CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 133.) (Hansard, 11 April 1932)

§ Mr. GEORGE HALL
My object is to ask the Minister to give us some information additional to that which is contained in the notice which has been circulated with the Bill as to the reason for this new Clause. It does seem strange, with all the experience we have had of operations abroad, that it is left for the hon. Member, in 1932, to ask for these additional powers. In the note which has been circulated with the Bill the hon. Member states that: Under Section 132 of the Army Act, it is in times of peace the function of the Secretary of State (or, in India, of the Governor-General) to set apart buildings to he used as military prisons or detention barracks, and to make rules with respect to them. I think that these buildings would in almost every case be the property of the State and for the purpose of dealing with delinquents during peace times or in the event of war the buildings which are still State property could be so extended that they would be sufficient to accommodate any persons who had been sentenced for detention or to be put into military prisons. I understand that these additional powers are not asked for under Section 132 but only under Section 133, which, if I understand aright, is simply for the purpose of dealing with difficulties which might arise in operations abroad, because those powers are given to the Commander-in-Chief of the forces abroad in the event of any difficulties arising. I take it that as that is so it is more than likely, as there will be no 564 buildings under the control of the State available, that civil buildings will have to be taken over for this purpose.
In that case, we are of the opinion that this accommodation should be given up as soon as possible after hostilities cease, rather than that they should be retained far an indefinite period. I would ask the hon. Member if he can give some guarantee that the retention of these buildings would not be protracted, as I understand took place in connection with the Great War, which was officially declared to be over in 1921 or 1922. It would mean that if the commanding officer of troops had to take over buildings for the purpose in question and if he so desired he could retain those buildings for this particular purpose until the hostilities in which he and his troops had been engaged were officially declared over, which might be some months or years after actual hostilities had ceased. Before the powers that are asked for in this Clause are given and added to the Army Act we ought to have some guarantee that buildings which are taken over from civil authorities or from other owners should be released to the owners or the civil authorities as soon as, or immediately after, hostilities have ceased. I am asking why this Clause is required. Has there been any great difficulty with regard to the retention of buildings of this kind in the past, or is it anticipated that there will be greater difficulty in the future? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will reply to the questions I have put.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper)
The hon. Member has asked why the alteration in this Clause has been suggested. It is one of the advantages, perhaps a rather doubtful advantage, of having an annual Army Act, which has to be passed through this House every year that every year it can be subjected to the careful scrutiny of lawyers and those whose business it is to look out for possible difficulties and dangers, and such is their ingenuity, assiduity and diligence that they usually find something which is capable of improvement. The reason why this Clause has been improved this year is not because of any failure in the past owing to the insufficiency of the Clause but because the legal mind has detected the possibility of some inconvenience arising in the future.
565 Under the Clause as it was the officer commanding troops on active service had the power to take over certain buildings for use as detention barracks, but these powers ceased when the War ceased. It is obvious that very often a war ceases some time before you can recall the troops on active service, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member will agree that it is quite impossible the moment hostilities cease to allow detention barracks to return into the care of their civil owners and allow all those who are detained to be set free or compel the officer commanding to find other quarters suitable for use. Therefore, we have slightly altered the Clause in order to make sure that no inconvenience, which has so far never arisen, shall arise and that as long as troops are on active service these powers, vested in the commanding officer far the purpose of hostilities and during war, shall continue. That is the sole purpose of this alteration. I hope the explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member and that he will not press his Amendment.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I still have some difficulty in understanding the necessity for introducing this alteration in the law. I thank the Financial Secretary for the explanation he has given. He started by saying that the advantage of this yearly review is that we are able to amend where we deem it to be necessary. The late War finished in l9l8, and we have had an annual review since then, that is 14 times, and apparently it is only now that the acute legal mind has discovered this flaw in the Act. It is rather curious that after the greatest conflict the world has ever known, when no difficulty arose, that because of some hypothetical difficulty which has arisen in the mind of some legal pundit we are to be invited to alter the law in this way. The Financial Secretary did not reply to the other point put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall). The words in the Clause are: So long as the forces in the country in question are on active service. To the lay mind active service ceases on the day when the last shot is fired. What, in fact, does "active service" mean? Legally, I believe, it means on the day when peace is signed. If the final declaration of peace and not the 566 declaration of an armistice is the end of active service, then, clearly, the commanding officer will have a fairly long time between the actual declaration of the armistice and the final declaration of peace in which to exercise these powers, without the addition of these words. I do not think the Financial Secretary has met that point. I should like to know what precisely is the legal definition of the end of active service, since it has been necessary to put these words in the Act.

§ Mr. COOPER
Speaking without having had an opportunity of consulting any legal authority I should imagine that so long as troops are abroad on foreign territory they were on active service. I cannot imagine troops being maintained abroad except on active service. The hon. Member will see from the analogy he drew from the late War, when peace was signed many months after the Armistice, that if these powers were not taken considerable inconvenience will arise in the event of the commanding officer not being able to maintain detention barracks which are in existence. I should say that as long as troops are maintained abroad in foreign countries they are on active service. The only object of the Clause is to make sure that no inconvenience will arise in the future as to the legal position.