Clause 3.—(AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF "ACTIVE SERVICE.")

HC Deb 01 April 1952 vol 498 cc1535-627

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 17, leave out "Subsection (1) of."

Question again proposed.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was making a short interjection at the time the debate was adjourned and we were discussing the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which in its terms as here stated is perhaps a little deceptive. It seeks to leave out Clause 3 (1) but the result is really effectively to repeal the whole of Section 189 of the Army Act.

I always very much regret to express any sort of difference with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. I think I may say that we agree on almost every subject under the sun except politics. I am bound to say, although I observe many hon. Members in the Committee who were not present to hear the able speech he made, that I do not personally face the matter in the same way as does my hon. and learned Friend.

This, in my view, is an exceedingly important Clause and one which should not be disposed of as summarily as was foreshadowed in his speech. My hon. and learned Friend only referred to paragraph (2) of the subsection and there are a number of important paragraphs. The matters to which we are referring are in subsections (2) to (6) of Section 189.

Subsection (2) says: Where the Governor of a Colony in which any of His Majesty's forces are serving, or if the forces are serving in a Dominion or out of His Majesty's dominions, the general officer or brigadier commanding such forces, declares at any time or times that, by reason of the imminence of active service or of the recent existence of active service, it is necessary for the public service that the forces in the colony or under his command, as the case may be, should be temporarily subject to this Act, as if they were on active service, then on the publication in general orders of any such declaration, the forces to which the declaration applies shall be deemed to be on active service for the period mentioned in the declaration so that the period mentioned in any one declaration does not exceed three months from the date thereof. I agree with the intervention of the Secretary of State for War. It is quite clear that my hon. and learned Friend had not quite apprehended that these orders have to be renewed at least once every three months and, therefore, the point about a condition of active service having preceded is not an effective point because it may be a question merely of renewing an order after an emergency or between emergencies, but the renewal must take place not because of the preceding or possible emergency, but because the original order has expired. That seems to be clear.

I approach my next point with a genuine diffidence. I am the last to say anything which might cause even a blush to appear on the face of the Secretary of State for War and as an ex-lance bombardier I approach this with a real and almost girlish and virgin diffidence and reluctance. After all, the public interest must prevail—and if the hon. Member opposite will restrain his ebullience for a few seconds, I shall be happy to listen to him—

Sir Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)

I wanted to ask a question.

Mr. Hale

If the hon. Member will allow me to continue for a moment, he can ask all the questions he wishes. I apologise again, but, as an ex-lance bombardier, I ask, ought this to be trusted to a brigade commander? Really, brigadiers are two a penny today. I did my most effective service as a lance bombardier, but there are at least four or five ranks in the Service above brigade commander and this is a high responsibility for a brigade commander to take.

We are putting him on a level in this matter with a governor of a Dominion, because this Act takes no notice of the passing of the Statute of Westminster. It seems to me a matter which the right hon. Gentleman must consider, eliminating any personal reminiscences and approaching the matter objectively as a matter of importance and public interest.

Now the next point is very difficult—

Sir P. Macdonald

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says he approaches the matter as a virgin lance bombardier. I have served in the Army, but I have never heard of that rank. Would the hon. Member mind defining what is an acting virgin lance bombardier?

Mr. Hale

I at once withdraw my offer to answer questions, because here is a question which I cannot answer. Eliminating the "lance bombardier," I should find it very difficult to define an "acting virgin." It is a state which when once terminated there is no question of resumption as an acting rank. But I certainly did not describe myself in any such remarkable way.

I wish now to come to my next point. We are discussing the circumstances in which the term "on active service" could be applied either in Britain, the Colonies or the Dominions. "On active service" as everyone knows, is a term which gets very rapidly applied in time of war. I served in a little wooden hut on the roof of some works known as the Crown Derby China Works in Derby, where we had a small machine gun of limited range which could not possibly reach any aeroplane had the pilot been foolish enough to fly over us. But we were on active service. We realised we were on active service because all of us knew that if we ever did fire the gun the roof would collapse, and therefore we were really in more substantial danger than some of those playing a more gallant and active part.

I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend has taken his place, and I am sorry that in his absence I expressed an opinion on the somewhat indiscriminate way he had approached the matter and had not faced up to some of the problems which do arise. I must refer to the definition in the Act of the expression "governor" in its application to a Colony because it is a very wide definition indeed: The expression 'Governor' in its application to a colony means the officer, however styled, who is for the time being administering the government of the colony. It is important we should understand this.

If one was trying to discover an area where there may probably be trouble in the future, one would naturally think of Bechuanaland. At this moment who is the person who is administering Bechuanaland? It may be the resident whose functions are generally represented as advisory—the "man on the spot" to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred to with such approval on a previous occasion. My hon. and learned Friend says that the man on the spot always knows more than the man who is not there, although historically speaking the man on the spot has always proved to be wrong. Is it Seretse Khama, or is it someone who is to be elected chief of the Bamangwato tribe, or who is it? Or is it some collective ruler of the whole three territories? There is no definition which makes this clear.

What is more serious, however, is the reference to Dominions in the Clause, despite the Statute of Westminster. Everyone knows that we have no more legal right now to talk about active service for British troops in one of Her Majesty's Dominions than in any other part of the world.

There is one other matter to which I must refer, and I must differ from another of my hon. and learned Friends. I think it was the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who referred, I thought somewhat indiscreetly, to the provisions of the Schedules to this Act. He read out that apparently under the Army Act every British soldier billeted in billets has for all these years been entitled to 4 oz. of bacon for breakfast, 1 oz. of marmalade, 1 pint of tea with milk and sugar; 10 oz. of meat for lunch, 3 oz. of bread, 8 oz. of other vegetables and 4 oz. of pudding, to 4 oz. of meat for supper—

The Chairman

I propose to call an Amendment dealing with that point later on.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged. I entirely agree.

We are dealing with active service and civil disturbance, and if it should be thought that nothing was being done about it, we are faced with this possibility. It will have to be carefully considered, because there will be difficulties, not merely amongst the people who do not get the allowance, but among those who are responsible for supplying what they have not got.

It is quite true that that sort of thing in 1952 is quite irrelevant. Really, it looks like a preparation by the noble Lord the Minister for the Co-ordination of Food and Agriculture of a pre-election menu of red meat for the Beefeaters in the Bloody Tower. It certainly has no reference whatever to the conditions of ordinary service which our sons and daughters have to observe today.

We have to consider these things, and I suggest that we consider them seriously. I deplore the attitude of the Government in this matter, when we are seeking to amend the Bill and they are opposing our Amendments. They did not do it when they were in opposition. We have had a useful discussion, and we have tried to be objective and constructive, but we have had no assistance at all from the other side.

It is quite shocking that when there are a great many men with military experience on the other side of the Committee, apparently, they should be precluded from taking part in the debate. Why, even the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), when we were dealing with the breakfast of the British soldier, never raised the question of porridge for the Black Watch.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but really, in the torrent of his oratory, I was not able to get a word in edgeways.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that tribute; I always do give way when I am asked.

I come now to paragraph 3 of the subsection, which provides, in general, that if at any time the governor or general officer or brigadier for the time being is of opinion that the necessity continues he may from time to time renew such declaration for another period not exceeding three months, and such renewal shall be published and have effect as the original declaration, and if he is of opinion that the said necessity has ceased, he shall state such opinion, and on the publication in general orders of such statement, the forces to which the declaration applies shall cease to be deemed to be on active service. The publication of orders means in the general orders of the unit, and nowhere else. It is to be published in what are called Part 2 orders, and really this is quite an extraordinary provision. That officer can go on for three months saying in Part 2 orders that the men are on active service. I do not want to say anything ungenerous, but the right hon. Gentleman may remember that the commanding officer has an interest in this matter.

When considerations of active service apply, the discipline can be much more strictly enforced and, subject to any Amendments that have been made recently, we have provisions for field courts-martial instead of general courts-martial, which is a very important matter. It seems to me that it is rather remarkable that we should continue leaving this matter to some brigade commander at any time, without giving any special reason, except saying that he thinks there has been or will be some other emergency and who can place troops under his command on active service. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point.

Mr. Paget

As far as I can see, there does not have to be any emergency at all, because the Section merely refers to the imminence of the service.

Mr. Hale

It is a curious point, and I did rather accept what the Secretary of State for War said on this matter. If we assume that the emergency is over, we come then to this period of three months during a temporary quiescence.

Mr. Paget

Subsection (2).

Mr. Hale

Subsection (2) says after or before an emergency.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget

That is rather curious.

Mr. Hale

Unless the theory may be that in a severe emergency the general orders would prescribe active service for the whole of the forces in the area.

Sir P. Macdonald

Could not this argument within the Labour Party be carried on in another chamber, Sir Charles? Cannot the hon. Gentlemen opposite retire elsewhere?

The Chairman

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman because I could not hear what was said.

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked whether the argument within the Labour Party could be carried on in another chamber. He did not specify which chamber, but I suppose he was thinking of another place. My hon. and learned Friend and I have no particular aspirations to go there. We really are trying to get through this long and complex Clause which runs to many hundreds of words and which I do not suppose the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has read, even if he can read.

Then we get the conditions of the paragraph about publication to which I have referred before. It must be made by proclamation and published in the "Official Gazette" of the Colony. It is something like the "London Gazette." If one happens to lend money on deferred terms, one is interested in the "London Gazette," but it is not normally the type of reading in which people who study "Jane" in the "Daily Mirror" every morning are interested.

Those are two fairly substantial provisions and personally I am glad they are in the Bill. That is not what I am seeking to attack at all. These powers, of course, are also exercisable under Subsection (6) by an air officer in similar circumstances. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very substantial matter. I know he will agree—because he is very fair—that the Sections need the greatest possible revision.

The reference to a governor of the Dominions is almost an affront for us to continue to perpetuate. I do not want to intrude a personal note in this matter, but I personally would not like to see the hon. Member for Oldham, West, allowing a huge botch like this being passed merely because someone says we have not time to discuss it and because we want to get back to the British Museum Bill which has been waiting 10 weeks for discussion.

I personally would have no objection whatever to sitting at a week-end if necessary to see some important legislation got through with decency and courtesy and with full consideration and debate. No one would deny that at the end of a debate one knows a good deal more about the problems one has to confront and about the necessity for emendation and elucidation of these matters.

One word in conclusion. Reference has twice been made, once somewhat churlishly by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and once most politely and intelligently by the Secretary of State for War, about differences on these benches. It is truly quite surprising that anyone should expect that we should come with ready turned out opinions made in a mould and measured to a purely party style. This is a question of the House of Commons in Committee. It is a question where each and everyone of us on these benches is seeking to assist the House in producing Amendments which will improve the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

Nonsense.

Mr. Hale

The noble Lord has only just come in, and therefore it might have been a little wiser for him to have listened to what was being said. If he wants to make an interjection, I would suggest that he should ask himself why from half-past three this afternoon right throughout this discussion no back bencher on the other side of the Committee has risen and made a speech at all. And the one man who did rise twice to make a speech was chased out of the Chamber and has never been seen since.

It is quite monstrous that hon. Members opposite should say, "We are not prepared to assist the Committee to debate and we shall grumble if you fellows talk." I thought the Navy was the silent Service, but the Navy has never been as silent as the brigade commanders have been this afternoon and this evening. It seems that the Army and the Air Force are now the silent Services.

The Chairman

I do not think that can arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged, and I would respectfully agree. Indeed, I had left the point—I was tempted to do so by what I thought was an ill-timed interjection by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I have tried to indicate quite briefly the points which appeared to be of major importance on this Clause. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will want to develop some of those points, and indeed to make their own. For the moment I would be satisfied with that.

In conclusion, I should like to say that I personally regret that the Solicitor General thought fit to reply so soon to the first speech in the debate. It is quite true he can rise again, but the impression he gave that he wanted to curtail the discussion—even though he did not mean to give it—is regrettable when we are trying to get on with constructive legislation.

Mr. Driberg

When the debate was suspended at seven o'clock, I was addressing a few observations to the Solicitor-General who had then just spoken, and I apologise to him and to you, Sir Charles, for not being in my place when the debate was resumed prematurely owing to the unexpected and, if I may say so. Un- characteristic taciturnity of our Welsh colleagues.

The point I was addressing to the hon. and learned Gentleman was what may be at first a rather simple one yet which is a little complicated to grasp. He was referring repeatedly in his speech to the definition of "active service, engaged in operation against the enemy." Therefore, he was necessarily referring all the time to "the enemy." The point about the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill this year is that Clause 4 of it offers a new definition of the word "enemy." It is a definition which widens the meaning of the word considerably in its military application and it is a definition about which some of us are greatly worried.

As I was saying in the earlier part of my speech, I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which may or may not be called, but I hope the opportunity will occur to address oneself to this point. The point I am making now is that by using the word "enemy" in a definition in an Amendment of this Clause we are in a sense prejudging that questionable use of that word "enemy" in a later Clause. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will speak again in order to reassure us on this point.

There is another point in the definition on which I would simply seek information either from the Solicitor-General or from the Secretary of State for War. It is the question of a definition of a foreign country. I want to know simply whether the Sudan is a foreign country or not under this definition. There are, of course, as we know R.A.F. personnel serving in the Sudan and possibly some Army personnel—though I think that is covered probably by the Sudan Defence Corps. In any case, is the Sudan for the purpose of this definition a foreign country or not?

Mr. Swingler

It is, definitely.

Mr. Driberg

I venture to take issue with my hon. Friend about that, and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will be good enough to judge between my hon. Friend and me when he comes to speak. I do not think there is anything definite about it, and I am very surprised indeed that my hon. Friend thinks there is.

Mr. Swingler

If my hon. Friend looks at Section 190 (24) he will find: The expression 'foreign country' means any place which is not situate in the United Kingdom, a Dominion or a Colony, and is not on the high seas.

Mr. Driberg

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I always am when he is helpful to me during my speeches, but he has not quoted enough from paragraphs (23), (23A), and (24). If one is searching for the exact identification of this territory which I have mentioned, and which I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman is neither a dominion nor a Colony, but an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium—

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

It is a protectorate.

Mr. Driberg

I do not think it is a protectorate. If my hon. Friend wants to interrupt me, perhaps he will get up and do so. He says it is a protectorate. I do not think it is. It is an Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. The Egyptians have abrogated their share in the Condominium. However, we still insist on recognising it, and we refuse to recognise their abrogation of the Condominium.

The point is that paragraphs (23), (23A), and (24) of the definition Section, Section 190, define respectively Dominion, Colony and foreign country, and in paragraph (23) we find these words: The expression 'Dominion' means any of the following Dominions, that is to say—Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Eire, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Newfoundland. Paragraph (23A) says: The expression 'colony' means any part of His Majesty's dominions"— I suppose that should be "Her Majesty's dominions"— exclusive of the United Kingdom, and of any Dominion, and includes any British protectorate. Then we come to the point at which my hon. Friend quoted: The expression 'foreign country' means any place which is not situate in the United Kingdom, a Dominion or a colony and is not on the high seas. At first sight, that would seem to apply to the Sudan.

Mr. Head

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Sudan does count as a foreign country.

Mr. Driberg

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening.

I was saying that it might seem at first sight that the Sudan is a foreign country, since it is neither situate in the United Kingdom, nor is it a Dominion nor a Colony, and, quite manifestly, it is not on the high seas. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that it counts as a foreign country, how does it happen to have a British Governor-General, and how is it that the British Foreign Secretary answers Questions about it in this House? How can he take responsibility on behalf of a foreign country? Does the Foreign Office think that it is not a foreign country, while the War Office thinks it is a foreign country?

Mr. Head

The fact that the Foreign Office answers Questions about it is an indication that it is a foreign country.

Mr. Driberg

Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He is quite new as a Minister, but even so, he was a very competent back bencher in the last Parliament, and he knows perfectly well that Ministers can only answer Questions about matters for which they are Departmentally responsible. He knows perfectly well that if he or any other back bencher questioned the Foreign Secretary about the internal affairs of any foreign country, whether Greece, Spain, Italy, France or any other foreign country, that Question would not be in order. It would be rejected by the Table.

The Chairman

I think this matter with which the hon. Member is now dealing hardly arises at this point.

