asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the Government's intention to ratify the Convention on the Political Rights of Women during the sitting of the Assembly of the United Nations; and if he will give the reasons leading to their decision in this matter.

No, Sir. Although Her Majesty's Government support the principles embodied in this Convention, they are not able to adhere to it. The main reason, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Lady on 25th March, is the absence of a Territorial Application Article.

I understand the difficulty is the position of women in some of our Colonial Territories. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to see how far that difficulty is as great as it was and consult the Colonial Secretary to see whether steps could be taken to bring those conditions into such a state that we can now sign the Convention?

I am sure it is my right hon. Friend's intention to try to bring about that state of affairs. He has consulted the Colonial Territories concerned, but it would be quite wrong in present circumstances for the Government to undertake this obligation when the conditions in those Territories do not conform with this Convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken this year to alter the conditions under which Her Majesty's Government will accept the rulings of the International Court at The Hague in disputes with other countries; when the decisions were made; and why Parliament was not consulted at the time they were made.

I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in the House on 8th November during the course of the debate on the Address.

Will not the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming than that? Is it not a fact that the decision was made in April and not disclosed until Parliament was in Recess? Is it not a fact that the alteration means that unless we are judges in our own cause we shall not play? Having struck a disastrous blow at the United Nations through the Suez adventure, is it not a serious matter that again we strike another blow at laws designed to keep the peace between nations? What do the Government want—international anarchy?

As to whether I have been forthcoming or not, I referred the hon. Member to the statement I made recently, which takes up more than three columns in HANSARD, and in which I set out the whole of the position. Our position is that we regard our obligations in this on a basis of reciprocity. I, for one, am not prepared to have matters of national security referred to this tribunal when fifty other countries are not bound by the Optional Clause at all. The whole purpose behind the International Court of Justice was that countries should go there on the basis of reciprocity.

As there was a great deal that was obscure in what the Foreign Secretary said on 8th November, and as there is widespread anxiety in the country about this matter, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider laying a White Paper explaining, first, what he meant by the Ponsonby Rule, and secondly, the reasons for his action on the Optional Clause? Will he recall that the Labour Government in 1929 laid such an explanatory memorandum when they signed the Optional Clause?

I will certainly consider an explanatory memorandum. In my speech on 8th November, I dealt with the matter in great detail. The right hon. Gentleman has referred again to the Ponsonby Rule. Since 8th November, I have gone further into that matter, and I am advised that the purpose of the Ponsonby Rule was to enable Parliament to discuss treaties requiring ratification before ratification took place. That situation does not arise in this case.

As to the suggestion of the hon. Member that I was trying to conceal this, this decision was communicated to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for onward transmission to 82 countries members of the United Nations, and it was also sent to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.

Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary failed to supply a copy of what he had done to Members of this House or to the Press, and that no Government have treated the House of Commons in such a way for forty years?

If that is a supplementary question. I think it is perfectly ridiculous.

On a point of order. Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the latest developments in the field of intercontinental and medium range ballistic missiles, he will lay before the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December plans to wind up the rival military alliances and replace them by an all-European treaty based on the Charter, within which Germany could be re-unified, armaments controlled and Anglo-American and Soviet forces withdrawn from the Continent.

No, Sir.

is it not a fact that the development of ballistic missiles by the Soviet Union has made the land forces and bomber bases of N.A.T.O. an out-of-date and useless anachronism? Is is not a further fact that the more we pile up nuclear weapons on both sides the greater is the danger of war? Would not a settlement on the lines proposed in the Question make us all safer? It is in substance that advocated by the Opposition and by responsible American opinion as expressed by such people as George F. Kennan and Walter Lippmann, and as it is close enough to the proposals of the Soviet Union, would it not be worth while attempting to reach agreement by negotiation?

I disagree with almost everything the hon. Member has said. I think the way to preserve the peace is to maintain our alliances and not to wind them up. I think the way to achieve the reunification of Germany is to seek to keep the Soviet Union to their word given in the high-level talks in 1955. As for the question of armaments, I think we should press on with the proposals which were endorsed by 57 countries of the United Nations.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of treaties and alliances, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the time has come for a new diplomatic initiative to be taken? Are we to drift along towards what may be irretrievable disaster? Is no new diplomatic initiative contemplated by the Government?

I think the question of the timing of any new initiative is one which must rest with the Government, and I should not have thought the present moment was one for putting forward the suggestion on the lines of the hon. Member, which is almost identical with the suggestion of the Soviet Union, and which do not think would lead to security or peace.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say why the time is not opportune for taking a diplomatic initiative? Are we now to wait until we have some new technical achievement to set against the Sputniks? Are we to go on having this ridiculous race, each trying to get his nose ahead of the other? At what point will it be timely to take a new diplomatic initiative?

The right hon. Gentleman has not followed my supplementary answer. I said I did not think it was time to take a diplomatic initiative on the lines suggested by the hon. Member because I did not think it would lead to peace. I think one of the essences of this matter is some agreement with regard to disarmament. We have put forward certain proposals for a partial agreement, which have been endorsed by 57 countries. I should have thought that the Opposition would have at least given some support to that position, because I think if we can get a partial agreement on those lines we shall have done something to produce an atmosphere in which further negotiations may be appropriate.

