HC Deb 05 April 1922 vol 152 cc2311-7

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

Major-General SEELY

I desire to mention a point which has been raised previously. That is the great inconvenience of having the Army Act and the Air Force Act combined in one Bill. It would be very much better for every reason if we had separate Bills. The fact is that this combination of the two in one is part of the bad old plan, which we have now happily abandoned, of combining the Army and Air Force under one Secretary of State and in other ways. There is no special relation between the Army and the Air Force which does not exist as between the Air Force and the Royal Navy. It is a mistaken view and it is not in the least bit true. If the Under-Secretary of State for War will look through this Bill before him and the notes of the Clauses, he will see the extreme inconvenience of the method now adopted. In all sorts of ways the terms of service of the Air Force are wholly different from the terms of service of the Army, and they are not differences in a small degree but differences in kind. All this has to be explained in various Clauses, notably Clauses 6, 7 and 10, where it is clearly stated: References in this part of the Act to the Army Act shall be deemed to include references to the Air Force Act, and those provisions shall in their application to the Air Force have effect subject to any of the general modifications set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, which apply. I am reluctant to delay the Committee by making any dilatory Motion, but I would invite my hon. and gallant Friend and the Secretary of State for Air, if he is in the House, to tell us that they will put an end to this" system which confuses the issue before the Committee, which presumes a connection between the Army and the Air Force, leaving out the Navy, which is wholly remote from truth, which originated during the brief period when it was attempted to make this combination, fortunately now abandoned, and which can only tend to confusion not only in this Committee but also towards confusion in all kinds of ways in the administration. It may be said that this Act also includes the Royal Marines. You will remember, Mr. Hope, in days gone by, in the Debates on the Army (Annual) Bill, objection was frequently taken to the inconvenience of including the Royal Marines in the Bill. In the case of the Marines, no principle is involved, but in the case of the Air Force a point of really high principle is involved. It is not only inconvenient, but a matter of high policy not to confuse the Army and the Air Force. Each should have its own separate Annual Act. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether he can give an assurance that in future he will provide for two separate Bills?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD

I wish to speak in a completely opposite direction. I know that an attempt is being made to set up two different establishments which time and experience will show are not required. It is done merely to give someone a particular show that he cannot get in any other way. The Army Annual Act is mostly a disciplinary measure. As a rule, in the first and second Clauses it states how many men are to be maintained for the year, but that total is only nominal, for since I have been a member of the House there has always been a proviso that the total can be more or less, as circumstances require. Beyond the number, and a reference to billeting, there is not a word in the Act that does not relate to discipline. What the right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) suggests is that there shall be one kind of discipline for the Air Force and another kind for the Army. It is a ridiculous fad that he has followed for the last half-dozen years, that there should be an absolute disconnection between the Air Force and the Army. Even the sailors of the Navy, when on land in this country, come under this Act for disciplinary purposes.

Major-General SEELY

The Royal Marines.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD

The Royal Marines usually work in connection with the ships and are part of the Navy. This fetish of the right hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seeley) is absurd. My hon. and gallant Friend wants two nights out instead of one. The discussion of the Bill generally offers opportunities for obstruction and a wasting of the time and patience of the House. This year, luckily, the Bill has come on in the ordinary hours. I certainly should not like it to appear on the Records of the House that the only speech delivered in relation to this Bill was the hardy annual of my right hon. and gallant Friend, and his demand that there should be another complete administration and another Bill because the discipline applying to the Army is not suitable to the Air Service. Anything more ridiculous I cannot imagine. Luckily the Government of the day have had the sense never to take notice of the claim of my right hon. and gallant Friend. In these days of the Geddes Axe he would add to expense by the passing of a separate Bill. Most of the men of the Air Force are on the land. For one flier there are possibly 200 or 300 or even 400 men on land, or if the repair of machines and so forth are taken into account, the number might be even 800 or 900.

Mr. MOSLEY

The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, having had no connection of any kind with the problems of the air, sees fit to ridicule the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely), who has had a long and intimate connection with the Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) does not appear' to realise in what the duty of the Air Service consists or the kind of discipline that is required. In the Air Service a man is kept for one of two things, either to fly or to keep machines and engines in proper repair; he has not to polish buttons or to march about a barrack square. The very nature of his employment is fundamentally different in every respect from the employment of the ordinary military man, and the characteristics required differ widely from the kind of character which is desirable in military service. All that is required of the Air Service mechanic is mechanical proficiency, granted the ordinary measure of good conduct that is required in civilian life and obedience to the exigencies of the Service. Military discipline is quite unsuitable, and in most respects quite unnecessary, in regard to the problems of the Air Service. I myself, having had a slight connection with the Air Service, must agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD

Would it not be more sensible to suggest that the Air Force should come under the civil authority and not under the Army?