Mr. Driberg

I have not succeeded in making the trend of my thoughts clear, and I apologise to you, Sir Charles. What I was trying to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman was the exact status of the Sudan in this definition, and whether it is or is not a foreign country.

He said, speaking offhand, that it was treated as a foreign country, and I was venturing to point out some of the difficulties in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as the learned Clerk to the Table would advise any back bench Member, that it is not competent to put to the Foreign Secretary a Question about the internal affairs of any foreign country—and yet we can put Questions to him about the internal affairs of the Sudan, so that, quite clearly, it is not a foreign country in that sense.

If there is any doubt about it, I should have thought that special reference should be made to it in one of the definition Clauses. It would be quite simple to add a new meaning referring specifically to "The Anglo-Egyptian Condominium of the Sudan." That is the second point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor-General will be able to oblige us.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget

Whatever else has happened as a result of this debate, I feel that it has amply justified us in putting down an Amendment which made this Section of the Army Act available for discussion. In the first place, I am not for a moment suggesting that we should press this Amendment to a Division. It seems to me that probably the Clause as it stands is better than nothing.

Nevertheless, it is equally clear that the words are not satisfactory by reason of the fact that words like the imminence of active service, or the recent existence of active service, provide an inadequate description of the occasions to which active service ought to apply. Perhaps by next year the Government will have thought out a more adequate definition.

Mr. L. M. Lever

They will not be there.

Mr. Paget

Well, whatever Government is there. This is a duty which goes from Government to Government—to get this in order. It is equally the duty of an Opposition, whichever party it may be, to draw to the attention of the Government that which requires putting in order.

What alarmed me a great deal more was what the Solicitor-General said about the other part of this definition because, as it applies to any particular man, it apparently depends—and I think that is right on the wording—on whether he is a member of a force. There is no definition whatever of what is a force for this purpose. Is the British Army of the Rhine a force? Is a section a force? Is a battalion a force? It seems to me to be left completely vague.

This is a section which is the basis of criminal responsibility. It is the basis of such criminal responsibility as often involves the death penalty. I am often reminded, in dealing with that question, as well as with some other questions with which I was dealing in Germany, of a quotation from Lord Digby when he spoke on the impeachment of Strafford. Speaking then of the criminal law, he said: Let us have none of these vague charges. Let a cross be placed clearly upon the door and then let he who enters be punished. That, I believe, is the fundamental wording which should apply to any criminal charge. If we are to charge men with crime, then in advance of their action we must have defined that crime with precision. We must have put the cross clearly upon the door. When we find, as the basis for a capital charge, a number of words and conditions which the Solicitor-General quite frankly acknowledge were so vague as to be quite incapable of definition that it would depend on a question of what was a force and what was not for the purpose of any particular crime—or who was a member of the force—then I felt we should all be agreed that, as a definition of the crime and as the basis of criminal charges, that must be unsatisfactory. I do not feel there is a difference between us on this.

Owing to the absence of time and the urgency with which this Measure, year after year, has to be forced through, it may not be possible to get out a satisfactory answer this time. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is such an important matter that it ought to be given priority and that he ought to bring us something better on the Report stage, even this year. He may feel that it is so important, involving life and death as it does, that this is something where clarity should be provided this year. At any rate, he should make sure that we have it next year.

Mr. Head

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) for his speech. I agree with him that this Amendment, as an exploratory Amendment, has been useful in respect of this Clause. I can give him an undertaking that we will bear in mind what has been said and that it will be our attempt to improve it. Whether we can improve it on this occasion is something which I hope he will leave to me and to my assistants. It would be patently wrong for me to give any undertaking that in the short time available I could make the kind of improvement that he and, indeed, all of us wish.

I have been asked to make certain comments on the remarks of the Solicitor-General and of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who, I am sorry to see, has had to leave the Chamber.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

For a short while.

Mr. Head

For a short while. I am sure he will be back.

He and other hon. Members expressed anxiety concerning the fact that somebody of the rank of brigadier could deem a man to be on "active service." There are many anachronisms in the Bill. It says, "If he is in wireless touch." In these days I think that the occasions when he is out of wireless touch will be comparatively few and far between, and there is a definite obligation in the Bill that if such touch can be established he must gain the prior consent of the Secretary of State to carry out that action.

I can assure the House that this particular Section of the Army Act, which the original Amendment suggested should be left out, is one which, despite its known imperfections, is of considerable importance to us at present. In these cold war conditions the exact time when one would require to deem a man on active service, either before or after active service will, I think, quite often arise, and without the powers it would be extremely difficult to deal with the really novel situations which keep occurring under these present cold war conditions.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) said that he was in great difficulties on the question of the Sudan. In a way he selected a duck-billed platypus of a country which obeyed no particular rule. I can assure him, on the best authority, that the Sudan counts as a foreign country; although I agree that in a lot of ways it is not so treated and Questions can be asked about it. For the purposes of this Bill it counts as a foreign country.

Mr. Driberg

Would it not be simple to name them?

Mr. Head

That is a thing which I will look into and take advice on.

The hon. Gentleman was also worried about the question of the definition of "enemy." I know it is not entirely satisfactory, but I have given an undertaking to look into this Clause and when we pass on to the next Clause we can look back to see how, in the light of this discussion, this word "enemy" fits in. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton for the sensible remarks he made at the end of his speech, and I give an undertaking to the Committee that I will look into this matter and see what can be done at this time or in the future to make this Clause better and more lucid.

Mr. Wigg

I am sure we are all obliged to the Secretary of State for his undertaking to look into this matter, but there is one aspect of the Clause which worries me a great deal. When we were discussing the National Service Act, it was never in the minds of my hon. Friends, nor I think of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the use of National Service men outside this country would be a permanent feature of our policy. Indeed, the idea was that National Service men should be taken into the Armed Forces, trained, and in due course revert to reserved service and there be available should an emergency arise.

Unfortunately, the world situation has worsened and it has been necessary to use the National Service men, first in Germany, and then gradually they have gone further and further East until they have landed in Korea. It is one thing to send to a strange part of the world a young man who, of his own volition, has entered into a contract to serve, which includes service overseas. After all, he knows that he is likely to be posted there.

But it is quite another thing to take thousands and thousands of young men straight from civilian life and send them, for example, to Germany, where they find themselves in very strange circumstances, only a short distance away from their homes, where they might even commit a boyish escapade which would be of no great importance if they were in civilian clothes, or perhaps serving in a depot in this country, but for which they find themselves facing trial by court-martial on a charge involving a very long term of imprisonment.

Mr. Driberg

To be quite fair to the War Office, under the last Government, those National Service men who were the first to go to Korea did not go their straight from civilian life. They had a period of training in Hong Kong. There was the Middlesex Regiment and—

Sir Peter Macdonald

I know of many cases where they went straight to Korea and never saw Hong Kong at all.

Mr. Driberg

I did not say there were no cases. I said that in the bulk of cases those who went first to Korea, the first British troops to go to Korea in the late summer of 1950, were the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Middlesex Regiment, and they both went from Hong Kong.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Driberg

I am at the moment interrupting my hon. Friend, with his consent. We cannot all speak at once. I was merely saying that those troops went to Korea from Hong Kong where they had been training for a considerable time.

Mr. Wigg

I only mentioned Korea to illustrate how far this House has departed from the original conception of the use of the National Service man.

What was uppermost in my mind was Germany. We know that a considerable number of young National Service men are going to Germany as part of their normal training. Indeed, we are led to believe that that is to be the training ground for the bulk of our Forces. Therefore, young men are going there as a matter of course—and going there, be it noted, not to serve on foreign service, but on home service.

Quite clearly, whilst we must for the time being accept the definition of "active service" laid down in Clause 3, I very much hope that this will not be a permanent feature. It was all right for the Regular Forces. It was all right to send a fellow to Egypt, or wherever he happened to be called upon to serve, who, when he got there, might find that charges he had to face were prefaced by the words "whilst on active service." But it is not good enough for National Service men, and we may have to find a special method of treating Germany.

I am wholly dissatisfied with the prospect of National Service men being permanently faced with the possibility of reaping the only possible consequence should they commit a breach of regulations and find themselves on a charge, either before their commanding officer or before a court-martial, of getting a much heavier penalty than would have been possible if they were serving in a depot in this country, and in circumstances in which the Service is precisely the same. They might find themselves in barracks in Germany just as remote from the civilian population and from the realities of life as they would were they serving in Aldershot, Catterick or on Salisbury Plain.

10.30 p.m.

I hope that the Secretary of State will face the fact that the House and the country have been forced to use the National Service man for a purpose for which he was never intended when the Act was passed. I must be honest and say that, although I was in favour of the National Service Act, and have made that plain both inside and outside the House of Commons. I know that many of my hon. Friends would have been more doubtful than they were when they came to vote for it had they thought the National Service man was to be used for any other purpose than to create a reserve.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of any hon. Member in any part of the House to take special care to safeguard the rights of the National Service man in this matter.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

rose—

The Chairman

I think we should come to a decision. We have been over an hour on this Amendment.

Mr. Paget

I was about to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, Sir Charles.

The Chairman

Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Dugdale

I wanted to know whether, in fact—

The Chairman

Order. No one has refused to give the hon. and learned Member leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. My right hon. Friend was on his feet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am addressing the Chair on a point of order, in spite of the discourteous noises from the other side. There was a certain amount of confusion, Sir Charles. I was respectfully calling your attention to the fact that to my clear recollection the voices were not collected as to whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment should be withdrawn. I was also calling the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the fact that a Member of his own Front Bench was on his feet. It would not have been our wish to seek to withdraw an Amendment until we had heard his observations.

The Chairman

I asked whether it was the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn. I did not hear "No" from anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I did not hear it, anyhow.

Mr. Paget

On a point of order. You looked at me, Sir Charles, and I said I was about to ask leave to withdraw, but then I saw my right hon. Friend was getting up and I sat down again. Clearly, if my right hon. Friend has something to say, I do not want to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman

I am sorry if I made a mistake. I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asking leave to withdraw.

Mr. Dugdale

I shall not detain the Committee long. I did not wish to get involved in the interesting question of the Sudan, but I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in his place and I want to know whether consultations have taken place between the War Office and the Admiralty on this matter. It seems to be a matter of considerable importance which may affect the Admiralty if there is a complete re-definition of the words "active service." If consultations have taken place between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, it is obviously bound to affect the Navy and we must be quite certain that there has been adequate consultation and what the result of it has been.

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Head

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has anticipated our debate. I wish he was right. We have not yet reached the question of active service. We are now on the question of leaving out subsection (1) of this Clause, but it will come.

Mr. Paget

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Paget

I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "a foreign country," and to insert: an area comprising the whole or a part of a foreign country which has been declared to be an area of special danger to life or property by an order issued in accordance with the procedure laid down by subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Army Act. Perhaps, Sir Charles, you will first permit me to say that last time when we were discussing the Home Guard Bill, I am afraid I was extremely rude to the Solicitor-General. I thought he had been rude to me. He assured me afterwards that he had not been, and when I looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT I was bound to say that I thought the words he had used had been quite misinterpreted by myself. In the circumstances, therefore, I want to take this opportunity to apologise.

This Amendment attempts to improve on the Government's effort to do what I recognise to be a very difficult job—to define "active service." I am not suggesting that even if, as I hope, the Government accept it, we shall have a perfect definition, but I do suggest we shall have a rather better one.

The Government's definition of "active service" is: 'active service', in relation to a person subject to military law, means service in or with a force engaged in operations against an enemy … Let us pause there. Later they are proposing, in Clause 4, to define "enemy" as including all persons engaged in hostile operations against any of Her Majesty's forces. One does not wish to be frivolous, but is a person who fires a pea-shooter at some soldiers on the march and is then chased engaged in operations against Her Majesty's Forces? These are very wide words, difficult to define. But let me pass to the next part of the definition: "is engaged in a foreign country." As a matter of pure construction, where is the subject of "is"—the force or the person? I suppose it is the force that is indicated. But to continue: is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property or is in military occupation of a foreign country. My Amendment deals simply with that part of the definition which provides or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life and property. … No special definition of operations is given in the Act, and therefore one must take the ordinary Oxford Dictionary definition: "Active processes; activity; performance; discharge of function."

I cannot imagine any military force anywhere that is not engaged in the function of the protection of life or property. Every military force has some person or property over whom they set a sentry, so that everybody in the force by this definition is on active service. If the Government want to provide that anybody in a foreign country is on active service it would be simple to say so. On the basis of that definition, any soldier in a foreign country who is part of any sort of a force must be on active service, because that force will be engaged in discharging somewhere the function of protecting life or property. That must be so.

Realising the width of that definition—and bearing in mind all the time that this is the basis of the gravest criminal charges and consequences—we considered whether it was possible to place some limitation upon the width of that definition, and it is an attempt so to place a limitation which we suggest in the Amendment. What we say is that instead of "a foreign country," there should be inserted: an area comprising the whole or a part of a foreign country which has been declared to be an area of special danger to life or property by an order issued in accordance with the procedure laid down by subsections (2) to (6) of section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Army Act. Those, of course, are the subsections which we have just been discussing.

There would not be a governor in most foreign countries, but there is a Governor in the Sudan—

Mr. Driberg

A Governor-General.

Mr. Paget

—which is one foreign country. Therefore, I presume that an ordinance by the Governor-General of the Sudan would be the method of bringing this into operation and that that ordinance would have to be approved by the right hon. Gentleman.

As to the position of Malaya, I am not quite certain. Is it a Protectorate? Is it a foreign country for the purpose of that Section? Perhaps this information can be given. If it be a foreign country, then it would be on the basis of this definition; but I imagine that the Governor-General would be the person to issue the ordinance if the Amendment be accepted; otherwise it would be the General Officer Commanding.

I should have thought that it was not desirable to provide that all the troops, all the time, in a foreign country were to be deemed to be on active service, and that that should apply only to particular areas. I cannot help feeling that it was probably Malaya and the Canal Zone which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind in proposing the new definition. It is in that sort of area where this provision is required, and I submit that the best way to define that sort of area is by the procedure, which already exists, which is applicable to a Dominion or a Colony.

After all, there is not such a lot of difference between the sort of control that we have in the Sudan and Malaya and the sort of control which we have in, say, Kenya. Surely, the same sort of procedure should be applicable to both. I commend the Amendment to the Committee and to the Government. While the definition is by no means perfect, it is an improvement.

Mr. Strachey

This Amendment has a good deal of substance. The whole question of the definition of active service is a most difficult one and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has re-emphasised, we do not pretend to have solved it. The biggest difficulty which I see in the form of words proposed by the Government is one which my hon. and learned Friend has not mentioned: that is, the position of our Forces in Germany.

10.45 p.m.

Under the Clause as I see it, we should perforce have to regard the whole of the British Army of the Rhine as permanently on active service so long as it was in occupation of Germany. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the next Amendment."] I think that it comes under this Amendment, too. Here, my hon. and learned Friend has moved to substitute for "a foreign country" some part of a foreign country designated because special circumstances have arisen there; and I have Germany in mind.

Under the following subsections it should be possible to declare particular areas of Germany to be a part of a foreign country in which our troops would be on active service, but it seems far too wide to have the words of the Clause as put before us by the Government, whereby all our troops in Germany, all the time, would be on active service.

This Amendment, like the next, is designed to remedy that situation. I am well aware that what the Government are proposing is nothing new, because, under the old definition—

The Solicitor-General

I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to discuss the next Amendment; could I ask, therefore, if we are to discuss both together?

The Chairman

If it is for the convenience of the Committee to discuss them together, I agree.

Mr. Paget

I submit, Sir Charles, that they concern quite separate points. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is proposing to move the next Amendment, which is concerned with military occupation and not the guarding of life and property. In Germany our troops are in military occupation and this Clause would put them on active service. The next Amendment provides something different—where they are in a foreign country guarding life and property, but not in occupation.

The Solicitor-General

Then the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing an Amendment not under consideration.

The Chairman

They are two separate points, and I shall call that at the bottom of the page separately, which is what I originally intended to do; I understood that the Committee wanted to take them together.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

On a point of order. Would it not save time if they were taken together?

The Chairman

It might save time, but the Amendments are different.

Mr. Strachey

As I see it, the Amendment which we are now discussing is fully relevant to the British Army of the Rhine and its position in Germany. At the moment, it is a military Force in occupation of a country, but what will occur when negotiations with the German Federal Government are completed?

