out, and if it would be desirable.
    I will give one specific instance. I have used these organo-phosphoric compounds

    1681
    against aphides on strawberries where they are the cause of virus diseases which are the strawberry grower's main trouble. The quantities used are very small indeed, probably only a matter of a few pounds or perhaps less of the compound per acre per year.
    9.0 p.m.
    It is going rather far to ask for the regular medical examination of every man who may handle these compounds in that kind of way on the farm. I believe that in those circumstances the risk is very small indeed, and that to impose this examination might act as a complete deterrent on the proper use of these chemicals. I believe in exercising every precaution. I am sure that measures provided for in this Bill, concerned with washing facilities, protective clothing, first aid, and so on are all desirable and necessary, but under farming conditions I believe that to adopt this Amendment would be to carry matters farther than in fact we need to do.
    Mr. Percy Wells: I want to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). In doing so, I should like to say how certain I am that the provisions of this Bill will be welcomed by the men whom it is sought to benefit.
    It has been felt for some time that while there are considerable safeguards for those men who are engaged in the productive processes, there has been lack of security and protection for the farm-workers who are obliged to apply these poisonous sprays, often in conditions of danger and certainly in conditions of much risk. We all know that lives have been lost in these circumstances. Much publicity has been and is given to those cases where the illness ends fatally, but very little is heard of the numerous cases where men suffer from dermatitis, chest troubles and other illnesses as a result of applying these poisonous substances in fields, orchards and glass-houses.
    Admittedly there have been a number of instances where many of these illnesses would have been prevented if the elementary precautions contained in this Bill and the additional precautions we seek to introduce in the Amendment had been observed by the employer or the worker. Few of the regulations safeguarding
    1682
    workers in factories are applicable to agriculture. That has been a bone of contention in the agricultural industry for many years.
    This Bill therefore is looked upon by the workers and their trade unions as of considerable importance. It is important, therefore, that we do everything possible to ensure that the Bill adequately performs the protective function which it is intended to carry out. It may be argued, and in fact it has been argued to some extent already, that in view of Clause 1 (3, f) this Amendment is unnecessary, but we do not think so. We feel very sincerely that this is a very useful addition and safeguard which we seek to introduce and that much can be said for it.
    It is true, and I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard), that it will throw some additional responsibility upon the employer and upon the worker. But this is no frivolous interference with people who want to do what they like with their own. It is a question at the most of saving life, and at the least of preventing illnesses and incapacity. For those reasons I feel sure that those engaged in the industry, both employed and employer, will accept these additional responsibilities readily. For the same reasons I fel certain that the Minister and the Committee will accept the additions which, by this Amendment, we seek to insert in the Bill.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I share the concern that the hon Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and others have expressed with regard to the use of these poisonous substances. I also agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that these substances are of very great value in both weed and pest control in agriculture; and therefore we have to have a proper balance: I can, however, immediately assure the Committee that the Bill as now drafted does, in fact, cover the point of the Amendment.
    Clause 1 (3) (e) and (f) gives my right hon. Friend the specific powers for which the hon. Gentleman is asking in his Amendment. That is to say, if my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to make a regulation in terms such as this or similar, he can do so. The Committee will be

    1683
    interested to hear the position with regard to making regulations. This year a voluntary scheme has been operated by our Department, and during the season we have had observers out in the field in order to see how it operates in practice.
    As has been rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, it is not so easy in agriculture to see how these things will work out on the farm; but this year, we have seen how the scheme works in practice, and the voluntary scheme will be the basis for the first set of regulations.
    At this point my right hon. Friend is considering exactly what shall be in the first regulations which will come before the House in due course, and it seems probable that the evidence that we have is not sufficient to show the need for introducing a medical examination Clause of the kind suggested. It is a matter of proceeding step by step to see exactly what are the best regulations to introduce. It is quite a serious matter to require periodical medical examinations in advance. All employees might not wish to undergo such an examination.
    In any event, the scheme would provide that the responsiblity should be on the employer who should not engage men in this work unless they have satisfied certain conditions which would include a medical examination. Therefore, we want to be quite sure that it really is necessary and, in fact, an essential part of the precautions in addition to all the others before we actually introduce such a regulation.
    I can give the Committee the specific assurance that the powers are here in the Bill, and if and when my right hon. Friend thinks it is desirable and necessary he will introduce regulations of the kind suggested. I hope, with that assurance, that the hon. Member may be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    Mr. Champion: I am sure the Committee will be grateful for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's assurances on this extremely important point. As I understand, he has made it quite clear that there will be careful consultation with trade unions on this and all the other points before the Minister issues his regulations, in which case it will be possible for our trade union friends to go
    1684
    into this matter very carefully before we get the regulations put to us.
    I must say to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) that we must not overlook the dangers involved, and it certainly is the case that a very slight exposure can cause the symptoms of poisoning to appear. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Ministerial colleagues will take these points into consideration. Having regard to the undertaking given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Champion: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out subsection (5).
    This Amendment is intended to be exploratory and to have an interrogatory note. We are certainly not condemnatory. We merely seek some information as to what this Clause actually means. We are told that this Bill deals with highly dangerous materials which could quite easily—and which have in the past—led to the death of men who use them. Then we are told in subsection (5) that inspectors can have the power to exempt from Regulations which might be or will be made by the Minister under the Bill when it becomes an Act. I cannot understand why that should be the case. I feel sure that the Committee are entitled to some explanation before they part with this subsection.
    Mr. Nugent: I am able to give the hon. Member the explanation that he requires. This provision for exemption is inserted in roughly the same form as is to be found in the Factories Act of 1948. It was found desirable to give the necessary elasticity, even in the Factories Act, for new developments which might be outside the existing scheme of Regulations
    In this Bill where we are very much in an exploratory stage in discovering exactly what will be the most effective means of protecting employees, it is desirable that an inspector should have discretion so that when some new device, of whatever kind it may be—a respirator or other protection—is introduced, an inspector can use his discretion to allow the use of that particular thing even though it does not come within the terms of the Regulation. It is for that reason only that this exemption is put in.

    1685
    I should add that the draft Regulation has been circulated to the interested bodies both of employers and employees, so that they are being fully consulted on every step that we are taking in the matter. I can assure the Committee that we are concerned to carry their confidence both in the practicability and in the protection that the measures give.
    Mr. Champion: In view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS AND THEIR POWERS.)
    Amendment made: In page 3, line 27, after "numbers," insert "and salaries."—[Mr. Nugent.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. John Hay: I wish to raise two very small points in connection with this Clause. As the Committee will have seen it is a Clause giving power to inspectors who may be appointed to go on to private property and enter dwelling houses, and I think that the Committee should examine this with a little care before passing from it.
    Subsection (2) gives the inspector the power to enter on property at all reasonable hours for the purposes of the Bill or the Regulations which may be made thereunder. I want my hon. Friend to assure us that when such powers come to be exercised by these inspectors, they will be exercised in the daytime. Although it does not say so, I suppose it would be perfectly possible for an inspector to go along at a time which was most inconvenient to the farmer, and I suggest that we ought to be told that in fact these inspection visits will be made only in the daytime.
    9.15 p.m.
    The second point is somewhat more important and concerns the proviso to Clause 3 (2). The Committee will see that the purpose of the proviso is to make it clear that where a dwelling-house is
    1686
    the property to be entered by an inspector, 24 hours' notice of the intended entry must be given. There is an exception and it is those houses where
    "there are, or are reasonably believed by the inspector to be, washing facilities provided"
    for persons who do not live there.
    I am not quite sure why it should be necessary in the general context of the Bill for power to be given to an inspector to visit and enter a dwelling-house. The purpose of the Bill is to protect those who are making use of these poisonous substances in agriculture, and obviously the equipment and the substances to be used will be stored in the farm buildings. I can see no reason why it should be necessary to grant power to enter a dwelling-house.
    The only possible reason—and this is straining the language a little—is that the inspector might want to enter for the purpose referred to in Clause 1 (3, g)—to deal with the question of the use of facilities for preventive and first-aid treatment. A first-aid box is the only sort of thing, apart from washing facilities, which is likely to be in a dwelling-house. Would my hon. Friend explain why it is necessary to include in the Bill power for inspectors to go into dwelling-houses? I can understand that it is necessary for them to go into farm buildings, and I think we all agree that it is important that such powers should exist, but I should be glad to have some explanation of why they should have power to go into dwelling-houses.
    Mr. Nugent: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that inspectors will normally make their inspections in the daytime. I suppose it is possible that they might call at night if they wished to see the farmer and he had been out when they called earlier, but they will normally be concerned with the actual operations and will wish to make their visits during the process itself. These inspectors are men at present engaged in the business of farm inspections, for they will be recruited from the farm wage inspectorate and they are at present visiting farms. They will understand the general set-up in the farm world, so that there is sufficient reason for farmers and all concerned to have confidence in them.
    The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is contained in one of his own

