HC Deb 06 March 1928 vol 214 cc1093-107

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir G. Hennessy.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I wish to raise a matter of which I gave notice last week, namely, the political rights of Service men. These rights have been very seriously affected by recent Orders from the Service Departments, and as my constituency is very closely touched by the Orders, I am sure that the House will be good enough to allow me to raise this question for a few minutes. I see that the First Lord of the Admiralty is good enough to be present, and, therefore, I will confine myself to the Naval aspect of the case. But it applies equally to the other Service Departments. The matter arises out of a Fleet Order, dated 26th August, 1927, a date at which, as the House will observe, we were in Recess, That Order laid down that no officer or man is allowed to speak or appear on the platform at, or take any active part in, any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interest.

The House may believe that that provision is wise, or may believe that it is unwise, but that it is a very fundamental change in the practice that had prevailed up to the last General Election, no one can contest. The First Lord shakes his head, but I hope to prove to him, as I

have already satisfied myself, that I am accurate in what I say, because I shall take the previous Orders on the subject. Up to the year 1918 there was no let or hindrance on the political rights of service men. When Lord Charles Beresford contested Portsmouth, he had an election committee of lower deck ratings, and in the town hall he held mass meetings over which a lower deck rating presided. In this example, he was followed by Admiral Meux, and therefore there was no question that before the War, service ratings were permitted to participate in elections. Rightly or wrongly, that was the position. In 1918, for the first time, this position was compromised and the following Fleet Order was issued. The effect of the Fleet Order is to say that service ratings may enjoy full political liberty provided they are in mufti. I will read the exact words to the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that he has contested my point of view. Article 6 of that Order says this: Any officer acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, advocating a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively prosecuting a candidate's interest, is not permitted to do the same in uniform. Men may in uniform attend political meetings and put questions. Any man who desires to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any other way actively to promote any candidate's interest, must do so not in uniform. Requests for permission to wear plain clothes for this purpose during the forthcoming general election campaign are to he favourably considered. Since then, I myself have contested three elections in a service town, and I can assure the First Lord of the Admiralty that that has been the practice at every single one of those elections. I am going to qualify that in a minute, but I am taking the story chronologically. At the elections of 1922 and 1923 service men in service towns were permitted actively to prosecute the interests of any political candidate, and nobody who is living can deny that, because it is a plain, simple fact. In 1924, however, the first inroad that had ever been made in modern times was made by a Fleet Order. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) is present, because he was Financial Secretary to the Admiralty at the time, and has since expressed some indignation against the present Government for following, his example.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

What is that?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

This Order was issued during the régime of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell. it is dated 24th October, 1924, a few days before the polling, and also when the matter could not be raised in Parliament. All that can be said for this Order is that it is not so stringent as the Order issued by the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty. It is in the following terms: Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claim at a public meeting, or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest. That Order created considerable consternation in the service towns, but was not generally followed, because it was difficult for the service towns to adapt themselves to this entirely new system, and officers did not realise what the Order meant. At any rate it appeared only two or three days before the actual polling day. The present Order, which I have read to the House, goes very much further than that. It does not specify what rights are left to the service man. It is very important in a matter of this kind that service men should know exactly where they stand.