Mr. Head

The future position of the British Army of the Rhine forms part of the next Amendment; it cannot form part of this.

Mr. Swingler

Further to that point of order. Is it not clear that all forces which are in military occupation of foreign countries are forces engaged in foreign countries in operations for the protection of life and property? On the other hand, all forces engaged in foreign countries for the protection of life and property are not necessarily in military occupation. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is perfectly right, and we can discuss both the points on this Amendment, but we can also take the next Amendment separately.

The Chairman

My Ruling is that we are discussing the two Amendments separately, and I hope that hon. Members will keep to that Ruling.

Mr. Strachey

If you, Sir Charles, rule that the point I am trying to make is more germane to the next Amendment, I will endeavour to make this argument on that Amendment. I think it applies to both Amendments, but I am quite indifferent as to which Amendment on which I make it. Perhaps you would give a Ruling on the matter.

The Chairman

Perhaps as the right hon. Gentleman has started to make his point on the first Amendment he had better carry on.

Mr. Strachey

It seems to me that the position of the British Forces in the Army of the Rhine is profoundly affected by this Amendment which we are discussing. After we had made our settlement with the German Government they would not be forces in military occupation of a foreign country, to wit, Germany. It seems to me that these limited words which my hon. and learned Friend has proposed will be far better, because I do not see otherwise how we can avoid having the whole British Army on the Rhine permanently admitted to be on active service and that, I am sure everyone would agree, would be most undesirable.

We are not going to join the European Defence Community, but the whole future of that great section of the British Army which is associated with European defence will almost certainly be stationed, at least as far ahead as we can see, in Western Europe. But we hope and believe that conditions there will become increasingly stable, and it would be totally inappropriate to classify them as "on active service."

Therefore, what I understand my hon. and learned Friend has tried to do is to see that we get the definition "on active service" narrowed to the point where there will be no danger of our being compelled to say that these Forces are on active service. It seems to me that both Amendments are equally applicable and most applicable of all to the vital question of the status of the Force which we call the British Army on the Rhine.

Mr. Swingler

The objection to this definition, taking the last three lines of it, is that it means that every soldier and every airman in a foreign country is to be permanently on active service. What we want to know from the Secretary of State for War is whether it is his intention in this definition to make every soldier and every airman permanently on active service when stationed in any force in a foreign country. If we take these two lines together: in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property or is in military occupation of a foreign country". that is all inclusive, one could imagine, under every circumstance. It would make all British troops and airmen in Germany, or the Canal Zone or Malaya, permanently on active service subject to the most stringent discipline punishment and so on.

I think that the Secretary of State for War must very well see the objection of my right hon. Friend to that point because it is quite clear from a common sense point of view that very large numbers of these troops are no more on active service than troops in the United Kingdom. In fact, from any point of view, it is desirable that they should be under a much less strenuous discipline than the troops in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Driberg

My hon. Friend is speaking as though the troops in the United Kingdom were not on active service. But it is quite clear from the definition of "enemy" in the next Clause, which we have not yet come to consider, that under the definition in this Clause troops may very well be on active service when in the United Kingdom, engaged for instance in industrial disputes.

Mr. Swingler

Of course my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. When we come to it we shall have to consider the circumstances under which certain bodies of troops in the United Kingdom might be placed on active service but there again the Clause provides for the possibility of defining these circumstances.

The great objection to the definition we are now considering is that it is so wide that there are no exceptions at all to troops stationed in any foreign country being on active service. That is the real objection that we have to consider. We want to know from the Secretary of State for War why he desires that troops in Germany Malaya or the Canal Zone should be permanently under the most stringent discipline and the strictest code compared with troops in the United Kingdom. Very many arguments could be adduced for saying that troops in the United Kingdom should be under a stricter code of discipline than troops stationed in foreign countries unless the latter are actually engaged against enemy forces.

Therefore, my hon. Friends and I have tried to draft this definition in narrower terms to state under what circumstances troops in foreign countries should be classified as on active service, realising that there are very many circumstances when they should not be so classified. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State for War will either find it possible to accept this Amendment or will at any rate give an undertaking that he will himself re-draft it or provide some other definition or qualification to this line in his definition so as to limit the circumstances under which these troops are to be put on active service.

I think it is quite clear that there is a distinction between the two which is stated here, but obviously the Secretary of State for War cannot argue that there are no circumstances under which a force engaged in a foreign country is not engaged in operations for the protection of life and property. Obviously, all troops in a foreign country are in a force which is engaged in the protection of life and property. Therefore, under this definition, they are all to be put on active service. That is highly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible either to re-draft this Clause or to accept my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

There is a further complication to which no reference has as yet been made, and which I think ought to be raised at this stage. I do so because I hope the Secretary of State for War will help to remove a difficulty which exists at any rate in my mind if not in the minds of other hon. Members. The difficulty arises in this way. From certain points of view British troops serving in B.A.O.R. in Germany, or in B.T.A. in Austria or in Trieste are regarded as still being on home posting.

11.0 p.m.

Therefore, it is possible for a man serving in the Army to be in a foreign country, engaged in operations for the protection of life or property, and yet to be technically, from certain points of view, still on home posting. The matter has been raised on previous occasions and it has been officially stated that, subject to certain conditions, British troops serving abroad, in the circumstances to which I have referred, are nevertheless regarded as being on home posting.

There are, therefore, two kinds of troops on home posting. There are those serving in this country and those who are serving abroad. That calls for some further elucidation and I hope that the Secretary of State for War will have regard to what may be an additional factor which ought to be borne in mind in attempting to come to what, I hope, will be a reasonably satisfactory, if temporary, solution of the problem, which the Amendment, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), seeks to clarify.

Mr. Dugdale

Might I again raise the point that I raised a little earlier? I do so because I see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place. As we are discussing a completely new definition of active service, which may be introduced, may I ask whether consultations have taken place between the Admiralty and the War Office as to whether there would be any effect on the Navy of this definition, and what the result of those discussions were? It is of some importance, and I hope for elucidation on this matter.

Mr. Crossman

I would add one further point. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this point, although it anticipates, to some extent, the sense of the next Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), has already raised one issue, which was not made clear by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government. It is not only the troops in Germany who matter. We want to know whether this phrase, "any military occupation of a foreign country," applies to troops in Germany, Trieste, and Austria.

Do we regard Austria, for instance, as completely on a par with Germany? Do we regard Trieste in the same position, because we must know, before we come to the next Amendment, what is the precise intention of the Government with regard to this Clause. It does seem ridiculous that a man can be posted back to England from Malaya or Korea from an overseas posting and then be posted to Germany, Trieste, or Austria as a home posting and find himself under the same code of military punishment as if he were on active service.

Either one is in a home posting or one is overseas. With regard to these three territories of Germany, Trieste, and Austria, the man has the worst of both worlds. He is both at home and overseas. Before we come to the Amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, we would like the Secretary of State to clear up this point because we have much wider issues to discuss on the later Amendment.

We think it would be convenient to have the smaller points cleared away before we reach the broader issues of the later Amendment.

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

I do not feel that we are getting the co-operation we ought to on this definition of "on active service." There are innumerable hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who have had experience of active service and who have won the V.C. or the D.S.O. When we were on that side of the Committee, they applied their minds, thought, energy, and intelligence to helping in these debates. I do feel that this definition of active service is a very important issue. We are in Committee, where we have a quiet exchange of opinions, seeking to arrive at an agreed conclusion.

I was surprised to hear one hon. Member suggest that hon. Members opposite had an interest in the Army but we had not, for I do not agree; some of us have a great interest in the Army, and especially in the citizen Army. I agree, however, that the preponderance of professional soldiers is to be found on the other side of the Committee, and who is better qualified than the professional soldier to assist the Committee to reach a clear conclusion about what is active service?

I am astonished at the mute, inglorious Miltons on the other side of the Committee. There are many familiar faces who used to sit on Spion Kop on this side of the Committee which are not to be seen on the Government benches tonight—brigadiers, colonels, generals, majors—

Mr. Crossman

Do not go below major.

Mr. Simmons

Why is this definition of active service important? Because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said, we are now sending our National Service men out to various parts of the world and we want to know whether they are on active service or not. We are calling up lads who, up to the age of 18, have been going to the cinemas, or to the "dogs" two or three times a week, going to dances with their girls, enjoying themselves; and we are sending them to places like the Canal Zone, where absolute boredom is their lot.

What is the reaction of these young lads? Can we wonder that some of them get into trouble. They get into trouble because of sheer boredom. I have a son out there, and I know what I am talking about, so it is no use hon. Members opposite becoming irritated. I have a son who is serving in the Canal Zone who says it is absolute boredom. He has not committed any offence, but he has told me about the kind of things that go on there.

There are a lot of bad things going on in the Canal Zone, and we cannot blame the lads if they get into trouble. We must blame the conditions out there and under which they live. It is important to know whether these lads, who are breaking out because of these conditions of absolute boredom, are to be punished as being men on active service or not.

I appeal to some of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite to be a bit matey in this matter. After all, we Service men are all comrades together. We want to do the best we can for the lads in the Forces. Let us pool our brains and our ideas and get a real definition of active service for the sake of the National Service men.

Mr. Head

It would be wrong if, in response to that challenge, I did not rise at this moment to attempt to pool my brains with those of hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who moved the Amendment, made a very wise remark at the outset of his speech when he said this was a very difficult matter—this question of a definition of active service. I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen that they are making rather heavy weather of this Clause. One hon. Gentleman looked up the dictionary and read out various definitions, but I would point out that in the Clause it refers to a force "engaged in operations." That phrase, in normal parlance, means actually taking specific steps for the protection of life and property.

I can see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) getting restless. There have been hon. Gentlemen who have suggested that the presence of a force itself in a country means that it is engaged in operations and in the preservation of life and property. I would suggest that the presence of a force has a steadying effect, and, therefore, it has an indirect effect on the preservation of life and property. But that is not referred to in this Clause, which deals with a force engaged in operations and not sitting passively in a country.

Hon. Gentlemen are making heavy weather over a force sitting quietly in billets in a foreign country. This Clause is to cover forces engaged in operations. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Amendment. If it is causing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East any embarrassment, I am sorry. He has promised us a full debate when it comes to his Amendment, and he has made a speech on this one. I apologise if I have misled him.

Mr. Swingler

Surely any military force in a foreign country is bound to be engaged in operations? Surely the very fact of posting guards and having sentries implies being engaged in operations and in the protection of life and property?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman, from his own experience, should know that a force posting normal sentries is acting on a routine basis. This definition concerns a force engaged in operations. There can be no other interpretation. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen should let me go on. All I am trying to point out is that "engaged in operations" is understood to be taking positive and active steps, and not routine steps.

The question of interpretation arises. As has been said, it is difficult to make an exact definition, but whatever the definition, its interpretation must be left to the responsible authority. Hon. Gentlemen have been worried and said that if we did this we should be compelled to make all forces everywhere on active service. But there is no compulsion whatever.

The point is that the interpretation of this definition "engaged in operations"—for example in recent operations in Egypt, and during the cold war—and the right to take these steps is of immense advantage to the authorities. There may well be a delicate situation in which it is not desired to create a stir, but in which these steps can be taken if necessary.

That interpretation, together with the phrase "engaged in operations," has, after a great deal of thought and discussion, been arrived at. I can assure the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) that we have been in touch with the First Lord on this matter. There was complete agreement between all the Services on it.

Mr. Driberg

And with the Under-Secretary of State for Air?

Mr. Head

Of course. But there was no question about that. I was asked a specific question about the Navy.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Driberg

The right hon. Gentleman says he has had consultations with the Admiralty. Can he tell us, for instance, about the position of the Royal Marines who have been in operations inland in Malaya? Because in the previous Clause there is a reference to … forces for the time being in the service of Her Majesty, exclusive of the marine forces. Does that mean that the Royal Marines are not covered by this definition?

Mr. Head

They will come under the Naval Discipline Act, as I understand it. We cannot prejudge that question, which, I understand, is under review. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been full consultation with the Navy in this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East, was particularly disturbed about the question—I am afraid I am following him somewhat into a discussion of the next Amendment—

Mr. Crossman

May I ask a question, before the right hon. Gentleman comes to that point? I raised the question of Suez. I should like to get the position quite clear. Were the men on active service when things were quite quiet, or did they become on active service when—to quote the words of the Solicitor-General—the warning signal was raised? That is the really vital question.

Do we understand that, on the right hon. Gentleman's view of these things, for some years in Suez they were not on active service; that then suddenly something happened, and they were? If the right hon. Gentleman holds that view, I would suggest to him that the Amend- ment would be a good deal superior to the Clause. I do not understand the Secretary of State for War. On his argument people are always on active service in Suez. There is a difference between the time when there was no active service to do and the time when there was active service to do. Our aim is to make the difference between those two. It is the responsibility of the Government to declare the state in which active service is necessary. Is that, or is that not, the case under the present Clause 3 definition of active service?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman has given a quite good example in instancing Suez. Perhaps I could elaborate that point. There has been a period when the troops in the Canal Zone have not been on active service at all.

Mr. Crossman

Up to when?

Mr. Head

Before the war there.

Mr. Wigg

This is the point I wanted to raise. If the men were not on active service until the recent troubles, then I think the right hon. Gentleman's definition has point. If, on the other hand, they were not, I think the proposed amended definition is better.

Mr. Head

I do not know the exact dates—they were not announced to the House of Commons—but there was a time when they were not on active service, and a time at which they were on active service. They were when I came to office, and the step was taken by the late Government.

Mr. Crossman

rose—

Mr. Head

I cannot give way again yet. The hon. Gentleman has spoken already, and I have allowed him an interruption—which was one of the longest I have ever heard. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) thinks I always avoid dealing with anything he says.

Mr. Wigg

The right hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Head

They were not on active service before the war in the Canal Zone. That is the first condition.

The second condition is, they were deemed to be on active service under Section 189 of the Act—a different question from this. The third instance is, they were on active service because they were engaged in operations for the preservation of life and property—in recent events in the Canal Zone.

The Amendment says there is to be an area defined by the authority responsible. If we take this instance of the Canal Zone, it would be sensible to define that area and limit it to the Canal Zone itself. If there is a sudden emergency it might well be that operations would have to take place outside that zone because it would be very limited in extent. It is the opinion, therefore, after considerable thought, that to attempt to draw a line, to define the actual area where troops are on active service and where they are not, would lead to great difficulty and anomalies.

The point about this definition, which I agree one could argue about for a considerable time, is its simplicity, and that interpretation is left to the authorities concerned.

Mr. Paget

indicated dissent.

Mr. Head

I know the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but I cannot agree with him in his dictionary definition. As far as I know, everyone would interpret "engaged in operations" as not being consistent with the normal static duties of a force in a foreign country. It is on that basis that this definition has been made, and it is because of the difficulty of drawing a line that I must resist the Amendment. In admitting the difficulty, I believe that sensible interpretation is as good a solution as we are likely to get.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

I am prepared to go a certain way on this matter with the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a matter very apt for a Division on the party line. When listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and recognising the desirability of approaching this matter from every kind of angle, I took the view that he was exaggerating the all-inclusiveness of the existing definition.

If we take the case propounded by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, of what the situation would be in Germany if a treaty of settlement is arrived at with Germany, and British troops remained in Germany and, whilst they so remained, no hostilities broke out with any other Power, what would be the position then? On that hypothesis it seems to me that we have there a Force which is not engaged in operations against an enemy, which is not engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property.

At that point my inclination is to take the view expressed by the Secretary of State because on that hypothesis, there being no state of hostility, no actual threat against life or property, the British Forces situated on German soil can hardly be properly described as being engaged in Germany in operations for the protection of life or property.

Mr. Swingler

I should like my hon. Friend to explain what this military Force was there for if not for the protection of life or property.

Mr. Irvine

There are many things a force can do without engaging in operations. A force can sit and wait. A force can carry on all sorts of non-operational activities.

Mr. Paget

But surely if that force posts a sentry it is thereby engaging in an operation for the protection of property or of persons. What else is a sentry posted for?

Mr. Irvine

I consider that the sentry is not a force. We can have a force in a foreign country that is not operational.

Mr. Crossman

Then it should not be on active service.

Mr. Irvine

If it is non-operational, it is excluded from this definition. I differ from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when he says that this definition is all-inclusive.

