HC Deb 03 April 1952 vol 498 cc2101-18
Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end, to insert: and all such regulations made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as maybe after they are made, and if within forty days after they have been so laid either House presents an Address to Her Majesty praying that such rules may be annulled, Her Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the rule so annulled shall henceforth become void without prejudice to anything done thereunder in the meantime. I believe I am able to congratulate the Under-Secretary on his maiden speech in the debate, but I do not know whether I should go on to say that we shall hope to hear him on many occasions in what remains to be dealt with. He will easily deal with this Amendment, because I imagine it to be acceptable.

This Clause provides for a revised version of Section 93 of the Army Act, which gives power to the Army Council to make regulations about enlistment, conditions of service, and periods of service. It is on more or less the same lines as the old Section 93 in the Act.

My hon. Friends and I wish to insert in that Section a provision that regulations made by the Army Council about Part II of the Act—and only Part II—shall be laid before the House and shall be subject to the procedure of negative Resolution procedure. I cannot imagine that there can be any objections at all, since it is generally agreed that these matters of conditions of service, periods of service, and forms of enlistment are very important matters that ought to be debated in the House. I think it will be agreed that the regulations made by the Army Council under this part of the Bill ought to be laid before the House in the same way as other rules and regulations are laid.

We have said in our Amendment that there ought to be time found for debating these regulations, and if necessary we should make present a humble address to Her Majesty for the annulment of the regulations by Order in Council. In other words, we want to embody in this Clause the procedure of the negative Resolution procedure in regard to any Army Council regulations on the subject of conditions of service and periods of service for regular soldiers.

I hope that the Under Secretary of State will find himself in a position to accept this Amendment. Possibly, it is not drafted in the proper way, and it may well be that he will have to look at the drafting again; but I hope he will accept the principle which we should like to see embodied in the Bill. It is a revised form of Section 93, and I think we are all agreed that it is a good idea to allow more Parliamentary control and discussion on the conditions and periods of service in the Regular Army. This is the kernel of our Amendment.

Mr. Bing

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) says he does not think that this Amendment is drafted correctly, because it is copied from the Act itself. It comes from Section 108A, and it is in exactly the same form as is the provision for praying against the prices which may be charged for billets when billets are demanded under the emergency regulations.

I intervene at this stage merely to say that in view of the Committee that is being formed, it is very desirable that we should have some uniformity of practice as to how regulations under the Army Act are treated. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) is not here, but his understudy the Patronage Secretary is present, and, therefore, I hope I may address to the Committee a short argument on the point of Parliamentary procedure.

At the time the Army Discipline Regulation Act was passed, business was rather slack in the House. Therefore, it was sufficient that the regulations were laid before Parliament, because if they were so laid and presented then they were debated. It was not necessary to make the usual Prayer arrangements by which these regulations could be annulled within a certain period, which makes them exempted business.

Therefore, most of the regulations under the Army Act are subject to being laid before Parliament, which procedure is entirely useless from a Parliamentary point of view and is merely a waste of time and paper, because there is no opportunity of discussing them. When eve come to later Amendments to the Act, the normal formula in regard to laying before the House a Motion for annulment is followed.

1.15 a.m.

I do not see my name to the Amendment and cannot understand how that could have happened, but those of us who consulted together in drawing up the Amendment felt we would not be going wrong if we followed the precedent of the Act itself and it follows Section 108A (4), which deals with the comparatively minor matter of what price ought to be paid for billets. It seems that if that has to be laid before the House and may be annulled this far more important subject should also be placed before the House and subject to annulment.

It is perhaps a little academic to discuss it here, but I hope that if a new Clause is to be introduced we might introduce into it a new principle also. I hope that in these circumstances, ahead of what the Departmental Committee may recommend—which will certainly be uniformity of practice bringing the Act in line with the rest of the Acts which deal with regulations in the same way—it will be found possible to accept the Amendment. If there is anything wrong with the drafting, it is the fault of those who drafted the Army Act and not of those who copied it.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

It seems a little churlish, after the kind things which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) said about me in describing this, incorrectly, as my maiden appearance on the Bill, to say, in my demi-maiden appearance, that I cannot accept the Amendment.