    1687
    suggestions—that one of the most important protections is provided by adequate washing facilities not only washing the hands and face of the operators, but also washing the various protective garments which they will wear. In many cases there will not be wonderful washing facilities outside the farm house, so that the operators will have to go into the farm house in order to wash. When an inspector calls on such a farm and wants to see what washing facilities are provided—whether there is running water and clean towels, which is the sort of thing to be included in the Regulations we shall make—it will be necessary for him to go into the farm house in order to ensure that the facilities provided are up to the standard thought necessary. That is why we are taking the powers in the Bill.
    Mr. Hay: With respect, I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the point I was making. The proviso makes clear that 24 hours' notice is required only in the case of dwelling-houses other than those in which
    "there are, or are reasonably believed by the inspector to be, washing facilities …"
    I should have thought that if in fact they wanted to go to inspect a dwelling-house to see the washing facilities under the Bill or the Regulations, there would not be the necessity for the requirement of 24 hours' notice. What I was concerned with was the other type, not those excepted by the word s
    "… other than one in which there are, or are reasonably believed by the inspector to be, washing facilities. …"
    Mr. Nugent: Now I have the usual source of inspiration of Parliamentary Secretaries placed in this position. The answer to my hon. Friend's query is specifically, for the records of operations—and in this connection records are particularly important to show how many hours of work each individual man has spent with these poisonous sprays. As he has rightly said, the effect is cumulative. Therefore, it is particularly important to have records accurately kept, and records kept actually in the house, and it is particularly for that purpose, as well as for first-aid equipment, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, and possibly the storage of protective clothing, which may also be
    1688
    kept in the farm house, that this provision has been put in.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 4 to 7 and 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause.—(EXPENSES.)
    Any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State in carrying out this Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Sir T. Dugdale.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. Champion: I shall not take up much of the time of the House now for obvious reasons, but I think that when so many nice things have been said by everybody about everybody else, I should like to participate in the great love feast going on in this Chamber today, by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he has dealt with the Amendments. Having sat here and listened to the proceedings on the other Bills besides this, I have felt I could not possibly be in this Chamber, it has been so peaceful; and now I find myself participating in perpetuating the atmosphere.
    I wish the Bill well. It is an enabling Measure. We shall watch very carefully the Regulations that are made under it. I wish the Minister and those associated with him all good fortune in administering this Measure on behalf of the employees and the employers who will be concerned with it.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (ACCESS TO MEMBERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House to now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  9.26 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I am asking the Government to withdraw a circular which interferes with the elementary freedom of British civil servants. British citizens boast that they are politically free people. That roughly means that British citizens have the right to vote, to speak and to write freely, to form associations of any kind, to offer themselves for election to locally and nationally elected bodies, and to raise personal or group grievances by petition or letter to the Crown or to Parliament.
  People take most of these freedoms for granted, but it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that not a single one of them but had to be won, and that even the most obvious right that I exercise tonight as a Member of Parliament to say what one likes in this House and to propose what Bills one likes cost the life of the most distinguished Back Bencher who ever spoke in this House, Peter Wentworth, many years ago.
  It is worth remembering that even the right of every adult to vote is hardly a quarter of a century old, that the rights of civil servants to express political opinions, and, having formed trade unions, to meet and talk with their fellow trade unionists, had to be won inside this century and that the second of them was taken away from them by a Government between the wars and had to be won back after the Second World War, after having been refused them by the present Prime Minister during the war.
  We should be proud of the freedoms that we have won, many of them in this century, many of them by bitter struggle, by sacrifices on the part of trade unionists and even by personal sacrifice on the part of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House.
  It is in that spirit I would point out that as yet not everybody in this country is politically free, even in a so-called free democracy. For example, the elementary right to stand for election to public bodies is not universal. Teachers, local government officials, policemen, busmen and
  1690
  dustmen are not eligible to stand for election as free citizens to the body which employs them. That is a great wrong to hundreds of thousands of public employees and one which should be put right. It is not until a local government employee has reached the stage where he is no longer eligible to earn his living in an intelligent way that he is deemed by the law to be eligible to sit and to administer the affairs of the country.
  There are restrictions in the off-duty life of the British policeman. Although, like every other citizen, he is a human being as well as a wage-earner, his political and social life are circumscribed. Some of us hope that a Home Secretary will one day give full civic freedom to the British policeman. Political freedom includes more than the right to vote; it includes the right of a citizen to approach Parliament on any matter touching his life and wellbeing. That is an ancient right, the right of petition of the British citizen to the Crown and to Parliament.
  That right, I believe, is bound up with the undoubted right of a Member of Parliament to say what he likes in this House, subject only to the disciplinary control of his fellow Members, and that discipline exercised only in the interests of order and decency. Indeed, cases in which free citizens have in letters to Members of Parliament made personal, grave and possibly libellous charges against other people, have been ruled by law not to be libellous when they occur inside the privilege of writing to one's Member of Parliament.
  Part of the British Civil Service denies its employees this right of an approach to a Member of Parliament. A circular which I have previously, so far in vain, urged the Minister to withdraw, says:
  "RULE ON APPROACHES BY CIVIL SERVANTS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.—A civil servant must not attempt to bring political or other outside influences to support or advance individual claims as a civil servant. If he is dissatisfied on a personal matter his proper course is to approach his senior officer about it, or to pass his complaint through his senior officer to his Establishment Division or to seek the help and advice of his Staff Association. In the last resort he may appeal to the Head of his Department."
  Most British citizens have other resorts after having pleaded with the head of their Department, after having taken all the legitimate methods of stating their

  1691
  case, but not the civil servant. The Bill of Rights says that
  "the freedom of speech or debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any court or place out of Parliament."'
  It should have a proviso—"This does not apply to all civil servants." For if a Member of Parliament were to raise the individual professional grievance of a civil servant on the Floor of this House, whilst nobody would dare to attempt to punish the Member of Parliament who raised it, his employers could, and apparently would, punish the free Briton who gave the Member of Parliament the information.
  I think this so wrong that recently I ventured to raise with Mr. Speaker whether the circular of which I complained before was not itself a breach of the Privilege of Members of Parliament to say what they liked in this House. Of course, I accepted the opinion of Mr. Speaker that it was not any such breach of Privilege, but I still consider that if, because of this circular, a Member of Parliament dare not speak of a matter here for fear of hurting a citizen whose case he seeks to advance, then this circular, morally at any rate if not legally, contravenes the spirit of the sheet anchor of British freedom, the right to raise grievances.
  May I clear out of the way the misapprehension under which the Minister suffered when I last questioned him on this matter? I do not seek, nobody in their senses would seek, to introduce party political influence into the Civil Service. We are rightly proud of the fact that we have the most incorruptible Civil Service in the world, that we are well served by our State employees. I am certain that the Minister agrees with me, although it is from the opposite benches only that at election time candidates go out of their way to denigrate the Civil Service. We do not want party appointments. We do not want party protection. We do not want "spoils of office" in questions affecting the promotions, wages or pensions of civil servants. But when a citizen comes to his Member of Parliament, it is not a party matter.
  Members of Parliament today handle thousands of constituency cases. I know of no Member of Parliament who, in dealing with a personal case, would ask
  1692
  whether the constituent voted for him at the last election. One takes up a constituent's case not as a Socialist, not as a Tory, but as a Member of Parliament helping the British citizen. If I may give a personal example. If my own children were in trouble they would seek the help of the Minister who is to reply to this debate, as they live in Surbiton and are his constituents. I am certain that they would receive the careful help that I know he gives to all his constituents, even though my children spend most of their spare time making sure that one day Surbiton, too, will return a Labour Member of Parliament.
  One would not want civil servants to avoid any of the procedure outlined in the circular, procedure that is necessary in the interests of decent relationships between employee and employer. One would want no backstairs political intrigue, no "sea" lawyer always rushing off to his Member of Parliament. Such a creature inside the Civil Service would get no sympathy from a Member of Parliament any more than such a creature outside in the wide sphere of life would get sympathy. But the right that most citizens have, and it is a right that they prize, is that when all normal means of satisfaction has been sought, a man may "Write to his M.P. about it." I believe that to be a precious privilege, even if sometimes, like most Members of Parliament at the receiving end, I find it a burdensome privilege to a Member of Parliament.
  The case of an individual British citizen who has been wronged, or, much more commonly, who thinks he has been wronged, can be taken by his Member of Parliament to the Minister concerned, right through to the Floor of the House of Commons if necessary. That is democracy, that is magnificent, but up to the moment it does not apply to the Civil Service.
  I may be told by the Minister that civil servants are treated as human beings in some ways; that they may talk to their Member of Parliament about everything except their conditions of work. They may talk to their Member of Parliament about whether we should recognise the present Government of China, about the sanitary conditions in the schools in their area, or about the need for a new lamp in the street, but whatever they do they

  1693
  must not speak about the conditions under which they earn their living. These, however, are essential features of the life of the civil servant just as of everybody else, and these are things about which most people particularly want to talk to their Member of Parliament.
  I was tonight tempted to give examples, and then it seemed to me that it would be pitiful and humiliating as a free Member of Parliament that I should have to disguise the cases of three men whom I know in order that there should be no repercussions in the lives of these three men, each of whom has a legitimate grievance and has talked to me about it, and each of whom had to decide with me that I dare not do anything about it.
  But in each case there was an individual anomaly, and each was the kind of case I would have willingly taken up for any other citizen who lives in the free section of our community. As a freely elected Member of Parliament, I find it most humiliating to tell a fellow countryman that I cannot take up his case without risking hurting his career.
  To me it was shocking that a man working in a Government factory was brought before his superior officers and reprimanded because, having been transferred into the Government factory from the free world outside, he had thought he was still in order to write to me as his Member of Parliament about conditions in his factory.
  In asking the Minister to withdraw the circular, I am asking nothing unreasonable. What I seek obtains in some Government Departments and for some civil servants. It is true that it was won after a long struggle and that in that struggle, as far as the Post Office was concerned, men like my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), and the Post Office Workers' Union, played an important part.
  Let me illustrate my case from the Post Office. There, so far as manipulative grades are concerned, a man with a personal grievance may approach his superior officers and trade union organisation. That is right, and normally that is the end of it. If there is an injustice the injustice can be put right. But, if it does not end there, if the postman is not satisfied, he can ask and will get permission to lay the matter before his Member of Parliament.
  1694
  I have had such postmen in my constituency bringing a complaint to me-against the Postmaster-General or against superior officers after they had exhausted all the usual channels of protest. The Postmaster-General, I am quite certain, finds no inconvenience in what seems to me a very natural chain of procedure. I doubt whether anyone inside the Post Office can find any example of any abuse of such a scheme.
  How can it be abused? What harm can a man do by going to his Member of Parliament? Similarly, in the Armed Forces if a man has a grievance he usually takes it up with the usual channels and, finally, to his commanding officer. But the Service man also has a right, when all normal methods have failed, of bringing the matter before his Member of Parliament. Outside Government employment every British citizen has the right. Even the local government employee, restricted as he is, has the right to write to his Member of Parliament without endangering the structure of local government.
  Cases needing help may be rare, but no matter how rare the case the right of an individual exists and should obtain inside the Civil Service even if only one man's freedom is at stake. Even the best machinery of negotiation and the best machinery of management or trade unionism can make an error. Even the most admirable rules and regulations may fail to fit some individual case which needs some further ventilation. Even the law itself has its Court of Appeal. In the most rare cases it is just possible that some very grave injustice may be committed because the right to take a civil servant's personal problem further is not permitted.
  The demand I make on behalf of my fellow citizens is moral rather than material. We Members of this House probably know that we cannot solve most of the cases that come to us from our constituents. We may fail to solve them, may fail to help the man, but the man who has approached his Member of Parliament, even if his Member of Parliament has failed, has the moral and physchological satisfaction that his case has been examined at first hand and at the highest level. Many a grievance is an imaginary one but, if one believes in the individual, one must accept the

