PREAMBLE. (Hansard, 7 April 1936)

§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
The next Amendment on the Paper—in page 1, line 9, after "Crown," to insert: and for the carrying out of the obligations undertaken in connection with the Covenant of the League of Nations"— is out of order.

§ Mr. MANDER
Will you be good enough, Sir Charles, to say in what way it is out of order? Is it not possible to put in words of this kind, showing what is the real object, according to the policy of the Government of the day, in maintaining an Army?

§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
This Bill deals with discipline, and an Amendment of this kind enters into the question of foreign policy.

§ Mr. MANDER
But the question of foreign policy is, I submit, dealt with in the Preamble, which states: 2741 A body of land forces should be continued for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown. I am merely proposing to add words to those already existing in order to bring the Preamble up to date according to the present policy of the country. I am not introducing anything new, but merely adding to existing words.

§ The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
On that, I disagree. I think the Amendment would be introducing a new factor, and I am afraid it is out of order.

§ Mr. MANDER
I desire to deal with a point which was ruled out of order in connection with the Preamble, and I am going to ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to look into this question before the Measure comes forward another time.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)
I am afraid that there are many Rulings to the effect that the purposes for which the Army may be used cannot be discussed on the Second or Third Readings. This is a Bill dealing merely with discipline in the Army.

§ Mr. MANDER
I am referring to certain words which are already in the Preamble, which say— it is adjudged necessary by His Majesty and this present Parliament that a body of land forces should be continued for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown. I am asking the Secretary of State whether he would be good enough to consider between now and next year whether the wording of the Preamble could be made more in keeping with the present day policy of the Government, the House and the country. I appreciate that it is rather a difficult point to argue at any length, but I want to make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, for no one is more interested in the question of the foreign policy which occurs in the part of the Preamble which I have quoted than the Secretary of State himself. If he can give some indication that he will look 2742 into it, as he has in regard to another matter to-night, I should be well satisfied.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the hon. Gentleman is raising a question of adding words to the Preamble, that has been constantly ruled out of order on Third Reading.

§ Mr. MANDER
Surely it is in order to discuss the actual wording of the Preamble. I am referring to the existing wording, and I am suggesting that it is inadequate at the present moment. I am asking the Secretary of State whether he will consider the wording before next year.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It depends on the reason why the hon. Member wishes to alter the Preamble. If he wishes to alter the wording to say to what purpose the Army should be put, it would be out of order.

§ Mr. MANDER
I am not disputing the immediate purpose which is given in the Preamble. I am suggesting that there is a further purpose, and that the Preamble is not up to date, that it is misleading, and that it does not represent the principal purpose for the maintenance of the Army as it has not only been declared by the Government, but as it exists in many other Acts of Parliament as, for instance, the Peace Treaty Act that was passed at the end of the War. I suggest that in these circumstances it is reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to look into the matter.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The question the hon. Member raises is out of order because, if he wanted to amend the Preamble, it should have been done on the Committee stage. I fancy, however, that it would be ruled out of order on the Committee stage. As far as the Minister looking into the matter is concerned, I see no harm in the hon. Member saying that.

§ Mr. MANDER
Would you be good enough to inform me in what way it is possible for an hon. Member to propose any alteration in the Preamble? It could not be done on the Committee stage, there is no Report stage, and no reference can be made to it on Third Reading.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The only way in which it could be done would be on the Committee stage, and the hon. Member must refer to the Chairman of Committees.

§ Mr. A. HENDERSON
I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you saw no reason why the Secretary of State should not look into the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander). Would it be in order to advance reasons why the Secretary of State should look into the matter?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Not if it were done with a view to altering the Preamble.