I do so for a number of reasons. First, I think the hon. Member may remember his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), earlier in the debate, telling us in moving terms of the difficulty there was in following King's Regulations when an unfortunate clerk opened a door and the wind blew away the papers, and that is evidence of the number of regulations which have to be brought out in the Army and they have often to be brought out hurriedly.

For example, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch referred to the fact that there were other new Clauses extending the principle to most of the Act. We are not dealing only with the question of enlistment, but I can give an example on enlistment where we had to move very hurriedly in connection with the Korean campaign. It would be intolerable if the Army Council had to make its instructions quickly and then wait 40 days until Parliament approved them, or, alternatively, put them into operation and have them reversed because the regulations have to lay on the Table. If we wanted to put them through and not have them reversed we would have to wait 40 days or run the risk of having them reversed by the negative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Swingler

Surely this would not put a brake on the Army Council in putting its regulations into effect. That could be done immediately. The point is that they would have to be laid on the Table of the House. They would be subject to annulment and negative Resolution procedure, but surely one can rely on the good sense of hon. Members. If there is a Prayer for annulment which is carried it means that there is a majority of opinion against the regulation and, presumably for a good reason. That would support the insertion of the Amendment.

Mr. Hutchison

The hon. Member has confirmed my fear that we might have regulations in operation and then have them annulled. I think that his hon. Friends, when in charge of the War Office, would have found it very inconvenient if these Army Council instructions and regulations had been annulled. We must remember that this Bill is an annual Bill, which is a very great protection as compared with other Bills in which we have sought to introduce the Prayer procedure. We are to have a committee and this is a matter of principle and one which will not be lost sight of. I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Swingler

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not bringing forward the idea that it would be simply inconvenient for the War Office to have to study the majority opinion of the House. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously asking Members of the Committee to accept the idea that, because it might happen that the majority of the elected representatives of the men serving in the Forces might find some of the Army Council instructions unacceptable, the War Office cannot have this Amendment inserted because it would be inconvenient to have the opinion of the elected representatives of the people expressed. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will feel that this argument, based on the convenience of the War Office, is not an argument designed to commend his case to the Committee. I hope he will produce something more substantial.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I think that the Under-Secretary's argument is most unsatisfactory. He said, as his first reason for resisting this Amendment, that it would produce inconvenience to the War Office and the Air Ministry, but it is no more an inconvenience to the War Office or the Air Ministry that there should be Parliamentary control over regulations made under this Act than that there should be Parliamentary control over regulations made under all other acts. The essence of control by Parliament over the executive and over this system of negative resolution is that it enables the executive to promulgate the statutory instruments. Those regulations take automatic effect as soon as they are promulgated. They operate, but they are subject to annulment if Parliament thinks fit. No question of inconvenience arises, and no question of inconvenience ought to be urged in this Committee to derogate from the recognised rights of the House of Commons to exercise its vigilant control over all regulations made by any Government Department, whether the War Office or the Air Ministry.

I will go further. The more important the regulations which the Ministry makes, the more necessary it is that there should be strict Parliamentary control. We have Parliamentary control over pedestrian crossings made by the Ministry of Transport, all of which are subject to annulment by Resolution of this House or another place. If a minute detail of that kind is subject to annulment, it is far more important that the Executive should submit to the supervision and control of the Legislature all matters which concern the life, the safety, the welfare, and the future of the men in the Forces.

The Under-Secretary's argument was most reprehensible. I hope that, on reflection, the Secretary of State, when he returns, will reconsider this point. I do not think there is any Minister of Cabinet rank on the Front Bench at the moment, which is most unfortunate, because I do not think that the Under-Secretary's argument would have commended itself to any responsible Minister of Cabinet rank in the House today. I hope that that argument will not be used again.