I apologise for following this up, but it is a very, very serious matter indeed. We on this side of the House have said on more than one occasion—in a recent debate we said it again—that in our opinion a political settlement should be pursued independently of discussions about disarmament. While I do not dissent from some of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, may I ask him why should we have to wait for agreement about disarmament before putting forward proposals about a political settlement, because it seems to us that both can be pursued separately, one from the other?

I do not contest that position. What I think does not help is this: immediately we have put forward a serious proposition and the Soviet says "No," at once pressure is put on us to put forward something new and to abandon the position we have taken up. As to the German question, I made a speech at the United Nations in which I set down certain conditions in which, we believe, there might be a settlement of the German question. Just because the Soviet Union says "No", I do not think it right or that it adds to security for us at once to abandon our position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcements of the Polish. Czechoslovak and East German Governments that they will not introduce nuclear weapons into their forces or allow the stationing of nuclear bases on their territory, unless such weapons and bases were established in West Germany, he will propose to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference in December that no nuclear bases should be stationed on German territory and the prohibition against German forces possessing nuclear weapons should be maintained.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." The answer to the second part is that there is no such prohibition.

Is it not a fact that Germany was admitted to N.A.T.O. on condition that she did not manufacture or possess nuclear weapons? Is it not further the fact that the Polish, Czechoslovak and East German Governments have offered not to have nuclear weapons on their territories if we refrain from introducing them into Germany? Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that we shall all be much worse off if there are more nuclear weapons closer to each other on both sides than if we follow the course suggested in the Question? Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that by this means he can ever accumulate enough military power in the West to induce the Soviet Union to accept the inclusion of Germany in N.A.T.O.? Does he not see that this is a hopeless policy and should be abandoned?

I do not agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member has said. I still believe in the power of the deterrent. I think that the deterrent has prevented war in the last ten years, and the fact that it is a deterrent to both sides does not affect us, because we have no intention of committing an act of aggression. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez."] As to the question of its prohibition to German forces, the hon. Member introduced the word "manufacture" in his supplementary question, which is not, of course, in the original Question. I quite agree with the hon. Member that, under the Paris Agreements, Germany is forbidden to manufacture nuclear weapons. She is not forbidden to possess them in any circumstances. It is not forbidden for any countries of W.E.U. to possess them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has received from the United States Government for the inclusion on the agenda of the forthcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference of proposals to establish a high degree of military unity under United States command, even without agreement on foreign policy; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist that commitments to go to war must be related to policies jointly controlled and consistent with the restrictions on the use of force imposed by the Charter of the United Nations.

None, Sir. As far as the second part of the Question is concerned, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 28th June, 1955. The same point was made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member on 4th May. 1949.

Without delving so far into the past, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give an assurance that we will not be committed by the United States to go to war, except in so far as we agree on foreign policy, because otherwise we shall be shot into a war without having any say in the matter?

The circumstances in which this country would go to war must be a matter of decision by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the recent reaffirmation of Yemen's claim to sovereignty over Aden.

This matter was raised at the recent talks in London during the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Badr from 10th to 20th November. It was not possible to reconcile our points of view on this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that the friendly personal relations and good will which were established during the visit—to which His Royal Highness made an important personal contribution—may make it easier to discuss questions of mutual concern in the future.

It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to utilise any opportunity which offers to exchange views with the Government of His Majesty the imam and to reach agreements which will remove causes of friction. We sincerely desire friendly relations with the Yemen. I intend to continue to try to secure these objectives.

Whilst agreeing that we desire friendly relations with the Yemen, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make it quite clear that, although Her Majesty's Government would agree to discussing frontier rectifications, they cannot agree to any claim of foreign sovereignty over Aden?

That matter has been made absolutely clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken regarding the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the regulation of the export of live horses and livestock for slaughter.

This Resolution is at present under consideration by the Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg. I would add that, so far as this country is concerned, legislation already exists to deal with this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain compensation for British subjects whose property has been sequestrated by the Egyptian Government.

As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 31st October. Her Majesty's Government are discussing in the Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome the desequestration of British property in Egypt and compensation where this is due. Those talks are still in progress.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the desequestration of a business where the goodwill has been lost is not of much value to the owner? Will he press for compensation rather than desequestration in these circumstances?

That is precisely one of the matters that have been put to the Egyptian delegation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement exists between this country and the United States of America regarding the launching of hydrogen bombs from United States air bases in British territory without prior consultation, in view of the fact that the United States air force keep aircraft armed with such bombs in the air throughout the 24 hours.

Arrangements for the use of the bases were confirmed in 1952 when the then Prime Minister visited Washington, and it was agreed that the use of the bases in an emergency would be a matter for the joint decision of the two Governments. Circumstances necessitating the delivery of nuclear weapons from the bases would clearly constitute such an emergency.

Yes, but would there be time for consultation? Secondly, is it not a fact that though General Powers announced on 12th November that loaded nuclear planes had been in the air since 1st October, such planes, unknown to the British public, have been in the air for 22 months, as Roscoe Drummond showed in the New York Herald-Tribune on 26th January? Why was this terribly dangerous arrangement and this situation concealed from the British public?