Mr. Wigg

I want to bring this argument down from the clouds, away from the lawyers, to a practical issue. In what places are these young men on active service? In Asia, for example, or east of Suez? Will the Secretary of State answer that, I will give way. It seems that. I cannot get him to answer. Again, what are the stations in the Mediterranean where British troops are not on active service? I would suggest Malta and, perhaps, Cyprus. One of my hon. Friends asked whether men are on active service on the Continent of Europe, say, in Trieste and Austria; and I am certain that wherever there are British troops on the Continent they are on active service.

I never get an answer from the Secretary of State; we always have to drag it out of him, and that is one reason why we have to put so many Questions on the Order Paper. I suspect he does not know who is on active service and who is not. Would any other hon. Gentleman opposite like to answer what stations are on active service? Here they are, these so-called men interested in the welfare of the troops, putting Clauses before the Committee—

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

Would the hon. Gentleman give us his most careful definition of what he means by active service? Let us have a clear answer.

Mr. Wigg

I will give a clear answer. What the Committee, the young men, and their parents want to know are the stations where troops are on active service. It is difficult to define, and since I am not a lawyer I shall not attempt it. I want to know from the Secretary of State, and I think he does not know. The answer makes all the difference to the young men. The Secretary of State has committed himself to this Clause, as he has committed himself to many other Clauses in this Bill, and he has no idea what he has committed himself to. He has shown himself tonight to be not only incompetent but, as I always suspected, utterly irresponsible.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I should not have intervened if I had not been disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's reply. He failed to deal with the very important point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). It is the question of whether men serving in Austria, Germany, or Triente are on a home posting. It appears that they could be defined as being on a home posting, yet they are subject to a law different from that to which those serving in this country are subject.

That appears to me to be completely ridiculous. If some of the men on a home posting are somewhere abroad and some are in this country, the same military law should apply. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened for a few moments, he would realise how impossible is the position and how much anxiety he can cause to Service men and to their parents.

11.30 p.m.

Serving men have a right to know the conditions under which they are serving and whether, if they do a certain thing, penalties will be applied in Trieste, in Germany and in Austria that will not be applied in this country. It is not asking anything in the way of a favour to say that we should be given this information, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to settle this important point so that if any of our constituents who are serving on a home posting but are nevertheless abroad, come to us for advice, we can give them the guidance and information which they are seeking.

If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give this information, thousands of men will be left in the dark and thousands of serving men may find themselves guilty of crimes in respect of which they had no knowledge that they would be charged when they committed a particular action. This is important, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give us this information so that we can pass on to the next Amendment.

Mr. Paget

rose—

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Paget

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I rose to make my point of order before the Patronage Secretary moved his Motion, and I ask you to hear it.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I saw my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rise to put his point of order. It is scandalous.

Mr. Paget

I ask that I may make my point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] My point of order is this—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. There is a Division now in progress, and I cannot accept a point of order.

Mr. Strachey

rose—

Mr. de Freitas

What Division?

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. No voices have been collected.

Mr. Strachey

I know of no Division which is in progress.

Hon. Members

Where are the Tellers?

Mr. Hale

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. May I ask, for the guidance of the Committee, what procedure is now taking place? With very great respect to you, for some minutes you have been engaged in private conversation. None of us heard the voices collected, and I venture to assert, with the greatest respect, that the voices never were collected; and never was the Committee asked to decide—

The Deputy-Chairman

The Question is, "That the Question be now put." Tellers for the Ayes [Interruption.]

Mr. Hale

(seated and covered): We were never asked for the voices.

Mr. Fernyhough

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Can you assure us, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that the Division bell has rung, if the Division is actually in progress?

Mr. VOSPER and Mr. HEATH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Edward Shackleton (Preston, South)

On a point of order. We really are faced with a quite unprecedented situation. I am sure you acted because you believe you heard voices, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but may I ask, what particular voices did you hear? I have been sitting here, not taking part in the debate, and was listening most carefully and I assure you that we are faced with a situation which is unprecedented. What redress have hon. Members for a situation which strikes me, personally, as one which we on this side of the Committee find very difficult to accept?

The Deputy-Chairman

There is none, for the Amendment is past. The only consolation is the consolation of philosophy.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

You explained, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that Tellers were put in for the Ayes, but not the Noes. If I recollect the procedure correctly, Tellers are not put in by either side until after an attempt is made to collect the voices if either side presses for a Division. I did not hear the customary phrase, "Clear the lobbies," nor, I respectfully submit, was there any of the normal procedure leading up to a Division; I did not, for example, hear either side put in Tellers.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think I used the phrase—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—at any rate, the position is decided. I call Mr. Crossman.

Mr. Stewart

If you used the phrase, I think it is clear that it could not be heard by any hon. Members, nor by the servants of the House, whose business it is to act on hearing the phrase, and to signal that a Division is in progress.

Mr. Wigg

I quite agree that, having given your decision, there is no redress open to us, but may I ask if, since we have several hours ahead of us, we can have an assurance that no such incident will occur again?

The Deputy-Chairman

If there were less noise when one put the Question, hon. Members would hear.

Mr. Shackleton

It was not the noise, but the lack of it which was remarkable. You spoke, Mr. Hopkin Morris, of the consolation of philosophy as our only comfort, but I do submit that there are other steps which could be taken.

Mr. Fernyhough

Call the Speaker.

Mr. Shackleton

Further, may I ask what is likely to appear in HANSARD with regard to the collection of voices?

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot say about that.

Mr. Shackleton

I hope you will consider the situation carefully, because there will be a report of what did take place; and from that I think it will be clear that no voices could be heard.

Mr. Wigg

You said that the difficulty was because of noise in the Chamber, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I want to make it clear that I am not raising my point because of noise, but in relation to the fact that you did not say what you said you said.

Hon. Members

Order.

Mr. Swingler

May I put this point, with the utmost respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris? I should like your Ruling on it. Is it in order for Government Whips to engage the Chair in private conversation at a time when hon. Members are trying to raise points of order in order to get your Ruling on Procedure? It is within the recollection of hon. Members that the Government Chief Whip and other Whips engaged you in a private conversation while hon. Members were trying to get a Ruling from you on what was actually taking place. I should like a clear Ruling on that question.

The Deputy-Chairman

When they were engaging me in conversation, they were putting in the Tellers.

Mr. Driberg

Further to that point of order. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that you, Sir, quite properly no doubt, as it seemed to you at the time, refused to take certain points of order on the ground that a Division was then in progress. It now becomes evident that no Division was in progress. Is it not, therefore, a little unfortunate that you and the Committee were deprived of the opportunity of hearing those points of order which might have been of some help?

The Deputy-Chairman

A Division was in progress. The Tellers had been accepted.

Hon. Members

What about the bells?

Mr. Strachey

This does seem to me to raise the question of the character of the voices which you, Sir, Mr. Hopkin Morris, admitted to have heard. Were they inner voices? After all, you told us that our only consolation is the consolation of philosophy. But it is rather a mystical brand of philosophy if these voices are purely inner voices. I think this is a point of some substance, because the appeal of one side of the Committee is perfectly clear, unanimously clear, that no such voices were raised. It does become a matter of some substance, if the record of the House is to be a true record of what happened, that no Division was challenged. With respect, we on this side of the Committee feel aggrieved that a record, which seems to us all to be a mistaken record of the events which took place, will go down on the records of the House.

The Deputy-Chairman

If I made a mistake about the voices, I certainly thought I heard them in the noise that was going on. But that is another matter. I certainly thought voices were saying that no one had proceeded to a Division. The matter cannot be discussed any further now. Mr. Crossman.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. As later on some of us will want to consider putting down a Motion regarding your competence to occupy the Chair, in view of what has happened, may I ask—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member can certainly put down a Motion, but he cannot discuss the merits of it.

Mr. Wigg

I am not trying to discuss the matter. I am asking about one matter which can be decided here and now. Did the bells ring throughout the House? If they did not, there is substantial evidence that you did not say what you say you said.

Mr. M. Stewart

Further to that point of order. If your recollection is correct, and you did use the phrase, "Clear the Lobbies" we have the situation where that phrase was used and was certainly not acted upon in the ordinary manner by the officials of the House. Would you at least direct that an inquiry be held into why your instructions on that occasion were not carried out?

The Deputy-Chairman

This discussion should not now proceed any further. If hon. Members wish to put down a Motion challenging me, they are at perfect liberty to do so. But to continue this discussion is completely out of order.

Mr. Wigg

Would you accept a Motion from me, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to report Progress so that we may send for Mr. Speaker to report to him what has happened? Clearly the rights of the Opposition are not safe in your hands.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Hon. Member must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Wigg

Certainly, I will withdraw it. But I repeat my original request and ask if you will accept a Motion to report Progress so that we may send for Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "What for?"] In order to report to Mr. Speaker what has happened. I therefore beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. Hale

May I call your attention, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to the fact that for several minutes I have not been able to hear what has been going on, partly because of the noise, and partly because you were not speaking as clearly as you do normally. I am very anxious to know what is going on, because I do not want to raise a point of order which has already been raised.

The Deputy-Chairman

That has been the difficulty for some time past. But the Question now is, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale

I wish to support the Motion which has very properly been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in view of the unfortunate circumstances which have transpired. No one wishes to criticise the Chair in any shape or form, and I have no intention of doing so, but it is, of course, a relevant matter in considering whether the Committee should at this stage decide to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in order to consider the things which have happened in the last 10 minutes or so. [Interruption.] I have been accused of being inaudible, but I have never before been accused of being unnoticeable. Not only have I been here for some considerable time, but I have tried to catch your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris, on several occasions.

I will recapitulate some of the matters which gave rise to this misunderstanding. I do so in no sense of criticism, but, because it is material to the Motion we are discussing, to decide whether we are so tired that we are beginning to err in our recollection of matters and whether it is worth while continuing the debate in this atmosphere.

I was going to raise a point of order, but decided against doing so because I did not wish to add fuel to the fire. But then two things happened. The first was that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley who speaks with great authority on this matter—[Interruption]—this, again, is an indication of the temper of the Committee. All the military experts on the other side of the Committee have not opened their mouths, but they are now criticising my hon. Friend, who has devoted many years of study to this matter, a matter on which we on these benches have already regarded him as a very considerable authority.

However, be that as it may, speaking with considerable authority, he put points of great importance to the Secretary of State for War, and no one will deny that up to now this debate has been conducted in a spirit of conciliation and that no attempt has been made from this side to exacerbate anybody, or, indeed, to say one irritating word.

What happens? My hon. Friend asks a series of questions and is treated with contempt. No one suggests an answer. The Secretary of State remains recumbent and then rises and leaves the Chamber while this important question is being discussed. We are all tired and I myself am very tired. I personally would prefer to listen instead of talking, but so little is being said to help us from the other side—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Sit down.

The Deputy-Chairman

If hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will give the hon. Member an opportunity of being heard, then perhaps we can keep to the actual Motion before the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

On a point of order. I distinctly heard the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) shout to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), "Resume your seat." Is that in order, Mr. Hopkin Morris? Is that not a trespass on your rights as Chairman of this Committee?

Mr. Hale

Let us resume the debate. No one wants to worry about matters of that kind or to pursue them. Much as I admire my hon. and gallant Friend, I always prefer to be the protector of my own reputation.

I suggest that, when unprecedented things happen, it is the hour of the day which is responsible and because people have been put under a considerable strain. We have to consider, now, the Motion under consideration, which, of course, is fully debatable. I hope I may say, too, that most of us are aware, however good-tempered we try to be about these discussions, however constructive we attempt to be, and, however we try to confine ourselves to the narrow path of debate and try to limit ourselves to making constructive speeches of elucidation, clarification, and so on, that no one will deny, as the hours go by and fatigue begins to weigh upon us, there is some lack of clarity and that the debate takes on rather a lower tone.

It is within the recollection of the Committee that during two debates, which continued into the early hours, we were deprived of the services of two of our most valuable hon. Members because, at some time, a little lack of understanding and, perhaps, because of some obstinacy or determination to assert rights rather more fully—

Mr. Driberg

rose—

Mr. Hale

Does my hon. Friend wish to interrupt? I am always grateful to him for his rhetorical style.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

On a point of order. I have been trying patiently to listen to what my hon. Friend is saying and I cannot hear a word because of the noise coming from the other side of the Committee. Can I ask you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to keep the other side of the Committee quiet?

The Deputy-Chairman

I must say I myself cannot hear what is being said and I hope that hon. Members, on both sides of the Committee, will give an opportunity to any speaker of being heard.

Mr. Lewis

Further to my point of order. I sat here patiently to try and hear what my hon. Friend was saying and I now ask you whether, with your permission, I could ask my hon. Friend to repeat what he was saying?

Mr. Hale

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, but may I come to the main point on this issue?

We have tried to make progress. It was, from many points of view, clearly unfortunate that there was a type of Motion on the Order Paper which interrupted our discussion earlier today and which necessarily involved some mutilation and lack of concentration. I see similar symptoms in the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).

I think I am right in saying that, earlier in the debate, it was said there were 107 Amendments upon the Order Paper, so far. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for War did himself say that that was something like 593 amendments less than he expected. Something like 700 constructive Amendments could be put down upon this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intention to accept some Amendments, which will necessarily involve the Report stage, so that it is clear there will have to be prolonged discussion on another day.

Therefore, Mr. Hopkin Morris, would this not be an appropriate moment to report Progress? Hon. Members are put in circumstances of singular difficulty during all-night Sittings, and we do not undertake them unless it is necessary to serve the interests of the House.

If the Motion is accepted and Progress is reported, it will enable some of us to get home to our beds tonight, whereas if the debate is continued and Progress is reported in a couple of hours' time, when most means of public transport have ceased to be available, then we shall be put to an added and unnecessary difficulty which might well be avoided.

I do not suggest that that is an important matter. I have said that I am willing to sit all week-end to discuss the Bill if necessary, because it is so important, but what is extremely important and is a material matter for the Committee to consider is whether we are now developing the sort of temperament which will make for a careful, patient, considerate, useful and constructive legislative approach to the Clause. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) indicating the assent of the Liberal Party to the proposition.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

It indicated that I was awake.

Mr. Hale

I am glad to have at least that qualified assent. The Committee ought to consider whether this is a sensible way of proceeding. No one can say that at any time during the afternoon there has been an attempt to prolong the debate unnecessarily. Think of the matters we have been discussing. There is the whole question of the definition of active service—perhaps the most vital thing we can discuss on the Clause, because it is a matter which will rule so many items of subsequent discussion. It rules the question of courts-martial, questions of pay, and so on.

The Deputy-Chairman

This is a Motion to report Progress, not to discuss other parts of the Bill.

Mr. Hale

I was not thinking of discussing them. I was saying that up to now we have made progress. We have dealt with the whole question of active service. If we report Progress, I apprehend we may well find—and I am giving my honest recollection of the matter—that the Committee has never given assent to the proposition that the discussion should be terminated at that point or that the Amendment should be negatived.

That is an exceedingly important matter, and it is an additional reason why we should consider this Motion quite seriously. There is talk about shortage of Parliamentary time. That is too bad, coming from people who deliberately compelled us to go away in the midst of winter. I had no opportunity of going to the Riviera—

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Or Moscow.

Mr. Hale

Or Moscow, or indeed to indulge in the lazy contemplation which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was enjoying, I think in Switzerland, during that delectable period when we were told the Government were planning the production of houses.

Sir W. Darling

Did the hon. Gentleman not go to Tangier?

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member is very wrong in his recollection, because he was good enough to pair with me the night I returned. The fact is that while Parliament was sitting I left the House on a Friday to go to Tangier and was back here on the Monday afternoon, and I suggest that that can hardly be regarded as a gross neglect of the public interest, particularly as I was going on political matters of the greatest possible importance.

Let me recapitulate, if I may. This sort of thing cannot go on. We have fought against it, we have struggled against it. I have complained about it before, and it is true that there appears to be a lack of co-operation from the Government benches. At moments when a clear explanation might have terminated the discussion, we have had an obstinacy which inevitably arouses opposition. There should be more co-operation from the Government in view of the spirit in which we commenced the debate, and in which I think it may be said that we are continuing the discussion now.