I ask the permission of the House to take it very briefly through an amazing story, because it shows that the Government have not the vaguest idea what they mean by this Order which has come into being, or how it came into being without the sanction of Parliament. The first point to which I wish to call attention is that on 16th November, I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any change had been made in regard to the right of officers or men of the Navy to participate in political activities—not actually to stand for Parliament—such as attending meetings during the General Election or voting. The right hon. Gentleman said: I should like to have a definition of 'other political activities' before attempting to answer that question. I pressed him on the point, and he was unable to say. Evidently he was in some doubt as to whether any actual change had been made. Then the hon. Member for North Camberwell asked him, on the very same day, and I believe following that question of mine: Is the position of officers and men of the Navy in this respect fixed by Statute Law or simply by order of the Department? The First Lord of the Admiralty replied: I should like notice of that question. Then the hon. Member for Camberwell said: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in that case, whether it is right that this should be done without consultation with Parliament?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1927; col. 1018, Vol. 210.] He had done it himself. [Interruption.] Precisely, there was no opportunity of consulting Parliament, but he made this very important point, and I am going to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will answer it now, because he has had plenty of notice this time. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell me to-night whether this Order-in-Council is promulgated under any Statute, and, secondly, why Parliament was not consulted in an important matter of this kind? I have some other vital questions to ask him; perhaps he will make a note of those. Then I asked the Prime Minister if he would lay down for the purposes of clarity exactly what a naval rating could or could not do during a general election. For instance, could he ask questions and so forth, could he canvass, could he express his opinions? I asked the Prime Minister that question on the 20th February, and the Prime Minister said: I think that it is better to leave the interpretation of this general rule to the good sense of those concerned rather than to attempt to lay down a number of hard and-fast detailed Regulations."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; col. 1213, Vol. 213.] The House would not consent to a proposition of that kind for a minute. Our purpose as a legislative body is to tell people what the law is, and it would be most unfair if a naval rating were to find himself in prison because he had broken something which the Prime Minister thinks it better to leave in doubt rather than to define precisely. I pressed the Prime Minister on that day, and I asked: Would it not be far more sensible to let these men know exactly what their rights may be, seeing that they have hitherto exercised them without any restraint? I have asked a number of particular questions in order to clarify the issue. May I know whether they may attend political meetings and ask questions of candidates? They are entitled to know that. The Prime Minister answered— There has been no alteration in the Regulation, which has existed for many years, it is causing no trouble"— I ask the House to note this, in view of what follows: and the fighting services have tried by means of definition to ease their position in the direction the hon. Member would undoubtedly desire to go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213 and 1214, Vol. 213.] In the first place I contest that this procedure is a procedure which bas previously been in force, and I contest the view that the effect of this Order is to move matters in the direction in which I would desire to see them go, because it is moving them in precisely the reverse direction. The Prime Minister further said on that day: I am not aware of any difference in the situation to-day from the situation as I have known it ever since I have been a Parliamentary candidate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1928; cols. 1213–14, Vol. 213.] That is what the Prime Minister said on the 20th February. A few days afterwards I asked him exactly the same question again—whether he would define the precise rights of these men. I put down exactly the same question, and I got a very different answer. I was not referred to my previous question. I was told—this is on the 29th February— In view of the large numbers of officers and men of the national army awaiting demobilisation in 1918, special permission was granted at that election to officers and men of all three fighting services to advocate their political opinions provided that they were in mufti. This special permission has since been withdrawn. and I see no reason for its renewal. The general rule in these matters for the three fighting services has now been formulated as a general prohibition of active participation in meetings held for party or political purposes, and the active prosecution of the interests of a Parliamentary candidate. This general Regulation, which I see no ground to modify, is clearly incompatible with the practice of, namely, canvassing, whether in uniform or in mufti, or in any other way of openly advocating the interests of a particular candidate. But personnel of the fighting services even in uniform are not precluded by the rules from attending political meetings and asking questions. Therefore, we have this great advance, that the position is now qualified to the extent that we know a service man may ask questions. Only a week ago we were told that it was better to leave these matters in doubt. The Prime Minister told us only last week that no change whatever had been made in the practice, and then, in answer to a supplementary question, he said: I am no more infallible than the hon. Member; I have learned something from giving an answer in a hurry, and it is not to answer any supplementary questions of this kind without notice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1928; cols. 397–98, Vol. 214.] This shows that the Prime Minister, having told us that there has been no change in regard to this matter during the whole of his political career is now obliged to admit a very fundamental change. In these circumstances, I think I am entitled to say that if the Prime Minister held the view that no change had been sanctioned, he obviously could not have been aware that he was sanctioning a fundamental change taking place. What is the explanation of that? The First Lord of the Admiralty and the Prime Minister took up the line that there had been no change at all on this question. I have always put the 1924 Order in all my questions because I want to safeguard myself against the Order of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). Until that date the rights of officers and men were untouched. In 1918, by the Representation of the People Act, officers and men in the fighting services were given votes simply because they were officers and men belonging to the fighting services. Under that Act, they were given votes for the first time, and they had no other qualification. I ask what is the good of giving them votes if you do not allow them to enjoy all that a vote implies? There are hon. Members in this House who have a special claim to represent these men, and the towns they represent would be virtually disfranchised by an Order such as the one to which I have alluded. Under that Order, no rating in my constituency would feel free to put questions to me which up to the present he has always been able to do. Here is a kind of letter I frequently receive: I am going abroad on a three years' commission; will you look after my wife—in this or that particular—while I am gone? That is the kind of question that every candidate for a service constituency has to answer. There are a large number of householders who are the wives of naval ratings, and the naval rating has been given a vote in order that his wife and family may be looked after. What has happened to make the Government afraid of naval ratings or of Service men? They are often Conservatives. I have already read the exact terms of both Orders, and, bad as the last Order was, this Order is very much more stringent. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that; he does not wish me to read it again, I am sure. I contend that, if the Services are fit to vote, they are fit to ask questions of candidates, they are fit to express opinions on the replies, they are fit to say to their colleagues that they should vote in this direction or in that direction, and there is no reason whatever to be afraid of these men. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman these questions:

Why was not Parliament consulted? Why should not Parliament be consulted, when the whole spirit of the Representation of the People Act is being violated? Will Parliament have an opportunity of being consulted on these Orders? Why have these Orders now been issued? Why was the Order issued in 1924, and why was it strengthened in 1927? Has anything happened to cause the country to lose confidence in the personnel of the Fleet?

The right hon. Gentleman did say that this Order was the result of an Order in Council, but the Order in Council to which he referred at Question Time has nothing whatever to do with this sub- ject; it concerns the subject of officers standing for Parliament, a subject in which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) is very much interested. and which he raised last week. I am raising the matter only as it applies to the men. That Order affected officers only in regard to standing for Parliament, and it does not touch the question of general political rights. Therefore, the First Lord of the Admiralty cannot base it upon that. Upon what, then, does he base it, because there is no such Order in the Civil Service? He has said on other occasions that it is necessary that all Government servants should be on an equality. If he is going to say that civil servants cannot express opinions amongst themselves as to which way they shall vote, I shall have occasion to contradict him, because I shall point to officers in his own Department who, with his cognisance and with the cognisance of the Admiralty, come down to my constituency and make speeches about dockyards. Therefore, he is not going to tell me that it is to put naval ratings on an equality with civil servants.

Further, I want to point out to him this: He says himself that the Order is not clear. His exact words were that the Order is capable of being differently construed The Prime Minister admitted also that it was not clear when he said to me, "It is better that these matters should be left in doubt." The only meaning of such a sentence could be that the matter was in doubt under the words of the Order. Therefore, I give that as an additional reason why the Order should be withdrawn, and why, if it is necessary to substitute another Order, that next Order should lay down precisely, for every man to know, what his exact position is under the law. Then I would say to the First Lord that this Order has nothing to do with the Blanesburgh Committee, as he once asserted that it had, because the Blanesburgh Committee was not inquiring into the political—

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman)

The beginning of the Order has undoubtedly to do with the Blanesburgh Committee.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

That refers to candidature for Parliament, which I am not raising. I am raising the subject of the political activities of Service men. That is the sixth Article, and I have quoted it. The Blanesburgh Committee was not called upon to examine that question at all. I would ask the First Lord why, if the Prime Minister said that there had been no change, will he not withdraw the Order on these grounds, because, obviously, the Prime Minister did not intend that there should be a change? These are the questions that I would put to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I hope that he has noted them, and that he appreciates the seriousness of the position. I hope that I have stated my case with restraint. After all, it does affect a large body of Service men and a large body of citizens in whom we have more right to be confident, and whom we have more right to trust, than any other section of the community.

