Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The main subject which I wish to raise on this Clause, after my study of this Bill, is the question of the High Commissioner. It will be noticed that in Subsection (2) the High Commissioner is brought in in the case of proceedings, and in Subsection (3) the High Commissioner is referred to in relation to each of the new Dominions We know already that there is a High Commissioner appointed for India as a whole, and I presume that either he or another officer will continue to serve India as defined in this Bill. I wanted to have any information the Government could give us about the possible appointment of a High Commissioner for the purpose of serving in Pakistan, or in whichever Dominion the present High Commissioner does or does not continue to serve.

I do not know whether at this hour the Government can give any information on this matter, but it is quite clear that in future the High Commissioner will have a very important part to play. We have always attempted to choose, in the service of the Commonwealth, men of high quality; and many of them have rendered very distinguished service. It will be particularly important in the early days of the new Dominions that the right man be chosen for each Dominion; one who has knowledge of the trade, who has knowledge of the various matters which are likely to arise in any treaty which may develop, and who is inspired with the proper conception of the British Commonwealth in its finest operation. I feel certain the Government have that in mind, and perhaps they will be able to enlighten us.

I could not go beyond saying that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to appoint a High Commissioner to Pakistan, and also one to India. I have no doubt that High Commissioners will be appointed by both the new Dominion Governments in London.

Is it also intended to appoint High Commissioners in both India and Pakistan; and could my right hon. and learned Friend give us any details of the type of staff the High Commissioners to India and Pakistan will have? I should like to reinforce what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has said on this matter, because it is obviously of great importance to us that, in the initial stages at any rate, we should have a first class trade and technical organisation attached to both High Commissioners. If the Under-Secretary could give any information on that point we should be grateful.

All I can say is that steps are being taken on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. If he will put down a Question I will try to deal with it more fully.

This Clause ties up a little with Clause 10. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that those who write to hon. Members of this Committee are uneasy about their terms of future service. They are always asking: "If the Secretary of State is done away with, against whom will our remedy lie, when before we had a remedy against the Secretary of State?" If they are referred to this Clause the answer, presumably, is: The High Commissioner. Then they ask: "Yes, but what if no High Commissioner is appointed?" Can the Under-Secretary enlighten me at all on that point? Can he give some assurance that in the absence of the Secretary of State there will always be somebody who can be sued in court in place of the Secretary of State?

I could not give a guarantee that it will always be possible to sue somebody in this country. But if there is no right to sue in this country under a contract made in India, it would be possible to sue in the Indian courts.

The Secretary of State was originally automatically represented in this country, and suable in this country. Is the Secretary of State saying that by this Bill that remedy is to be taken away from people?

10.30 p.m.

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that point, I would like to ask whether it is possible to sue the High Commissioner. It obviously is possible if the High Commissioner enters an appearance and consents to be sued; but can he be forced to come to court?

This Bill provides for that.

Surely that abrogates diplomatic privilege. I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider that.

There is no difficulty about this. In about half a dozen cases it has in the past been possible to sue the Secretary of State. This Bill provides that in future this right of action shall be against the High Commissioner according to the contract made.

Does the learned Attorney-General state that there are six cases in which action can be brought against the Secretary of State?

There is that right of action in the six cases. I do not think the hon. Member will want me to enumerate them, although I am in a position to do so. That right will in future lie against the High Commissioner, according to whether it relates to the High Commissioner of Pakistan, or the High Commissioner of India. This Bill transfers the right from the Secretary of State, and creates a new liability on the part of the High Commissioners. If there is no High Commissioner the answer will then be that no action can be brought. That is one of the attributes of the sovereign powers of a Dominion, or of a foreign country for that matter. If they choose to break contracts and to withdraw representation, there would be no remedy against them in this country.

Can we be assured that in the new Dominions, it is agreed that the High Commissioners will be willing to accept that liability?

They have made it clear that both High Commissioners will accept this liability.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.