The other two arguments which the hon. Gentleman used were equally unsatisfactory. I hope that before the debate on this Amendment ends we shall have the assurance that the spirit of the Amendment is accepted and will be recommended, at any rate, to the committee which is to be set up.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has advanced arguments relating to delegated legislation with which we are all familiar and which have often been advanced in the House of Commons. This is really a drafting revision of the old Section which was somewhat cumbrous in form. We make no complaint about it, but the matter he has raised of whether regulations made by the Army Council should be subject to Prayer procedure is a very big one.

Regulations vary a great deal in degree, and this is a question to which we might, even at this hour, devote a great deal of time and argument. I suggest, now that we are to have a committee appointed, that this certainly should be a matter for consideration by them. Some very strong arguments could be advanced on the question of making regulations of this sort prayable. It is not every regulation that can be prayed against. Regulations made under Statutory Instruments are one example.

I suggest that the point has been well ventilated by hon. Members opposite and that we should not pursue the discussion, knowing full well that this is a matter which can go for consideration before the Committee. Obviously, it would be right for them to consider it. I will not express a view one way or the other on this issue, because I feel that it would be much more convenient to have it discussed in the committee and then see the result.

Mr. Strachey

I do not find much with which to quarrel in the remarks of the Solicitor-General, but the Under-Secretary suggested that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), when we were in office, would have disagreed with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends behind me. He is quite mistaken in that.

There may be a case that certain Army Council instructions should not be subject to a Prayer—I do not know. I should like to hear the matter fully argued out by this Committee. But if that is so, it could not be for the reasons put forward by the Under-Secretary. His reasons sounded as if the War Office was claiming to be outside the will of Parliament. We cannot for a moment accept that suggestion. Obviously, the War Office, in all its acts—whether by the procedure of Prayer or not is another matter—big and small, is just as much under the control of the House of Commons as is any other Department.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

I never intended to suggest that the War Office should be above Parliament. It was only a question of how there should be control.

Mr. Strachey

I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman really suggested that, but it sounded like it. He suggested that in case of war—and the war in Korea was given as an example—in some ways the control of Parliament could not be applied. I am unwilling to accept that argument. It would mean that in these vital and important questions where life and death is concerned, the Army Council should be solely responsible. It is important that the view of this side of the Committee should be emphasised.

Mr. Simmons

I am not so smart as some people, but as I read this provision it has something to do with recruits for the Regular Forces. The talk about Korea was a bit of poppycock. This provision deals with enlistment into the Forces, the form of attestation and matters like that. As this is a continuing process, and the Amendment asks for regulations under the provision to be laid before Parliament, I cannot see any point in delay.

1.30 a.m.

I regard the Service Departments as the most reactionary of Government Departments. They want watching. The Argus eye should always be on them. The more Parliamentary discussion we can get concerning Service Departments the safer will be the liberties of the people in uniform. I ask the Minister to think about this again and not to put it off by saying that it will be considered by the committee which is to be set up. Let us get on with the job now. The very fact that we are here this morning shows that discussions on Service matters are so few and far between that when we do get them they take an inordinately long time. If there were more provisions for Praying with regard to Service matters the discussion could be spread wider and be more effective than perhaps it is at half-past one in the morning.

Mr. Wigg

I accept the view put forward by the Solicitor-General that this is a point which might be looked into by the Select Committee. But what disturbs me is the attitude of the Under-Secretary who talked about the convenience of the War Office. This is not the first time he has done it. On the Home Guard Bill he led my hon. Friends to believe that the House would have control over the regulations.

He did not do that to mislead; he did not know any better. I tried to persuade my hon. Friends not to accept the view put forward by the Under-Secretary on that occasion, because I knew that the regulations could not be prayed against. I am not sure that it is necessarily right that regulations should always be pray-able. Perhaps some learned Members might think that not a good arrangement.