In those circumstances, I should like strongly to support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. It is just on midnight; we are on the verge of a new day. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) is not in his place to misinterpret my words again; I said on the verge of a new day. I ask the Committee to say that they will now accept the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

12 midnight.

Mr. Crookshank

I have listened very attentively to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and I could not quite make out why he thought it was necessary to report Progress except that he was tired and wanted to go home. Well, let him go. Certainly we do not have to report Progress for that purpose. Indeed, I am very doubtful if we have made sufficient progress in this Bill to justify us reporting that we have made it.

The only other reason I gathered from him, apart from an obscure allusion to Tangier, was quite beyond my knowledge. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's private affairs are, and I do not want to know them. Apart from that, the only other observation of any importance which I gathered was when he suddenly turned round and said he admired the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg).

It is the fact that this is an important Bill and unfortunately the time within which it has to be enacted is short, if we are to have an Army. I dare say the hon. Gentleman does not want to have one. But most of the Committee have always considered that an Army is a necessary adjunct of our life, and indeed of our general position in the world.

In support of the Motion, the hon. Gentleman said there were 107 Amendments down. I have not checked that, but it seems to me that if it is true that is all the more reason why we should proceed rather than go home because he is tired. Finally, in his impassioned peroration, he said that he had heard the clock strike midnight. So did I. If we are on the verge of a new day, as he said, I would remind him that it is no longer 1st April. Perhaps some of the levity which may have been associated in his mind with that important date will now pass away, and we can get on to the serious business of adequately discussing this Bill.

I hope that the Committee will act with the dignity with which it normally deals with important Measures, will throw out this Motion, and consider some of the Amendments which the Opposition, in their wisdom, have thought worth while discussing. It is not all that late. It is only just after midnight, and I think we now had better proceed with our work. There is a lot in front of us, and let us do it with such brevity, dignity, and decorum as we can muster, and not accept the suggestion to report Progress. If the hon. Gentleman is tired and wants to go home he has, at any rate, my permission to do so.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. May I ask you whether, in your recollection, you have ever known a Motion to report Progress put after less time for discussion than on that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swingler

Oh, yes it is.

Mr. Driberg

The Chair is just a stooge for the Chief Whip.

The Deputy-Chairman

That remark will certainly be withdrawn.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Driberg

If it was overheard, I withdraw it at once.

Mr. Arthur Henderson (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

(seated and covered): On a point of order. It is not the case that when a right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench is actually on his feet, it is not the practice to move, "That the Question be now put," or to accept it?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Strachey

(seated and covered): On a point of order. Are we not on this Front Bench entitled to define our attitude at all to the question?

Mr. VOSPER and Mr. HEATH were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put accordingly, and negatived.

Mr. Hale

May I, on a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, respectfully seek your guidance. I do not want to put it in a controversial way or to stir up animosity. I ask you to tell the Committee whether, on thinking over the matter now in the light of what has happened and in your recollection—and certainly not within my limited recollection of seven years in the House—there has been any precedent for the acceptance of a Motion to close a discussion immediately on the conclusion of a speech made from the side of the Committee opposite from that from which the Motion was moved and without any reply being made from this side and while my right hon. Friend was on his feet.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not a point of order. Mr. Crossman.

Mr. Driberg

On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. In the course of the recent Division you instructed me to withdraw a derogatory remark which apparently had been overheard. I wonder if I could have been heard to make that remark and whether I could have withdrawn it since I was not wearing a hat at the time? Surely points of order are only in order during a Division if the Member is seated and covered. That did not occur to me at the time, I say it quite frankly, otherwise I should not have felt myself in a position to withdraw the remark.

Sir W. Darling

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. During the Division, from this somewhat remote perch I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) say, regarding your Ruling, "Disgraceful" and "Shameless".

Hon. Members

"Shameful," not "shameless."

The Deputy-Chairman

Mr. Crossman.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CROSSMAN: In page 3, line 26, leave out from "property," to end of line 27.

Mr. Crossman

It is now difficult to resume the debate on the substantial things we have been discussing because we have been deeply disturbed by the events of the last half-hour. The Amendment I rise to move concerns the last five words of Clause 3 of the Bill, but I must remind you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that in the interval between discussing the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend and my own Amendment, two things have taken place of a quite extraordinary character. First we have had a Division taking place without any voices being collected. Secondly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Chairman will decide order, not hon. Members.

An Hon. Member

The hon. Member is the Chairman now.

The Deputy-Chairman

May I appeal to the Committee to conduct the debate in such a way that hon. Members can be heard, and with a due sense of the dignity of the Committee itself?

Mr. Crossman

I am sure, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you will appreciate that I am explaining the reasons it is difficult to resume the debate on my Amendment with the same equanimity and good temper as we had half an hour ago. Then we had a Motion to report Progress, when the Leader of the Government side made a speech, and before even a spokesman of our Front Bench could make his point clear, the vote was taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Chair has to decide order, not hon. Members.

The Deputy-Chairman

We cannot review those things now. If the hon. Member will move the Amendment standing in his name—

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris, surely it would be more decent, if hon. Members opposite want to raise points of order and do not want to get on their feet to do it, if they conveyed them to you privately.

Mr. Crossman

I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, to leave out from "property," to the end of line 27.

I appreciate, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you realise that I was expressing the reasons why I found it difficult to resume this debate in the same spirit of co-operation in dealing with the Army Act as before the unfortunate and unprecedented events of the last 45 minutes. Because of those, some of our confidence on this side of the Committee has been shattered, and the behaviour of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has been part of the reason why our confidence has been shattered. But we had better resume the debate in the best spirit we can. Unfortunately, this pseudo-Division that took place—[Interruption.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order. The hon. Members for Burton (Mr. Colegate) and Southgate (Mr. Baxter) and others are continually shouting "Order!" and making my hon. Friend's speech inaudible. Could we have a Ruling whether order is to be maintained by you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, or by the hon. Members opposite?

The Deputy-Chairman

I will ask both sides of the House to preserve order. The question of order is for me, and I hope that the Committee on both sides will observe that. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he must not review the past.

Mr. Crossman

I was not describing the past, but describing why it is difficult for this side to regain the co-operative spirit that had been manifested from 3.30 p.m. until a short time ago in discussing the Army Act. Before these unfortunate events we had been seriously discussing a matter of major importance with regard to the Army.

Now we have had a very discordant period in which our confidence has been shattered, and we shall have to regain that confidence slowly, and in the course of the next 20 minutes we must try to struggle through and understand that, in spite of the majority, the rights of the minority may still be guaranteed. I am confident that they will be guaranteed in the future.

May I turn to the Amendment? For Members who were not present I will now spend a few minutes explaining what had been going on previous to the incident.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury and Radcliffe)

On a point of order. Would not the rule about tedious repetition be broken if the hon. Gentleman carried out his threat or promise?

Mr. de Freitas

It is impossible to tell whether it is repetitive or tedious until it has been heard.

Mr. Crossman

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) had the same thought as I. For the large majority of Members who have come in here to destroy the rights of the minority there is no possibility of tedium; they have not heard a word of it. Some of us, and I include the Secretary of State for War, have been trying to disentangle the nature of active service abroad, and it would be instructive for the Lobby fodder if I briefly touched on the nature of the previous Amendment, on which we had the pseudo-Division. This Amendment, which was moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) contained substantially one of the points I wish to discuss.

The Amendment that stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends proposes that in Clause 3 we should delete the words, "or is in military occupation of a foreign country." I would not have had to say this if the obstreperous Lobby fodder which has poured in below the gangway…

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman said, "or is in military occupation of a foreign country." Does he intend to leave out "property", which I understood was included in his Amendment?

Mr. Crossman

If the Secretary of State could read my Amendment he would observe it runs from the word "property". We are discussing this Amendment as it has been set down on the Order Paper and not as it has been improved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Head

I accept that.

Mr. Crossman

At least, the minority must have the right to have their Amendments moved in the form in which they move them and not as an unwritten Amendment of the Secretary of State for War. Perhaps we could get back to the substance of what we were discussing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be pompous."] Pompous?

Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)

Sanctimonius.

Mr. Crossman

If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want to listen to the debate, let them return to the Smoking Room, because before the unfortunate incidents which brought them here in search of sensation, we were having a serious discussion. [Interruption.] We cannot get on with the serious discussion, Mr. Hopkin Morris, unless they are prepared to take part in it or get out. May I ask you to maintain order on that side?

The Deputy-Chairman

I have already asked—

Mr. Fernyhough

Name them.

The Deputy-Chairman

This disorderly conduct, from both sides of the Committee, is regrettable. I make an appeal to both sides to continue the Committee in order.

Mr. Wigg

You appeal to both sides, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Surely, it is within your recollection that within the last minute the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the hon. Member who sits behind him, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) and the brainless Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) have all interrupted with offensive remarks, and you did not interrupt them.

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot hear everything that is said in the noise.

Mr. Swingler

With the utmost respect, may I say that during the last hour or so a number of strictures have been addressed by you to this side, but none have been addressed to the other side?

The Deputy-Chairman

That is not correct.

Mr. Swingler

Oh, yes, it is.

Hon. Members

Order.

The Deputy-Chairman

There must be no reflections upon the Chair.

Mr. Crossman

We have suffered under a good deal of provocation. If anti-democrats behave anti-democratically, it does not make it easy to run the House of Commons, and in the last hour we have had the parody of democracy in this place. A minority which has sought to have its voice heard has been overridden time after time by the opprobrious shouts of people who entered here knowing nothing about the discussion. I am attempting to return to the substance of my Amendment, and am constantly diverted by voices from below the Gangway on the other side. I ask for your protection, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to return to the substance of the Amendment.

I hope that the Secretary of State, at least, will pay attention to the points we have to raise, because I know that he cares about this. We shall only be kept longer if hon. Members opposite cannot keep quiet for a few minutes. Let us go back to what we were discussing before the unfortunate incidents which upset our conclaves.

The Secretary of State for War has already agreed that there are grave difficulties about the definition of the words "active service." What we on this side are concerned with in the Amendment is that the British soldier who is sent to Germany or Austria is, under the Clause, on active service. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that as long as there are included the words or is in military occupation of a foreign country and as long as we have not concluded a peace treaty with Germany or Austria and we are still in some difficulties with the Italian Government about Pola and Trieste, our troops in those three areas can be defined to be in military occupation of a foreign country and that, therefore, under the Clause they will be on active service.

If we could get that clear from the Secretary of State to begin with, we could shorten the discussion. Can we get it quite clear that under the Clause any soldier serving in Germany or Austria will be regarded by the War Office as being on active service? Is that right?

Mr. Head

indicated assent.

Mr. Crossman

I would point out that the learned Solicitor-General, long before the "Lobby party" entered the Chamber, had spoken, in his usual dramatic style, about the phrase "active service." It was, he said, a warning: a signal; that there was a time when things were becoming dangerous, and such was the time for "active service"—quote, quote. But now, we understand, nothing of the sort is the case. When there is no danger, when things are quiescent, the unfortunate soldier, from every point of view except that of punishment is at a home station while he is still on active service in Germany or Austria. The man from Korea is brought home, but "home" may mean being transferred within a week to Germany or Austria—and that not counting as active service abroad.

So, we have a soldier brought home from active service—capital "A" and capital "S"—and then put on active service—quote, quote—from the point of view of being liable to being punished more severely than his fellows if he is moved out of England into Germany or Austria. What we are seeking is the removal of the words, and perhaps there would be more intelligent co-operation if the "Lobby fodder" would go out and get the thing we are talking about. I will read out the Government Clause: 'active service'. in relation to a person subject to military law, means service in or with a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property. … Few will dispute that; but now come the crucial words, put in to make our men in Germany or Austria, on active service, in military occupation of a foreign country. We suggest that the last eight or nine words should be deleted. In our view we should not, in future, regard the British soldier in Germany or Austria as on active service unless he is specifically stated to be so.

Owing to the crypto nature of the Division, the position was not clear. There would have been no doubt about active service being something stated by the Government in accordance with the learned Solicitor-General's view as expressed in his remarks about the warning signal. But that has been taken out, and, unfortunately, this sensible Amendment has been squeezed out as a result of this regrettable collaboration between those who should not collaborate; and we are left with a negative Amendment which merely ensures that the soldier in Germany or Austria is liable, merely because he happens to be there, to a series of military punishments which he would not have if stationed nearer home in England. I think the hon. Member for Wood Green knows as well as I do—

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Southgate)

On a point of order. Twice tonight I have been referred to as the hon. Member for Wood Green, and it will appear tomorrow in HANSARD. The hon. Member who represents Wood Green is a Socialist and it is not fair to him.

Mr. Crossman

I appreciate that point—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir L. Ropner)

Order. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) rose to a point of order which, I am afraid, I did not understand.

Mr. Baxter

On a point of explanation. Is it right that an hon. Member should be referred to by another hon. Member by his wrong constituency, and therefore perhaps create a wrong impression in the records of the House which would not be fair to the hon. Member who represents the constituency mentioned?

The Temporary Chairman

I would prefer to think that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) made a mistake.

Mr. Crossman

When I started to speak, the words "Daily Express" came into my brain. Then I thought of the words "Sunday Pictorial" and I thought it would not be fair. So I tried to address the hon. Member by his constituency, and I got it wrong. The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) knows perfectly well that to educate the illiterate one must repeat a statement over twice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I notice that it is sinking in.

I notice that the crypto Division to which I have referred on four occasions in the last 20 minutes is now something which those on the other side of the Committee who staged it discreditably—who know in their own innermost hearts that they were dishonouring Parliament by their behaviour—now realise that if we repeat it often enough, if we can en-ensure outside this place that the events which took place a half-hour ago are well-known to the people of this country, it will not redound to the credit of the Government party.

Mr. Baxter

Do not be such a silly ass.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I was not in the Chair, and I do not know what the hon. Member for Coventry, East, means by a crypto Division. But I can tell him that he is out of order in going back in the debate. He must devote his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Crossman

With respect, Sir Leonard, I was answering an intervention which you did not describe as out of order. Surely if the hon. Member intervenes I have the right—

The Temporary Chairman

I heard no intervention which was out of order. Had I heard such an intervention I should have called attention to the fact.

Mr. Crossman

With respect, the hon. Member for Southgate challenged me on my use of the words crypto Division. Surely that challenge allowed me to reply, since he went back in the debate.

The Temporary Chairman

No. The hon. Member is out of order, and the hon. Member who interrupted was out of order.

Mr. Crossman

With very great respect, it surely would have been preferable if a decision that two hon. Members were out of order had been taken when the Member supporting the Government was first out of order and not when the minority Member was out of order.

I would like to resume the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I think hon. Members should learn something about what we were doing between 3.30 and the unfortunate incident to which I have referred. I can see that the Secretary of State for War has been deeply upset by the events of the last hour. I can quite appreciate that he, who really cares about the Army and who knows that the issues we are discussing are important, should be so insensed, indignant and impatient at the delays to legislation caused by the unfortunate incident which took place within the last 45 minutes.

I would say to him that we did not get on very fast with the first Amendment. We put forward a perfectly reasonable Amendment and he gave no reason whatever for rejecting it, because, I suspect, the brief he got contained no reason for rejecting it. Therefore, what could he do?

The Temporary Chairman

I seem to have some difficulty in making myself clear to the hon. Member. He is out of order in going backwards and is not in order in referring to a previous Amendment to the Bill. If he does not relate his remarks to the Amendment under discussion, I must ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Crossman

I would ask the Secretary of State to remember what happened between 3.30 and 7 p.m. and to remember that on this Amendment—since we have a substantial case—it would be unwise to say "No" without stating any reasons, or to move the Closure or to get a pseudo Division. All those things would be unwise because they would only prolong our discussion. I suggest that the Committee should come back to its collaborative attitude since, despite the intense hatred and indignation of those below the Gangway, everyone agrees that what we propose in this Amendment is the right thing to do.

No one doubts that it is unjust to treat as on active service from the point of view of punishment and nothing else a British soldier in Germany or Austria, and that we should omit these words and thereby treat Germany as part of our home station.

I wish to make one concluding observation on the Clause. Hon. Members opposite, at least when they were in opposition, were intoxicated by the notion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would not withdraw that. I was using a metaphor. I say they were intoxicated by the notion of a united Europe. They have all told us that there is no real division, that the Channel no longer divides these islands from the Continent of Europe. We are all stratetgically united.