  1695
  right of the individual to be different, to be odd, to be stubborn, to be, in other words, an individual. I believe that applies to the civil servant as well.
  To sum up, many civil servants have not the full freedoms which most British citizens enjoy. The State ought to be a model employer. I ask the Minister to give his employees the right that millions of their fellow workers have outside the Civil Service—that after exhausting all the proper and specified means of making complaints about some personal grievance they should have the right of calling in the aid of their Member of Parliament. If he will do that perhaps on some other occasion we might get rid of some of the other shackles which are still on the shoulders of many British citizens.
  9.44 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Roberts: I only wish to intervene in this debate for a short time. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), said. I am only sorry that in the middle of his speech he should turn on hon. Members on this side of the House and accuse them of something they certainly do not do. That was when he said that they denigrate the Civil Service at election time. I think it unfortunate, when making a case which is certainly a human and personal one, he should go down so far in debating tactics as to enter into an aside of that kind.
  I should like to ask my hon. Friend one point on this matter which has also disturbed me. I should like to know what form of disciplinary action could be taken against the civil servant who disobeyed the circular which apparently he has sent or is sending out and the custom which has long been the practice in the Civil Service.
  It is a thing which should be generally known, and I am not sure it is generally known, even to many hon. Members of this House, that if certain of their constituents come to them they must be careful how they handle them and deal with them, in case, by their action, they should get them into trouble. On one or two occasions I have had experiences similar to those which the hon. Member seems to have had. I feel a little difficulty in having to say that as a Member of Parliament
  1696
  I am not able even privately and confidentially to take up the matter at the highest level.
  I feel that it is a certain restriction upon my activities as a Member of Parliament. I have on some occasions in my constituency said I felt that the problem is certainly a difficult one but one which might be looked upon sympathetically by our Government, and I shall look forward with interest to hear what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, has to say.
  9.46 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I think nobody can complain either of the not unimportant subject matter which has been chosen for tonight's debate or, indeed, the tone of either of the speeches, one rather longer and one rather shorter, to which the House has just listened. I am at one with both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) in agreeing that this is a matter which is well worth while ventilating in this House.
  Perhaps I may first clear up a misapprehension which was certainly in the mind of my hon. Friend and I think also in the mind of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) was good enough to refer to the circular which I had sent out or was sending out. Let me make it clear that, so far as I am aware, there is no current circular dealing with this matter.
  The words which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, quoted came from the appropriate edition of what is called, by a horribly telescoped word, "Estacode," which is the code of rules of the Service. To reassure my hon. Friend, I think I am entitled to point out that the edition in which the words complained of occur was issued in August, 1951. Therefore, it was not a circular, and if it was I did not send it out.
  Dr. King: If anything I said gave the hon. Gentleman the impression that I was blaming him as a Minister for introducing this circular, I apologise. This circular has been in existence for a time.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I did not understand him to attribute it to

  1697
  me. It was my hon. Friend who I thought was under that impression, and I was only anxious to get the facts of the matter quite clear, that so far as I know there has been no central circular, though the words in Estacode could quite properly be referred to in a Departmental circular issued by any of the Departments. But from a purely procedural point of view the present form of the rule is the form which was issued in August, 1951, in the then edition of that rather disagreeably named publication.
  This matter is quite clearly one which is not free from difficulty, and it is certainly not one on which I should wish to be in any degree dogmatic. It is difficult because it involves a balance of two very important considerations, and it involves an attempt to reconcile them. The first consideration is that to which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test referred with, I thought, great eloquence, the very important principle of the rights of a citizen of this country to take his grievance to his Parliamentary representative and, if that Parliamentary representative thinks fit, to have it raised on the Floor of this House. That is a very great principle. It goes very deep into our constitution, and I would not in any sense seek to diminish its very great importance, both from a constitutional point of view, and from the point of view of the liberty of the individual.
  The other consideration also was referred to by the hon. Member. It is the great importance of maintaining in this country our tradition of a Civil Service which not only is wholly nonpolitical, but which, if I may adopt the phraseology of the late Lord Chief Justice, is manifestly seen to be nonpolitical. I was very glad that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test did pay a tribute to the Civil Service though, like my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, I was a little sorry that he sought to suggest that admiration for this great national service was not equally shared by hon. Members on this side of the House. I can assure him, with great respect, that on that point at any rate he really is in error.
  I am inclined to think that we in this country tend sometimes to under-rate the great national advantage we draw from the Civil Service in this country. It is only, perhaps, when we visit other
  1698
  countries which do not have this great advantage to their public life and administration that we fully appreciate the great advantage which we have. I think that no hon. Member would wish, even in the name of the rights of the individual, to do anything which would seriously diminish not only that detachment from politics, but that clear appearance of detachment from politics which is very nearly as important.
  The matter we are discussing does involve the question of how best and at what point these two considerations to which I have referred can be reconciled. I should make it clear perhaps what is the position so far as the Civil Service is concerned. I shall not have the temerity to follow the example of the hon. Member into the realms of local government, since I understand that most prohibitions there are statutory and, be they wise or unwise, we are, as I understand it, not permitted to discuss them on the Motion for the Adjournment. No such difficulty arises in the case of the Civil Service proper and it is to that that the hon. Member directed the greater part of his speech.
  The relevant ruling is included, as I have said, in this publication called Estacode, a copy of which and the relevant passage from which was, I think on the hon. Member's request, recently placed in the Library by the Treasury. It is important to have the wording very clearly in mind because a certain amount of my argument must follow this wording. It reads:
  "A Civil Servant must not attempt to bring political or other outside influences to support or advance his individual claims as a civil servant. If he is dissatisfied on a personal matter his proper course is to approach his senior officer above him, or to pass his complaint through his senior officer to his Establishment Division, or to seek the advice and help of his Staff Association. In the last resort he may appeal to the head of his department."
  It may perhaps be of assistance to the House if I make it clear first of all what that prohibition does not do. It does not in any degree interfere with the exercise by a civil servant of his ordinary rights as a citizen on outside matters. He is as fully entitled as anybody else to seek the assistance of his Member of Parliament on such subjects as his Income tax, his desire to get a house, or any of the manifold problems about which, as hon. Members know so well, our constituents do quite properly approach us.

  1699
  Equally, nothing could stop a civil servant—and here I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test did not fully apprehend the effect of the rule—writing to his Member of Parliament about any general Civil Service question. An obvious example will spring to mind, and particularly in the case of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) if she were here—the question of equal pay.
  On all such general Civil Service questions, the civil servant is perfectly entitled to get in touch with his Member of Parliament and seek his assistance. What he is prohibited from doing under the rule which I have read out is raising particular Civil Service questions personally affecting him, and, in particular, the sort of problem which involves his obtaining some advantage not necessarily open to everybody else. The obvious example in this respect is the question of promotion, since it follows that if one person is promoted to a particular vacancy, somebody else cannot be.
  That is the rule, and there is, in theory, a fairly strong justification for it, though it is possible to exaggerate its practical effect. That is so because it seems to me very improbable that, in most circumstances, any responsible civil servant would think it right to seek the support of his Member of Parliament in order to seek some vacancy of promotion which, ex hypothesi, he was assuming he would not get without his aid.
  I can perhaps illustrate that general position from my own personal experience. I have the honour to represent in this House a constituency which probably includes as many civil servants as any constituency in this country. I have represented it for seven years, and, when preparing myself for this debate, I did tax my memory to recall whether I had been approached in this sort of way by any civil servant constituent.
  I am bound to tell the House that, in the course of those seven years, as far as I can recollect, no suggestion of that sort has ever been put to me by any civil servant constituent. I think that that does reflect, accurately and very favourably, the general approach of the service to this question, and I mention it only by way of illustration of the fact, apart from the theoretical argument with which I
  1700
  propose to deal, that it is in fact possible to attach excessive practical importance to this rule, whichever way—and I admit the argument is doubleedged—hon. Members regard it.
  Perhaps I may put the argument on the general question, and that, I think, will help to get it into proportion. The civil servant who feels aggrieved in this sort of way, affecting his personal position or interests, already has a number of ways in which he can take up the question. If he wishes, he can raise it with any staff association of which he happens to be a member, and all hon. Members who have dealt with Civil Service staff associations know with what zeal they protect and defend the interests of their members—very properly.
  Equally, if a civil servant wants to take another course and does not happen to be a member of a staff association, he can take up the matter with his own immediate senior officer and the establishment officer of the Department, or, ultimately, with the head of the Department, and that provides a system for dealing with this sort of problem.
  I think the House should be careful to consider how the system would operate if these cases at all stages—and I will come to the later stage of the organisation in a moment—were taken up by Members of Parliament.
  It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It could be felt, however wrongly, that the support of a Member of Parliament was a factor in the professional advance of one civil servant against another. It might even be thought, completely erroneously no doubt, that the political colour of the Member who raised the question might have had some bearing on the matter. It would at least introduce the suspicion that party political factors could affect the careers of civil servants, and I am sure all hon. Members would agree that even the faintest suggestion of that kind of thing would be wholly deplorable.
  The hon. Gentleman referred by way of contrast to the position of the Armed Forces. In theory, of course, even in the

  1701
  Armed Forces, Queen's Regulations provide in general that outside influence should not be brought to bear in cases of this sort, though I believe that perhaps is really not always enforced. But there is all the difference in the world between the Armed Forces and the Civil Service.
  The Armed Forces have not the alternative methods of raising grievances; they have not the staff associations or Whitley Councils, or anything of that sort, and, in general, they are much less directly connected with political factors and conflicts, and it is very right that they should be. Except in the very highest ranks they do not have those regular contacts with political Ministers which a large number of civil servants have in the course of their duties, and therefore the analogy is not a complete one.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the example of the Post Office. He quite rightly said that the rule there is in substance what he would like it to be throughout the service in general, that is to say, that political assistance is barred until every other avenue of raising the grievance has been followed. The Post Office rules for dealing with grievances are very complicated, and I do not propose to inflict them on the House, though I have the particulars here, since in different circumstances and for different purposes different groups have different people to whom they can appeal.
  The matter is rather complex, but the Post Office rule is that when whatever rights that particular aggrieved individual may have have been exhausted, and not before, then he is perfectly entitled to seek the assistance of his Member of Parliament. The Post Office is, of course, a Department of State, but it is worth remarking that it is not perhaps exactly similar to the ordinary Departments of State. It has sometimes been referred to as our oldest nationalised industry, and, of course, it is in a very considerable sense a large commercial undertaking with a political head and is not, perhaps, quite so closely connected, at any rate in the lower levels, with party and political matters as is the ordinary Department of State.
  But there is certain force in the example to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and, indeed, he was good enough, and courteous enough, to intimate to me that he would be quoting
  1702
  this example. When the hon. Member for Southampton, Test first raised this matter in the Parliamentary Question to which he has referred, he certainly did not make it clear to me, and on re-reading the Question and supplementary questions I think I am entitled to say that he did not in fact succeed in making it clear, that he was suggesting what he is suggesting tonight. His Question appeared to suggest the removal of restrictions on contact with Members of Parliament at all stages of an individual's dispute.
  My answer to him on that occasion was given as an answer to that Question. It may well have been that the hon. Member had then in mind what, if I may say so, he has much more persuasively put forward tonight. I do not know. But I think that hon. Members reading the OFFICIAL REPORT will appreciate that he was then attacking on a much wider front and much less persuasively than he did this evening.
  As I understand his case, it is that the Estacode rule should be modified to the extent that recourse to the assistance of a Member of Parliament should be permitted, but only after normal methods of redress have been tried in vain. That is to say in substance, mutatis mutandis, the Post Office rule should be applied throughout the service.
  Tonight I cannot say more than that that is an aspect of the matter on which certainly my mind is not closed, and into which I certainly would like to look further. I do not make any commitment. When one is dealing with so vastly important a matter as the maintenance of the complete political detachment of the finest Civil Service in the world, it is a very rash and foolish man who lightly overturns the rules laid down by other Administrations, whatever he may think in other contexts of those previous Administrations.
  But I think I can say that the suggestion which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has now made is much less subject to the objection to which I have referred of involving political interference than was what I took to be his original suggestion in his Parliamentary Question. Although I have stressed that I am in no position tonight to give any indication of any proposal to change the rule, I can tell the House that I am looking and the

  1703
  Government will look carefully into this question with a view to seeing whether some move can be made in the direction, to which the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley referred, without involving unfortunate consequences for the service.
  Having said that, I think it would be very inappropriate for me to say more, except once again to thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for having
  1704
  given me such very full notice of the point he was going to raise, and to thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley for the most agreeable way in which, between them, they have conducted this debate.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Ten o'clock.