As to the question of consultation, which is the phrase used in the Question, I repeat that it is not a question of consultation; it is a question of joint decision. Therefore, the bases could not be used in those circumstances unless Her Majesty's Government had decided that they should be used. As to the second part of the supplementary question, which I do not think arises strictly out of the Question, the hon. Member referred to a dangerous state of affairs, but I can assure the House that if an aeroplane carrying a nuclear weapon were to crash there would be no danger of a nuclear explosion.

Do I understand that American planes which are on this patrol duty from British bases carry hydrogen nuclear bombs? Do they in this 24-hour patrol actually carry the bombs?

The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) was referring to a statement by some United States general. I should prefer to examine that statement myself to see its precise terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not disputing it for a moment. It may very well he so. I have not challenged the accuracy of it. The point I made is a reasonable one—because there may be some public apprehension from the safety point of view—that if there is an accident in these circumstances there is no danger of nuclear weapons exploding.

I am asking a different question entirely. This is a very serious matter. I understand from the Foreign Secretary's statement that the question as to whether hydrogen bombs would be used against an enemy would be a matter for joint decision between the United States Government and ourselves in respect of our bases. What I am asking now is whether, in fact, American planes which take off from British bases on patrol duty are armed with these bombs at the present time.

My right lion. Friend the Minister of Defence dealt with this matter. I should think that what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says is true—that these aeroplanes do carry them; but it is a matter for the United States Strategic Command.

So we understand the situation to be this—that the planes set off from British bases with hydrogen bombs on board at the moment and whether the bomb is dropped from one of these planes is a matter for joint decision by the British and American Governments. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why it is necessary on patrol duties that these bombs should be on these planes?

I would have thought that if these aeroplanes were on patrol duty, which would denote a certain state of readiness, it was absolutely right that they should be fully armed.

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend if it would not be well, before right hon. Gentlemen put these questions, that they should acquaint themselves with the terms of the answer given by General Powers? As one who heard that answer, may I point out that he said the main deterrent air fleets carrying these bombs were based in the United States and not in this country?

In my supplementary questions I was not dealing with the original statement. I was attempting to elicit information from the Foreign Secretary. May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, arising out of the last supplementary question, whether in fact these American planes on patrol duty from British bases have the hydrogen bomb on board?

I said I was prepared to assume that they had for the purpose of answering this Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. When I said I would like to examine what the American general had said, and to see his statement, there was a derisory chorus from the other side. I had not in mind exactly what the general said, but I say again that it would not seem to me in any way contrary to the spirit of our undertakings—I would not see any difference whether any American aeroplanes of the Strategic Air Command are flying from American or British bases in a state of readiness.

rose—

I hope we shall not debate every Question. It is very hard on hon. Members with later Questions on the Paper.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the plan laid down in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations in May, 1947, for the future Government of Palestine still represents the aims and policy of Her Majesty's Government.

I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution of 29th November, 1947, which was the substantive Resolution on the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine: The United Kingdom abstained on this Resolution. Her Majesty's Government's aims and policy on the Palestine question have been frequently stated, most recently in my speech in this House on 8th November.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what Her Majesty's Government intend to do now? This problem has been going on for far too long. Would he not agree that, except upon some basis such as that contained in the 1947 Resolution of the United Nations, there is no hope of any measure of justice for the Arabs? Would he not also agree that, unless there is a solution soon, this problem which is now intractable will become far more serious and more grave, and that both justice and self-interest demand early action?

I would not disagree with anything my hon. Friend has said. We have frequently stated—everybody in this House has stated—that this state of affairs has continued for far too long, and we have on numerous occasions done our very best to try to find a solution. I would also add that we think some consideration must be given to the November, 1947, Resolution when we are dealing with this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the full scope of British science, technology, trade and industry is adequately shown at the Brussels Universal Exhibition to be held next year.

British science and technology are being given considerable prominence in the British Government pavilion which is being organised by the Central Office of Information on the Foreign Office's behalf. Her Majesty's Government will also be contributing a number of exhibits to the International Palace of Science. British trade and industry is organising its own representation through the Federation of British Industries and will be displaying many of the latest technological developments.

Whilst appreciating the considerable efforts being made by British manufacturers privately, is it not a fact that unless the resources of the State are put behind the British part of the Exhibition, our representation will not be fair to the industrial resources of this country?

I do not think there is any danger of that. Her Majesty's Government have contributed no less than £400,000 already to the British part of the Exhibition, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is worthy of industry in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has sent to United Kingdom representatives in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of the special United Nations fund for economic development.

It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to reveal the instructions sent to United Kingdom delegations, but I can tell the hon. Member that our general attitude on this question remains unchanged.

Can the Minister give us some more information on this important matter? There is no need for secrecy. Can he say whether he will support the recent American proposal to expand the Technical Aid Programme up to 100 million dollars and include in it a special project fund? Is that regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D.?

It may become a substitute for S.U.N.F.E.D., but this proposal of the United States Government has only just been tabled in the committee and it is under discussion at the moment. Various amendments are already being put down to that resolution, and I do not think that at this stage I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government toward this topic.

May I ask the Minister of State this question? Can we not say that we are supporting the American proposal and that we will treble our contribution to technical assistance as the Americans propose to do?

Not at this stage.

Why not? Why cannot we do so? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why we cannot say so? We on this side of the House at least think it undesirable that we should not attempt now to match the initiative coming from other parts of the world about technical development, and why cannot we ourselves on this occasion say that we respond to the American initiative?