If we are strategically united with France and Germany, is it not a little old-fashioned to regard a soldier stationed in Germany as being stationed in an overseas station because, in fact, he is doing the defence of the home country in as vital and profound a sense as if he were stationed in Kent or Sussex. Therefore, it is not only a question of the injustice to the individual, but a question that we should now understand that so long as we have Armed Forces they will be stationed in Western Europe, that the home station of our Army, for those who are concerned with preserving our agricultural production, will no longer be on Salisbury Plain as far as we can avoid it, but in German "Salisbury Plains" where German agricultural production is used for these destructive purposes. That seems to be one of the few advantages of winning the war.

Since we are to have our troops permanently in Germany, and since Germany is to be the home station, why do not we regard it as a home station even from the point of view of the punishment? There is not a supporter of the argument who cannot believe that the European Defence Community, to use its high faluting name, should have its soldiers wherever necessary. They are necessary in Western Germany, and that is the home station of a large section of the British Army.

I admit this is a big forward move by a minor Amendment by a few back benchers to the Secretary of State's proposal, but it only indicates the importance of the reform of that Act which we are now arguing because when we are living in 1952 an Act which was gradually drafted between 1650 and 1907 is a bit out of date. Foreign service becomes something quite different when we have a sphere of European unity by strategic necessity.

Therefore, I suggest to the Secretary of State that not only from the point of view of justice to the soldier but, from the point of view of his own philosophy, and the preachings of the present Prime Minister—at least, when he was Leader of the Opposition at Strasbourg—he has changed a bit since—when he used to talk of a United Europe, from the point of view of strategic necessity, the further East our defence line can be pushed in Germany, the safer we are. We should regard British troops in Germany as in a home station and not on active service unless they are specifically declared to be on active service.

Mr. A. Henderson

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up the point before the discussion goes any further? He has indicated, in his Amendment, that the definition of active service is that troops, who are stationed in Germany and Austria, would, under its terms, be regarded as being on active service. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), has based his remarks on that assumption and has pleaded that the troops, who are in Germany, should be regarded as being on a home station.

I always understood, although I may be wrong, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), also understood, that that was the case with regard to the Army troops in Germany. I understood it was the case, with the Air Force personnel in Germany, that they were regarded not as being on active service, but as being part of the Home Command. In other words, a soldier or an airman serving in Germany today, and, indeed, in Austria, is regarded as being on home service. Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point?

Mr. Head

If it is of any use, I would be only too glad to do so. I am a little astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's statement and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), because during the whole of the last six years, these particular words, of which they complain, were in their Army and Air Force Acts, and the Army and Air Force were on active service in Germany throughout this time.

Mr. Henderson

I am not suggesting the words, "on active service," were not in the existing Act. Of course they were.

Mr. Head

What I meant was that in the old Act a man is on active service when he is in military occupation of a foreign country. That was in the Act during the whole of that period, and, for that reason, the Air Force and Army in Germany were on active service.

Mr. Henderson

I am not raising a point of law but of fact as to whether they were regarded by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and by my late Department, as being on active service. The point I am making is in contradistinction to the troops in Germany and Austria. The troops in the Middle East were continued on active service under Section 189 (2), because every three months I was required to authorise the continuation of that state of affairs. That seems to suggest that, in the one case, they were only regarded as being on active service as the result of operating Section 189 (2) and in Germany and Austria, Section 189 (2) was not required, nor were they regarded as being on active service.

I merely suggest to the right hon. Gentleman—I am not trying to set a trap in any way—that, in his own drafting, he can get all he requires, if he accepts the Amendment my hon. Friend has put forward. I think he would agree that where troops are in occupation of a country, without any violence or active hostility being directed against them, there is no reason why they should be regarded as being on active service.

The test should be that which he applies in the first part of his own Amendment— means service in or with a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy —that is obviously the case where a state of war exists— or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property. One can understand that, but what is difficult to understand is the suggestion —which apparently is not accepted in the Service Departments at present—that merely because you have a force in peaceful occupation of a foreign country, it should be regarded as being on active service, as apparently it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it should be under his Amendment.

While one has to be very careful not to draw a subsection like this too narrowly, it seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman were to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend his own proposals would still be effective.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Head

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to clear up this point and I shall be glad to do so. He was careful to say that he was laying no traps but, if he is not in one himself, he is not altogether on the straight and narrow path here. He referred to the fact that he continued the "deemed" definition as regards Egypt every three months. That was under 189 (2). But that is different from the subject we are now discussing; it has no relation to it. That is one way of being on active service, but another way, which is what we are now talking about, is under the definition. The whole time the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend were in office—and they do not seem to have been aware of the fact—our troops in Austria, for instance, were on active service.

Mr. Driberg

The right hon. Gentleman said that before, and I have looked up the Section to which he referred. What he is saying is quite true, but is not the phrase about military occupation covered by a phrase which is a little difficult to understand and which is not in the new definition—"if not inconsistent with the context"? I do not know what that phrase means, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman can explain, but does it not widen the issue and give some kind of loophole—if the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman somewhat compressed his remarks, but in fact the phrase "not inconsistent with the context "does not affect the issue. They were classed as in military occupation of a foreign country. That was a clear definition. For the last six years these troops have been under active service.

Mr. Paget

The phrase in military occupation of a foreign country is defined in The Hague regulations and it is a state of affairs in international law which can exist only in war-time. Recently the state of war between this country and Germany was terminated. Does not that terminate the military occupation as far as the term is concerned? If not, then the military occupation of a foreign country in the Act has a different meaning from that in international law and in The Hague Convention.

Mr. Swingler

The longer this discussion goes on the more confused we are becoming, and it is a pity that somewhat previously the gag was imposed and had the effect of preventing the Secretary of State from making his reply about the general position of our Forces. We are now getting the facts in bits and pieces, and if he could now make a statement about our Forces generally we would be able to discuss the question of active service generally, and not merely the position in Germany and Austria.

We should like to know the position east of Suez, and how many of our Forces are on active service. If what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said is correct, it is quite obvious that this piece is superfluous because it is covered by the previous part of the definition relating to the protection of life and property in a foreign country. Obviously, if the phrase "in military occupation of a foreign country" only applies in time of war it is not required at all in the definition of active service because all the other conditions are likely to be fulfilled.

I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this is a very serious question from the point of view of discipline, punishment, the code of conduct, and so on. The Committee ought to be in possession of all the facts of what this re-definition of active service does mean. We would like to know just what is the whole position of our Forces, and which are on active service and which are not, in all parts of the world.

Mr. M. Stewart

We are all indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his inter- vention so far in the debate on this Amendment, which has helped us to understand the situation a little further. But I trust that it will not be his last contribution to the debate on this Amendment. We have had a valuable point from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), which deserves an answer, and now we have had an important contribution from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which, possibly, throws quite a different light on the words "military occupation."

Let us take the situation since the end of the German war. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly pointed out that the law at that time, and from that time was that these men were on active service. I think he will agree, and so will the Committee, that immediately after the defeat of Germany it was sensible and desirable that the men stationed there should be on active service. But what we have to consider now is whether it is desirable several years after the end of hostilities at a time when we are entering into quite a different relationship with Germany, that men in that country should be considered to be on active service.

This question I would particularly address to the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, would he, on the best legal advice he can get, agree with my hon. Friend that the term "military occupation" can only have meaning in time of war? If he agrees on that point then, of course, the men in Germany cannot now, or in the future, be on active service. Does he consider it desirable that the men in Germany should be on active service at the present time? If he does consider it desirable, I trust that he will tell the Committee the reasons why he thinks that that is desirable now, five or six years after the war has ended.

Further, if he thinks it desirable that they should be on active service, he must then, surely, address his mind to my hon. and learned Friend's point that, possibly, if my hon. and learned Friend's interpretation is true, they would not be on active service, even if the Clause goes through in the form which the hon. Gentleman is recommending to the Committee. But if the Secretary of State for War takes the view that my hon. and learned Friend is wrong, and that the words "military occupation" do not mean in the Army Act what my hon. and learned Friend suggests that they mean, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, they do mean?

Earlier tonight the Secretary of State for War gave us his opinion of the meaning of the words "engaged in operations"—to which I refer not with any desire to go back to that earlier debate, but merely by way of illustration. He defended his opinion by an appeal to common sense and to ordinary usage among military persons. But, of course, what matters in the end, when we are discussing the definition of active service, is what interpretation a court will put on these words.

If a man is subject to a court-martial, what the court-martial has to decide is, whether the man, at the time of committing the offence, was on active service or not. That court-martial will have to address its mind to the legal meaning of this term. As a result of an Act passed in the last Parliament—and a very valuable Act—the matter may be taken beyond the court-martial by an appeal to an appeal court, and, if my memory serves me correctly, in certain circumstances, the question of the meaning of these words may be argued in the House of Lords.

It is not sufficient, therefore, I say with respect to the Secretary of State for War, for him to give us merely his opinion of what the words "military occupation" mean; it is not sufficient even to reinforce that by appeals to common sense, the ordinary use of language among soldiers, or to other like arguments that may appeal to most Members of the Committee: we shall want a genuine legal opinion on this point. I would suggest it would be useful to have the Solicitor-General here—if I were encouraged to suppose from previous experience that he would add to our comprehension of the legalities of the matter.

There is a further point that must be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, pointed out, rightly, that we are entering now into military arrangements with foreign Powers of a kind, I think, not previously known in our history; and that will raise, often in an acute form, the meaning of the words "military occupation." Once again, if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton is correct in his assumption that they have the meaning only in time of war, our whole discussion on this matter is nugatory.

I will proceed for the moment on the assumption that my hon. and learned Friend made a mistake. I make it purely as an assumption so that the Committee may proceed for a few minutes. If he is mistaken, and "military occupation" has the meaning in time of peace, can it apply to the arrangements made between Powers which are friendly disposed towards one another but who send their troops to be quartered in one another's territories?

Mr. Paget

What I said was that in military occupation of a foreign country has been defined under international law and under The Hague Convention, and has a definite meaning there. It creates definite rights and liabilities under international law. Military occupation can exist only in that meaning—while there is a state of war. One can be in military occupation of an enemy only during war. When the war stops, military occupation ceases.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Stewart

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. As I understand it, then, the point is this. It may be that the words "military occupation" here mean what they mean by The Hague definition. I am inclined to think that they do not; otherwise, the whole of our discussion would have been pointless. Let us assume, therefore, that they do not.

The point I am now putting, partly to the Secretary of State for War and partly to the Solicitor-General is this: we are entering into an epoch in which there will be an increasing number of arrangements made between Powers, well-disposed to one another, to quarter their troops in the territory of each other. I believe I am right in supposing that where that is done as the result of a formal treaty or agreement, such as exists between this country and Egypt, then we should not refer to troops put into a foreign country on that account as being in military occupation of that country.

But what is the position where the troops of one country are stationed in the territory of another not as the result of any formal treaty, but simply by mutual understanding between those countries? It might be that it would be held by legal authority that such troops would be considered to be in military occupation. At any rate, I am quite certain that we ought not to proceed to pass the Clause in this form, when such agreements will become increasingly common. In view of that, we ought not to continue in the Army Act these words "in military occupation" until we have had it established beyond doubt that this will not put men into unreasonable jeopardy as a result of agreements entered into for the common defence of Europe.

That is why I think the Committee is greatly indebted to those of my hon. Friends who have raised this point, which will become of increasing importance to us as the relations between ourselves and the other partners to the Atlantic Treaty develop.

Mr. Strachey

A substantial point emerges here. As I understand this position, the right hon. Gentleman both declares and desires that the new definition of active service should mean that in the future, as in the past, our troops in Germany, Austria and Trieste and Western Europe should be on active service—

Mr. Head

The right hon. Gentleman mentions Western Europe. I do not know whether he is referring to, say, France. We should not be on active service there. I thought I had made it plain. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have realised that it does not apply to troops stationed in France.

Mr. Crossman

Or Trieste?

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman mentions Trieste. Again, that is a different point because our troops are there not by virtue of this definition which we are discussing, but under the "deemed" definition—the Section 189 (2) definition.

Mr. Strachey

That is interesting and it makes my point. The Minister recoils in horror at the suggestion that our troops stationed in France should be on active service under this definition, because they would not he in occupation of a foreign country. Our whole point is that we are rapidly approaching a point where that would be true of Germany also, and it would be quite inappropriate to have our troops in military occupation of a foreign country in those circumstances, or on active service in Germany.

Mr. Head

In the event of a contractual agreement or treaty being concluded with Germany, that would cease.

Mr. Strachey

This Clause says: is in military occupation of a foreign country. It might have ceased, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggested, when the state of war between this country and Germany ceased. It seems not at all clear and it seems, at any rate hazardous, to leave this Clause as it is.

It may or may not apply as our relationship with Germany, for example, changes. After all, the right hon. Gentleman does not know and cannot now know what our new relationship with Germany will be and whether or not it will change the meaning of this Act, so that our troops are no longer in military occupation.

I asked the same question about Austria and Trieste. To leave unchanged from the old Act this definition—that, mandatorily, any troops could be held by the courts to be in military occupation—is quite inappropriate to the changed relations that we are having with these countries, such as Austria, Germany and Trieste, where our troops have been in occupation and will still stay there in a new relationship.

The Secretary of State should look into this and, on the Report stage, assure us if he can—I doubt it—that if we leave these words in there is no danger of having to regard these troops in those countries as permanently on active service. If he cannot give us that assurance, he should alter the words to fit the new circumstances. We certainly shall not want to have these troops automatically on active service when they are for long periods in those stations. That is the substantial point. I think it would satisfy us if we could have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman of the character I have suggested.

Mr. Irvine

At this stage the Committee would be greatly assisted by the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. There is doubt about the meaning of "military occupation", and the definition goes to the root of the controversy. I share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that a country cannot be in military occupation of another country with which it is at peace. But my hon. and learned Friend suggested that that view of the definition was confined to The Hague Convention and matters of that kind. It would be of interest to the Committee if the Solicitor-General could tell us whether there is any authority in English law on the point and the effect of these words.

I do not know whether the cessation of the emergency has any effect upon the matter. After all, we have had a Statutory Rule and Order in 1946 bringing to an end the state of emergency. Inside the country, that has had very considerable effects in bringing to an end all kinds of legislative provisions which were effective only during the emergency. I do not think it is likely, but it is conceivable, that the declaration of the cessation of a state of emergency might alter the status of British troops in Germany. I doubt whether that is so. I should have thought that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton was right, and that their status will be altered only when a treaty of peace is concluded.

Mr. Paget

It is clearly in my recollection that within the last year there has been some form of either declaration, Order or Royal Warrant bringing to an end the state of war between Britain and Germany.

Mr. Hale

Perhaps I can assist my hon. and learned Friend. What he has in mind, I think, is that there are certain Statutory Rules and Orders which fix the determination of the emergency as the date upon which certain things could happen and about which there could be matters of litigation. Certain Statutory Rules and Orders have been made bringing to an end the state of emergency without, of course, affecting our general relations.

Mr. Paget

What I have in mind is that a German can now sue in the British courts and is no longer an enemy and precluded from doing so.

Mr. Hale

That is correct.

Mr. Paget

That has been brought about because the state of war has been brought to an end, as I understand it.

Mr. Irvine

If I may resume my speech, undoubtedly there was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said, a Statutory Rule and Order in 1946—No. 893—which put an end to the state of emergency, but I cannot believe that it has had any effect whatsoever on the status of our Forces in Germany or in bringing to an end the condition of military occupation.

What is open to doubt, after all this discussion, is whether that status is brought to an end even by the conclusion of peace, and upon the answer to that question depends the correctness or otherwise of the arguments brought forward earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who interpreted the Section as it exists as being all-inclusive and without any exception. Whether he is right or whether my contrary view is correct, there is a hiatus and if a peace settlement with Germany is arrived at and no hostilities with any other power have commenced and British Forces are in occupation, it may be that British Forces in Germany are not in military occupation. In these matters the Committee deserves, as it desires, the advice of the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Head

Before my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General gives the definition of military occupation, I undertook to give—I could not do so last time because of the Closure—the areas as they stand at present, that is to say, under normal conditions—not under military occupation—they are Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Hong Kong, Aden, Jamaica and Bermuda. Under military occupation, therefore—under active service—are Austria, Germany, Malaya, Korea, Trieste and the Canal Zone.

