ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL. (Hansard, 12 April 1920)

§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
Before the Second Reading, which I understand according to practice is a more or less formal matter, I desire on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself, who were 1479 intimately associated with' the special Committee appointed by the War Office to inquire into the law and procedure of courts-martial to make it perfectly clear that if we are prohibited, as I gather we are, by the practice of this House from raising to-night many of the questions which arise from the Report of that Committee, we reserve to ourselves the fullest liberty in Committee to bring forward such Amendments as we may consider necessary to give effect not only to many of the recommendations of that Committee which are not included in the Bill, but especially to the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Committee, giving, for instance, the right of appeal against the death sentence, and matters of that kind. On that understanding alone we put no obstacle in the way of the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. PALMER
I should like to add my own enforcement to what my hon. Friend has said, and had it not been inconvenient to you, Sir, I would like to have had a ruling on the point as to what extent one can raise, on Second Reading, the broad questions of principle contained in the Bill. It is rather a remarkable Bill. It is a Bill which is not usually associated with the somewhat formal phrase, "Army (Annual) Bill." For the first time it includes the Air Force, and I should have thought that on submission it would be possible to raise, quite generally, the broad questions of principle and practice which are contained in the Bill. But I have consulted the Chair, and I understand that although in this very Bill courts-martial are particularly referred to, it is by the practice of Parliament impossible for a Member on Second Reading to refer to the very matters which are contained within the four corners of the Bill. From my experience of this House, which is somewhat considerable, the Army Annual Bill has been often regarded as a sort of cockpit of parties. It has been an all night affair, and has meant ham and eggs in the early morning, and there has been a great deal of contention and discussion. I should like to say, with all respect, that if we permit the Bill to go through now without any discussion we do ask that when it comes to the Committee stage it should be taken at a time which would give opportunity for full and ample discussion of the many 1480 very grave points which are raised within its Clauses. Possibly it is within the recollection of the Chair and of the House that the new and important proposals put forward in this Bill are the result of an inquiry based on certain circumstances which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley). I do ask the Government to give us an assurance that when this Bill comes into Committee the Committee stage shall be fixed not at the fag end of the night when everyone is tired and weary, but that the Government will give us full time to discuss the very grave proposals in the Bill.

§ Major O'NEILL
On a point of Order. Is it correct to say that it is impossible on the Second Reading of this Bill to discuss general questions connected with discipline in the Army, such as the question of courts-martial? Could you, Sir, give your ruling on that point?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall)
It has not been the practice upon the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill to have general discussions. No question on the general purposes of the Army can be debated. No question as regards the policy and administration of the Army or with regard to courts-martial can be raised. All these matters should be discussed, and always have to be discussed, in Committee and not on Second Reading. That is quite clear.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
I was quite unaware of the arrangement made by the hon. Member for South Hackney and other hon. Members in regard to the discussion of this Bill, but after the ruling you, Sir, have given I will endeavour to keep entirely within the matters dealt with in this Bill, namely, the constitution of the Army and the raising and keeping of a standing Army. I think I shall be in order in discussing a very urgent matter which I want to bring before the notice of the representatives of the Government, relating entirely to the constitution laid down in this Bill. I regret that the War Office have only seen fit to send a Parliamentary Secretary here.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am not concerned with the presence of Ministers from the point of view of the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member. No Minister here to-day could deal with the policy or administration of the Army, 1481 either to defend it or otherwise. That would be out of order at this stage.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
I will content myself with simply calling the attention of the Ministers responsible to a very urgent and very serious matter arising out of the constitution of the Army as laid down in the Army and Air Force Bill now before the House. It has been brought to my notice that a circular has been sent round to officers.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That has to do with the administration of the Army. These matters have to be discussed in Committee. It is not the practice or custom of this House to have a discussion of these matters on the second reading of the Army (Annual) Bill.

Lieut. - Colonel MALONE
With the greatest respect, this Bill very clearly and very explicitly deals with the raising and keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, quite apart from administration. I want to deal with a matter relating to the raising and keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom, and I take it that I am in order in raising a matter on that subject. I want to deal with a circular which has been sent round to officers calling upon them to form an unofficial army.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is administration. That is the action of an official or officer in the Army carrying out the general administration of the War Office, and it would not be in order to discuss it now. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the time for discussing these matters is in Committee.

§ Major O'NEILL
What kind of questions can be discussed on the Second Reading of this Bill?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am afraid very few questions. It might be in order to discuss the question whether the Army should be put under civilian control, but in many respects the rule which applies to other Bills does not apply to the Army (Annual) Bill.

Mr. PALMER
Would it be open to us to argue that unless we have an appeal from death sentences by courts-martial we could not have an army at all?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
No, that would be bringing in the proceedings of courts-martial.