Frankly, I think this country does match the initiative coming from other parts of the world. It does on all those matters.

From India, for example?

In many of these international organisations we pay our full share. In many we pay more than our full share. When we are given a new proposal it is only reasonable that we should be given some time to examine it—not very much time, but some—because we are now asked to commit Her Majesty's Government to large new expenditure and, as I said, we contribute very substantially to all these organisations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to lay the verbatim records of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee before Parliament as a Command Paper.

Her Majesty's Government have decided not to print the verbatim records of the 1957 Session of the Sub-Committee, but a Command Paper containing the two Reports of the Sub-Committee and a summary of proceedings will be laid shortly. Eight sets of the verbatim records have been placed in the Library of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have also received a set for their own use.

Since the Foreign Secretary this afternon has appealed for support for the Western Governments' proposals, is it not desirable that hon. Members and the Press should be able to understand the proposals, which they certainly cannot do unless the minutes are readily available?

I understand the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman, but he will appreciate that on this occasion the discussions went on for five and a half months. The printing of the verbatim record would cost something like £4,000. I think that those who have a detailed interest in this subject can be served by receiving copies of the verbatim record which is already printed by the United Nations. Incidentally, we pay our contribution to the printing of that verbatim record. In addition, as I have said, there are eight copies available in the Library, and we have a certain number of other copies which will be available to anyone who takes a particular interest in this subject.

Is it not desirable that all hon. Members should be able to take a detailed interest, and is £4,000 really of significance in respect of disarmament when our armaments bill is £1,500 million a year?

All hon. Members who take a detailed interest in this subject can have the verbatim records available to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far Great Britain's signing of the Paris Club Agreement with the Argentine Government is contingent on proper compensation being paid to the Primitiva Gas Company.

On 25th November, agreements for the consolidation of Argentina's debt to her major creditors (including the United Kingdom) and for the formal inauguration of the Argentine Multilateral Trade and Payments System were signed in Buenos Aires. On the same day a decree was published authorising the Argentine Government to give effect to the terms of the agreement reached with the Primitiva Gas Company. I am sure that the House will welcome the conclusion of these agreements, which should be to the advantage of all concerned, and also the fact that the Primitiva case has at last been settled.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position concerning the claim before the Argentine courts for compensation for the British shareholders of the Anglo-Argentine Tramways; and whether he will assure the House that the settlement of the claims of the Primitiva shareholders and the signing of the Paris Club Agreement will in no way prejudice Her Majesty's Government's efforts to obtain compensation for the Anglo-Argentine Tramways shareholders.

The company's case is still being considered by the Argentine courts, and I understand that some progress has been made. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British shareholders in this company recently made an appeal for funds to fight the matter to a finish, and they have been so successful that they have now decided to continue? In view of that fact, and as my right hon. Friend has just said that the case is going well in the courts, can he assure us that, since the Primitiva case is out of the way, once the Anglo-Argentine Tramways case has gone through the courts and been settled the British Government will do everything in their power to help the shareholders in the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company and do all in their power to get the matter settled, if necessary, out of court?

I did not go so far as to say that the case was going well in the courts. I said it was making progress in the courts. My hon. Friend is right in saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot take any action until the matter comes out of the courts again. When that happens, we will most certainly do all we can to help.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to the need for greater facilities for the welfare, training and employment of disabled persons, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, I shall call attention to developments in Tanganyika, and move a Resolution.

I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) to give notice that on Friday, 13th December, he will call attention to the effect of the proposed Free Trade Area in Europe, and move a Resolution.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This short Bill puts a seal on the aspirations of the Manx people, which they have steadily and patiently pursued for many hundreds of years, to be given greater freedom to manage their own affairs and, in particular, to control their own revenues. It is a particular pleasure to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to be associated with the Bill, since his father was a Lieutenant-Governor of the Isle of Man and he himself has very close and dear ties with the island. My right hon. Friend asked me to apologise to the House for not being here at the moment. He is away on official Home Office business, but certainly hopes to be present later in the debate.

Many centuries ago, the Isle of Man was colonised by Norse settlers. It was an independent kingdom and it was not until nearly the sixteenth century that the English were treated otherwise than as aliens in the island and until then, they had to pay a fee to settle there. In due course, it passed by conquest to the Scots and then to the English, and from the early fifteenth century the island was, as the House knows, ruled by the Earls of Derby, first as kings and later as lords of Man.

Even in those early days, Customs Duties played an important part in the affairs of the island. Increasing mischief was caused by the growth of smuggling between the island and the mainland—and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie), with his territorial interest, appreciates that point. In 1765, the British Government bought out the Duke of Atholl, to whom the island had by then passed in inheritance, and, in effect, took over control of the insular government. From then on, the island's revenues accrued to the Exchequer and Britain assumed complete responsibility for the government of the island, which is exercised through the Lieutenant-Governor.

However, the islanders never accepted as final the loss of their former independence and the island's constitutional history ever since then has reflected their continuing efforts to regain it. One hundred years passed before the first major step in that direction was taken with the passage of the Isle of Man Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. In 1887, Tynwald was empowered to alter Customs Duties with temporary effect, subject to confirmation by Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Hon. Members will remember that the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1955, substituted confirmation by Order in Council.