Mr. Driberg

Those are under military occupation?

Mr. Head

Trieste is under Section 189 (2) and Germany and Austria are under the definition in Section 189 (1). I should not like to commit myself on Malaya, but I think it is de facto; and the Canal Zone is the same.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Driberg

May I ask if this applies to foreign countries occupied by the Forces of our Allies? I refer, particularly, to Japan. Obviously, a soldier in Korea is on active service, but if he goes to Japan on duty, or, as I believe is usual, on leave, he is in a country recently occupied by the Americans? Is he covered? Then, what about the rarer case, where the soldier might go to one of the other zones of Germany occupied by our Allies?

The Solicitor-General

I think I can answer the question about interpretation. The phrase "military occupation of a why, foreign country" is of great antiquity, and does not require any additional defence. Where troops are in a foreign country under a treaty or other agreement no one could say that they were in "military occupation"; and the presence of such troops would not automatically operate to put them on "active service." When there is military occupation, it means that, to a considerable extent, the military authorities have taken over control, and then one gets automatic 'active service" at that time.

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that there could only be military occupation in time of war; but is that stating the situation accurately? One many have it for some time after a state of war has been terminated. I recall that on 9th July, 1951, the then Foreign secretary informed the House of Commons that the state of war with Germany had been terminated but went on to say that the right of occupation continued; and it may well be that this operated to make the British troops there automatically on active service. But, if hon. Members would distinguish between the presence of troops in a foreign country, and the military occupation of that country, they would agree that there is no need to vary words which are already well understood.

Mr. Crossman

I must protest at this reply. The Solicitor-General has not answered our points at all. He tells the Committee that there need be no varying of the words at all, and although we now have German Government in Germany with which we have ceased to have a state of war I suggest that occupation costs of £160 million a year seem to imply occupation. We have ended the state of war, but why should there be a different type of punishment administered to a British soldier who happens to be in Western Germany, instead of Luxembourg, Belgium, or France? From the point of view of active service there is no difference between being quartered in Bonn, Paderborn, Brussels, Luxembourg, or Liege.

I suggest that it is frivolous for it to be said that the point raised from this side is not understood; it is not a legalistic point, but simply a question of why the British soldier is treated differently; why in Germany, he has all the disadvantages of a home posting, without the advantages accorded his colleague who is stationed in Britain, and is subject to different treatment so far as punishment is concerned if he happens to be in Germany or Austria. I suggest that the Committee must get an answer from the Government as to how they justify the situation in which they themselves admit that a state of war with Germany has ended, and we are only technically occupying the country in order to get the occupation costs, and a solider may have quite different sentence imposed on him because he is on active service in Germany whereas, in Belgium, he is not on active service.

We must demand an answer to that point, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question my proposal to leave out those words is one which the Government should accept. The Minister himself admits that the only two countries to which these words apply any Germany and Austria. They do not apply to Trieste, which comes under clause 2. The only two countries to which these words apply are, therefore, countries in which "active service" has no meaning at all unless it has a meaning in the adjacent countries of Belgium and Luxembourg, France and Holland. It is no use saying at the end of a long debate that we need not change anything.

Mr. Driberg

Would the solicitor-General answer the specific question I put to him about Japan, whether British soldiers on leave or on duty in Japan are covered by this definition?

Mr. Crossman

The Secretary of State for War has gone now.

The Solicitor-General

He has gone for the moment, but I do not think that the hon. Member has any reason to complain about a purely temporary absence.

Mr. Crossman

Not so long as he answers the question.

The Solicitor-General

May I say to the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that the question I rose to answer was the question which I understood had been put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of his speech. The phrase, military occupation of a foreign country, may be applied to a wide variety of countries in different parts of the world at different times. He is seeking to apply it solely to Germany in relation to Belgium. There may be that variation, but there is a great deal of difference between where troops are resident in a country by agreement and where they are in occupation of a foreign country.

The hon. Member for Coventry, East, said, inaccurately, that it meant that a soldier on active service would receive higher punishment—

Mr. Crossman

Different punishment.

The Solicitor-General

Greater punishment—

Mr. Crossman

Different.

The Solicitor-General

Well, different punishment if he was not on active serve. I would correct him to this extent. The maximum punishment is increased very often on active service, but it does not follow that a sentence would be imposed on a soldier in Belgium which was different from that imposed on a soldier in Germany if they both committed precisely the same offence in the same circumstances.

Mr. Crossman

With respect, it does not follow. But under this Clause he is liable to it. What I am asking, and the Solicitor-General has still not answered my question, is why we should make a soldier in Paderborn liable to different punishment than a soldier in Belgium by the definition of the words "active service" or "military occupation."

I do not know whether the Solicitor-General listened to the definition of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the only two countries in the world to which these words "military occupation" exclusively referred were Germany and Austria. He admitted that the Suez Canal Zone came under Section 189 (2). He admitted that only with regard to Germany and Austria could one talk of "military occupation" as a sub-specie of the genus "active service," whereas the others were either de facto or for reasons of defending property only in these two countries. Therefore, what we are saying is why not delete these words about military occupation since all they mean is that a British soldier in Austria and Germany may be liable to different punishment from that of a colleague of his in other parts of Western Europe. To this we have received no answer whatever.

Mr. Driberg

Could I ask, for the third time, whether the Solicitor-General would be good enough to answer my point which I think he was about to answer when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), butted in again, with all respect to him? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, quite straightforwardly, whether this definition covers the British soldier, who is obviously on active service when in Korea, when he goes to Japan on leave or duty which is an American occupied territory?

Mr. Bing

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will not answer that one, perhaps he could answer a point of mine when he deals with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). The Solicitor-General said it did not really matter very much so far as punishment went whether a man was on active service or not. This is a most important point, and it is, therefore, important that the Committee should be clear about it.

Let me take an example. If under Section 6 (1) someone treacherously gives a watchword or counter-sign different from that which he receives, he is liable, if on active service, to suffer the death sentence. If not on active service the most he can get is two years' imprisonment. I am not saying whether that offence should be punished in that way or not but if it is it really is of importance that we should decide what is active service and what is not. So far as I have been able to follow the discussion, it seems to me that the Committee is not very clear as to what the point is.

Of course, the words or any military occupation of a foreign country come from the old definition, but they are affected, and very largely affected, by the inclusion of the words which go before them: or is engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life and property. Quite clearly, the man who is in a different class—who is in military occupation of a foreign country—is the man who is there in some capacity other than for protecting life and property. Therefore, we have a second class of person who is not there to protect life or property, but yet is there in military occupation.

If the situation is such that he does not require to be there to protect either life or property, but should suffer the death penalty because he gives a password which is different from the one he received seems to me to be a thing which the Committee ought at least to consider, and I would, with great respect, suggest to the Solicitor-General that he has not quite seen the point at which we on this side have been hammering away.

To take an example. The American articles of war approach the matter in a different way. They describe their crimes in relation to whether a state of war exists or not. Our difficulty is that we are continually expanding this idea of active service, and it has no relation to active service as it originally existed in the old articles of war. Then we regarded active service as a condition when a man was in the face of the enemy. Now that we have extended it to such a degree, and quite understandably so, a crime like desertion can take place anywhere and its seriousness is not affected by where the man is but what are the conditions when he deserts.

It is just as bad to desert here if one is being sent to a war as in Korea. To cover that sort of thing, we are expending all the time this conception of active service. Before we allow this to go on any further we ought to look at it again.

1.30 a.m.

I am glad to see the Secretary of State for War back in his place. I will not weary the Committee by repeating what I have said, but, if I may put it like this to the Secretary of State, I would say there is a grave danger in expanding continually this idea of active service. In the case we are dealing with, there is now a new category of active service, which consists of somebody, who is not either protecting life or property, but is, somehow or other, in military occupation of a foreign country.

It is said that military occupation of a foreign country must arise out of a state of war, or the conclusion of a state of war, and that it cannot arise by means of contract. I think that we are on difficult and complicated grounds of international law, into which I hesitate to plunge. Quite clearly, after the 1914–18 war, we were in military occupation of the Rhineland. How were we there? By virtue of a contract. We were there by virtue of a treaty, a treaty of peace between the defeated country and the successful—the victors.

We very often can be in military occupation by virtue of a treaty. From what has been said, does this new military occupation arise as an occupation as a result of a treaty, or does it merely exist as a military occupation, which is a one-sided act of one military personage. I hope that we can get some enlightenment on this, and that the Government will not just move the Closure in the middle of the discussion, because it only projects the discussion on to the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. If we get this clear here, we shall be able to deal with it much more quickly. There may be every good reason for doing it.

The Committee ought to be careful how they extend matters involving the death sentence. That is what the Committee are doing tonight. They are seeking to pass a Clause which makes liable to the death penalty people who had not previously been liable to it. Before we pass that we ought to think about it and make certain that we understand the meaning of the words by which we are doing it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may understand the meaning of the words, but they have not been able to make them clear to me.

I am glad to see the Leader of the House back in his place. He said that we had to get this Bill through quickly. Had he been in his place earlier, when we took a great deal of time trying to clear up a difficult question, we need not, perhaps, have to clear these things so quickly, but, if I go back on this matter, I shall be out of order. In these circumstances, the most we can do is to press the point so that it is clear to those concerned that they know under what conditions they may be liable to the death penalty for some act, which, if committed somewhere else, would merely involve a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

When we are conscripting people into the Army and exposing them to this sort of thing, they are entitled to some degree of certainty. If we re-publish the Army Act, we ought to clear up this matter. What are foreign countries where troops are neither for the protection of property nor life, and yet in which they are in military occupation? Why should it be said that a man who gives the wrong password on one side of the Belgian frontier is liable to two years' imprisonment, but is liable to the death sentence if he gives the wrong password on the other side?

By what logical basis can one approach that? We have to try to make the Act logical, but this makes it even more illogical. The one thing that ought to be cleared is the difference between active service and other types of service. That is always the difference which is drawn throughout in the offences under the Acts. Unless we can get this matter clear, we do not know which offences are major and which are minor. If we do not get that clear, the only thing the Committee can do is to press to remove those offences. While it is reasonable to say this is the sort of offence to be punished in normal times by two years' imprisonment, it is another thing to say we do not know what active service is or when this very penalty might bring down on someone a sentence of death.

If the Solicitor-General says, "That is all right because no one will think of imposing sentences in that way," then why not repeal the provisions? We cannot have provisions to sentence people to death for these offences committed when they are on active service and then say, "We have no intention of doing that—and yet take no steps to repeal the provisions.

This is why the debate has arisen. On the one hand, there is the continual exten- sion of the definition of "enemy" and, on the other hand, there is the continual extension of the definition of "active service," which makes it necessary to look very carefully at the provisions of the Act. If we could get clear what is "active service" the debate might be considerably shortened. If not we must look very carefully at the Clause.

I appeal to the Patronage Secretary to allow the Solicitor-General to speak a few words—or one of the hon. Members behind him, who has been let into the secret of this meaning. I hope that the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State will clear up what this means. I understood the Secretary of State to say that Hong Kong is home service and is not active service. How can it be said that a man who gives away the password in Hong Kong in present circumstances can be sentenced only to two years' imprisonment, while a man who gives it away in Germany can be sentenced to death? It is not logical, and we are entitled at least to some explanation of it. We keep on making this point, if I may say so—

The Chairman

I am glad the hon. and learned Member has said so, because I am getting tired of it.

Mr. Bing

I appreciate that you are getting tired of hearing it, Sir Charles, but, with respect, so are we. We are repeating it in the hope of getting an answer, and in that hope I leave the matter.

Mr. A. Henderson

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reply to my right hon. Friend's suggestion? It is a practical point. We hope that the negotiations which are taking place with the Bonn Government will result in a contractual agreement being reached between that Government, on the one hand, and the British, French and American Governments, on the other hand. In that event a different situation will arise. Technically, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, military occupation will still continue for the fixed number of years, but surely the position will be radically and fundamentally altered from the point of view of the question of active service?

My right hon. Friend suggested that the Secretary of State should look carefully at the words "military occupation of a foreign country" in the light of the situation which may well arise in Germany, apart from Austria, in the event of agreement being reached between the Bonn Government and the three Allied Governments.

Mr. Head

The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said he was concerned about the position of troops overseas and about which form of service they were on—active service or normal overseas service. He suggested that they would not know under which they were serving and the severity of the punishment which they might incur. That information, of course, is published; it is a standing instruction that it is published in all orders, and I can assure him at the outset that there is no fear whatever that the troops concerned do not know under which code they are placed.

He went on to refer to the question of military occupation, and how, on the one hand, they are on active service, and he gave the instance of Germany. It is perfectly clear, and I would have thought that this was apparent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, when he was Secretary of State for Air, that in the event of a contractural agreement the status of military occupation will cease and the troops in Germany will be serving under perfectly normal conditions. The sooner that happens the better I shall be pleased.

The same applies to Austria. If a treaty is negotiated then at once our troops will revert to normal status. Japan has two types of troops in it at the moment. The first are those on leave from Korea. They retain their legal status of being on active service. That has always been the case when troops are on leave from active service.

The others are the static troops permanently stationed in Japan, and they are also on active service because, although a treaty has been negotiated, so far we have not reached a state of agreement whereby they cease to be in that particular status. Military occupation of countries could not possibly occur in other European countries, as some hon. Gentlemen fear, where, because of agreements, we stationed troops in them. We could not have troops in France, Scandinavia, or Belgium which could possibly be construed as being in military occupation.

One may argue the rights or wrongs of troops being under active service in the period from the end of a war until a treaty is negotiated, but that has always been the procedure. Until a treaty is negotiated we are responsible for the government of a country. There may be considerable uprisings, difficulties, and disturbances, and we have the responsibility of dealing with them. The powers of the Government in Bonn are at present strictly limited, and until they are fully recovered in a contractural agreement we have a definite responsibility for security.

I do not believe that there is any misunderstanding of what military occupation is. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has his Hague Convention, but it has always been interpreted as a continuation of occupation, subsequent to a war, by forces until a treaty is negotiated and sovereignty is returned. That is what we are doing. The sooner we get treaties negotiated and get back to normal the better I will be pleased, because no one wants to continue a system longer than is needed.

Mr. Strachey

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Trieste?

Mr. Head

The situation in Trieste is somewhat different. It would not be entirely easy to state exactly to whom Trieste belongs. I think that, very wisely, the Government decided not to put the troops in under military occupation. In fact, I think it would be wrong to do so, but there is a considerable state of tension in the territory, and the position is that the troops are deemed to be on active service.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Crossman

May I ask one more question? We all hope that a treaty will be signed with Germany and Austria. While it is quite possible that we shall sign a treaty with Western Germany soon, we may not sign a treaty with Austria for years. Does that mean that we must expect that for years to come our troops in Austria will be subject to a quite different disciplinary code from that of the troops in the rest of Europe? I cannot see why we should do this. We can say there is a certain de facto situation.

Take the Canal Zone. It was admitted by the right hon. Gentleman him- self that the troops in the Canal Zone for long periods were not on active service. Is not that right? Right. Then came the point where danger arose and we said they were on active service. Is that right? Right. What I am asking is why we cannot deal with the troops in Western Germany and Austria in the same way, and keep them normally not on active service, and do the same as we did in the Canal Zone.

The Secretary of State has not answered my point, that in every other particular they are treated with the disadvantages of home troops. It is a home posting, and men can be brought from Korea to England, and then sent straight away to Germany, as though they were at home at first.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchinson)

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they should be taken out of the military occupation category, and that de facto powers should be used to reinstate them? He does not get rid of his difficulty.

Mr. Crossman

The hon. Gentleman has not yet grasped the simplicity of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is that we could treat Western Germany in the same way as the Canal Zone, where, for long periods, the soldiers were not on active service but were put on active service only when a crisis blew up—when, in the unforgettable words of the Solicitor-General, the "warning signal was sounded." Then active service was announced. Why cannot we give the men in Germany and the men in Austria the same rights that we give the men in the Suez area, and put them on active service only when active service is necessary? There has been no answer to that question at all.

Mr. Head

I can give a brief answer to that.

Mr. Crossman

We have not had it, though we have waited an hour and a half.