ROADS
  New Roundabout, Bakewell
  New Roundabout, Bakewell
  Motor-Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor-Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Crofter Counties (Maintenance)
  Crofter Counties (Maintenance)
  Garve-Ullapool Road
  Garve-Ullapool Road
  Safety Campaign
  Safety Campaign
  Accidents
  Accidents
TRANSPORT
  Omnibuses (Reversing)
  Omnibuses (Reversing)
  Transport Bill (Consultations)
  Transport Bill (Consultations)
  Hull, Goole, Grimsby and Immingham Docks
  Hull, Goole, Grimsby and Immingham Docks
  KOREA MEDAL (MERCHANT NAVY)
  KOREA MEDAL (MERCHANT NAVY)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Conway Jet Engine
  Conway Jet Engine
  Finewood Products
  Finewood Products
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Basic Pensions
  Basic Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Industrial Injuries (Chronic Disease)
  Industrial Injuries (Chronic Disease)
  Contributions and Benefits (Pamphlet)
  Contributions and Benefits (Pamphlet)
  Commonwealth Reciprocal Negotiations
  Commonwealth Reciprocal Negotiations
  Retirement Pensions (Earnings)
  Retirement Pensions (Earnings)
  Non-Contributory Pensions (Income Limit)
  Non-Contributory Pensions (Income Limit)
  National Assistance
  National Assistance
  Workmen's Compensation (T.U.C. Consultations)
  Workmen's Compensation (T.U.C. Consultations)
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations (Nuclear Energy)
  Power Stations (Nuclear Energy)
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
  PETROL (RETAIL PRICES)
  PETROL (RETAIL PRICES)
  COALMINING SUBSIDENCE
  COALMINING SUBSIDENCE
  COURT PAYMENTS (INVESTMENTS)
  COURT PAYMENTS (INVESTMENTS)
  CIVIL ACTIONS (WAITING LISTS)
  CIVIL ACTIONS (WAITING LISTS)
GERMANY
  Captured War Documents
  Captured War Documents
  Herr Krupp (Compensation)
  Herr Krupp (Compensation)
FOREIGN SERVICE
  Embassy Staff, Peking
  Embassy Staff, Peking
  Ambassadors (Appointments)
  Ambassadors (Appointments)
  Embassy Staff, Moscow (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Embassy Staff, Moscow (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Diplomatic Services (Expenditure)
  Diplomatic Services (Expenditure)
  Passport Office (Staff)
  Passport Office (Staff)
  Foreign Office (Transport Costs)
  Foreign Office (Transport Costs)
  Diplomatic Missions (Foreign Currency)
  Diplomatic Missions (Foreign Currency)
  Legal and Political Departments
  Legal and Political Departments
  Official Vehicles (Drivers)
  Official Vehicles (Drivers)
  U.S.S.R. and Soviet-Dominated Countries (British Nationals' Treatment)
  U.S.S.R. and Soviet-Dominated Countries (British Nationals' Treatment)
  BRITISH COUNCIL
  BRITISH COUNCIL
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Food Price Increases
  Food Price Increases
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Coarse Grains (Purchase)
  Coarse Grains (Purchase)
  Statutory Instruments (Errors)
  Statutory Instruments (Errors)
  Coronation (Children's Sweets)
  Coronation (Children's Sweets)
  SHIPBUILDING (STEEL ALLOCATION)
  SHIPBUILDING (STEEL ALLOCATION)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Lead and Zinc
  Lead and Zinc
  Statutory Instrument (Corrigendum)
  Statutory Instrument (Corrigendum)
  FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
  FOREIGN TRAVEL ALLOWANCES
  ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)
  ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)
  ENTRY PERMIT (MR. SLATER)
  ENTRY PERMIT (MR. SLATER)
  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND
  MAIL VANS (SPEED LIMIT)
  MAIL VANS (SPEED LIMIT)
  FESTIVAL GARDENS AND FUN FAIR
  FESTIVAL GARDENS AND FUN FAIR

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

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND) REGULATIONS, 1952
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the regulations which I am asking your Lordships to approve refer to the compilation of the register of electors for Northern Ireland. Most of your Lordships are no doubt familiar with the way in which this registration is done in this country; by the making up of preparatory lists, to which objections may be raised in the ordinary way. Hitherto, we have carried out the matter in Northern Ireland in an identical manner with that in which it has been done in this country. It is now proposed, however, that there should be a change—it is made for the sake of convenience. Instead of preparing, as we do in this country, separate lists—list A, of electors on the register, list B, of names to be added to the register, and list C, of names to be omitted—we propose that there should be one list, and that it should be prepared every year.
The reason for the change is this: First, that there has been a slightly different register for the Parliament of Northern Ireland and for local government elections in Northern Ireland. Moreover, since these lists are prepared only every three years, it is considered that it would be difficult if there were to be C and B lists which would be modifications of these lists. It has been considered more simple to have one full list, which will be amended in the ordinary way. It will take slightly longer to complete this list. Accordingly, the date on which the list has to be completed has been postponed, and the date by which objections to this list can be made has also been postponed. In these circumstances, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have no objection to the proposed changes in the register for Northern Ireland. To those who have been interested for years in the representation of electors, it has been a matter of regret that the franchise in Northern Ireland in respect of local government varies from that in England and has therefore rendered necessary some differences in the register. Whilst wishing Northern Ireland well in the new arrangements that are to be made, I would express the hope that the day may soon come when in England, Scotland and Wales we may have a completely new list published every year, so as to avoid the very great difficulties that sometimes arise over the present system of A, B, and C registers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (APPROPRIATION OF LANDS AND BUILDINGS) REGULATIONS, 1952
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, these regulations are made under the 1948 Civil Defence Act. Their effect is to include under the purposes laid down for the 1948 Act a slight extension of the purposes laid down under Section 62 of the 1939 Act—that is to say, the local authorities can carry out the purposes laid down in the 1948 Act by means of the powers which exist under the 1939 Act. That may sound rather complicated, but the position, to put it in as simple language as I can, is this. The local authorities are charged to set up certain civil defence centres, and in some cases, particularly in urban areas, they have difficulty in finding suitable sites or premises. It has been suggested—and it is proposed under these regulations to authorise such a step—that in some cases it will be necessary for the authorities to use open spaces or, to put it more accurately, the ground under the open spaces.
Many of these open spaces are held under restrictive titles. That means to say that no building can be put up on them, and it is expressly to permit the placing of civil defence centres under such open spaces that these regulations are being put to your Lordships. I should add, in case any noble Lord raises the point, that it is obviously in the interests of the local authority to see that these powers are not misused.

995
Moreover, every use of the powers will require the confirmation of the Secretary of State, who has also undertaken to consult with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. In these circumstances, and because we do require these civil defence centres, I ask your Lordships to approve these regulations.
Moved, That the Civil Defence (Appropriation of Lands and Buildings) Regulations, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question—and I must apologise for the fact that, although I am an old member of the Special Orders Committee, I was prevented from being present when this matter came before the Committee. I hope, nevertheless, that the noble Earl will not mind my asking these questions. First, do these regulations apply to London, and particularly do they apply to the Royal Parks? Do these powers enable the authorities to dig in the Royal Parks in London? Secondly, has there been any examination of the suggestion, which has been frequently raised in this House, for the building of underground car parks? The underground caverns would serve the double purpose of relieving some of the congestion in parking areas, by putting cars underground, and would make excellent air raid shelters or civil defence headquarters, and would serve other purposes of that kind. Has that matter been examined? The Government have always said they were looking into it. Is there anything to report?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the questions he has raised. I am anxious to make my answers as clear as possible. This does not apply to Royal Parks. It applies only to open spaces which belong to, or are leased by, local authorities. In regard to the question of car parks, I am sure the point will be borne in mind, but, so far as the present intention is concerned, it does not arise. A civil defence centre is really too small a building to permit of the sort of car park which I think the noble Lord has in mind. If the scheme is extended, the point will certainly be borne in mind, hut, as I say,
996
I do not think it is possible, in present circumstances, to say that the sort of buildings contemplated would be of any use for that purpose.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl to say that the local authorities have been consulted about these regulations; and have they agreed to them?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I did not say that the local authorities had been consulted, but I am quite sure that they have, because it is on their recommendation that these regulations are being made.
LORD SHEPHERD: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LICENSED PREMISES IN NEW TOWNS BILL
2.45 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of October 21):
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are now approaching what represents the Government's main legislative achievement of their first Session of office—I might almost say their only substantial legislative achievement. I would repeat what I said when I spoke on the Second Reading, for my feeling has not in any sense been dispelled: that there has been neither a demand nor a need for this Bill; nor have the Government had any mandate for it. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he spoke on the Second Reading, made a valiant attempt to substantiate the claim that the Government had a mandate for this Bill. He referred to a