Apart from that and other minor changes relating to Customs, the statutory framework established by the 1866 Act has remained unaltered to this day, but there is, however, quite a sharp difference between the theory and the practice of the relationship of the two governments. In theory, the sole executive authority in the Isle of Man is the Lieutenant-Governor. He is appointed by the Crown and the island's revenues are controlled by the Treasury. In practice, the present century has seen an increasing degree of power being placed in the hands of Tynwald.

The mere repeal of the Acts which I have mentioned, the 1866 Act and the 1887 Act, would have left many unresolved questions. Happily, those have been resolved in two agreements which have recently been laid before the House, agreements between Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the agreements and thus to give to the Isle of Man, in form as well as in substance, the control over their own affairs which the islanders have long sought and have for some time to a great extent enjoyed.

The first thing the Bill does is to repeal the Act of 1866 and, by doing that, remove the present Treasury control over the expenditure by the island of its Customs revenues, leaving it free to manage its own finances. Secondly, it hands over control of customs matters to Tynwald and, thirdly, by removing Treasury control and by the repeal of various other Statutes, which are set out in the Schedule, the Bill leaves the way clear for Tynwald itself to legislate on various matters, such as loans and harbours. I understand that it is Tynwald's intention to enact as a complementary Measure a Finance Bill which is likely to come into operation at the same time as this Bill, and which will provide for the control of the island's finances in future.

The next thing the Bill does, by the repeal of the Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1887, and the Act of 1955, is to leave the island Government free to fix its Customs Duties and tariffs and other similar charges on goods. I understand that a Bill will be introduced in Tynwald at an early date for that purpose. As hon. Members will recollect, in the agreements which were laid before Parliament, the island agreed to keep its main duties in line with those of the United Kingdom and not to introduce fresh differences in Its duties without first consulting the United Kingdom Government. The existing duties will remain in force until altered by Tynwald—I think that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has just asked to which Government I was referring; it was Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

I was wondering whether the Isle of Man would be able to compete with other seaside resorts by having cheap whisky and cheap tobacco.

Increasing disparity in any duties or taxes will first have to be discussed with United Kingdom Government.

The present arrangements for the collection of Customs Duties in the island by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will also continue in operation undisturbed and, for the time being, at any rate, the present body of United Kingdom law relating to the machinery of Customs administration in the island will remain in force. That is Clause 1.

Clause 2 relates to what is known as the Common Purse arrangements. It has been the practice, blessed by a provision of the Customs (Isle of Man) Tariff Act, 1874, to allow duty-paid goods to move between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man without further payment of duty where the rates are equal. That practice was later extended to include Purchase Tax where Purchase Tax was equal in the two places. To compensate the island for the loss of Customs revenue thus entailed, it became the practice to allocate to the Manx Exchequer the appropriate proportion of the total revenue from equal duties collected both here and in the island. The effect of Clause 2 is to provide specifically for the continuance of that long-standing practice.

Mention of the Common Purse leads me to the Isle of Man's annual contribution to the United Kingdom Exchequer, which nowadays bears a direct relation to the Common Purse receipts. Section 7 of the 1866 Act required £10,000 to be paid annually into the Exchequer out of he Isle of Man Customs Duties. As hon. Members will be aware, the Isle of Man supplemented that sum during the war by making other sums available to the Exchequer.

In 1950, Tynwald resolved to pay, instead of the original £10,000 a year, an annual contribution of 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts. In round figures, that is about £100,000 a year. That increased contribution could not legally be paid at the time until the enactment of Section 2 of the 1955 Act, which enabled the island to pay to the United Kingdom out of the Isle of Man customs revenue a sum greater than £10,000 a year. As I have said, it was based thereafter on 5 per cent., equal to about £100,000 a year and operated retrospectively to 1950.

The island's present contribution rests on Tynwald's decision to pay an annual 5 per cent. of the Common Purse receipts and not on any imperial legislation. The island has agreed to continue to make a contribution each year, and has made such provision in an Act of Tynwald. The agreement is the second of the two that was laid before the House.

Do I understand that Tynwald have actually passed the legislation confirming that they will in future pay 5 per cent. of the Common Purse?

The position, as I understand, is that Tynwald have already, in 1950, under an Act of Tynwald, agreed to pay 5 per cent. I do not think that they have passed fresh legislation; nor should I have thought that it was necessary for them to do so—but perhaps the right hon. Member will ask me that question again in his speech, and I will try to ascertain whether what I have told the House is correct.

It follows from what I have said that the provisiosn of the Imperial Acts of 1866 and 1955 are no longer necessary and are not being retained under the Bill. The Bill repeals a number of United Kingdom statutes relating to loans and to mines and quarries in the island. Future legislation in regard to those matters will be a matter for Tynwald. Certain minor provisions relating to loans are to be retained because they achieve objects which would be beyond the scope of insular legislation.

Harbours are also to become a subject for the legislative control of Tynwald, but since the insular legislation on this subject is not yet ready. Tynwald are empowered by the Bill to repeal, in due course, the existing United Kingdom legislation on harbours in the Isle of Man. Meanwhile, those remain in operation. The Bill also repeals the Isle of Man (Officers) Acts of 1876 and 1882, which are now obsolete.