Mr. AMMON

I was not aware that there was going to be an oblique attack on myself and the last Government. The hon. Member might at least have given me notice and I could have refreshed my memory. So far as my memory serves me, I had some occasion, soon after the Government came into office, to go into the matter, with special reference to a dockyard official who had stood for Parliament and had been dismissed on account of his actions. That came up for review, and the man was re-instated in his position. I can say with confidence that, so far as the last Government was concerned, no alteration whatever was made in the exercise of citizen rights so far as officers and ratings of the Navy were concerned. The hon. Member himself has indicated that the Order was issued after the Dissolution and within a few days of the Poll. As far as I can gather from what he has said, it seems to have been just the usual Order that is issued throughout the Civil Service and the other Services when an election is pending, pointing out the line of conduct they should adopt when a General Election is in progress. It is, of course, usually left to the permanent officials to interpret the existing law and issue the Order accordingly, but I can at once say, whatever may have been the nature of it, it was done without my knowledge officially, and certainly it was not based on any alteration of the existing Regulations made by the last Government.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN

I should like to state what my experience has been with regard to officers, both in the Army and Navy at election time. In the 1906 election, a friend, an Army officer, was staying with me. He came over to Battersea and helped me, but the moment a General Election was called, he said it was absolutely out of order for him to attempt to take any part in active politics. As far as Plymouth is concerned, there has been no election there since 1910, when I have not had sincere and energetic support from men on active service in the Navy. I have never known an election occur when these men did not say, "We cannot appear in uniform; we cannot go to your public meetings; and we cannot canvass." I have never had support from them in that way. The more power that is given to the Navy to take part in elections, the more satisfied I and members of my party will be.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The hon. Member who raised this question has not challenged the wisdom of the general intentions of all these Orders, which is to make it quite clear that Service members, either in the Navy, the Army, the Air Force or the Civil Service. shall be limited and restricted in their political activities. He has attempted to make out that some great change has taken place in the practice which did not exist before. It is true there was no codified practice before 1918, but it was generally understood as regards the Navy—he has only referred to the Navy to-night—that officers and men on full pay should not take an active part in politics. That was generally understood and observed. There may have been occasions when it was not observed, but it has always been the general practice.

As far as the Army goes, there was an Army Order which prevented officers and men, in 1914 I think it was, from attending political meetings in uniform, but long before that it was generally accepted in this country that political activities of the fighting Services should be restricted. In fact on certain occasions the soldiers were confined to barracks on election day. The civilians of this country naturally felt rather suspicious about large bodies of uniformed men appearing at election time and interfering, or attempting to interfere, with what they felt was their freedom in election matters. So that it is no new idea in this country by any means that the armed Services should be restricted in their political activities. What has caused the hon. Gentleman so much trouble and annoyance, really, is that as a result of the election in 1918 being held at a time when the Army was being demobilised, all those restrictions had to be swept away, because they would have affected such an enormous proportion of the electors. Millions of men were being demobilised. He is thinking of the happy times of demobilisation, and trying to make us believe that they always existed before that time, and that it is only since then that some repressive change has been introduced. I do not know why from that time until 1924 nothing particular was done. I do not know the reason. But in 1924, under the Labour Government, a Fleet Order was issued, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said. It was issued in October, I think. He rather suggested that it was not issued under the authority of the Labour Party, but that it was issued just before the Election.

Mr. AMMON

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said I took the statement of the hon. Member himself, who said it was two days before the election.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that his party were in office two days before the election and whether it was right or wrong, it was their responsibility.

Mr. KELLY

Had they knowledge of it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

If they had no knowledge of it, they ought to have had. [Interruption.] They do not wish to dissociate themselves from it, I am quite sure. I do not know why they should, because it seems to me it is very essential that something in the way of restrictions should have been imposed. The hon. Member for Devonport said that there was an enormous difference between the Order issued in 1927 and the Order issued in 1924. I cannot follow the argument. What was the difference? The Order in 1924 reads: Officers and men on full pay are not permitted to act as members of a candidate's election committee or to advocate a candidate's claims at public meetings or in any way actively to prosecute a candidate's interest. That was the 1924 Order—the Order of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The corresponding paragraph of the second Fleet Order which deals with this point and not with the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, says: No officer or man shall be allowed to speak or to appear on the platform at or take any active part in any meeting or demonstration held for party or political purposes, or to act as a member of a candidate's election committee, or in any way actively to prosecute the candidate's interests. Where is the great difference?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Why was the difference made?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