997
number of factors. One was the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on the Third Reading of the 1949 Bill. I have read that speech—indeed, the noble Earl quoted from it—and I am bound to say that, although it was obvious that the noble Earl did not like the Bill and that he contemplated the possibility of some action being taken on it, what he said was far removed from a statement on behalf of the Party opposite that, if they were returned at: the next Election, they would introduce a measure for the repeal of the 1949 Act.
He also referred to a meeting at Crawley where 600 people were present and where, I understand, a unanimous resolution was passed against the provisions of the Act. The population of Crawley is about 4,000, which includes men, women and children. It is a remarkable thing that 600 Crawley residents, if such were the case, should have attended this meeting in protest against the 1949 Act. I would respectfully suggest that a great many, if not the majority, of those 600 people were not Crawley residents at all, but were members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, under whose auspices this meeting was held. It would be unique, certainly in my experience and I am sure in the experience of noble Lords opposite, to get one resident in seven, including men, women and children, at any meeting. I certainly doubt whether this matter was of such extraordinary interest that so high a proportion of the population of Crawley would attend this meeting.
But I would also pray in aid what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, himself said in reply to an Amendment moved by Lord Greenhill last Thursday. He said [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 178, Col. 950]:
"I think it regrettable to say that the people resident at present are necessarily competent to speak for those who may come in future."
The noble Earl did not say that in reference of this particular point: he said it in reference to a poll of local residents as to what kind of licensed accommodation they wanted. But the words are very apt. It certainly would be most regrettable if the few people who are at present in a new town should necessarily be considered competent to speak for those who may come in the future. Therefore I do not accept that either of those facts provides a mandate for the introduction of
998
this measure. Lastly, the noble Earl referred to a questionnaire issued by the Licensed Victuallers' Defence League, and said that replies were given by all three Parties before the Election and were published in at least three daily papers. I imagine that one of them must have been the Morning Advertiser, but he did not say which the other two were.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I can tell the noble Lord now, if he wishes.
LORD SILKIN: I do not think it matters very much, but let us assume that they were published in the two morning papers which have the largest circulation in the country—if you like, the Daily Express and the Daily Herald, or the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror. I do not think that that really constitutes a mandate for introducing a measure of this kind. I feel that the reason for the introduction of this measure is purely doctrinal: it has nothing at all to do with the public interest. It arises solely out of the views held by noble Lords opposite—I admit quite sincerely—against any form of State management or control. Throughout the proceedings there has been no case presented to this House for opposition to State management in the new towns. We have never had a case presented on the merits. We have had the statement that noble Lords are opposed to State management. That we understand; but surely we should have received something more than that as a reason for the repeal of a measure already on the Statute Book.
We should have been told why it is in the public interest and, particularly, why it is in the interest of new towns that the Act of 1949 should be repealed and this measure should be introduced. I would ask noble Lords opposite to tell us: has State management failed in Carlisle? Is that why they want to get this Bill passed? If so, in what way has it failed? All the evidence that we have is to the contrary. We have had a Royal Commission which has reported that it has been eminently successful, and that Royal Commission has even recommended that State management should be extended elsewhere. That Report was published in 1932. Since then there has been no complaint at all about the way in which State management has been conducted in Carlisle, and everybody who has visited

999
Carlisle has either said, at the worst, that State-managed houses there are no better and no worse than privately managed houses, or, at the best, that they are very much better. I have never heard it said that the State-managed houses were worse, or that they were so bad that it was desirable to put an end to them. If noble Lords think that they are, why do they continue the Carlisle State-managed houses? If they are so much against State management, why did they not take the opportunity to include in this measure a provision for winding up the Carlisle experiment? Is it that noble Lords opposite are willing to have an extension of State management elsewhere, but not in the new towns? If that is so, why are the new towns unsuitable? Where as an alternative, would they have these State-managed houses?
The truth is that noble Lords opposite have never given their real reasons for opposing the 1949 Act. It cannot be that that Act would hurt the brewers because in State-managed houses the beer of the various brewers is sold; and except on the assumption that less beer would be consumed in the new towns if we had State-managed houses than if you have tied houses, I do not see how the brewers would suffer. The main brews would be sold at the State-managed houses. Indeed, it could be argued, although I do not wish to argue it, that State-managed houses would be so much more attractive than tied houses that more people would come to them and possibly more beer would be consumed. I do not make that case; I do not know. At any rate, I cannot see that it would necessarily hurt the brewers. So is it not just blind unreasoning opposition to anything connected with State management? Certainly that has been the impression given to any objective person who has listened to the discussions on this Bill. That is why this Bill, after four months of inactivity, is now being rushed through, and in such a way that the proceedings in this House have really been a farce. As my noble Leader said, we have spent our time rubber-stamping the decisions of the Government.
On the Committee stage a number of Amendments were put forward from this side of the House. I make no complaint whatever about the courteous way in which they were dealt with by the noble
1000
Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. We could not have been met more courteously and, I hope I may say, more competently than we were met by those two noble Lords. It will no doubt be a comfort to the noble Marquess, whose absence we regretted last Thursday, that his case was in really competent hands and did not suffer in any way. Nevertheless, throughout the discussion it was clear that the noble Earl and the noble Viscount did not feel themselves free to consider on their merits the various Amendments that were put forward—with one exception, which had been accepted in principle in another place. Over and over again they were asked to give an assurance that they would consider the arguments put forward from this side of the House, and over and over again their reply was that the point had already been considered and they were unable to give any assurance whatever—not even a promise to consider the point again in the light of the argument put forward in this House. My Lords, if we are to have Committee stages in this House where nothing that we say makes any impression on noble Lords opposite and we cannot even get an assurance that what we say will be considered on its merits, I am bound to question the value of a Committee stage at all.
I feel that the true reason for all this was the four months' delay with which this Bill started off, and in consequence the need for rush to get the Bill through this Session. I do not understand the urgency for the Bill. That was another point that was made in another place. I do not think the case for urgency was made with very great force here. I do not think the Bill would have suffered at all if it had been left alone, and if it had had to be introduced next Session it could have been properly discussed. It would not have hurt if the planning of a number of new houses had gone forward. If noble Lords so desired it (it is entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary) there need have been no acquisition of any existing houses by the State. The £1,000.000 that had been tucked away for the purpose could have been left intact, and nothing would have happened at all. There really was no great need for hurry. It would have been far better, and far more respectful to this House, if we had had the opportunity of

1001
giving this measure full and adequate consideration.
A number of Amendments were moved, and I want to say a word or two about some of them. An Amendment was moved limiting extension to three towns. That was defeated; I make no particular complaint about it, though I regret it. I can understand the point that this might be regarded as a matter of principle. But a number of Amendments which were put forward did not affect matters of principle at all; they related to matters of -administration. They were, if you like to put it that way, suggestions or proposals for improving the machinery of the Bill, while accepting the principle, and one would have thought that, at any rate, those Amendments would have met with some reasonable response. But owing to the undue rush with which this Bill is being put through this House, it was not possible, as I have said, even to give assurances that the Home Secretary would consider what had been brought forward here.
I do not wish to fight old battles over again, but one of the Amendments was designed to ensure that if we were to have tied houses in the new towns they should be, in number, nature and distribution, as well planned as they possibly could be and, therefore, the existing houses should be taken into account. After all—and I wish to stress this point—these new towns are rapidly coming to be regarded as among this country's show places. We are carrying out, in the new towns, a unique experiment, which is of immense interest to all architects and planners throughout the world, and an increasing number of people are visiting the new towns to see what we are doing. In no other country have they started as many as fourteen new towns, and we are making a great contribution to town planning thought in the world. In that sense, the whole world is looking to us for a lead. Therefore the question of licensed refreshment houses is of considerable importance, and it is desirable that, if we are to have privately managed houses, they should be as good as they can possibly be. Many of our Amendments were designed for the purpose of ensuring that that should be the case. They were designed to ensure, for instance, that where existing refreshment houses are unsuitable or inadequate, it should be possible to take them into
1002
account in the plan and in the design of the new towns.
I am particularly sorry that the Government should have been obstinate about such matters as the putting of a limit on the life of temporary refreshment houses. Frankly, I never understood why the noble Earl was so difficult about it, unless his attitude resulted from the fact that he had been instructed that the Bill was to go through without any amendment (except that to which I have already referred) on account of the time-table, and, therefore, that however reasonable Amendments might appear to be, they were not to be accepted or any assurance given about them. Well, my Lords, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In another place, my right honourable friend, Mr. Chuter Ede, said that we are unable to regard this Bill as a final solution of the difficult problem of licensed houses in the new towns. With that statement, I cordially agree. It may well be that in the near future—at any rate, in the future—more will be heard about this question of licensed premises in new towns, arid noble Lords opposite may find themselves putting forward some of the arguments which we have put forward on this occasion. I hope that we shall be equally courteous; but noble Lords must not be surprised if they find themselves getting similar treatment to that which we have received.
3.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed that this House missed a great opportunity of effecting a compromise on the very vexed subject of this Bill. It is surely known to everyone in the country to-day that whilst a great many political things are held in common by men and women of all Parties, there are very deep cleavages in certain respects. Indeed, it is almost becoming the fashion now that when a Government, backed by a great majority, places upon the Statute Book a measure which, in principle, is contested by the Opposition at the time, the Opposition should threaten that when they are returned to office they will sweep that measure off the Statute Book. Two such measures are promised for next year, and we have had this particular measure this year. If that sort of thing continues, whether it is carried out by Conservatives or by Socialists, it will be no good to the country in general. Indeed, it may be a

1003
very serious matter. A function, therefore, arises for this House to perform. If the elected representatives of the people are so divided, and if their actions are going to run the State into great risks, then this House must hold itself somewhat aloof and must be prepared to fashion the bridges over which, in a friendly way, members of the two opposing Parties can pass. We must, if we can, strive for continuity in progress. And that will not be achieved if we take turn and turn about to wipe one another's legislation off the Statute Book.
It is not as if members of the Party opposite did not believe in public enterprise: they do, in fact, belong to an organisation which took the first steps in public enterprise. The only thing that divides us at present is not the question of public enterprise versus competitive enterprise it is merely whether this thing or that thing should be publicly owned and controlled, or whether it should be left in private hands. That is where the dividing line comes, and I should hope that in future we members in this House shall take cognisance of it and act accordingly. This Bill has come forward, and Her Majesty's Opposition in this Chamber have sought to act upon the line I have just been explaining. We have proposed to your Lordships for consideration a series of Amendments which might help to ease the situation between us on this Bill. We have on the Statute Book a measure which provides for State ownership of public-houses in the new towns. The present Government want to sweep away entirely the principles embodied in that measure and propose to do so by this Bill. On our part, we have proposed Amendments to this Bill in order to see whether we can effect a compromise.
I mention four of our proposed Amendments in order to indicate to your Lordships the manner in which we have acted on this occasion. Our first proposal was: assuming that this Bill went through, would the Government be prepared to compromise by leaving one, two or three towns out of its provisions in order that, side by side, in the new towns, we could have an experiment of publicly owned liquor traffic and one that is privately owned. Our second took the line of suggesting to the Government that in the meantime the corporations should act on
1004
behalf of their localities rather like municipal organisations. The argument against that suggestion was that the corporations are of a temporary character and unsuitable. I think, however, that is something to be said in their favour, because ultimately, when the new towns reach their full development, municipal authorities will come into being and will then take over where the development corporations leave off. Our third proposal was this: that before the Government did anything under this Bill to alter the situation in the new towns there should be a poll of the inhabitants there. Our point was that those who are involved should decide whether in future they want to be under private enterprise or public enterprise. The fourth proposal was this. Assuming that this I measure had to go through, would the Government hold their hands in forming the local committees until the Minister concerned was able to visit the localities in turn and discuss with local representatives the kind of organisation they desired.
I think that in these four points, whether noble Lords agree with them or not, my noble friends who constitute the Opposition in this House were taking the right course for members of this House to follow. We tried to effect a compromise, in order that the new towns should continue in their proper development. Such was not the case on the Benches opposite. May I mention three statements made by members of the Party opposite in this House and in another place? The Secretary of State for Home Affairs said in another place (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 505, Col. 207):
"This Bill embodies our conviction that State management in the new towns was a mistake."
That was Government policy. Then the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who leads the House with so much distinction, and with great favour from all sides of the House, put his opinion in these words (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 178, Col. 744):
"The only question between us, and the only question of substance with which this Bill deals, is: Who is going to provide that accommodation? For our part, we are convinced that it will be best done by private enterprise, subject to the measure of local public control which this Bill provides. We have no doubt that in this way the interests of the new towns will be better served than by the application of schemes of State management, which are bound to be cumbrous and inelastic."