But what the Under-Secretary must not do is to talk about the administrative convenience of the War Office. That does not matter. What does matter are the liberties and rights of the young men in the Forces and the efficiency of the Army. The administrative convenience of the War Office or the Ministers does not matter at all. The Under-Secretary has made that mistake once before over the Home Guard Bill. He has done it a second time tonight. The third time he will be unlucky and I hope that he has learned his lesson.

Mr. Bing

I am equally shocked at the attitude of the Under-Secretary. If we are to have a Select Committee the sort of attitude adopted by his Department will make any agreement impossible. The Under-Secretary says, "Look at the trouble it will cause the bureaucrats." When hon. Members opposite were on this side of the Committee and we had a Prayer against the cheese ration nobody said, "Look how embarrassing it will be to the Ministry of Food." The Ministry of Food had worked out long in advance what was to be the cheese ration, and suddenly Parliament reversed the amount of the ration. But if the Ministry of Food could manage I do not see why the War Office should not.

If we have to change over a few generals, let us have in a few people from the Ministry of Food who know how to run matters. One of the things which ought to be done is to think about clearing out some of the people who advise the Under-Secretary to make speeches of that sort. That kind of speech is not acceptable to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I think it is part of the general pressure to put into the Act general provisions providing for complete control over the regulations issued by his Department.

Let us issue a warning to him now that the time has come when we, on this side, are determined to bring the War Office more closely under Parliamentary scrutiny; and we are going to do the same for the Royal Navy, too. A statement such as that made by the Under-Secretary only emphasises to us on this side how necessary it is that we should do so; speeches like that do not help this Committee, and if my hon. Friends agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment it is only because we want to make clear part of a general principle. There should be proper Parliamentary control.

It is unfortunate, when hon. Members opposite have the opportunity to insert this provision in one of their own Acts, that not one of them—probably because the Patronage Secretary is there—gets up to support us in our effort to see that this great principle is implemented.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I rise again only because, when I spoke on the first occasion, the Secretary of State was temporarily absent. We on this side can all sympathise with him, for he has had a most strenuous time; he has been most attentive to the number of suggestions we have made. We have tried to put forward constructive remarks, and I would pay a tribute to the courteous and helpful manner in which he has met so many of the points put from this side of the Committee.

For these reasons, I am all the more sorry that he should have been so badly let down during his brief absence by the perfectly disgraceful speech of his Under-Secretary. The lamentable lapse of regard for any Parliamentary decency shown during the Minister's absence will be on the record, and will, I am sure, be regretted by all right hon. and hon. Members of the Government Front Bench when they read about it in HANSARD. I hope that when the departmental committee or Select Committee, considers this whole matter, there will be more evidence of proper regard for Parliamentary control, which is the reason why this Amendment has been put down.

Mr. Swingler

I think it must be agreed that we were fully justified in putting down this Amendment and in having this discussion. I, too, regret that the Secretary of State was unable to be here during part of that discussion because, had he not been absent, we should, I think, have been able to dispose of this Clause before now.

What I rise to say is that I most seriously hope that an effort will be made to overcome the impression which will inevitably go out because of what the Under-Secretary has said. To suggest that it is inconvenient, or inexpedient, or far too much bother for the Service Departments to have to pay attention to a Parliamentary order from the House of Commons, creates a most unfortunate impression.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison

I must protest. I do not know whether I may have left that impression, but what I was concerned with was the efficiency of running the machine.

Mr. Bing

Exactly.

Mr. Swingler

I really think that it will be better if the Under-Secretary of State does not intervene, but accepts this position. The Under-Secretary now says that it is unnecessary to have to submit what the Army Council decides to Parliament. He submits that is inefficient. In his view, that does not apply to what the Ministers at the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Education have to do.