The principle behind the Bill is that Her Majesty's Government believe that the time has come to give formal recognition to the desire of the people of the Isle of Man to achieve greater financial autonomy. The Bill will not mean the end of the close association between the United Kingdom and the island, or any substantial change in the present practice which I have described to the House. Co-operation between the two Governments on matters of common interest will continue. The introduction of the Bill has been warmly welcomed in the island, and two weeks ago Tynwald passed a resolution unanimously approving the proposals which are to be given effect to in the Bill if the House should pass it.

The reforms which in inaugurates are being implemented in an atmosphere of good will, and that provides the best insurance of a satisfactory future relationship between the United Kingdom and the island. I therefore commend the Bill to the House as a measure of reform which, I trust, will be as welcome to all those in the United Kingdom who have at heart the interests of the Isle of Man as it is welcome to the Government and people of the island.

Like the rest of the House, I was fascinated by the account which the Joint Under-Secretary gave of the history of this island. It is certainly a small place. I believe that its population is about 54,000, which is less than any county council area in England except for three or four—Rutland, City of London, the Soke of Peterborough and, perhaps, another.

The Bill grants to such a tiny population rather considerable powers, which no United Kingdom county council, whatever its size or population, has so far thought fit to ask for. Nevertheless, I will say, at the outset, that we shall not oppose the Bill, although I want to comment upon one or two things which the hon. and learned Member touched upon and put one or two questions about parts of the Bill which are not entirely clear to some hon. Members on this side.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, Tynwald is a very ancient assembly. I believe that that part of it called the House of Keys claims to be one of the oldest assemblies in the world. This House is a rather ancient assembly, too, and as the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, and if one or other of these assemblies is to have overriding authority, I should have thought that, certainly in matters of finance, it should be this Parliament. Nevertheless, as the Minister said, the Isle of Man has for many years had almost complete financial autonomy. By the Bill we shall pass to them the little authority and control remaining with us.

I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that up to now there has been ultimate Treasury control of the Isle of Man finances. This was news to me, however, because from about 1894 or 1898 to 1955, when the last of the Measures was before us, we have continuously, year after year, passed the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, which gave legislative sanction to such changes as Tynwald had made by resolution following the introduction of the Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have always understood, though it may be that I am wrong—the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt correct me if he speaks again—that notwithstanding the fact that had we not passed this legislation, the Isle of Man would still have been its own judge of what Customs Duties it should levy. Not all of them, anyway, have always marched with those which the United Kingdom Parliament has laid down. One thing that has kept the island roughly in line with ourselves has been the knowledge that if there were a wide gap between the two sets of duties it might lead to a good deal of smuggling.

In addition to Customs Duties, the Isle of Man levies its own Income Tax and Surtax. Income Tax ranges from 2s. 3d. to 4s. 6d. in the £ and Surtax from 10d. on incomes of £2,000 and upwards to 7s. 6d. on those over £20,000. It is like the Channel Islands, where the higher rates of Income Tax and Surtax to which the United Kingdom taxpayer is now acclimatised do not apply. They are in a happy position in that they enjoy the protection which accrues to residents of the United Kingdom, besides many of the benefits, but do not have to bear the heavy burden residents in this country do.

I suppose that if a resident of some other country could be present in the Gallery this afternoon and realise just what we are doing he would be rather surprised that this Parliament should go to the trouble to which it is going on behalf of so small an island. All down the years—certainly for the last two or three centuries—in Act after Act we have had to take note of the fact that the Isle of Man was separately governed from this country, and we had to make provision to include it in, or exclude it from very many Bills which came before this House. Sometimes I have asked myself whether all this was really worth while, whether the benefits accruing to residents in the Isle of Man were worth all the trouble, difficulty and the work caused to the Parliamentary draftsmen.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some of the Acts of Parliament which are here being repealed. He mentioned the Customs, Harbours, and Public Purposes Act, 1866. That Act makes provision for payment to the Exchequer of £10,000 a year, and the Act of 1955, of course, raised this limit and altered the formula to enable the Isle of Man to remit 5 per cent. of the proceeds of the Common Purse Fund. If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, there is nothing in the Bill making it obligatory upon the island, to continue to pay us the 5 per cent. I have not the slightest doubt that Tynwald will honour its bond, but so far as I can gather from what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and from the Bill, there is nothing to ensure this in years to cone.

It strikes me as strange that, in a matter of this kind, the British Treasury should not have seen fit to have something definite on the Statute Book to regularise the position and make the position clear for all time. It might at some time lead to difficulties when the people who made the bargain with the Treasury are no longer there. There is something to be said, in our view, at any rate, for having it embodied in legislation so that for all time both the Isle of Man and this country shall know exactly where they are.

I assume that the Treasury has not discussed with representatives of the island what is to be done about the amount outstanding on their contribution towards the last war. As I think most hon. Gentlemen will remember, at the end of the 1914–18 war the Isle of Man made an outright gift, in, I think, two instalments, of about £750,000 in full settlement of its obligation towards the cost of that conflict. This worked out roughly at between £13 and £15 per head of the population. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what has happened about the cost of the last war? What have we received, if anything, from the Isle of Man? I believe that the Isle of Man lent us £1 million free of interest and afterwards made a free gift of half that sum.

If the population is what I think it is, that works out at about £10 per head, not a great sum when one remembers how badly bombed most towns in this country were and how much people here suffered in loss of life and in excessive taxation.