§ Mr. W. THORNE
Is there anything in the Standing Orders which prevents Members of the House discussing this Army (Annual) Bill, or is it simply in accordance with practice? It does appear to me that if there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prevent us discussing the matter we are perfectly justified in discussing it.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is in accordance with the practice and custom of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE
You said, Sir, that possibly the question of whether the Army should be under some institution other than the War Office might be in order. That is exactly the question which I am raising. It is a question of a circular which has been sent round to officers.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have already ruled that that is out of order.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I have always undertsood from an early age that this Bill had to be introduced every year because otherwise the keeping of a Standing Army would be illegal, and that it has to be passed because in times gone by the people of this country objected to the King keeping a Standing Army, because it might be used to oppress their liberties. Therefore, it is one of the very much cherished rights of this House to be allowed, if it desires, to object to a Standing Army being maintained. That is the particular object of this Bill, apart from the Committee stage which allows certain administrative questions' to be raised. My principal objection to this Bill from that point of view is, that we are asked in one Bill to enable the Crown not only to keep a Standing Army, but also to keep an Air Force enrolled and embodied. It will be observed that the Royal Marine Force is dealt with by the Navy, and it is again included, I think by an error, in the first page of this Bill. The Royal Marine Force quite recently has been placed under the Act. It was before under the Army. It used to be a great complaint of the members of that very gallant corps, that they were under both the Army and the Navy, that they got the disadvantages of the Army in questions of pay and pensions, or where the naval position as regards pay and pension was worse, they were under the Act. One of their great complaints was 1483 that they were neither under one authority nor the other. That has now been altered. The Marines are definitely under the Act, yet I find that in this Bill, I think through a mistake in drafting, the Royal Marine Force is included in the Army as part of the force of the Crown, of which we have to approve as His Majesty's faithful Commons.
I would not object to that. That is a comparatively small matter which can be remedied next year, but I do object most strongly to the Air Force being included under this Bill. It is conceivable that the people of England might object to keeping a standing army, but might be prepared to keep a standing air force. But we are precluded from discussing the two separately through their both being included in this Bill. Therefore, if we defeat this Bill on its Second Reading, we defeat a standing army and also a standing air force. At the present time it is difficult to imagine that argument being used, but in a few years time it might be a very pertinent argument indeed There are many who hold that the only armed force that should be kept in the country are an air police force, and they object to the use of the Army for keeping order. In those circumstances they would be precluded from discussing these matters and voting separately on them by the way this Bill is drawn. As I have not had an opportunity of looking up the matter I am not sure whether this is a precedent or not. If this is the first time in which the Air Force has been included in the Army (Annual) Bill then there should be a protest from hon. Members. These precedents have to be tackled at their inception. I hope that the hon. Baronet will tell us whether this is going to be a precedent in future and what is the reason for including the Air Force in the Army Annual Bill. That is a point of some substance.
My second point is this. I propose now to revive very briefly the ancient argument used against the standing army. I object at the present moment, with the present Government, to having a standing army in this country. I am not sure of the use which they will make of it. Such standing army as there is I consider should be under purely civilian control. It should be impossible for the Executive and the War Office to control 1484 the use and movements of that army inside the United Kingdom. It is, I am afraid, by no means under civilian control at the present moment. The War has resulted in the power of the Staff becoming more analogous to the power of military Staffs on the Continent in the great conscript countries. The War Office Staff has very much more power than it was ever permitted by this House to have before the War. It has ever been one of the very ancient bulwarks of our liberty that the Army should be under purely civilian control. It is to make that true in spirit as well as letter that I and my friends propose to divide against this Bill, not that we shall succeed in the Lobby, but in order to reassert the control of the people through their elected representatives over the control and use of the armed Forces.
9.0 P.M.
This is no imaginary bogey that I am raising. We have only to look across the North Sea to what is going on to-day in Germany. There you have a standing army completely out of hand, dominating the Government. The German people and their representatives are simply helpless creatures in the hands of the professional military class, who have control of the machine. Unless we are most jealous of the privileges of this House and of the safeguards handed down to us by our great Whig forbears, we may find ourselves beginning again a long uphill fight such as those statesmen had in the past in insisting on the control by the civilian representatives of the people of the professional armed forces. It is for those reasons that I oppose this Bill, not that I consider that, with things as they are, with international relations in their present state, we can at once disband the Army. The outcome of the War and the policy that has been pursued make it necessary for us to keep a standing army, but the old objection to it still remains. The very fact that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, quoted the long practice of this House, of which you have great experience, of the passing without discussion of this Bill, impels me to make this protest. We object, we always have objected in this country, to anything in the nature of what is now called militarism. In past days it was known by a different term. It was then the King's standing army. In recent times the standing army of this country has not been used to suppress 1485 our liberties; it has, on the whole, been used in this country fairly, and generally in the cause of liberty. An hon. Friend beside me mentioned trade disputes.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member has passed on to the purpose of the Army. To deal with that would be out of order.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I was led astray by my hon. Friend's reference to trade disputes. There is this modern spirit to-day of opposition to a long service, standing, professional army being used to browbeat and coerce the civil Government.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not deal with the general purpose of the Army.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I again admit I am out of Order. We still consider that a standing army should be kept in this country only on sufferance, as a temporary expedient. We insist that we have the right to negative the power of the Crown to keep soldiers in existence, to billet them—

§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY
You will want an army soon.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I think I admitted a few sentences back that, in fact, as things were and international relations being what they were, a standing army was necessary. I am very proud of our Army, with which I have had the honour of serving on active service; but that is not the point. During the War we have lost control of our Army. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) I am sure will support the view that the Army is entirely the servant of the Government. It must, under no circumstances, becomes a vested interest, and under no circumstances must it be allowed to dominate policy. It is entirely the tool of the elected representatives. Anything that unduly strengthens the executive power as against the power of civilian control should be resisted most strenuously. It is because we have weakened the civilian control over the Army, because there is a danger of the executive power becoming a menace to the old and long-cherished liberties of the people, and as this Bill is looked upon as a matter of form, ancient and important as its origin is, that we, also as a matter of form, propose to divide against it.

Lieut-Colonel MALONE
I have particulars of the raising of a special strike-breaking army which is not contained in this Bill and which is in contravention of the Army constitution. Am I in Order in discussing that here and bringing it before the notice of the House?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Not at this stage. The hon. Member has exhausted his right.