What is the difference?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

It is very much longer. It seems to me that the onus is on the right hon. Gentleman to show why these words have been strengthened.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

It rests with the hon. Member to show the difference between the two Orders. There is no difference.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I oppose them both.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

If they were very different, the hon. Member might have supported one and opposed the other, from what one gathered from his speech; but he opposes them both, because they are both the same. In this matter the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and I, whatever our own views may be about the activities of other people in electioneering, were responsible for similar Orders. The grievance of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) really does not exist.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

Do not try to draw the hon. Member for North Camberwell into your camp.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The hon. Member for North Camberwell has nothing to be ashamed of in associating himself with the actions of the party to which I belong. Whenever his party have done anything of that sort it has always been wholly for their benefit. It is not true to say that there was no let or hindrance until 1918. The hon. Member for Devonport said that he had had three elections in which there was perfect freedom, and, according to him, the activities of those who supported him were almost entirely unlimited. Was one of them the election in 1924?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Yes.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Then I am afraid that the hon. Member's constituents, although unnoticed at the time, must have exercised activities which they were not entitled to exercise.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I precisely said, if the right hon. Gentleman will do me justice, that until this Order was issued, two or three days before the poll, we did not know about it. It was never appreciated, and we could not stop the activities. It was something entirely new. Hitherto, naval ratings in mufti had been entitled to participate.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I quite understand, and it is very natural that when an Order was made very shortly before an election there might be some confusion, and no one would in fairness have taken advantage of it, unless it was in regard to some very flagrant case. But it does not prove that the change has taken place since 1924, because the hon. Member says that he and his constituents either did not know of it, or of they did know of it, took advantage of the fact when other people did not, and thereby gained an advantage. The hon. Member wanted to carry on as he had done before, and with the same result. I am sure he feels that even if his supporters had known all about it the result would have been no different. The hon. Member has asked me as to the way in which the Fleet Order was promulgated. It was promulgated in the same way in which any Fleet Orders in the interests of discipline are promulgated.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Not under any particular Statute.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

If the hon. Member wants to regulate the proceedings by a Statute, all he has to do is to introduce a Bill into the House, and I am sure that with the persuasive eloquence which he enjoys and which we all admire, he will get a fair hearing, if not a successful Division upon it. He then went on to say that he was not satisfied with the Prime Minister's reply or with mine. I humbly apologise for the Prime Minister and myself. The matter, apparently, is one which has caused all of us some confusion, but this confusion seems to have lasted much longer in the case of the hon. Member than anyone else. Then he asked whether his friends could attend meetings and ask questions as to who was going to look after their mothers—[HON MEMBERS: "No, wives!"]—wives, if they were on service abroad. I shall be glad to reassure the hon. Member that that question, or any other question, asked at public meetings if they attend as private citizens will be in order, and I hope the desired result will be that every sailor who goes from Devonport will feel that wherever he may be his wife will be thoroughly well looked after.

The other question which the hon. Member asked was whether they were allowed to canvass. That has already been answered, but, at any rate, the answer is in the negative. Then he went on to say that if they are not allowed to canvass we were really disfranchising these men. They were not allowed to canvass under the Order of 1924; and I have made no change. If the hon. Member wants to make a change in this respect he has only to convince the hon. Member for North Camberwell and myself, and the rest of the Members of this House, that such a change is necessary, introduce a Bill and get it passed. I shall listen to him with a perfectly open mind, but at the present time I am only carrying out what I believe to be the intention of Parliament, which is that these activities should be to some extent restrained, and that that restraint should be equally fair not only on officers as compared with men but on officers in the Defence services as compared with civil servants. That was our intention, and it was the intention of the hon. Member opposite, and in the Orders which have been promulgated we believe it has been carried out. I do not think that I can add anything more to what I have said, and I hope the hon. Member will go away with some faint hope that he will, in spite of all this, still be returned as Member for Devonport.

Forward to