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman is not altogether correct in saying that. All the time hon. Gentlemen have been rising to speak. I waited till they finished to do my best to answer. Had I intervened earlier hon. Gentlemen would have asked, "Why do you curtail the debate?"

Mr. Crossman

I withdraw my remark.

Mr. Head

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

In Germany we may still have a state of affairs—I am not saying that it has arisen—in which, if I may use the expression, there are no bangs going off, but there is considerable tension. De facto means prospective bangs—what may happen in a moment of ominous quiet. When we go into occupation of a country after a war we find that difficult situation. Hitherto, we have always terminated that state of affairs with a treaty. That possibility, to some extent, has been vitiated in the present case by the present political situation in Soviet Russia. I think and hope that in Germany we may soon have a settlement. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in Austria that possibility is more remote. Then it is within our powers to make a special situation and to deem that the troops are not on active service.

Mr. Crossman

Good.

Mr. Head

But de facto does not cover the situation in which no bangs are going off. I hope I have given an adequate explanation. I could discuss this legal point with the hon. Gentleman behind the Chair, but I do suggest that we have had a long time on this Clause, and that if we could pass it now it would be a good thing.

Mr. Paget

I want to ask a question. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could deem them not in Austria. Where does he get the power to deem them unless we pass a statute?

Mr. Head

I cannot believe that it is beyond our powers somehow to institute a state of affairs, supposing there was no Austrian treaty for 20 years and we were in the most friendly relations with Austria. I am only suggesting that some means could be found.

Mr. Paget

Could we act on it?

Mr. Head

We might come to the House for it. But I think all hon. Gentlemen will agree that to have been at war with a country, to finish that war and to fail to negotiate a treaty for 20 years is a state of affairs which has never happened before and, I hope, will never happen again.

Mr. Crossman

One other question—

The Chairman

We have been a long time on this.

Mr. Crossman

I am sorry, Sir Charles, but we are concerned with an important matter of the position of British troops. We are getting a little way ahead.

We are now told that because, in the case of Germany, the Secretary of State anticipates the end of military occupation, he will leave the words in the Bill, but because, in the case of Austria, he does not anticipate that happening, he will also leave them in the Bill. That does not make any sense. We are told that in the case of Germany, if we are lucky we need not worry about the Bill because it will not mean anything; but in the case of Austria he believes that it is possible to find some way of getting round the words he is now writing into the Bill. After all, this is a Clause to define military occupation.

Mr. Head

I only said that I hoped that soon we would get a contractural agreement.

Mr. Crossman

I quoted the right hon. Gentleman verbatim. He says that he hopes it will not apply to Germany. He thinks it may apply to Austria, which is the only other country, and that in the case of Austria it is not beyond the wit of man to get round the Clause he has just drafted. What is the point of drafting the Clause if it is to be got round in the only country where the Secretary of State anticipates its being applied? In the case of Japan we are told that when sufficient countries have ratified the Treaty this will not apply.

I suggest to the Committee that it has been useful to discuss this for an hour and 40 minutes if only to discover that we have a new Clause brought into the Army Act which the Secretary of State is confident will not be required to be applied to Germany, and which he hopes to get out of applying to Austria. Why should we not omit these words?

What will happen in Austria if the British soldier is not on active service there? Says the Secretary of State, "We cannot calculate for the time when the bangs are not going off." Does he tell me that Austria is more dangerous than the Suez area or Hong Kong or Malaya; that because Austria is particularly dangerous we have to draft one Clause dealing only with Austria, and we have to make sure that in Austria our men will suffer the death penalty for giving the password away? We really must know why the Secretary of State is drafting a Clause which, in his view, if things turn out well, only applies to Austria, and there he hopes it will not apply. Could he tell me why such a Clause has been drafted?

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Chairman

The Question is, "That the Question be now put."

Hon. Members

Oh!

Mr. Paget

The Patronage Secretary moved to report Progress.

Hon. Members

He did.

The Chairman

He started to move that. I think he made a slip of the tongue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anyway, the Question I put was, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Hale

On a point of order.

The Chairman

There can be no point of order.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank)

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

We have had a very good discussion, but there is a great deal left, with many important Amendments to the Bill which it would be better to take, perhaps, at a more reasonable hour. I must say, frankly, that we are a little surprised—those of us who remember pre-war days—to find the great interest in the Army taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

There are a number of important Amendments on the Order Paper, including a number of new Clauses, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, if it would help right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be very happy to have some discussions with them on the points they raise to see whether we can facilitate business, because this is an important Bill about which there is, under the Statute, a time limit. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen care to get into touch with my right hon. Friend he would be very happy to meet them. Possibly this suggestion, which I throw out in the most helpful spirit, may curtail further lengthy debates, at any rate on this Bill. I hope that this will allow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who, a couple of hours ago, said he was anxious to go home, to have his wish fulfilled and get home before 2.30.

Mr. Strachey

We on this side certainly congratulate the Government on the good sense of this decision, if on no others. We take it as a recognition of the fact that we have put up points of considerable substance, which it has been necessary to discuss. Some of them the Government may agree with and others they may disagree with, but the idea that this Bill could be taken through Committee in one Sitting has proved entirely chimerical, and rightly so. Therefore, we entirely agree with the decision that we should ask leave to sit again and resume our work on the Bill at another Sitting.

Mr. Crookshank

I should make it clear that we shall have to resume tomorrow, or rather this day. After the business I announced on Thursday we shall have to resume the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Strachey

The Leader of the House means that we resume not immediately tomorrow afternoon, but after the business announced. That is a matter for the Government to say. We shall be very much prepared to go on with these deliberations. They have proved fruitful and will prove fruitful again. We feel that our efforts tonight have certainly not been wasted and that they will produce—they have already begun to produce—a very much improved Army Act.

Mr. Wigg

I hope that when we resume the Secretary of State will arm himself with a few facts. We should have made much more progress had he understood the original point. All that we wanted to do was to extend the period of the Act for three months. We could afford two hours had the Secretary of State had the grace to make himself aware of what areas were under active service and what were not. If he could spend some time tomorrow in studying his brief and understanding some of the facts, we should make much greater progress than we have done.

I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that there is no point whatever in our making contact with the Secretary of State until he has armed himself with the facts because otherwise it would be an entirely one-sided argument.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Fernyhough

We on this side welcome the Motion which the Leader of the House has just moved. I am only sorry that he did not accept the Motion in the same terms which was put from this side roughly two hours ago, because had he given that advice to his hon. Friends when he told my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham. West (Mr. Hale) to go home it would have been received with delight.

It has been rather soul-destroying to those who have looked around the Chamber for the last two hours to find Tory Members lying about, some of them asleep and half of them not knowing what was going on, and all of them kept out of the debate merely because of the Whips, who would not allow them to go home. It is a treat, therefore, for once in a while to find the Leader of the House proposing something which meets with the general approbation of all those present, and I have no doubt that when the discussion is resumed he will get from this side the same co-operation as we have tried to show during the early hours today.

Mr. Driberg

I should like to express a slight difference from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in his censures on the Secretary of State for War. I thought, certainly in the latter part of the debates that the right hon. Gentleman was most helpful and forthcoming, and he showed, as has been said, that this has been a useful debate, because he intervened repeatedly to say that he would consider this or that point and make this or that concession, which shows that the points made from this side of the Committee were valuable points.

If the Leader of the House would stop twittering to his neighbour for a moment and listen, I should like to congratulate him also on knowing, by telepathy, that it has been such a good debate. It has certainly been a good debate, but we have not seen the right hon. Gentleman here and he could not have known that except by telepathy or messages which have been passed to him.

The Leader of the House, who indulged in one of his characteristic silken sneers at my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) about wanting to go home a couple of hours ago, must know perfectly well, as has been said repeatedly on the occasion of late-night Sittings, that if there is to be a very late Sitting, most Members on this side either prefer the Sitting to stop when my hon. Friend suggested it should stop, just before midnight, when public transport is still running, or go right through until public transport starts to run again.

From that point of view, this is a strictly class Motion which the Leader of the House has moved. Whereas most hon. Members on this side have real difficulty in getting home at this time at night, we know that perhaps, not most, but many hon. Members on the other side, have their cars waiting to take them to their town houses in Eaton Square and elsewhere.

Mr. Simmons

As we are to report Progress, we ought to be able to make better progress next time we meet. We on this side have appealed to hon. Members opposite who have expert knowledge and advice to help us in our discussions, but they have remained silent. It certainly does not create the atmosphere in which progress can be made if the Leader of the House—who is now sniggering behind his hand—will insist on sneering at and casting slurs upon hon. Members on this side of the Committee about their military service. Some of us on this side have had military service, and some have suffered as a result, to the extent that an all-night Sitting in this Chamber is a physical strain. We come here to do our best, and it is not right that hon. Gentlemen—I emphasise "Gentlemen"—on the other side should show their gentlemanly upbringing by sneering at those on this side who have suffered war disabilities.

We have done our best to make the lot of the lads in the Forces—and especially the National Service men, who are citizens in uniform—as good as possible. [Interruption.] Why do hon. Members opposite make so much noise? I left school when I was 14 to start to earn my living. I was only a private in the Army, and cannot claim the culture and charm of some of the hon. and gallant Members opposite, who sneer at me. But I am going to defend the people on this side who served just as gallantly as hon. Members opposite who flaunt their military titles.

One must have been an officer before one can be described as an hon. and gallant Member; privates are never described as "gallant" in this House, and I say that we are sick of the sneers from the colonels and the generals and the admirals on that side. If they want more progress when we next discuss this Bill, then let them act in a different manner.

Mr. Swingler

It is a pity that so many hon. Members who have attended so little of this debate appear now to be so keen on going home. We have little progress to report, and if there is an enthusiasm prompting hon. Members on this side of the Committee to continue then we should do so.

It has been said from the other side that there has been a co-operative spirit, and it was stated at the start of the debate that our Amendments would be carefully considered. But none of the Amendments put down have, so far, been accepted; on the contrary, there has been an obstinate refusal to agree, without adequate reason for so doing, and although the Secretary of State for War has attended all of our discussion and has intervened to deal with questions put to him, I hope that in the continuance of our debate he will show himself a little more forthcoming in accepting some of our Amendments, so that we may get on instead of spending so much time on points of detail while there are many new Clauses to which we should give much more full consideration.

Mr. Wyatt

I think we should have something more definite from the Leader of the House about what our future course will be if we report Progress now. All we have heard so far is that we shall start discussing this Bill again tonight at 10 o'clock. Is this good enough?

Mr. Driberg

There is also a Church Measure.

Mr. Wyatt

That means that we may not start discussing this Bill again tonight at 10 o'clock. It may be that we shall not start discussing it before 12 o'clock. This Church Measure is of great importance; a number of my hon. Friends take a deep interest in it and they will have a great deal to say on the subject.

Is the Leader of the House suggesting that this vitally important Bill should be discussed in a hole-and-corner manner at 12 o'clock tonight, that we should then report Progress and then begin again on another evening? Let us look at the position. We begin the Amendments to this Bill at page 273 on the Order Paper and end at page 290. We have got through only the first page of Amendments and there remain another 17 pages. We are anxious to improve the Army Act as fast as we can, but the best we can do has only resulted in disposing of the first page of Amendments.

The Leader of the House should tell us what he proposes to do tomorrow evening when he reports Progress and, perhaps, we have got to page 274. There is no legislation whatever to be brought before the House. Therefore, we could very well have several days, perhaps a week, so that we could sit down sensibly, and at an early hour, to revise the Act, which has not been revised since 1689.

The Government have nothing whatever to bring before the House. Not even in their miserable Election programme have they anything outstanding. They have no hope, by legislation, of redeeming their broken promises in the near future. So why not have a series of days put down for the discussion of this Act and let us get the job done properly?

The Leader of the House has behaved in a most disreputable way by saying that all we are to do is to have a couple of hours in the middle of the night. We want a series of days in which we can discuss this in a reasonable way beginning at 3.30 in the afternoon.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

Unlike some hon. Members, I very much deplore this Motion. I arrived here fairly early this morning prepared to remain here all night and, indeed, for that matter until the morning after. I have made a deep study of the Army Act, and several Amendments and certain new Clauses have my name attached to them. It is rarely indeed that the House has the benefit of my advice and they might listen to my advice on this matter.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) I am entitled to be called an hon. and gallant Gentleman. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I held commissioned rank, and it is for all those reasons that I made such a deep study of this Act to help my right hon. and hon. Friends draft certain Amendments and new Clauses. Therefore, I think it is quite disgraceful to send me home at 2.15 in the morning when I have not had a chance to express my view even on the Amendments to which I put my name. I thought they would be reached long ago.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who was also a Service Minister, when he says it is disgraceful that the Army Act should be discussed in this hole-and-corner fashion, merely between 10 o'clock at night and 2 o'clock in the morning. I think the men in the Services will not be at all pleased at their questions being discussed in this manner between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m. I believe that this is the Tory revenge for the Service vote against them in 1945. It is common knowledge that 90 per cent. of the men in the Forces—and we are discussing both the Army and Air Force at the moment, and also the Navy—voted Labour.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not discussing the Army and Air Force Bill at the moment, but whether or not we should report Progress.

Mr. Delargy

I understood that the Motion was to report Progress on this Bill, and I am merely pointing out that we have made such little progress with it that we should not adjourn. I have no doubt that the men in the Services will take note of these things, and will realise that we on this side whom they elected as against those on the opposite side are doing our best to protect their interesets whereas hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing their best to gag us.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Surely we are to have some reply from the Leader of the House. I hope that before we deal with this Motion the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what are the Government's intentions with regard to the future of this Bill. I would like to have the attention of the Leader of the House because, after all, he has a responsibility to this House. It is his duty to make it clear what are the intentions of the Government if we accept this Motion.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) said, there are a great many Amendments on the Order Paper and there are a great many new Clauses to be considered. It is not our fault that we have to consider them this year. We invited the Secretary of State to accept an earlier Amendment which would have facilitated postponing consideration of a great many of these Clauses until next year, but that Amendment was not accepted.

The Committee is now faced with the duty of considering these Amendments and new Clauses. They all have to be considered some time before the end of April. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government's intention is if this Motion is accepted. How long is he proposing that we should stay tomorrow night? Is he proposing that we should merely sit for two or three hours, or throughout the night? Is he proposing that we should have a day or two next week in which to finish consideration of this Bill in Committee?

Surely it is treating the House with something like contempt to leave us in complete mystery and ignorance as what are the Government's intentions. Here we are with the Easter Recess about to take place and which the Leader of the House has announced, and here we are with the Secretary of State pointing out that this Bill has to be passed by the end of April. It has to go to another place after leaving this place. We are quite prepared to sit here throughout the night, despite the inconvenience of doing so, to deal seriously with these Clauses.

The Leader of the House has moved to report Progress and has asked us to resume consideration of the Bill late tomorrow night. I do think it is not treating the Committee with the consideration we are accustomed to expect, even from the Leader of the House. It is needless to leave the Committee in ignorance of the Government's intentions. It is of great inconvenience to hon. Members not to know when they ought to be prepared to resume the discussion. Therefore, I hope the Leader of the House will respond and let us know what are his intentions with regard to the future consideration of this matter.

The Chairman

The Quesion is, "That I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. Wyatt

On a point of order.

The Chairman

There is no point of order.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Heath.]

2.22 a.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Mr. Mellish.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

On a point of order. There is another Bill for Second Reading on the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill. It was announced for today when the business for the week was announced on Thursday. It is the next item to be called. It may very well be that it cannot be called, because, as I understand the matter, no Motion was put down to suspend the Rule and that, although the Committee stage of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill was exempted business, the Second Reading of the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Bill cannot be taken. Can we have your guidance as to what is happening?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot say what is happening to the Bill. The Government moved the adjournment of the House. Mr. Mellish.

Mr. Hale

With great respect, the Question, "That this House do now adjourn" has not been put to the House. I rose, the moment it was put, to raise this point of order and to ask your guidance and assistance as to what had happened on this Bill, on which I had come prepared to speak.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Motion was moved, "That this House do now adjourn," and the hon. Gentleman who has the Adjournment is Mr. Mellish, whom I have called. There can be nothing else.

Mr. Hale

I will not hold up my hon. Friend, but it is reasonable to ask why an important Bill is thrown over in this way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Mellish.