HC Deb 05 April 1951 vol 486 cc385-7

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

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I should like to ask for certain assurances on the effects of this Clause, because it continues the Army Act under which certain disciplinary penalties are liable to be inflicted upon Service personnel and I am interested to know what attitude the Service Ministers take up towards them. I want to know whether the Service Ministers will consider certain amendments of the original Army Act in so far as it is likely to apply to our Service personnel in Malaya and in Korea. I am referring to the Section of the original Army Act which, for certain offences, makes serving soldiers liable to the death penalty.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Member is speaking on the wrong Clause. The proper place to raise the question of Malaya, if it is raised at all, is on Clause 3 and not on Clause 2.

Mr. Hughes

But that does not cover my whole point. I submit that Clause 2 perpetuates for another year the original Army Act under which certain penalties are liable to be imposed upon soldiers and airmen, not only in Malaya, but in every theatre of war. My argument is that in view of the fact that some of the soldiers in Korea and in Malaya at the present time are young Service men with little experience and training, and because there have been so many protests in the House—

The Chairman

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is out of order. Clause 2, to which he is speaking, applies the whole of the Army Act and the Air Force Act for a specified period. It is not competent to raise the question which the hon. Gentleman is raising on this Clause, which merely applies the whole of those Acts for a specified period. He cannot take out a little bit here and there.

Mr. Hughes

I am sorry if I have not made my point with due clarity. My argument is that, if this Clause perpetuates those Acts for a certain specified period, then within that period we should have an assurance that the Section which is liable to impose the death penalty on young soldiers in Korea and Malaya should not be enacted.

The Chairman

I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants either to amend the Act or to obtain some assurance about it; but he has no Amendment down, and it is not therefore permissible to amend the Clause or to raise isolated points arising out of the Army Act or Air Force Act in a Clause of this Bill which applies or extends the whole of those Acts.

Mr. Hughes

I was speaking on the Question that the Clause stand part, and asking for an assurance from the Service Ministers that the death penalty will not be inflicted upon National Service men serving in any of the theatres of operation. That was all.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield)

May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner, on what we are competent to discuss under Clause 2? When we had the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill before us recently, it was the Ruling of the Chair that nothing could be said on the subject of courts-martial themselves. In reply to a question that I asked, the Minister stated that for the purpose of the unanimity rule no legislation is necessary. Is it, therefore, in order to say a few words simply upon the way in which the Army Act is administered now in relation to Clause 1?

The Chairman

We cannot discuss how the Army Act is administered. This Clause applies the Army Act. How it is administered is a matter for discussion on a Supply Day.

Mr. Blackburn

I am not in any way trying to get something in order on this question which could be more properly raised on a Supply Day, but it appears to me that under this Clause we are undeniably for the next year making all our soldiers amenable to this jurisdiction. It appears to me, if I may make this sub mission,that simply to deal with this narrow issue of the unanimity rule under courts-martial would have been relevant inasmuch as the effect of our passing this Clause—

The Chairman

Order. On consideration, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a matter of administration.

Mr. Hughes

Might I ask for your guidance on this point, Major Milner? If this question is carried to a Division and the Clause is not added to the Bill, would it not mean that the young soldiers in Korea and Malaya would not be liable to these very severe penalties?

The Chairman

If the Clause were defeated it would mean that there would be no discipline in the Army or Air Force. Probably there would be no Army or Air Force at all.

Mr. Blackburn

Further to my point, Major Milner, if I caught your last answer to my previous question aright, you said that was a matter involving legislation?

The Chairman

No, of administration.

Mr. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

As I understand your Ruling, Major Milner, this deals only with the specified time laid down in the Act. Some of us think that period much too long and that it would perpetuate certain things which should not be continued. It is difficult to talk about the period without relating it to why we think the period is wrong. Would I be in order in raising a point which I queried with a Minister recently with regard to young soldiers under 19 going to Malaya whereas they could not go to Korea unless they were 19? We cannot get that rectified unless we shorten the period.

The Chairman

Again, that is I think a matter of administration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.