I am following what my right hon. Friend says, and I agree to a large extent, but in trying to make a balanced judgment on the contribution made by the Isle of Man towards the cost of the last war it ought to be borne in mind that the small population of the island made a very great sacrifice in the Navy and Mercantile Marine, suffering grievous casualties quite out of proportion to the size and resources of the population.

I agree, of course, with what my hon. Friend has said and I am delighted that I have been able to give him the opportunity to say it.

I am not denying for one moment that the Isle of Man did great service during the war. But, fortunately for them, the people of the island were not placed in a position where they suffered much from bombing, if at all. In addition, owing to the financial structure in the Isle of Man, which, in many ways, is different from that which applies in this country, the people there have not, according to my information, had to find so much per head as the people of this country have in respect of the last war. I am not blaming them for that; things just happened in that way.

While we are dealing with this Bill, I should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us what has happened to the £500,000 which, so far as I know, is still outstanding.

Why is it that the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872–1891, are being repealed? Those Acts, particularly the original one, are extremely useful. There is no reference in the Bill itself to any suggestion that the Isle of Man intends to re-enact the Measures as part of its own law. Does this mean that there are not any mines of that kind in the Isle of Man? What is the reason for these Acts being included in the repeal? Their provisions are extremely important.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the provisions regulate the employment of women, children and adolescents in mines, the appointment of inspectors, the payment of wages in public houses, and they make rules governing ventilation and many other things. Unless it is quite obvious that such regulations are no longer applicable, I, for one, cannot understand why that legislation, as it applies to the Isle of Man, is being repealed.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us about other legislation, also? What about our own welfare legislation? I gather that the island has passed almost identical statutes, and that our National Insurance schemes, including health insurance, industrial injuries insurance, family allowance schemes and, I suppose, old-age pensions, are all worked as a unified whole, the same rules, contributions and benefits applying there, as in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom.

Will that legislation continue? I understand that the Isle of Man has a Board of Social Services which controls these schemes. Will the United Kingdom Parliament have any control over them in the Isle of Man, or are they to be handed over to the Tynwald to do exactly as they wish? I have not the slightest doubt that they will continue this legislation, but are any safeguards being set up to prevent changes being made? The Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and we ought to know the position in order to protect people who might go to live there.

What sort of hospital accommodation is there there? I understand that when citizens of the United Kingdom go there they carry with them all the benefits that have accrued to them under the National Health Service. Are there regulations to ensure the same standards in both places? I have not the slightest doubt that such standards are in being in the island, but before we part with the Bill we ought to know what the position is.

What about post offices and telephones? Has the Isle of Man its own Acts of Parliament dealing with these services, or does the legislation, like liability for National Service, cover both the island and this country? I imagine that the legislation covers both. If that is so, perhaps we might have an assurance from the Minister and learn where the dividing line is.

We welcome the Bill. It is part of the way of life of this country to allow a small island of this kind to continue to enjoy its ancient liberties and in accord with the wishes and desires of the people of this country as it is of those who live there.

As representing two counties which are now merged into one constituency on the mainland of Scotland and nearest to the Isle of Man, it gives me great pleasure to say something in support of the Bill.

I no longer have to declare a personal interest or any interest on behalf of my constituency in regard to what used to be called "the fair trade," which will be remembered by hon. Members who have read Sir Walter Scott's great romance "Guy Mannering" and the works of S. R. Crockett as well. Smuggling between the Scottish mainland and the Isle of Man no longer exists. Many years have passed since there was any smuggling. Every day, from my home, when atmospheric conditions permit, I can see that island looking particularly beautiful, especially against the westering sun. Most hon. Members will realise that I have a sentimental interest in the Isle of Man, and, therefore, a great interest in any legislation which is presented in this House relating thereto.

The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that we were doing more for the Isle of Man in this small Bill than had ever been attempted for any English county. He said nothing to suggest that the Opposition was inimical to the principle underlying the Bill; quite the opposite. I am delighted to think that that is the case. The smallness of the island should not prevent anyone with the historical knowledge and keen intellectual ability of the right hon. Gentleman saying that the island has a very particular position inside the framework of the British Commonwealth and of the United Kingdom.

Is the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) heard me say "British Commonwealth" and then "the United Kingdom." By using both those phrases I tried to ensure that I was right.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's favourable comment on the Bill, may I ask whether he has inquired whether or not there is any local legislation in the Isle of Man inimical to Scotland?

I am sure there is not, but I am very ready to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, so that we may have an opportunity of hearing him give us the benefit of his knowledge on this matter.

I was about to say that the Isle of Man is the seat of a bishopric. I mention that fact not because I have any great love for bishops, especially if there is any possibility of the extension of the episcopate to Scotland. I mention it as an historic fact and to show the very peculiar position that this island has for so long enjoyed. The Isle of Man has never had Parliamentary representation at Westminster. That fact is worth bearing in mind, in view of the possibility that in two or three years—I hope it is not a probability—we may have to consider the question of having representatives here from another island. I say that only in passing.

The right hon. Member for Colne Valley alluded to the antiquity of Tynwald and made comparisons between the age of this mother Parliament at Westminster and Tynwald. If I had looked up the facts in the Library I dare say I should have found that Tynwald was in existence even before Simon de Montfort called the Parliament on which this ancient assembly is still modelled.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State very rightly and properly alluded to the feelings of the proud little Manx people, with their long history. I am glad that the Bill will give effect to the desires which they have so long entertained and that it does nothing inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister who replies to the debate will clear away any doubt lingering in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends on that point.