1005
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, speaking as Deputy Leader of the House, in the absence of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said:
"But the simple issue before us in this Bill is … should we or should we not extend this State enterprise? The view we take is that it is not a good plan to extend this State enterprise."
The Committee followed the line given by their leader. They carried the Bill with one small Amendment only. I regret this, because, it is clear that, by so doing, noble Lords on the Benches opposite followed the views of the Conservative Government and did comparatively little on this Bill to reach an accommodation with noble Lords on this side of the House. I think this is a serious mistake, and I hope that when the noble Marquess the Leader of the House comes to reply he will be able to give us some satisfaction about it.
I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time to-day, and, for the rest, I confine myself to a comparison between the attitude I have just spoken of and the attitude taken by the Labour Government on the measure which this Bill seeks to destroy. I venture to suggest that after I have completed my short survey, most noble Lords, in whatever side of the House they may sit, will come to the conclusion that, after all, accommodation, mutual consent, helpfulness, should be the guiding principles in your Lordships' House. When the 1949 Bill came to your Lordships' House it received almost a welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who was speaking on behalf of noble Lords opposite. Listen to what the noble Lord had to say about that Bill—I quote his words because they convey the point I am trying to hammer home. He said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 162, Col. 1299):
"Let me say at the outset that this Bill, … comes here after full discussion in another place—and a full discussion to which the Minister responsible has obviously listened and has, in consequence, agreed to some quite material alterations in the Bill as originally introduced in another place."
Later in his speech the noble Lord expressed the desire that as the 1949 Bill went through your Lordships' House it should receive further alterations to the advantage of the people who live in the new towns. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, speaking at that time from the Liberal Benches, also gave the Bill a
1006
partial welcome, whilst reserving to himself opinions about it. This is what the noble Marquess said—I quote his words because they are evidence that the Conservative Opposition to that Bill went a little too far (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 162, Col. 1310):
"So far as noble Lords on these Benches are concerned, we think it is perhaps not quite so had a Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was inclined at moments to contend, but certainly not so good a Bill as the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack would have had us believe."
At that time the noble Marquess was balancing himself between the two Parties, and although he did it with great effect, I regret to see that he figured in the Division list against our Amendments to the present Bill in this House the other day.
What happened during the progress of the 1949 Bill through your Lordships' House? On the Committee stage scores of Amendments were proposed by the then Lord Chancellor, at present my noble and learned friend who leads the Opposition in this place. These Amendments arose out of discussions in the other place, and I believe they followed discussions behind the scenes in your Lordships' House. They were meant to be helpful, and were received as being helpful, because not a single Amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend was refused passage in your Lordships' House—and that is saying something, when you remember the relative strength of the two Parties. But His Majesty's Opposition at that time, led on the 1949 Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, raised only five Amendments on their own part against that section of the Bill which dealt with new towns. Two of the Amendments were proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, one being of a technical matter, to provide for the safe running of the public-houses in the new towns, should the corporations fall through; and the second to prevent the State from compulsorily purchasing land in the new towns rather than using the ordinary methods of business. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, for his part, moved one Amendment and two consequential Amendments. The subject of his Amendment concerned licensed clubs, because in the Bill of that year it was proposed that before a new club was opened in the new towns the consent of the Secretary of State should be taken.

1007
That was the opposition to the Government's 1949 Bill at that time. It was very small in its range and, I think, not representing what members opposite generally felt before the Bill reached that stage. But such was the progress made by consultation and agreement, that it became unnecessary for noble Lords opposite to move more. Those scores of Amendments of which I have spoken went back to the other place, and all but three were accepted there. Perhaps I may correct my noble friend Lord Silkin on one point, because the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Munster, which was supposed to carry the weight of the Conservative Party behind it, was made not on Third Reading but on the receipt of the Commons Reasons for refusing the three Amendments for which he had been responsible in this House. I think it is fair to assume that Lord Munster's explanation that the Conservative Party would oppose the Bill when they came into office was not an ordered statement which he was instructed to make, but one which arose out of his disappointment that his clubs and institutes, of which he is chairman, were not to be as free as they were. I will not trespass further on your Lordships' time. I have merely compared the attitude of the Government of the day in regard to two related Bills. I do appeal, not only to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House but to every member of the House to think of this House in terms of seeking agreement and effecting compromises, rather than using majorities, or even minorities, for forcing through measures of this kind without due consideration, such as we have experienced during the last few days.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in rising to support Her Majesty's Government on this Bill, I should like to say that I believe this debate will be memorable more than one would have thought, by reason of the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the subject of threats. I entirely agree with what he said: it is difficult and unpleasant for any Government to carry on under the threat of the Opposition. What I should like to say on that point particularly is this. A threat is an undertaking to carry out a defined action in quite undefined circumstances. Therefore, it is always a great weakness. I should
1008
be glad if the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, were to gain widespread sympathy in both Government and Opposition, because if that kind of opposition could cease entirely from this day forward I believe the state of affairs for the country would be much happier. These things come from bitter Party feelings and doctrinaire Party principles. If we could modify those two things, in my view, we should be in a much happier position.
With regard to this Bill, I am wholeheartedly in support of it, for this reason. The Bill does give a greater measure of freedom than the existing law—in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, admitted that at the end of his speech. I am bound to say that every small assertion of freedom in this country is welcomed by me. I fully believe that if the Government were to take the risk of abolishing nine-tenths of the controls under which we labour to-day, there would be such a burst of energy and hope in this country that the effects would be quite incalculable and almost unmitigatedly for our good. On that ground alone I would support this Bill. After all, the great thing that helped us in the last Election was the cry of: "Set the people free." This is a small item in that direction, and as such I welcome it.
3.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am going to intervene because I think it may be for the convenience of the House. As your Lordships know, owing to illness I was unfortunately unable to be here during the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate that my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who was present, should answer the more detailed arguments which were raised at that time and to which noble Lords have reverted to-day. But there is one broad question of principle which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, with which I feel it would be proper for me, as Leader of the House, to deal. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I do that now.
As I understand it, the point is: Are noble Lords opposite, the Opposition in this House, to understand as a result of this Bill that, while there happens to be a Conservative Government in power,

1009
your Lordships' House can perform no functions of a revising character—that they are required to do so, but, in fact, are unable to do so? I hope I have not put the position unfairly. In my own mind, the answer to that question, which I agree is one of primary importance, is quite clear. Noble Lords opposite, and the House as a whole, must not understand that—at least, I certainly do not understand it. Every Amendment which any noble Lord puts forward in this House, in whatever part of the House he may happen to sit, has a perfect right to be considered on its merits, and with a genuine desire to see whether it is what may be called a constructive Amendment; and it is the right of any Government to decide whether, in their view, at any rate, such Amendments are constructive or merely wrecking. I hope, that, so long as I lead this House, they always will be so considered. In the present case, we have not the thought that the majority of these Amendments are constructive. We thought that the motives which inspired noble Lords opposite—and I am not criticizing them—were not merely practical, technical arguments in favour of one course or another, but an attachment to the broad thesis that State management and ownership is right and that any other form of ownership is wrong. We believe that is why they brought in the State management of licensed premises in the new towns, and that is the reason why they are so dreadfully pained that there should be any suggestion that the management and ownership of these licensed premises should be altered.
In effect, the broad meaning of this general principle which has been invoked, and to which I have already referred, is, as I understand it, that noble Lords fear (and in saying this I am not questioning their sincerity) that it may be, as they say, impossible to carry on Parliamentary Government if, when a Conservative Government comes into power, it reverses what has been done by the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin—rather unworthily, I thought—had rather a sneer at this Government. He said: "This is the only piece of legislation they have achieved in a year. This is all they have done, and this is to reverse what has been done by the late Government." I do not think that was quite fair of the noble Lord. I do not want
1010
to carry the scope of this debate too wide, but the fact remains that practically the whole of the last year has been occupied, as your Lordships know, in clearing up the appalling economic mess which was left by the late Government. It is perfectly true that, as a result, we have not had as much time as we should have liked for constructive legislation. But I do not think that what the noble Lord has said is true.
Nor do I think it would be accurate to say of this Government that their whole purpose has been to reverse what was done by the late Administration; and I do not think they have done it. After all, we must remember what happened in the last Parliament. The Party to which noble Lords opposite belong came in with a great rush of enthusiasm. They believed in nationalisation as the main means of production and the general administration of the country. They nationalised the Bank of England, they nationalised the coal industry, they nationalised the gas industry, they nationalised electricity and they nationalised the railways. I am sure that noble Lords opposite have heard of no suggestion that those great industries or these great branches of our administration should be denationalised. It is not true to say that the purpose of this Government is to turn round and undo all that the late Government have done. Considering how profoundly we disagreed with it, I believe that we are behaving with extreme moderation.
As your Lordships will remember, we did not oppose those measures when they were brought into your Lordships' House, although we had a great majority. We did not oppose the measures to which I have already referred, and the present Government have shown no sign yet, at any rate, of reversing them. But if I am told that it is wrong for the Conservative Government to reverse anything at all that the late Government did, I will not accept that, and I do not believe that any sensible man would. This argument must be read in conjunction with the remarks which are being made at the present moment by some of the noble Lord's colleagues. When I opened my paper this morning I read a speech by Mr. Bevan and I read another speech by Mr. Douglas Jay. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite read the