Mr. MOSLEY

The Air Force is neither civil nor military. It is not subject to the ordinary requirements of military service. It is a service distinct and altogether apart from the Army or the Navy or civilian life. It is a new arm. Why it should be shackled and tied by military traditions, which are entirely unsuited to it, passes my understanding. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke, in saying that the argument of my right hon. and gallant Friend is ridiculous shows that he has not devoted any great time to an investigation of the kind of service required of Air Force men. Had he done so, I think he would agree, with his great knowledge of military discipline, that the ordinary process of that discipline is entirely unsuited to the Air Force.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest)

This question has occupied the attention of the Air Ministry since I have been there during the past year, and there have been considerable discussions as to whether the Service would be assisted by having its own Annual Act. There are many reasons why we should like to have our own Act. It would be a further hall-mark of an independent and separate Service. Last year conditions were such that the Bill was not presented to the House. This year the pressure of business has to some extent interfered with a decision being taken on the matter. I shall, however, continue to press for a separate Air Force (Annual) Bill. What decision will be reached by the Cabinet it is not for me to say. Taking it all round I have thought that so much of our Service is common to both Services that it is not a matter which one need press unduly in the present state of public opinion, but I hope that nothing has been said to-day which will prevent the Air Ministry from raising this question on another occasion.

Major-General SEELY

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State for Air has had this under consideration, and that it is proposed to bring in a separate Air Force Bill. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will not confine himself to that. There is no saving of time. Until there is a separate Air Force Bill brought before the House I shall always raise this protest, and so will all who care for the maintenance of the Air Service. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) speaks on air matters as if he were Noah coming out of the Ark. He seems to have forgotten completely all that has happened. He protests that it is quite unnecessary to raise the question of having separate Army and Air Force Bills, because the Army and the Air Force had much better remain together. He seems to have forgotten that the Air Force has a separate Minister.

Lieut-Colonel WARD

I said that the discipline was the same, or ought to be, unless the Air Force was placed under civilian authority.

Major-General SEELY

The hon. and gallant Member said much more than that. He said that at this time of Geddes Committee economies we ought not to have a separate service and that a separate service was a persistent notion of mine. It is a persistent notion. It is a notion that has succeeded and prevailed, and has been carried through by the Government to complete fruition with this one solitary exception. My hon. and gallant Friend wants economy and wants things amalgamated. Let him work for the amalgamation of all three services, and not confuse the issue by joining together only the two which are not by any means the most comparable either in discipline or in anything else. The Navy and the Air Service are much more closely akin than the Army and the Air Force.

Sir C. YATE

With an Air Marshal commanding in Iraq how would the right hon. Gentleman carry on discipline if he had two separate Acts?

Major-General SEELY

I am not in charge of the Air Force, but since the question is raised, it is quite clear that it would be much more convenient, as the Secretary of State for Air has said, to have an Army (Annual) Act and an Air Force (Annual) Act. There are now many differencee. Although the two services are included in one Bill, there are cross references all through, in Clauses 6, 10, and so on. It would be much more convenient to have them set out separately and for every reason—for convenience of drafting, and high principle—there should be two separate Acts, and I shall press the matter on every opportunity.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG

I think the right hon. Gentleman and those who support his views, are too meticulous as to the keeping separate of these forces. Everybody knows that the Army Annual Act except when an alteration is going to be made in the body of the military forces of the country is purely a continuing Act, and is only necessary because it has been decided in the course of our constitutional history that the keeping of a standing army in this country without the consent of Parliament is against the law. The same principle which applies to the Army applies also to the Air Force, and the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, provides that His Majesty is entitled to raise ani maintain the Air Force. These two forces have separate codes of discipline, and owing to this constitutional requirement these codes of discipline come to an end every year at a particular period. This Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows much better than I do, is to extend those periods again for another year. What would be the use of having two Acts of Parliament to do so? It is quite true that in this annual Bill you can alter the numbers for the Army, and that also applies to the Air Force, and it may be that there are Amendments in the body of the code which could be applied separately. But the Bill is simply one required to conform to our Constitution, and I do not see the necessity for separate Acts to deal with two forces which are in a sense both land forces. The Navy has its own particular code. It is quite different from the Air Force or the Army, but as regards these two forces, however you may separate them otherwise, I do not see there is any necessity to have separate Acts.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.