It gives me very great pleasure to support this small Bill. I am delighted that it is not to receive any opposition on its Second Reading. I hope it will speedily pass through Committee, secure its Third Reading and be placed without delay on the Statute Book.

I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two. Coming from the north-west of England, where the Isle of Man has a particularly warm place in our hearts, all I want to do is to say how warmly I welcome the Bill. During the summer, I had the privilege of going over Tynwald and the House of Keys and seeing something of the administration in the Isle of Man. I am perfectly certain that although there may be only 54,000 people in the island, many of our county councils might examine its administration and learn a lesson in efficiency.

The Isle of Man is an old and ancient kingdom with close connections with Lancashire, and, I might mention, with Argyll.

The Atholl family, in Scotland.

Many people from the North-West, especially Lancashire and Cheshire, have started their married life in the Isle of Man. It is not an island in the Irish Sea divorced and remote from England and Scotland: it is part of our common heritage. It adds a great deal to the colour of our national life to have the slight anachronisms of different taxation and other structures in the Isle of Man and in the other islands around our coast such as Jersey and Guernsey. It all leads to a diversity in our life.

When one thinks of the ancient traditions and sees how well the islanders have managed their affairs, it is with the warmest wishes that I hope the House, as I know it will, will give the Bill a Second Reading and show the people in the Isle of Man the warm affection that we have in our hearts for them.

I thought it might be convenient if I answered the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).

I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary was able to move the Second Reading of the Bill. He was doing so on my behalf as I, unfortunately, had a public engagement some distance from here in connection with my Home Office duties. I wish simply to intervene to support his words and to say what importance the Government attach to this stage in the constitutional development of the Isle of Man. Through many centuries, the islanders have looked forward to developments and following upon, notably, the Act of 1866, this Measure is an important one, although its scope is a good deal in the financial sphere.

The right hon. Member asked, in particular, what the island had contributed to us during the war, with a view, I think, to stressing the generosity of the islanders. I can give him the figures. En 1938 Tynwald voted £100,000 as a contribution to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of rearmament. Payment was spread over five years. Subsequently, the island made a number of other contributions to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of the war and the total amount of all these contributions was no less than £1,850,000. That is the measure of our debt to the island and the gratitude that we owe to her.

It amounts to almost two-thirds of a year's revenue by Tynwald, which is really very good.

Yes, Sir. It is spread over a period, but does amount to that sum.

The island almost made an interest-free loan of £500,000 to His Majesty's Government in 1944 and this loan is still outstanding. That is the information which I have been able to derive which. I think, illustrates the generosity of the islanders.

The right hon. Gentleman referred also to his anxiety lest the mines and quarries legislation which is enshrined in Imperial Statutes should no longer apply to the Isle of Man and he drew attention to the unhappiness which might thereby ensue due to these powers and provisions not being available in the island. I would reassure him at once by saying that Tynwald have passed legislation on the same matters and that, therefore, his anxiety can be, I hope, allayed and he can rest in peace that these matters are dealt with by island legislation.

Towards the conclusion of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to doubt whether the social conditions in the island would be satisfactory in the absence, again, of Imperial legislation. The answer is that there is local provision for the social facilities in the island, as I know from my own experience. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that score may also be allayed in that the situation on the island is comparable to what we in our wisdom regard as suitable for the inhabitants of the mainland.

There are certain aspects of Imperial legislation connected with the Post Office, to which the right hon. Gentleman also made allusion, which remain in existence and there are certain provisions concerning, for example, civil aviation, which rather transcend the frontiers of the island and are, therefore, conceived on a broader canvas. The matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, however, are, I think, satisfactory from his point of view.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several points of detail which I do not wish to answer at great length. Concerning Income Tax, he will find that the standard rate is 4s. 6d. in the £—Nirvana, but not quite as beautiful as the right hon. Gentleman painted. He said that there was Surtax in excess of £20,000 per annum. The answer is that Surtax is in excess of £5,000 per annum on the rates to which he drew attention. I am taking the right hon. Gentleman's own observations and relating my answers to them.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to his fear that Tynwald might alter its 5 per cent. contribution. He is, perhaps, underestimating what is affected by the Bill. It is, indeed, possible for that to happen, but we are relying on the flexibility which is available in the Bill not to inure to the disadvantage of the mainland but solely to the advantage of the island. We believe that if, in our relations with the island, we proceed in the atmosphere of good will in which the Bill has been conceived, it is better to leave the powers flexible than to make them as tight as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. His question was quite legitimate, but I am giving him the answer in the light of the drafting of the Bill.

I am very glad that before the debate concluded I have been able to make this shunt intervention on Second Reading to illustrate the importance which any Home Secretary would attach to the future of the island. The island is one which is geographically situated in an area which was vital to us in the last war, in the middle of the North-West Approaches. Its constitutional history is probably the oldest in this part of the Northern Hemisphere and the island is one in which the administrative Government per head of the population is, I think, cheaper and perhaps more efficient than in any other civilised country.

That in itself is something to which even our Administration here might turn with a look of admiration. This is a Bill about an island which is a favourite holiday haunt of many of our fellow countrymen and citizens. I trust, therefore, that the House will pass the Bill in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman and those on this side have already approached it.