1011
speeches of their colleagues, but if they do they must have seen that they said that the first task of the next Labour Government, if and when it is re-elected, will be to nationalise a continuous series of great industries. They put it in absolutely unequivocal words.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, really suggest that when one Party is in power it is absolutely right constitutionally for that Party to carry out a series of revolutionary and, we believe, disastrous changes, but that when the people, anxious about what has happened, put in the Conservative Party again, the new Government is not to be allowed to reverse anything that has been done, and not to be allowed to put the country on what we believe to be the right road again? I do not think anybody could conceivably argue that. I believe that if we accepted that position, it would lead the country rapidly to ruin. Some things must be reversed. I have no doubt that that will be the view of the Party opposite of some of the things which will probably be done by this Government while we are in power. They are already beginning to say that they will reverse things that we have done. I believe that that is inevitable with a Party system. Obviously, not everything must be reversed, but some things must be. I believe that, on a very small and limited scale, this is one of those cases. We do not believe that the case for (if I may use the vernacular) "nationalising the pubs" in the new towns was made when it was done, and we do not believe that there is a good case for it now. We do not believe that anybody in the new towns themselves wants it.
A most extraordinary argument was used by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He said that he did not pay much attention to the meeting of, I think it was, 600 residents of Crawley. After all, he said, they were only the people who lived there now; and he asked, what about the people who might live there at some future time and who might conceivably think differently? We have at any rate the present inhabitants on our side, and he has nobody except a shadowy army of people created by himself.
LORD SILKIN: I am sure that the noble Marquess will realise that I was
1012
quoting the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as saying that it was not the present inhabitants who matter but the future inhabitants.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the noble Lord did not quote anything to show that the future inhabitants would think any differently from the present ones, except on his own personal view which was founded on nothing substantial at all. If he goes to any of these towns at the present time, I believe he will find that the great majority of the present inhabitants are against State ownership and management. Therefore, I should have thought that the whole of this argument about this great shadowy army of the future, of Silkin-minded persons who are going to march into the new towns, is not really the sort of argument which could be seriously raised to your Lordships' House. As I say, we are convinced that, in this particular case, there was no public demand for what the late Government did. It was purely an ideological move, done for ideological reasons by people who had not a very great majority, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested, but a temporary majority.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Licensing Act was passed in 1949, when Labour had a majority of 150 in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, that makes the results of the following Election even more striking, because the majority was reduced to practically nothing. At any rate, that is our view. I do not in the least complain that noble Lords opposite should hold a different view, but holding the view that we do we feel that it was necessary to take this step. It is for these reasons, now that we are discussing the Third Reading, that we ask the assent of your Lordships' House to this measure.
3.39 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, as the first speaker after the noble Marquess, perhaps he will permit me to say that I, in common with every member of your Lordships' House, am glad and thankful to see him back in his old form, with such fighting spirit. His ability and courtesy are such as to make his absence felt by every member of the House, and his absence creates a gap which no noble Lord on that side of the House can

1013
adequately fill. I want to refer to only one point in this discussion on the Third Reading. While I share the regret of my noble friend Lord Shepherd about the Amendments that were not accepted, I want to express in no measured terms my appreciation of the Amendment which Her Majesty's Government did accept—I agree, after consultation in another place. That, of course, was the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. That Amendment, as your Lordships will remember, sought that in licensed premises there should be provided, in addition to the accommodation provided for under the Bill, accommodation for the consumption on the premises of beverages other than intoxicating liquors. I think it would be difficult to exaggerate the value of that Amendment. I only hope that it will not he allowed to become a dead letter but that it will be made really operative and effective.
If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to read a brief extract from a letter which I received after the debate on road accidents which we had in your Lordships' House. In common with many other noble Lords I receive a number of letters after I have intervened in a debate in this House. This letter came from Great Bookham, near Leatherhead, in Surrey. I am not going to read the whole of it to your Lordships, but hope you will allow me to read the part which is germane to this discussion. The letter begins:
"My Lord, as a member of my local Accident Prevention Council, I was discussing your reported remarks, relating to drinking drivers, with my husband. Whilst agreeing wholeheartedly with what you express, my husband, who often drives home late in the evenings, pointed out that since the passing of the Catering Wages Act there are long stretches of our arterial roads where it is impossible to get a meal. The 'pubs' are the only hope for people like him. Whilst he would far prefer a good meal in a cafe with a cup of coffee or tea to keep him awake on a long drive, it takes a very hardened man to walk into a 'pub' and ask for sandwiches and a poi of tea!
Beer and sandwiches are often thus forced on the late evening homecomer, for it is even more dangerous to drive feeling cold on an empty stomach, as that tends to sleepiness.…"
I have read that extract from a letter from a perfect stranger only to emphasise to your Lordships the value of the one
1014
Amendment that was accepted by Her Majesty's Government in this House. I thank the Government very sincerely for accepting it.
3.44 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to reiterate what the noble Lord. Lord Rochester, has just said, and to say how glad I am to see the noble Marquess back again restored, I hope, to his full health. Although we do the best we can here in his absence, yet everybody in all quarters really and sincerely misses him. Having said that, I want to tell your Lordships now that I am seriously disturbed about the position of this House, as exemplified by the proceedings on this Bill and by all my experience within the last year. I drove up to this House the other day in a taxicab, and I told the driver—an ordinary, intelligent taxi-driver—to drive me to the House of Lords. He drove to these precincts and started to drive me into the House of Commons entrance. I said, "No, not the House of Commons: the House of Lords." And then, my Lords, that London taxi-driver said to me, "I have never heard of it." It is really a rather extraordinary commentary on life to-day that that should have happened only a week ago. But if to-day some people have never heard of the House of Lords, the sooner they do hear of us the better.
I had six and a half years of experience as Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, and I say here and row that I came definitely to the conclusion that this House was of the greatest possible value as a revising Chamber—and that, after all, is our real function. We have great debates on all sorts of matters, in which well-qualified people speak, but when it comes to legislation we are a revising Chamber. Perhaps it was a good thing that we as a Government were in such a very small minority in this House. We had to be reasonable; we had to try to meet our adversary whilst we were in the way with him and agree with him: circumstances rendered it necessary. Many of your Lordships will remember that I used to have round-table conferences, at which I used to meet noble Lords opposite; I used to hear what they had to say, and to go as far as I possibly could to meet them. If I could not, if I had not the authority meet them, I used to undertake to go to the Ministers and press them; and often I succeeded

1015
in getting further concessions. That, I believe, was right, and I believe it to be one of the functions of this House to moderate the bitterness which tends to reveal itself in another place. After all, the whole thing can be summed up in words used by the noble Marquess when he was Leader of the Opposition in this House, and was confronted with a situation such as this, to the effect that this House was going to consider itself a Council of State. That I believe to be the true function of this House. It is a Council of State standing rather aloof, au dessus de la mêlée, rather apart from the bitter controversies of another place and seeing if it cannot help to bridge the gap which there develops.
Well, my Lords, the experience I have had in this last year, which shows that this Government, with its vast majority in this House, can always vote us down (which proves nothing), makes me very doubtful whether, in these circumstances, this House has any useful function whatever to perform. When I came up here this morning—and I made a very considerable journey to come up—if anybody had asked me, "Is your journey really necessary?" I should have been in great doubt. There is nothing, so far as I can see—and this Bill is symptomatic of it—which is conceded to this House. There is no step that has been taken by the Government to meet our point of view, and even our arguments are not really dealt with.
That is the accusation I make. The position was very much the same on the Health Bill, the other great controversial Bill. Take this present Bill. It came here from another place on a Friday. It had its Second Reading on the following Monday, the Committee stage on the next Thursday, and the Report stage to-day. If we desired to, we could not possibly put down an Amendment on Third Reading, because that cannot be done until after the Report stage. That is the position, and I repeat what I said the other day that this House is being treated as a rubber stamp. There is no attempt to arrange round-table talks to try to hammer out some agreement. If ever there was a case on which we might have had a compromise on a difficult matter, this is the case.
Consider the position, my Lords. There is really nothing ideological about this. We
1016
have had the Carlisle experiment in State management. The Royal Commission of 1932 thought State management had been successful and they would have been glad to see further chances being given of extending it. Here, we have a good chance of extending State management. I want to ask the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, these simple questions. So far as I understand him, he is not at all opposed to the system of State management. I gather that from his observations on this Bill. He does not like the manager being remunerated solely on the amount of drink which he sells. He welcomes the idea that a public-house should not be primarily a place where intoxicating liquor is sold but a place where refreshments of all sorts are provided for the people. He welcomes that idea, and he comes from a country where the system of tied houses is virtually unknown.
There is one great argument in favour of tied houses and, so far as I know, only one. It is this: that it is only because a house is tied to a particular brewer that the brewer is prepared to spend a very considerable sum of money in building the house in the way it should be built. I have no objection whatever to the brewers. I said the other day, and I say it quite shortly here, that I think the brewers ought to be congratulated on putting up some really good buildings, buildings which are aesthetically and structurally good. Under this Bill the Government could have tried here to get a free house, which I should think is plainly an advantage. I ask the noble Earl that question. Does he like the free house, assuming you can get the house properly built, and assuming you can get someone to put up the money? Is it not demonstrably better than the tied house, because (I am following the noble Earl's ideology; I agree on this point) it ensures competition, and you are able, within reason, to give your customer what he wants in the way of draught beer, and are not limited to one particular brand?
If you have a free house, with a management such as I have indicated, where the manager is not remunerated only on the sale of drink but is entitled to stock whatever beer he finds the customers want, is that not a greater liberty than exists here? Surely it is. I do not understand the point about greater liberty. I maintain that here you had a