But, at the War Office, sitting in their high swivel chairs, they find it inefficient to have to lay regulations on the Table. They find it inconvenient if elected Members of Parliament, within 40 days, put down a Prayer asking that the regulations be annulled. This is regarded as inconvenient and inefficient. I hope that the Secretary of State will use the opportunity now of assuring this Committee that that is not the official attitude and policy of the War Department.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that it is his policy and his attitude to welcome Parliamentary discussion of Army affairs. Nobody can deny that the incorporation of these words under Section 93 of the Army Act will have the effect of providing some Parliamentary discussion of Army affairs. It will provide a greater opportunity of greater Parliamentary control over what the Army Council is doing regarding the conditions and periods of service. Does the Secretary of State welcome that, or does he find that inconvenient? It has been suggested by the Under-Secretary that the War Office finds it inconvenient to have discussion in the House on Army affairs, that it is inconvenient to have Army regulations discussed and even annulled, and that they must not have Amendments like this because there is a possibility the majority of the hon. Members might disagree with the Army Council and decide to move a Prayer for the annulment of a regulation.

To avoid that, we should not, in the words of the Under-Secretary of State, have such a regulation as this in the Army Act. This is an extraordinary point of view. It is a point of view that the Army Council sets itself above the House of Commons and sets itself the right to be able to fly in the face of the majority opinion in the House of Commons over the instructions it issues. I fully agree with what the Solicitor-General said, that the principle here has a wider application and I entirely agree this is the sort of matter which ought to be discussed in general relation to the Army Act by the committee which is to be set-up.

The Amendment we have put down simply applies to Part II of the Army Act. As my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has said, these words are already existing in other parts of the Army Act, although I do not necessarily agree that the drafting is correct. We are engaged in considering the reform of the Army Act, but it would be better to consider, in general, the relation between Army Council regulations and instructions and Parliamentary control so long as it is done in the spirit that the Army Council, the War Office, and the Secretary of State for War, welcome Parliamentary control, and, in particular, welcome some Parliamentary discussion.

I would have thought the Secretary of State would have approached this in the spirit of saying that this is a good thing, which will lead to discussion in Parliament of Army Council regulations. It will lead to more Parliamentary interest in soldiers' conditions of service, and that is a good thing for the War Office; it is a good thing to create that interest. I therefore hope that in the latter part of our discussion the Secretary of State may go some way towards repairing some of the damage that has inevitably been done by what, unfortunately, his Under-Secretary said during this debate in making it perfectly clear that he would welcome any reform of the Army Act which would make Parliamentary control of the Army ineffective.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Head

I regret being absent for the first part of this discussion, although I had been here for some time before it commenced, and therefore I did not hear my hon. Friend's speech. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not trying to drive a wedge between us in this matter, because from all my knowledge of my hon. Friend I am certain that the last thing he intended was that the War Office was arrogant regarding their powers vis-à-vis the House of Commons.

In the short time I have been in the War Office I have found—and I am certain that my hon. Friend has found the same—that the War Office is very well aware of the House of Commons, and very often when matters crop up people in the War Office will come and say, "Now, Secretary of State, what do you think the House of Commons will think about this?" That is a very germane matter in all questions of policy in the War Office, as the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), will agree. They are only too well aware that Parliament looks at the measures they propose to introduce, and that has a very considerable influence in our considerations.

I assure hon. Gentlemen who think that our view in the War Office is that we will steamroller over Parliament and have no consideration of such matters that they are quite wrong. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), makes many speeches on military matters, and his speeches are studied in the War Office. They even say, "What will the Member for Hornchurch say about the recruiting for the Home Guard in Northern Ireland?"

Mr. Bing

Perhaps that is why there is not one.

