HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICE IN HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES). (Hansard, 2 September 1939)

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent membership of any of His Majesty's Forces being a disqualification for membership of the Commons House of Parliament. The operative Clause of the Bill will provide that A person shall not be incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in, the Commons House of Parliament by reason only that, as a member of any of His Majesty's Forces, he holds any office or place of profit under the Crown. The incapacity, if any, arises under Section 24 of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707. That Section applies to new offices, that is to say, offices created in 1705. The present statutory position is a little complicated, and the Bill is in quite general terms. For example, officers in the Royal Air Force are taken care of by Section 4 of the Royal Air Force Act, 1917. Officers of the Territorial and Reserve Forces are provided for by Sections 33 and 36 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. The reason for a Bill of this kind arises in regard to the acceptance by Members of the House of membership in His Majesty's Forces under active service conditions. It is a 278 possible view that, in spite of the development of these forces, all positions in them are old offices, because there were an Army and a Navy in 1905. This Bill will remove any doubt that there may be on the matter and produce results which I think the House would desire. There was a somewhat similar Bill at the beginning of the last War, but it was slightly differently worded.

§ Mr. Wedgwood Benn
In supporting this Bill, I would say that we all regard those Members of the House who are serving in His Majesty's Forces with mingled congratulation and envy, and we wish them a safe, early, and victorious return.

§ Colonel Nathan
It was no later than last evening that I raised the very question that is covered by this Bill, and it is a tribute to the new spirit of unity which pervades us that legislative suggestions made by Members on this side should, within 24 hours, be given practical effect. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

§ Colonel Wedgwood
During the War this matter was debated ardently on both sides, and it was opposed from this seat by John Dillon, who opposed it on grounds with which I did not agree, but I think they should be restated. He argued that once upon a time Parliament was overawed by the officers in the Army, and he went back to Cromwellian times to prove that it was necessary in those days to protect Parliament from the Army. Now I am glad to say that if we were all officers in the Army, we should be better citizens, more useful, and do a great deal of good to the Army.

Dr. Guest
May I ask whether the case of those who are employed in Civil Defence either as Regional Commissioners or otherwise, and sit on one bench or another in this House are covered in any way?

§ The Attorney-General
This Bill deals only with the Defence Forces.

Dr. Guest
May I not ask whether it ought not also to include the fourth arm, that is, Civil Defence? There may be a considerable number of Members who are Regional or Divisional Commissioners or 279 are otherwise engaged in various ways in Civil Defence, and if they are not covered, I think they ought to be covered.

§ The Attorney-General
That point will no doubt be considered. I think that many of those to whom the hon. and gallant Member refers would not in fact be holding offices of profit under the Crown. The point will no doubt be considered, but it is not covered by this Bill.

§ Mrs. Tate
Could I have an assurance from the Attorney-General that the word "he" in line 4, Clause 1, embraces also the word "she"?