1017
chance. If the Government had met us about that idea, I should not have been in the least obsessed with any idea of a State brewery. I should have been prepared to say, "Let the existing houses remain where they are. It is not essential to this Bill that they should be taken over. Let us experiment with regard to these three new towns. One of them has no licensed premises at all: let us try an experiment there. Let us not close our minds; let us learn." Apart from the Amendment which has been indicated—and I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is an important and valuable Amendment—we were given absolutely nothing, nothing whatever.
Of course, I know you can vote us down; you can do that quite easily. But I do not feel that you have met the argument at all. The argument is simply this. Here you have a Royal Commission wanting this experiment extended. Here you have a chance of extending the experiment. Why not try it, with whatever limitations you like? Try the experiment, and let us all learn from the experiment. There is really no ideology about that, except this: I say, quite frankly, that if I can get an equally good house I personally prefer a free house to a tied house. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is to reply, this question. If he can get an equally good house—I admit the difficulty that arises there—does not he also prefer a free house to a tied house? If he says he does not, I will ask him to tell me why, because I understand from the argument that he himself adduced during the hearing of this Bill that he did prefer the system of the free house, subject to the difficulty of finding someone to put up the very substantial sum of capital required.
There is our position. I very much hope that in the future we shall be given adequate time to consider these matters, that it will not be taken for granted that in the course of ten days this House is going to pass whatever edict or ukase the Government put before us. I hope, further, that the Government will try, in the difficult times of to-day, to meet the Opposition to some extent, if they can do so without giving away anything that is vital. Of course, I agree with what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said. I am not suggesting that the Government are doing anything unconstitutional. Of course they ate entitled to repeat all the
1018
legislation of their predecessors. It is perfectly constitutional and perfectly right. Of course a Government must, in some cases, repeal the legislation which their predecessors have passed. I am not talking about what is constitutional; I am talking about what is wise.
I submit that, confronted with the position of this country to-day, when it is divided into two pretty equal halves, with an Election coming along and it depending on temporary advantage whether this half or that half is going to win the clay, if we mean to consider what is for the good of the country, the proper function of this House—as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, put it, I thought, very clearly and very well—is to try, so far as we can, to build bridges, always provided that noble Lords on the Government side do not, by building a bridge, give away something which is really essential from their point of view. Therefore, I say, if ever there was a Bill where you could quite easily have met us, and where we could have had a compromise, this is the Bill. Instead of that, you have turned down every suggestion we have made, with the one exception which I have indicated; and you have turned it down without any argument which has appealed at all to my mind. You have turned it down because you have all the big battalions behind you. Of course you have. If that is the real position, then this House at the present time, with a Tory Government in power, is performing no function of any use whatever. I say that definitely and I say that quite frankly, because I hope, still believing in this House, that in the future we shall be given the time and the opportunity to make our suggestions. I earnestly hope that the Government will do as we did in the last Parliament, and that we shall have an opportunity of having roundtable conferences before embarking on these debates in the House, and that you will do your utmost in the future to meet the wishes of the Opposition.
3.58 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Earl had a misfortune with his taxi-driver the other day. It is difficult to imagine how the man in question ever passed his Scotland Yard examination. But one of my own friends, not long before that, ordered a cab to go to this House. The man said: "Thank goodness you are not going to

1019
the 'gas House!'" Of course. I cannot pretend to imagine what the taxi-man can have meant, but at any rate there are taximen who have heard of this House. The opposition to this Bill, to my mind, consists of two totally different points of view. It is an uneasy coalition between those who think that through State houses they will get better beer, and those who have a feeling that through State houses they will get less beer. To my mind, or the ordinary laws of economics, those two points of view are incompatible.
I am no spokesman for the liquor trade. I personally think that the less we drink the better for us. I believe that the habit should be attacked through persuasion, and indeed sometimes even through remorse, but not through legislation. At the moment, our people like beer, which is hardly an alcoholic drink to-day. They also like recreation. The question of refreshment has been stressed in this House, but not that of recreation. Are the people likely to get better facilities for refreshment and recreation in houses provided by the State, and either managed by a State employee or, conceivably, left to a manager, or in the buildings provided by the individual brewers, all in competition with each other in the town? As the provision of recreation is so important (the public-house is the poor man's club) I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that there will be better facilities for recreation through the competition created by the different houses—the one house providing better darts, better billiards, better competitions and so on, than the other. They all compete with each other in this matter of providing the amenities of a poor man's club.
EARL JOWITT: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that if you have one free house, run by the development corporation and managed on their behalf, you still have competition with all the other houses?
LORD HAWKE: Well, we come to the point about the free houses. I am not out of sympathy with the noble and learned Earl on the subject of the free house, but he qualifies his recommendation, and rightly so, pointing out, from the economic angle, that the free house is expected to get its capital, in effect, from
1020
the public funds. And that is where I differ from the noble Earl, because I should be very reluctant to see a large amount of public funds spent in providing public-houses in these new towns. I should have thought it would be against the conscience of those who violently oppose the liquor traffic to advocate such a thing If it is immoral to have drink, surely it is very immoral for the State in any way to provide the money for such a venture. They ought to stand aside. But if we allow the brewers to sink their not unlimited capital resources into public-houses in the new towns, that means, of course, that they have less capital resources available for putting into public-houses in other parts of the country. In other words, if you have a tied house in the new town the total facilities for drinking in the whole country are likely to be less than if you have the brewers' resources engaged outside the new towns and State money put into the new towns. Nobody would disagree that it is absolutely essential that large capital sums shall be spent if the public-houses are to be of the necessary standard that people are nowadays accustomed to.
By and large, I do not think people are very satisfied with State management or State ownership in this country to-day. I am not referring particularly to liquor houses, but in general. If you could take some sort of referendum of people who use public-houses, I think they would undoubtedly opt for the houses provided by the brewers. Of course, you could never have what one might call a really fair vote on that, because the antiliquor interests will always vote the other way, and you will get a false ballot. The people who are not going to use the public-houses will certainly vote for State "pubs" because they hope that there will be less liquor and fewer customers. But it all boils down to this: that this matter should really be decided by persuasion. I am sure it is quite wrong to try and force temperance through by legislation.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and other noble Lords for what they have said about the Amendment which we did accept. Certainly, our hope is that it will be

1021
valuable, as is the wish of the noble Lord. In this matter it is for those administering to make the decision.
LORD ROCHESTER: Would the noble Earl forgive me? I am not quite sure what he said, and it is very important. Did the noble Earl say that it was "for those administering it"? In the ultimate issue it is the Minister who administers, not the committee.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is correct. The Minister is not expected to initiate, though I agree with the noble Lord that in certain cases he has the power to modify the regulations. I certainly accept what the noble Lord says, that the Minister carries a measure of responsibility to see that the matter is fully considered. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for saying that he thought my attitude on Committee stage was courteous, although I am sorry the noble Lord found that his arguments were not answered. If I may be quite frank, I thought the Amendments divided themselves into two categories—those which went against the principle of the Bill, arid those which were incidental thereto. I should not necessarily expect the Amendments in the first category to appear, in the noble Lord's mind, to be entirely answered but I would, with respect, say that the Amendments in the second category were pretty fully dealt with.
I do not want to recapitulate, but the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned two things—namely, the limitation on temporary buildings and the question of distribution. May I take the second point first?—I shall not delay your Lordships long on it. There was some question as to whether the proposals would lead to a redistribution of the old licences. Of course they will. What we objected to was stipulating the precise licensed premises which were to be removed. We took that view because we thought the stipulation would give the premises a premium value and would tie the hands of the corporation when it came to removing the licence. I do not want to develop this point, but I think that if the noble Lord looks at it he will see that there is something in that argument. We may be right or we may be wrong, but there is nothing to prevent the committee from stipulating the precise place, where they think it is
1022
to their advantage to do so. However, that was our point of view and I will say only that I think there is something in it.
The noble Lord has said that this is a supreme example of a 13i11 in which a compromise could be reached. I am going to submit, with respect, that this is a pretty difficult Bill about which to compromise. The noble Lord has pleaded with me about free houses. I agree with him, but one's own personal view is of limited value in this matter. In so far as I know them to be such, I like free houses, though I honestly would not always know whether I was in a free house. On Second Reading we had a discussion on the Carlisle experiment, upon which the noble Lord has based his claim for free houses. I made an examination of the question, and out of the 178 licensed premises in Carlisle I found only one that has not got State beer—and that has one barrel of Bass. I think noble Lords will agree that there is a very good example for the free house type of institution. I want to put this point again, if I may. There is absolutely nothing to prevent anybody starting a free house if he wants to. I am saying merely that the arrangement must be made which appears to the new town corporation to be the most suitable, whether it be for a free house or for a tied house. Certainly my impression is that what will happen in Scotland is that the new towns will build premises which will be taken over by a licensee, entirely on a free basis, of course. I think that in certain cases in England they will not do that, but will persuade the licensee to build the house. That is what I am given to understand.
Now if I may go one stage further, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has again raised the question of mandate. With the greatest respect, I think the noble Lord is skating on extremely thin ice. I did explain—and the noble Lord has never denied it—that it has been stated clearly that it was not in our official manifesto what our intentions were about this matter. May I read to the House what Mr. Herbert Morrison said in another place on the Second Reading of the Licensing Act which we are now, in part, repealing? Like me, he had been asked certain specific questions with regard to the question of a mandate. This is what Mr. Morrison said:

1023
"I am not going to accept the argument that everything that every Government does has to be justified by specific electoral declaration or mandate. This matter arose incidentally, in relation to new towns. Certainly we had a mandate for proper town and country planning. Certainly we had a mandate, which was well within the broad line of policy of the new towns, and when we came to the actual proposals for the new towns, we had to consider what was the best way of running the licensed premises. It really is an incidental matter, a by-product of the new towns' policy, as to how the licensed premises should be dealt with. Therefore, the question of a specific mandate does not arise. This is not such a startling Bill as all that."
I do not find myself greatly differing from Mr. Morrison in regard to this Bill, if I may say so. The noble Lord opposite has pressed the question of State management and has emphasised the views of the Royal Commission. Why is it that no Labour manifesto, so far as I know, has ever contained any reference to State management of public houses? Even at the last Election, the Party opposite were unwilling to give a specific answer to that question when it was put to them by legitimate questioners. I think it is a question which might very properly be asked, if the noble Lord is really anxious to come forward as the protagonist of State-managed licensed premises.
The noble Lord has asked why we are doing this. We believe it is important—just as noble Lords opposite do—that these new towns should be well run. The Carlisle experiment, as it is called, though it has, shall I say, done reasonably well in resolving the problem for which it was set up, has not proved any long-term solution to any problem. If the noble Lord had even varied the Carlisle experiment, so-called, there might have been more to be said for it. The Carlisle experiment has resolved nothing in itself. It is not particularly desirable, either from the point of view of those people who like free houses or from the temperance point of view, that it should be extended. We think that in starting new towns it is important to start them on the soundest possible basis, and that is one reason why we attach importance to doing it on well tried lines.
The second point I would make—and I emphasise this—is that to have followed out the ideas of noble Lords opposite would have demanded further public money at this time, and to undertake to
1024
sink public money in public-houses would at best be a questionable policy. Every day last week we had brought to our notice something which had to be built—whether it was hotels, prisons, or houses, does not matter much now. Noble Lords opposite would add public-houses to the long list. I say, with respect, that any Government would probably be wise in their own interests not to undertake that commitment. It is that, among other reasons, which makes us anxious to put forward this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed and returned to the Commons.

IRISH SAILORS AND SOLDIERS LAND TRUST BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

COCKFIGHTING BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
DEFAMATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments made by the Lords agreed to, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendments and Reason to be printed.
  COLONIAL TRADE AND BALANCES
  COLONIAL TRADE AND BALANCES
  COLONIAL PRODUCTION
  COLONIAL PRODUCTION