Mr. Head

It seems to me that on this Clause we are embarking on something which we discussed at considerable length during the Home Guard Bill, when many hon. Members were present—this vexed question of delegated legislation. I was present during the whole of that discussion and heard the many speeches on it. I do not think we will ever reach a satisfactory agreement on this matter here, because it is a peculiarly complicated question. Although we have been accused of always opposing delegated legislation when in opposition and then on the Home Guard Bill proposing it from this side of the Committee, we shall not get a solution by discussion, particularly at 1.50 in the morning. This is supremely a question which is fitted for discussion by the committee we propose to set up.

Parliament is extremely jealous of giving undue powers to any organisation, and I am certain my hon. Friend did not mean to suggest that the War Office is an organisation which ignores Parliament. If I am not out of order in saying so, one glance at this Box will prove that. We are only too interested both in this debate and in trying to convince Parliament that we are not in any way usurping powers in any respect.

I see that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch seems to be ready to give us some more matters to consider, but I would suggest that we already have a great deal to read through in HANSARD; that on this matter a great deal has already been said which might well be discussed by the committee we are to set up, and that it is quite hopeless for the House of Commons at this time of the day to hope to resolve it in a few speeches, so that we usurp the duties of the committee. I suggest that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to protract the debate on this Clause he will profit no one, and least of all, our own debate.

Mr. M. Stewart

I think that possibly a few words from the Under-Secretary may clear up this matter. We do not want to press this unduly, but if the remarks of the Under-Secretary had been made from that Box by any member of the late Government they would have provoked a howl of protest at the time from every hon. Member then on the opposite side of the Chamber, and would have been quoted again and again, in season and out of season, for months, as evidence that the party from which they had come had contempt for Parliament. I assure hon. Members on that side that whatever the Under-Secretary intended, that was certainly the tenor of what he said.

When the hon. Gentleman's attention was drawn to it he said he wanted to make a protest. I suggest that that is not the right way to regard this matter. It is possible for a junior Minister, particularly one comparatively new to the job, and especially at this time of the morning, to use unfortunate words. I can remember an occasion when I did so. I remember vividly one occasion when the Solicitor-General pointed out at considerable length that I had done so. I am sure that he does not remember it, because he finds fault with other people so often that no doubt he does not recall that occasion.

Let us take a charitable assumption that that is what has happened, that the Under-Secretary did not quite realise the purport of what he was saying. I suggest that what is wanted is not so much a protest from him as an apology.

Mr. Bing

May I underline the view held strongly on this side of the Committee that to talk of the efficiency of the War Office and to suggest that if regulations which are proposed, and for which the Secretary of State presumably has taken political responsibility, are disclosed to the House of Commons will be overthrown even though his party enjoys a majority, does not imply that the War Office has much faith in its political heads.

If the Secretary takes political responsibility for a regulation, why should it be thrown over by the House? Does not he not have sufficient confidence in his own party? The whole argument of the Under-Secretary was that if the House were allowed to consider these things the House could throw them over. That cannot be right. Regulations are continually being laid, and it is one of my jobs, and of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), to read them. There are regulations for stopping up roads in Northern Ireland, but we have never called attention to them in this House. There are regulations for all sorts of purposes. Why should it be wrong that these important regulations, dealing with the lives of ordinary people, should not be subject to being laid in the House.

I grant that there may be arguments in favour of not putting this in the Bill at this point; but if there are any, they are not the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary. He was careful to put forward arguments which were demonstrably absurd. How absurd can be seen by looking at the Section from which this is taken.

This Amendment concerns section 108A, which provides regulations in regard to billeting in times of emergency. It says: His Majesty by Order distinctly stating that a case of emergency exists, and signified by a Secretary of State, may authorise any general or field officer commanding any part of His Majesty's forces in any military district or place in the United Kingdom, to issue a billeting requisition … Even so, in a state of emergency, the Army Act provides that the prices of these billets shall be laid before the House. If that is possible in that case, why is it not possible in this? There may be some argument we have not heard here, yet all that we have heard is the hon. Gentleman's defence of bureaucracy. He said that this would interfere with the efficiency of the War Office. So does a Prayer against the cheese ration interfere with the efficiency of the Ministry of Food, and a Prayer against a development order interfere with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Every type of Parliamentary control is, of course, attacked by the typical bureaucrat.

