I beg to move, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:

Application of law relating to home forces and settlement of claims

7. Sections 8 and 9 shall apply in relation to a headquarters and its members and property and persons connected with it as they apply in relation to a visiting force and its members and property and persons connected with it.

It is necessary to move this Amendment, because paragraph 7 of the Schedule has financial application and for that reason was left out when the Bill was an another place to avoid questions of privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That this be the Schedule to the Bill.

I should like to ask the hon. Lady a point which arises most clearly out of the definition paragraph. Paragraph 1(1) states that: 'military member of a headquarters' means a member of any country's forces who is for the time being appointed to serve in the United Kingdom under the orders of a headquarters.' As I understand it—here one must have reference to the Protocol to which the hon. Lady referred—the headquarters will be either allied headquarters or supreme headquarters. The members will be under the orders of the headquarters. Which, in the last resort, is the political authority responsible for ensuring that in the execution of those orders the military members, or for that matter the civilian members, do not go beyond or abuse the privileges, immunities a id rights granted to them under the Bill? Which is the political authority responsible?

For example, which is the political authority, responsible for prosecuting them in cases which cannot be tried in United Kingdom courts? As the hon. Lady knows, under the Visiting Forces Act provisions are made that members of visiting forces can be exempt from trial in certain circumstances in United Kingdom courts, but the understanding is that they shall be tried by the law of their own country, by the law of the sending State.

In this case the authority from whom they receive their orders is not a State but a headquarters. Will the headquarters, therefore, be responsible for seeing that its members are brought to justice if necessary?

9.45 p.m.

The hon. Member indicated that he appreciates that the 1952 Act is extended in the Bill and that the conditions of that Act are applicable in this case. He asked which political body would be responsible in certain circumstances. It would be the Department concerned. For example, if it were a transport offence it would be the Ministry of Transport which would be responsible.

With respect, I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood my question. I meant which non-British political authority would be responsible. I was making the point that under the 1952 Act we waive our right to try people in British courts for certain offences, on the understanding that they will be brought to justice by some other authority. Which is the authority which will bring them to justice in this case?

It would be the military headquarters of the country concerned on the military side.

The military headquarters?

The military court of the country concerned, within the headquarters on the military side. On the political side the political council will be responsible in these cases. However, I think that the hon. Member is reading far too much into this. As was explained on Second Reading, if it were a question of a member of the Dutch forces being in trouble with another Dutchman, there would be no difficulty. In all these cases, as the hon. Member knows, the obligations under the 1952 Act are extended. That is the purpose of the Bill; to extend this to the headquarters. I can assure the hon. Member that I am not being difficult about this. It is just that I do not appreciate the difficulties which are in his mind.

This is an important point and we should get it cleared up. This is a question of people who are members of headquarters and who are under the orders of a headquarters. A person who is under the order of his own Government or State is responsible to that Government or State and he can, if he is brought into a court, plead that he was acting under the orders of his Government or State. Will the people referred to in the Schedule be able to plead that they were acting not under the orders of any State or Government but under the orders of a headquarters? Will they have that defence available to them and, if so, who will be responsible for their actions?

I must repeat that there is no change in the present position. The definition of a military member of the headquarters means a member of any country's forces serving in the United Kingdom under the orders of that headquarters. The expression does not include any member of the home forces; and the rest of the position is adequately covered by the 1952 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.