We have got on very well in this Committee tonight. Let us have no more of this sort of nonsense from the Under-Secretary. I would add my plea to those made from this Front Bench that the Under-Secretary should get up and say that because it was rather late at night he made a stupid mistake and did not really mean that the House of Commons should not have an opportunity of looking at this matter. We have all been late practically every night, but I think my hon. Friend is determined to press this, and if the Under-Secretary is not prepared to get up, we shall have to listen to speeches from other hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Peter Legh (Petersfield)

We have listened in the last half hour to some very high-minded sentiments from hon. Members opposite. We have been told there is the greatest possible need for discussion of Service matters and that they are to see there is the fullest possible Parliamentary control. If we are to have the extra debates we are promised I hope that hon. Members will be able to persuade more of their hon. Friends to take an interest. It seems to me to be a remarkable thing that we should be discussing Opposition Amendments at 2 o'clock in the morning, and being lectured by the Opposition on the need for the fullest Parliamentary scrutiny of these matters, when there are only, I think, six hon. Members of the Opposition present.

Mr. M. Stewart

That is an extraordinary statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I am glad at least to have provoked some kind of life from hon. Members below the Gangway. We started our consideration of the Bill tonight after an agreement one of the purposes of which was to prevent the House having to spend an intolerably long time on the Army Act.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

Not an intolerably long time; day after day, night after night.

Mr. Stewart

A great number of my hon. Friends, who would have liked to have taken part in this debate, were eager for the debate and were here for many previous hours, when we saw no sign of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) who has just spoken. In pursuance of the decision of the Government and as part of the agreement without entering into the large projects which we should have liked, many of my hon. Friends have refrained even in the matters we have discussed from putting forward many points of view dear to them in one Amendment after another.

Now it is suggested there should be more of my hon. Friends here. I wonder if the desire that they should be taking an active part in the proceedings is really shared by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I think it is extremely improbable. After we have had one piece of ineptitude from the Front Bench, which has already prolonged the proceedings quite unnecessarily—and the Under-Secretary's obstinacy in refusing to take the obvious course has prolonged it further—we have a piece of ineptitude from the back benches which shows that the hon. Member for Petersfield has not grasped the whole position in regard to the Army Act.

This is too much. If the hon. Member really wishes to see the benches this side full with hon. Members anxious to prolong this discussion, I dare say that his wishes can easily be fulfilled. But is that really what the more responsible Members of the Government Party want? I hope they will make that clear.

Mr. Head

There have been comments from the other side on this matter, and with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), who moved the Amendment, I have answered Most of them. It seems to me that it is not of much profit to discuss this Clause at any great length when we are setting up a committee for that purpose. As it is late and there are one or two substantial Clauses to come I suggest that we might proceed, for there may be some interesting points of dissension.

The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Legh) made remarks that were not acceptable opposite. It is strange that there have not been more inflammatory remarks in the debate. I suggest that it might profit the Committee if we could move on to the matter of the exclusion of women from liability to service.

Mr. Swingler

I welcome the attitude of the Secretary of State. We ought to be careful, when settlements like the present one are made, not to use the settlements as an excuse for not treating the issue seriously. The parrot cry, "Refer it to the committee," just because a committee is to be established, becomes a bit dangerous. If Amendments are not looked at seriously, and if there is the kind of ruthless statement made by the Under-Secretary, the result is merely to inflame the Committee, cause provocative speeches, and stimulate a long discussion. An apology has not been forthcoming from the Under-Secretary, but we welcome the assurance from the Secretary of State on Parliamentary control of the Army and Parliamentary discussion. We also welcome the reference of this question to the committee. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.